Science Guardian

Truth, beauty and paradigm power in science and society

I am Nicolaus Copernicus, and I approve of this blog

News, views and reviews measured against professional literature in peer reviewed journals (adjusted for design flaws and bias), well researched books, authoritative encyclopedias (not the bowdlerized Wiki entries on controversial topics) and the investigative reporting and skeptical studies of courageous original thinkers among academics, philosophers, researchers, scholars, authors, filmmakers and journalists.

Supporting the right of exceptional minds to free speech, publication, media coverage and funding against the crowd prejudice, leadership resistance, monetary influences and internal professional politics of the paradigm wars of cancer, HIV(not)AIDS, evolution, global warming, cosmology, particle physics, macroeconomics, information technology, religions and cults, health, medicine, diet and nutrition.



Halton C. Arp wki/obit/txt/vds/txt/txt/bk/bk, Henry Bauer txt/blg/ blg/bks/bk/txt/bk/vd, John Beard bk, Harvey Bialy bk/bk/txt/txt/rdo/vd, John Bockris bio/txt/ltr/bk, Donald W. Braben, Peter Breggin ste/fb/col/bks, Darin Brown txt/txt/txt/txt/txt/vd, Giordano Bruno bk/bio/bio, Frank R. Buianouckas, Stanislav Burzynski mov, Erwin Chargaff bio/bk/bio/prs, James Chin bk/vd, Nicolaus Copernicus bk, Mark Craddock, Francis Crick vd, Paul Crutzen, Marie Curie, Rebecca Culshaw txt/bk, Roger Cunningham, Charles Darwin txts/bk, Erasmus Darwin txt//bk/txt/hse/bks, Peter Duesberg ste/ste/bk/txt/vd/vd, Freeman Dyson, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman bio, John Fewster, Rosalind Franklin, Bernard Forscher tx, Galileo Galilei, Walter Gilbert vd, Goethe bio/bk/bio, Nicolas Gonzalez tlk/rec/stetxt/txt, Patricia Goodson txt/bk/bk, Alec Gordon, James Hansen, Etienne de Harven bk/txt/vd, Alfred Hassig intw/txt, Robert G. Houston txt, Steven Jonas vd, Edward Jenner txt, Benjamin Jesty, Adrian Kent vd, Thomas Kuhn, Fred Kummerow, Stefan Lanka txt/txt/vd, Serge Lang, John Lauritsen vd, Paul Lauterbur vd, Mark Leggett, Richard Lindzen, James Lovelock, Andrew Maniotis, Lynn Margulis, Barbara McClintock, Christi Meyer vd, George Miklos, Marco Mamone Capria, Peter Medawar, Luc Montagnier txt/txt/vd, Kary Mullis, Linus Pauling prs/vd/vd, Eric Penrose, Roger Penrose vd, Max Planck, Rainer Plaga, David Rasnick bio/vd/bk, Robert Root-Bernstein vd, Sherwood Rowland, Otto Rossler, Harry Rubin, Marco Ruggiero txt/txt/intw/vd, Bertrand Russell Carl Sagan vd, Erwin Schrodinger, Fred Singer, Barbara Starfield txt, Gordon Stewart txt/txt, Richard Strohman, Thomas Szasz, Nicola Tesla bio/bio, Charles Thomas intw/vd, Frank Tipler, James Watson vd/vd, Alfred Wegener vd, Edward O. Wilson vd.


Jad Adams bk, Marci Angell bk/txt/txt/txt, Clark Baker ste/txt/rdo/vd, James Blodgett, Tony Brown vd, Hiram Caton txt/txt/txt/bk/ste, Jonathan Collin ste , Marcus Cohen, David Crowe vd, Margaret Cuomo, Stephen Davis BK/BK,/rdo, Michael Ellner vd, Elizabeth Ely txt/txt/ste, Epicurus, Dean Esmay, Celia Farber bio/txt/txt/txt/vd, Jonathan Fishbein txt/txt/wk, T.C.Fry, Michael Fumento, Max Gerson txt, Charles Geshekter vd, Michael Geiger, Roberto Giraldo, David Healy txt, Bob Herbert, Mike Hersee ste/rdo, Neville Hodgkinson txt /vd, James P. Hogan, Richard Horton bio/vd/vd, Christopher Hitchens, Eric Johnson, Claus Jensen vd, Phillip Johnson, Coleman Jones vds, William Donald Kelley, Ernst T. Krebs Sr txt, Ernst T. Krebs Jr. txt,/bio/txt/txt/ltr, Paul Krugman, Brett Leung MOV/ste/txt/txt/tx+vd/txt, Katie Leishman, Anthony Liversidge blg/intv/intv/txt/txts/txt/intv/txt/vd/vd, Bruce Livesey txt, James W. Loewen, Frank Lusardi, Nathaniel Lehrman vd, Christine Maggiore bk/ste/rec/rdo/vd, Rouben Mamoulian txt/txt/txt/txt/txt/doc/flm/flm, Noreen Martin vd, Robert Maver txt/itw, Eric Merola MOV, Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, Michael Moore bio/MOV/MOV/MOV, Gordon Moran, Ralph Nader bk, Ralph Moss txt/blg/ste/bks, Gary Null /txt/rdo/vd, Dan Olmsted wki, Toby Ord vd, Charles Ortleb bk/txt/bk/intw/flm, Neenyah Ostrom bk, Dennis Overbye, Mehmet Dr Oz vd, Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos ste/vd, Maria Papagiannidou bk, Thomas Piketty bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk, Robert Pollin txt/vd/bk, Jon Rappoport bio/bk/bk/ste/bk/bk/vd, Janine Roberts bk/bk, Luis Sancho vd, Liam Scheff ste/txt/bk/bk/rdio/vd, John Scythes, Casper Schmidt txt/txt, Joan Shenton vd/vd, Joseph Sonnabend vd, John Stauber, David Steele, Joseph Stiglitz bk/txt, Will Storr rdo Wolfgang Streeck, James P. Tankersley ste, Gary Taubes vd, Mwizenge S. Tembo, John Tierney vd, Michael Tracey, Valendar Turner rec, Jesse Ventura bk, Michael Verney-Elliott bio/vds/vd, Voltaire, Walter Wagner, Andrew Weil vd, David Weinberger bio/bk/blg/blg/BK/bk/pds, Robert Willner bk/txt/txt/vd, Howard Zinn.

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 that ever interfered with my learning was my education. I am Freeman Dyson, and I approve of this blog, but would warn the author that life as a heretic is a hard one, since the ignorant and the half informed, let alone those who should know better, will automatically trash their betters who try to enlighten them with independent thinking, as I have found to my sorrow in commenting on "global warming" and its cures.
Many people would die rather than think – in fact, they do so. – Bertrand Russell.

The progress of science is strewn, like an ancient desert trail, with the bleached skeletons of discarded theories which once seemed to possess eternal life. - Arthur Koestler

One should as a rule respect public opinion in so far as is necessary to avoid starvation and to keep out of prison. – Bertrand Russell

Fraud and falsehood only dread examination. Truth invites it. - Samuel Johnson

A sudden bold and unexpected question doth many times surprise a man and lay him open. – Sir Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626)

He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. – John Stuart Mill

Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform. – Mark Twain

Although science has led to the generally high living standards that most of the industrialized world enjoys today, the astounding discoveries underpinning them were made by a tiny number of courageous, out-of-step, visionary, determined, and passionate scientists working to their own agenda and radically challenging the status quo. – Donald W. Braben

An old error is always more popular than a new truth. — German Proverb

I am Richard Feynman and I approve of this blog

When even the brightest mind in our world has been trained up from childhood in a superstition of any kind, it will never be possible for that mind, in its maturity, to examine sincerely, dispassionately, and conscientiously any evidence or any circumstance which shall seem to cast a doubt upon the validity of that superstition. I doubt if I could do it myself. – Mark Twain

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his income depends on his not understanding it. – Upton Sinclair

A clash of doctrines is not a disaster, but an opportunity. - Alfred North Whitehead

Fraud and falsehood only dread examination. Truth invites it. – Samuel Johnson

Man’s mind cannot grasp the causes of events in their completeness, but the desire to find those causes is implanted in man’s soul. And without considering the multiplicity and complexity of the conditions any one of which taken separately may seem to be the cause, he snatches at the first approximation to a cause that seems to him intelligible and says: “This is the cause!” – Leo Tolstoy

The evolution of the world tends to show the absolute importance of the category of the individual apart from the crowd. - Soren Kierkegaard

Who does not know the truth is simply a fool, yet who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a criminal. – Bertold Brecht

How easily the learned give up the evidence of their senses to preserve the coherence of ideas in their imagination. – Adam Smith

Education consists mainly in what we have unlearned. – Mark Twain

The mind likes a strange idea as little as the body likes a strange protein and resists it with similar energy. If we watch ourselves honestly, we shall often find that we have begun to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely stated. – Arthur Koestler

Whenever the human race assembles to a number exceeding four, it cannot stand free speech. – Mark Twain

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam Smith

There isn’t anything so grotesque or so incredible that the average human being can’t believe it. – Mark Twain

He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. – John Stuart Mill

It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere. – Voltaire

People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come into the mind of others.- Blaise Pascal.

Illusion is the first of all pleasures. – Voltaire

The applause of a single human being is of great consequence. – Samuel Johnson

(Click for more Unusual Quotations on Science and Human Nature)

Important: This site is best viewed in LARGE FONT, and in Firefox for image title visibility (place cursor on pics to reveal comments) and layout display. Click the title of any post to get only that post and its Comments for printing. All posts guaranteed fact checked according to reference level cited, typically the original journal studies. Full guide to site purpose, layout and how to print posts out is in the lower blue section at the bottom of the home page.
---Admin AL/E/ILMK---

Ask Mama – clever Bialy initiative

September 8th, 2006

Simple way to emphasize why low risk people may be positive: test mothers too

No, John, you didn’t necessarily have unguarded sex with a stranger, and nor did your mother

The Cuernavaca Roman candle of HIV∫AIDS debate, Dr. Harvey Bialy, the most damnably imaginative prodder of the elephantine beast that is HIV∫AIDS, has come up with another devilishly clever way to make a point.

As noted previously innumerable times it is the clear conclusion of Peter Duesberg, Bialy and the rest of the HIV∫AIDS reassessment movement (such as your faithful blogger), that the scientific literature shows that the notorious deadly Virus, contrary to the worldwide HIV∫AIDS panic, is not sweeping the universe in a deadly infectious spread, does not show any genuine sign of causing any trouble, in fact, is merely a harmless passenger transmitted for millennia between mother and child.

So it would be appropriate, Dr. Bialy suggests, to test the mother of anybody who scored positive on their first HIV antibody test.

The proposal is posted on the AIDS Wiki, mathematician Darin Brown’s home for accurate information on HIV∫AIDS, where it is safe from changes by those hostile to paradigm review, and an accurate counter balance to the misleadingly titled site led by John Moore of Cornell, AIDSTruth, which in a few short months has become the peerless source of HIV∫AIDS misinformation on the Web.

Here is what it says on Mom Is Positive too:

Retroviruses (of which HIV is a classic example, see Correlation But Not Causation: HIV Is a Conventional Retrovirus Without an AIDS Gene) are normally transmitted in the wild through perinatal routes (that is from mother to child), making them endemic rather than epidemic microbes. A virus that depends on such transmission for its survival is, as would be expected, essentially a harmless passenger. Killing the only host it depends upon, and having no other transmission route that is even slightly efficient, is a dead end evolutionary strategy.

Thus, quite the opposite of what you have been told, HIV is an old, established virus in the United States and not a newly introduced killer from Africa. The US government/WHO certified figures to prove this can be found at Incidence of AIDS and Prevalence of HIV in the US Population.

It is a firm prediction of the “harmless, passenger HIV hypothesis” that for those who are not obviously at risk from the known causes of a positive test (biological and artefactual), their test result has a chance of being reproduced in their mother.

If after your first antibody test, you were told you were positive, you may have been that way all your life and not known it, and it is possible your mother is as well. Since HIV does not cause any harm in a human body, she would never imagine she was an “AIDS victim”.

So, if you inherited HIV from your mother, there is nothing for either of you to worry about, and of course neither she nor you are to be blamed, nor should either of you be made to feel guilty about anything. Quite the opposite. This is good news, not bad.

Since this alternative hypothesis, like so many others in the field of “HIV/AIDS”, has never been allowed to be tested, we have no idea how many first-tested, antibody positives outside of known risk groups might be expected to have this surprising good news with which to enlighten their family and friends. Until enough people are savvy or brave enough to try, neither will anyone.

You are not being asked to participate in any kind of study. This is an individual empowerment exercise only.

But, even a few positive pairs might be enough to start a chain reaction, that could result in sufficient pressure being brought to bear on the US government agencies to force them to conduct a proper, epidemiological survey – something that ought to have been done long ago.

For this reason we encourage anyone who wins this reverse HIV lottery to contact the wikimaster here so that we may figure out the most appropriate way of making results of this campaign known.

Harvey Bialy adds a note pointing out that this suggestion dates from 2000, when it was purportedly agreed to by the CDC, but soon politically scotched.

Evidently, it appeared to be a threat, understandably so, to the status quo, vulnerable as ever to almost any trial of its validity.

Perhaps it is worth noting that in 2000, the South African Presidential Advisory Panel on AIDS unanimously recommended that a mother-child tracing of this very sort be undertaken using the pool of subjects provided by the US military. I was appointed a coordinator of this project along with Dr. Helene Gayle (at the time the director of the Africa AIDS division of the CDC). Unfortunately, after several months were spent on preliminary logistics, I was informed, for reasons never made clear, that the study was “not technically feasible”. Harvey Bialy, Cuernavaca, 8 Sept. 2006

Would this little study, so easily carried out, have weakened the paradigm or even brought it down all by itself?

Will it now?

It certainly will bolster the case of the rethinkers immensely.

But one wonders what the reaction of the mothers might be when one by one they all score positive too. Will they march on the NIH, like the mothers of the disappeared in Argentina?

Will the HIV∫AIDS tower pancake?

Like Bialy’s other devilish proposals, it is not easy to map the boundaries of what might happen. Bialy himself has a clear idea of what would be the most powerful outcome, though. He writes to us that

“The real need is to educate the black American community about these points because they are targeted for large scale HIV testing right now… and if enough of them smarten up quick, they could turn the tables on their persecutors. And of course every healthy positive Mom whose Mom is living has a positive Mom .. EVERY ONE OF THEM!”

“This could bring them down,” he concludes.”Three positive pairs and I could make more hay than you can imagine. And more trouble too.”

This fearsome prospect should give Anthony Fauci, John P. Moore and other paradigm propagandists pause. And the possibility seems very easy to bring about. All the dissenters need to do is persuade three HIV positive black Americans to persuade their Mom and grand Moms to tested too!

Then Dr Harvey S. Bialy, the most effective warhead on the Rethinking AIDS missile, can be aimed and fired directly at the HIV∫AIDS citadel, with an effect that one only imagine. As we approach 9/11/06 one cannot help but envision the collapse of that huge structure like a pack of cards.

But this time, it will be a blow struck on behalf of reality and true science against the religious impulse.

Bialy’s previous challenges

His most striking previous proposal was to suggest that the editor of Nature and of Science poll their readers to ask if they would support a public debate on the HIV∫AIDS issue between Dr. David Baltimore, Nobel prize winner, and Dr Peter Duesberg, Nobel prize winner manque.

He renewed this proposal recently in the aftermath of John Moore of Cornell’s refusal to debate him publicly, declining on the weak grounds that anyone who wanted to deny that HIV caused AIDS was by definition not a credible scientist, a sly bit of self serving logic.

I’ll expand a very little…about why it’s not appropriate to ‘debate’ with HIV denialists who also happen to be scientists, by profession or self-proclaimed… The principal reason is that there’s nothing to debate… A secondary one is that there’s nobody worth debating with. One should only debate science with credible scientists, and no credible scientist could ever dispute the causative role of HIV infection in AIDS.

Darin Brown has written up the story on the AIDS Wiki at Who Are the Real AIDS Denialists? — Testing the “Moore Assertion”

“In the interests of once and forever ending the disquieting and possibly harmful pseudo-debate over the cause of AIDS that has been simmering at the margins of the journals and popular media for almost two decades, we urge you to use your good offices to take an electronic straw poll of your readers in which you simply ask them to respond to the following question. Would you support a series of debates between David Baltimore and Peter Duesberg, to be organized by, and held under the auspices of, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, on the etiology of AIDS?”

If you would like to see this experiment performed, you may meaningfully contribute by sending a joint email to Don Kennedy ( and Philip Campbell (, (the editors of Science and Nature respectively) expressing your agreement with the letter above (and carbon-copying me at so we can, in the words of Prof. Moore, “keep at the maths…someone has to do it, after all.” (Please address them by name in your email.) In contradistinction to the “Moore Assertion,” we present the “Brown/Bialy Conjecture”:

“No matter how many emails are received by the editors of Science and Nature in support of the above experiment to test the ‘Moore Assertion,’ they will never allow such an experiment to take place.”

We speculate that the reason is because they know full well what the uncomfortable result would be.

The remarkable AIDS Wiki

Who Are the Real AIDS Denialists? — Testing the “Moore Assertion” by Darin Brown was first published on Lew Rockwell, but it is now on Darin’s Brown’s AIDS Wiki.

Hit this link Who Are the Real AIDS Denialists? — Testing the “Moore Assertion” to go to the page and its reference links on the AIDS Wiki, and explore the rest of what is now the encyclopedia of reference on AIDS Truth (the genuine kind) on the Web).

Searching the AIDS Wiki for “Bialy” for example will yield the complete contribution of Peter Duesberg’s most authoritative and combative colleague.

Here is the text, but without links:

Who Are the Real AIDS Denialists? — Testing the “Moore Assertion”

by Darin Brown

21 June 2006

A very interesting and instructive exchange between myself, Harvey Bialy and the New York Times-celebrated Op. Ed. author Prof. John P. Moore, self-appointed “Major General in the War on AIDS” and spokesperson for “The Scientific Community,” recently appeared on the AIDS Wiki. The exchange was prompted by an offer to Prof. Moore to participate in a moderated debate with Dr. Bialy, who wrote in part:

I propose a simple debate at the AIDS Wiki on the etiology of AIDS. I further propose it take the following form:

I will present one fully referenced (with PDF files that the moderator can hyperlink) challenge to your favorite and livelihood-sustaining hypothesis, and you can demolish my feeble arguments in the same fashion. We will continue this for one additional round, and then move on to the next challenge. I have maybe seven such challenges.

At the end, we will have produced the first fully documented, real scientific debate on the cause of AIDS. Interesting that after 25 years none has ever been held before, Bob Gallo’s promise in the PNAS in 1989 not withstanding.

Within the hour, Prof. Moore had replied to me by email:

Participating in any public forum with the likes of Bialy would give him a credibility that he does not merit. The science community does not ‘debate’ with the AIDS denialists, it treats them with the utter contempt that they deserve and exposes them for the charlatans that they are. Kindly do not send me any further communications on this or any related matter.

Despite Prof. Moore’s expressed wish to discontinue communication, he in fact continued conversation with Dr. Bialy and myself for several days thereafter. By the end of this exchange, Moore had produced (and “more” than thrice) what we now call “The Moore Assertion.” In the professor’s inimitable style,

… I’ll expand a very little…about why it’s not appropriate to ‘debate’ with HIV denialists who also happen to be scientists, by profession or self-proclaimed… The principal reason is that there’s nothing to debate… A secondary one is that there’s nobody worth debating with. One should only debate science with credible scientists, and no credible scientist could ever dispute the causative role of HIV infection in AIDS. I repeat, in case you have missed the point: Any scientist who claims that HIV does not cause AIDS (or that HIV does not exist) is simply not credible, essentially as a point of definition. The evidence is so overwhelming that a credible scientist could not fail to understand and accept it… Would astrophysicists and geologists debate with people who believed the moon was made of green cheese?

More succinctly, “The Assertion” denies that there is any scientific reason to doubt HIV as the cause of AIDS because a vaguely defined “scientific community” has already pronounced on the matter ad nauseum. This is vigorously defended by the ultra-orthodox AIDS cadres that Moore represents, even though the only semblance of a “real” debate in the literature occurred in the journal Science in 1988.

It ran under the logo of a “Policy Forum,” with Peter Duesberg arguing against, and William Blattner, Robert Gallo, and Howard Temin arguing for, the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. In his book Oncogenes, Aneuploidy, and AIDS, Bialy gives an entertaining and accurate description of this “heavyweight science fight.” Here is the last paragraph of the linked excerpt

After the ‘Policy Forum’ appeared, Peter all but begged Dan to sanction another round, to no avail. And so just when it was getting good, the bout was declared a technical draw on an inexplicable and non-appealable decision of commissioner Koshland. There was never to be a rematch. The failure to extend the discussion in the pages of Science was significant. Most scientists have neither time nor inclination to follow specialist literature in fields outside their own. They depend, consequently, on journals like Science and Nature to tell them what is considered important. Having read, as best they could at the time, the arguments of the Policy Forum, and then seeing nothing more than vulgar anti-Duesberg editorials in the scientific press and worse in the popular media, even a partially persuaded non-specialist could and would eventually concur with the ‘overwhelming evidence’ of Team Virus, although it has become even less overwhelming now than it was in 1988.

The truth of the “Moore Assertion” is a key point of dispute between the two camps. Indeed, in the absence of a satisfactory resolution of its validity, it remains the principal impediment to ever discovering the real scientific merits of the virus-AIDS hypothesis that have nothing to do with the consensual basis of the claim. Until now, assertions of this type were like the Riemann hypothesis in number theory — important but impossible to resolve due to a lack of technical tools. With the ascendance of the internet, however, the “Moore Assertion” is readily testable as a scientific hypothesis. All that is required is to take an anonymous, electronic straw poll of the readership of Nature and Science, the world’s two most prominent science journals, asking whether they would support a series of debates, organized and held under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences, between Peter Duesberg and David Baltimore (the two most prominent and best-credentialed spokespersons for the two sides) on the cause of AIDS.

The goal of such an electronic straw poll would not be to generate an actual debate between Duesberg and Baltimore, but to test the “Moore Assertion” that “there is nothing to debate and no-one worth debating with, and the issue has already been decided by ‘overwhelming evidence’ by the ‘scientific community.’”

To take this experiment out of the gedenken, we propose the following letter to the editors of Nature and Science:

“In the interests of once and forever ending the disquieting and possibly harmful pseudo-debate over the cause of AIDS that has been simmering at the margins of the journals and popular media for almost two decades, we urge you to use your good offices to take an electronic straw poll of your readers in which you simply ask them to respond to the following question. Would you support a series of debates between David Baltimore and Peter Duesberg, to be organized by, and held under the auspices of, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, on the etiology of AIDS?”

If you would like to see this experiment performed, you may meaningfully contribute by sending a joint email to Don Kennedy ( and Philip Campbell (, (the editors of Science and Nature respectively) expressing your agreement with the letter above (and carbon-copying me at so we can, in the words of Prof. Moore, “keep at the maths…someone has to do it, after all.” (Please address them by name in your email.) In contradistinction to the “Moore Assertion,” we present the “Brown/Bialy Conjecture”:

“No matter how many emails are received by the editors of Science and Nature in support of the above experiment to test the ‘Moore Assertion,’ they will never allow such an experiment to take place.”

We speculate that the reason is because they know full well what the uncomfortable result would be.

© 2006 by Darin Brown

John Moore skulduggery at Amazon: positive Harvey Bialy reviews vanish, new goon review posted

July 6th, 2006

Strange disappearance of good “Oncogenes” write up, but its author replaces it

But two more may be gone forever

Odd goings on at Amazon, where a new review of Harvey Bialy’s “Scientific Life and Times of Peter H. Duesberg” has appeared, with all the earmarks of a John Moore colleague, or possibly even Cornell science superstar and handy HIV?AIDS front man John Moore himself under a pen-name.

Also, one positive review vanished, though it was immediately replaced by another one by the author, and two more important positive reviews are gone, in what may be a slip or worse by Amazon staff.


NEWSFLASH: We hear that after two years a Nature review of “Oncogenes, Aneuploidy and AIDS: A Scientific Life and Times of Peter H. Duesberg” is finally in the works – by none other than paradigm guard doggie John Moore, previously known for his embarrassing Nature review of Duesberg’s book, “Inventing the AIDS Virus”, reportedly written at the behest of discredited HIV?AIDS scientist David Ho and rewarded with a premature post at Cornell, and for his more recent Op-Ed piece in the Times informing the public that peer reviewed critiques of the HIV?AIDS paradigm were “deadly quackery”. Stay tuned for confirmation.


One H. A. Emet is anxious to tell the world that the book is both “boring and badly written” and concerns “dull and superseded subject matter”, and that “no one with an ounce of decency or intelligence should any longer believe the view that HIV does not cause AIDS.”

Of course there is that tight cabal of AIDS denialists (or whatever they are called these days) who seem content to walk on graves of the millions of poor souls who have died from this viral infection. They can spend their time making money from self-indulgent little adulations like this book. Then they will be forgotten and millions more will have died from HIV infection.

But really, the point of my review is not to argue the science. There is no argument anymore. The point of my review is to comment on this book. If you are wondering whether or not to buy this book, don’t bother unless you suffer from insomnia. As I said, it is boring and badly written and I bet this kind of brown-nosing gives even Duesberg the creeps.

Boring and badly written, July 5, 2006

Reviewer: H. A. Emet – See all my reviews

There are some books that, even though they are badly written and boring, are worth reading because of the interesting controversial nature of the subject. There are other books that are worth reading because they are enthralling and beautifully written, even though the subject matter may be dull and superseded.

This book fulfills two of the above categories simultaneously: it is a boring and badly written book, and the subject matter is dull and outdated. No one with an ounce of decency or intelligence should any longer believe the view that HIV does not cause AIDS. Of course there is that tight cabal of AIDS denialists (or whatever they are called these days) who seem content to walk on graves of the millions of poor souls who have died from this viral infection. They can spend their time making money from self-indulgent little adulations like this book. Then they will be forgotten and millions more will have died from HIV infection.

But really, the point of my review is not to argue the science. There is no argument anymore. The point of my review is to comment on this book. If you are wondering whether or not to buy this book, don’t bother unless you suffer from insomnia. As I said, it is boring and badly written and I bet this kind of brown-nosing gives even Duesberg the creeps.

No Brit ex-pat could fail to recognize the twit in this style, which is quintessentially the throwaway, chatty and empty headed style of the Cambridge graduate Widmerpool who is too busy partying and politicking to have done his homework.

Indeed one could be forgiven for concluding that this is none other than John Moore, given his fondness for the bold usurpation of moral superiority on behalf of the ruling paradigm. For instance, in his (first?) review just below in the Amazon sequence, we read “Hence the author is writing a hagiography of one of his heroes, not a fair and accurate representation of the scientific facts and moral truths about HIV/AIDS.”

Moral truths? With more than half of AIDS patients in this country dying of drug symptoms now, and not the endless list of HIV?AIDS symptoms (padded with several symptoms that have nothing to do with immune weakness), it is a little hard to see how the morally superior position is to fight any review with any weapon that comes to hand, even the childish one of loading Amazon with negative reviews that indicate no familiarity with the contents of the book at all.

In fact, they suggest that the book is so threatening that they can’t touch it, but simply shriek in horror, as if they had found a large tarantula on their pillow. This is the response of the paleopallium, not the neocortex – emotion, not reason. Do HIV?AIDS patients wish their destiny to rest on John Moore’s deep emotional responses?


“The strategic intelligence of Bialy’s detractors is evidently not up to this level of perception, however, possibly because of their daily involvement in preaching a paradigm which reviews have always indicated left reason behind from the first paper it produced.

It must be hard to think straight if your fundamental assumptions have for twenty three years made no genuine sense whatsoever.


If anything points to the abandonment of science in this affair, this sad trio of adolescent scripts does. These responses to the book are precisely the opposite of the scientific method, where reason and evidence combine to add to knowledge about the real world. They are religious in nature, saying no more than “Get thee behind us, Satan!”

Meanwhile, it is not impossible that Moore has prevailed upon the powers-that-be at Amazon book reviews to do the truly immoral in his moral cause, which is to make one or more of Harvey Bialy’s positive reviews vanish. “Dr Chipper” of California’s review, a glowing corrective to the HIV?AIDS goon squad’s sudden appearance in this space, a review which suggested that the writer had actually read the book, suddenly vanished today. We reproduce it here for reference:

3 of 5 people found the following review helpful:

Bialy’s book is must reading!, June 29, 2006

Reviewer: Doctor “Chipper” (California) – See all my reviews

Reading the blustery, hot air fulminations by John Moore it is hard to imagine that his review was actually written by a scientist.

As an AIDS dogmatist, Moore displays ignorance, prejudice and amnesia in denying the flaws, inconsistencies, errors, and failed predictions that have marred (or characterized) the Church of AIDS Pseudoscience since its inception 25 years ago.

Bialy has written a superb book that exposes the rigidity and sclerosis that make the infectious viral hypothesis about AIDS such a perfidious and empty explanation for what makes some people ill.

Moore reacts with abusive venom and sputtering rage because he knows that Bialy’s book shows what a tragic farce and waste of time his devotion to the HIV hypothesis has been.

Writing in the New York Times in early June, Moore (a biologist in New York) and Nicoli Nattrass (an economist in South Africa), neither of whom ever had access to the medical records of a young girl who died suddenly in Los Angeles, displayed unprofessional dishonesty and unbridled pomposity by making public pronouncements on the cause of the child’s death.

By so doing, Moore demonstrated anew how much he remains in the grip of the absolute deadliest of quackery.

Read Bialy’s book, and see for yourself.

Alerted by the ever vigilant author, Harvey Bialy, to this sudden disappearance, “Dr. Chipper” moved swiftly to replace it by writing another, which immediately got posted, but with a date of June 29, not today (July 5 Wed). No explanation has yet been forthcoming from Amazon as to how this possibly could have happened, and it is difficult to make sense of it.

We would hope the original gets put back. It was just as good as this one,

Bialy’s Book a Blockbuster, June 29, 2006

Reviewer: Doctor “Chipper” (California) – See all my reviews

Bialy writes with clarity, brevity and accuracy.

His book is a welcome mine of data and logic.

Bialy has amassed numerous examples to destabilize the errors, contradictions and outright dishonesty that typify the “sky-is-falling,” culture of fear that characterize the looney-tunes world of John Moore and his ilk.

The AIDS Establishment will cringe at Bialy’s devastating expose and surely throw a temper tantrum.

To see why they are so upset and overcome with rage, read Bialy’s book and learn more about one of great deceptions of the modern era.

and in the circumstances Chipper deserves to have both up. Any such interference is a moral outrage, as we are sure John Moore and his friends, with their refined moral sensibilities, would agree.

However, it doesn’t matter that much. The comparison between the long string of articulate and informed positive reviews and the vulgar little hatchet jobs by Moore and his friends is clear enough. We like the little verse by Francis Bacon, who captures what should be the lay reader’s response in a nutshell:

Ode to a true scientist, September 1, 2004

Reviewer: Francis Bacon (NY) – See all my reviews

Every day I read the Times,

For news of AIDS and other crimes

But now I see that what I read

Is not the sparkling truth I need.

I’m stunned to learn the news they gather

May be, in part or whole, just blather.

Not the crystal spring I trusted,

My faith in Pulitzer’s quite busted

Before this book I’d peace of mind

Now I know not where to find

The facts secure I seek to base

My love of God and human race

I must doubt the word of man

And find my moorings where I can

Oh dreaded task – give me a drink,

Clearly I must learn to think.

But having read this book I know

Where for better facts to go

Beware of reading Bialy through,

It will flip your whole world view.

While not on the elevated and informed level of the others, this verse does engagingly tell the Amazon truthseeker that the book is what it is, an insider’s corrective to the suspiciously unscientific enthusiasm of Moore and his minions for a paradigm now obviously so tattered that it cannot even rise from the runway after the never refuted, never peer disputed (on an equal peer-reviewed basis in the same elite journals) reviewing of Duesberg has finished blasting holes in it.

Of course, the book review that counts more than any other is by Nobel winner Kary Mullis. It has the special poignancy of being written by one of the few scientists who is a genuine peer of Peter Duesberg’s in originality and independence of mind:

45 of 51 people found the following review helpful:

A well-told tale with the humor of his protagonist, August 26, 2004

Reviewer: K. B. Mullis (Newport Beach, CA) – See all my reviews


Oncogenes, Aneuploidy and AIDS, A Scientific Life and Times of Peter H. Duesberg

by Harvey Bialy

reviewed by Kary Mullis

Why has Peter Duesberg, one of the smartest, imaginative, hard working, and honest biological scientists of the last fifty years, had such a rough time convincing other people and spreading his irrefutably superior ideas in the areas of cancer and AIDS? Why is Peter not incredibly successful and loved as an indefatigable thinker and keeper of the scientific faith? It is a mystery why this man is not a famous and well-funded director of an influential institute leading our young scientists.

Harvey Bialy has been around Peter and molecular biology for forty odd years, observing and collecting notes, and now he tells the intriguing story. I think it is important, because Peter is one in a million never to be repeated again.

His story, predicted by Jean-Paul Sartre when he pronounced somewhere that we all make our own hell out of the people around us, is told up-close and brilliantly by Bialy.

It is about humans taking on a vast responsibility, with the usual suspects – money, glory, and stubbornness. Unfortunately only an insignificant fraction of them seem concerned with the mission of saving lives. Bialy tries to remember it all, with some of the raw edges chewed back by time as he wisely allows the unsavory characters to hoist on their own inelegant petards.

It is a well-told tale with the humor of a sympathetic observer, a humor that reminds me not a little of the same incorruptible humor of his protagonist, Peter Duesberg – head and shoulders above the competition in so many ways, but unable to pull it off. He seems to know that something has damned him to that space, but maintains nevertheless a vital resignation in that razor sharp cortex, which misrepresents nothing and would never in a fair hearing be called on to answer for misdeeds. We meet a lot of the contenders in this well researched and deeply considered book, their powers and their fallibilities – their own statements a most readable report.

I recommend it to anyone who cares to be entertained or educated in the details of how the science of cancer or AIDS has been done in this last half century. But it is far more than that. It is a window cracked not just on Peter’s travails but on all of the science and sorcery since the invention of money. A long winter’s tale.

What appears more heinous and deadly is that two other important positive reviews of the Bialy book seem to have been erased, one by the Australian scientist and consultant, George Miklos, and one by Albin Tsycki (spelling uncertain), which is all that Bialy recalls of the other poster, a retired university professor from New York who knew Francis Crick, Max Delbruck and Erwin Chargaff, heroic pioneers of gene research and members of the old guard who pursued science rather than profit, of which group Peter Duesberg and Harvey Bialy are among the few left.

Here is a copy of George Miklos’s review.

Galileo’s cat and the HIV AIDS pigeons.

George Gabor Miklos.

Secure Genetics.

Two years after the publication of Bialys stimulating book Oncogenes, Aneuploidy and AIDS, some bewildering commentaries on it have now emerged from two members of the academic woodwork, Professors Moore and Stevenson. Both exhibit the lemming-like mentality of the orthodox HIV equals AIDS community which continues to mindlessly polish the same edifice with a finer and finer grade of jewellers rouge while concomitantly attempting to stifle debate. These two self-styled “know it alls” now preach from their self appointed pulpits on HIV AIDS and remind readers that reading Oncogenes, Aneuploidy and AIDS, is in essence, not only detrimental to ones health but that any deviation from the standard manifesto of HIV equals AIDS is not to be tolerated. Stevenson in particular conveniently forgets his own words of a few years earlier, “the reasons why HIV infection is pathogenic is still debated and the goal of eradicating HIV infection remains elusive”, (quoted from Chapter 5 of Bialy’s book).

In Oncogenes, Aneuploidy and AIDS Bialy set out certain findings, together with the normal warts and all triumphs and failings of human endeavor in the fields of cancer and HIV research. He challenges readers to think for themselves, free of the shackles of orthodoxy, but not free from the scientific constraints. The increasingly shrill parroting of the conventional interpretations by conventional HIV – AIDS researchers is understandable after 25 years of empty promises and billions of dollars poured into a broken research machine.

Two years ago I published a very positive review of Oncogenes, Aneuploidy and AIDS, not as an internet posting, as generalized by Moore, but in Nature Biotechnology one the worlds most respected, prestigious and high impact journals, (Miklos, G.L.G., 2004, Nature Biotechnology, 22, 815-816). Neither Moore nor Stevenson chose to reply to it within the same august pages. Given this, it is important for the readers of Amazon to access original material and to then make up their own minds, free from unscientific zealots who wish to censor what one should or should not read. Moore and Stevenson could perchance take notice of a well known adage; “it’s what you learn after you know it all, that’s important”. Therapeutic progress in clinical medicine requires objective evaluation of data, not impoverished rhetoric.

A rereading suggests that the Amazon gatekeeper may have decided to bump it since it attacks another review, which is nominally against the rules, though it is often done. Perhaps the move came with a nudge from the goon squad?

Not that Bialy is overly concerned now. “I can’t wait for Mario’s other brother to post a new one”, he says. His sales ranking has not been as high since his book was originally praised in Nature Biotechnology by Miklos’s original notice, which acknowledged that “Oncogenes” confirmed in his mind that in both cancer and HIV?AIDS, paradigm replacement was long overdue. Miklos should know. The Australian scientist consults internationally on the prospects in scientific fields.

This information will be updated when we learn more, or if the censored reviews reappear.

Update: Blogmaster Dean Esmay of Dean’s World, has added a positive review as follows, which does him credit since he risked more material on this debate earlier than any other independent blogger, including famously humunguous threads in which paradigm enthusiast Brit twit Nick Bennett mounted his best defense until he was banned for using misleading data. Dean achieved this, despite suffering the usual jeering claque of baby docs and medical students too young to realize their texts are now investment proposals as much as medical lore, and their assumption that their expertise is biblical in authority may be naive: A must for grad students and anyone interested in the dark side of bioscience today, July 6, 2006

Reviewer: Dean Esmay (Westland, MI United States) –

After a glowing review full of praise in the pages of Nature/Biotechnology, this wonderful book has been shooting up the sales charts. Having read this book myself about three times, I can’t say I recommend it for the casual reader, but anyone with a reasonbly good background in biology should have little trouble following it–and then wondering how the twin boondoggles of the oncogene hypothesis of carcinogenesis, or the HIV-AIDS hypothesis, came to be so lavishly funded without anyone stopping and asking hard questions like, “have we gone off in the wrong direction?”

What is most telling about books like this is the response of establishment “scientists” who choose name-calling (like “AIDS Denialist,” a clearly anti-semitic reference to the Holocaust) and bluster as a response to cogent arguments and well-referenced criticism. One may see that in action in many reviews: never do they attack the substance, apparently because they cannot. And so they attack the messenger, and anyone who would dare associate with the messenger. Which is almost as informative as this book itself is.

Two Nobel laureate biologists, and quite a few other world-famous scientists, have endorsed this book. That’s all you should need to know to realize that strange things are afoot, and that Peter Duesberg is a man whose name more people should know and respect.

Aha! The irrepressible professor Albin Taszycki has made a swift comeback with what may be a rewritten review twice as powerful and sure of himself as the original:

2 of 3 people found the following review helpful:

500,000 Americans now dead of DEADLY AIDS QUACKERY!, July 4, 2006

Reviewer: Albin Taszycki “Albin Taszycki” (New York) – See all my reviews

READ IT! Why? Because people are dying and need to be properly diagnosed, and not scared nor poisoned to their death or disfigurement by lifelong toxic drugs while the actual causes of their illness are ignored. Those making a comfey living from the 50 billion dollar give-away, the HIV research and drug industry, are shaking in their shoes at the public release and promotion of this book. Don’t believe me? Just research the names of anyone whom dares to write negative reviews of it! You will find they are fully funded by the government give-away and the HIV drug manufacturer’s that have made a fortune selling the very drugs that will cause disfigurement or immune dysfunction! With the release of this book, no longer can the AIDS Industry ignore the real causes of immune system dysfunction. Bialy’s book will become a textbook for future generations of aspiring scientists, as it points out how in the long run, it is only integrity and honesty that will further real science. You too will know why NO-ONE in science will debate Peter Duesberg on the issue of THE TRUE CAUSES OF AIDS. They know it would publicly expose the shoddy science, false dogma, corruption, and the lack of integrity of those whom continue to scare people into hopelessness and self-fulfilling prophesies of death by being scared into taking toxic drugs. While the false “HIV, The Virus That Causes Aids” Mantra has fearfully brainwashed most people, fortunately it has not done so for Dr. Bialy or Dr. Duesberg. The book is a True and Nonstop Thriller, which exposes and documents the sleazy underbelly of HIV research and drug development. Now that hundreds of NIH directors and scientists have been caught taking funding and stock from big pharma, and the worst offenses having taken place in the National Institute of Health’s Department of AIDS research, now that HIV tests are proven and documented to show false positive results for dozens of often common and non HIV causes, it is crucial that Americans break free of their fear, and brainwashing, and courageously wake up to the honest, even if painful facts about HIV and AIDS. Bialy demands the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and he has every single word being backed up in documented provable facts. Hopefully this spells the Beginning of the END of the lies, cover-ups, bribery, and shoddy science behind the worldwide debacle and scam of HIV as the cause of AIDS. With anti-HIV drug related causes being the proven Number One Cause of Death in HIV Positive Americans, it is crucial that EVERYONE round the world READ THIS BOOK, get Informed, avoid and end the iatrogenic poisoning of people by those whom make a comfey living from the peddling of their false beliefs and deadly drugs. Other excellent and current companion books to this are “Positively False”, “Inventing The AIDS Virus”, and “What If Everything You Thought You Knew About AIDS Was Wrong”, and “Serious Adverse Events”.

A very well expressed post, which says it all.

This is the interesting thing about John Moore’s original diatribe, as its target, Harvey Bialy, cleverly saw straight away. Such a silly smear just results in a) demonstrating your fallibility to all comers b) arousing the suspicion among onlookers that something fishy is afoot and c) sparking much better and more powerful statements of the flaws in your case from those who disagree, who now have a target to aim at.

The strategic intelligence of Bialy’s detractors is evidently not up to this level of perception, however, possibly because of their daily involvement in preaching a paradigm which reviews have always indicated left reason behind from the first paper it produced.

It must be hard to think straight if your fundamental assumptions have for twenty three years made no genuine sense whatsoever.


Update: Frank Lusardi, the Web site designer and coder who run’s Darin Brown’s AIDS Wiki, has added his own seal of approval to the Bialy book for good measure:

A model scientific biography, July 6, 2006

Reviewer: Frank Lusardi – See all my reviews


With wit, grace, and a mastery of the literature, Bialy has penned what will no doubt serve as a model for future scientific biographies. It is to be hoped that his courage will also serve as a model, inspiring others to seek out and chronicle today’s Galileos, the genuine scientists whose insights America’s Corporate-Scientific Complex is so ruthless in suppressing. In challenging any reigning scientific dogma, the first question is always: “How could so many smart people be so wrong?” Both Bialy and his subject are rare examples of thinkers who can not only answer such questions but do so with exuberant and cheerful ease.

As those who read the all-important comments on this site know, Lusardi is a lucid observer of the HIV?AIDS debacle.

John Moore shoots self in foot with Amazon review of Harvey Bialy

June 26th, 2006

Spoiler panning of “Oncogenes” boosts sales and delights author

The remarkable John Moore has posted a review of Harvey Bialy’s book about Peter Duesberg on Amazon, and his evident motivation of doing the mad professor an injury seems to have backfired. Soon after the screed appeared the sales rating for the book shot up sevenfold.

As readers here may know, “Oncogenes, Aneuploidy, and AIDS: A Scientific Life and Times of Peter H. Duesberg” is a unique scientific biography with a bombshell message. Bialy’s book is the story of the career of a brilliant scientific mind written by a peer, explaining rather convincingly why both of them believe that the highflying current paradigms of HIV?AIDS and cancer genes are both based on fantasy rather than fact.

The tongue twister of a title reflects the double edged appeal of the pages inside, paradigm politics mixed with science that is a hard read in parts for the layman. But the revelations are always reliable. This is shown by the fact that the book has not been attacked before, even though it is a sort of ticking time bomb which undermines the fond beliefs and mightily threatens the position of all those who live off the perks of the prevailing paradigms in two fields, HIV?AIDS and cancer.

For two years no one hostile to its message has dared launch a review trashing it or challenging its contents in any public space, following the one long and laudatory review by George Miklos in Nature Biotechnology when it first came out. Even armchair ranters on the Web have known better.

Until yesterday, that is.

The policy so far has been to quietly ignore it. So with all its unique qualities as a convincingly disturbing guide as to how billions are being misspent the book after two years was quietly sitting at a respectable Amazon rating of 200,000 or so when Moore wrote this appreciation this weekend.

A travesty of science, June 25, 2006

Reviewer: John P Moore, PhD (New York, USA) – See all my reviews

It is hard to imagine that this book was actually written by a professional scientist. The author displays only his ignorance and his prejudices when championing the extraordinary argument that HIV does not cause AIDS. This theory, of course, is utter nonsense, but it is a nonsense that was created by Peter Duesberg, the maverick scientist who is the focus of the book. Hence the author is writing a hagiography of one of his heroes, not a fair and accurate representation of the scientific facts and moral truths about HIV/AIDS. The book should therefore be read (or preferably not read) in that political context: it appeals to the small clique of AIDS denialists who think like the author does, and it should be ignored by anyone who respects science and the truth. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and when it comes to HIV and AIDS, the author and his hero are prime examples of the aphorism in practice. For factual information on HIV/AIDS, interested people should consult or the NIAID’s web-site, amongst other bona fide resources.

John P. Moore, PhD

Professor of Microbiology and Immunology,

Weill Medical College of Cornell University,

New York

A literary stab in the heart, right? Not exactly. Soon enough Bialy, instead of being miffed, was chortling in email to us “Can you dig this? It already has produced enough sales to get me an only 2 left in stock! What a guy.” To Moore he wrote the following appreciative letter:

do you always do as I ask?

it was not in nature or the ny times (neither would publish you now) but free and easy amazon was just too tempting. i believe my sales rank was in 200,000 range before you posted. when i looked last and discovered your wonderful, wonderful review it was 29,000 and there were only 2 copies left in stock.

what can i say except please be very, very careful crossing the street, your value to the insurgency grows exponentially almost (you do know what that word means, don’t you? do you know what a sigmoid curve looks like and what it means? probably not, but you are beginning to experience the part where the slope gets very positive very fast.

Why is Bialy so chuffed? His reasoning goes as follows. When a book is so pristine that it has no real flaw, then an obviously over the top hostile review simply piques the interest of the intelligent reader, the only kind he wishes to collect. Apparently the Duesberg book won about 200 new sales from the cheaply hostile Nature review, according to the publisher, Regnery.

The current clash between Bialy and Moore is not the first, as it happens. Moore wrote an equally childishly damning review for Nature of Peter Duesberg’s book Inventing the AIDS Virus (Regnery) in 1996 (see below). Science editor at the time of Nature Biotechnology, Bialy called Moore up at Sloane Kettering and lambasted him as not worthy of shining Duesberg’s shoes. The hapless Moore, a politically innocent Brit twit fresh from Cambridge was taken aback, to say the least, to be exposed to the fiery Bialy’s scorching opinion.

Moore had been been put up to it by David Ho, according to Bialy’s sources. As noted in his Comment post here yesterday, Bialy suspects that the diatribe Moore penned as an Op Ed piece in the Times recently was also instigated by Ho, a short researcher whose breakthrough concept of cocktail therapy for HIV?AIDS won him a Time cover in the 90s, even though the scientific theory it was based upon is now laughed at even by the HIV?AIDS establishment.

Ho is now leading the effort to find a vaccine for HIV, which even mainstream commentators such as Abraham Karpas of Cambridge suggest may be irrational: “The immune response to HIV can be compared to that of a live viral vaccine. It explains why most HIV-infected individuals remain well for years.” (Human retroviruses in leukaemia and AIDS: reflections on their discovery, biology and epidemiology. – Biol. Rev. 2004, 79, pp 911-933)

Anyway now Bialy is bouncing around in email heaven sending copies of this interchange to selected friends and enemies (one unfortunate recipient was Martin Delaney, who responded desperately in large capital letters, STOP SENDING ME THIS DRIVEL, and when Bialy reminded him of filters, explained at some length why he couldn’t use one – on his network a filter would block Bialy communications from everyone else, and “While I doubt anyone here has any useful dialogue with you, it’s not appropriate for me to deprive others of the right to watch your little cat fights.”)

Bialy’s logic is devilish and apparently valid. His book is the opposite of Moore’s rant, as is obvious to any working mind. It is a precise and revealing professional biography about the discoveries and travails of a gifted and intellectually penetrating scientist, who when compared with his opponents, the most prominent being David Baltimore, Robert Gallo and Anthony Fauci, can reasonably be called a genius. Both author and his subject are distinguished as truthseekers rather than self-promoters, counter to the modern trend.

Half of the text consists of descriptions of the derailing of science in HIV?AIDS and cancer genes, showing how the academically impeccable Duesberg has debunked the hollow theories in both fields and suggested better alternatives, all to a conspicuous lack of enthusiasm on the part of the socio-economic systems built on both.

The other half interweaves the scientific story with telling accounts of the backstage dealings which the distinguished German-American’s scientific challenge to the mainstream have provoked – ostracism, unfunding, almost impossible hurdles to publication, secret offers of redemption if the honest professor acquiesced, and the like.

A correctly edited version of Moore’s review might go roughly as follows:

It is easy to imagine that this book was actually written by a professional scientist. The author displays only his knowledge and prejudice in favor of good science when championing the extraordinary argument that HIV does not cause AIDS. This theory, of course, solves at one stroke the many puzzling indications that the current paradigm is utter nonsense, and the puzzles evaporate as the evidence is reinterpreted by Peter Duesberg, the maverick scientist who is the focus of the book. Hence the author is very justifiably writing a hagiography of one of his heroes, a fair and accurate representation of the scientific facts and moral truths about the sometimes appalling behavior of the leaders of HIV/AIDS. The book should therefore be read (preferably not read once, but at least twice) in that political context: it appeals to the growing crowd of AIDS critics who think like the author does, and it should be cherished by anyone who respects science and the truth. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and when it comes to HIV and AIDS, the author and his hero expose prime examples of the aphorism in practice. The additional knowledge they provide is enough to enable readers to avoid the gross dangers to which they otherwise will be exposed. For factual information on HIV/AIDS, interested people should consult

You would think that Moore, from his long ago experience of having his ear scorched by Bialy at Sloane-Kettering, would know better than to get into a cat-fight with the impatient idealist, who has become notorious as an email and blog provocateur in the last two years, since discovering the true power of the Web after his book was published.

From the safety of Cuernavaca, Mexico, Bialy, who became financially independent following a lucky investment, has become the most unrestrained tormenter of both the HIV?AIDS establishment and its critics, sending capitalized excoriation and challenges to both sides in email which quickly reaches heights of red hot chile expression that even Bialy describes as “bizarre, crazy and off putting to some – you have my permission to say so”.

His email madness has method to it, however. Bialy dismisses the promoters of the HIV?AIDS paradigm and other questionable science as “insecure poseurs, all of them without a single bit of self worth, because all their achivements are grounded on lies. So unlike truthtellers they don’t have real responses when poked but react like robots. I am an expert at poking them, I delight in it and it takes me no time at all. Anybody who is into this thing has to know they are frauds, just as Baltimore and Gallo know it.”

Bialy compares his performance on the Web, where he orchestrates provocative web discussions on blogs such as DeanEsmay or Aetiology in much the same way as his email exchanges, with his 35 years of studies in Tai Chi. “People like that are puppets. You can make them do anything. Twist them and turn them. If I was 5 per cent as good at Tai Chi as I am in email I would have my own school!”

On blogs, he engages with the HIV activists who enter discussions to impede progress – “these morons” – to build tutorial discussions, such as the one from Dean Esmay’s blog last year that reached a record 159 pages, which has been downloaded ten thousand times, Bialy estimates. These are made available as Internet ‘books’ that can be found on the AIDS Wiki at Insurgency Blogging Documents.

He doesn’t expect ever to change the minds of Moore or any of the HIV?AIDS faithful, he says. “Not after twenty years of vested interest. Maybe they really believe it. The New York Times is the equivalent to a public figure who, after speaking forcefully on one side of a grave and controversial issue for quite a long time, cannot afford to advocate the opposite. I recall Malcolm X coming back from Mecca and announcing that ‘the white man is not the devil. Capitalism is the devil.’ Not long after that he was shot.”

“I function from the premise that the major media is closed to the corrective view of AIDS, so I fight on the Internet and in email as an insurgent. I know that I will never change the mind of anyone in the media power structure but I have every expectation of taking it down.”


Here is a copy (from the new anti-HIV critic site AIDS Truth, which is the current reference collection of misleading defenses of the HIV?AIDS paradigm) of John Moore’s extraordinary self-condemnation in Nature, his 1996 review bashing Duesberg and his “Inventing the AIDS Virus”. This earlier effort, starting with its slightly silly pun of a title “A Duesberg, Adieu!”, trumps his recent New York Times Op-Ed editorial, “Deadly Quackery”, on every parameter of shame. For sheer greenhorn effrontery, coupled with its factual inaccuracy and scientific misapprehension, this masterwork has to be read to be believed. Some of the insufficient logic is apparent to any layman, but it is the unselfconscious crudity of the schoolboy insults which is most grievous. Apparently Moore is the original adolescent Web flamer, writing before his time.


John Moore

Nature Volume 380 March 28, 1996

Inventing the AIDS Virus. By Peter H. Duesberg. Regnery: 1996, Pp. 722. $24.95

According to Bryan Ellison, who co-wrote with Peter Duesberg an earlier version of Inventing the AIDS Virus, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) tried to suppress the publication of this book. I can’t think why they would want to bother. But conspiracy theories so pervade the book and that I shouldn’t be in the least surprised if Oliver Stone does the movie.

Duesberg’s central thesis is that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is a harmless virus, and that life-style (especially recreational drug use) is the principal reason why people die of AIDS. The use of AZT as an AIDS therapy is blamed for exacerbating the problem. In the first section of his book, Duesberg tells the story of an obscure syndrome (SMON) that was present in Japan from the 1950s to the 1970s. Despite persistent theories of a viral cause, SMON was found to be a toxicological problem caused by anti-diarrhoea drugs sometimes used to treat SMON symptoms. Duesberg draws an analogy from these events to AIDS, with AZT analogous to the anti-diarrhoea drugs. An interesting tale, but documenting this and a few other old medical mistakes scarcely proves that AZT causes AIDS and that HIV is a mere passenger virus. But according to Duesberg, “No fatal viral disease is known to cause death in nearly all infected people — except the paradoxical ‘AIDS virus’.” Try telling that to those who came across Ebola-Zäire; their mortality rate was about 80 per cent, for this virus is literally more lethal than a bullet in the head.

The book contains no new revelations on the ‘non-link’ between HIV and AIDS since September 1995, when the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases released its 61-page document on The Relationship Between the Human Immunodeficiency Virus and the Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome. This contains all the facts, and I strongly recommend people to read it. Of course, seeing that it was written by government scientists, it will no doubt be dismissed by Duesberg’s sympathizers as part of a continuing cover-up. For according to Duesberg, the AIDS epidemic became the “salvation” of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS) of the CDC is described as the “medical CIA” and ex-members are said to “have obtained prominent positions in the media”. One even edits a scientific journal. How sinister! Whatever next? Essentially, Duesberg’s case is that the fundamental purpose of the CDC is to invent medical emergencies for the National Institutes of Health to resolve – anything is justified so long as the tax dollars just keep on rollin’. Implicit, and often explicit, is that tens of thousands of health-care professionals and research scientists are either too stupid to realize that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, or too venal to do anything about it for fear of losing income from the government or drug companies.

Duesberg mounts an assault on the virology “establishment”, with special emphasis on the tumour virologists of the 1960s and 1970s. Researchers mistakes, real and opined, are gleefully documented – a veritable virological Who’s Who is castigated. And the trend continues when the HIV section is finally reached. There, all the ‘big name’ retrovirologists of the 1980s are targeted, and the early scandals of AIDS research are picked over yet again. So many scientists and so many of the “mistakes” are listed that I was eventually reminded of the old joke about the brigade of guards on parade, with one little guardsman horribly out of step. When the drill sergeant bawls at him, an old lady attacks him with an umbrella saying: “Leave him alone, my boy Peter is in step, it’s all them other so-and-so’s what are the problem!” All this ancient history is very entertaining, but it hardly seems central to the purpose of the book. Or is it?

Although some vengeance might be expected from a virologist whose eminent career was ended by the AIDS epidemic, one might have wished for a better understanding of modern virology from Duesberg. One of his main complaints about HIV and other ‘slow’ viruses is that they “violate the laws of virology”. But what are these laws? Was it carved in stone that the Lord God spake unto the retroviridiae and commanded: “Thou shalt not kill”? The great beauty of biology – indeed, of science in general – is that as knowledge advances, so paradigms shift; if HIV acts differently from the viruses Duesberg grew up with, what of it? And herein, I suspect, lies the basic problem: Duesberg clearly has an outstanding knowledge of the relatively simple avian leukaemia viruses with which he made his professional reputation. But he draws his views on how HIV ‘should’ behave from his early research experience; he has never published any papers based on his own work with HIV at the laboratory bench. Reading the AIDS literature can take one only so far: experimenting gives active researchers a whole new dimension to their knowledge.

I can list here only a few of the more egregious examples of Duesberg’s misunderstanding of HIV virology. He states that “retroviruses do not kill cells”. This assertion is not even correct for all avian leukaemia viruses, and anyone who has cultured HIV can attest to its prominent cytopathic effects. HIV is not a leukaemia (onco)virus; it is a lentivirus, and behaves distinctly differently from the oncoviruses both in vivo and in vitro. To extrapolate from avian leukaemia virus to HIV is like asserting that because one can stroke a pussy-cat with impunity, it is perfectly safe to put one’s head in a lion’s mouth. Duesberg sees a fatal paradox in the fact that HIV can be grown in permanently infected, immortal T-cell lines in vitro, yet is supposed to cause AIDS by killing T cells in vivo. There is no such paradox. When a chronically infected cell culture is started, clones of cells relatively resistant to the cytopathic effects of HIV are gradually selected for and eventually take over the culture. There can also be some adaptation of the cells (and virus) to the culture conditions. The principal phenotypic change in the cells is a partial reduction in the surface expression of the HIV receptor, which reduces the extent of cell-killing in the culture. But the HIV produced in these cultures is still highly cytopathic when plated back onto unadapted primary T cells. And sadly, HIV produced from permanent cell lines is pathogenic in vivo – it is today causing disease in at least one accidentally infected laboratory worker.

Duesberg writes: “Only rare luck … can extract HIV from an antibody-positive person”. Perhaps I should get the technicians in our laboratory to buy my lottery tickets; they succeed in isolating HIV almost every time they try. Many of Duesberg’s problems with the pathogenic effects of HIV seem to lie in his belief that HIV is dormant in vivo, that HIV-infected people “never have more than one in every 10,000 T-cells actively producing copies of the virus”. This old canard, derived from research in the mid-1980s, has long since been proved incorrect. In the early days of HIV research, analytical techniques were obviously more primitive than they are now, so why still rely on them? The true figure for the frequency of infected cells is more like 1 in 100, although there is a wide range, depending on the state of disease progression. The documented loss of more than a hundred million T cells a day as a result of the generation of more than a billion virus particles a day attests to the virulence of HIV.

Duesberg points out that the opportunistic infections suffered by AIDS patients are unrelated to each other, and finds this hard to reconcile with any common cause, let alone HIV. The common cause is that opportunistic infections generally happen because of a dysfunctional immune system, and the cause of this dysfunction is usually HIV infection. Of course, there can be other causes – genetic or environmental – but rarely is the dysfunction as devastating as that found in the later stages of HIV infection, and never is it as common.

Duesberg believes that HIV is essentially not a sexually transmitted virus; indeed, the very cover of his book states that “AIDS is not sexually transmitted”. Instead, he argues that “HIV has been passed along from mother to child for many centuries”. The first statement ignores the entire body of data on the epidemiology of HIV spread in the United States and Europe, whereas the second ignores the death rate among children infected by HIV from their mothers; only a tragically small proportion of these children survive long enough to have the chance of having children of their own. How could transmission from mother to child permit sustained HIV spread under these conditions?

Much space is devoted to the thesis that AZT causes AIDS. AZT is decried as a toxic chemical, which of course it is to an extent. So are most chemotherapeutic agents used against cancer. So is paracetamol, rock salt and water if consumed in the wrong quantities. Like all drugs, AZT has a therapeutic window – a dosage that has maximum effect on its target (HIV) and minimal effect on the working of the human body. This fundamental pharmacological principle is critical for understanding AZT’s (admittedly limited) effect on HIV replication in vivo. Adding human interest to an otherwise dry section are the numerous quotations from people who believe that AZT has harmed them or their infants. But what of Elizabeth Glaser, who later founded the Pediatric AIDS Foundation? She was infected by HIV through a blood transfusion, and then passed the virus to her children. None of the family used recreational drugs. Sadly, Elizabeth and her daughter Ariel eventually died of AIDS. But at a critical stage of Ariel’s disease, Elizabeth managed to obtain AZT for her unconscious child. I quote below from In the Absence of Angels, Elizabeth’s book: “Three weeks to the day after we started intravenous AZT I walked into Ariel’s room in the morning and she looked up and said “Good morning, Mom. I love you’… She hadn’t talked in three months!… It was the miracle we had been waiting for.” No AIDS researcher pretends that AZT is the answer to AIDS. But neither is it the cause of it. Most people die of AIDS have never taken AZT or any other Western drugs. Neither have the monkeys who die from AIDS induced by molecular clones of SIV, lethal close cousin of HIV.

Duesberg wraps together his twisted facts and illogical lines of argument to create a tangled web to trap the unwary, desperate or gullible. But however much he attempts to gild his writings with philosophies of scientific truth, the reality is that his premises are based not on facts but on faith: faith that he is right, and that everyone else is wrong. This was h is position long before AIDS appeared, as tumour virologists know well.

Duesberg ends by detailing his ostracism by the virology community, his inability to get research funding, the personal snubs he has suffered. The advent of HIV has clearly been a personal tragedy for a once highly respected retrovirologist, but one’s sympathy must of course be tempered by thoughts of those for whom AIDS has been a rather greater personal tragedy. Three years ago, I likened Duesberg to the Black Knight from “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”. This character had his limbs hacked off one by one, but the game little torso tried to bite the knee-caps from his assailant. The events of the past few years have extracted the Black Knight’s teeth, leaving him with the sole recourse of spitting at those whose views of virology have differed from his over the past two decades. But where the spittle lands is on the graves of those millions of people killed by HIV, and on those it has yet to slaughter. How sad, and how ultimately pathetic.

John Moore is at the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center, 445 1st Avenue, New York, New York 10016 USA.

Blistering letter to John Moore from Harvey Bialy

June 24th, 2006

Tone a welcome relief from usual submissive politesse of HIV critics

One of the ways that the HIV?AIDS paradigm is successfully maintained while flying in the face of all scientific logic is the fact that the tone of the objections coming from laymen amd laywomen is entirely too respectful of the high status and position and credentials of the paradigm leaders, which is understandable because those who object publicly are usually people who are inexpertly outside the politico-socio-medical career system which feeds off the paradigm.

Luckily science professor Harvey Bialy is neither a compromiser nor compromised. Here is his letter to John Moore, the HIV?AIDS researcher and paradigm lackey who published the recent Op-Ed piece in the New York Times to mislead the readership and conveniently fend off any question about the behavior of Times editors and reporters in this regard over the last twenty years, a chicken which has yet to come home to roost.

Professor Moore:

You have written hither and yon on the Internet, and most recently in the pages of that once excellent and independent newspaper, The New York Times, how critics of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis are not to be taken seriously. The points you raise (if such they can be called) fall within the categories of “scientific-sounding” but unverifiable “facts”, slanderous assaults, and outright fabrications.

And you have the nerve to take a salary from a reputable university.

Since you purport to know so much, I propose a simple debate at the AIDS WIKI on the etiology of AIDS. I further propose it take the following form:

I will present one fully referenced (with PDF files that the moderator can hyperlink) challenge to your favorite and livelihood-sustaining hypothesis, and you can demolish my feeble arguments in the same fashion. We will continue this for one additional round, and then move on to the next challenge. I have maybe seven such challenges.

At the end, we will have produced the first fully documented, real scientific debate on the cause of AIDS. Interesting that after 25 years none has ever been held before, Bob Gallo’s promise in the PNAS in 1989 not withstanding.

Surely this is not too much for someone possessing even a fraction of the neurons and cojones that you pretend to have. Or is it that you are only capable of boldly proclaiming your unsubstantiated “beliefs” when protected by editorial armaments as mighty as The NY Times that you know would never publish any factual contradiction of your filthy and girlish prose masquerading as an academic Op. Ed.

Yours most sincerely,

Harvey Bialy

Resident Scholar

Institute of Biotechnology

National Autonomous University of Mexico


9 June 2006

P.S. You might try reading my biography of Professor Duesberg. If you can understand the technical parts, you will actually learn something.

Shockingly rude, or no more that the obtusely servile Moore deserves for promulgating a profitable paradigm which for those who are intelligent enough to know what they are doing (possibly even Moore) might be counted as murder when the accounting for this Enron of science is finally done?

(See An Open Letter and Challenge to Prof. John Moore – from Dr. Harvey “Tryptophan” Bialy)

Brown and Bialy outmaneuver John Moore on Lew Rockwell

June 21st, 2006

Op-Ed author of “Deadly Quackery” told who are the real “denialists” by AIDS Wiki founder, and professor

A remarkable article, Who Are the Real AIDS Denialists? – Testing the Moore Assertion by the philosopher-mathematician Darin Brown, the founder of the AIDS Wiki, appears on the libertarian site this morning (Wed Jun 21).

Brown presents a zinger of a proposal, after tracking the email exchange which erupted when the intellectually brilliant biographer of Duesberg and his science, Harvey Bialy, challenged the understandably reluctant John Moore to a seven point exchange on the etiology of AIDS.

Despite his initial contemptuous dismissal Moore got lured into an exchange which ended with him comparing their doubts over HIV and AIDS with someone who “thought the moon was made of green cheese” (the cliche betrays than John Moore is another embarrassment to the reputation of Brit expatriates, joining Andrew Sullivan and Nick Bennett).

Any scientist who claims that HIV does not cause AIDS (or that HIV does not exist) is simply not credible, essentially as a point of definition. The evidence is so overwhelming that a credible scientist could not fail to understand and accept it… Would astrophysicists and geologists debate with people who believed the moon was made of green cheese?”

Darin Brown corrects this assertion by pointing out that Science thought the debate worth holding in 1988, and that the discussion was arbitrarily halted by editor Dan Koshland before resolution.

Brown relaunches Bialy’s challenge to editors of Nature and Science

Brown – in what may be a watershed move in the age of the Web – then revives Bialy’s idea of harassing the editors of Science and Nature today with a request that they take a straw poll of their readers to see how many of them would support a rematch, this time a series of debates between David Baltimore and Peter Duesberg on the cause of AIDS.

All that is required is to take an anonymous, electronic straw poll of the readership of Nature and Science, the world’s two most prominent science journals, asking whether they would support a series of debates, organized and held under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences, between Peter Duesberg and David Baltimore (the two most prominent and best-credentialed spokespersons for the two sides) on the cause of AIDS.

The idea was previously rejected as a petition from the Committee for the Reappraisal of HIV/AIDS to those editors, since that group (known for short as Rethinking AIDS) thought that there was no more chance of the editors taking such a suggestion seriously than devoting a special issue to the topic, which has been anathema ever since 1988, due to the active and public hostility of Anthony Fauci and every other paradigm promoter in HIV?AIDS science, which may or may not have to do with the bountiful rewards that it brings to them in their work. Such promoters include the editors of both Science and Nature, of course, then and since.

But Bialy is no fool and his purpose was not to convince the editors of Science and Nature to mend their ways, but to expose the situation for what it is – political censorship of first class science, by the very gatekeepers themselves. As the Romans said, Who shall guard the guardians?

Now Brown writes:

If you would like to see this experiment performed, you may meaningfully contribute by sending a joint email to Don Kennedy and Philip Campbell, (the editors of Science and Nature respectively) expressing your agreement with the letter above (and carbon-copying me) so we can, in the words of Prof. Moore, “keep at the maths…someone has to do it, after all.” (Please address them by name in your email.) In contradistinction to the “Moore Assertion,” we present the “Brown/Bialy Conjecture”:

“No matter how many emails are received by the editors of Science and Nature in support of the above experiment to test the ‘Moore Assertion,’ they will never allow such an experiment to take place.”

We speculate that the reason is because they know full well what the uncomfortable result would be.

The ploy has all the earmarks of Bialy’s convoluted logic, and there seems to us some possibility that, like the members of Rethinking AIDS, readers may not get the point. And we are not quite sure they will not be right. Will the inevitable scorn of the proposal by the editors of Science and Nature prove that they wish actively to censor the debate, or merely that they consider the proposal silly?

Silly – or subtle?

The proposal, after all, is to poll their readers’ opinions on the matter. They might validly feel that to hold such a poll is to imply that they think that the debate should be renewed. They might balk at that because they genuinely feel that the issue is decided, and therefore such a debate is a waste of time and not called for.

This has always been the subtle catch-22 of the HIV?AIDS debate on the cause of AIDS. If people genuinely judge that an issue is settled to their own satisfaction, then they are not actively censoring the debate when they refuse to endorse it, since their reason is that the argument of the HIV critics is not so strong and threatening that it must be censored, but too weak, and therefore should not be supported because it will waste everyone’s time.

Of course, anyone with a working intelligence who has studied the issue for more than a few hours can see very well that the HIV critics have overwhelming arguments to review the cause of AIDS, since as Peter Duesberg has repeatedly demonstrated without rebuttal, the scientific evidence for HIV turns out not to be “overwhelming” at all, as is so often claimed, by Anthony Fauci and his many Moore’s, but distinctly underwhelming.

In fact, underwhelming to the vanishing point, for there is no good scientific reason yet offered under the sun or moon as to why one should believe such a claim, as the unanswered papers by Peter Duesberg have clearly shown for twenty years, except the single reason that everyone else believes in it as the “consensus” belief, a tautology which satisfies everyone who wishes to believe it but no one who needs to justify it. In other words, the belief is a matter of faith and collegiality which serves emotional and financial interests but offers no defenses at all against scientific examination.

But this fact doesn’t prove that the editors of Science and Nature don’t firmly believe in HIV, or believe the case against it is so very strong that it must be repressed. In fact, we are very sure they do believe it, since doubting HIV in their circles is a one way express ticket to obscurity and ostracism. Hard to be an HIV skeptic and edit either journal very effectively.

This genuine belief in HIV is what their inevitable scornful response to any such proposal as a straw poll of their readers will come from, unless they are secretly independent minds who have troubled to examine the case for themselves and are going to discreetly become allies of the critics by going along with the proposal.

Not very likely. So what will Bialy’s caper prove? We wait to see if anyone else thinks it makes sense: Will his proposal, if taken up by large numbers of people emailing Don Kennedy and Philip Campbell, expose

a) their recognition that the challenge to HIV and all the fruits it brings (delicious to some, poisonous to others) is so dangerous it must be actively repressed


b) their belief that the paradigm is an incontrovertible fact and that it is political suicide and useless time wasting to give it to their readers to respond to, especially since the readers are bound to reject it?

We are afraid that it is b) and even if it is a) there will be no way of telling, so the whole exercise is pointless.

Much better for Darin Brown and Harvey Bialy to run the poll themselves.

Or will a Perfect Storm sink HIV?AIDS?

But then – and this is an example of Bialy’s fiendish acuity, which is so often displayed in his book, “Oncogenes, Aneuploidy and AIDS: The Life and Scientific Times of Peter H. Duesberg”, a sine qua non of informed understanding of this vexed debate – that is precisely what they will do and are doing.

The numbers of people emailing will be their poll, a poll of the public at large, including presumably no small number of Nature and Science readers, on their wish to reopen the can or coffin of worms which, scientifically speaking, have been wriggling for twenty years eating the stillborn theory of HIV causing immune deficiency, stillborn according to the most tested scientific literature on the topic.

Stillborn, in fact, as we recently showed, according to the very first papers on the topic by Robert “I discovered HIV in the mail” Gallo, which showed clearly that HIV was totally insufficient even to qualify as a candidate for causing AIDS, let alone win the prize.

Whatever John Moore says, then, it seems he is outmaneuvered. If this email attack builds, it may prove to be the Perfect Storm that sinks the merry cruise liner of HIV?AIDS.

Perhaps the effort will fizzle at a few dozen or hundred, but Lew Rockwell being a popular libertarian site, and libertarians being by nature for freedom of debate and against censorship, the chance of this building into thousands or even tens of thousands of emails over time are not nil.

Who Are the Real AIDS Denialists? – Testing the ‘Moore Assertion’

by Darin Brown

A very interesting and instructive exchange between myself, Harvey Bialy and the New York Times-celebrated Op. Ed. author Prof. John P. Moore, self-appointed “Major General in the War on AIDS” and spokesperson for “The Scientific Community,” recently appeared on the AIDS Wiki. The exchange was prompted by an offer to Prof. Moore to participate in a moderated debate with Dr. Bialy, who wrote in part:

“I propose a simple debate at the AIDS Wiki on the etiology of AIDS. I further propose it take the following form:

I will present one fully referenced (with PDF files that the moderator can hyperlink) challenge to your favorite and livelihood-sustaining hypothesis, and you can demolish my feeble arguments in the same fashion. We will continue this for one additional round, and then move on to the next challenge. I have maybe seven such challenges.

At the end, we will have produced the first fully documented, real scientific debate on the cause of AIDS. Interesting that after 25 years none has ever been held before, Bob Gallo’s promise in the PNAS in 1989 not withstanding.”

Within the hour, Prof. Moore had replied to me by email:

“Participating in any public forum with the likes of Bialy would give him a credibility that he does not merit. The science community does not ‘debate’ with the AIDS denialists, it treats them with the utter contempt that they deserve and exposes them for the charlatans that they are. Kindly do not send me any further communications on this or any related matter.”

Despite Prof. Moore’s expressed wish to discontinue communication, he in fact continued conversation with Dr. Bialy and myself for several days thereafter. By the end of this exchange, Moore had produced (and “more” than thrice) what we now call “The Moore Assertion.” In the professor’s inimitable style,

“… I’ll expand a very little…about why it’s not appropriate to ‘debate’ with HIV denialists who also happen to be scientists, by profession or self-proclaimed… The principal reason is that there’s nothing to debate… A secondary one is that there’s nobody worth debating with. One should only debate science with credible scientists, and no credible scientist could ever dispute the causative role of HIV infection in AIDS. I repeat, in case you have missed the point: Any scientist who claims that HIV does not cause AIDS (or that HIV does not exist) is simply not credible, essentially as a point of definition. The evidence is so overwhelming that a credible scientist could not fail to understand and accept it… Would astrophysicists and geologists debate with people who believed the moon was made of green cheese?”

More succinctly, “The Assertion” denies that there is any scientific reason to doubt HIV as the cause of AIDS because a vaguely defined “scientific community” has already pronounced on the matter ad nauseum. This is vigorously defended by the ultra-orthodox AIDS cadres that Moore represents, even though the only semblance of a “real” debate in the literature occurred in the journal Science in 1988.

It ran under the logo of a “Policy Forum,” with Peter Duesberg arguing against, and William Blattner, Robert Gallo, and Howard Temin arguing for, the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. In his book Oncogenes, Aneuploidy, and AIDS, Bialy gives an entertaining and accurate description of this “heavyweight science fight.” Here is the last paragraph of the linked excerpt

“After the ‘Policy Forum’ appeared, Peter all but begged Dan to sanction another round, to no avail. And so just when it was getting good, the bout was declared a technical draw on an inexplicable and non-appealable decision of commissioner Koshland. There was never to be a rematch. The failure to extend the discussion in the pages of Science was significant. Most scientists have neither time nor inclination to follow specialist literature in fields outside their own. They depend, consequently, on journals like Science and Nature to tell them what is considered important. Having read, as best they could at the time, the arguments of the Policy Forum, and then seeing nothing more than vulgar anti-Duesberg editorials in the scientific press and worse in the popular media, even a partially persuaded non-specialist could and would eventually concur with the ‘overwhelming evidence’ of Team Virus, although it has become even less overwhelming now than it was in 1988.”

The truth of the “Moore Assertion” is a key point of dispute between the two camps. Indeed, in the absence of a satisfactory resolution of its validity, it remains the principal impediment to ever discovering the real scientific merits of the virus-AIDS hypothesis that have nothing to do with the consensual basis of the claim. Until now, assertions of this type were like the Riemann hypothesis in number theory – important but impossible to resolve due to a lack of technical tools. With the ascendance of the internet, however, the “Moore Assertion” is readily testable as a scientific hypothesis. All that is required is to take an anonymous, electronic straw poll of the readership of Nature and Science, the world’s two most prominent science journals, asking whether they would support a series of debates, organized and held under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences, between Peter Duesberg and David Baltimore (the two most prominent and best-credentialed spokespersons for the two sides) on the cause of AIDS.

The goal of such an electronic straw poll would not be to generate an actual debate between Duesberg and Baltimore, but to test the “Moore Assertion” that “there is nothing to debate and no-one worth debating with, and the issue has already been decided by ‘overwhelming evidence’ by the ‘scientific community.’”

To take this experiment out of the gedenken, we propose the following letter to the editors of Nature and Science:

“In the interests of once and forever ending the disquieting and possibly harmful pseudo-debate over the cause of AIDS that has been simmering at the margins of the journals and popular media for almost two decades, we urge you to use your good offices to take an electronic straw poll of your readers in which you simply ask them to respond to the following question. Would you support a series of debates between David Baltimore and Peter Duesberg, to be organized by, and held under the auspices of, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, on the etiology of AIDS?”

If you would like to see this experiment performed, you may meaningfully contribute by sending a joint email to Don Kennedy and Philip Campbell, (the editors of Science and Nature respectively) expressing your agreement with the letter above (and carbon-copying me) so we can, in the words of Prof. Moore, “keep at the maths…someone has to do it, after all.” (Please address them by name in your email.) In contradistinction to the “Moore Assertion,” we present the “Brown/Bialy Conjecture”:

“No matter how many emails are received by the editors of Science and Nature in support of the above experiment to test the ‘Moore Assertion,’ they will never allow such an experiment to take place.”

We speculate that the reason is because they know full well what the uncomfortable result would be.

June 21, 2006

Darin Brown [send him mail] received his Ph.D. in mathematics from the University of California, Santa Barbara in 2004. He maintains the AIDS Wiki with Frank Lusardi, a New York computer programmer.

Copyright © 2006

Two Vienna AIDS Conferences, only one with good science

July 16th, 2010

HIV mythbusters precede Global AIDS Confab with truthseeking pow wow

Facing army of millions, scientific idealists try to correct its idea of the enemy

Naive Obama is no help at all, and John P. Moore is still well funded

Eric Goosby, Obama's point man on AIDS, evidently has no idea at all that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, that AIDS is not infectious, and that the black community is at risk of being ground up in the teeth of the HIV/AIDS monster through no fault of its own.  As US Global AIDS Coordinator he will fly into Vienna this weekend to share data, best practices, and lessons learned from the $200 billion worth of programs implemented so far by the global community of HIV/AIDS.  Is there any chance that in a walk around the city this weekend to recover from jet lag he may stumble across the AIDS Knowledge and Dogma meet and learn better?The world’s greatest HIV/AIDS gathering will cram Vienna next week, bonding over the latest ways attendees have worked out to milk the greatest funding cow any of them have ever encountered.

None other than Ambassador Eric Goosby, the US Global AIDS Coordinator, will lead the US delegation to the XVIII International AIDS Conference to join 25,000 other HIV/AIDS dogmatists “to discuss efforts to stop AIDS.”

From July 18 to 23, Ambassador Eric Goosby, U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator, will lead the U.S. delegation to the XVIII International AIDS Conference in Vienna, Austria. The conference brings together an estimated 25,000 participants, including scientists, health care providers, political, community and business leaders, government, non-governmental and multilateral organization representatives, and people living with HIV/AIDS, to discuss efforts to stop HIV/AIDS. Reflecting America’s leadership in the fight against global AIDS through the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the U.S. will use this opportunity to share data, best practices, and lessons learned from PEPFAR-supported programs with the global community of HIV/AIDS program implementers.

Truth on the sidelines

The only fly in the ointment will be the rather smaller, but more truthful AIDS Knowledge and Dogma – Discerning the Difference: Conditions for the Emergence and Decline of Scientific Theories, Congress, July 16/17 2010, Vienna, Austria running today (Jul 16 Fri) and tomorrow in the same city, announcing in innumerable ways that the whole basis for their work, the supposed science of HIV/AIDS, is hollow at the core, which is one reason why it has got nowhere in 26 years in explaining how AIDS works or curing it. (HIV/AIDS patients treated with the standard drugs in the US are dying at the same rate as ever, 20,000 a year, give or take three thousand (the CDC and the WHO estimates vary)).

Peter Duesberg, whose courage and tenacity in sticking to his guns and the outcome of his impartial reviews utterly rejecting the idea that HIV can be the cause of AIDS sets a rare example in idealistic science in this day and age of journeyman professionals in science who believe whatever everybody else believes, will address the truth telling AIDS confab in Vienna  on Saturday morning at 10.20 am on how the impact of HIV/AIDS on Southern Africa has been indiscernible as the population has gone through the roof over the last decades, contrary to the reporting of the New York Times.Unlike the gargantuan main fair, the AIDS Knowledge and Dogma conference will be an excellent source of accurate information on HIV/AIDS. One might view it as nothing less than a celebration of truth and good science, as verified by the published record in the highest peer reviewed journals. Its basic theme – that HIV does not cause AIDS, and HIV/AIDS is not infectious – has been sounded since 1987 and 1989 in comprehensive reviews which have never been challenged in the same publications, Cancer Research and the Proceedings of the National Academy, let alone refuted there or anywhere else, contrary to the propaganda of all those living off the current dogma.

But will its message calling for a return to good science in AIDS penetrate the noisy ramparts of the celebration of the status quo? The sorry tale of how politics and propaganda have trumped the best published science over the last quarter century in HIV/AIDS bodes ill for the prospects of turning the direction in which the vast crowd of lemmings at the other gathering is running, which is over the cliff of destruction and into the sea of despair, albeit well funded despair.

Can truth prevail in the numbers game?

It really is quite extraordinary how successful the promoters of the established paradigm have been in protecting it from debunkers led by the best man in the field, which is what Peter Duesberg of Berkeley was and is, even now, despite the Nobels given to less deserving rivals which have been used to (a)ward off his critiques.

Remarkable, indeed, given that there are so many books out now, well over thirty at last count, describing this scandal in detail, books by very acute minds with a perfect understanding of the issue, such as Peter Duesberg himself (“Inventing the AIDS Virus, 1996”) the science editor Harvey Bialy (“Oncogenes, Aneuploidy and AIDS: A Scientific Life and Times of Peter H. Duesberg , 2004”), science critic Henry Bauer (“The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory, 2007” ) and the mathematician Rebecca Culshaw (“Science Sold Out, 2007”), two of whom (Duesberg and Bauer) will be speaking in Vienna.

Other distinguished speakers in the program include the worldly ex-Sunday Times investigative science and medicine journalist and author Neville Hodgkinson (AIDS: The Failure of Contemporary Science (Fourth Estate, 1996)), the sharp minded market researcher, author and drug critic John Lauritsen (Death Rush: Poppers and AIDS, “Poison by Prescription: The AZT Story (1990), and The AIDS War” and others), gynaecologist, obstetrician and AIDS in Africa expert Christian Fiala (author of “Do We Love Dangerously? – A Doctor in Search of the Facts and Background to AIDS”), the virus structure electron microscope researcher Etienne de Harven who has just published “Ten Lies About AIDS”, internal medicine specialist and co-author of “Virus Mania: How the Medical Industry Continually Invents Epidemics, Making Billion-Dollar Profits At Our ExpenseClaus Kohnlein (video in French), molecular biologist and radiologist Marco Ruggiero (video) (site), and award winning British science and medicine documentary maker (“AIDS—The Unheard Voices”) Joan Shenton, author of “Positively False: Exposing the myths around HIV and AIDS”. The excellent full length 2009 documentary expose of the rot at the core of the HIV paradigm, “House of Numbers” will be shown, along with a shorter German film from 1996, “AIDS – die grossen Zweifel (AIDS -the huge doubts)”.

But is anyone else listening?

All this material is quite enough to convince anybody listening there in Vienna (or who follows the links above, and reads the fine page of abstracts of the HIV truth conference) that HIV is the Worldcom of science, but the likelihood of it being heard by anyone from the main AIDS event seems remote. For twenty six years the response of everyone in the vast world of HIV/AIDS has been to turn a blind eye to anything which might threaten the central place of HIV in their scheme, and the funding that flows from that idea. As Upton Sinclair once remarked, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

Though the ruling idea that HIV causes AIDS is as vulnerable to debunking as a sucked egg is to a sharp stick, all the king’s horses and all the king’s men of reason and disproof have so far failed to dislodge the Humpty Dumpty of HIV from atop his wall, because none of them can get anywhere near him. No one who matters in the system will discuss the topic.

Of course, the naivete of Presidents, officials, editors, charity celebrities, health workers and the general public when it comes to paradigm battles within science is not helpful. Or perhaps it is not naivete. After all, what recourse do people even in high position normally have to a second opinion in scientific matters, which are beyond their own understanding?

Like even scientists expert in other fields, they have to ask Joe, or Bill, or whomever they know or trust, in the established ranks, and this chain of collegial agreement extends outwards from a very small group of insiders in the know. The number of people in HIV/AIDS who are fully aware of its ramshackle, unbolted theoretical underpinnings can probably be numbered on both hands, and half of them probably refuse to admit even to themselves the weakness of believing that HIV causes AIDS. And as Peter Medawar observed in Advice to a Young Scientist, “a scientist who habitually deceives himself is well on the way toward deceiving others”.

Where is the candidate for change?

Suckered by the HIV/AIDS paradigm promoters: President Obama speaks before signing the $3.4 billion Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act of 2009 on October 30, 2009 in the Diplomatic Room of the White House in Washington, DC.  Is it possible that Obama's success at getting into Ivy League schools made him forget his origins and turned him into an elitist, deaf to signs that the public is being misled?   Or is he simply naive, not having grown up with those that feed in the public trough?   And no, Ryan White did NOT die of AIDS, poor mistreated childIn such conditions it is probably unfair to blame even President Obama for going along with this appalling boondoggle, although a case could be made for expecting more from a sophisticated politician. After all, it was not beyond South Africa’s Thabo Mbeki to realize that if such highly qualified scientists still disagreed over the issue. something must be going on, and to demand open public discussion, if not reconciliation of views. Having examined the issue for himself, it seems clear that he concluded like every other intelligent and objective outsider who comes upon it that there is no reason to believe in the unique absurdities of HIV/AIDS, which are legion.

Not to mention the stark giveaway that in established circles reexamination of the HIV faith is verboten, which is why HIV mythbusters have to hold their conference separately in Vienna, in the Imperial court stables, or Hoffstallungen.

For as any child should be able to see, censoring disapproval of questioning of a belief in science is the mark of vested interests anxious lest the paradigm they are living off get toppled, and a signal of its weakness. The lethal degree of counterattack on anyone who raises doubts in HIV/AIDS is notorious, and the most obvious flag that a can of worms will be exposed if it is opened.

A world where no one reads the science

In a modern world where no one has time to read beyond the headlines of journal articles, and even expert reporters are not paid to do any investigation in scientific disputes, the general public rarely tries to read up on a scientific topic hiding behind mounds of jargon on all sides, and so we have a world where a scientific paradigm can be maintained forever floating on general opinion, maintained by censorship and propaganda and the enthusiastic fellow traveling of activists, and the enormous momentum of tens of thousands of organizations and their need for funding.

The Web, which was meant to save us from institutions and systems which might conceal the truth, has now been exposed as ineffective, despite the growing pile of video clips and now even films on You Tube. The number of attendees tells the story: 25,000 versus probably more than a hundred times less. The chance of change at the grass roots level now seems remoter than ever.

But then, truth is not a numbers game, and science is not a democracy. When will a truth seeking leader look into the matter, and rescue the situation?

Calling Mr Goosby

This is the ceiling of the Vienna Opera House, which might inspire thoughts of rising above materialism and feeding at the public trough in the leaders of HIV/AIDS next week, but on the other hand since opera is fiction it might only inspire them to greater flights of fancy which will pay off at the box office run by the NIH.Will Mr Goosby pass by the Imperial Court Stables, where the AIDS-Knowledge and Dogma congress is being held, despite the not very promising name of this venue, and grasp the baton? Will he report back to President Obama that things may be amiss? Will Michele take an interest, and be put in charge of a new White House AIDS Investigative Unit?

Perhaps the current trend led by New York State surreptitiously to test everyone on the country for HIV will turn up a positive somewhere in the White House power structure, perhaps Mr Goosby himself. Certainly that would provide a personal motivation to reexamine HIV skepticism on his part, at least, if he has heard of it at all.

Certainly if he ever troubled to read Peter Duesberg’s book or site, or Rebecca Culshaw’s slim but powerful book, Goosby would be privately persuaded, we feel. But who in this Blackberry era has time to read any book? And who in a world of overwhelming consensus would think that contrarian views are worth reading, especially one atop the pyramid of power, privilege and pay generated by that consensus for 26 years? Probably not Mr Goosby, even if his alternative was the drug regime that increasingly is used to attack the health of blacks here and in Africa.

Moore pipes down

I am John Moore, and I detest this blog, even though I admit it is well written and civil, because it is a denialist blog, which is my favorite word for those who doubt my favorite paradigm, that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS, who deserve only the most vicious attacks, including calling up their universities or employers and trying to get them fired, because this is a very dangerous way of thinking, which might put off patients from taking their drugs, not to mention my leadership of HIV microbicide research.  Meanwhile, we note that lately John P. Moore of Weill Medical College at Cornell, the lead propagandist in HIV/AIDS science notorious for attacking HIV skeptics as viciously as he possibly can (by his own account), has kept out of the limelight, so we doubt that he will be in Vienna hosting a panel on why the media should be censored of any mention of doubts about HIV, as he did in Toronto.

After all, the NIH listing of grants in 2009 in HIV/AIDS has him busy as the grantee of some eight projects amounting to $2,171,570 (click on PIName heading, then seek page 14).

All of them seem to be related to microbicides, where his last major result was that his microbicide actually assisted the passage of HIV, as we recall.

We doubt that the funding of the alternative AIDS – Knowledge and Dogma conference amounts to anywhere near this sum. Were we in charge at NIAID, however, we would allocate $2 million to it, and $20 million immediately to Duesberg, whose line of research in cancer seems more promising that the entire oncogene industry put together.

UPDATE: Russian English speaking TV has run segments featuring HIV Mythbusters during the week – see AIDS: questions remain unanswered – Jul 18 story with 8 video clips embedded. . (Thanks Carter and Questioning AIDS Forum where a couple more videos will be found of Neville Hodgkinson on YouTube from Russia Today and CrossTalk on the AIDS Industry – a TV news segment panel including Peter Duesberg.

Duesberg wins crossfire panel: The last one – Cross Talk – is a must see with Duesberg in a Crossfire type discussion where two stalwart defenders of the faith one from UNAIDS and one from the pharma side are pitted against Duesberg, who they try to repel as “dangerous” and a “murderer” 25 years out of date with his valid (they admit) complaints about AZT killing all the patients, but he is given adequate time to counter them by pointing out that his complaints are drawn from JAMA and the NEJ in the last few years where half (of the 17,000 (CDC) to 21,000 (UN) dying annually) AIDS victims in the US are now dying of symptoms not of AIDS but of drug toxicity, and is given the last victorious word on the topic with that unanswerable point.

A creditable performance by the news host, who did his research beforehand, it is clear, unlike almost all well paid interviewers and producers in the country which spawned this outrage to science, medicine and common sense.

Seaside Conference Reexamines HIV and AIDS

November 6th, 2009

Fine speaker line-up will brief all comers on hollowness of HIV wisdom

Duesberg and Geshekter on why African claims make no sense

Media are invited, but will they come?

The Waterfront Plaza Hotel in Oakland is a palace of enlightenment over this weekend as authorities on the vexed issue of why HIV/AIDS beliefs make no scientific or common sense at all hold forth for two day of conferencing, including Peter Duesberg himselfsA gathering of luminaries in the movement to review the current dogma in HIV/AIDS is meeting today, tomorrow and Sunday morning (Nov 6-8) at the Waterfront Plaza Hotel, Jack London Square, Oakland, California. Media are invited to all conference sessions including the documentary screening on Saturday afternoon at 4.30 of House of Numbers, and the cocktails after the keynote lecture today, Friday (Nov 6).

The speakers will include Peter Duesberg, the Berkeley professor who has stood against the paradigm for 22 years, John Lauritsen, the Harvard graduate and market researcher and author of AIDS: Death by Prescription, Etienne de Harven, expert on electron microscopy, David Rasnick, Henry Bauer, Charles Geshekter, Klaus Koehnlein, Robert Giraldo, Joan Shenton, and Tony Lance. Panelists will include Celia Farber and Gary Null, and the keynote speaker is Michael Tracy professor at the School of Journalism at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Tracy is a specialist in media issues, public broadcasting and “the injustice of the American justice system.” Several years ago he said, “the news about AIDS was flagrantly wrong in fact and interpretation, but hugely successful in constructing a prevailing understanding, locking into modern consciousness the belief that here was one more bug to threaten us all.”

Here are the speakers biographies together with the abstracts of the talks (English and Spanish) (hit the icon, which is meant to display as a show button).


David Crowe
David Crowe is a science critic and writer based in Calgary, Canada. He has a degree in biology and mathematics and has written extensively on HIV/AIDS, failures of modern medicine and telecommunications. He was one of the founders of the Green Party of Alberta, and is president of Rethinking AIDS and the Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society.

Michael Tracey
Professor Michael Tracey has been Professor in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Colorado at Boulder since 1988. From 1981 to 1988 he was head of the London based Broadcasting Research Unit, then Britain’s leading think tank dealing with media issues. He received his Bachelor’s degree in Politics from the University of Exeter in 1971, and his doctorate from the Centre for Mass Communications Research at the University of Leicester in 1975. From 1975 to 1981 he was a Research Fellow at the Leicester Centre. Tracey has written eight books, including his 1983 biography of Sir Hugh Greene, Director General of the BBC from 1960 to1969, “A Variety of Lives; a Biography of Sir Hugh Greene” (Bodley Head) and his 1998 book, “The Decline and Fall of Public Service Broadcasting” (Oxford University Press.) Tracey has also written scores of articles on many different aspects of media and communication, but most notably dealing with the history, condition and future of public service broadcasting. He has also lectured in many different countries. From 1991 to 1998 he was a Trustee of the International Institute of Communications, and from 1994 to 1999, Visiting Professor and Chair of International Communications at the University of Salford. More recently he has produced documentaries, with his friend and colleague David Mills, and their work has appeared in the UK on Channel Four, ITV, and the American networks CBS, Court TV and A&E. They are currently – 2009 – developing a documentary series that will profile the lives of successful men who never knew their fathers. In 2008 he published his first e-book on “From Xmas to August: an Essay on Murder, Media Mayhem and the Condition of the Culture” is about his decade-long involvement in the case of JonBenet Ramsey. He is currently working on a book of essays, “The Inner Moonlight: Literacy, Culture and the Future of Democracy” and writing the authorized biography of the life and times of the legendary British broadcaster Donald Baverstock. He lives with his wife, Jen, three dogs, Beau, Jess and Babe and his cat Miss Bardot, in a small hamlet at 9,000 feet in the Rocky Mountains west of Boulder.

Keynote Lecture
The talk reflects on a number of subjects and issues that confront not just the discourse around Aids, though that will be front and center, but also other areas of discourse. Taking a historical perspective the talk will consider the confluence of forces—political, medical-industrial, cultural—which so effectively closed down ways of thinking that did not accept the HIV-Aids hypothesis. It will suggest that here was a potent example—but far from being the only one—of the extraordinary capacity of key institutions and actors to shape the public imagination, to establish “understandings” in the public mind, to lead that public to see “this” way rather than “that,” with immense consequences for fashioning public policies that rest on ignorance not knowledge, and that serve particular interests but not the public interest. It will point to the way in which the cultural apparatus employs a political economy of fear because fear, like blood, sells, is something the public understands and seems to need: fear of the “other,”—think Muslim—of “death panels,” of “socialism, Marxism, fascism” often uttered in the same sentence, and fear of “the bug” that is going to decimate human kind. In other words, “fear” however perversely, has a crude fiscal utility: it sells. The talk will finally argue that in many ways one might see in the way in which the discourse around Aids evolved, or didn’t, of how counter-discourses were so successfully closed down a harbinger of what America has become, a closing down of the rational mind, a casting aside of the pursuit of truth and understanding, and their replacement with the almost willful pursuit of ignorance so long as that comports with, and feeds, distressed emotional needs as well as political and economic interests. In other words, the repressing of open discourse about HIV-Aids was yet one example of a society in deep betrayal of the vision of its founders, that a democratic society needs rational, open, honest debate if it is to thrive. There is, in effect, as the literary critic Lionel Trilling put it, a “moral obligation to be intelligent,” not blinkered, biased, closed minded.
Conferencia principal
La ponencia reflexionará sobre un número de cuestiones y temas que no se enfrentan exclusivamente al discurso en torno al SIDA, aunque será central y principal, si no también a otros discursos. Desde una perspectiva histórica, la charla considerará aquella convergencia de fuerzas – políticas, médico-industriales, culturales – que tan eficazmente bloqueó la manera de pensar de aquellos que no aceptaban la hipótesis VIH-SIDA. La charla sugerirá que este es un ejemplo fuerte – aunque lejos de ser el único – de la extraordinaria capacidad de la que disponen las instituciones y los protagonistas claves a la hora de determinar la imaginación pública para establecer “interpretaciones” en la mentalidad pública y para guiar a aquel sector del público a ver “esta” vía en vez de “aquella”. Asimismo, las inmensas consecuencias que esto tiene a la hora de diseñar unas políticas que se apoyan en la ignorancia en lugar del conocimiento, y que sirven a intereses particulares en lugar de intereses públicos. Indicará la manera por la cual el aparato cultural emplea la política económica del miedo, ya que el miedo, al igual que la sangre, vende, siendo esto algo que el público entiende y parece necesitar: miedo al “otro”, – piensen en musulmán – a los “death panels”, al “socialismo, marxismo, fascismo” pronunciados con frecuencia dentro de la misma frase, y miedo al “bicho” que va a diezmar al ser humano. En otras palabras, el “miedo” por perverso que sea, tiene una dura utilidad fiscal: vende. Por último, la charla argumentará que uno puede ver de muchas maneras la forma en la cual el discurso en torno al SIDA evolucionó, o no lo hizo, y como los discursos en contra de la corriente oficial fueron bloqueados con tanto éxito, siendo esto precursor de lo que los EE.UU. ha llegado a convertirse. Es decir, un cerramiento de la mente racional, un dejar de lado la búsqueda de la verdad y el conocimiento, y como esto fue substituido por la casi intencionada búsqueda de la ignorancia con el fin de que ello corresponda y alimente las necesidades emocionales afligidas además de intereses económicos y políticos. En otras palabras, la represión del discurso abierto sobre el VIH-SIDA fue un ejemplo más de una sociedad en profunda traición a la visión de sus fundadores, es decir, que la sociedad democrática necesita un debate racional, abierto y honesto para prosperar. Hay, de hecho, como el crítico literario Lionel Trilling lo expuso, la “obligación moral de ser inteligentes,” sin estrecheces de miras y sin ser parciales ni cerrados de mente.

John Lauritsen
John Lauritsen graduated from Harvard in 1963. He is a writer, retired survey research analyst, gay liberationist, AIDS dissident, and freethinker. His first major AIDS article, “CDC’s Tables Obscure AIDS-Drugs Connection”, was published in February 1985. Beginning in 1986 he wrote for the New York Native, which in eleven years would publish over fifty of his articles. His AIDS-dissident books include Death Rush: Poppers & AIDS (1986), AZT: Poison by Prescription (1990), The AIDS War (1993) and (co-edited with Ian Young) The AIDS Cult: Essays on the gay health crisis (1997).

History of AIDS controversy spanning three decades
This talk will analyze the underlying premises and assumptions of “AIDS”, a protean construct rather than a coherent disease entity. Particular attention will be paid to gay men, the group most targeted by the AIDS Industry, with a discussion of gay media, AIDS organizations, and the premier gay drug, “poppers” (nitrite inhalants).
Historia de la controversia SIDA que ya abarca tres décadas
Esta ponencia analizará las premisas subyacentes y las suposiciones sobre el “SIDA”, una invención de extremada variabilidad más que una coherente entidad patológica. Se prestará particular atención a los hombres gays, el grupo que más ha estado en el punto de mira de la industria SIDA, con un debate sobre los medios de comunicación gays, organizaciones del SIDA, y la droga gay por excelencia, los “poppers” (inhaladores de nitritos).

Peter Duesberg
Peter H. Duesberg, Ph.D. is a professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley. He isolated the first cancer gene through his work on retroviruses in 1970, and mapped the genetic structure of these viruses. This, and his subsequent work in the same field, resulted in his election to the National Academy of Sciences in 1986. He is also the recipient of a seven-year Outstanding Investigator Grant from the National Institutes of Health. On the basis of his experience with retroviruses, Duesberg has challenged the virus-AIDS hypothesis in the pages of such journals as Cancer Research, Lancet, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Science, Nature, Journal of AIDS, AIDS Forschung, Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapeutics, New England Journal of Medicine and Research in Immunology. He has instead proposed the hypothesis that the various American/European AIDS diseases are brought on by the long-term consumption of recreational drugs and/or AZT itself, which is prescribed to prevent or treat AIDS. Since 1996, he has published extensively on the chromosomal (aneuploidy) theory of cancer.

HIV-AIDS hypothesis out of touch with South African AIDS — a new perspective
A recent study by Chigwedere et al., “Estimating the Lost Benefits of Antiretroviral Drug Use in South Africa”, claims that during the period from 2000 to 2005 about 300,000 South African deaths from AIDS per year could have been prevented by available anti-HIV drugs. The study blamed those who question the hypothesis that the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) is the cause of AIDS, particularly former South African President Thabo Mbeki and Peter Duesberg, for not preventing these deaths by anti-HIV treatments such as the DNA chain-terminator AZT and the HIV DNA inhibitor Nevirapine. Here we ask, (1) What evidence exists for the huge losses of South African lives from HIV claimed by the Chigwedere study? (2) What evidence exists that South Africans would have benefited from anti-HIV drugs? We found that vital statistics from South Africa reported about 12,000 HIV-positive deaths per year between 2000-2005. This figure is 25-times lower than the 300,000 lives per year estimated by Chigwedere et al. Moreover, the US Census Bureau and South Africa reported that the South African population had increased by 3 million during the period from 2000 to 2005 instead of suffering losses, growing from 44.5 to 47.5 million, even though 25-30% were positive for antibodies against HIV. A similar discrepancy was found between claims for a devastating AIDS epidemic in Uganda and a simultaneous explosive growth in its population. We conclude that the claims that HIV has caused huge losses of lives are unconfirmed and that HIV is not sufficient or even necessary to cause the previously known diseases, now called AIDS when antibody against HIV is detected. Further we call into question the claim that HIV antibody-positives would benefit from anti-HIV drugs, because these drugs are inevitably toxic and because there is as yet no proof that HIV causes AIDS.

La hipótesis VIH-SIDA anticuada ante el SIDA sudafricano — una nueva perspectiva
Un estudio reciente por Chigwedere et al., “Calculando los beneficios desaprovechados por el uso de medicamentos antiretrovirales en Sur África”, afirma que durante el periodo del 2000 al 2005 se podían haber prevenido aproximadamente 300,000 muertes anuales de SIDA en Sur África a través de los medicamentos anti-VIH disponibles. El estudio culpó a aquellos que cuestionan la hipótesis de que el virus de inmunodeficiencia humana (VIH) es la causa del SIDA, particularmente al anterior presidente sudafricano Thabo Mbeki y Peter Duesberg, por no prevenir aquellas muertes a través de tratamientos anti-VIH como son el terminador de cadenas de ADN el AZT y el inhibidor de ADN del VIH el Nevirapine. Nuestra pregunta aquí es, (1) ¿Qué evidencia existe sobre la gran cantidad de muertes en Sur África por el VIH que afirma el estudio Chigwedere? (2) ¿Qué evidencia existe de que los sudafricanos podían haberse beneficiado por medicamentos anti-VIH? Vemos que las estadísticas vitales de Sur África notificaron aproximadamente 12,000 muertes anuales por VIH entre el 2000 y el 2005. Esta cifra es 25 veces menor que las 300,000 muertes anuales calculadas por Chigwedere et al. Además, el US Census Bureau y Sur África documentaron que la población sudafricana en lugar de sufrir pérdidas incrementó en 3 millones de personas durante el periodo de 2000 a 2005, creciendo de 44.5 a 47.5 millones, incluso cuando del 25-30% dieron positivos a anticuerpos contra el VIH. Una discrepancia similar se halló en las afirmaciones sobre una devastadora epidemia de SIDA en Uganda y simultáneamente un crecimiento explosivo de su población. Llegamos a la conclusión de que las afirmaciones que el VIH ha causado gran cantidad de muertes no están confirmadas, y que el VIH no es suficiente o ni siquiera necesario para causar las enfermedades ya conocidas y ahora llamadas SIDA cuando van acompañadas de la detección de anticuerpos contra el VIH. Más aun, hacemos un llamamiento a que se cuestione la afirmación de que las personas seropositivas se beneficiarían de medicamentos anti-VIH, ya que estos medicamentos son inevitablemente tóxicos y porque todavía no hay prueba de que el VIH cause el SIDA.

Etienne de Harven
Etienne De Harven obtained his M.D. degree in 1953 from the Université Libre de Bruxelles, (where he later became “Professeur Agrégé” in Pathology). He specialized in electron microscopy at the “Institut du Cancer” in Paris. In 1956, he joined Charlotte Friend’s team at the Sloan Kettering Institute in New York, the largest cancer research center in the United States, where he was in charge of electron microscopy research. It was there that he produced the world’s first description of a retrovirus budding on the surface of infected cells. He served as President of the Electron Microscopy Society of America in 1976. In 1981, he was appointed Professor of pathology and director of the electron microscopy laboratory at the University of Toronto, Canada, where he researched the marking of antigens on the surface of lymphocytes. He is former President of Rethinking Aids (2005-2008), a group comprising over 2600 scientists and other re-thinkers who refute the viral origin of AIDS. He recently published Ten Lies About AIDS

Questioning the Existence of HIV
Most unfortunately, AIDS Rethinkers have recently appeared divided on the issue of the existence or of the non-existence of HIV, one group claiming that HIV exists but is a harmless, passenger virus, while the other group asserts simply that HIV does not exist. Neither of these two stands is compatible with available scientific evidence.
Claiming a harmless passenger is not consistent with the name HIV that implies a causal relationship with immunodeficiency, a most serious pathological condition. Asserting simply that HIV does not exist is a fragile position that can hardly account for 1) the fact that typical retrovirus particles illustrated in the 1983, Barré-Sinoussi et al. Science paper, and 2) the fact that retroviral nucleic acid sequences are routinely amplified by PCR methodologies in attempts to measure an hypothetical viral load in AIDS patients.
Obviously, an alternative analysis is urgently needed that is consistent with all the scientifically published evidence. Human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs) provide such an alternative analysis that can no longer be ignored. As stated by myself in Pretoria in 2000, nobody has ever demonstrated by EM retroviral particles in the blood of patients tagged as presenting with a high viral load. An award, offered to whomever would demonstrate the opposite, has never been claimed. However, harmless viruses, when existing, are just as readily visualized by EM as pathogenic ones. The fact that they have never been observed in high viral load blood samples is therefore significant.
In conclusion, HERVs have interfered with HIV/AIDS research. Facing this fact makes it possible to correct several miss-interpretations that stand at the roots of the current HIV/AIDS dogma. Recognizing the role of HERVs in a coherent analysis of available data shall restore RA’s scientific credibility, consolidate a united front for RA, and provide RA with the strength of fundamentally redirecting AIDS research, far away from hypothetical exogenous retroviruses.
Cuestionando la existencia del VIH
Desafortunadamente, los “disidentes” del SIDA se han mostrado recientemente divididos sobre el tema de la “existencia” o “no existencia” del VIH. Mientras que un grupo alega que el “VIH existe pero es un virus inofensivo y pasajero”, el otro grupo simplemente afirma que “el VIH no existe”. Ninguna de estas dos posturas es compatible con la evidencia científica disponible.
Alegar que es “un pasajero inofensivo” no es coherente con la denominación “VIH” ya que esta implica una relación causal con la inmunodeficiencia, una condición patológica muy seria. Afirmar simplemente que el VIH no existe es una posición frágil y que apenas puede explicar 1) el hecho de que el artículo de Science de 1983 por Barré-Sinoussi et al. estuviese ilustrado por partículas típicas de retrovirus, y 2) el hecho de que se amplifiquen rutinariamente secuencias de ácido nucleico retroviral usando metodologías basadas en PCR con el fin de medir una hipotética carga viral en pacientes de SIDA.
Obviamente, se necesita con urgencia un análisis alternativo que sea coherente con toda la evidencia científica publicada. Los retrovirus endógenos humanos (HERVs) proporcionan dicho análisis alternativo que no puede seguir ignorado durante más tiempo.
Como indiqué en Pretoria en el 2000, nadie ha demostrado mediante EM la presencia de partículas retrovirales en la sangre de pacientes etiquetados como portadores de una carga viral alta. Nunca se ha reclamado un premio que se ofrecía a cualquiera que demostrase lo contrario. Sin embargo, mediante EM, los virus “inofensivos”, cuando existen, se visualizan con la misma facilidad que los que son patógenos. Por lo tanto, es significativo el hecho de que nunca se hayan observado en muestras de sangre con una carga viral alta.
En conclusión, los HERVs han interferido con la investigación sobre VIH/SIDA. Afrontar este hecho hace posible corregir varias interpretaciones erróneas que se levantan sobre las raíces del actual dogma del VIH/SIDA. En un análisis coherente de la información disponible, reconocer el papel que juegan los HERVs restaurará la credibilidad científica de RA, consolidará un frente unido para RA y proporcionará a RA la fuerza, fundamentalmente, para redirigir la investigación del SIDA, lejos de los retrovirus hipotéticos.

Charles Geshekter
Charles Geshekter is Emeritus Professor of African history at California State University, Chico. After earning his Ph.D. in History from UCLA, Geshekter has held three Fulbright Awards and his African field research was supported by grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities, Ford Foundation and Social Science Research Council. His publications examine various aspects of modern Somali history, techniques of documentary film making, and reappraising the AIDS epidemic in Africa. Geshekter helped to establish the Somali Studies International Association, coordinated its first conference in Mogadishu in 1980, and co-edited the Proceedings of the 1st Congress of Somali Studies. During the United Nations intervention in Somalia, Geshekter was news analyst for CBS National Radio Network, KRON-TV/San Francisco, PBS, and numerous radio stations. In 1985, he produced a PBS documentary, “The Parching Winds of Somalia” for WQED-TV. Portions of the film were included in a McNeil-Lehrer NewsHour special program, “Somalia: Anatomy of a Tragedy” that was nominated for a 1993 Emmy Award. Geshekter was Program Coordinator for the 1989 Meeting of the American Association for Advancement of Science/Pacific Division. From 1991-95, he served as Chairman for its History of Science Section and was on its Executive Council. In 1996, he was Chief Policy Advisor on Education Finance for the California State Assembly. He has worked for the Department of Justice as a consultant and researcher on African immigration issues. From 2000 to 2003, Geshekter was a member of the South African Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel.

The Deception and Dishonesty of African AIDS Statistics
For over 25 years, the media has bombarded the public with a barrage of figures purporting to tally AIDS cases and AIDS deaths in Africa. This presentation examines the empirical basis for those numbers and critiques the methodology used by AIDS agencies and its researchers to gather such data, interpret its meaning, and then use dubious statistics as the basis for requesting ever increasing amounts of funding.
As an example of how bogus claims come to form the basis to solicit funds and initiate interventions into African societies, the author will critique the findings of prominent AIDS investigators, published in The Lancet (2007-2008), that purported to show how male circumcision in Kenya and Uganda reduced a male’s chances of contracting HIV.
Fraude y engaño de las estadísticas del SIDA africano
Durante más de 25 años, los medios de comunicación han bombardeado al público con un aluvión de cifras pretendiendo cuadrar casos de SIDA con muertes por SIDA en África. Esta ponencia examina las bases empíricas de esos números y critica la metodología usada por los organismos oficiales del SIDA y sus investigadores para reunir tales datos, interpretar su significado y luego utilizar dudosas estadísticas como base para solicitar cada vez una mayor financiación.
A modo de ejemplo de como afirmaciones falsas llegan a formar la base para recaudar fondos e iniciar intervenciones en las sociedades africanas, la ponencia critica los hallazgos de destacados investigadores sobre el SIDA, publicados en The Lancet (2007-2008), que pretendieron demostrar como la circuncisión masculina en Kenya y Uganda reducía las probabilidades de contraer el VIH en varones.

Christian Fiala
Dr. Christian Fiala is a gynaecologist and obstetrician and currently working in Vienna, but has extensive experience in Thailand and Africa. April, 2007, he established the Museum of Contraception and Abortion. For almost 20 years he has been following critically the scientific and political discussion on the epidemiological aspects of AIDS and contributed actively. He was a member of the Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel in South Africa. Dr. Fiala has published many papers focused on the problems of AIDS in Africa and the definition of AIDS. is the author of the book “Do We Love Dangerously? – A Doctor in Search of the Facts and Background to AIDS” (Lieben wir gefaehrlich? – Ein Arzt auf der Suche nach den Fakten und Hintergruenden von AIDS) (1997); and the article in English, Aids: are we being deceived?

Aids in Africa — a call for sense not hysteria

“Can Africa be saved?” asked Newsweek on it’s front page as far back as 1984, reflecting the old Western belief that Africa is doomed to starvation, terror, disaster and death. This was repeated two years later in an article in the same journal in a story about Aids in Africa. The title set the scene: “Africa in the Plague Years”. The World Health Organization (WHO) confirmed “by mid-1991 an estimated 1.5 million Ugandans, or about 9% of the general population and 20% of the sexually active population, had HIV infection”. Similar reports were repeatedly published during the last 25 years. The predictions announced the practically inevitable collapse of the country in which the worldwide epidemic supposedly originated.
Today, however, one reads little about Aids in Uganda because all prophesies have proved false. Summing up, the Uganda Bureau of Statistics reported the results of the (ten-year) census in September 2002: “Uganda’s population grew at an average annual rate of 3.4% between 1991 and 2002. The high rate of population growth is mainly due to the persistently high fertility levels (about seven children per woman) that have been observed for the past four decades. The decline in mortality reflected by a decline in Infant and Childhood Mortality Rates as revealed by the Uganda Demographic and Health Surveys (UDHS) of 1995 and 2000-2001, have also contributed to the high population growth rate.” In other words, the already high population growth in Uganda has further increased over the past 10 years and is now among the highest in the world. Similarly economic development has shown a constant growth over the same period reflecting the energy and determination of Ugandans to improve their living conditions.
It is long overdue that we recognize obvious facts proving that all predictions about an Aids epidemic in Africa have been wrong because they were based on erroneous assumption. Consequently budgets need to be redirected so that they meet the actual needs of the local population. Furthermore, individuals and organizations who have deliberately taken advantage of the hysteria they helped to create, need to be held accountable.

Sida en África — una llamada a la razón, no a la histeria
“¿Se puede salvar a África?” preguntaba Newsweek en su portada remontándose a 1984, reflejando la creencia de occidente que África está condenada a la hambruna, el terror, el desastre y la muerte. Esto se repitió dos años después en un artículo de la misma publicación incluido en un reportaje sobre SIDA en África. El título preparaba la escena: “Äfrica en los años de plaga”. La Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) confirmaba que “para mediados de 1991 se calcula que 1,5 millones de ugandeses, o aproximadamente el 9% de su población general y el 20% de su población sexualmente activa, tendrían infección por VIH”. Se han publicado informes similares de manera repetida durante los últimos 25 años. Las predicciones anunciaban el colapso prácticamente inevitable del país en el que supuestamente originó la epidemia mundial.
Hoy, sin embargo, se lee poco sobre el SIDA en Uganda. Porque todas las predicciones han resultado ser falsas. Resumiendo, el Uganda Bureau of Statistics notificó los resultados de un censo (de 10 años) en setiembre de 2002: “La población de Uganda creció a un ritmo medio anual de 3.4% entre 1991 y 2002. El alto índice de crecimiento de la población es debido principalmente a los continuos altos niveles de fertilidad (aproximadamente siete hijos por mujer) que se han observado en las pasadas cuatro décadas. El descenso en mortalidad reflejado por el descenso en los índices de mortalidad infantil tal y como muestran el Uganda Demographic and Health Surveys (UDHS) de 1995 y 2000-2001, también han contribuido al alto indice de crecimiento de la población.” En otras palabras, el ya existente alto índice de crecimiento de la población en Uganda ha incrementado aún más en los últimos 10 años, encuentrándose ahora entre los más altos del mundo. Igualmente, el desarrollo económico ha demostrado un crecimiento constante en el mismo periodo reflejando la energía y determinación de los ugandeses para mejorar sus condiciones de vida.
Hace mucho tiempo que se debió reconocer hechos obvios que prueban que todas las predicciones sobre la epidemia SIDA en África han sido erróneas porque estaban basadas en asunciones erróneas. Por consiguiente, los presupuestos deben ser redirigidos para que cumplan con las necesidades actuales de la población local. Más aun, se deben pedir cuentas a individuos y organizaciones que se han aprovechado deliberadamente de la histeria que ayudaron a crear.

Roberto Giraldo
Roberto Giraldo MD, Specialist in internal medicine, infectious, immunological and tropical diseases from Universities of Antioquia (Colombia), Kansas and London. Independent AIDS researcher since 1981. Worked with the so-called HIV tests for 13 years at New York Hospital, Cornell Medical Center. Author of several critical articles and books on AIDS. Former President of rethinking AIDS. Currently is Director of the Department of Psychosomatic Medicine of the International Society of Analytical Trilogy in São Paulo, Brazil. and

The role of the inner pharmacy in the prevention and treatment of AIDS
A short review of the literature on the Psychoneuroimmunology of AIDS. 1. The role of negative emotions on the genesis of seropositivity and on the development of AIDS. Description of the main personality characteristics, both in rich and poor countries, needed to develop seropositivity and AIDS. 2. Experience dealing with seropositive individuals and patients with AIDS indicates that external therapies, even natural measures, have very little value in the prevention and treatment of AIDS. The real 1healing comes from our inner doctor also known as our inner pharmacy. Revealing the power of consciousness in dealing with seropositivity and AIDS.
El papel de la farmacia interior en la prevención y tratamiento del SIDA
Breve revisión a la literatura sobre la psiconeuroinmunología del SIDA. 1. El papel negativo de las emociones en la génesis de la seropositividad y en el desarrollo del SIDA. Descripción de las principales características de personalidad, tanto en los países ricos como en los pobres, que son necesarias para desarrollar seropositividad y SIDA. 2. La experiencia en el trato con individuos seropositivos y pacientes con SIDA indica que las terapias externas, incluidas las medidas naturales, tienen muy poco valor a la hora de prevenir y tratar el SIDA. La verdadera curación viene de nuestro médico interior también conocido como farmacia interior. Mostrándose el poder de la conciencia a la hora de tratar con la seropositividad y el SIDA.

David Rasnick
David Rasnick received a PhD in chemistry (organic and biochemistry) from the Georgia Institute of Technology, a BS in Biology and a BS in chemistry. He has over 20 years experience in the pharmaceutical/biotech industry working on cancer, emphysema, arthritis, and parasitic diseases. He is former President of Rethinking AIDS: the group for the scientific reappraisal of the HIV hypothesis and former President of the International Coalition for Medical Justice. He was a member of the Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel of South Africa. He published Germ of Lies, a scientifically accurate but reader-friendly novel depicting of the AIDS blunder. Since 1996 he has been working closely with Peter Duesberg at University of California at Berkeley on the aneuploidy (or chromosomal imbalance) theory of cancer.

HIV drugs causing AIDS
It has never been shown that adults or children or fetuses in the womb taking the anti-HIV drugs live longer or at least better lives than a similar group of people not taking the drugs. On the contrary, there is ample evidence that ARVs cause AIDS-defining and other diseases and death. To hide this fact, the AIDS orthodoxy has come up with yet another syndrome given the oxymoronic name Immune Reconstitution Syndrome or IRS. The diseases of IRS are identical with the list of AIDS-defining diseases. IRS is nothing other than AIDS caused by the antiretroviral drugs.
Los medicamentos anti-VIH causan SIDA
Nunca se ha demostrado que ni adultos, ni niños, ni fetos en el útero tomando los medicamentos anti-VIH vivan más o por lo menos mejores vidas que un grupo similar de personas que no los tomen. Por el contrario, hay abundante evidencia de que los ARV causan enfermedades definitorias de SIDA además de otras enfermedades y la muerte. Para ocultar este hecho, otro síndrome más ha surgido por parte de la ortodoxia del SIDA, dándole el nombre oximorónico de Síndrome de Reconstitución Inmunológica o IRS (siglas en inglés). Las enfermedades del IRS son idénticas a las enumeradas en la lista de enfermedades definitorias de SIDA. El IRS no es más que SIDA causado por los fármacos antiretrovirales.

Claus Koehnlein
Claus Köhnlein received his MD in 1982 from the University of Kiel, Germany. From 1983-92, he trained in internal medicine in the Department of Oncology at the University of Kiel. Since 1993, he has been practicing internal medicine in Kiel and treating HIV-positive patients who are critical of antiviral treatment. Co-author of Virus Mania:

The treatment dilemma of HIV-positive patients as a result of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. The illusion of antiviral treatment.
The study that eventually led to FDA approval of AZT in 1987 was terminated after only 4 months because the treated group seemed to do better than the placebo group. In the following years, however, the mortality in both groups rose significantly. Most physicians thought that this was due to the HIV infection. However, it soon became clear that the recommended dosage of 1.5 g of AZT caused severe bone marrow suppression (AIDS by Prescription) and was killing large numbers of AIDS patients. The dosage of AZT was reduced several times to lower its toxicity and the mortality of patients taking the drug began to decline. Unfortunately, the decline in the mortality was wrongly attributed to the life-saving benefits of AZT (Pallela, 1998). In the mid 1990s, new treatments such as the HIV protease inhibitors were introduced. The HIV protease inhibitors turned out to be very good against fungal infections. The combinations of the cytotoxic antiviral drugs plus protease inhibitors are antibiotic treatments in the true sense of the word—they are anti-life. This may account for their successful short term effects in treating bacterial, viral and protozoal infections. Thus, the symptoms due to infectious diseases that are called AIDS in the presence of a positive HIV-test may improve when the drugs are first used. But soon, the combinations of anti-HIV drugs damage the liver, kidney, central nervous system and bone marrow, which is the very source of the immune system. It would be much better to treat the specific infectious diseases (e.g. TB) with recognized specific treatments instead of using the inevitably toxic anti-life cocktails.
El dilema del tratamiento de personas VIH-positivas como consecuencia de la hipótesis VIH-SIDA: La ilusión del tratamiento antiretroviral.
El estudio que finalmente llevó a la FDA a aprobar el AZT en 1987 se concluyó en sólo 4 meses, dado que el grupo bajo tratamiento parecía reaccionar mejor que el grupo placebo. Sin embargo, en los años siguientes la mortalidad en ambos grupos incrementó considerablemente. La mayoría de médicos pensó que eso era debido a la infección por VIH. Sin embargo, pronto se hizo evidente que la dosis recomendada de 1.5g de AZT causaba supresión severa de la médula ósea (SIDA recetado) y estaba matando a una gran cantidad de pacientes con SIDA. La dosis de AZT se redujo varias veces con el fin de bajar su toxicidad y la mortalidad de pacientes tomando el medicamento empezó a reducirse. Desafortunadamente, el descenso en la mortalidad fue erróneamente atribuido a los beneficios salva-vidas del AZT (Pallela, 1998). A mediados de la década de los 90, se introdujeron nuevos tratamientos como los inhibidores de proteasa. Los inhibidores de proteasa resultaron ser muy efectivos contra infecciones fúngicas. La combinación de medicamentos antivirales citotóxicos e inhibidores de proteasa son tratamientos antibióticos en el verdadero sentido de la palabra – son antivida. Esto podría explicar sus exitosos efectos a corto plazo a la hora de tratar infecciones por protozoas e infecciones bacterianas y virales. Por consiguiente, los síntomas debidos a enfermedades infecciosas, llamadas SIDA cuando van acompañadas de un resultado positivo a un test de VIH, podrían mejorar cuando los medicamentos son utilizados por primera vez. Sin embargo, las combinaciones de los medicamentos anti-VIH pronto dañan el hígado, los riñones, el sistema nervioso central, y la médula ósea que es la verdadera fuente del sistema inmune. Sería mucho mejor tratar aquellas determinadas enfermedades infecciosas (por ejemplo, tuberculosis) con tratamientos específicos reconocidos para dichas enfermedades, en vez de usar los inevitables cócteles tóxicos anti-vida.

Henry Bauer
Henry H. Bauer earned his Ph.D. in 1956 from the University of Sydney. He was trained as an electrochemist and reported his research in numerous publications. He is emeritus professor of chemistry and science studies, and emeritus dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. After his retirement in 1999, he was editor-in-chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration from 2000 to 2007. You can find details about his book The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory at; the book collates and analyzes, for the first time, the results of more than two decades of HIV testing, revealing that common assumptions about HIV and AIDS are incompatible with the published data. Links to his other books are at His home page is

HIV/AIDS blunder is far from unique in the annals of science and medicine
I believe an enormous hindrance to Rethinking is that most people find it incredible that “everyone” could be so wrong about this for so long, but the history of science and medical science in particular shows it’s far from atypical. This wider historical context also has potential lessons for how the mainstream consensus might eventually be overturned.
El gran error VIH/SIDA está lejos de ser el único en los anales de la ciencia y la medicina
Creo que un enorme obstáculo para Repensar es que a la mayoría de la gente le parece increíble que “todo el mundo” pueda estar tan equivocado acerca de este asunto durante tanto tiempo. Sin embargo, la historia de la ciencia y la ciencia médica en particular, demuestra que está lejos de ser atípico. Este contexto histórico más amplio también ofrece lecciones potenciales sobre cómo puede ser derrocado finalmente el consenso de la opinión pública dominante.

Christopher Black
Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer and political activist based in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. He has been involved in high-profile human rights cases investigating alleged war crimes and defending those accused of these crimes in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. Black is currently defending Augustin Ndindiliyimana, the former head of Rwanda’s Gendarmerie or National Police Force, before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha, Tanzania. He and other defense lawyers went on strike in early 2004, claiming that the tribunal was being used by the U.S. for political ends and that a fair hearing was impossible. He has been the subject of several death threats as a result of his work at the Rwanda tribunal and the subject of threats and intimidation from the current RPF Rwandan regime. Christopher Black is listed as a member by the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis. He was a signatory to a December 2008 letter which urged the journal Science to retract a number of scientific papers from the early 1980s in which Robert Gallo alleged HTLV-III (HIV) caused AIDS.

The Criminalization of Illness
The criminalization of people allegedly infected with a virus known as HIV is unique in history. No communicable disease has been criminalized in this manner. It is a phenomenon that has spread to many countries in the world. In some countries specific criminal laws have been passed, as in the UK and some US states for example, in others, such as Canada, the existing criminal law is used. I will briefly outline the various reactions to hiv in the criminal law and its contradictions and inconsistencies, and then discuss what I and others think really lies behind the criminalization of an infection whose existence is not established and whose role in AIDS is refuted.
La ciminalización de la enfermedad
La criminalización de las personas supuestamente infectadas con un virus conocido como VIH, es única en la historia. Ninguna enfermedad contagiosa ha sido criminalizada de esta manera. Es un fenómeno que se ha extendido a muchos países alrededor del mundo. Leyes penales específicas han sido aprobadas en determinados países, por ejemplo el Reino Unido y algunos estados de EE.UU., y otros, como Canadá, utilizan la ley penal existente. Resumiré brevemente las diversas reacciones al VIH por parte de la ley penal y sus contradicciones e inconsecuencias. Posteriormente hablaré sobre lo que yo y otros piensan de lo que en realidad subyace bajo la criminalización de una infección cuya existencia no se ha establecido y cuyo rol en el SIDA ha sido rebatido.

Universidad Libre Pereira Colombia Law Grouppe
The “Free University of Pereira (Colombia) Law Group” is composed of three people. Jose Ramon Lopez Gomez is a university teacher of philosophy and law and has worked with people affected by HIV and AIDS for the past 5 years. Leon Dario Muñoz is a cancer specialist with more than 20 years experience. Rodrigo Andres Medina Diaz is a law student working on a thesis on AIDS and the law who has worked with people affected by HIV and AIDS for the past 3 years.

There are two main positions on the origins, diagnosis, treatment and understanding of AIDS and a Colombian law applies to physicians and patients and resulting from that established by UNAIDS in this regard. A group of teachers, students and researchers have known and studied the medical, the legal, the psychological, and nutritional Rethinking posed by Colombian MD Roberto Giraldo. Today is legally obliged to patients and physicians to follow protocols without taking into account that the Colombian law gives the possibility of applying the proposed cheap and effective treatments for RA. In the Faculty of Law at the Free University of Pereira in Colombia we have the task of studying what is nationally and internationally as legal for AIDS patients and physicians have a legal support for the proposal and receive treatment than those conventional do not give good results, but on the contrary, aggravate the situation of the sick. All our efforts are directed to seek legal action through which patients can claim and defend their rights to good health, to be fully informed, to choose between treatment options to one that better results and to foster better quality of life, even in the midst of his illness. also look through the same mechanisms that physicians can fulfill their Hippocratic duty of disclosure to the patient the whole truth about their illness and various treatment options for patients, as is their right, choose according to his will.
Repensando los aspectos jurídicos del SIDA en Colombia
Existen dos grandes posiciones sobre el origen, diagnóstico, tratamiento y comprensión del SIDA y hay una legislación colombiana aplicable a médicos y pacientes y derivada de lo establecido por la ONUSIDA al respecto. Un grupo de docentes, estudiantes e investigadores hemos conocido y estudiado lo médico, lo legal , lo sicológico, lo nutricional que plantea RA a través del MD colombiano Roberto Giraldo. Hoy en día se obliga legalmente a pacientes y médicos a seguir unos protocolos sin tener en cuenta que la legislación colombiana da la posibilidad de aplicar los baratos y efectivos tratamientos propuestos por RA. En la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad Libre de Pereira Colombia nos hemos dado a la tarea de estudiar lo que hay nacional e internacionalmente en lo jurídico sobre SIDA para que médicos y pacientes tengan un apoyo legal para proponer y recibir tratamientos distintos a los convencionales que no dan buenos resultados sino que , por el contrario, agravan la situación de los enfermos. Todo nuestros esfuerzos están encaminados a buscar que mediante acciones legales los pacientes reclamen y defiendan su derechos a un buen estado salud, a estar totalmente informados , a escoger entre opciones de tratamientos a aquel que de mejores resultados y le propicie mejor calidad de vida, aun en medio de su enfermedad .Además, también buscaremos mediante los mismos mecanismos que los médicos puedan cumplir su hipocrático deber de darle a conocer al paciente toda la verdad sobre su enfermedad y las diversas opciones de tratamiento para que el enfermo, como es su derecho ,escoja según su voluntad.

Joan Shenton
Joan Shenton is founder and administrator of Immunity Resource Foundation. The is the author of Positively False: Exposing the myths around HIV and AIDS. She is an award winning television producer whose company Meditel Productions has specialized in science and medical programmes. She has made over 150 programmes for network television. In 1987 she produced the first documentary challenging the science behind the HIV/ AIDS hypothesis: AIDS—The Unheard Voices (Dispatches Ch4) which won the Royal Television Society Award for Journalism. There followed three further Dispatches documentaries on the subject, The AIDS Catch, AZT—Cause for Concern and AIDS and Africa. Sky News has broadcast Diary of an AIDS Dissident, AIDS Dissidents in Europe and AZT Babies. In 2000, she was granted an interview by the South African president Thabo Mbeki broadcast by M-Net South Africa – Search for Solutions—The Great AIDS Debate. Joan Shenton is currently compiling 15 years of archive material on the AIDS debate for the Immunity Resource Foundation website.

Censorship in the AIDS debate — the success of stifling, muzzling and a strategy of silence
My talk will offer examples from my own experience of some of the most sinister examples of censorship that I and my colleagues have endured, and describe how censorship, largely the result of a very successful strategy of silence adopted by the scientific orthodoxy, has prevented the truth from coming out about the cause or causes of what came to be called Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. I have searched the Immunity Resource Foundation archive and found some filmed gems that have never before been broadcast. They include excepts from interviews with Robert Gallo, Luc Montagnier, Sam Mhlongo, Huw Christie and others that reflect essentially, what we wanted to say but couldn’t.
Censura en el debate SIDA — el éxito de sofocar, de amordazar y de una estrategia de silencio
Mi ponencia ofrecerá ejemplos desde mi experiencia personal sobre algunos de los casos de censura más siniestros que yo y mis colegas hemos sufrido y describe como la censura, en gran medida el resultado de una estrategia de silencio adoptada con mucho éxito por la ortodoxia científica, ha impedido que la verdad salga a la luz sobre la causa o causas de lo que llegó a llamarse Síndrome de Inmunodeficiencia Adquirida. He buscado entre las filmaciones de los archivos de la Immunity Resource Foundation y he encontrado algunas joyas que nunca han sido retransmitidas. Incluyen extractos de entrevistas con Robert Gallo, Luc Montagnier, Sam Mhlongo, Huw Christie y otros, que reflejan en esencia, lo que quisimos pero no pudimos decir.

Marco Ruggiero
Marco Ruggiero, MD, PhD, is a professor of Molecular Biology at the University of Firenze, Italy. He has a specialization in clinical radiology and served as Lieutenant Medical Officer in the Italian Army. In 1984-86 he worked on signal transduction and protease inhibitors as a post-doctoral fellow at Burroughs Wellcome Co. (Research Triangle Park, NC) with Drs. Cuatrecasas and Lapetina. One of his papers on protease inhibitors was presented to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Nobel laureate Sir John Vane. Subsequently he worked as visiting scientist at the Laboratory of Cellular and Molecular Biology (Chief: Dr. S. A. Aaronson) of the National Cancer Institute (NIH, Bethesda, Maryland); his research was focussed on oncogenes and signal transduction. In 1992, he moved back to Firenze, Italy, where now he teaches in the Faculties of Mathematical, Physical and Natural Sciences, Medicine and Surgery, and Engineering. He has been the tutor of many students preparing Bachelor or PhD. theses, several of which have been on AIDS with particular emphasis on the non-viral origin of the disease. He is the author of more than 100 scientific papers in journals such as Science, PNAS or Oncogene, and he has been recently appointed Author in Chief of the “Springer Reference Live: Cancer”. His website is:

Religion, Politics, and AIDS in Italy: curious paradoxes from the Ministry of Health
According to the Vatican, AIDS is “a pathology of the spirit”, and not condoms, but “chastity and fidelity are the means to defeat the fatal virus”. The Vatican is highly respected by politicians and common people alike, which has led to curious paradoxes concerning HIV infection and AIDS. The most notable is that the Italian Ministry of Health appears convinced that AIDS is not (or not solely) caused by HIV. In Italy AIDS can be diagnosed in the absence of signs of HIV infection. As of May 2009, there is no surveillance system of new HIV infections, which allows manipulation of data concerning HIV infection. The Ministry of Health does not classify AIDS either as a relevant and particularly interesting infective disease or as highly frequent, or even susceptible to control interventions. AIDS in Italy is confined to two categories of people not particularly liked by the pervasive moral regime—gay men and drug addicts. In about 25% of paediatric AIDS cases the mother was HIV-negative. If the data and the definitions provided for by the Italian Ministry of Health are accurate and consistent, and assuming that the Ministry always uses the acronym “AIDS” to indicate the same pathologic entity, then we are forced to conclude that the Ministry is convinced that HIV is not the sole cause of AIDS in Italy.

Religión, política y SIDA en Italia: curiosas paradojas del Ministerio de Salud
Según el Vaticano, el SIDA es una “patología del espríritu”, y no son los condones, si no “la castidad y fidelidad los medios para derrotar a este virus mortal”. El Vaticano es tenido en mucha consideración tanto por los políticos y como por el pueblo, lo cual ha dado lugar a curiosas paradojas respecto a la infección por VIH y el SIDA. La paradoja más notable es que el Ministerio Italiano de Salud, parece estar convencido que el VIH no es la (o no es la única) causa del SIDA. En Italia, el SIDA se puede diagnosticar en ausencia de indicios que indiquen infección por VIH. A día de hoy, mayo de 2009, un sistema de censo nacional de nuevos diagnósticos de infecciones por VIH no está disponible, lo cual permite la manipulación de datos con respecto a la infección por VIH. El ministerio de salud no clasifica el SIDA ni como una enfermedad infecciosa relevante ni particularmente interesante, ni tampoco como una patología muy frecuente, ni siquiera como una enfermedad susceptible a intervenciones de control. El SIDA en Italia esta confinado a dos categorías de personas que no son de particular agrado del régimen moral dominante – hombres gays y drogadictos. Aproximadamente en el 25% de casos de SIDA pediátricos la madre era VIH-negativa. Si los datos y definiciones proporcionados por el Ministerio Italiano de Salud son precisos y consistentes, y asumiendo que el Ministerio siempre utiliza el acrónimo “SIDA” para indicar la misma entidad patológica, entonces estamos obligados a concluir que el Ministerio está convencido que el VIH no es la única causa del SIDA en Italia.

Daniele Mandrioli
Daniele Mandrioli, M.D, 26 years old. He obtained his M.D. degree in 2009 from the University of Bologna, Italy, including a thesis on the Chemical-AIDS hypothesis. His thesis work was supervised by Prof. Giovanni Pierini, toxicologist, and realised thanks to his experiences at Dr. Koehnlein’s practice in 2008. In 2007/2008 he was a Medical Student at Charité—Universitätsmedizin, Berlin. He is a member of the “Conflict of Interest Formation Program”, a group where Medical Doctors and Medical Students discuss conflict of interest in medicine, which was created by the Center for International Health, Bologna with the help of NoGraziePagoIo (Italian branch of Nofreelunch). In the summer of 2009 he attended the BSRT International Summer School on Innovative Approaches in Regenerative Medicine in Berlin.

The Italian epidemiology supports the chemical AIDS theory
The Italian epidemiology supports the chemical AIDS theory. The AIDS cases went down in the last 10 years just among the drug abusers (4737 to 680). This happened because of the decline in Heroin abuse. Moreover, in Italy just 1/3 of HIV-positive people use the anti-HIV drugs, which means that antiretroviral use cannot account for the decline in AIDS cases (from 5052 to 1144) in the last 10 years. Moreover, scanning electron microscope images (SEM) help us see how the immune system could be stressed by the impurities that we can find in a heroin doses.
La epidemiología italiana apoya la teoría química del SIDA
La epidemiología italiana apoya la teoría química del SIDA. En los últimos 10 años, sólo se redujeron los casos de SIDA entre los drogadictos (de 4737 a 680). Esto es debido a la caída en el abuso del consumo de heroína. Además, en Italia sólo 1/3 de los pacientes utilizan los ARV, por lo que esto no podría explicar el descenso en los casos de SIDA de los últimos 10 años (de 5052 a 1144). Asimismo, algunas imágenes al microscopio electrónico de barrido o SEM (siglas en inglés), nos ayudarán a ver como el sistema inmune podría estar estresado por las impurezas que se pueden encontrar en una dosis de heroína.

Karri Stokely
Karri is a 43 year old mother of two children, ages 17 and 14. She and her husband, Joe, have been married for 19 years. Karri’s background is in emergency medicine; she worked as a Paramedic, then in out-patient surgery until she had her children. As a stay-at-home mom, she has successfully home schooled both kids for the past 12 years. “It has been such a wonderful experience, quite a blessing and a privilege to build relationships with them while home-schooling” says Karri. In her spare time, Karri enjoys exercise, reading, and teaching classes on whole/living foods nutrition. Karri makes her own herbal tinctures and believes the key to good health is through natural remedies, sprouting, juicing and organic, living foods. One of Karri’s favorite quotes is: “Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food.”—Hippocrates
Diagnosed with AIDS after a positive HIV test in 1996, Karri followed the current orthodox paradigm of treating AIDS for 11 years until she and Joe discovered there was another side to the story—One they had never heard or been told. Karri has fully regained her health and has successfully been off pharmaceutical drugs for 2 ½ years.
Karri and her family reside in Florida and you can find out more about them at:

How I fell victim to the AIDS machine
My story is one of how I fell victim to the AIDS machine and how my husband and I found out the truth surrounding this controversy after I had been taking the HIV drugs for 11 years. I was given an AIDS diagnosis in 1996, based on nothing but a t-cell count. I experienced many side effects from the drugs over the years, ranging from nausea and vomiting, muscle cramps, anemia, insomnia, wasting, and hair falling out. We were led to believe that these were all symptoms of HIV disease, or having full blown AIDS. My doctor never told us that these symptoms could be medication related. Since stopping all the medications in April 2007, I have fully regained my health and well-being, and all side effects have disappeared. I do have some concerns about any long-term, unseen damage these poisons may have done to me, but I try not to worry about it, as I live my life as healthy as possible.
Como caí víctima de la máquina SIDA
Mi historia trata sobre como caí víctima de la máquina SIDA y como, tras llevar 11 años tomando los medicamentos anti-VIH, mi marido y yo descubrimos la verdad en torno a esta controversia. En 1996 me diagnosticaron SIDA basado únicamente en un recuento de células T. Sufrí muchos efectos secundarios producidos por los fármacos que iban desde náuseas y vómitos, calambres musculares, anemia, insomnio, consunción y caída del cabello.
Nos hicieron creer que estos síntomas eran propios de la enfermedad por VIH, o un estadio SIDA completamente desarrollado. Mi doctor nunca nos informó que estos síntomas pudiesen estar relacionados con la medicación. Desde que deje de tomar los medicamentos en abril del 2007, he recuperado íntegramente mi salud y bienestar, y todos los efectos secundarios han desaparecido. Tengo algunas preocupaciones acerca de cualquier daño que me haya podido causar estos venenos a largo plazo y que haya podido pasar inadvertido, pero intento no preocuparme de esto mientras vivo mi vida de la manera más sana posible.

Noreen Martin
After having survived cancer, hepatitis, and having been diagnosed with full-blown AIDS, she knew that it was time to make major changes in her life, as she did not think that modern medicine holds out much hope for life-threatening diseases. Having to cope with these diseases in a lifetime would probably be enough to push most people over the edge. However, Noreen found that all the hurdles that one has to overcome in life only go to make one stronger. She has never accepted that these diseases, or any other for that matter, were incurable. She believes that the body and the mind have a great healing capacity if given time and the proper ingredients to work with. She has since rebuilt her health, is not on anti-retroviral medication, but takes an enhancer called low dose naltrexone. She has completed a nutritional course and a master herbalist program and soon will have a Bachelor of Science in Holistic Nutrition. She is also working on a naturopathy degree. Noreen’s program of recovery started by getting educated about health issues, then she proceeded to detoxification, eliminated negative influences and added positive ones which included vitamins, supplements, and herbal products. She paid special attention to all of the food and drinks which went into her body, including products used on the body. Her health wasn’t destroyed in a day, neither does she think it could be rebuilt in a day. She took one day at a time and pressed forward with good health habits and a positive attitude. Her latest book is Perfect Immunity Against Disease

AIDS, Big Deal, Next!: A journey to hell and back with AIDS
A journey to hell and back with AIDS that nearly killed me to wonderful health without the HAART. When life gives one lemons, make lemonade as there is always a silver lining to be found in any situation!
SIDA, no es para tanto, ¡El siguiente!: Un viaje de ida y vuelta al infierno con el SIDA
Un viaje de ida al infierno con el SIDA que casi me mata y de vuelta a una maravillosa salud sin los HAART. Cuando la vida te da un limón, haz limonada ya que en cada situación no hay mal que por bien no venga!

Tony Lance
Tony Lance is a freelance writer and editor living near Nashville, TN. He’s been active in the rethinking community since 1997 when he co-founded the HEAL-Atlanta chapter (now defunct). From 2004-2008 he ran an Alive and Well-affiliated peer support group in NYC. In 2008 he wrote an article exploring the connection between intestinal dysbiosis and immune dysfunction in gay men that was published on Dr. Henry Bauer’s blog.

Challenges faced by gays who question HIV/AIDS with implications for dissidents
For several decades HIV/AIDS has been a rallying point for the gay community, bringing it together against a perceived common threat and, in the process, catalyzing the gay rights movement. Consequently, there is a shared sense of pride in this group about the manner in which they’ve responded to the issue, inextricably linking HIV/AIDS to the collective esteem of many gay men and women. Where does that leave those in the community who question HIV/AIDS? What challenges does that pose for dissidents at large?
Desafíos a los que se enfrentan los gays que cuestionan el VIH/SIDA y sus consecuencias para los disidentes
Durante varias décadas el VIH/SIDA ha sido un motivo de reivindicación para la comunidad gay, aunándola contra lo que se percibe como una amenaza común y, en ese proceso, catalizando el movimiento por los derechos de los gays. Por consiguiente, existe en este grupo un sentimiento compartido de orgullo sobre la manera en que han reaccionado a la cuestión, vinculando de manera inextricable el VIH/SIDA a la estima colectiva de muchos hombres y mujeres gays. ¿Dónde deja esto a aquellos en la comunidad que cuestionan el VIH/SIDA? ¿Que desafíos plantea esto para los disidentes en general?

Click the icon (meant to display as a Hide button) to close the section)

That's odd - the more HIV we find the more AIDS diagnoses and AIDS deaths tail off.  This seems very odd - is it possible?  Something must be very wrong, somewhere.  Let's ask Anthony Fauci to explain.Notably absent from the impressive lineup are some of the best authors of books against the prevailing wisdom, including Rebecca Culshaw author of Science Sold Out, and Harvey Bialy, author of Oncogenes, Aneuploidy and AIDS. To some extent this absence reflects the vicious politics used to repress the view that HIV/AIDS science is profoundly incorrect and in urgent need of review and revision, which will undoubtedly be the theme of the conference.

The Rethinking AIDS 2009 Conference “will consist of talks that question the widely held dogma that HIV causes AIDS, including whether HIV exists, whether it is sexually transmitted, whether HIV tests are accurate and whether AIDS drugs are safe and effective. The social, psychologic and legal impacts of an HIV diagnosis will also be considered, as well as alternative health approaches for people whose health has been damaged by an HIV diagnosis, by the prescription of AIDS drugs or who have been diagnosed with an AIDS-defining illness.”

Brent Leung’s excellent documentary House of Numbers, revealing the disarray of leading scientists who promote the current paradigm and propagandize in its favor will be shown on Saturday afternoon at 4.30pm. Joan Shenton’s talk will also include her own found gems of the kind that decorate House of Numbers: statements by HIV/AIDS scientists which support the statement and claims of their critics, such that the critics are vindicated by the very people that strive so determinedly to silence them. “I have searched the Immunity Resource Foundation archive and found some filmed gems that have never before been broadcast. They include excepts from interviews with Robert Gallo, Luc Montagnier, Sam Mhlongo, Huw Christie and others that reflect essentially, what we wanted to say but couldnh’t.”

Media are invited to all conference sessions including the documentary screening and the Welcome Cocktail after the Keynote Lecture today, Friday (Nov 6) (register in advance by filling out the attached registration form and emailing it back to or call Siggi Sachs at (510) 717-8635.

Here is the program:

Rethinking AIDS 2009 Conference

Friday November 6th

Opening Session
Welcome and introduction of Keynote Speaker by David Crowe (Calgary, Canada)
Keynote Lecture: The media, HIV/AIDS, and the making of public “understandings”
by Michael Tracey (Boulder, CO, USA)
7:15 Welcome Cocktail

Saturday November 7

Morning Session Chaired by Charles Geshekter
8:00 1. History of the AIDS controversy spanning three decades by John Lauritsen
(Dorchester, MA, USA)
8:40 2. HIV-AIDS hypothesis out of touch with South African AIDS—a new
perspective by Peter Duesberg (Berkeley, CA, USA)
9:20 3. Questioning the existence of HIV by Etienne de Harven (Saint Cézaire, France)
10:00 Coffee Break
Chaired by Helen Lauer
10:30 4. The deception and dishonesty of African AIDS statistics by Charles Geshekter (Chico, CA, USA)
11:10 5. Aids in Africa—a call for sense not hysteria by Christian Fiala (Vienna, Austria)
11:50 6. The role of the inner pharmacy in the prevention and treatment of AIDS by
Roberto Giraldo (São Paolo, Brasil)
12:30 Lunch

Afternoon Session

Chaired by Christian Fiala
2:00 7. HIV drugs causing AIDS by David Rasnick (Oakland, CA, USA)
2:40 8. The treatment dilemma of HIV-positive patients as a result of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis: The illusion of antiviral treatment by Claus Koehnlein (Kiel, Germany)
3:20 9. HIV/AIDS blunder is far from unique in the annals of science and
medicine by Henry Bauer (Blacksburg, VA, USA)
4:00 Coffee Break
4:30 Screening of Brent Leung’s documentary, House of Numbers

7:00 Conference Banquet ($100)

Sunday November 8th

Morning Session Chaired by Roberto Giraldo

8:00 10. The criminalization of illness by Chris Black (Toronto, Canada)
8:30 11. Rethinking legal aspects of AIDS in Colombia by Rodrigo Andres Medina Diaz, Jose Ramon Lopez Gomez (Universidad Libre Pereira Colombia Law Group, Pereira, Colombia)
9:00 12. Censorship in the AIDS debate—the success of stifling, muzzling and a strategy of silence by Joan Shenton (London, UK)
9:30 Coffee Break
Chaired by Joan Shenton & Dale DeMatteo
9:45 13. Religion, politics, and AIDS in Italy: curious paradoxes from the Ministry of Health by Marco Ruggiero (Florence, Italy)
10:15 14. The Italian epidemiology supports the chemical AIDS theory by Daniele Mandrioli (Bologna, Italy)
10:45 15. How I fell victim to the AIDS machine by Karri Stokely (Lakeland, FL, USA)
11:00 16. Challenges faced by gays who question HIV/AIDS with implications for dissidents by Tony Lance (Nashville, TN, USA)
11:15 Panel discussion: Panelists: Celia Farber, Gary Null, Joan Shenton, and Michael Tracey Moderator: David Crowe
12:00 Closing Remarks

Conference organized by Rethinking AIDS
or contact at

Whether any of this will have any influence on the political scene in this high spending arena is a question. Currently the leaders of HIV/AIDS are clamoring as loudly as ever for increased funding, and the idea that spending is based on a grand error maintained by self serving scientists against all logic and evidence is not something that will make itself heard until the New York Times opens up its columns to all the news fit to print on this issue, or some other watershed change comes about.

Meanwhile, one wonders about the priorities of the conference organizers themselves when they schedule the remarkable and rarely heard analyst John Lauritsen and the distinguished Peter Duesberg to speak at the ungodly hours of 8 am and 8.40 am on Saturday morning.

It reminds us of the New York conference of Rethinking AIDS where Peter Duesberg, the key speaker, was rushed off stage before he could even complete his presentation, not to mention answer any questions, so that the program schedule could be maintained.

Science has its own, bigger Bernie Madoff

June 9th, 2009

Interviewing by Frontline suggests similarities with Tiny Tony (Anthony Fauci) of NIAID, who is more lethal

Pseudo religious impulse is source of sway of swindlers large and small, preventing questions

Billion dollar bricks sold to the public by those in the know in HIV/AIDS

The key lesson for whistleblowers in science in all this? Good luck!


Book vs cover: Who wouldn't trust this man and wife team?  With Madoff (pron. Madeoff) languishing in jail awaiting delayed sentence at the end of June (June 29, 10 am), the PBS Frontline program on Bernie Madoff of May 12 (repeated June 2) recently offered an hour filled with witnesses of the way the discreet Jewish swindler worked his game, with key feeders insisting they were as surprised by the scam as the more than 9000 victims who have now filed claims (move cursor over pic for caption).

This may strike some viewers as incredible, given that Bernie and his operation had fake written all over them for years in neon signs. Yet it does seem that the only ones who wised up to his Ponzi play before the Fall were Harry Markopolos, now famous as the whistleblower whose thoroughly demonstrated tip offs were ignored by the sleepy watchdogs of the SEC, the reporters at MAR/Hedge and Barrons who wrote skeptical articles as early as 2001, and some professional investors with operating neurons who recognized that Madoff’s unwillingness/inability to explain his mathematically impossible feat was a blazing sign of wrongdoing in itself.

High priests don’t get questioned

2005: Michael Bienes and his wife of 32 years, DianneEven the reporters with those excellent early pieces didn’t quite convince themselves that massive skulduggery was afoot, it seems. So the question becomes, why not? Why did so many of the financial elite blindly trust Madoff to such an extraordinary high level – not just his unfortunate investors but even his original ‘feeders’? The first answer seems to be that the world of financial formulae was all mumbo jumbo to them. Frontline asks one early feeder, Michael Bienes, who is a trained accountant, albeit clearly not a very bright one, why he believed that his great benefactor was a genius not a crook:

“I don’t know. How do I know? How do you split an atom? I know that you can split them; I don’t know how you do it. How does an airplane fly? I don’t ask..”

Did you ask him?

Never. Why would I ask him? I wouldn’t understand it if he explained it. Something with arbitrage between bonds and stocks and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

But when I went downtown for the first time to deliver some papers to Bernie, … he walked in, Bernie, and it was like you were subsumed by him. He had an aura about him. Not charisma, an aura about him — a confidence the way he was set up, the way he looked, the way he spoke. The self-confidence — he just evoked confidence in you, that he knew that he was in control, and if he was around, everything was fine. And then when he moved to his new office building, I used to go down there, One Wall Street. He had a whole floor. Wow. Wow. Wow.
(see Michael Bienes’s extended Frontline video interview clips at PBS)

In other wprds Bernie was a high priest of an arcane science that the congregation didn’t understand, a miracle worker that people wanted to believe in, and given the trappings, they did. Here we have the religious or general social phenomenon, which like compound interest feeds upon itself. Success begets success, and trust fosters trust in ever widening circles. The more people believe, the more people believe.

In Wall Street or politics, religion or science, generally once a person climbs high enough in any organized human ideological system (in this case the gimme Wall Street of stock and bond market traders and their institutions) he/she enjoys not just the trust and confidence of those close to him, but soon enough, like any successful leader, the blind faith and imposed devotion of his or her followers.

Congress says they’re looking into the Bernie Madoff scandal. So the guy who made $50 billion disappear, is being investigated by the people who made $750 billion disappear! (ICIS Chemicals Confidential)
While few if any know what he is actually up to, no one risks questioning the great man. The pseudo-religious impulse of blind faith kicks in and there is a sort of billowing group trust in something that may make no sense at all, if questioned. (Which phenomenon is precisely why this blog exists, by the way – to counter in some small way that unprofessional impulse in HIV/AIDS and wherever else it enters into science, or any other social system of money, power and ideas, where it has no business being present, but is often found, abetting mis-leadership and tyranny.)

The skulduggery is perceived unconsciously and it is secular religion that enables denial. Thus Bienes, one of Madoff’s core feeders admits he did nothing much to earn his millions:

Q. So is this easy money, would you say, that you’re making with Madoff?
A. “Easy, easy-peasy, like a money machine. I always said I never lifted any heavy weights. People have said to me, even recently, “Oh, you must have worked very hard.” I said, “No, I didn’t.” “Oh, come on.” I said, “No, I didn’t.” I never worked hard, except when I was working as an accountant when I was young, yeah. But I never worked hard.”

And when pressed whether he ever questioned how he deserved millions just for passing money along to Bernie, he answers:

“I asked myself Why am I so lucky? My wife and I came up with the answer. God wanted us to have this, God gave us this.”

So the money was manna from heaven, with a semi divine Bernie as the angel Gabriel, a heavenly servant of Destiny for those lucky enough to be chosen, and no need to ask any further questions.

Which is the key: no questions can be asked of Heaven. Self deception and denial are at work, and trust and fear gell into the rationalizing belief that divine providence is at work. Any strong leader (eg Obama, see our last worshipful post on our Presidential Savior) engenders and benefits from this psychology, although if death is involved, there is more of it. Stalin was able to order the deaths of tens of millions, including his close supporters, and still die in bed. The characteristic of the pseudo-religious impulse in operation in society is that no one retains the ability or desire to question. The religious guru benefits from the unquestioning faith of his flock, even while he is handing them Kool Aid.

Three bricks at $150? Sold!

But there is no reason to plumb the psychology too deeply. The balance of trust and fear is the core of any successful confidence trick. This is the combination that casts the spell. Thus the New York street trickster perpetrates similar magic when he sells a sealed parcel containing three bricks to a passer by. We know one victim of this familiar scam whose very profession as a print reporter was to ask questions, yet in barely three minutes in a chance encounter he was persuaded to hand $150 to a stranger for a sealed parcel assumed to contain a “brand new VCR”. The embarrassed sucker could only report that the magic spell broke the moment the seller disappeared, after counting the cash and exchanging thanks. Only then did he, the professional reporter, rapidly place the parcel on a car roof and tear it open to see what it really contained: three bricks.

The conman as social engineer

Few of those caught in the $50-65 billion Bernie Madoff collapse asked any questions, Frontline made clear. If anyone did ask questions, Bernie acted offended at the very thought of their distrust and brusquely told them that if they felt that way he would return their money. Here again we have the conman as social engineer, fleecing the victim by dangling the carrot while making it impossible to question the price that has to be paid without breaking the social contract of mutual trust, and risk expulsion from the club.

Madoff’s resistance to questioning actually did tip some people off, it turns out. We know of a certain Bob who was one of the ten founding members of a club in the Hamptons, and an experienced businessman. Bernie was another founding member and one day approached him with an offer to let him in on his fund, saying that not much needed to start, $5 million would do to give him a taste. So Bob then reasonably asked Bernie to tell him a little about his operation. As Madoff talked Bob thought to himself, “this is not adding up.” He asked another question, and at this point Bernie backed off, saying, “You know what Bob, this is not for you!” and walked off.

But most people didn’t challenge Madoff, perhaps because added to the prospect of mutual rejection of a fellow member of the club there was also the general rejection one risked by questioning a man everyone else in one’s social circle, congregation, club or on Wall Street trusted so implicitly. At the time Barrons investigated him in 2001 Madoff was a grand old man of NASDAQ who had climbed into many high chairs over the years, including Jewish groups, charities, universities, advisory committees, and so on. In this way he acquired vast social sanction, which preserved him from official investigation even when the evidence that something was wrong was blatant and exposed to the SEC repeatedly.

(From the Wiki entry url above): Madoff was a philanthropist, who served on boards of nonprofit institutions, many of which entrusted his firm with their endowments.[13][15] He is a former National Treasurer of the American Jewish Congress. The collapse and freeze of his personal assets and that of his firm’s have had repercussions on businesses, charities and foundations around-the-world, including the Robert I. Lappin Charitable Foundation, the Picower Foundation, and the JEHT Foundation which were forced to close as a consequence.[13][31] Madoff donated approximately $6 million to lymphoma research after his son Andrew was diagnosed.[32] Madoff served as the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Sy Syms School of Business at Yeshiva University, and as Treasurer of its Board of Trustees.[15] He resigned his position at Yeshiva University after his arrest.[31] Madoff also served on the Board of New York City Center, a member of New York City’s Cultural Institutions Group (CIG).[33] He served on the executive council of the Wall Street division of the UJA Foundation of New York which declined to invest funds with him due to the conflict of interest.[34] Madoff undertook charity work for the Gift of Life Bone Marrow Foundation and also engaged in philanthropic giving through The Madoff Family Foundation, a $19 million private foundation, which he managed along with his wife.[13] They donated money to hospitals and theaters.[15]

In retrospect this was all camouflage but the bright lights from his medals blinded those in the socio-economic system in which Madoff moved, including the watchdogs at the SEC and in the media. Maybe we should be more skeptical of generosity in this day and age. Could be that some of it is cloaking theft. More to the point, let’s be suspicious of group wisdom, especially when it acquires a religious fervor. In the grand tradition of the Roman Catholic church, religion has been the cloak for gain throughout history. The religious impulse can have the same usefulness in war and secular politics, as Bob Dylan sang:

“The First World War, boys,
It came and it went;
The reason for fighting
I never did get.
But I learned to accept it,
Accept it with pride;
For you don’t count the dead
When God’s on your side.

“The Second World War, boys,
It came to an end.
We forgave the Germans,
And then we were friends.
Though they murdered six million,
In the ovens they fried,
The Germans now, too, have
God on their side.”
(Bob Dylan, “With God on Our Side”)

Science’s very own Bernie Madoff clone

Why are we emphasizing all this at great and even repetitive length? Because we want to suggest that the same process can be discerned in some scientific fields, where conventional belief has been demolished in the journal literature but is nonetheless propped up far past its shelf date by those high up who benefit from it, and the weapons they use to impose belief are the same as any acquisitive church. Among known examples are the reigning paradigms in cancer and in HIV/AIDS.

In HIV/AIDS in particular, the Madoff pattern of trusted high level figure who misleads strangers into ruining their lives on his advice – and don’t ask questions on pain of professional or even personal death – is exemplified by the short but remarkable Anthony Fauci, director of NIAID. Yes, sir. We’d say Fauci is chiefly responsible for the successful defense of the HIV theory of the cause of AIDS against all comers for over 22 years, even though his own writings in the literature show us that he now knows very well the HIV=AIDS hypothesis had nothing to recommend it in 1984 and even less since.

The grandson of Sicilian immigrants, Fauci grew up in the Bensonhurst section of Brooklyn. He credits his father, a pharmacist, and particularly his mother, who died when he was in medical school, for encouraging him to strive for excellence. The thirst for intellectual achievement was fueled by his Jesuit teachers at Regis High School, where he was captain of the basketball team, and later at Holy Cross College, where he learned—as he puts it—“precision of thought and economy of expression.”

The Jesuit order of the Roman Catholic Church “is driven by intellectual curiosity—rigorous academic pursuits, openness and honesty without having any intellectual constraints put on you,” Fauci explains. The training prepared him well for life in Washington, where “you only have a very short time to express what it is that you need to express (and) to make it very, very clear,” he says.

Medicine was a natural career path for Fauci, as it balanced his love of science with his need to be involved with people. He attended Cornell University Medical College (now the Weill Medical College of Cornell University), and as a young resident there, already was displaying strong leadership skills.

As all long time readers here know well from our posts, and as we incessantly repeat for the benefit of newcomers, the theory that AIDS is caused by a virus and that it is infectious has been thoroughly demolished in the best scientific journals since 1987, and by all the accumulating evidence since, and this is obvious to anyone who takes off the distorting spectacles of the standard trope and looks into it with clear gaze. But the strenuous efforts of those who benefit from this belief have managed to sweep the correction under the carpet, while they pretend it is refuted, and marginalize the reviewers, especially the exceptionally brilliant Berkeley scientist Peter Duesberg, who within two years (1987 on) wrote the major reviews concluding that the claim was impossible.

So contrary to the best science the prevailing belief of almost everybody around the globe is still, after all these years, that AIDS is caused by an infectious virus, labeled self servingly as Human Immunodeficiency Virus, or HIV. On this basis billions have been spent, and $55 billion more will now be dispensed by PEPFAR as the national budget permits, not to mention many other billions by those who believe they are helping supposed AIDS patients by ensuring they are fully supplied with the damaging drugs prescribed.

The kingpin of this intellectual and social scheme, perpetrator of one of the greatest scams of medical science ever, is none other than Anthony Fauci, director of NIAID for over twenty years.


Meet Dr. Fauci, the man of science who would curb free speech

Yes, despite his fine upbringing and avowals, we are sorry to say that this notoriously dapper modern bureaucratic medicine man has been the chief enabler of the ongoing survival of the unlikely, and still entirely undemonstrated, belief that HIV=AIDS, and its adamant protector from independent review, ever since his not too subtle edict in print twenty years ago, in an AAAS newsletter, to the effect that any reporter who asked him or anyone else at the NIH why the high level reviews rejecting the AIDS paradigm were being ignored in public would be counted incompetent, and never again receive any call back from him, his PR staff or any scientist under his sway.

No questions, in other words.

The net result has been that the funding and social politics of AIDS, which by 1987 had already turned the HIV claim into a belief supported with religious fervor by gays, who have always comprised the overwhelming share of victims in the US, but who are terrified of being blamed for it as a consequence of their “life style”, have relegated any questioner lay or scientific to social and professional Siberia.

HIV=AIDS is now a religion, in other words, in which questioning of the dogma is ruled out on penalty of excommunication, whether you are in the media, in medicine, in science or in the public at large. This religion has been successfully led by the suppressive Fauci for twenty years, with the cooperation of Robert Gallo and other top AIDS researchers, and senior scientific statesmen such as David Baltimore and Harold Varmus.

The many people – several thousand at least – who oppose the standard thinking on HIV/AIDS, who include over thirty authors who have written good and sometimes brilliant books on the topic, as well as the best scientist in the field, Peter Duesberg of Berkeley, are left in the position of Harry Markopolos, the man now famous for questioning Bernie Madoff and trying to bring the attention of the authorities to his crime in vain.

In other words, they are ignored and brushed off, or in the case of the scientifically qualified HIV critics, smeared, attacked as heretics dangerous to the body politic and the health of the believers, marginalized and ostracised.

A classic case of this political counter attack is the fate of Celia Farber, the exemplary investigative journalist and poetic writer of our last post, who even after publishing an excruciatingly well fact checked article in the leading liberal magazine, Harpers, three years ago, was not even then able to win the respect she deserves, such was the counter attack from the paradigm leaders, who like threatened octopuses filled the water with ink to obscure the truth.


The Obama Administration rolled out its much-awaited foreclosure-prevention plan on Wednesday nicknamed “The Ponzi Policy”, saying if it could work for Bernie Madoff, it could work for the United States. The plan asks those facing foreclosure to simply send a cheque for a thousand dollars to the first name on the list, “Fannie Mae”, then place their name at the bottom of the list, and ask 275 million friends to do the same. (ICIS Chemicals Confidential)
Actually, the more apt analogy is to say that the scientific and lay defenders of HIV=AIDS behave like skunks, who when kicked emit a stink so unpleasant that one leaves them alone rather than continue to try and cage them and transport them somewhere where they can do no damage, such as the federal jails where they deserve to be for robbing the public purse to support their personal religion, and endangering the health of gays and Africans in the process.

Those who wish to catch up with Celia Farber’s story can read other posts in this blog, starting with the latest one below, and the excellent article in Harpers which failed to win the Pulitzer it deserved. For our point here is simply this. Bernie Madoff may have achieved lasting fame by perpetrating the biggest ripoff in the history of Wall Street Ponzi schemes, but in science we have our own Bernie Madoff, and he is still going strong, and the billions in spending from the public purse that he has misdirected now amount to far more than the billions involved in the better known Bernie Madoff’s scheme, which are probably as low as $20 billion.

Why Fauci’s scheme won’t implode like Madoff’s

But surely, you may say, Anthony Fauci won’t survive very long with so many critics (see the “Accurate/Helpful” section of the blogroll on the right hand side of this blog for thousands of them) and a new President whose budget is so strained now that the White House talks up a saving of $20 billion? If $50 or $100 billion is to be misdirected by the officials who run PEPFAR and other HIV/AIDS programs, surely Mr Obama will be alerted, intervene and order an investigative review?

Sadly, we don’t think so. Take the wave of propaganda the paradigm enjoyed a recent weekend on CSPAN. Not only did Luc Montagnier visit the University of Maryland and appear with Bob Gallo at a seminar, but at that seminar it became clear that the recent award of the Nobel to Luc for discovering the supposed cause of AIDS, HIV, has had the predicted effect of at long last getting the Pasteur hero aboard the bandwagon, and he never will again suggest as he has so often that HIV is insufficient to cause AIDS, that you need a co factor, and that by itself HIV is easily dispensed with by any healthy human immune system.

Added to this revelation was the appearance on CSpan as well of Harold Varmus, once director of the NIH and now atop the highest perch at Cornell Medical Center here in New York. Harold and his life time mustache happily discussed his great career in the charming terms for which he is renowned, once again reminding us that he is the most agreeable man in science. He also said that when he was given the role of deciding the name for the new virus, and decided it would be Human Immunodeficiency Virus, thus ending all discussion about its role, this was a great triumph of nomenclature which was, he said, his first exposure to the politics of science. Reaping his reward for mastering that skill set, Harold is now the chief science adviser to Obama.

Harold Varmus likes boats and bicycles, and won a Nobel from his friends on a basis which Peter Duesberg had demonstrated led cancer research up the garden path for thirty yearsAll this was part of the theme of his CSPAN Q and A, which was the content of his new book, The Art and Politics of Science, as well as his new position at the right hand of the new president of the United States. To those au fait with the internal politics of this issue, it was all once again a reminder that the chances of the Champion of Change in the White House sniffing enough of the malodorous politics of HIV/AIDS science to order a review seem somewhat low, to say the least. Harold Varmus is another highly trusted figure at the top of science:

[A] unique work by a remarkable global leader: a brilliant scientist with the sensibilities of an artist and the leadership skills of a consummate politician. Harold Varmus has done it all—Nobel Prize–winning breakthroughs in cancer biology, masterful leadership of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) during its period of greatest expansion, statesmanship of the highest order in global health, and cheerful trench warfare to bring biomedical publications to the open-source Internet age. [This] book is captivating, fascinating, and ever instructive. It will be read the world over with enormous delight and benefit. (Jeffrey D. Sachs, director, The Earth Institute)

Where can activists turn in trying to get past this palace guardian of ruling wisdom in HIV/AIDS? Once again we at Science Guardian offer the not necessarily facetious suggestion that if anyone can manage to run into Michelle Obama and turn her on to this betrayal of science, sense and humanity, which has a particular relevance to the community in which she is rooted, the black community of America, perhaps they should try to tip her off discreetly to the necessity of reading a good book on the topic, now that there are over thirty (see blogroll on right) for her staff to choose from, including ones by for example Celia Farber and Christine Maggiore, that anyone can follow.

Of course the problem then becomes which book, and sadly we have to say that in our opinion that no one has written the right book yet. For that book would be have to a direct answer to Randy Shilts’ uninformed best seller, And the Band Played On, written by an author that died of his ignorance (we did warn him). It would describe not the fanciful bill of goods Shilts was sold, poor fellow, back in the early days of the supposed pandemic, but the realpolitik of HIV/AIDS, and why and how so much damage has been done and so many lives lost under a pseudo-religious belief that without the ministrations of its bureaucratic high priest, the fine-suited Anthony Fauci, would have been demolished by the brilliant commentary by Duesberg that thoroughly scotched it 22 years ago, and since.

Of course, the only reason Madoff’s castle in the sky came crashing down at last was simply that in the serious recession people needed to pull their money out rather than get by on the handsome dividends Madoff was paying out. In the case of HIV/AIDS the meltdown seems to make it less likely that Obama will play the white knight, since the AIDS money at stake is nothing compared to a total Wall Street and Main Street bailout now estimated at $13 trillion.

In such circumstances, what’s a $100 billion here or there?

Madoff wasn’t so bad – in comparison

How do Madoff and Fauci compare? One point in Bernie’s defense that no one seems to be making is that, for all the calumny that has been heaped upon his head, Madoff didn’t actually steal $65 billion, or $20 billion, or maybe even $2 billion, at least for himself. For a Ponzi scheme by definition is robbing Peter to pay Paul, not oneself, except for what one skims. You take the money that comes in from new suckers and pay it out in generous annual percentages – in this case 18 or 16 or 14 per cent – to all the old suckers, and the new.

Why the heck didn't I jump ship and hole up in Latin America?  Those that rode with him for years did very well indeed, making far more than they “lost” when it finally exploded. For example, we have the sad tale in Time of How I Got Screwed by Bernie Madoff:

All we knew was that my wife’s entire family had been in the fund for decades and lived well on the returns, which ranged from 15% to 22%….My wife’s family’s combined losses are close to $30 million.”

Decades of 15-22% returns on $30 million? Depending on how much was left in, a net gain of probably well over a hundred million, not much to complain about – unless you are the later investor whose money was transferred to this happy family.

Waiting for the clawback

Given that legally when a Ponzi scheme collapses, all participants are called upon to return all that they have ever withdrawn from the fund, in what is known as a “clawback”, a pile of money should in theory be reclaimed from all the funds and people that Madoff had paid out the :interest” to over the years. That will all be put into a pot, and shared out among the 9000 or so investors according to what they put in,

If this entire process is done thoroughly and perfectly, going all the way back to the beginning in 1959 or whenever Madoff began the process, everyone would be made whole, at least as far as their initial investment is concerned. They will miss out on the interest they would have been earned over the years from some other investment, of course, which could be sizable. That loss, and whatever Bernie took out over the years to support his company – which ran into trouble in some years, and only survived on this theft, according to the prosecutor – or to spend on houses and other possessions, including a nice Aston Martin, would be the total missing. The family seems to have done most of the living it up, though their circumstances have changed rather dramatically now. His sister is driving an airport taxi, reportedly. Attempts to secrete some of the loot were noticeably late, and at least some were blocked.

Madoff the conservative (non)investor

It appears, however, that Madoff did not ever invest any of it in stocks and therefore lost nothing in the market. Moreover, his possessions – $11 million Palm Beach mansion, $2.2 million 55-ft yacht “Bull”, 24 ft motor boat etc – have been seized by the authorities and as much as $1 billion or so may be realized by their sale, possibly not a great deal less than he took from the monies entrusted to him.

So is Bernie the vast villain that so many feel he is, ruining so many people? Perhaps not, or he wouldn’t be if the clawback is done fully. However, there are indications that many of those who took money back from Bernie are going to conceal the fact if they can, rather than allow it to be clawed back. Moreover the clawback is not going to go very far into the past, it is clear from news reports. So perhaps the small investors will never get much back, although many will be paid something from the insurance fund and be allowed to take taxes off their income, if they have any left. The outcome remains to be seen. But they should realize that most of their their money isn’t in Madoff’s pockets, but in the bank accounts of their fellow investors, who are busy trying to conceal the fact.
“It looks like more than 13,000 people were caught up in that Bernard Madoff Ponzi scheme. You know what a Ponzi scheme is? That’s where you throw good money after bad, or as the government calls it, a stimulus package.” — Jay Leno
The big problem, in other words, comes from the longevity of the Madoff scheme, which prevents a full clawback. One wonders if Madoff ever expected it to last so long. Perhaps he imagined that he would be able to escape the trap if his business made enough money. Of course he should have cut it short. But since prison loomed for a certainty if he did so, he was forced to continue year by year. It is hard to imagine that Madoff ever contemplated a number as high as $65 billion, but it must have had its own momentum from which he could not escape.

Why Fauci cannot escape his own trap either

A similar process has taken place in HIV/AIDS. Every year that passed without review and reform, the greater the difficulty of reversing course. It is now virtually insurmountable. The number of pages of Nature and Science, not to mention the New York Times, that would have to be torn out, the reputations destroyed, possibly even a mountain of legal suits for sickness and death, now render it virtually inconceivable that this globally metastasized tumor will be torn from the body politic in the current generation, of ever.

Again, it is hard to believe that Madoff could manage to run the operation without a lot of knowing office and backroom help. Similarly, it is impossible to believe that those who help Fauci maintain the impossible paradigm in HIV/AIDS against review don’t know they are wrong to do so. If the snappiest dresser in NIAID is ever brought to the witness chair, it should be in the company of all the clever scientists who by their own writings demonstrably are aware of the complete absence of theoretical foundation for their well funded research.

So perhaps until all the facts are in and who did what and participated in what and where all the money is and how much is clawed back and returned to investors, one should hold off from totally vilifying the genial, treacherous but really not so gigantic Bernie, who may have done little more in his distasteful crime than transfer savings from one acquisitive group to another, using a relatively small portion for himself. For this he became his own first and last victim, and given the largely empty satisfactions of riches in New York, those he personally betrayed in this sickening manner can be sure he is sorry he ever made such a bargain with the Devil, now that he will endure what in most ways is the worst punishment of all, life in a cell the size of his one of wife’s clothes cupboards.

Who is the bigger snake?

We are merely suggesting a little perspective, however big a snake Madoff was on the personal level. After all, from society’s point of view he did not threaten the health and lives of millions, as Anthony Fauci has. Furthermore, Madoff is far from the only untrustworthy money manager on Wall Street. Indeed from some points of view it is difficult to distinguish his behavior from those who knowingly sold toxic assets, or the speedy pocketing of the public’s cash by the managers of some of the biggest banks in recent months, in which there seems to be plenty of sleight of hand quicker than the eye can see, facilitated by the lack of overview.

In fact,, if you accept that the Wall Street wizards and institutions who traded and insured worthless assets are responsible for the global crisis, then according to the World Bank they are responsible for 100-150 million people falling into poverty, not just 9000 investors, and 200,000 to 400,000 infant deaths this year.

So is Bernie really in the world league of bad guys? Here’s some food for thought along those lines: What Makes Bernie Madoff Tick – Insights from the Criminal Mind of Sammy Antar. But Madoff’s smirk always suggested to us not arrogant psychopathy but a small time Wall Street thieving insider caught in his own trap, who knew he would be exposed one day and was probably surprised it didn’t happen earlier, and also that he had company in his moral quagmire, for whom he was taking the fall.

However, all those who wish Madoff everlasting purgatory can contemplate his fate as predicted in Inside Bernie Madoff’s New Home… for the Next 150 Years. Sentencing is now set for the end of this month, and currently predicted at 150 years incarceration for Madoff, who is 71 years old. We wonder how long he will survive such cramped quarters.

A system always ignores warning signals from outsiders

But what’s the take home lesson in all this for public policymakers? We think the important public lesson of the Madoff thievery is the way whistleblowers are resolutely ignored if the system they inhabit is large enough, and their targets high enough, even when everybody knows that by nature money trumps everything for many players in the game, and if they troubled to read the whistleblower file properly they would easily have seen that something was very wrong.

Markopolos and others saw what was up, once they studied and analyzed the data available on Bernie’s operation. Markopolos went to the SEC and it is now notorious how his fully explanatory memos were ignored year after year:

SANBORN, N.Y. (March 12, 2009) — Harry Markopolos, a 30-year veteran of the financial industry and Bernie Madoff whistleblower, will discuss “Blowing the Whistle on Bernie Madoff: Gift Wrapping & Delivering the Truth about the Largest Ponzi Scheme Ever” at Niagara County Community College April 21 at 12:30 p.m. in the Arts and Media Theatre on the Sanborn campus. Admission is free and open to the public and is sponsored by Niagara County Community College Student Government.

Markopolos blew the whistle on Madoff and his $50 billion Ponzi scheme, unearthing what is believed to be the largest financial fraud in history.

For over 10 years, Markopolos, a Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) and Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE), diligently pursued the truth in the numbers of Madoff and his unbelievably huge profits. Figuring out the Madoff fraud before anyone else, Markopolos waved red flags and delivered detailed documentation to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 2000, 2001, 2005, 2007 and again in 2008.

“It took me five minutes to know that it was a fraud. It took me another almost four hours of mathematical modeling to prove that it was a fraud,” Markopolos said.

(From his written testimony):
“I studied the Broyhill document and within 5 minutes suspected it was a fraud since the strategy as described was not capable of beating the typical percent return on US Treasury Bills less fees and expenses. Once fees and expenses were included, the Split-Strike Conversion Strategy as depicted in the marketing document would have had trouble beating a 0% return…

BM said he was earning 82% of the S&P 500’s return with less than 22% of the risk. More alarmingly, his returns only had a 6% correlation to the S&P 500 Stock Index when I would have expected to see something like a 50% correlation and wouldn’t have questioned any correlation figures between 30% – 60%. A 6% correlation was so low as to signal “FRAUD” in flashing red letters. The easiest explanation for why a 6% correlation is so low as to be wholly unbelievable is that if your returns are coming from the S&P 100 stock index, you had better at least partially resemble that stock index’s performance. Having only a 6% resemblance in a situation where, due to the price limiting performance of the put and call options, one would expect a 30 – 60% correlation, was outside the bounds of rationality.”

The difference in HIV/AIDS is that the whistleblower was Peter Duesberg, the best scientist in the field, and the watchdog was Anthony Fauci, whose political interest was in preserving a paradigm that had already elevated his career to the White House level.

All observers of the scene in AIDS and its science are familiar with this phenomenon and the way the established system suppresses any critique that threatens its rulers. An example which is more widely appreciated and accepted, however, is the resistance in NASA to explicit warnings from its own engineers that small pieces of the shuttle might fail and cause disaster for Challenger and Columbia.

The Challenger explosion revealed a culture where not only was the lethal disaster foreseen by engineers but the head of the investigating commission, Bill Rogers, pressured the panel not to detract from NASA’s reputation by revealing management problems. It was left to the totally independent minded physicist Richard Feynman to ignore politics and demonstrate on a table top with a glass of iced water how an O ring must have failed.

More broadly, the report also considered the contributing causes of the accident. Most salient was the failure of both NASA and its contractor, Morton Thiokol, to respond adequately to the design flaw. The Commission found that as early as 1977, NASA managers had not only known about the flawed O-ring, but that it had the potential for catastrophe. This led the Rogers Commission to conclude that the Challenger disaster was “an accident rooted in history.” (Rogers Commission, Wiki)

Hello, can anybody hear us?

In other words, there is systematic deafness to whistleblowers. This is the true lesson of Madoff and Duesberg both. Those in high positions in any social system will easily defeat any internal or outside attempt to bring correction to bear. Even the relatively investigative editors of the Wall Street Journal fell under this spell of reputation in Madoff’s case, as Markopolos informed us in his House testimony:

[Pat Burns, communications director at Taxpayers Against Fraud] put me in contact with John Wilke, senior investigative reporter for the Wall Street Journal’s Washington bureau. Mr. Wilke and I would become friends over the next three years. Unfortunately, as eager as Mr. Wilke was to investigate the Madoff story, it appears that the Wall Street Journal’s editors never gave him approval to start investigating. As you will see from my extensive e-mail correspondence with him over the next several months, there were several points in time in which he was getting ready to book air travel to start the story and then would get called off at the last minute. I never determined if the senior editors at the Wall Street Journal failed to authorize this investigation.

In his appearance Markopolos added that “I believe that senior editors of the Journal respected and feared Mr. Madoff” and wouldn’t let a reporter “get on the plane” and meet with him on the fraud.

The ineffectuality of whistleblowers

All those interested in repressed reform in science should be aware that whistleblowing of any kind faces this kind of handicap wherever it is attempted. Only if there is intense media coverage, or committed support from people of influence, does it have a chance of success. The Madoff scam was exposed only because it blew up in the fear and panic of the recession. The Fauci scam does not have the same internal time bomb, short of the death of its main players.

Individual whistleblowers have proved ineffective so far, despite impeccable scientific credentials (Duesberg), peer reviewed publication in the leading journals (Duesberg with others), established academic positions (Duesberg, Lang) and membership of the National Academy (Duesberg, Lang), very good books (Bialy, Bauer and more than thirty academic, professional, journalistic and lay authors), blogs (Bialy, Liversidge), websites (see blogroll on the right), and highly competent magazine articles (Discover, SPIN, London Sunday Times, and innumerable others, see blogroll), and groups (Rethinking AIDS, HEAL) have likewise made no significant progress.

The one glimmer of hope might be that if Fauci retires, the discussion over his replacement might trigger a review by the White House, and just perhaps open the door to some adjustment. But after 22 years wholesale replacement of HIV in AIDS science and policy now seems socially impossible without a political earthquake of some kind.

Time killed reform in AIDS, as in Madoff

In 1987 and 1988, however, this wasn’t the case, and for a short time the discussion was lively, and it seemed that only the naive would credit the brazen reassurances of Anthony Fauci and the other top scientists in the field that the distinguished, honest and highly critical reviewer of their favorite hypothesis, Peter Duesberg of Berkeley, and his endless expert peer reviewed critiques in the leading journals were wrong in the face of “overwhelming evidence” that HIV is the cause of AIDS, evidence that no one cared to parade in the same journals in direct answer to Duesberg.

For anyone familiar with Duesberg’s papers, the reverse was and still is obviously true. The claim that HIV causes AIDS was and is simply wishful thinking from those that knew to exploit a belief which turned on the spigot of federal funding to a level no one had imagined.

But Anthony Fauci in combination with Robert Gallo led the powerfully effective political suppression of Peter Duesberg’s clear explanations of why, according to its own findings, the paradigm was faulty. The media came to heel, impotent in the face of expertise that exceeded reporters time and attention span. And the media are now key, as Fauci has shown, to maintaining nonsense in place at the policy making level. If whistleblowers can’t win wholesale media support, they are done for. Neither Markopolos or Duesberg did.

That over two decades this carbuncle on the nose of science grew to become the cancerous football sized lymphoma that cannot be surgically removed without killing the patient dead is more than anyone else the fault of Anthony Fauci, director of NIAID and the man who, it turns out, is willing to sacrifice the health and lives of gays and Africans so that he can buy expensive suits.

Wait! How can an outsider credit such a lurid statement about a man widely respected by everybody from Ronald Reagan, who called him a hero, to Charlie Rose, who interviews him worshipfully whenever AIDS or flu is the topic?

Short of asking them to actually read some of this blog and the literature of the scandal written by over thirty authors from Harvey Bialy, Henry Bauer and Peter Duesberg to Celia Farber and Christine Maggiore (please see the blogroll on the lower right of the front page, the section entitled Accurate/Helpful), all we can say is this:

The wholesale evasion of Duesberg’s critique is the best evidence in terms of human behavior that he is correct, just as Madoff’s black box unwillingness to reveal his investing secret screamed silently at one and all that he was running a Ponzi.

Updates: June 26 Fri:Updates: ABC talks to Bernie’s secretary, who says his little black book contains co-conspirators and sexual masseuses. One principle noted: antisocial personalities tend to be control freaks.

New Year’s Eve Debate on Review of HIV/AIDS

January 1st, 2009

2009 begins with extensive on line debate comment thread at on the need to Take a new look at the cause of AIDS.

At, a site where causes and ideas for a better world are voted on to establish prioritiies and perhaps influence the incoming Obama administration, the end of 2008 saw the suggestion
Take a new look at the cause of AIDS voted into a list of the top three priority issues in global health.

Here is a msnapshot (below) of the page and the discussion thread as of Jan 1 2009, 10.30 am New York City time. Readers can easily judge for themselves the value of the contributions made, in what is a well informed exchange where the only souirce of contention we would suggest, is the strenuous efforts of paradigm defenders to head off review of their favored belief in which so much is now invested.

The exchange serves as one more example of how anxious proponents of HIV/AIDS (the belief that HIV is the cause of AIDS symptoms – are to stifle discussion and review.

The phenomenon of scientists and their lay supporters attempting to block objective review of this important paradigm betrays to all savvy political observers a conscious or unconscious fear that unrestricted official reexamination of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis would reveal it as scientifically baseless.

If reexamination is ever allowed, a dismissal of current belief and replacement of the paradigm, which the behavior of the defenders shows that they themselves think is likely, can be confidently expected because it would be just as Peter Duesberg of Berkeley has already demonstrated for 21 years in the peer reviewed professional literature, from 1987 (Cancer Research) on (Proceedings of the National Academy 1988 etc to the Journal of Biosciences 2003, see The Scientific Papers of Peter Duesberg on AIDS, in an ongoing peer certified review of the logic and evidence offered by HIV/AIDS proponents.

The Duesberg review has always rejected the hypothesis as inadequate and incredible, and it has never been successfully refuted on any level, and is without even attempted rebuttal in the leading journals which have carried the peer reviewed papers in the series.

At the renewed efforts of the paradigm protectors to stop this review from emerging as a winning cause seem to have included recruiting votes to promote other issues, so that Take A New Look at the Cause of AIDS would fail to keep its place among the top three carried forward on New Year’s Day.

This effort seems to have only been partially successful and though by New Year’s Day the issue has dropped to third place from second, it is still a contender for at least two more weeks.

We preserve the discussion thread from possible obliteration because it serves as an excellent specimen of the intelligence and informed quality of the scientific, medical and general public criticism of HIV/AIDS and the evasive and political nature of the defense of an official scientific and medical paradigm which has long ago been rejected in the scientific literature:

Take a New Look at the Cause of AIDS

There is a growing group of doctors and scientists who believe the common understanding of the cause of AIDS is incorrect. It is not caused by a virus but instead by drug abuse and (in Africa) malnutrition. We need to fund research to show what is really happening with AIDS one way or the other. This is important because if the mainstream idea is wrong, patients are being given drugs with bad side effects for no reason, and at great cost. Africans are given the drugs instead of the food and clean water they need.We need an independent panel to manage fair and objective research trials. Please see the site:

– Martin Barnes (science journalist), Davis, CA Nov 28 @ 11:17AM PST

Scientists in every part of the world, including respected scientists in Africa, are in agreement that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS. This does not diminish the need of Africans for food, clean water, and treatment for other diseases (such as malaria). The clearest evidence that HIV is the cause of AIDS is from several unfortunate cases in which medical professionals accidentally poked themselves with syringes containing blood from AIDS-infected individuals. Summaries are available at, e.g., or . –Craig Heinke, professor of physics, Edmonton, AB

Posted by Craig Heinke on 11/29/2008 @ 06:52PM PST

we need to change the theory HIV/AIDS, is a Fraud. Is the TIME with the President Obama.

Posted by Luis M0scote on 12/20/2008 @ 05:07PM PST

Prof. Heinke, it’s not that simple unfortunately. The problem is the scientists who do not agree were never really heard. That’s why the “agreement” you mention seems so strong. This issue should be approached objectively and discussed scientifically. This has never been done due to what’s at stake for those who invested so much into HIV/AIDS theory being really true, be it corporations, scientists or even the patients themselves. There are many problems with HIV/AIDS science and they should be addressed as soon as possible. It’s really a critical issue and actually concerns the entire scientific community. Look deeper into it.
Posted by Sadun Kal on 12/21/2008 @ 09:47AM PST

President-Elect Obama is commendably aware of the need to be exposed to a range of competent views. However, that need applies in science and medicine as much — maybe even more — as in economics or politics or educational policy. It’s not widely enough appreciated that the major advances in science and in medicine have almost always come DESPITE the mainstream consensus, which always defends vigorously whatever it happens to believe at a given moment.

Posted by Henry Bauer on 12/21/2008 @ 02:59PM PST

There has never been a better time to overturn a disastrous two decade run of AIDS Inc. With a Trillion in taxpayer and donated money, ask what has been gotten in return? Nothing.
Ask better questions – see better answers.

Posted by Brian Carter on 12/21/2008 @ 10:43PM PST

Scientists do NOT agree and that is the point. The bottom line is the friends I had who were healthy and prescribed “HIV” meds, are all dead.. hundreds of them.
The ones who refused meds including myself, choosing instead to just live their life, look after their health by paying attention to nutrition, rest excursive, and curtailing some of the more excessive behaviours, are thriving today.
I know health care workers pricked by “aids” needles… they never tested poz for anything. HIV (whatever it is) is not a factor and Aids in not contagious.
Peace Health & Happiness

Posted by Kemble Scatchard on 12/21/2008 @ 11:12PM PST

The topic needs more political and most importantly, scientific attention. If the so called “dissidents” are right, then current public health and foreign aid policies on HIV/AIDS are misdirected. If they are wrong, I would be interested to see hard evidence approved by a panel of independent scientists rather than through “peers” who are all but independent. Respected scientists have raised their concerns about the causation of AIDS for years but have been demonized by the HIV/AIDS establishment. This runs against my understanding of how science in a democracy should be conducted.

Posted by Henning Dr. Stein on 12/22/2008 @ 12:49AM PST

The financial conflicts in AIDS are made evident by Dr. Heinke quoting Go to their front page and scroll to the bottom, and you will see the name of all major AIDS pharmaceutical companies as sponsors. Is this a place for unbiased information? By contrast, scientists who have challenged the dogma have often lost many financial, research and publication opportunities, and have been vilified as mass murderers in the press.

Posted by David Crowe on 12/22/2008 @ 09:57AM PST

What honorable objections could researchers or professors have to conducting research?
Much about the paradigm doesn’t make sense and never has. Definitions and explanations over the years have shifted like structures built on soft sand. There is more than sufficient evidence available to justify objective scrutiny of the earliest supporting documents, especially those (edited and) published by Robert Gallo. Those can be viewed at various sites, including
The cornerstone is not only sitting on soft sand, it is constructed of sand.
Signed by one of those affected who has my life only because I questioned the “known” science.

Posted by Jon Barnett on 12/22/2008 @ 11:04AM PST

Prof. Heinke,

There were a total of three lab workers who were allegedly infected by needle sticks. To begin with, that hardly qualifies as scientific evidence. This is purely anecdotal evidence, and to claim that it constitutes scientific evidence is the very definition of pseudoscience.

But if you dig deeper, the plot thickens. For one thing, all three (100%) were alleged to be infected by a single needle stick, when the current consensus among mainstream AIDS researchers is that a needle stick carries a 1:50 risk of infection. Further, there have been people like Dr. Robert Wilner, who deliberately injected himself on a number of occasions with the blood of AIDS patients. Dr. Wilner never contracted HIV as a result.

Then, there’s the fact of how quickly all three lab workers died. We are told that it takes an average of about 10 years for HIV infection to progress to AIDS (much less to cause death), yet all three of these lab workers were dead in an average of less than 5 years.

It is statistically unlikely (1:150) for all three workers to have been infected by needle sticks. It is more extremely unlikely for HIV to have killed all three in such a short time. However, it is an amply-documented scientific fact that psychosomatic factors can cause symptoms of any disease, up to and including death. In those days, AIDS researchers believed that HIV could kill in as little as 6 months to 5 years. All three of these researchers held this belief, and all three died within the window predicted by that belief, rather than the 10 years or more that we now supposedly “know” that it takes for HIV to kill a healthy person.

It has also been amply demonstrated that a strong negative emotion, such as fear, can not only cause psychosomatic illness, but it’s immunosuppressive to boot. As unlikely as it is that all three were infected by needle sticks, how likely do you think it is that all three were “infected” by sheer terror the moment they realized that they’d been stuck? And in the following months and years, do you think this terror went away, or did it multiply?

Centuries ago, Voodoo priests were proving that terror, by itself, could kill, when they’d cast a death curse on a villager, who rarely survived for longer than three days after the spell was cast. As might be expected, when they tried to hex the white men, their death curses had no effect, because the whites didn’t believe in Voodoo.

You come to us with “proof” that is purely anecdotal, and which cannot be tested, (there being no control to prove that these lab workers were killed by nothing other than HIV,) and expect us to believe that this constitutes scientific evidence that HIV causes AIDS.

Surely, Professor Heinke, if the evidence (much less the truth) were on your side, you could do better than this.

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/22/2008 @ 02:57PM PST

If anyone thinks that life long Chemotherapy is ACCEPTABLE for a decimated population like in Africa, really needs to RETHINK this strategy. What Africa needs is CLEAN WATER, Food (the ability to grow food) and decent living conditions. Also, AZT and its sister drugs NEED to be TAKEN off the market… Big PHARMA needs to be exposed for who/what they really are – GREEDY EXECUTIVES and LOBBYISTS who make their money off of the FEAR of the average person. If BIG PHARMA was scrutinized like the car and banking industries, I think we would be APPALLED at what we would find out!

Posted by Glenn Zuraw on 12/23/2008 @ 06:18AM PST

Can you remember when lying to the President, Congress and the Public was a serious crime?
Read the Pulitzer Prize winning article | Medicine: AIDS Fight Is Skewed By Federal Campaign Exaggerating Risks
It seems to me that CDC’s admitted lies about their profoundly discredited claim that “Every one is at risk!” warrents a full scale investigation – into all their claims about HIV/AIDS.

Posted by Michael Ellner on 12/23/2008 @ 07:02AM PST

I find it incomprehensible that in the 21st century we still have people so entrenched in denial that they feel they need to find out the “true cause of AIDS”. There is ample evidence for HIV’s role, and none of the opposing theories can explain the phenomenon adequately. We also know that specific anti-HIV therapies can reverse the changes induced by HIV and lead to prolonged survival.Professor Heinke’s story about lab workers infected with HIV are just one example of the evidence. There are numerous examples of other health care workers who have seroconverted afetr exposure to HIV positive blood, transfusion recipients, those inseminated with HIV positive semen etc who have demonstrated a clinical seroconversion illness, demonstrated laboratory markers of infection (seroconversion, high HIV titres), progressive immunodeficiency, and ultimately clinical immunodeficiency. Those who had these exposures from blood/semen where the source was HIV negative do not experience any illness or progression to AIDS.
Reading this discussion evokes visions of someone looking up at an aeroplane in the sky, shouting “The aerodynamic properties of inverted aerofoils have been questioned by a doctor (PhD social science). The plane obviously is a lie and cannot fly!”

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/23/2008 @ 07:50AM PST

I’ve watched too many friends suffer and die from inappropriate pharmaceutical treatment, while the views of qualified scientists have been squelched by Big Pharma, and govermnet and the press go along becaue Big Pharma can get whatever it pays for. It’s time to challenge the scientific community to go back to the days of scientific method, and seek Truth over profits.

Posted by Lawrence Jackson-Rosen on 12/23/2008 @ 08:42AM PST

@Derek: Perhaps you should take the time to dig deeper in the whole story besides the mainstream media. The orthodox view is the one with the circular logik….especially since the exposure of Gallo’s fraud in 1984 (->”Fear of the invisible”!)

Posted by Stefan Risch on 12/23/2008 @ 09:21AM PST

It seems that one of the most important things to be done in order to not perpetuate the hoax of HIV is to ditch all HIV tests, however that can be done. The way for an individual to avoid the whole insanity is to never take that fraudulent test. For those who’ve already tested positive the way back to health (mental and physical) requires a deep and extensive change of mind, a personal deprogramming of the myth that HIV equals illness and by the dissolution of relationships with HIV health practitioners who derive benefit from selling HIV to patients and friends/acquaintances who see benefit in believing that HIV equals sickness. That kind of “concern” we can all do without.
First and foremost: DON’T TAKE THE TEST!

Posted by Reg Bielamowicz on 12/23/2008 @ 10:19AM PST

flu shots and the flu itself will cause one to have a false positive on the hiv test according to a 2006 New England Journal of Medicine report. the hiv test only identifies the presence of proteins, with 1, 2, or 3 proteins identified for a positive result depending on which country one tests in. many conditions will cause the body to produce those proteins including drug use, pregnancy, malaria and tuberculosis among others. i took hiv drugs for 11 years, i stopped 2 years ago, and will never take them again. please see the youtube channel i created at that includes many healing alternatives – this has been a very painful for me personally and i have found no legal recourse to date.

Posted by Gregory Smiley on 12/23/2008 @ 10:21AM PST

I consider it unacceptable, immoral and criminal to hide part of the truth when we deal with a matter of life and death.

I was found HIV-positive 23 years ago, in 1985. I learned that there is a controversy on the subject only in 2006, 21 years later. After I had taken the prescribed AIDS drugs for 12 years, thinking there was no better choice than taking them. I almost died three or four times from their side effects, it was a nightmare.

Should I not have known earlier that there is another view on the subject? And decide for myself which one I would follow?

After I saw the whole image, I stopped the medication, exams and AIDS consultation, and regained full health. I live happily now with my husband, who helped me to discover the other side of AIDS.

Maria Papagiannidou – St Pierre

Journalist, ex AIDS patient, author of the book “Good Bye AIDS! Did it ever exist?”, published in Greek in 2008. It will soon be available also in English.

Posted by Maria Papagiannidou on 12/23/2008 @ 12:39PM PST

In 2003 I had full-blown AIDS. At that time, I believed what most believe to be true about AIDS, that is it is caused by sex and one who gets it will die. Both of these assumptions are false! First there isn’t any test for the HIV virus, instead it is only for “antibodies,” which has always been a good thing in medicine. Robert Gallo did not purify his work and only found HIV in 38% of samples. Also, there isn’t any gold standard for testing and over 70 things can cause a false positive.

Our own CDC misleads the public into believing that HIV is sexually transmitted. The longest study on record by
Dr. Nancy Padian shows the opposite. While there are millions of sexually-transmitted diseases in the U.S. each year, there are only approximately 40,000 cases of HIV and 16,000 true, AIDS cases, less than .004% of the population. Not a raging epidemic, sexual or otherwise.

We spend millions each year and it is now reaching the trillion mark of funds being spent on AIDS. There are many more pressing health issues that affect many more people than AIDS.

I sincerely hope that you will investigate this political hot-potato, because lives are being ruined with this diagnosis, people are placed in jail for having sex, people are placed on the most toxic drugs on the planet, especially pregnant women or else they risk losing their children. The side effects of the antiretroviral medications is what is killing AIDS patients, while all along, the illusive virus is being blamed.

Finally, three years next month, I have been off these meds and my CD4’s are 111 and my viral load is 2.8 million. The doctors state that I am just lucky. The real reason that I am doing so well, I live healthy, stay away from the meds, and because HIV doesn’t cause AIDS.

Posted by Noreen Martin on 12/23/2008 @ 02:06PM PST

It’s time to re-think the theory of HIV and AIDS.

Posted by Rick Hill on 12/23/2008 @ 02:10PM PST

If HIV is really still a theory only ( and debated by our best scientific minds as well as those who’ve been ‘diagonosed’ by tests that are not objective and highly open to interpretation, ), then Why do ( gay men especially ) allow our sex lives to be dictated by fear. Could there possibly be any correlation between HIV/AIDS arriving just when the Gay “movement” was at it’s most organized and most ‘threatening’ to the ‘order of the Right” and the Powers that be?The effects have deeply re-wounded the Gay community and the judgement and separation, exclusion and blackballing seem to again , set the Gay community back to where it was by 30 years. Natural sex is natural !What makes a ‘high risk’ group other than the belief that being different or queer makes it a ‘high risk’?The same sexual practices done by hetero folks are not seen as high risk necessarily! This is magical thinking- but not white/positive magic, but black magic or hypnotism on a mass level.Who do we choose to give our power away to? Who is the expert on our bodies?Women have long learned that their bodies are their own to regulate- Gay men could learn from their example… if they are willing to release SHAME/judgement about who they are ( queer) and what they like !Nature supports diversity.Why is a sexual practice high risk in one country (USA) , but not in another ? Could it be there is an agenda to keeping a group in the energy of fear? … But why would anyone hate the Gay Males?!Wake up!- Gay men ( and women in touch with their bodies) are THE biggest threat to the establishment: Gay men have no children to be concerned with and the most likely to push an envelope- especially for freedom, especially for SEXUAL freedom!Sexual Healer, CoachMark Bednar

Posted by mark Bednar on 12/23/2008 @ 05:25PM PST

The goal is to cure AIDS. Not treat it. Not manage it. Not study it. Not write papers about it. Not wear red ribbons. Not hold Hollywood fundraisers. The goal is to cure it — to reduce the suffering of millions afflicted.

New ideas, such as exploring alternative theories of causation, or focusing on nutrition or focusing on nutrition or looking at a multi-factoral phenomenom are well-warranted.

Toxic drugs simply don’t work for everyone.

Posted by David S on 12/23/2008 @ 08:36PM PST

Derek Neumann wrote: “I find it incomprehensible that in the 21st century we still have people so entrenched in denial that they feel they need to find out the ‘true cause of AIDS’.”


As a recovering AIDS patient, I find it reprehensible that you would dismiss my struggle for life as “denial.” You haven’t walked that mile in my shoes, son, so take your self-righteous, judgemental attitude back to the tent revival where it belongs.

I didn’t learn the true causeS (plural) of AIDS to support some sort of denial. I learned the facts about AIDS because I was dying with AIDS and because learning more about it was the only way to survive, and the triple-drug therapy I was taking was only making matters worse, while my doctor was completely ignoring very serious health issues that I have and which were literally killing me, in favor of focusing myopically on a virus that, I’ve learned, may not even exist.

In those days, I weighed about 120 lbs sopping wet, I had constant dyspnea, night sweats, constant upper and lower respiratory infections, loss of appetite, nausea, vomiting, chronic ear infections, flu-like symptoms, and I was in and out of hospitals. Today, I weigh nearly 200 lbs and I haven’t been hospitalized in 5 years(*). So take a look at my plane soaring over your head and tell me it can’t fly.

You say that there is “ample evidence” for HIV’s role in AIDS, but I’ve examined the “evidence” of which you speak, and I can only agree that it is ample. The only way any objective observer could accept it as evidence is if that person lacked critical thinking skills. None of the so-called “evidence” holds up to critical scrutiny — not a single article, not a single paragraph, not a line, not a single word of it. Just because there are massive quantities of articles published on a subject doesn’t make it a scientific fact. For 200 years after Galileo’s death, the overwhelming published “evidence” supported the geocentric model of the universe.

Now, having said that, let me ask you something: What kind of “denial” is it for me to say, “I have AIDS and in fact I nearly died of AIDS, I merely disagree with your view of what causes it”? Honestly, does that sound like denial?

There is a form of denialism, called “scapegoating”, which all people indulge in to one extent or another. The human ego is icapable of envisioning its own demise, and so a person will take secret delight in the death of, say, a smoker, or a drug abuser, or a homosexual, or a member of another race, or whatever, because on some deep level one actually convinces himself that these people are dying in his place. Thus, one’s own aspirations towards unachievable immortality manifest in a secret wish for death upon those who are unlike oneself. It’s something we all do, it’s called scapegoating, for more info, look it up.

Now, with the concept of scapegoating in mind, I invite anyone to check out’s page dedicated to “AIDS denialists who have died.” ( Could anyone who was not in denial dance on graves, and see it as anything but ghoulish?

…So who’s really in denial here?

— Gos

(*) – Incidentally, my last hospitalization was for flu during the record-breaking flu season of 2003, in which hospitals across the US were swamped with flu cases just like mine. Interestingly enough, I actually recovered a lot faster than some of the HIV-negatives I knew who caught the same flu.

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/23/2008 @ 11:55PM PST

There will always be individuals with extraordinary stories. It has been suggested that I have not walked in the shoes of someone with AIDS, therefore I cannot comment. Well I think I can. I an not HIV positive, but I have lost close friends to AIDS. I work in a clinic which delivers care to around 500 people with HIV. I have seen and felt their hopes, their pain, their loss and their successes. The most remarkable thing I have witnessed has been the resounding success of the HIV therapies over the last 10 years. Yes, there have been many who had or still have bad side effects from the treatments. But particularly with the newer drugs, side effects are rare, and the benefits are overwhelming. I have seen patients who literally were at death’s door 10 years ago, with CD4 counts in single figures, who are now working and enjoying life to the full today. The meds may not be a cure, and yes I have even seen some in whom the meds have accelerated their deaths, but that price was one they and the doctors were willing to take in order to give them a last chance of life.

Gos, you are fortunate that you have done well, and are able to post on this site, I wish you well and good luck in the future. But do not let your own individual account and prejudices compromise the chance others have for life. Gos, if (or when) you become ill, what will you do? What will you do if your CD4 counts drop to say 50? Will you deny yourself the option of HIV meds? If you do, then I would say you would be in denial.

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/24/2008 @ 02:50AM PST

Derek Neumann wrote: “It has been suggested that I have not walked in the shoes of someone with AIDS, therefore I cannot comment. Well I think I can. I an not HIV positive, but I have lost close friends to AIDS.”

And I haven’t? Funny thing, though — they always died of “AIDS related” liver failure or “AIDS related” heart attacks. One in particular named Matthew, who died in 2003 of “AIDS related” liver failure, left behind an HIV-negative widow who’d had unprotected sex with him throughout their years of marriage, in her belief that God had promised her that if she married him, she could have all the unprotected sex she wanted with him, and she’d never get AIDS. A miracle? More like a clue.

I myself have had three long-term relationships with women who were aware of my alleged HIV status, who of their own accord had unprotected vaginal and/or anal intercourse with me, a cumulative total of thousands of times. To this day, each of these women is HIV-negative.

…The “extraordinary stories” are starting to pile up here…

…Then there was the guy I met about 9 years ago, who’d found out he was HIV-positive at the age of 18, when he’d tried to join the military. When I met him, he’d lived in denial – never seeing doctors for any reason, not telling his family, etc., for 13 years, and today it’s more than 20. It’s been a couple of years since I talked to him last, but the man’s never had a sniffle so long as I’ve known him. (At one point, I actually tried to talk him into seeing my doctor so she could prescribe some of the “new miracle drugs” for him that she’d prescribed for me. Oh yeah, I’m in denial.)

…Then there was the “bug chaser” that I met shortly after I tested positive, who told me that he’d actively been *trying* to get HIV for 13 years, with no success.

I could list “extraordinary stories” for days, of people I’ve known personally, but I cannot list a single case of anyone I’ve ever known to get sick or die of AIDS, who didn’t die from something completely unrelated to HIV.

As for the “overwhelming” benefits of ARVs, I doubt that it’s beneficial to overwhelm the liver, nor the heart, the brain, the bone marrow, nor any of the other organs, tissues, and systems which are damaged by these drugs. I myself took a triple-drug cocktail for only a year before I began to show clinical signs of liver damage — fortunately not permanent, as my liver function tests have returned to normal since I quit taking meds. However, I’ve since read studies that show that ARVs not only double your risk of a heart attack when you begin taking them, but they also increase the risk further if you withdraw. I’ve done both, plus I smoke, so I can easily see myself dying of an “AIDS related” heart attack at some point in the future.

These drugs are truly miraculous, though — they’re so effective that they prevent AIDS deaths among those who don’t even take them. If that’s not miraculous, I don’t know what is.

According to the CDC:

* There are 1.2 million HIV-positives in America.

* 20% of them do not know it (leaving 960,000 HIV-positives who are aware of their status.)

* Of these 960,000, fewer than half are taking ARVs.

* In any given year, there are approximately 15,000 AIDS deaths in the US. This amounts to approximately 1.25% of the total number of HIV-positives in the US. If AIDS deaths continued at this rate indefinitely, it would take 80 years (a whole lifetime) for all of the HIV-positives in the US to die off.

* Among those who die, the leading causes of death include liver failure (#1,) heart attacks, and strokes — all known consequences of taking AIDS cocktail drugs.

Thus, if only a tiny fraction of HIV-positives are dying in any given year, and many of these are dying of complications from the drugs, that means that HIV is actually killing an even smaller fraction (if we assume HIV to be the cause even in those cases).

So, somehow, by killing off a few of those who take them, these drugs manage to save the lives of the majority who don’t take them. Truly, these drugs are an honest-to-God miracle of modern medicine.

…Personally, I prefer the Red Pill.

Derek Neumann wrote: “Gos, you are fortunate that you have done well, and are able to post on this site, I wish you well and good luck in the future. …, if (or when) you become ill, what will you do? What will you do if your CD4 counts drop to say 50?”

Spoken like a true quasi-religious fundamentalist: “If you don’t believe as I believe, then I’m just gonna have to pray for your soul, that God will show you the light before you burn in hell. What will you do when you hear Gabriel’s trumpet, and realize that you’re not in a state of grace and now it’s too late because you’ve been… ::ominous organ swell:: …LEFT BEHIND?”

Right now, Derek, I pray that my CD4 counts do not rise again, to the level (>1700) that they were when I was at my sickest.

That’s the problem with the assumption that HIV is the cause of AIDS. You guys have been barking up the wrong tree for so long that your expectations of AIDS are the exact opposite of the reality for the patient, but where reality conflicts with your assumptions, you call it an “extraordinary tale”, as though it were the exception and not the rule. But a few of you are starting to wake up — even Athony Fauci has begun to admit more recently that the CD4 lymphocytopenia observed in late-stage AIDS patients is merely the end result of years of having *elevated* CD4 counts, until the immune system simply exhausts itself. He maintains that it’s HIV that causes this, but wait a minute — don’t those miracle drugs of yours elevate CD4 counts? I know that they boosted my CD4 counts from >1400 to >1700. If prolonged elevation of CD4 counts causes AIDS, and ARVs elevate CD4 counts for prolonged periods of time, then … well, the dots are starting to connect, aren’t they?

Derek Neumann wrote: “…Will you deny yourself the option of HIV meds? If you do, then I would say you would be in denial.”

Now, let me see if I understand you correctly — I’m in denial of …. the benefits of HIV meds? Does that make sense?

I’m no psychologist, but my understanding of denial is that it’s defined by there being some uncomfortable fact that one wishes weren’t true, so they deny it.

If there were any benefit to HIV meds for persons like myself, do you honestly believe I would live in denial of it? Hell no — I’d be on the meds so fast that it’d make your head spin. If these drugs were truly the salvation that you claim, why would I be in denial of it?

Refusal to take medications that one thinks are ineffective, inappropriate, and/or dangerous does not constitute denial.

For that matter, it isn’t denial to look Chicken Little right in his beady little eyes and say, “That was an acorn, you idiot! Now go play with that kid who keeps crying wolf.”

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/24/2008 @ 04:52AM PST

Derek, that would still have nothing to do with denial, it would be an informed decision. It would be acting on information instead of faith in an unproven claim. In fact, if a person like Gos were to start taking drugs because his CD4 counts dropped that would be denying all that he learned over the years and giving in to the pressure coming from his social environment out of fear and exhaustion.

Still today, those who defend the “HIV” hypothesis don’t know how “HIV” is killing these CD4 cells. And they have to ignore studies reporting that low CD4 cell counts precede “HIV+” test results -not vice versa- to maintain the belief that HIV is killing the cells.

If you consider that probably less than 1% of all AIDS patients know that a other side exists and even less have the courage to approach it objectively, then the number of those “individuals with extraordinary stories” should ring a bell. Only on this page you have three stories -Maria, Noreen, Gos. Imagine how extraordinary those stories would seem if the entire world was exposed to this “other side”.

And what these stories prove is that at least in some cases drugs are not necessary to treat the thing called “AIDS”. Alone that is worth shifting the focus away from the drugs to understand this phenomenon better. Normally these cases should be embraced by the whole scientific community instead of being perceived as a distraction or disturbance. But unfortunately such individuals are only labeled as “denialists”, disrespected and ingored. A change is necessary.

And I suggest you start to examine the evidence objectively yourself, because you’re in such a critical position for many patients.

Posted by Sadun Kal on 12/24/2008 @ 04:53AM PST

Obviously the term “denial” is a problem for some of you. OK, let’s just say that its a personal choice on your part. But when the evidence that informs that choice has come from testimonials, anecdotes and distorted interpretation of the science, then that decision is inappropriate in my view. I respect your choice to make it, but people need a full picture of all the evidence.

Side effects from the drugs may have become one of the leading causes of death in HIV patients – do you know why? Everything is relative, you see….. It’s because 15 years ago the vast majority of patients died of diseases associated with advanced immunodeficiency. As an example of what I mean, lets say 5% died from the drugs. Today maybe 50% die from the drugs (again as an example). Hardly sounds worth it, does it? Anyone would say “WTF? I’m not taking those toxic drugs!”

But you need to understand the difference between absolute risk, and relative risk. 15 years ago, using my theoretical example figures, say 95 people died from AIDS per 100 patient years, and 5 died from drugs (then drug deaths =5%).
Today, if 5 die from AIDS, and 5 die from drugs, the drug deaths =50%. Put that way, you can actually see how effective the drugs are, rather than how dangerous they are.

You mention that ARVs can double the risk of heart attacks. True, they do increase the risk (abacavir relative risk is 1.9 from the DAD study). But you are admitting that for every one MI caused by abacavir in an HIV patient, there is another in whom they would have had an MI anyway. So your figures about deaths do not account for the background rate – you are happy to label all cardiac deaths in AIDS as drug induced, when only half of them are. In fact, generally speaking, ARVs actually reduce the overall risks of heart and liver disease – the SMART study showed this quite clearly, and it also showed how those who stopped treatment had an increased risk of developing “non-AIDS” complications like liver disease and cardiovascular problems. This is not explicable by your theories about drug toxicity. (The SMART study also showed the benefits of therapy in other ways).

One can look at personal experience, stories from the clinic, the tales told by friends – all of that is subjective and biased one way or another. It requires large trials to truly independently determine what the facts are regarding HIV and ARVs. These studies all confirm that on balance, treatment is beneficial and prolongs quality and duration of life. They also help confirm the HIV etiology of immunodeficiency and AIDS.

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/24/2008 @ 06:19AM PST

Derek wrote:

“But when the evidence that informs that choice has come from testimonials, anecdotes and distorted interpretation of the science, then that decision is inappropriate in my view. I respect your choice to make it, but people need a full picture of all the evidence”.

So, Derek, your full picture is only the official view on AIDS. I suffered because I lacked the other side of AIDS. After I stopped the medication and felt healthy right away, I needed some answers. The need to find out how all this happened to me was growing by the day. I went and obtained my medical records ten months after stopping the AIDS therapy. And invited Dr. Angelos Sicilian (a real doctor with a pseudonym here) to our home to review my records.
An excerpt from my book “Good Bye AIDS! Did it ever exist?”:

So, I was diagnosed with an illness of AIDS (Pneumocystis carini), although it was only a possibility, as my own doctor T.K. had written so in his medical notes. “The lies being told about the pathogenesis of HIV are innumerable and very dangerous”, our new doctor commented now. “There is only one unsigned chapter in my Pathology Anatomy book and it is the chapter on AIDS where I found such lies that with the knowledge I have acquired these days it is now obvious to me. Two months prior I was unaware that the virus had never been found and thus I would have easily believed the part by the anonymous editor that the virus was detected in lymph nodes. It is also a mistake to explain the side-effects of the medication as part of the pathology. You were not lied to. They believed that. And it is not wise to dispute other people’s beliefs”. My medical record gives a chest-xray as the basis for the presumptive diagnosis of PCP, for which I started on Septrin (2 tablets per day) and AZT (500 mg/day). On the 15th day of treatment, I developed a fine maculapapular rash all over the body and face, an allergic reaction to Septrin, so it was discontinued. I was then given antihistamine tablets for the allergy, and Fansidar which had previously been shown to prevent re-occurence of pneumocystis carinii pneumonia infections. If I really had a PCP problem, Septrin took care of it, the AZT against HIV was not required. Angelos Sicilian was not sure at all that I had really suffered pneumonia: “In Greece pneumocystis carinii pneumonia is uncommon. It is very rare, although AIDS patients quite often exhibit it. I have not been taught diagnosis of this illness and it has not been mentioned in any of the labs I have worked in. A research from the Evangelismos and Syngrou Hospitals does not refer to a discovery or even one case of pneumocystis carinii pneumonia while the topic of research is its prevention. In other words, not one case has been diagnosed. And in another research one case is mentioned Pneumocystis carini Pneumonia in an Immunocompetent Host. Thus according to this research, pneumocystis carinii pneumonia was found one time in a patient with a competent immune system. It is very difficult for someone to have made such a diagnosis for various reasons. No one has the expertise to make this diagnosis. If perhaps one of those proposed experts of parasites, despite efforts to fill in the voids made by others, was unable to identify the microbe, then in my opinion he will simply play the role of God. He must maintain his reputation. It is not allowed to say “I don’t know.” Moreover, there are not many who can dispute his claim. He is on his own. Certainly he will score and win since he has no opponent” “I am aware of this logic as far as identification of bacteria goes in microbiology. Usually they produce hypothetical diagnoses. This is how we learn from the experts. My professor at the Hospital NIMTS was a military doctor and did not work like that. He struggled until the end to make an accurate identification. I avoid hypothetical diagnoses. I will refer to it as Gram Positive Grain, a general morphological term instead of a specific microbe. I have been scolded by everyone for this. I cannot teach my students to be exact because that is a poor teaching technique. This is how I have learned and have been criticized for paying attention to such detail. I do not know what can be done. If you were sick for months due to the antiretroviral treatment then it is possible you got not only pneumocystis but a host of other illnesses. However if the first diagnosis was pneumocystis and you had not taken until then the antiretroviral drugs, as happened when you were first diagnosed, it is my understanding from your bio that they most likely made up your diagnosis”. That is why they could not detect it at the Athens Medical Center. You must be an AIDS specialist to diagnose it! They try to be correct with the wording. Dr. K. had written about me “30/12/1995 – 16/01/1996, prolonged fever, possibly PCR, anaemia.” Possible pneumocystis carini, unsure; how much influence this ambivalence had on the rest of the situation is unknown. There also were cytomegalovirus and tuberculosis meningitis diagnosed for me later. Could these diagnoses also be as tentative? “CMV retinitis, would means a retinal infection from cytomegalovirus (CMV) and it was a false diagnosis because it was not based on a diagnosis of antibodies but simply an ophthalmoscopy which is improper”, Dr Sicilian stated. “This evidence, an ophthalmoscopy is insufficient to document viral causation. We can thus assume that the threatening loss of eyesight in you and others is a result of the therapy with the drugs you were taking. Here I give you evidential work where the writers accept that retinitis from cytomegalovirus is caused by the medication as a side-effect. They refer to it elegantly as “the restoration of immune competence.” There is no evidence you had such an illness. Now as far as the tuberculous meningitis is concerned I need more evidence. I do not believe it was tuberculosis. To find 5-7 acid resistant microbes, to see red coloured specks instead of blue after a specific process called the Ziehl-Nielsen colouring does not indicate tuberculosis, when the culture is barren. Thus it was a ‘possible’ tuberculous meningitis”. […] With kind regards
Maria Papagiannidou
an ex AIDS patient

Posted by Maria Papagiannidou on 12/24/2008 @ 06:47AM PST

Derek Neumann wrote: “Obviously the term ‘denial’ is a problem for some of you. OK, let’s just say that its a personal choice on your part.”

I did not choose to become a dissident — in fact, I fought it tooth and nail.

When I first stumbled across dissident information, my first thought was that these people were full of s*** — of course HIV caused AIDS, and of course ARVs save lives — the evidence was overwhelming (or so I thought).

And I had a great number of reasons for believing this — for one thing, I’d seen how my viral load went down and my CD4 count went up when I’d taken ARVs, and I interpreted this to mean that there was a virus that was killing my CD4 cells and that the ARVs were fighting that virus.

I set out to disprove the dissident claims, only to find that their arguments were for the most part solid, and that my own reasons for continuing to believe that HIV causes AIDS were specious. I began to realize that my skepticism would be meaningless unless I applied equal skepticism to both sides of the argument, and it was when I began to critically examine the published mainstream articles about AIDS that I began to realize that it wasn’t the dissidents who were wrong. If you actually take the time to critically examine HIV studies, you’ll find that most of them are purely unscientific, because no controls are used in >90%, and on the rare occasions when controls are actually done, the results tend to negate all of the other studies that were done without controls.

Here’s an example, using three studies, two done without controls and one with a control group:

Van Voorhis et al ( – HIV detected by PCR in the blood of 23 out of 25 HIV-positive subjects, and in the semen of 1 out of 25. No control used.

Mermin et al ( – HIV detected by PCR in the blood of 17 out of 23 HIV-positive subjects, and in the seminal fluids of 15 out of 23. No controls used.

Now, what happens when we do a control group?

Persico et al ( HIV detected by PCR in 7 out of 55 (13%) blood samples obtained from HIV-positive subjects, and in two (4.2%) of whole semen samples from the same group. However, in the HIV-negative control group, HIV was detected in 40% of HIV-negative blood samples, and in 60% of HIV-negative semen samples. (Yes, you read that right — they actually found “HIV” in the blood and semen of more HIV-negatives than HIV-positives.)

Now, when the PCR test detects HIV in people who don’t have HIV, then it couldn’t possibly be HIV that it’s detecting, now could it?

However, because the vast majority of such studies are done without controls (and therefore are unscientific to begin with,) the illusion is created and sustained that the PCR tests are actually confirming the presence of HIV in the bodily fluids of HIV-positives.

I could go on and on, listing similar examples of pseudoscience being presented as “evidence” of this or that. It literally permeates the entire field of HIV research like the stench of a dead skunk on a summer day.

I did not choose to become a dissident, dissidence was forced upon me when I could no longer deny the facts.

Derek Neumann wrote: “Side effects from the drugs may have become one of the leading causes of death in HIV patients – do you know why? Everything is relative, you see….. It’s because 15 years ago the vast majority of patients died of diseases associated with advanced immunodeficiency. As an example of what I mean, lets say 5% died from the drugs. Today maybe 50% die from the drugs (again as an example)….etc.”

Care to cite some actual statistics, rather than “maybes” and “let’s says”? It would sure enhance the credibility of your argument.

According to a non-dissident friend of mine (indeed, he was the co-founder of the KS/AIDS Foundation, which later became AIDS Foundation Houston,) 15 years ago (1993) more of the AIDS patients that he knew died from AZT monotherapy than from HIV. In addition, many were being killed by overprescription of antibiotics and other experimental treatments — in those days, doctors were trying anything and everything — no matter how drastic — to try to save their patients, and many killed their patients in the attempt.

As for these new “miracle drugs”, they didn’t begin to come out until 1996, but AIDS deaths began to drop in 1993 — so apparently in addition to preventing AIDS in people who don’t take them, these drugs are also so powerful that they can prevent AIDS deaths retroactively by up to three years.

Derek Neumann wrote: “You mention that ARVs can double the risk of heart attacks. True, they do increase the risk (abacavir relative risk is 1.9 from the DAD study). But you are admitting that for every one MI caused by abacavir in an HIV patient, there is another in whom they would have had an MI anyway. So your figures about deaths do not account for the background rate – you are happy to label all cardiac deaths in AIDS as drug induced, when only half of them are.”

Where did I “admit” that for every MI caused by drugs, there’s another who would have had one anyway? For that matter, where did I or anyone but you claim that there would be a 1:1 ratio of drug-induced/non-drug-induced deaths?

Seriously, where are you getting your numbers? Can you produce some actual statistics, or are “let’s says” and “maybes” and made-up numbers the best you can do?

Derek Neumann wrote: “This is not explicable by your theories about drug toxicity.”

My “theories” are they? Let’s see what the manufacturer of abacavir has to say about my “theories”, shall we?

Full prescribing info:

Quoting from the manufacturer’s website:

“Patients taking abacavir may have a serious allergic reaction (hypersensitivity reaction) that can cause death.” [emphasis in original]

“ZIAGEN, like other HIV medicines, can cause a condition called lactic acidosis and severe liver problems. … In some cases, lactic acidosis can cause death.”

“The most common side effects with ZIAGEN were nausea, headache, weakness or tiredness, nausea and vomiting, allergic reaction, diarrhea, stomach pain, depression, fever/chills, muscle pain, rashes, and nervousness.”


“Lactic acidosis and severe hepatomegaly with steatosis, including fatal cases, have been reported with the use of nucleoside analogues alone or in combination, including ZIAGEN and other antiretrovirals”

“Suspected Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) have been reported in patients receiving abacavir primarily in combination with medications”

“In a published prospective, observational, epidemiological study designed to investigate the rate of myocardial infarction in patients on combination antiretroviral therapy, the use of abacavir within the previous 6 months was correlated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction (MI).”

“Abacavir was administered orally at 3 dosage levels to separate groups of mice and rats in 2-year carcinogenicity studies. Results showed an increase in the incidence of malignant and non-malignant tumors. Malignant tumors occurred in the preputial gland of males and the clitoral gland of females of both species, and in the liver of female rats. In addition, non-malignant tumors also occurred in the liver and thyroid gland of female rats.”

“This list of side effects is not complete.”

Hmmm…yeah, my “theories” about the toxicity of these drugs are pretty wild, aren’t they?

Derek Neumann wrote: “One can look at personal experience, stories from the clinic, the tales told by friends – all of that is subjective and biased one way or another. It requires large trials to truly independently determine what the facts are regarding HIV and ARVs.”

You seem pretty intent on assuming that my opinion is based on personal experience and/or rumors I heard from friends. In reality, I have read more published scientific literature on the subject of AIDS than 90% of the medical professionals who treat AIDS patients, and if your contributions so far to this discussion are any indication, I have read far more published studies on AIDS than you have.

Do you think that this is my first time playing a game of “stump the professor” with a scientist or medical professional? I’ve won debates with people who know 10 times more than you do.

Earlier this year, I won a 5-month debate ( with a biologist who cited dozens of articles, and after 5 months, he wasn’t able to produce a shred of unimpeachable evidence that HIV exists — we never even got to discuss whether HIV causes AIDS, because he couldn’t establish proof of its existence. And in all fairness, this guy gave me a run for my money — he really put me to the test. Compared to him, you don’t stand a chance against me in a debate on this subject.

My opinion about AIDS (and yes, I admit that it is my *opinion*, unlike certain persons who mistake their opinions for facts,) is based on years of careful research of the scientific literature — My personal experiences and observations only serve to confirm what I’ve learned from research.

And speaking of using personal, anecdotal examples, told from a subjective and biased viewpoint, who was it only this morning who was claiming that his experience in a clinic that serves 500 patients, plus the fact that he’d personally known people who’d died from AIDS, proved his case?

Derek Neumann wrote: “It requires large trials to truly independently determine what the facts are regarding HIV and ARVs.”

I’ll agree with you, and go one better: It requires large, CONTROLLED studies which are truly independent of corrupting influence (such as funding from pharmaceutical companies), and which are conducted in accordance with recognized scientific standards, such as the use of control groups where it is not unethical or impossible to do so.

You claim that (and I quote,) “These studies ALL [emphasis mine] confirm that on balance, treatment is beneficial and prolongs quality and duration of life.”

I can cite numerous studies which disprove your contention that ALL such studies show that ARVs are beneficial and prolong quality and/or duration of life. But in order to keep your humiliation brief, we’ll return to the prescribing information for abacavir (, since this article has already been presented as evidence. Here’s a quote: “We do not know if ZIAGEN will help you live longer or have fewer of the medical problems that people get with HIV or AIDS.”

So YOU say that ALL studies show that abacavir and other drugs ike it will help people live longer and have fewer of the medical problems associated with AIDS, but the manufacturer says otherwise. And you could name every AIDS cocktail drug in the book, and I could take you to the manufacturer’s website and show you essentially the same disclaimer in the prescribing info for every single one. ALL of them. So who am I to believe, the manufacturers of these drugs (who would surely be proclaiming it from the rooftops if there were any actual proof that these drugs do what you claim,) or some guy I met on the internet who can’t seem to cite any statistics that aren’t prefaced by “maybe” or “let’s say”?

Now, having disproven that your claim that ALL studies show the life-prolonging and health-promoting benefits of ARVs, I challenge you to produce ONE study in which proper scientific methods were used, and which was free of the financial influence of parties with a vested interest, in which it was demonstrated that patients who take ARVs live longer, healthier lives than those who don’t. If you cannot do this, I will accept the prescribing documentation of ONE medication whose accompanying literature makes the claim that this drug, alone or in combination, will actually cause the patient to live longer or experience fewer health problems.

If you cannot produce either of these proofs for your claims of the benefits of ARVs, then consider yourself duly served.

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/24/2008 @ 09:10AM PST

The proper thing to do is to perform a control group of those on the antiretrovirals and on those who do not take them. After 25 years this has never been done. They don’t want the truth to come out, as we are now so much healthy without the meds. We have eliminated the side effects due to the antiretrovirals.

As an AIDS rethinker, I do see some potential for the meds when one is very sick and dying, as they are so strong that they knock out viruses that are attacking the body. But to place HIV+’s on them and to tell them that they must stay on them the rest of their lives, is a crock. We who have stopped the meds know better, that’s why we are so outspoken.

Posted by Noreen Martin on 12/24/2008 @ 09:10AM PST

Gos, it was you who said the drugs “double the risk of a heart attack”. I pointed out this applied to abacavir, one of the ARVs, and also drew the inescapable conclusion that this means that for every heart attack that is due to the abacavir, there will be another heart attack that was not due to the drug (but would have happened anyway, whether the patients was or wasn’t on ARVs, or was or wasn’t even HIV infected).

Regarding your paper on PCR of semen and what it all means. It’s a very detailed paper, and nothing in it indicates that HIV does not exist or that PCR does not detect HIV. The specific PCR assay you mention (in situ PCR) is one of several that were used. These are highly sensitive techniques, and for the assay used they are geared to establishing extremely high sensitivity at the expense of low specificity (you must detect every HIV positive sperm sample before you use it for insemination, and cannot risk any false negatives). The IS-PCR was found to have some false positive reactions because of nonspecific hybridisation. The authors comment:
“These methodological limitations of IS-PCR probably explain why in recent works this technique had been abandoned. Our experimental findings add further evidence in favour of the practical dismission of IS-PCR in this area of investigation.” In other words this particular assay, which was so sensitive that it had too high an index of false positivity, is no longer used, with the other more validated PCRs being used instead.
This proves “HIV does not exist” how?? You might be looking at the science, but are drawing entirely the wrong conclusions from your cherry-picked data.
I’m so pleased for you that you are a champion debater at this, and that you are so wonderful that brave scientists go pale at the thought of debating you. Forgive me if I am not so impressed. All I see is the old denialist canards trotted out for us to see, only close inspection reveals something different each time.

So disclaimers on ARV packaging does not guarantee success/cure? …..Strike me down with a feather. These disclaimers are on every drug insert, not just for ARVs. The pharma companies know that not everyone will respond to a particular drug, and they cannot claim that patients will, or they get sued when they don’t. But in order to get FDA approval and lisensing, the studies must show the drugs do what they are meant to do.

And to end off, you demand that I provide you of proof for something (or I can consider myself “duly served”). Typical denialist debating tactic. I’ve been here before Gos, and when I have come up with the goods as asked, somehow the questions seem to have been drifted onto a different topic, or my answers are ignored, or new questions pop up in the place of the old ones. Funny that. I’ve done the “whack a mole” rounds with denialists before, and forgive me if I am not keen to waste time doing this again, particularly when there are more important things to do at this time of year (though I might look into your demands after Xmas if I have the time.)

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/24/2008 @ 09:50AM PST

Letter to all from an HIV diagnosed hemophilliac
My Fight for Freedom, Equality, Justice and DignityWhen, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for a people to advance from that subordination in which they have hitherto remained, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the equal and independent station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s god entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the change. For over 20 years now, my life has been turned upside down because of lies, intimidation, fear, politics and governmental/pharma interests. It started when I was called into the doctor’s office at the hospital and was given the HIV+ label by my then doctor who had ordered a routine blood sample of mine to be tested. This happened at the Hospital Hemophilia clinic while in my late teens with my parents present. I was completely asymptomatic then, completely healthy in every way but in effect from that time onwards until today I was told that I would be very sick, would need to take drugs and was the carrier of an infectious disease. The whole HIV=AIDS=Death Dogma was in effect a self fulfilling prophecy for most hemophiliacs at that time. Most would invariably test positive for antibodies on the non specific test and were told that they would be at risk for death. Of course, hemophiliacs like myself were never told that the test itself is neither specific, standardized or approved for diagnostic purposes. I was never told that hemophilia itself and the administration (injection) of clotting proteins for my illness was one of over 70 conditions which can cross react with the test kit proteins themselves to cause a false positive reaction on the test. Moreover, I wasn’t presented with with any proof whatsoever that a purported retrovirus called HIV?! was the cause of AIDS or that my antibody response was an indication of infection. On behalf of my fellow hemophiliacs and all those harmed by the HIV=AIDS=Death Dogma I demand the full restoration of truth, reconciliation, compensation and reparations be restored back to our lives. Our stories need to be told and our voices must be heard. Now. When I think back to the mid 80s and early 90s when the fears of an epidemic were heightened, I realize that there was no examination of evidence or correction when the theory failed to fit facts and reality. All we got was fear campaigns, and more testing and treatments with toxic drugs. In fact, up to the time of the AIDS era the mortality rate of hemophiliacs that had died over the years was fairly predictable and life expectancy had dramatically improved with the higher quality of clotting treatments that had become more readily available. However, the massive sudden increase in deaths can be directly correlated with the use of AZT and other toxic drugs soon prescribed on a prophylactic basis. This is the absolute truth that has been covered up for so many years. i strongly believe that the record and documentation of the deaths of so many hemophiliacs should be exposed in a court of law that really seeks to set the record straight. In my view the drug deaths of my peers is tantamount to murder. The truth with regards to the events of those years has indeed become much clearer and can easily be verified. Virtually all hemophiliacs on heavy drug regimens were killed off quickly. Most of them were asymptomatic at the time the AIDS treatment regimens were imposed on them. A few lucky survivors regained health when the drug regimens they were on was significantly reduced or ended. The very lucky ones like me who refused the drugs from day one have remained 100% healthy to this day. Yet all this evidence has been ignored and I still see that patients are being poisoned at the hospital to this day 2008! If there is any lesson I have learned over the years is that if we don’t fully unite together to fight the oppressors of the HIV/AIDS orthodoxy and their monetary interests they will continue without conscience as their crimes become ever more heinous in scope and magnitude on human life. Consider for instance how the definition of AIDS has changed numerous times when predictions of doom and so called infectious epidemics never materialized. We have an incubation period that once started out between 2-5 years when AZT monotherapy was prescribed that now stretches up to 30 years and beyond. A myriad number of diseases have been added to the mix like cervical cancer which are not even immune related. Furthermore, the usage of wholly inaccurate methodologies like the unspecific antibody itself, T cell counting and viral load tests have been proven to be false, misleading and I would say outright criminal in their application on healthy asymptomatic people. It should be noted too that the number one cause of deaths of HIV+’s today is liver and/or kidney failure which is definitively a direct result of drug toxicity and cannot be attributed to any hypothetical virus. On a personal level, I have had to live with the constant pressure to take the highly toxic HIV medications by my doctors and nurses for many years. My decision to take charge of my situation and refuse the toxic medications from the beginning indeed saved my life. While I feel fortunate to be alive when so many HIV positives died needlessly on the meds, it has saddened me greatly that the overall arrogance of the medical community has prevented correction of the current terrible state of affairs. To be told time and time again that you are “sick” and at “grave risk for impending death” for so many years, I believe is extremely psychologically damaging. A complete never ending nightmare! I have had many suicidal thoughts over the years. A few HIV positive friends of mine have admitted to me that they have come painfully close to the act of suicide itself. Because of the intense social isolation, psychological pressure, stigmatization and sense of utter hopelessness (that comes with the diagnosis), it is not surprising that suicide is the second leading cause of death of HIV positives. It must be pointed out that being HIV positive is analogous to being the societal equivalent of being a “social leper”. The judicial system and media have portrayed us as spreaders of disease, killers, murderers, and purveyors of death, etc. The truth of the matter that there is NO scientific proof that HIV causes AIDS or is sexually transmitted is conveniently ignored. The famous Padian study meticulously documented irrefutable data showing no seroconversions occurring among hundreds of discordant couples having unprotected sex for upwards of ten years. All the predictions by the AIDS orthodoxy of mass epidemics afflicting the earth killing millions never materialized. Dr. De Cock of UN AIDS’ confirmation that the prior predictions of mass epidemics in the 80s was false was an admission of a failed theory, a sinking ship as it were struggling to stay afloat against the changing tides. Moreover, Dr. De Cock confirmed that the theory had “0” predictive value and that statistics had been fraudulently manipulated in conjunction with propaganda “fear campaigns” to benefit mass pharma profiteering and genocidal drug campaigns worldwide. The irrational policies of the AIDS orthodoxy have led to the wrongful conviction and imprisonment of innocent people for having consensual sex. It has destroyed lives, families and relationships. I have been terrorized by the institutional violence wrought by these policy makers. I have felt much sadness and frustration to read about HIV positives being flashed in the newspapers, paraded in the courts and treated like grotesque circus freaks. The apparent failure of the judicial system to properly examine and reject the fraudulent non science of the HIV theory will in my view undoubtedly geatly stain their collective reputations for many years in the future. In my view, their approval of the status quo represents tacit complicity and support of the real criminal murderers protected in the AIDS orthodoxy. The failure of the courts to allow debate and answer basic questions only adds to the growing stench of the ongoing cover up. Why have AIDS researchers refused to debate dissident scientists for 20 years? Why have the AIDS corporate interests been able to evade the serious charges of fraud and scientific misconduct levelled at them by sincere courageous scientists bearing no conflicts of interest? Who are the real “Denialists”? Why have AIDS doctors, pharma reps, governmental officials, etc. not yet answered for the deaths, disfigurement, stigmatization and terror imposed on HIV positives for decades? It seems clear now that the impending loss of power, money, prestige and public credibility is at the root of keeping the fraud alive in the face of so much evidence and opposition continually raised against it. It is my view that the disgraceful treatment of latter day ‘lepers’ (now euphemistically called “HIV Positives”) dragged into the courts to be mocked, prodded and jailed will not be easily forgotten. History will look back very harshly on the barbarism and betrayal by trusted institutions and the government on innocents. Now in my late 30s I face the future with a great deal of hope that better days lie ahead for myself and all those oppressed by the rules imposed on us by all those profiting from the HIV=AIDS=DEATH dogma. Collectively we must seize this movement and demand our freedom and compensation for the many crimes that have been perpetrated against us all. Personally I have been stigmatized and lived with much discrimination 24/7 because of the lies and the rules that have been associated with them over the years. The emotional toll of being “branded” so to speak has been an enormous imposition to me, affecting virtually every aspect of my day to day life. Virtually all my relationships have been short lived and I could not continue with some of my career plans as I had originally envisioned back in my 20s. When I consider the billions of dollars of profits pharma and governmental interests have made criminally on the lives of innocents without any correction, re-examination or apology, etc. for all these years it makes me feel very sick inside. If justice can be found in court, then they should have to give back their profits to the victims. I call out to you all, my brothers and sisters, to fight the tyranny which has damaged our lives until our freedom is finally fully restored.

Posted by Michael Geiger on 12/24/2008 @ 10:23AM PST

The HIV=AIDS theory is the most colossal medical blunder (now FRAUD) ever exacted on humanity. The 30 or more AIDS defining diseases exist independently of the so called positive diagnosis and many of the illnesses under the AIDS umbrella are neither immune or viral related…Retroviruses are naturally passed perinatally from mother to child and do not kill T-Cells. The HIV test itself is merely analogous to a “stress test marker” and carries disclaimers which admit unspecificity and further that antibody reactivity is unknown and should not be used as the basis for diagnosis…

More than 400,000 people worldwide have died from the DNA chain terminator drug AZT. The madness and lunacy of giving Black Box label chemotherapies to sick and healthy people alike (even pregnant women!) will go down in history as a horrific unthinkable crime!! Today the leading cause of AIDS deaths is liver and/or kidney failure which is a direct result of drug toxicity and not any hypothetical virus.

Posted by Adrian Panorama on 12/24/2008 @ 10:38AM PST

For 25 years, NOBODY has ever succeeded in demonstrating by electron microscopy ONE SINGLE particle of retrovirus (HIV) directly in the blood of any AIDS patients tagged as presenting with a high “viral load”. Could any member of the dogmatic “HIV Church” explain to us why?Etienne de Harven, MD, past-president of Rethinking Aids group.

Posted by Etienne de Harven on 12/24/2008 @ 02:00PM PST

Over the past 13 years I have been deeply engaged in researching diseases linked to viruses, with my work as a medical writer published in the Ecologist, the Independent – and now as a book called “Fear of the Invisible.” On other issues I have previously testified at US Congressional Hearings. My work as an investigative journalist has been widely seen on the PBS network in the USA and on the BBC.On this topic I have researched the laboratory documents unearthed by the Democratic Congressional and Department of Health investigations of the 1990s relating to the papers that are widely held to have established for all time that HIV causes AIDS. These inquiries reported numerous serious errors but the papers were never withdrawn and thus are still widely cited. However the evidence they unearthed goes further. The papers unearthed extraordinarily reveal that at no time during these key experiments was a virus tested to see if it caused AIDS, that the paper reporting these experiments was extensively changed at the last moment by hand to conceal this – changing it so very dramatically that three weeks later President Reagan’s administration reported that it had proved a virus caused AIDs. I reproduce these papers in full in my book. To my mind these are convincing and authenticated evidence of scientific fraud. In late 2008 this research was sent to a number of scientists for them to draw their own conclusions. The result was that this month a letter has gone to the Science journal signed by 37 scientists, legal experts and professionals requesting that the journal withdraw these key AIDS research papers on the grounds that their veracity is now seriously in question.
The related documents are on the book’s website Please also see that of the Semmelweis Society – a body that focusses on maintaining scientific integrity as its Board has also expressed its strong concern.
It has also been reported by the Office of Research Integrity of the Federal Department of Health that these experiments were so poorly recorded that it has proved impossible to repeat them and thus to verify them.
Tens of thousands of scientific papers cite this paper and are based on its analysis. The grave flaws that appear now to be revealed call for an immediate reassessment of this seminal and foundational research.
with respect,
Janine Roberts

I believe that

Posted by Janine Roberts on 12/24/2008 @ 03:46PM PST

We can only hope now that the Journal Science and others such as Nature, Jama, etc. will finally investigate the blatant fraud of the Gallo papers and formally reject them…
The 1 Trillion dollar AID$ Industry can no longer be protected by political expedience, financial interests, and corrupt politicians. At stake is the very foundation of our democratic society and governance itself. If these genocidal crimes are allowed to continue into the future then millions of people worldwide will be poisoned by toxic drugs. Indeed future generations will study this period in human development and wonder how collectively so many trusted institutions and monied interests got away with murder for so long…

Posted by Kevin Somba on 12/24/2008 @ 08:59PM PST

Derek Neumann wrote: “Gos, it was you who said the drugs ‘double the risk of a heart attack’. I … drew the inescapable conclusion that this means that for every heart attack that is due to the abacavir, there will be another heart attack that was not due to the drug…”

OK, I understand where you’re getting that from now. Score one for you. I withdraw the question.

Derek Neumann wrote: “Regarding your paper on PCR of semen and what it all means. It’s a very detailed paper, and nothing in it indicates that HIV does not exist or that PCR does not detect HIV.”

I never claimed that these papers proved anything of the sort. What I claimed was that these three papers were an example of how in the majority of HIV research, essential components of the scientific method (such as the use of controls, in this example) are omitted, often for no reason whatever, and in the exceptional case where there is even a semblance of adherence to the scientific method, (as in the third paper) the results negate all of the unscientific studies that were done before.

Now, if the PCR technique detects “HIV” in 40%-60% of HIV-negative controls, then it can’t possibly be detecting HIV in these people, since they don’t have HIV. And if it’s not detecting actual HIV in such a large percentage of the control group, then what is it detecting in the much smaller fraction of HIV-positives in which it “detects” HIV, in this study and all the other similar studies which are done without controls? According to the rules of controlled science, if what it’s detecting in the control group is not HIV, then chances are it’s not HIV that’s being detected in the study group either.

Derek Neumann wrote: “The specific PCR assay you mention (in situ PCR) is one of several that were used.”

Actually, it was one of two that were used, the other being nested PCR.

Indeed, one of the primary goals of this particular study was to compare IS-PCR against N-PCR, in order to prove that N-PCR is better than IS-PCR.

And they did indeed prove that IS-PCR is (in their own words) inadequate, since it “detected” HIV in about half of the control group who were actually HIV-negative. However, they omitted the control data from the N-PCR group, leaving us no basis for comparison upon which to judge their claim that N-PCR is superior to IS-PCR.

I read and re-read the article, looking for the N-PCR control data, but it wasn’t there. At first, I thought that maybe they hadn’t done a control group for the N-PCR, but another re-reading of the article revealed that, “negative and positive controls were included in each PCR assay.”[emphasis mine] So, they actually did a control group for nested PCR, but somehow neglected to report the results. Thus, they have provided not a shred of proof that N-PCR is one whit better than IS-PCR, they’ve only proved that IS-PCR is ridiculously inadequate.

So what about nested PCR? Here are a few studies which individually and collectively prove that neither N-PCR nor IS-PCR is in any way adequate to confirm the presence of HIV, since both PCR tests have been repeatedly and overwhelmingly shown to “detect” HIV in people who don’t have HIV.

Piatak M, Saag MS, Yang LC, et al. High levels of HIV-1 in plasma during all stages of infection determined by quantitative competitive PCR. (1993) Science: 259; 1749-1754

Mendoza C, Holguin A, & Soriano V . False positives for HIV using commercial viral load quantification assays. (1998) AIDS; 12(15); 2076-2077

Schwartz DH et al. Extensive evaluation of a seronegative participant in an HIV-1 vaccine trial as a result of a false positive PCR. (1997). Lancet: 350; 256-259

Rosenberg ES, Caliendo AM, Walker BD Acute HIV Infection among Patients Tested for Mononucleosis. (1999).New England Journal of Medicine; 340 (12):969

Gerberding JL Incidence and prevalence of HIV, hepatitis B virus, and cytomegalovirus among health care personnel at risk for blood exposure: Final report from a longitudinal study. (1994). J Infect Dis 170; 1410-1417

More info on false positive viral loads:

…So THAT is what proves that PCR doesn’t detect HIV, because it regularly “detects” HIV in people who couldn’t possibly have HIV.

Derek Neumann wrote: “These are highly sensitive techniques,”

The sensitivity of the PCR is certainly an issue elsewhere, but it is the specificity that concerns us here.

You’re an AIDS professional — let me ask you something: Would you, as an AIDS professional, use a quantitative assay as a primary diagnostic test for HIV infection in a patient older than 18 months of age? Why not? If the PCR test actually detects and quantifies HIV, then wouldn’t my viral load be zero if I were HIV-negative? According to the studies I’ve already cited here, you can’t possibly answer that question in the affirmative with any confidence, and that, as we both know, is why quantitative assays are never used to diagnose HIV infection in any patient older than 18 months (and in infantile cases it’s only used because maternal antibodies tend to render the EIA and WB tests worse than useless).

Derek Neumann wrote: “So disclaimers on ARV packaging does not guarantee success/cure? …..Strike me down with a feather.”

Y’know, you’ve got a point there — I’ve set the goalposts too high. So let’s take the word “will” out of the sentence, and replace it with the evidence that HIV patients who take a particular drug or combination of drugs, on average, live longer, healthier lives than those who don’t take any AIDS cocktail drugs at all. No guarantee in any individual case, but just a single study that shows that, generally speaking, ARV users live longer, healthier lives than treatment-naive HIV-positives.

There are four requirements, though:

1) The study you cite must be a controlled study in which there is either a placebo group, or alternately a control group made up of patients who voluntarily abstain from taking ARVs. (We can’t compare the health or longevity of ARV users vs non-users, if non-users aren’t represented in the study.)

2) The study you cite must be a long term study, since it’s a bit difficult to sort out who will die within the next 5 or 10 years if you only do six months of follow-up.

3) The study you cite must be a large study (a requirement you yourself have already stipulated.) This also means that the control group must be large too — none of this hokum I’ve seen of comparing 8 control subjects to 469 study subjects. If the control group is small, then it might as well not be included at all, since it’s irrelevant.

4) The researchers and laboratory must not be in receipt of monies or other considerations from the manufacturers of the drugs that they are studying, or from others with vested interest in the outcome of the study.

So go on — find that study. If you cannot, then you must retract your claim that ARVs help AIDS patients to live longer and/or healthier lives.

Derek Neumann wrote: “But in order to get FDA approval and lisensing, the studies must show the drugs do what they are meant to do.”

You don’t realize it, but you’ve said a mouthful there. “The drugs do what they were meant to do.”

The problem is that none of these drugs was ever meant to help AIDS patients live longer, healthier lives. Each and every one has been approved by the FDA on the basis of their ability to alter the numbers on a piece of paper (specifically by raising CD4 counts and lowering viral load readings.)

And yet, it is widely acknowledged that neither CD4 counts nor viral load, nor any combination of the two, is a reliable predictor of who will or won’t develop AIDS symptoms and/or die. This isn’t some wild-eyed denialist conspiracy theory — it has been overwhelmingly documented that the correlations between CD4 counts, viral load, and future health are anywhere from extremely weak to nonexistent. I myself nearly died of “AIDS-related pneumonia” almost exactly 8 years ago, at a time when I had a 4-figure CD4 count and a consistently low-to-nondetectable viral load.

…And yet, as you say, the drugs do exactly what they were meant to do: Satisfy FDA approval guidelines by altering a couple of meaningless numbers on paper. ARVs were never intended to help AIDS patients live longer, healthier lives, and guess what, they dont.

…You, of course, have made claims to the contrary. We’re still waiting for you to present the evidence to back up your claims.

Derek Neumann wrote: “And to end off, you demand that I provide you of proof for something (or I can consider myself “duly served”). Typical denialist debating tactic. I’ve been here before Gos, and when I have come up with the goods as asked, somehow the questions seem to have been drifted onto a different topic, or my answers are ignored, or new questions pop up in the place of the old ones.”

Sounds like a copout to me.

Try me – see if I change the subject, or ignore your answer, or try to change the question, or do anything but do my darnedest to try and debunk whatever evidence you present. It just so happens that this has become a hobby of mine, and I enjoy it.

Now, you’ve made repeated claims that ARVs generally help AIDS patients to live longer, healthier lives, and that these benefits are so significant as to outweigh the risks that we both have acknowledged. If you cannot substantiate those claims, then you must retract them.

The time has come to put up or shut up and quit making excuses for why you won’t offer the proof. Show me the science that substantiates your claim or be pwned, it’s as simple as that.

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/25/2008 @ 03:23AM PST


Posted by Anthony Tarpin on 12/25/2008 @ 04:54AM PST

I used to assume, like everyone else, that HIV was the cause of AIDS. In fact the idea is drummed into us by the media by writing HIV/AIDS as though that is one disease. Then I started to look into it.

I smelt a rat when I found out that the viral theory was announced at a press conference. The general idea of science as I was taught it is that one announces experimental results in a scientific journal with enough detail that one’s peers can not only evaluate the experiment but can replicate it.

Then I could find no evidence that a virus called HIV had gone through the standard isolation techniques including electron microscopy.

Then I found out that the so-called HIV test, patented by Gallo on the same day as the press announcement, has not undergone any reliability and validity tests. Furthermore, it reacts to at least 30 relatively common conditions, like pregnancy for example.

When I questioned all this I was sent the Durban Declaration, as though a document signed by x number of scientists saying they believed in the theory, constitutes scientific evidence. When I pointed this fact out and was met by a hail of the sort of rhetoric that is common to the “believers”, I knew for sure that “something is rotten in the state of Denmark.”

This has got to be the most outrageous fraud ever committed in medicine and I am ashamed to be a former member (a nurse). When this blows, as it surely will, it will give social science doctoral candidates a field day.

Jennifer Craig

Posted by Jennifer Craig on 12/25/2008 @ 05:17AM PST

Jennifer Craig wrote: “Then I found out that the so-called HIV test, patented by Gallo on the same day as the press announcement, has not undergone any reliability and validity tests. Furthermore, it reacts to at least 30 relatively common conditions, like pregnancy for example.”

One minor correction: The HIV antibody tests react to no fewer than 60 conditions which are known to cause false positives. Some of them are quite common, others are somewhat rare.

Jennifer Craig wrote: “When I questioned all this I was sent the Durban Declaration, as though a document signed by x number of scientists saying they believed in the theory, constitutes scientific evidence.”

If a signed declaration of common belief constitutes scientific evidence, then according to the same standard, the Nicene Creed constitutes scientific evidence of the divinity of Christ.

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/25/2008 @ 05:31AM PST

HIV has been isolated thousands of times, research scientists can order any one of over 400 isolates from the NIH reagent program for just the cost of shipping.
Thankfully it’s clear that Obama’s administration is capable of distinguishing science from pseudoscience, rendering this thread irrelevant. Can’t find any examples of Martin Barnes science journalism anywhere, I wonder if we’re related?

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/25/2008 @ 08:03AM PST

Jennifer, this one of the first descriptions of HIV replication seen through an electron microscope:

6) HUT 68/LAV – Positive; Lentivirus – Productive lentivirus infection with all forms of virus maturation.

7) T 17.4/LAV – Positive; Lentivirus – Lentivirus, same comments as #6 above.

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/25/2008 @ 08:22AM PST

The glass is fulfilled and already it’s enough. It’s time to correct the tremendous committed mistake that has generated so much human suffering, it’s time to look for the truth. Rethinking AIDS.

Posted by Rosa Haynes on 12/25/2008 @ 10:31AM PST

Hank Barnes:
Please cite a publication in which virions of HIV have been isolated direct from an AIDS patient or HIV-positive person. The Popovic/Gonda documents refer to components of a culture in which several kinds of cell were incubated together with various biochemcal stimulants. That’s SYNTHESIS, not isolation.

Posted by Henry Bauer on 12/25/2008 @ 10:58AM PST

Hank Barnes, the following is a quote from Professor de Harven (see earlier posts on this site)-

For 25 years NOBODY has even succeeded in demonstrating by electromicroscopy ONE SINGLE particle of retrovirus (HIV) directly in the blood of any AIDS patients tagged as presenting with a “high viral load”…

This has been the conundrum of AIDS researchers. From the very beginning they have always been INVENTING new and ever more bizarre explanations as to how this elusive retrovirus is causing such serious damage.

If the viral theory of AIDS was correct then one would expect to find copious amounts of viral particles by the millions in the blood of dying AIDS patients. In fact at any one time only 1/1000 T-Cells of sick patients would contain retrovirus material. This fact is meaningless when one considers that retroviruses don’t kill T-Cells! and we regenrate 3-4% or our T-Cells in a matter of days.

Even if a purported retrovirus were to kill every cell it infects this would only represent about 1/30 of the total regeneration rate of T-Cells. So this means that it is mathematically impossible for a retrovirus to cause any damage. Professor Duesberg has noted how ludicrous and illogical this idea is being “analogous to a bicycle trying to catch up to a jet airplane”.

Some other points to consider. Known virus has been also virtually undetectable in man’s ejaculate. Something like 1 pro virus in a million sperm cells…And also if a purported retrovirus was doing such damage to T-Cells why don’t we find swollen thymus’ in AIDS patients?

Let me remind you as well of what Dr. Matthew Gonda, acting Head of Electromicroscopy at the NIH wrote of Gallo’s submitted micrographs of culture samples (for Science publication) on March 26, 1984:

I would like to point out that the “particles” in micrograph 0905 are in debris of a degenerated cell…I do not believe any of the particles photographed are HTLV I, II or III.

It is clear that Gonda was crystal clear in his assessment that Gallo’s submission was nothing more than cellular rubbish. And it was this rubbish that Gallo submitted to Science Journal three days later for publication which to this day has still not been retracted. And then soon after this RUBBISH was announced and hailed by Press Conference April 23, 1984 as “the probable cause of AIDS”. You sir, refer to supposed proof of Isolation. Rather these series of events represent wilful fraud, ‘the Emperor’s New Clothes’ so to speak presented by Gallo, Heckler, Pharma interests, politicians, etc. for mass consumption.

If you doubt these facts you can examine the documents yourself. The Gonda letter to Gallo as well as Congressional papers indicting Gallo’s research for gross scientific misconduct can be found at Janine Roberts’ site-

Posted by Chris Manding on 12/25/2008 @ 12:03PM PST

I am off the HIV meds for 54 months as of January 09.

I never needed any of the medications I took for 14 years. This fraud has killed tens of thousands of people in order to advance science’s knowledge of virology. That is geniside directed at the original target population of homosexual men. I want our government to Do The Right Thing and expose Big Pharma for the monsters that they are. The same thing is happening with Psyche Drugs now. We are becoming the population being controlled in the book 1984, and this pseudo epidemic began that year. Irony?

Posted by James Allegretti on 12/25/2008 @ 01:00PM PST

Yes! Obama would do Africa a HUGE favor if he did some internal investigation(s) of the corrupt HIV/AIDS Industry,The FDA,The NIH,HIV Test Manufacturers,and HIV Drug Manufacturers.

AIDS monies from the Red Campaign?,Clinton’s so called AIDS monies? Bill Gates Monies? where is it? who’s really getting it?
certainly not Africa.

it would be wonderful for Obama to take the false label of [HIV+] away from Africans and the Gay Bi Lesbian Transgendered community forever. to Obama!

Posted by Eddie Brewster on 12/25/2008 @ 01:22PM PST

What an exellent discussion! I think the major problem with the “HIV=AIDS=Death” hypothesis is that it has been treated as a monotheistic single paradigm, while ignoring other strong hypotheses and observations.

Some of these include:

1. In LA, San Francico, and New York, Dr. Michael Gottlieb found cytomegalogovirus (a herpes virus) in 100% of AIDS patients.

2. The Pasteur’s “Patient One” exhibited swollen lymph nodes, muscle weakness without fever or weight loss, cytomegalovirus, herpes viruses Type I and Type II, 2 cases of treated gonorrhea, and 1 case of treated syphilis the year before, but “Patient one” represented a perfect victim discoved by the Nobelists, Barre-Sinoussi and Luc Montagnier, and constituted the perfect isolate of “LAV” and material for their “LAV=ARC” association.

3.Syphilis and AIDS: Harris Coulter’s hidden link, and The Pasteur’s “Patient One” had many diseases but not AIDS.

4. Papovic and Gallo’s 36% causality: “HIV” causes AIDS in 36% of those who test “HIV” positive!

5. Gonda’s letter to Gallo said there was no “HIV,” HTLV-I, II, or HTLV-III in the Papovic/Gallo samples.

6. Drugging begins with suramin, hundreds of drugs are screen, and compound “S” (AZT) is pushed through by Sam Broder on the basis of In Vitro findings.

7. There are no consistent In Vitro model of “HIV” infection: some cause cell fusion, others continuous non-cytopathic production, while others show cytopathic production after most of the cells are killed.

8. “HIV” is very fragile: Hemophiliacs get AIDS anyway despite soap, dehydration, and cryopreservation.

9. Robin Weiss says “HIV” attacks brain cells through the ubiquitous T4 receptor to cause AIDS dementia.

10. Harold Varmus is pressed into service to call Montagnier’s “LAV” and Gallo’s “HTLV-III, “HIV.”

11. Peter Duesberg’s passenger cancer viruses, and claims that “HIV” actually exists.

12. Duesberg’s drugs-AIDS hypotheses.

13. Duesberg’s foreign protein-AIDS hypothesis.

14. Duesberg’s malnutrition-AIDS hypothesis.

15. Director of the NIH and Nobelist Varmus says reverse transcriptase is not specific to retroviruses but it continues to be used to identify “HIV.”

16. The success of Fischl 1987 AZT trail shows 1 died in the experimental AZT-treated group, while 19 died in the non-AZT group, but the study requires some doctoring in terms of switching of arms between control and experimental groups, and necessitates transfusions in 30 of the AZT treated group to save their lives from myelosuppression.

17. There is no “HIV” animal model, and the definition of AIDS is changed to mean “HIV-infected” well people with the molecular markers of “HIV:” “HIV” becomes a molecular disease in healthy sick people, and “SIV” becomes a better model of “HIV” than “HIV.”

18. Papadopulos-Eleopulos and PERTH: AIDS is caused by oxidation and redox imbalance and “HIV” is caused by non-specific cross-reactions.

19. Varmus and Bishop get the Nobel for oncogenes that cause cancer in cancer cells, and which sit dormant in normal cells.

20. Shyh-Ching Lo’s Mycoplasma incognitus found in 22/24 AIDS patients and in O non-AIDS patients.

21. A MacArthur Fellow speculates that anti-HLA allo-immunization causes AIDS.

22. “HIV” found in non-“HIV-infected alloimmunized mice, normal human placentas, and non-infected monkeys, chimps, humans, and after hepatitis B vaccination.

23. The Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study concludes that AZT kills more healthy patients than sick patients, and disproportionately harms blacks and hispanics and provides no benefit for white people.

24. “HIV” causes 6 cancers, except the first AIDS-defining cancer, Kaposi’s sarcoma, which is now caused by Herpes virus 8.

25. Multiple-Antigen-Mediated Autoimmunity through idiotypic-anti-idiotypic “hand and glove” molecular reactions.

26. The Concorde study calls into question the value of T-cell measurements, and David Acer is exonerated by the CDC after he kills himself for not infecting anybody.
27. Canadians urge their “HIV-positive” women to get abortions.

28. “HIV-negative” children have “HIV’s” capsid protein p24 in their kidneys.

29. Simonsen and later Klausner say that flu vaccines cause “HIV-positive” test results in about 2% of “uninfected” people, but the accuracy of test kits is blamed for the paradox.

30. Kary Mullis says there are too many viruses and no vaccine possible and proposed an experiment he published in Genetica in 1995 to determine if this hypothesis is falsifiable in mice.

31. The 1995 Office of Technology Assessment says there have been 30 failed “HIV-vaccine” trials to date: some cause malignant cancer in 10 patients in 9 trials, while others cause “original antigenic sin.”

32. Sexual transmission studies show no sexual transmission of “HIV” because of good and effective sex education and counseling.

33. “HIV” is found in 11% “low prevalence” low risk groups, and 97.1% in sinners with “risky behaviors.

34. The Division of AIDS (DAIDS) says everybody has “HIV” in their cells, but they will punish only those with more than 30pg/ml P24 protein.

35. “HIV’s” most important molecule, reverse transcriptase, is found in chicken vaccines, and is destroyed with DNAase.

36. Goat and cow proteins cause “HIV-positive” test results in children who drink their milk.

37. “Uninfected” pregnant women tend to test “HIV-positive.”

38. The success of microbicides in increasing the rate of “HIV-positive test results in those Africans who got them smeared on their genitals.

39. Haseltine’s success in sequencing and patenting 7,500 genes-but the SSR5 “HIV” receptor turns out to be wrongly sequenced, according to Christopher Broder of the NIH.

40. Liver disease cited as leading cause of death of hospitalized “HIV/AIDS” patients by the Infectious Disease Society of America-“HIV” causes liver disease.

41. Anemia is caused by “HIV” infecting “nuclei” of human red blood cells.

42. Muscle wasting and heart disease are caused by “HIV” infecting dividing cardiac and skeletal myocytes.

43. Lots of non-“HIV” transmission among serodiscordant couples and many “HIV” test kits are recalled by their makers.

44. Jane Goodall suggests that more than 100 “HIV-infected” chimps deserve 27 million dollar retirement homes.

45. The success of Donald Francis’s GP120 AIDS vaccine, and his award of 877 million to scrap “HIV” research and make anthrax vaccines for the military.

46. The Red Cross says there are only 2 or 12 false positives out of 37 million negative blood samples.

47. Edmond Tremont likes to rewrite safety reports for George W. Bush, and fire whistleblower safety officers to promote nevirapine and PEPFAR, and to save Africa because he knows about AIDS whereas his safety officers don’t.

48. Formal proposals are advanced to test everybody.
49. Brian Williams of The WHO says people on ARVS have same outcome as people not on ARVS despite high or low T-cell counts, and that between 3 and 5% of “HIV-negative” people naturally have CD4 counts below 350.
50. David Ho says “HIV” attacks the Peyers patches, and that “it’s the gut, Stupid!”

51. After 20 years, “HIV” begins to change its size by a factor of three.

52. “Viral load” cannot predict when 94% to 96% of drug-naïve people will progress to AIDS, but it can predict when 4% to 6% of those whose “viral load” is high, will progress.

53. Biblical slave-marking practice of Egyptians and Hebrews in African STD clinics filled with men with STD’s and penile ulcers and syphilis wins out over pharmaceutical technology, breast feeding dissuasion, nevirapine, AZT, abstinence counseling, or vaccines: The rare good news about circumcising every African male before it is too late is proposed.

54. Stephen Lewis wants to smear microbicide creams on African genitals, the success of the UN, and food and water are 6th in importance after microbicides.

55. “HIV” is caused by cigarettes, but cigarettes don’t cause AIDS.

56. AIDS patients can live on average 24 years if they pay $385,000 dollars-AIDS becomes a successfully manageable disease, like “cancer.”

57. After the first decade of HAART, it is reported that improvement in “viral load” measurements are obtained, but no improvement in mortality is achieved: therapy a success but the patients died.

58. Better microbicides were developed by John Moore and others to increase the rate of “HIV-positive” test results among Africans whose genitals were smeared with the irratants.

59. Pediatricians suggest to force compliance using gastrostomy tubes in infants to drug them with as many as 7 black-box-label experimental drugs.

60. Six health care workers before a firing squad for infecting 426 children in Lebanon: sub-Saharan Africans are blamed by Montagnier, and the health care workers are freed.

61. The success of nevirapine experimentation of 875,000 African Black Woman and their infants, and 33%-87% virological failure after a single dose.

62.The success of breast feeding dissuasion counseling to prevent “HIV” transmission, pogroms of formula dumping on Third World Nations, and 532 dead children.

63. All “HIV-positive” patients to be tracked by years end.

64. Eighteen to Eighty-percent have resistant “HIV” to first line treatment in China: a window of opportunity.

65. The success of mathematical modeling of “The AIDS Pandemic.”

66. 21 medics and docs found guilty of killing 10 children and infecting 198 children and infants with “HIV:” All except the Minister of Health are guilty!

67. The New England Journal of Medicine says that 99% of resident student doctors have had needle-stick injuries, and 53% of them involved “high-risk” sinners, but no AIDS resulted.

68. Modeling predicts that less deadly “HIV” is a better killer than more deadly “HIV.”

69. Publication in the NEJM says that Kaposi’s sarcoma is associated with high CD4 counts and low “viral load” measurements.

70. The success of the MERCK “HIV” vaccine and STEP trial in “infecting” more of the experimental group than control group, and how it is likened to “Challenger sized disaster” by Gallo and others, and why 63 vaccine trails have failed.

71. Doctors Without Borders needs money for plumpynut: say children need food not drugs.

72. Cross presentation of caspase-cleaved apoptotic self-antigens in “HIV-infection.”

73. “HIV” really needs 237 cellular proteins to do the job! Back to the importance of the host and cellular proteins.

74. Abacivir and didanosine increase the risk of heart attacks in ARV-treated patients by 49-90%.

75. Th1/Th2 ratio imbalance is the primary mechanism of AIDS: Juliana Sacher’s and Heinrich Kremer’s experience in the German drug rehab clinics.

76. Cochrane database indicates ARV’s don’t block mother-to-child transmission in most studies.

77. Kevin De Cock says world’s heterosexual AIDS pandemic is over, except of course in Africa.

78. NEJM says abrupt weaning of breast fed infants doesn’t improve health or survival and is harmful for “HIV-positive” infants, who will serorevert to a negative test approximately 60% of the time by 18 months anyway.

79. Despite their large population of heterosexuals, New York City ignores Kevin de Cock, and says they want to test all blacks because they are the “AIDS epicenter.”

80. Mice turn into humans (humanized mice) and catch AIDS.

81. Rapid tests revolutionize emergency room testing and are said to be a great success, despite the fact that they can’t rule out or confirm “HIV-infection.”

82. The prestigious journal Nature says that “HIV” and AIDS was definitely, unequivocally, and historically the fault of Blacks, because of their “associations with chimps” when they built cites with them, and had “high-risk behaviors” 125 years ago.

83. Circumcision doesn’t stop “HIV” transmission among homosexuals like is does African men in STD clinics.

84. Drunk monkeys get AIDS faster.

85. Pregnant women get sick to dead faster on nevirapine.

86. Drug addicts in 1971-2 test “HIV-positive,” then 18 years later, “HIV-negative,” despite lack of drugs.

87. Stopping AIDS drugs makes no difference: treatment breaks set for a come-back.

88. Criminalizing “HIV.”

89. “HIV” originated from the human genome: not from bizarre African sexual practices, African toys, dead monkeys, contaminated hepatitis B, flu, or other vaccines, or the military’s special virus program: the probable cause of “HIV” has been found…to be a retroid.Cheers,Andy

Posted by Andrew Maniotis on 12/25/2008 @ 02:46PM PST

Derek ( and other orthodox HIV/AIDS proponants:
The Human mind is an extraordinary tool: If we believe something ( toxic drugs) are ‘medicine’ , we are much more likely to sustain life- or survive) on them, despite our liver’s protests.There is a limit, however- and if we find that we are not served by using the poisons ( i.e. “medicines’), then it doesn’t serve us.
“The Emperor has no clothes!” is something of the case here… we ( esp. the USA) have really been sold a bill of goods and been brainwashed.there are websites and literature, materials for those who are open beyond the mass propoganda…There ARE political agenda’s to ‘health crisis’ ” and “high risk” groups.This isn’t denial and wishful thinking , it’s being present and awake to what is really going on beneath the appearances!

Posted by mark Bednar on 12/25/2008 @ 07:09PM PST

There is no scientific debate about HIV causing AIDS.The 2700 people listed at Rethinking AIDS are mostly herbalists, naturalists, and homeopaths. There are few scientists listed, none mainstream. None have published on AIDS in peer reviewed research journals. None have cared for people living with AIDS. some of the names have even been fictitious. The AIDS denialists are not dissident scientists because they are not even scientists.AIDS Denialism is a significant threat to the public health, being responsible for the deaths of over 350,000 South Africans and unknown numbers of others worldwide. For a free pdf of this important paper g to;jsessionid=JJSBnLrn8hVhTj8QSy1dk4XJRLvPlGmB42y91LxPGcLMhqtm9htJ!-2112048807!181195629!8091!-1A new book also tells the destructive story of AIDS denialism…..Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy being published by Copernicus / Springer Books. This is the first psychological analysis of the AIDS denialist movement . All of the royalties from sales of Denying AIDS are being donated to purchase HIV treatments in Africa. I have also created an Author’s blog for readers and others interested in AIDS denialism

Posted by Seth Kalichman on 12/25/2008 @ 07:44PM PST

There is no scientific debate about HIV causing AIDS. There are few scientists listed among the 2700 AIDS Rethinkers, none mainstream. None have published on AIDS in peer reviewed research journals. None have cared for people living with AIDS. Some of the names have even been fictitious. The AIDS denialists are not dissident scientists because they are not even scientists. Rethinkers in AIDS are actually conspiracy theorists, as clearly seen in some of the comments here. AIDS denialism shares much in common with 9/11 truthseeking and Holocaust denialism. AIDS denialism is so obviously destructive it was recently portrayed on NBC’s Law & Order SVU (Retro, aired October 24th, 2008). .AIDS Denialism is a significant threat to the public health, being responsible for the deaths of over 350,000 South Africans and unknown numbers of others worldwide. For a free pdf of this important paper g to;jsessionid=JJSBnLrn8hVhTj8QSy1dk4XJRLvPlGmB42y91LxPGcLMhqtm9htJ!-2112048807!181195629!8091!-1A new book tells the destructive story of AIDS denialism…..Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy being published by Copernicus / Springer Books. This is the first psychological analysis of the AIDS denialist movement . All of the royalties from sales of Denying AIDS are being donated to purchase HIV treatments in Africa. I have also created an Author’s blog for readers and others interested in AIDS denialism

Posted by Seth Kalichman on 12/25/2008 @ 08:07PM PST

Here’s an interesting observation…

Thus far, there have been a total of 6 HIV/AIDS survivors who have spoken up in this forum.

Derek Neumann et al would have us believe that long-term HIV/AIDS survivors who don’t use ARVs are the exception, not the rule, yet out of the 6 long-term survivors here, all 6 have been living examples of AIDS patients who either never took ARVs or quit them, and survived. And more thought-provoking is the fact that each and every one of them has spoken up in opposition to the HIV/AIDS dogma.

As for long-term HIV/AIDS survivors who would tell us that they owe their lives to ARVs, not a single one has graced us with his presence here today. Derek Neumann tells us that such patients are the rule, and that patients like the 6 HIV/AIDS survivors who have spoken up here are the exception — examples of what he calls “extraordinary stories”.

Derek, if we are the “extraordinary stories”, then where are the patients whose lives you guys claim to have saved? Why haven’t they spoken up? What’s the matter, are all of your long-term ARV survivors either too weak to sit up and type, too demented from the drugs to form a sentence, or too dead to have much of anything to say?

Ours are not “extraordinary stories”; ours is the common experience of any long-term AIDS survivor. We are not the exception; we are the rule.

I’ll go one further: We are the ONLY experts on AIDS. No one else — certainly not anyone in the mainstream medical community — has a clue about AIDS, and very few are actually smart enough to realize it.

But you’d be amazed at how much you can learn when your life depends on it. Each and every long-term AIDS survivor in this discussion is living proof that the only way to survive AIDS is to ditch the HIV/AIDS hypothesis altogether and learn as much as you possibly can about whatever real health issues you may have.

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/26/2008 @ 01:48AM PST

Gos, as I expected, you now start piling on the preconditions before you will consider any studies that may fulfil your requirements. What next, only papers whoes authors names begin with Z?

What are your thoughts on this paper?
It demonstrates that monotherapy is better than placebo, that dual therapy is better than monotherapy, and that triple therapy is better than dual therapy. Funny how as people get more and more toxic antiretrovirals they live longer and longer.

As to why people posting on this site appear to subscribe to the “take a new look at the cause of AIDS” viewpoint, here’s a clue….. Look at the title at the top of the page.

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/26/2008 @ 04:05AM PST

Due to the simple fact that there is much evidence that proves the causitive factor not to be demonstrated, and many brilliant scientific minds behind this debacle, it’s time for a complete and total RETHINK.

Posted by Karri Stokely on 12/26/2008 @ 05:03AM PST

You read the start of the paper but not the end or you chose to ignore the final paragraph.

The researchers were not happy with the outcome. It was all very IFFY!!! The evidence is not conclusive in favour of ARV treatments. Given the time frame over which the information was gathered, one would have to say,…time has left the outcomes behind. Long term survivors who have either not used ART or those who have stopped for obvious reasons of side effects and no long term improvement of their surrogate markers, have made the study useless.

The researchers concluded:
“Better evidence is required. The exploratory analyses of heterogeneity indicate that the design of future trials must be more rigorous and less variable (for example, in trial duration, test drugs, comparators, and clinical stage at entry) and should not rely on surrogate outcomes alone. The research community must respond. There are still important questions to be answered about the effectiveness of existing agents. This may require publicly funded trials which should be carried out within a clear well supported collaborative framework.”

Posted by Keith Styles on 12/26/2008 @ 05:17AM PST

Sorry, who cares about therapies and studies about a non-existent virus?

Etienne de Harven, an electron microscopy specialist, wrote previously:

“For 25 years, NOBODY has ever succeeded in demonstrating by electron microscopy ONE SINGLE particle of retrovirus (HIV) directly in the blood of any AIDS patients tagged as presenting with a high “viral load”. Etienne de Harven, MD, past-president of Rethinking AIDS.

If I knew that back in 1995, I would never have taken the AIDS medication and suffered for 12 years from the serious side -effects. I feel good since the first moment I stopped them in April 2007.

Posted by Maria Papagiannidou on 12/26/2008 @ 05:42AM PST

Enough with studies based on unreliable markers which meaning is changed and disputed. Enough with studies that only compare the efficacy of one lethal drug cocktail against a different cup of poison.

My life changed when I chose to define good health as feeling good, rather than high a cd4 count (or low viral load) at any cost.

Life-threatening weight loss, crippling diarrhea and fatigue, and disabling brain freeze are too high a price to pay for an arbitrary test result. I have overcome all of these deleterious (direct, not “side”) effects with a vigorous rethinking that includes nutrition, avoidance of toxins and other life-affirming strategies. I have taken ZERO prescription drugs for two years now and have not felt so good since I was a teenager.

Despite having consulted with more than a dozen so-called medical professionals in several specialties the past ten years (infectious disease, endocrinology, psychiatry, etc.), not one of them has asked to research or investigate why my health has improved so dramatically the past two years.

Apparently nothing short of an Act of Congress or an Executive Order from the President will lead to an investigation of why we’re being ignored and silenced.

Posted by Jon Barnett on 12/26/2008 @ 06:17AM PST

Many people have noticed that the dire predictions of “the aids mainstream” have not come true. There has never been an epidemic in the U.S., certainly not among heterosexuals, nor the wealthy. Many more people die each year in the US from the flu (36,000), alcohol use (38,000) or traffic accidents (42,000) than from what is termed ‘aids’ (16,000). The populations in Africa are increasing in population rather than reducing, despite the shrill claims by aids groups. For all of hiv’s hypothetical cunning and diabolical nature—it’s ever-mutating structure, it’s infallible ability to ‘hide’, it’s devious subterfuge—the same subgroups, gays and blacks, remain the targets of the aids industry’s efforts. The disease has simply not jumped into the mainstream population. Aids meticulously avoids bathroom-cruising, prostitute-buying Republicans. Aids steers clear of straight suburbia. Aids avoids the well-to-do high schools. Even among gays and blacks, the numbers affected remain steady, though advertisements proclaim wildly dramatic new trends are just around the corner. A reliable clinical progression or map of symptoms of hiv is not defined so there no way to predict what symptoms are hiv related—or which are not. In fact there is no symptom of hiv or aids that belongs to that disease alone. If one is not “tested” one simply never knows if they have hiv or aids at all. The latency period of infection to symptom onset ranges from one year as proclaimed in the 1980’s to 20 years now. This lengthened latency comes despite warnings that millions do not know they have hiv, or maybe it comes because all those who supposedly do not know are not dying as fast as they “should”. Not to mention a whopping 66 failed vaccines; drug trials halted mid-way due to drug-effect deaths; and drug treatments that cause all the symptoms of aids from diarrhea, fat-redistribution, and susceptibility to infections.

Posted by Allen Vaught on 12/26/2008 @ 07:06AM PST

Maria Papagiannidou writes: Sorry, who cares about therapies and studies about a non-existent virus? Exactly. If you analyse some of the debates with the knowledge that HIV does not even exist, most of them are nonsensical.

What evidence do we have that HIV does not exist?

Two important references may be found by following the links in:

The first important thing to know is that Papovic’s original draft of the seminal paper published in Science stated “Despite intensive research efforts, the causative agent of AIDS has not yet been identified.” Gallo, in his handwriting, altered this statement to read, ” That a retrovirus of the HTLV family might be an etiologic agent of AIDS was suggested by the findings.”

Papovic kept his original draft. It was produced when Gallo was investigated for scientific fraud in 1990.

The second important thing to know is that a letter to Papovic from Gonda dated March 26, 1984 states “I do not believe any of the particles photographed are HTLV I, II, or III.”

In other words no virus, retro or otherwise was found in the sample tested by Papovic. Nevertheless, Gallo made his announcement to the press, published a paper 2 weeks later and the media and the sheeples who believe what they read in the paper have perpetuated this massive fraud.

For some reason that defeats me, intelligent people continue to pronounce that the cause of AIDS is HIV and attack those who say otherwise. We really haven’t changed as a species since we burned witches.

Jennifer Craig

Posted by Jennifer Craig on 12/26/2008 @ 08:38AM PST

Jennifer Craig wrote:
“Gallo, in his handwriting, altered this statement to read, “That a retrovirus of the HTLV family might be an etiologic agent of AIDS was suggested by the findings.””
So Gallo argued that the virus was a member of the HTLV family and should be called HTLV-III. Any ideas why these arguments did not hold up?
Jennifer Craig also wrote:
“In other words no virus, retro or otherwise was found in the sample tested by Papovic.”
False. Matthew Gonda identified LAV as a retrovirus, I linked to the letter and quoted it above:

6) HUT 68/LAV – Positive; Lentivirus – Productive lentivirus infection with all forms of virus maturation.

7) T 17.4/LAV – Positive; Lentivirus – Lentivirus, same comments as #6 above.

Micrographs of this virus were included in the Science paper.
By ERIK ECKHOLMNew York Times Published: April 12, 1986

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/26/2008 @ 10:33AM PST

Dear Mr. “Hank Barnes”.
First of all, we know that is not your name, as it is apparent you took the moniker from the dissident site at
Second of all, it seems obvious, to me at least, that your protestations of the dissident demands to investigate aids are that of a protectionist, likely someone whose finances and position rely on continued belief in the non proven hiv as the cause of aids.

Next of all, as far as Gonda and LAV, Professor Etienne de Harvens recent letter to the Nobel Committee, clearly shows why LAV as a presumed isolated virus from supposed AIDS patients is clearly nonsense, as it was only cultured in cord blood, and was NEVER cultured from the peripheral blood of any aids patients:
Dr. Etienne de Harven. Past President, Rethinking AIDS. France.23 October, 2008The Nobel Prize for Barré?Sinoussi and MontagnierThe Nobel Prize in medicine has been recently awarded to Barre-Sinoussi and Montagnier for ?The discovery of immunodeficiency virus (HIV)».This award is, to a large extent, based on a paper published by the laureates et al. in May 1983, in «Science» (vol 220, pp 868-871). The conclusions presented in this paper result, in a large part, from observations made by transmission electron microscopy. Having been responsible for research on electron microscopy of retroviruses, at the Sloan Kettering Institute of New York from 1956 until 1981, I do have scientific competence to raise the following questions related to the significance of the paper under reference.This 1983 paper is illustrated (Fig. 2) by an electron microscopy image of thin sections of virus-producing cord lymphocytes. Three day old cultures of T lymphocytes from two umbilical cords had been «infected with the cell-free supernatant of the infected coculture». This «coculture» consisted of cultured human normal T lymphocytes admixed with lymphocytes that originated from the lymph node biopsy from one patient «at risk for acquired immune deficiency (AIDS)». The author’s interpretation of Fig.2 is that it demontrates that cord blood lymphocytes had been successfully infected by retroviruses from that patient.Unquestionably, Fig 2 illustrates typical retroviruses (C-type), budding from the surface of a lymphocyte.Highly questionable, however, is the origin of these retroviruses.The authors of the report claim that they originate from the patient lymph node, via the «cell-free supernatant» of the coculture.This interpretation is not satisfactorily supported by the data presented.Indeed, if this interpretation was correct, one would have expected :1) evidence, by electron microscopy, of the multiplication of retroviruses in this «coculture», and
2) evidence, again by electron microscopy, for the presence of retroviral particles in the «cell-free supernatant of the infected coculture».Since 1) and 2) evidences are totally missing, how could the authors of this paper justify their claim for having «infected» the cord lymphocytes with the «cell-free supernatant of the coculture» ?The authors have regarded their «coculture» as «infected» only on the basis of reverse transcriptase activity in sucrose fractions from the supernatant. Sucrose fractions at density around 1.16, however, are known to contain large amounts of cell debris that can readily account for the observed transcriptase activity. In short, one is asked to believe that cord blood lymphocytes have been sucessfully infected with the supernatant of a coculture the viral infection of which has not been demonstrated.As indicated above, Fig. 2 of the paper shows typical retroviruses (C-type) budding from the surface of a lymphocyte. Where are they coming from, if it is not from the «cell-free supernatant of the coculture» ?There is another possible explanation for the viral electron microscopy evidence of Fig. 2, an explanation that did not, obviously, received the slightest attention from Barre-Sinoussi, Montagnier et al.The observed cultured lymphocytes came from cord blood, and therefore originate from the placenta. It is well known, since the late 1970’s (Sandra Panem’s work, in Current Top Pathol, 1979, 66 :175-189), that the normal human placenta contains loads of C type retroviruses (HERVs). Placental lymphocytes are, therefore, likely to contain the same HERVs that, when placed under stimulating culture conditions, may bud from cell surfaces and form complete retroviral particles (C-type) recognizable with the electron microscope (Fig. 2). Barre-Sinoussi et al. avoided to explain why their experiment apparently wouldn’t work with lymphocytes from the peripheral blood, instead of those from cord blood? The simple explanation is that human peripheral blood lymphocytes do not harbor HERVs.In my opinion, Fig. 2 illustrating the paper under consideration totally fails to convincingly demonstrate that the observed retroviruses originated in the lymph node of one patient «at risk of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome». There is no scientific reason, therefore, to refer to these particles as «LAV» nor as «HIV». Referring to these particles as «LAV» or «HIV» mislead the Nobel Committee, and resulted in a seriously questionable award of the Nobel prize.Etienne de Harven, MD, Emerit. Prof, Univ. of Toronto.

Posted by Michael Geiger on 12/26/2008 @ 10:44AM PST

The bottom line is that so-called HIV tests are virtually meaningless, and it is on the basis of these tests that drugs are given which destroy the quality of life, cause physical disfigurement, and, in too many cases, result in death from organ failure.
Yet this is considered health care as usual: “Of course drugs have side effects! Of course they have to carry dislaimers so the companies don’t get sued! Silly rabbit!”
But whatever happened to “First, do no harm”?
So-called HIV meds have such broad antiviral, antimicrobial, and antioxidant properties that they may well have value in the short term. But has anyone ever bothered to study how this draconian approach compares with other treatments – say, nutritional therapy?
Here’s another idea for change in America: how about a health care system which is actually based on health, instead of drugs, drugs, drugs, and more drugs. Where holistic, life-affirming therapies are offered, instead of toxic chemicals administered with a big dose of fear.
Jennifer Craig wrote, “For some reason that defeats me, intelligent people continue to pronounce that the cause of AIDS is HIV and attack those who say otherwise.”
I think part of the answer is in what Leo Tolstoy said: “I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
But the staunch defenders of HIV/AIDS orthodoxy exhibit in addition an attitude I think of as the Wizard of Oz syndrome: “I am Oz, the great and powerful! Who are you! You dare to question my wisdom, do you, you clinking, clanking, clattering collection of caliginous junk! SILENCE!!!”
Too many people have been silenced, for too long. Dr. Neumann finds the stories of so-called HIV positives thriving without meds “extraordinary,” because such people aren’t supposed to exist. As Celia Farber has written:
“A group of long-term HIV-positive people who have remained healthy while staying off the drugs have organized monthly support meetings in New York. They call their group Living Proof. Most spoke to me of being shunned, professionally persecuted, and raged against when they revealed to friends, family, and colleagues they did not think HIV would kill them.
‘It’s like being a ghost,’ one man said, 10 years positive and healthy, as we sat in a park in Chelsea, where nobody could hear the conversation. ‘We don’t officially exist. Nobody can see us or hear us. We make [the AIDS establishment] furious. We make our own loved ones furious. In the end, you learn not to talk about it.'”

Posted by Laura Ogar on 12/26/2008 @ 10:45AM PST

Barnes – focus on the statement that Gallo crossed out. What does it say? Repeat it to yourself.

You have already received an answer to your comment about Gonda’s letter on this list.

Jennifer Craig

Posted by Jennifer Craig on 12/26/2008 @ 10:45AM PST

Gallo stated a retrovirus from the HTLV family caused AIDS – was he correct, Jennifer? Did the scientific community accept what he said and christen HTLV-III – a putative member of the HTLV family – as the cause of AIDS? If not, why not?
Michael Geiger, can you ask Dr. de Harven if HUT 87 and T17.4 – in which Gonda documented retroviral infection with LAV using his electron microscope – are cord blood cell lines?
Here are some more reasons why Barre-Sinoussi won the Nobel, in case people aren’t familiar with these papers.
JAMA. 1985 Mar 22-29;253(12):1737-9.

Isolation of lymphadenopathy-associated virus (LAV) and detection of LAV antibodies from US patients with AIDS.

Barré-Sinoussi F, Mathur-Wagh U, Rey F, Brun-Vezinet F, Yancovitz SR, Rouzioux C, Montagnier L, Mildvan D, Chermann JC.
A human retrovirus was isolated from the peripheral blood of three American patients newly diagnosed with the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). In each case the major core viral protein (p25) was shown to be antigenically identical to that of the prototype lymphadenopathy-associated virus (LAV). Two of the viral isolates were derived from intravenous narcotics abusers, the first demonstration of LAV isolation from this risk group. Antibody to LAV was detected by an IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in the serum samples of these and 14 additional American patients with AIDS and in none of 12 hospital worker controls. These findings provide support for the etiologic association of LAV and AIDS.

Lancet. 1984 Jun 23;1(8391):1383-5.

Isolation of human T-lymphotropic retrovirus (LAV) from Zairian married couple, one with AIDS, one with prodromes.

Ellrodt A, Barre-Sinoussi F, Le Bras P, Nugeyre MT, Palazzo L, Rey F, Brun-Vezinet F, Rouzioux C, Segond P, Caquet R, et al.
A Zairian married couple had been living in France since 1981. The man had acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and his wife had prodromes of the disorder. Infection with a human T-lymphotropic retrovirus (lymphadenopathy-associated virus) was demonstrated in both by isolation of the virus from their cultured lymphocytes and the detection of specific antibodies in serum samples. Since this virus has been isolated from patients in other AIDS risk categories, the finding of the virus in AIDS patients from the African group adds further support to the hypothesis that this human retrovirus is the AIDS aetiological agent.

Lancet. 1984 Apr 7;1(8380):753-7.

Isolation of new lymphotropic retrovirus from two siblings with haemophilia B, one with AIDS.

Vilmer E, Barre-Sinoussi F, Rouzioux C, Gazengel C, Brun FV, Dauguet C, Fischer A, Manigne P, Chermann JC, Griscelli C, et al.
A human T-lymphotropic retrovirus was isolated from cultured T lymphocytes from two siblings with haemophilia B. Patient 2 was healthy, but patient 1 had acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. The retrovirus differed from human T-cell leukaemia virus (HTLV) but it was similar to the lymphadenopathy-associated retrovirus (LAV) in its morphology and its major core protein (P25). Both patients had antibodies against LAV and patient 1’s retrovirus, detected by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay or a radioimmunoprecipitation assay. Seroepidemiological data indicated the transmission of this retrovirus by plasma products.

Princess Takamatsu Symp. 1984;15:319-31.

Lymphadenopathy associated virus and its etiological role in AIDS.

Montagnier L, Chermann JC, Barré-Sinoussi F, Klatzmann D, Wain-Hobson S, Alizon M, Clavel F, Brun-Vezinet F, Vilmer E, Rouzioux C, et al.

Lymphadenopathy associated virus (LAV) is a novel human retrovirus first reported in 1983. It was isolated from the lymph node lymphocytes of a French homosexual patient with generalized hyperplasic lymphadenopathy. Subsequently LAV was isolated from patients with frank acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) coming from all the different high-risk groups, while anti-LAV antibodies were detected equally in individuals from all “at-risk” groups. Such a profile is consistent with the virus being the major etiological agent of AIDS. Furthermore its biological properties, namely its cytopathic effect in vitro, its T4-cell tropism as well as the role of the T4 molecule in virus infection explain, at least in part, the pathophysiology of AIDS. The major core (gag) proteins are p18, p25, and p13 which are products of a Pr55 precursor. The major envelope (env) glycoprotein is unusually large (gp110) for a retrovirus and comparable to those of the lentiviruses. Recently the virus has been molecularly cloned. The genome is 9.2 kb long, longer than any other known replication competent retrovirus apart from the lentiviruses. The absence of molecular hybridization between cloned LAV and human T-cell leukemia/lymphoma virus (HTLV) genomes compounds the original and extensive differences noted between these viruses and demonstrates that LAV is a prototype of a new class of human retrovirus.

Antibiot Chemother. 1983;32:48-53.

Isolation of a new retrovirus in a patient at risk for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.

Chermann JC, Barré-Sinoussi F, Dauguet C, Brun-Vezinet F, Rouzioux C, Rozenbaum W, Montagnier L.

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/26/2008 @ 11:22AM PST

And Jennifer, can you point out the “answer” to my comment about Gonda’s identification of LAV? Are you telling me that the same people who used Gonda’s statements about “cellular debris” as a basis for asking that the Science papers be retracted do not trust Gonda’s skills as an electron microscopist? If so, why are they citing his letter? it’s also worth noting that Janine Roberts nor anyone else actually knows which micrographs Gonda is referring to in his debris letter, Janine and everyone else just ASSUMES that it refers to published micrographs (which it doesn’t).

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/26/2008 @ 11:28AM PST

Dear “Hankie”, I don’t need to ask de Harven if HUT 87 and T17.4 – in which Gonda documented retroviral infection with LAV using his electron microscope – are cord blood cell lines?
Why, do I not need to, Hank?

Because I am already well aware that what was found in hut 87 and t17.4 had originated from endogenous retroviruses that were ORIGINALLY cultured ONLY IN cord blood which is well known since 1979 to naturally harbor many different endogenous and harmless retroviruses.
These were NEVER found to be isolated from any aids patients peripheral blood. Why? Because they WERE NOT THERE. They were only cultivated in cord blood.

Posted by Michael Geiger on 12/26/2008 @ 11:31AM PST

Dear Mr. Geiger:
Endogenous retroviruses cannot be transmitted to, and productively infect, HUT 78 and T17.4 cell lines.
Ask Dr. de Harven.

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/26/2008 @ 11:36AM PST

Well, I’ve just browsed through the above posts quite quickly, but I want to add my voice to those reporting being HIV+, alive & well without the interventions of doctors. I was diagnosed in 2000, have never taken any ARV’s, & have absolutely no health problems.
I have done a lot of careful reading on the subject, & am convinced HIV is a terrible mistake – but there are too many vested interests involved now.
I would be amazed, & very, very impressed, should the Obama Administration really take a serious look at this, with fresh eyes, free of lobbyists’ arm-twisting.

Posted by Jason Hart on 12/26/2008 @ 11:39AM PST

Nice try, Hank, but wrong again:

HUT 78 was infected by “HTLV-III”, which was proven to have been Montagniers LAV, which was cultured ONLY IN CORD BLOOD.
HUt-78 cell lines infected with HTLV-III which secrete gp160
Document Type and Number:United States Patent 5122468

Abstract:Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) glycoprotein gp160 is produced in its native form using a clone of HUT78 cells chronically infected with HTLV-III451, known as 6D5451, and grown in serum-free medium.

Posted by Michael Geiger on 12/26/2008 @ 11:47AM PST

You have been a very staunch opponent of this idea and in effect you seem to be trying to initiate the debate here of the very question that Martin Barnes has proposed. It behooves you to reveal your identity and credentials to help all of us reading these posts determine your credibility.
I am not having the same trouble identifying most of those posting in support.
I’m Jon Barnett, a survivor of AIDS myths for more than two decades. Who are you?

Posted by Jon Barnett on 12/26/2008 @ 11:51AM PST

Right on Jason! You said: “I have done a lot of careful reading on the subject, & am convinced HIV is a terrible mistake – but there are too many vested interests involved now”.
And the guy posting here as “Hank” is obviously one of those “vested interests”.

Posted by Michael Geiger on 12/26/2008 @ 11:52AM PST

Mr Geiger, endogenous retroviruses cannot productively infect cell lines. Your argument is that Gonda saw productive infection with an endogenous retrovirus in HUT 78 and T17.4, and that that endogenous retrovirus was transmitted to those cell lines from cord blood.

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/26/2008 @ 11:57AM PST

Mr Geiger, endogenous retroviruses cannot productively infect cell lines.

Why don’t you tell that to Gallo and Gonda, who seem to believe HUT 78 had been successfully infected with htlv-iii?

By the way, HUT 78 originated from someone with Sezary syndrome. Who knows what reactions you could get out of it by cultivating and stressing it in vitro?

Posted by Michael Geiger on 12/26/2008 @ 12:02PM PST

HUT-78 (human, peripheral blood, lymphoma, cutaneous, T cell)
Derived from peripheral blood of a 50 year old male patient with Sezary syndrome. Cells exhibit the features of a mature T cell line with inducer/helper phenotype. Biologically active IL-2 can be eluted from the cell surface.

ECACC 88041901

Morphology: Lymphoblast

Human T cell lymphoma

Depositor: Dr G Farrar, PHLS CAMR, Porton Down, Salisbury, USA

No restrictions. Patent: None Specified By Depositor

Properties: Products: Interleukin 2 (IL-2)

Available in the following LABORATORY:

CAMR Centre for Applied Microbiology & Research (ECACC, Salisbury, Wiltshire)
RPMI 1640 + 2mM Glutamine + 10% Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS). Maintain cultures between 3-9×100,000 cells/ml; 5% CO2; 37C.

Posted by Michael Geiger on 12/26/2008 @ 12:16PM PST

As public relations chairperson for “Rethinking AIDS” — the only organized, worldwide scientists’ group out there urging a new look at all our assumptions about AIDS research, I vote wholeheartedly for this kind of change. A new era, and a new way of thinking. Haven’t we been living in ’80s paranoia and hysteria long enough?

None of it works scientifically. None of the data supposedly showing that AIDS drugs “extend life” are valid. None of the pivotal research on AIDS is consistent with the past 100 years of virology. See to see a request that the medical journal Science withdraw the original 1984 papers “proving” that HIV causes AIDS — or that it was even isolated.

After a year when the rhetorical (“Joe Six Pack” and “Joe the Plumber”) was overtaken by the substantive (specific suggestions for change in America), it’s time we looked at the facts. Instead, I read this little bit of Alice-in-Wonderland:

“. . . people so entrenched in denial that they feel they need to find out the ‘true cause of AIDS’.”

How can a person be “entrenched in denial” while needing to “find out” something? Denial is not wanting to find out. And just which people are “entrenched”? A classic reversal of language in the age of AIDS. Orwellian, as in, Freedom is slavery, slavery is freedom. “Negative” being a positive, “Positive” being negative.

I have never once, in all 16 years of looking into this, “denied” a single fact brought to me with sufficient evidence. And I’m still looking, still listening. After losing several friends to “AIDS,” I’m personally not happy with the scripted answers. Why would anyone be satisfied?

I hope the new political order is listening — or it will show me that it’s just the old political order in new clothes. The last time I checked, during the primaries, Hillary Clinton was the recipient of the largest amount of pharmaceutical money; I wonder if Barack Obama inherited this funding when he accepted the Democratic nomination.

P.S. Thanks to the people I know who have voted and posted here, calmly and rationally. Perhaps you can even take some of these discussions with people here offline somehow. Have a beer or share a phone conversation. I’m seeing a lot of hurt on the other side, in need of healing and reassurance. People with questions can reach me personally at, and if they need to speak with a scientist, doctor or other, I will be happy to connect them.

Posted by Elizabeth Ely on 12/26/2008 @ 12:21PM PST

HUT 78 as a “clean T-cell line that was supposedly “infected by” and as a source of active HIV infection is a FRAUD. What part of that do YOU not understand Hank???

Posted by Michael Geiger on 12/26/2008 @ 12:22PM PST

Is it now your argument is that Matthew Gonda mistakenly saw a productive retroviral infection in the HUT 78 line with LAV? It was “stressors” that didn’t show up with the other samples (also in HUT 78)? Or are you still saying he documented the first ever productive infection with an endogenous retrovirus that was somehow transmitted from cord blood? LAV has been sequenced btw, it’s not an endogenous retrovirus. Contrary to Gallo’s arguments in those Science papers, it is also not a member of the HTLV family.

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/26/2008 @ 12:29PM PST

Below are the names of ten of my family and friends who cannot support this idea personally because they all took Hank’s wonder drugs and were killed by the resultant toxicity:

John Wilson
Anthony Baptist
Michael Blanc
David Sharp
Johnny Guittierez
Juan Rodriguez
Nicky Neuman
Mark Chaney
Donald Jones
Kenny Higgs

Given more time to reflect I would remember many others and I’ve no doubts they all wish they could reconsider, but Hank & Company don’t believe they deserve any benefit of doubt.

I’m still waiting for you to publicly post your creds, Hank.

Posted by Jon Barnett on 12/26/2008 @ 12:36PM PST

Hank, I have no idea what Gonda saw in HUT 78 lymphoma, nor do I know if there was lab contaminations or artefacts. After all, the experiments were NEVER reproduced with sera from any other aids patients.
And furthermore, where is the evidence that whatever hut 78 is, it is the actual cause of aids? After all, not a single chimp, who by the way DO get EVERY OTHER HUMAN ILLNESS, not a single one ever came down with AIDS after injection by HUT-78.
Why has whatever is seen in HUT-78 after being “infected” by LAV, not been seen via EM from the peripheral blood of even a single deathly sick so-called hiv positive person?
And furthermore, where is the evidence, with any high degree of probability at all, of any such retrovirus actually causing aids?
If you want to claim that a retrovirus is the cause of aids, then how about coming up with some serious evidence, as all we have to rely upon is Gallo’s original “doctored” and never reproduced works.

Posted by Michael Geiger on 12/26/2008 @ 12:41PM PST

By the way, Hank, can you explain to us all why Gonda was unable to see any virus in the samples from RF, a Haitian immigrant supposedly dying of aids.
As far as Gonda recalls his choice of pictures, he said, and I quote: “I selected the photographs, but I didn’t know what the samples were. The pictures were brought out and I said “Take that one and that one, and that one”. (From an interview with John Crewdson, and printed in his book “Science Fictions” Page 124.
Very scientific, Frank, Don’t you agree?

Posted by Michael Geiger on 12/26/2008 @ 01:00PM PST

And it is because of all of this LACK OF CLARITY in the foundational science papers that are underlying the belief that a retrovirus is the cause of aids, that FULLY DEMANDS THAT THIS ENTIRE ISSUE BE INVESTIGATED AGAIN, which is EXACTLY what this entire plea is all about!

Posted by Michael Geiger on 12/26/2008 @ 01:04PM PST

Stop the HIV-AIDS fraud so innocent people no longer have to die and famlies do not have to suffer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Michael Rivera on 12/26/2008 @ 01:53PM PST

That HIV causes AIDS has not been proven.All HIV/AIDS researchers should read the statements made by many of the world’s most distinguished scientists questioning the validity of the HIV causes AIDS theory. Some of these statements can be found at: the above site, Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist, 1993 Nobel Prize winner for Chemistry is quoted:“If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with high probability. There is no such document.”Also at the above site, Dr. Etienne de Harven, Emeritus Professor of Pathology, at the University of Toronto encapsulates in his quote what is often said/implied by many of the other distinguished scientists:“Dominated by the media, by special pressure groups and by the interest of several pharmaceutical companies, the AIDS establishment efforts to control the disease lost contact with open-minded, peer-reviewed medical science since the unproven HIV/AIDS hypothesis received 100% of the research funds while all other hypotheses were ignored.”With so many illustrious scientists questioning the validity of the HIV causes AIDS theory and insisting there is too much dissemination of misinformation the time has come for a revaluation of the theory and for an investigation into those whose motive for defending the theory is suspect.

Posted by clive symthe on 12/26/2008 @ 03:06PM PST

Derek Neumann wrote: “Gos, as I expected, you now start piling on the preconditions before you will consider any studies that may fulfil[sic] your requirements. What next, only papers whoes[sic] authors[sic] names begin with Z?”

You yourself, Derek Neumann, in a post dated 12/24/2008, stipulated that a study must be large to be relevant. Here’s a quote: “It requires large trials to truly independently determine what the facts are…”

The scientific method requires controlled experimentation — I didn’t make that rule up.

Common sense dictates that if you want to know the long-term results of ARV therapy, you need a long-term study.

As for the issue of funding, I don’t think anyone here wants to read a self-serving, bought-and-paid-for article pfinanced by the pfabulous pfarmaceutical company with the pfunny name.

So complain about the preconditions all you want, it won’t win you any points in this argument, and it will make you appear unwilling to provide proof of your claim.

As to the paper you cite, (Jordan, et al, Systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence for increasing numbers of drugs in antiretroviral combination therapy,) that is not a study, it is a meta-study.

For the layman who might read this, what this means is that instead of a single clinical trial, this article deals with a large number of published articles which deal with the results of a large number of clinical trials. Metastudies are advantageous in that they allow us to compile large quantities of data into a single article without having to actually fund a study as large as the cumulative quantities of data would otherwise require. They are also advantageous in that, if properly done, a metastudy can help us to measure the prevailing winds of scientific research.

However, they are not without their disadvantages. For one thing, metastudies tend to magnify the effects of prevailing publication bias (The authors themselves state: “We cannot exclude publication bias”). Another weakness is that the articles and studies included must be selected by the researchers, leaving wide open the possibility of selection bias.

In the context of the clinical trial of drugs which might potentially be fatal, metastudies also tend to magnify the inherent tendency of such studies to underestimate drug-induced deaths, due to the fact that many subjects who might otherwise have died if the drugs were continued, instead opt to discontinue the drugs and drop out of the study. Thus, instead of being reported as deaths, these cases are reported as withdrawals (if at all).

Now, in the case of this particular metastudy, it does not meet the requirements necessary to substantiate your claim:

Pfunny money:

Given that this article deals with 90 published articles dealing with 54 clinical trials, it is almost an absolute certainty that some of the studies in question were funded by the manufacturers of the drugs being tested.

Given that the vast majority of drug trials are funded by pharmaceutical companies, it is probable that the majority of the articles and studies cited in Jordan et al were funded by pharmaceutical companies.

Indeed, the authors themselves say that many of the articles included in the metastudy were the result of soliciting recommendations from drug manufacturers. (See:

You cannot claim that this article is uncorrupted by pharma influence, therefore it does not meet requirement #4.

Not a long-term study:

None of the included studes lasted as long as 5 years, and some lasted as little as 3 months. (See:

Not a large study:

Several large studies are included, but of the 40 articles which actually compared disease progression or death (the only clinical endpoints relevant to your claim,) nearly half (19) contained fewer than 100 subjects in one or both arms of the study, and of the clinical trials cited, only a sixth had more than 300 subjects in one or both arms of the study. Given that the median study arm size was roughly 500, only five of the studies cited had 500 or more subjects in one or both arms, while the rest (which make up the vast majority) were smaller than the median.

This metastudy has been stacked with an inordinate number of small studies (in which the influence of publication bias, the statistical noise floor, selective interpretation of data, and other factors would have the maximum impact.)

While it does contain a few (very few) large studies, it is overwhelmingly weighted towards studies that are too small to be relevant. As such, it in no way qualifies as a surrogate for a large study.

Only marginally a controlled study:

There is no comparison of placebo to the triple-drug cocktail therapy which is the current standard of treatment. The only placebo comparison given is the comparison of placebo vs monotherapy.

Of the studies cited, the largest study (Concorde) shows the weakest favoritism towards monotherapy, and the strongest “evidence” in favor of monotherapy comes from one of the smallest studies (Kinloch-de-Loes).

Given the possibility of selection bias, and the fact that we’ve already demonstrated that this metastudy has been weighted with small, irrelevant studies, selection bias cannot be excluded, and is in fact suggested by the selection of the studies included.

Looking at the cumulative totals, we find that the given risk of death or disease progression is only reduced by six percentage points. Now, one might be tempted to say, “Well, at least that’s favorable,” but six percentage points is a tiny margin, and we still haven’t deducted for publication bias, selection bias, or patients who withdrew from the study due to adverse drug reactions, who would certainly have experienced disease and might even have died, and would therefore have resulted in very different study outcomes if they’d remained in the study. It is plain to see that if we deducted for these factors, that tiny six-point margin would evaporate, and it’s not at all unlikely that it would swing the balance in the other direction.


This metastudy meets none of the requirements to substantiate your claim that the benefits of triple-ARV therapy outweigh the inherent risks. It is not a large study, nor is it an acceptable surrogate for a large study. It is not a long-term study, and none of the studies included lasted longer than 5 years, and most lasted only a few months. It is not a controlled study, (though it does include a few placebo-controlled studies which compare monotherapy to placebo.) There is every indication that at least some, and possibly most or all of the studies included were funded by pharmaceutical companies.

And at the end of all of this, the supposed “benefit” of monotherapy over placebo is so small as to be easily countered if we deducted for publication bias, selection bias, and the early withdrawal of patients who experienced severe adverse drug reactions.

I really should call this “strike three”, but you wasted your first two strikes refusing to swing at good pitches, and I really really want to give you every opportunity to hit this one out of the ballpark if you can, so instead I’m gonna say you “tipped” the ball this time, making it a foul instead of a strike, so that you can have one more chance.

This metastudy lists 90 articles pertaining to 54 clinical trials. Which makes it a pretty good starting point — out of the articles and studies cited, can you find even one that is free of pharma influence, which is a large, long-term study, and which gives a controlled comparison of patients not on ARVs to patients using the therapy you recommend, which supports your claim that the therapy you recommend are better than no ARV therapy at all, in terms of preventing disease and/or death?

For that matter, there’s no need to limit yourself to just the articles and studies cited in this article — can you find such a study anywhere?

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/26/2008 @ 06:57PM PST

Immune Recovery Syndrome is acknowledgement by the HIV industry that the ARVs cause a whole host of detrimental effects that do not fit under the ever expanding banner of HIV-indicative diseases. There is nothing occuring in an HIV positive person that is not attributable to HIV, in journals it seems if a condition is observed in 2 (-JCAT)persons who are positive means it becomes an HIV defining illness. The lack of thorough medical diagnostics tolerated in this industry is equalled only by the single minded intesity of effort to ensure a patient is adhereing correctly to their medicine (ARVs) even as they record eloquently the fallout (IRS). Surely even one with cancer of the throat can expect a diagnosis of tonsilitis if the two should occur together? This patient should expect a prescription of antibiotics, rather than nonsense insistence that chemo will make it all go away. This is the daily life of an HIV patient and this is the cummulative neglect that causes health issues that are initially controllable to decline into very unpleasant conditions. This applies equally to Africans with TB, malaria and gastric issues or malnutrition as it does to Westerners. HIV practice and policy perpetuates illness in all victims to support the existance of a virus that exists only in a test patented by its founder and ‘discoverer’ Gallo. Some impropriety has taken place, if only a conflict of interest. Either way a major investigation is in order, and some independent rediscovery of the virus in carriers and investigation of progression in ‘treatment niave’ patients. This cant be difficult where viral load tests routinely indicate millions of viral particles in the blood of victims. To deny illness is to deny mortality but HIV cannot cause all disease and all death and evidence in the bulging population of epicentre nations defies the entire hypothesis. AIDs is death by drugs or death by original diseases- untreated though having been settled upto a 100yrs ago- where funding should be focused. This is a flaw on modern times, a primitive system amidst advancement in every endeavor. 30yrs is long enough for this injustice to persist. The fact that immune count rebounds have no correlation on the clinical condition or longevity makes one wonder if any objectivity has ever been applied to the treatment problem. All while tratment is based entirely on lab results and triage kept to a minimum. Death is still expected to the point that life conditions of the victims are not considered at all as their persistent illness gratifies the system, each is a subject in a great experiment to see what will happen next. Discomfort is par for the course, complaint ignored and reports of recovery exxagerated.

Posted by Star Zwan on 12/26/2008 @ 08:52PM PST

It’s a little hard to read all that the way it appears here Bob Bolgger. Maybe if you could just cite the source and say why it’s relevant then people could decide whether or not they’ll read it.

I guess you’re trying to say that no change is needed because the evidence seems strong enough to you? What do you think about what has been said here then? Irrelevant?

Posted by Sadun Kal on 12/26/2008 @ 09:00PM PST


There is one other aspect of the study that you cited, which I considered including in my reply to that study, but decided against it, because there is not enough data included in the article for me to determine whether what I’m about to say is relevant in the case of this particular article.

However, I noticed that this article used a tactic that I’ve seen elsewhere, and where enough data is supplied to differentiate between death and progression figures, it appears that it is often used to mask the fact that there are usually more deaths in the drug arm of any controlled study.

The tactic to which I am referring is the tactic of lumping mortality and “progression” instances together in a single colum, and including in the definition of “progression” (this article refers to it as “progression of disease”, and some other articles call it “progression to AIDS”,) the use of CD4 and viral load surrogate markers to pad the number of subjects said to have “progressed” in the placebo column, in order to hide whether or not there were actually more deaths in the drug arm.

I cannot say whether the figures were lumped into a single column in order to hide larger death figures in the drug arm, so I didn’t include it in my reply to that article, but I have seen other studies in which this was exactly why the two outcomes were lumped together.

There’s really no reason why the “death or progression” column can’t be split into two columns: “Death” and “Progression”. What would it take — maybe 64/1,000ths of a percent more ink to print the article?

Derek, I don’t think you would object if I stipulate that those who take ARVs will generally tend to have higher CD4 counts and lower viral loads, will you? Is that one thing we can agree on?

So, when this surrogate endpoint is included in our definition of “progression”, you would naturally expect to see more of the subjects in the placebo arm than in the drug arm of the study, right? After all, if lower CD4 counts and/or higher viral loads (regardless of whether there’s any actual illness present,) help to determine whether one is included in the “death or progression” column, then we’d expect to see more nonusers of ARVs reported as “progression” cases, because they have lower CD4 counts and higher viral loads, on average, than ARV users.

Because the placebo column is thus inflated by the inclusion of patients who neither died nor became ill, but who merely had low CD4s or high VLs, there is that much more room in the drug arm column of “death or progression” to hide greater numbers of deaths on that side. Thus, it is possible, by combining “progression” and “death” statistics, to hide a greater number of drug-induced deaths, thus making it appear that the drugs are safer than no drugs, even if more of the patients in the drug arm actually died than in the placebo group.

Again, I cannot say whether that’s what was done in the case of this particular article, because not enough info is supplied by the authors — however, I have seen it done elsewhere, and where the reason for combining the two columns is in any way apparent, it’s typically apparently done to hide the fact that typically, more ARV users die than non-users.

This, in fact, is actually the real reason that the disclaimers are included in the drug literature, though I do agree with you that the disclaimers serve the purpose of preventing the manufacturers from being sued.

Let’s face it, if there were a single shred of unquestionable scientific proof that these drugs caused people to live healthier or longer lives, the pharmaceutical companies would be shouting it from the rooftops, and if they wanted to protect themselves from lawsuit, they’d simply cite the literature relevant to the claim.

Instead, they hide drug-induced deaths in a “death or progression” column, and cover their butts with a disclaimer in the drug literature. Thus, they maintain plausible deniability — “Honest, Your Honor, we had no idea that the drugs were killing people! Look at all the scientific research (that we paid for) that says that the drugs will prevent aidsordeath! How were we to know that by preventing aidsordeath, they’d actually cause more deaths?”

Does this mean that I can say for sure that the “aidsordeath” column hides a greater number of deaths on the monotherapy side than in the placebo arm in this particular study? No, and that’s why I didn’t include it in my reply. However, if you can think of any reasonable explanation that doesn’t involve hiding deaths, for combining “AIDS” and “death” statistics into a single figure rather than presenting them individually, I shall accept your explanation as fact on the spot, no questions asked.

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/26/2008 @ 09:46PM PST

Sadun Kal wrote: “It’s a little hard to read all that the way it appears here Bob Bolgger.”


“Bob” has copied/pasted copious amounts of irrelevant text into this discussion in order to derail it — its a common tactic of the orthodoxy: If you’re losing the debate, turn on the hacker attacks (in this case, scrolling). This isn’t the first time I’ve seen them do things like this. You should see the denial-of-service attack they launched a couple of years ago on Yahoo. To this day I have not been able to unfreeze my website.

I’d recommend that you use the “report” links just under “Bob’s” posts.

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/26/2008 @ 09:54PM PST

Will all parties interested in further discussion of this issue please use the “Report” links to report the 3 “Bob Bolger” posts as spamming the thread to shut down discussion.

Posted by Michael Geiger on 12/26/2008 @ 10:11PM PST

Does this idea put forward a testable theory?

Posted by K T on 12/27/2008 @ 12:22AM PST

I wonder why Hank Barnes et al. are fighting here against a proper investigation. If they where right this would silence down dissenters for ever….

Posted by Stefan Risch on 12/27/2008 @ 02:06AM PST

This has to be the #1 issue by far if only people would look at it. There are so many videos at youtube now and also the films at google video for free: AIDS INC. – The Other Side of AIDS – HIV FACT OR FRAUD – this issue has truly become global with my channel – – where i have literally contacted thousands of people all around the world including many well known celebrities. those that have declined my friend invites have been all the local news affilliate youtube channels here in america. it really is odd to me. it was important for me to include the ‘healing alternatives’ playlist at my channel because i understand what this realization is like from my first hand experience going through this less than 2 years ago. i feel that it is important to provide hope to those who feel lost and rejected on so many levels. but most importantly we must investigate this matter for future generations so that they will never have to endure what i have gone through with 11 years of hiv drugs that i never needed to take. drugs that gave me seizures, neuropathy, diahrea, rashes, night sweats, vomitting, blurred vision, headaches and always kept me homebound. it is so painful to recall and lately i noticed that i have begun to block the memories from my mind. i wrote in my journals every few days about my life for the past 15 years, so i have a good record of it all. this is so painful i cannot even explain it in words. i watched so many friends die and now i clearly see it was the hiv drugs and not a deadly virus.

Posted by Gregory Smiley on 12/27/2008 @ 02:56AM PST

All of Bolgger’s posts rest on the assumption that there exists an HIV virus. As there is no proof of its existence then the posts are nonsensical.

Jennifer Craig

Posted by Jennifer Craig on 12/27/2008 @ 05:28AM PST

Is Jennifer’s view the one implied by this Idea? Simply that the HIV virus does not exist?

Posted by K T on 12/27/2008 @ 09:20AM PST

KT – please quote a paper that shows the isolation techniques and electron microscopy of HIV.

Jennifer Craig

Posted by Jennifer Craig on 12/27/2008 @ 09:26AM PST

Jennifer, I believe KT is new to this issue and simply asking for clarification. KT, some people (most notable Dr. Peter Duesberg) believe that HIV exists, but is a harmless passenger virus; others (most notably The Perth Group) hold that it has never been proven to exist (which doesn’t automatically mean it doesn’t). “Taking a new look at AIDS” would consist, on one hand, determining if “HIV” can be isolated according to the standards of classical virology, and on the other, testing alternative theories on the causes of immune deficiency, such as drug use, malnutrition, and blood transfusions.

Posted by Laura Ogar on 12/27/2008 @ 10:18AM PST

I would like to speak up as someone who has also lived with being “diagnosed” and labeled HIV positive and then “diagnosed” with AIDS and the stigma and psychological torture that comes with it.

After repeatedly testing HIV negative for several years, I was “diagnosed” as “HIV positive” in October of 1993 – 15 years ago. Before I was diagnosed as HIV positive, I was with someone who was HIV positive. We were together and had “unsafe sex” for several months before he revealed his “diagnosis” to me. After finding out about his “status” I got tested again and it came back negative. We ended up staying together and my test results always came back negative for the next 5 years though we never really made an effort to have have strictly “safe” sex. (We are no longer together but he is still alive having lived with HIV for over 20 years – I’m in the process of checking to see what has been happening with him as a couple of years ago he did have a massive heart attack and I don’t know if he was on the drugs.)

Then one day I had a case of swollen lymph nodes behind my ears and decided to get tested again. This time the test came back positive. I wasn’t feeling sick, I just had swollen lymph nodes. Though I thought I would be prepared should this happen – I certainly wasn’t. I was actually devastated by the news. I went into a deep depression for several months. But I managed to keep going somehow.

For about seven years I continued to go and have my blood work evaluated, but did not go on any medications because all of my other blood work always came back “normal”. I had a “normal tcell count” and “undetectable viral load”. I now feel very lucky that I was dealing with people at the time who did not pressure me to go an any medications. I really believe I would be dead now because of them if I had. I believe a lot of people are dead strictly due to prescribed pharmaceutical drugs.

Then several years ago, during a VERY stressful time in my life, (I was alone and practically living out of my car and suffering from severe depression), my blood work came back showing a decrease in the area of tcells and an increase in viral load. So, I decided, after some encouragement from the clinic “doctors”, to join an HIV drug study and see what would happen.

Though I had not had any significant illnesses in all this time I started experiencing constant nausea, diarrhea, fatigue, etc. Of course, I found out later that I was on the real drug and not the placebo. My blood work did “turn around” though and I stayed with drugs and the nasty side effects for nearly two years. We are always sold the idea of “trade off”… Suffer the side effects and live longer or don’t take the meds and die a horrible death much sooner. Choose.

Then my “doctor” suggested a med holiday because my “numbers” were doing so good. This was back when they were recommending regular stops in treatment – I don’t believe they do that much anymore. I did fine for some time and then it was decided that I should go back on the meds because they had decided the “med breaks” were not a good idea and the idea of hitting hard and hitting fast and nonstop came about.

I went along with what they were telling me, trusting that they knew what they were talking about (all that technical stuff was too much for me to understand so I put myself in the hands of the “experts”). This last time around was worse than the first. I was put on a different “cocktail” and I started turning yellow and started losing muscle mass and gaining fat in my stomach, chest and back. I felt nauseous and fatigued all the time so I decided to do some research that I should have been responsible for doing years before.

I had heard way back during the beginning of the HIV/AIDS thing that there were some who believed that HIV was not the cause of AIDS and I thought that was the most ridiculous thing I had ever heard. Of course HIV caused AIDS. “They” wouldn’t lie about a thing like that and cause so many people so much pain and grief. Why would they do that? It was tantamount to saying that AIDS didn’t exist and with all those people dying it was just stupid to say so. At the time I was very naive about such things and it just didn’t make sense that there were companies and doctors out there that would have no qualms of hurting people (even killing them) for profit, power and status.

Well during my research I came across this idea again and decided to hold my “beliefs” in check and look further into the ideas being presented.

I cannot begin to describe the emotional pain, the anger, the sadness, and more that I felt when I opened my mind and educated myself. I realized what I had allowed myself to be put through because I trusted the scientists and the medical profession to be doing the right thing. What I felt in response to this revelation was almost worse than what I had been through when I believed that I was dying of an incurable disease. You know, life happens and people get sick. As hard as it might be, I could accept that. But, to find out that I had put myself through years of horror because of lies, greed and some very evil psychopaths (Gallo, et al), well the emotional pain was severe. I felt like I had just found out that I was nearly the victim of a murder. It was very overwhelming.

I stopped all medications about a year and a half ago (including those nasty antidepressants and anxiety medications too) and my health is returning and I hope there has not been any permanent damage. It is very difficult to get past the “nocebo” effect of the “numbers” they love to scare you with, but I absolutely believe that I am doing the right thing. I still get my blood work done because I’ve wanted to be right in the big middle of it as I continue to do just fine without their lousy toxic drugs (poison) and I want to see if there are any changes being affected by the use of certain supplements (I’m not sure I’ll be doing this much longer as it can be way too stressful). I hate that my going to this HIV clinic actually gains them financial support and they really hate it that I am not doing the drugs, but I’m sticking to my guns. I find it very interesting that I’ve been seeing these people at this clinic for several years and as long as I did what they told me to do they didn’t really notice me much. But, now that I’ve gone off the meds and refuse even a flu shot they are soooo personally concerned about me and my health. The response I get from them now is personal… like I’m somehow taking money directly from their pockets… hmmm.

I went to get my latest test results just a few days ago. I’m sitting in the exam room waiting when the “nurse practitioner” comes in with a grim look of feigned concern and asks “Well, how are you doing?” with that confident attitude that I’m going to say that I’m feeling really lousy and I’ve been sick. Then there is the blank look that comes over her face when I say that I’m doing just fine. No problems except an allergic reaction to taking some supplement causing a rash on my skin. She again tries to convince me that I should be sick and ready for death by telling me that I only have 78 tcells. Again another blank look and the question “You’re not budging are you?” in response to my smile and simple response of “ok”. I just wanted to get a copy of my blood work for my records and leave. She wanted me to give her some arbitrary threshold at which I would “give in” and take the “meds”. I said I had no such threshold. I, at this time, have no intentions of taking any pharmaceutical drugs, prescribed or otherwise. She wants me to be on bactrim. I’ve researched bactrim. I see absolutely no reason to go on any highly toxic chemicals when I am perfectly healthy. The 3 minute visit ends with “Well, all I can do is finish with ‘my speech’ to please, please go on the medications.”

BTW, she was recovering from a cold. I haven’t had a cold or flu in over five years. I have never had any extraordinary illnesses at all during the entire 15 years of living with this “diagnosis”, though I’ve watched a lot of so-called “HIV negatives” around me routinely fighting colds and flus and such. One thing about being diagnosed as HIV positive is that it tends to make one take better care of themselves and you end up being healthier than those around you. It would seem that since I’m supposedly living with some kind of depressed immune system that I would be the one always getting sick. To believe what I had been told in the beginning… I should be dead right now not healthier than the people “treating” me. hmmmm

I think it’s all about the bottom line. MONEY. It’s also about power, control, sociopathic/psychopathic personalities, greed, and yes I do believe that somewhere at the top it’s about population control and genocide. Because there are people working in the mainstream HIV/AIDS field who know truth but continue supporting the lie anyway. The people at the top of these gargantuan industries are filthy rich, greedy, psychopaths without conscience or care for what they are doing to millions of people with their desperate grasping for ever more power, control and money.

I’m going to be adding more details and depth to my story above and submitting it to a couple of places.

Though it takes some time and effort, I encourage everyone who is reading this who has been stigmatized with an HIV or AIDS diagnosis and is living a healthy life without the drugs (the longer the better) to get their story down in writing and get out in front of people. We are living proof of what the dissident movement is all about. We can make it harder and harder for the HIV=AIDS apologists to keep up with their lies in the face of such obvious contradictions. Most of us have already been very “educated” on the mainstream view of HIV and AIDS (at least in a shallow surface way) and now we must become even more educated on the suppressed information that reveals a very different picture of the HIV/AIDS “construct”. We need healthy, educated, living proof to stop this madness. Everyone deserves to know the whole picture before making decisions about life an death situations. It takes research and critical thinking (for a lot of people this has been programmed and drugged out of them and takes some effort). Question everything.

I’ve found the following additional sites to be very helpful:

There are lots more links contained in the sites linked above. It can be overwhelming, but don’t give up.

I’m updating my site, but here’s a page at:

Posted by David Collins on 12/27/2008 @ 11:05AM PST

David Collins:

Sincerest best wishes for continued good health.

Re Bactrim: I’m not in a “risk group”. Never been told of HIV status, but I suspect negative because I’ve had several operations and given my “informed consent” to be tested. I was on Bactrim several times over the course of a year or two, because of prostate infection, and each time within a couple of weeks I got thrush, oral or penile.

Posted by Henry Bauer on 12/27/2008 @ 11:21AM PST

Thank you Dr. Bauer!

BTW, this is another good site for some truth:

And the book:
The Origins, Persistence, and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory

: )

Posted by David Collins on 12/27/2008 @ 11:50AM PST

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Gos

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

One of Bob Bolgger’s (Seth Kalichman’s) entries above actually begins with the words, “Chapter 2” – this person is pasting entire chapters into this thread & is clearly trying to sabotage the discussion. Please report him.

Posted by Jason Hart on 12/27/2008 @ 05:22PM PST

Seth Kalichman “I don’t know who Bob is, but that is sure some interesting stuff he posted.” – do you think you’re fooling anyone? Your MO petticoat is showing Seth. You spammily posted vast swathes of your meaningless musings and you just did it again with posts from another site. Either you are suffering Dissociative Identity Disorder and are in need of some emergency psychotherapy, or you are one of those really trolly, trolls that has to post as a sock puppet so it looks that at least one other person on this planet has any regard whatsoever for what you have to say. Not only that but so devoted is this mythical “Bob” that he spent hours and hours devotedly typing out your drivel. But then you have an electronic copy don’t you Seth. All you had to do was cut and paste.You are a fake and a charlatan Seth. Pistols at dawn you bounder!

Posted by Cathy Thompson on 12/27/2008 @ 08:29PM PST

I missed another point. “Bob” had nothing to say, nothing original, just posted swathes of stuff from your underselling book – and you say “that sure is interesting stuff”. Hmm, I am altering my diagnosis Seth – you now get “Malignant Narcissistic Personality Disorder” a la the late, great Scott Peck. You might want to read him sometime Seth. Scott Peck actually wrote “real” interesting stuff and he had qualities you could only dream of – humanity, humility, keen intelligence and empathy. I bet he didn’t have to resort to dishonest sock puppetry to try and push his publications.

Posted by Cathy Thompson on 12/27/2008 @ 08:43PM PST

HIV, AIDS & Gallo’sEgg by Clark Baker – July 21, 2008 “I began this investigation in May and have since farmed ALL of my other investigations to other investigators. I intend to remain engaged in this until the courts and/or legislature has ended this criminal enterprise..”

“After having investigated thousands of crimes and arrested hundreds of criminal gang members and other assorted predators, I know a criminal enterprise when I see one.”

“HIV/AIDS makes Enron look like a neighborhood poker game.”

“I have never written about anything more important. This story changed my life, and if you have the time and patience to understand what I have written, it may change yours as well.

If Americans, our courts, and our legislature permit the continued corruption of science and medicine by our pharmaceutical industry, I fear that the 232-year experiment we call “The United States of America” will have failed.”

– Clark Baker Source:

Posted by David Collins on 12/27/2008 @ 09:21PM PST

Cathy,Seth Kalichman is one of the good old boys who’s got a lot at stake. As you know, he’s eager to promote his new anti-denialist book, which happens to be another charity case giving additional toxic AIDS drugs to Africa instead of nutritious food and clean water. He actually thinks AME is my website, but is owned by it’s major contributors.

Posted by Brian Carter on 12/27/2008 @ 11:15PM PST

Hi Brian
Yes the famille Kalichman have a huge stake in HIV = AIDS because both hubby and wifey’s income feeds off it. He says proceeds from his book help with poisoning innocents in Africa but we only have his word for that, and he has already demonstrated that he is a complete sock puppet liar.

Posted by Cathy Thompson on 12/28/2008 @ 12:11AM PST

People, I strongly suggest keeping our eyes on the ball. Seth Kalichman has now played his little gambit, & spammed as Bob, then, very transparently “come out” as himself; but until the moderators read everyone’s complaints, we can’t let the discussion revolve around him. As Laura said a little way up, this specimen is really rather innocuous… “sometimes it’s a fine line between stupid and evil”… while for Granpa Gallo it’s the latter, for this chappie it’s clearly the former. We have a true zealot here… let’s keep the distraction to a minimum.
P.S. Seth, if all that stuff really is from your book, erm…. zzzzzz!

Posted by Jason Hart on 12/28/2008 @ 12:49AM PST

Jason, you and Laura are completely right, except as a person who has worked in healthcare more years than I care to remember, these people are not just innocuous nonentities on various blogs. They are real people with real power over people’s lives. They destroy people and families with their “oh so learned” BS. The fact that Kalichman can be caught out so easily with his blatant blog disinformation spam campaign (hint: lies) and solipsistic self-promotion only proves that the foxes are well and truly guarding the henhouses.

Posted by Cathy Thompson on 12/28/2008 @ 01:41AM PST

Seth, it is well known that individuals protecting their livelihood and careers made by promoting hiv, such as yourself, your fellow “aids’truthers”, the gang of the pharma supported sites at The Body and at TAG and TAC, quite regularly plant false and misleading posts at the AME site. Of course, when pressed for any information or evidence of the truth such as meeting up with any of the dissidents, they always seem to quickly and simply disappear.As such, I would have no doubt whatsoever that you yourself are one of the prime posters of the deception that you just posted here .By the way, Seth. Don’t you have something constructive to do? Such as to go begging again for your next NIH grant to “study the psychology of those who you continue to project your own disowned denialism upon?

Posted by Michael Geiger on 12/28/2008 @ 02:00AM PST

I would like to respond about anemia and antiretrovirals and about the people who was unsure if to take the meds or not. There wasn’t too much that I didn’t have when I got on them. I am one of the few cases, that they did actually help. I was too far gone and had the “Lazareth” effect, literally came back from the dead. First, I would try normal means to stop whatever is attacking the body, as the 30 AIDS defining diseases are not new. However, if many things are attacking you and at the same time, you may need something more powerful. After three months of eating healthy, taking supplements and herbs,and the antiretrovirals and Dapsone, I was as good as new. However, here is where the problem lies, the doctors will not want you to stop these meds, once on them. But be strong, if you take them because it is your life, not theirs.

In answer to the anemia, the meds do cause this. My blood work was never normal while on them. Being anemic is not a good thing either, which causes you more problems.

Lastly, I higly recommend low dose naltrexone or LDN for short. I stopped my med on 1 Mar 2006 and I never regretted it. LDN is a wonderful immune inhancer, which is helping over 50 diseases. It is truly a miracle drug, which the public needs to know about. I think that I will start a separate thread about it and invite you folks to it.

Posted by Noreen Martin on 12/28/2008 @ 04:19AM PST


I was just looking at your profile and I can’t help but notice that you haven’t voted on this idea.

If there’s anyone else here who hasn’t voted to take a new look at the cause of AIDS, do so now — we need every vote we can get.

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/28/2008 @ 05:18AM PST

KT – sorry I was brusque.

I do not think there is such a virus called HIV because Papovic’s paper claiming that AIDS is caused by a virus was demonstrably fruadulent. Papovic, the first author, had written, “Despite intensive research effort, the causative agent of AIDS has not yet been identified. ” Gallo altered this to read, “That a retrovirus of the HTLV family might be an etiologic agent of AIDS was suggested by the findings.”

Apparently Papovic was so appalled by what his boss had done, he sent his draft to his sister in Austria for safe keeping. When Gallo was investigated for scientific fraud in 1990, the paper was produced.

Along with that wa a letter from Gonda a the National Caner Institute dated March 26, 1984 saying, “Dr. Gallo wanted these micrographs for publication because they contained HTLV particles, ” and “I do not believe any of the particles photographed are HTLV I, II, or III.”

Gallo had been working on his HTLV particles but in actual fact, admitted openly in Papovic’s draft paper, it was Montagnier’s LAV virus. The name changed eventually to HIV but whatever it was called, it was not there! Gonds says so.

That the cause of AIDS was PROBABLY a virus was announced at a press conference on April 23, 1984. The press promptly dropped the word ‘probably’ and the media took off. That same day Gallo patented his billion dollar-making HIV test.

What I want to know, is why, when the Office of Research Integrity of the US Department of Health and Human Services saw these and other documents they were not made public. For 19 more years, and it’s not finished yet, people are being treated for a non-existent virus

Jennifer Craig

Posted by Jennifer Craig on 12/28/2008 @ 06:53AM PST

Jennifer Craig wrote: “I do not think there is such a virus called HIV…”


Good way to put it.

For those who may be unfamiliar with this subject, we dissidents (or “denialists”, as our detractors like to call us, as if calling us names proved us wrong,) are an argumentative bunch who can’t even seem to agree amongst ourselves on some key issues, including whether or not HIV even exists. There are some of us who aren’t convinced that HIV exists at all (except possibly as noninfectious cellular debris,) and then there are those of us who are convinced that HIV exists as a harmless passenger virus. Then there’s a whole spectrum of thought in between.

But the way Jennifer has phrased it, “I don’t think there is such a virus [that we can call] HIV,” is a true statement regardless of one’s stance on the HIV existence issue. There is no virus that we can call “Human Immunodeficiency Virus”, because even if it were proven that HIV unquestionably exists (and it’s not,) it still remains to be proven that it plays any causal role in immunodeficiency in humans. Therefore, even if what’s being called “HIV” really correlates to an actual retrovirus that exists in humans, we still cannot call that virus “Human Immunodeficiency Virus”, because a causal link to immondeficiency in humans has not been established. How do we know, for example, that HIV is not merely another of the opportunistic infections which might infect an AIDS patient, as opposed to being the cause of his susceptibility to opportunistic infection?

Most people aren’t aware of it, but there have been literally dozens of hypotheses put forward to explain how HIV causes AIDS, each a replacement for a failed predecessor.

Today, it is common among AIDS experts to acknowledge that to this day, they don’t understand how HIV causes AIDS, and that there are currently about a half-dozen or so different hypotheses floating around the AIDS research community, none of which have been proven to be the mechanism whereby HIV causes AIDS. To excuse this, they’ll say, “It’s true that we don’t understand how HIV causes AIDS, but this doesn’t mean that it doesn’t — it just means that HIV is a lot more complex and mysterious than we could have ever imagined back in the mid-80s when it was discovered.”

(Hmmm…last time I heard an answer that relied on incomprehensible mystery, I was in a Pentecostal pastor’s office.)

Anywho, Jennifer, that was a good way to put it — I think even Duesberg would have to agree with your statement, as phrased.

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/28/2008 @ 07:25AM PST

hi all,

I just wanted to say that HIV = AIDS paradigm needs to be review again. For those who firmly believe that HIV is the real cause of AIDS, if that statement is really true, what do you guys have to lose ? But if that statement is WRONG, millions of lives have been mislead by those HIV testings, Drugs not to mention those Ban of entry for those who are infected…this is insane !

Obama, as a new president, please do review this paradigm for the sake of this world, cause you know when US make the CHANGE others will follow. I know this CHANGE will be for the better of humanity…


Posted by shaq shaq on 12/28/2008 @ 07:43AM PST

i just wanna say a few words…

the fact that medical sicences has FAILED in a lot of area, there is an urgent sense to make this revisit to HIV=AIDS area, imagine no cure found for 26 years, no REAL evidence proof that HIV causes AIDS(what is NIH and CDC doing ????), making HIV testing a mandatory thing…this really sounds like a massive suicide…I mean really.

and I know for sure there are millions of people OUT THERE who are suffering from this confusion. Im definately NOT BOTHERED by those who will lose their job because of this HIV=AIDS, YOU DESERVE IT! and those who are being paid by pharmaceutical companies to make people confuse with all the negative staements, may God be with you…cause when you die, the Devil will certainly not be with you.


Posted by eros rammazoti on 12/28/2008 @ 08:05AM PST

I saw Barack Obama and his wife Michelle in Kenya and went to South Africa to encourage Africans to take the HIV tests. I fell sick to my stomach to see a powerful African America with Oprah suppoeting the HIV testing. I hope the real science community to look into this mess. HIV is not the cause of AIDS simple!

Posted by Winfred Mwebe on 12/28/2008 @ 08:31AM PST

Science and the news community will have to step in, as AIDS is now a political issue and politicians will not go against the mainstream and cut their political throats. However, we can put pressure on the above, which may help to get this changed. This is why it is so important for those affected by this to speak out, so the world will know the truth.

I for one, think that it is high time that we have a Rethinkers march on Washington or some other prominent city. We must bring attention to the issue, as many still do not know that there is disagreement about what causes AIDS.

Posted by Noreen Martin on 12/28/2008 @ 08:41AM PST

Jennifer Craig demonstrates how deniers handle facts. She writes: “The name changed eventually to HIV but whatever it was called, it was not there! Gonds says so.” I have twice provided the link to the 1983 document in which Gonda describes seeing productive infection with HIV in two different cell lines, and pointed out that Gonda’s micrographs of HIV were included in the Science paper. Jennifer’s response is simply to keep making the same false claim that Gonda saw no virus. Michael’s response is to come up with a different set of false claims about chimps never getting AIDS and Bob Gallo’s results not being reproduced. The part of Galio’s work that could not be reproduced related to the claim that the virus was a member of the HTLV family; the inability of other scientists to reproduce these findings is the reason why the virus is called HIV and not HTLV-III as Bob Gallo wanted. The part about the virus causing AIDS (which Gallo wrote was “suggested” by the findings) was also well established by Barre Sinoussi and colleagues (I cited some of their papers earlier) and Jay Levy, and has subsequently been confirmed over and over again. If Jennifer wants to look at some of Gallo’s isolates through an electron microscope, any research scientist can obtain isolates like RF and MN from the NIH reagent program. To get a flavor of the political nature of AIDS denial, I’d recommend that people take a good look at the “California Conservative” website linked to above by David Collins (see what it has to say about Barack Obama), Other promoters of AIDS denial include right wing talk show host Barry Farber and fellow travelers like Cliff Kincaid. It’s appalling that people still get duped by the lies. Michael Geiger tries to pretend that posts to the “AIDS Myth Exposed” board from people who are getting sick are false, but board co-moderator Ken Anderlini died, and fellow co-moderator Joe Mandinski got toxoplasmosis and has not been heard from for a long time. Ed Lieb, a well-known longtime AIDS denier, recently described his severe illness on the board (and successful treatment with antiretrovirals), prompting several board members to share similar experiences. In the manner typical of cults, AIDS deniers have to deny the truth of these stories or try and explain them away by claiming that anti-HIV drugs are somehow broad spectrum antibiotics.

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/28/2008 @ 10:03AM PST

Once again, this is the letter dated December 14, 1983 from Matthew Gonda to Popovic, describing productive infection with HIV as observed through Gonda’s electron microscope. Several people in this string (including Jennifer Craig, Henry Bauer, Etienne de Harven) signed a letter to the journal Science that was based on Gonda’s ability to distinguish retroviruses from cellular debris – did these signatories even know that Gonda had also observed and reported productive infection with HIV?

6) HUT 68/LAV – Positive; Lentivirus – Productive lentivirus infection with all forms of virus maturation.

7) T 17.4/LAV – Positive; Lentivirus – Lentivirus, same comments as #6 above.

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/28/2008 @ 10:14AM PST

Hank Barnes wrote: “I have twice provided the link to the 1983 document in which Gonda describes seeing productive infection with HIV in two different cell lines, and pointed out that Gonda’s micrographs of HIV were included in the Science paper.”


…And Jennifer has already responded repeatedly to your claim, by pointing to a March 26, 1984 letter from Gonda to Popovic, in which he says, “I do not believe that any of the particles photographed are HTLV I, II, or III.”

Here’s a link to the document:

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/28/2008 @ 10:23AM PST

Which photographs is that letter referring to? If Gonda is qualified to distinguish retroviruses from cellular debris – as “Rethinking AIDS” says in their letter – then what is wrong with his identification and micrographs of productive HIV infection?

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/28/2008 @ 10:29AM PST

Every man who attacks my belief, diminishes in some degree my confidence in it, and therefore makes me uneasy; and I am angry with him who makes me uneasy. – Samuel Johnson
That’s politics.
Good science and good professional scientists act in the opposite manner.
Anything else is a clear indication of their lack of integirty.

Posted by Anthony L on 12/28/2008 @ 10:29AM PST
Delete Comment Report

I will not take the time to discuss the cause of HIV/AIDS as I believe I would much rather discuss the successful treatment. For the last 12 years my organization, the “Health & Wellness Foundation”, a non-profit, humanitarian organization has been successfully treating infected persons and reducing their viral loads down to “undetectable” levels in 40 – 1 hour treatment on average and without pharmaceuticals or side effects. We are using a proven therapy that is a 100 years old and for about the last 60 years this treatment has been ignored, suppressed, discredited, etc., thanks to “Big Pharma” and the huge money interests. Visit our website and let’s communicate!

Posted by Bob DiStefano on 12/28/2008 @ 10:40AM PST

Hank Barnes wrote: “What photographs is that letter referring to?”

Well, let’s see — according to the letter, it is 4 photographs that Gallo had requested from Gonda for the purpose of publication, because he believed that they contained HTLV particles. Given that this letter is dated March 26, 1984, just a few weeks before Gallo’s first publication on HTLV III (HIV,) I’ll give you three guesses just what photographs the letter is referring to.

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/28/2008 @ 10:43AM PST

Gos provides an excellent example of denier obfuscation in action. Neither he nor the signatories to the “Rethinking AIDS” letter even know what photographs Gonda is referring to in the 3/26/84 letter. They just assume/hope that these photos were included in the Science paper, even though it’s well known that the photos were of HIV (including LAV, which Gonda had already identified and micrographed as the 12/14/83 letter shows). Gos and “Rethinking AIDS” just hope that no one notices that their claims are false. I suspect many of the signatories to the “Rehinking AIDS” letter were not aware that Gonda had already seen and micrographed productive HIV infection at the time the letter they are citing was written.

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/28/2008 @ 10:45AM PST

HankNobody’s trying to explain away anything. The answers to serious infections and why they happen are not easily explained by your camp AIDS pundits including the NY Times:“That skeletal fellow reading a magazine, skin pulled taut over his skull, folds of denim covering his wasted legs, is actually one of our big successes. He is perfectly well, at least as far as his HIV infection goes. Ten years ago he was dying of AIDS; now he is living with it — or, more accurately, living almost without it, his immune system normal, no trace of virus detectable in his blood. It is the lifesaving drugs that have transformed his appearance like this, leaching the fat from his body even as they clear the virus from his blood…we have patients scattered at every possible point: men and women who cruise on their medications with no problems at all, and those who never stabilize on them and die of AIDS; those who never take them properly and slowly deteriorate and those who never take them properly and still do fine; those who refuse them until it is too late, and those who never need them at all; those who leave AIDS far behind only to die from lung cancer or breast cancer or liver failure, and those few who are killed by the medications themselves…It is all too cold, too mathematical, too scary to dump on the head of a sick, frightened person. So we simplify. “We have good treatments now,” we say. “You should do fine.””Zuger A. AIDS, at 25, offers no easy answers. NY Times. 2006 Jun 6 is absolutely no wisdom coming from the part of mainstream “HIV”. Just more of the same, “we need more money, more research is needed,” It’s a complete and utter failure and you know it. What AIDSMythExposed does is to demonstrate, by inclusion of these posts, the very nature of the failure of “HIV/AIDS” as we know it.Keep it up Hank.. We love the exposure.Brian CarterAssistant Manger,

Posted by Brian Carter on 12/28/2008 @ 10:46AM PST

I posted that comment before I saw Gos’s follow-up. Thanks for confirming that the “Rethinking AIDS” letter is based on guesswork (and they guessed wrong). Thankfully, there’s no need to guess regarding what Gonda was writing about in his December 14th letter.

6) HUT 68/LAV – Positive; Lentivirus – Productive lentivirus infection with all forms of virus maturation.

7) T 17.4/LAV – Positive; Lentivirus – Lentivirus, same comments as #6 above.

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/28/2008 @ 10:50AM PST

Hank Barnes- How could there be productive infection?! of anything when there was no isolation or direct observation via electron microscopy of purported retrovirus in the culture? Prof. Bauer explained in an earlier post to you what the Popovic/Gonda documents represented as follows:

“Please cite a publication in which virions of HIV have been isolated direct from a AIDS patient or HIV positive person. The Popovic/Gonda documents refer to components of a culture in shich several kinds of cell were incubated together with various biochemical stimulants. That’s SYNTHESIS, not isolation”.

Posted by Anthony Tarpin on 12/28/2008 @ 11:04AM PST

Henry Bauer signed a letter to the journal Science which cited Matthew Gonda’s ability to distinguish between cellular debris and retroviruses. If Bauer doesn’t think Gonda is qualified to recognize productive infection with a retrovirus, he shouldn’t have signed the letter.

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/28/2008 @ 11:11AM PST

Going back to the conspiracy idea. I agree, there is no need to invoke a conspiracy to promote the idea “To take a new look at the cause of AIDS”, however, we should not dismiss its possibility.

Here is a quote from “An Explosive Interview with Ellis Medavoy: Mind Control, Mind Freedom” by Jon Rappoport, posted in his “No More Fake News Archives”, 2006-02-13:

Rappoport: First of all, as you’ve told me before, you were involved in spreading the lie that AIDS is basically one condition caused by HIV.

Answer: That’s right. There was a group that knew this was all a lie, and they wanted “traction” in the press. They wanted the world to accept HIV as the cause of AIDS. They wanted plenty of stories planted in the media. So I accepted that assignment. I was, of course, not the only person doing this. This was a very big operation.

Rappoport: What was the purpose of the lie?

Answer: As with any major op, there were several purposes. I’ve explained most of it to you before. But, as you can see, the world has seen, in recent years, an explosion in PR and propaganda about so-called epidemics. West Nile, SARS, bird flu. Besides scaring people and getting them to accept any and all medical and political edicts, the idea is to bring nations of the world into a tighter connection—because when you have an international agency like the World Health Organization at the helm, telling governments what they have to do and can’t do, the “community of nations” draws closer and closer together.

Rappoport: Basically, you’re talking about the move toward globalism, the rule of the many by the few.


Posted by Maria Papagiannidou on 12/28/2008 @ 11:13AM PST

Hank Barnes- You still have not yet answered Michael Geiger’s post 12/26/2008 @ 12:41pm PST. We collectively ask for PROOF and you still fail to provide anything-

“…If you want to claim that a retrovirus is the cause of aids, then how about coming up with some serious evidence as all we have to rely upon is Gallo’s original ‘doctored’ and never produced works’.

Posted by Anthony Tarpin on 12/28/2008 @ 11:35AM PST

Hank Barnes,

An electron microscopist can see what appears to be “production” of viral(-like) particles. He cannot determine if the production comes from an “infection”.

He can pronounce something a retroviral(-like) or lentiviral(-like) particle, but he cannot determine that it is a novel, exogenous retrovirus, unless that virus, at a minimum, has already been purified and isolated. Show us where Montagnier has done this for LAV.

The letter Rethinking AIDS has sent to Science is concerned with what Gonda saw or didn’t see in Gallo’s samples. What Gonda might have seen in other contexts is irrelevant to the fraud in question.

Posted by Ruairidh MacDonald on 12/28/2008 @ 11:42AM PST

PS. For bystanders: LAV is the name Montagnier gave to the purported HIV, which Gallo called HTLV III.

The name HIV was decided on at a later meeting in the US.

Posted by Ruairidh MacDonald on 12/28/2008 @ 11:49AM PST

PS. For bystanders: LAV is the name Montagnier gave to the purported HIV, which Gallo called HTLV III.

The name HIV was decided on at a later meeting in the US.

Posted by Ruairidh MacDonald on 12/28/2008 @ 11:49AM PST

“The letter Rethinking AIDS has sent to Science is concerned with what Gonda saw or didn’t see in Gallo’s samples.” The sample in which Gonda identified and micrographed productive HIV infection was sent to him by Popovic. The “Rethinking AIDS” letter cites Gonda’s ability to distinguish retroviral infection from cellular debris but neglects to address the fact that Gonda did see and micrograph productive HIV infection in samples from Gallo’s lab. “Rethinking AIDS” and the signatories to that letter need to make up their minds about whether Gonda can recognize and micrograph productive retroviral infection or not (if not, they need to amend their letter).

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/28/2008 @ 12:01PM PST

What are revisionists asking in their vote? Who will review the cause of AIDS, and what will be the action taken if the review committee or ombudsman concludes that non-Nobelist Robert Gallo and champion public fund raiser Anthony Fauci have misled us, and that Peter Duesberg is as right as he is ethical, professional and responsible to the public that used to pay him?

Posted by Anthony L on 12/28/2008 @ 12:04PM PST
Delete Comment Report

Ruairidh, can you explain why HIV isn’t called HTLV-III as Gallo wanted? Gallo argued the virus is a member of the HTLV family, why did this argument not succeed?

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/28/2008 @ 12:04PM PST

Given his refusal to disclose his identity, credentials and potential conflicts of interest, is it possible for a casual reader to treat “Hank’s” posts here as anything but disruptive pro-AID$ propaganda?

Posted by Jon Barnett on 12/28/2008 @ 12:05PM PST

If that interview from Jon Rappoport linked above is authentic, then we probably shouldn’t expect any real support from any government. Voting for this idea might still be good for raising awareness but it’s not going to really change anything. I had actually liked the “Carlin conspiracy” concept and it’s definitely still the bigger factor, but the interviews with “Ellis Medavoy” made me rethink a few things…

Posted by Sadun Kal on 12/28/2008 @ 12:06PM PST

Oh dear Anthony L, you’re arguing that Duesberg is correct? That HIV has been isolated? Do the AIDS deniers want the Obama administration to help them resolve their differences regarding whether or not HIV has been isolated?

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/28/2008 @ 12:07PM PST

Jon, “Rethinking AIDS” isn’t citing anything I’m saying, but they are citing Matthew Gonda. Do you think Gonda was thinking ahead and creating “disruptive pro-AID$ propaganda?” when he saw and micrographed productive HIV infection using his electron microscope in 1983?

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/28/2008 @ 12:09PM PST

Nice attempt to turn the question back on me. Now, stop being evasive and please just give us casual readers enough information about yourself to allow us to decide how much weight to give your dogmatic and prolific posts here. Many of the posters in support of this idea have done so. Your continued refusal to do so is really getting tiresome, though at least you are helping to rack up the comments count. 🙂

Posted by Jon Barnett on 12/28/2008 @ 12:25PM PST

Hi, I think some more clarification is needed for bystanders. A letter to Science has been mentioned. This is one sent only four weeks ago to the Science journal signed by some 37 academics, lawyers and scientists who are asking for the withdrawal of the famed research papers on AIDS published in that journal on 4th May 1984 on the grounds of serious scientific deception and the concealment of key research findings. These papers are fundamental to AIDS science. They are those widely cited as proving that HIV causes AIDS. The reason why this letter was sent is the recent discovery that major last-minute changes were made to these papers to conceal what the scientist who carried out the work had concluded. He had stated explicitly that the cause of AIDS had not been found. A careful examination of this paper reveals that at no point is any experiment recorded that attempted to prove a virus caused AIDS. Yet despite this, the paper was changed so dramatically 7 days before it went to the Science journal that it made it possible for the Reagan Administration to announce to the world’s media 3 weeks later that this paper proved that a certain virus was the probable cause of AIDS. Within another two weeks, the Nature journal was acclaiming the same fraudulently changed paper as finding the cause of AIDS.This new evidence is published in my book “Fear of the Invisible” This evidence was then sent to the scientists who after appraising it, sent this letter to Science.It was not sent to the journal by Rethinking AIDS – despite the claim by Hank above that it was, but by the scientists who signed it. The journal is to respond to a representative of the signatories.The letter has since been strongly supported by both the Semmelweis Society, a prestigious organization that works to maintain medical research ethics and by Rethinking AIDS – the latter an organization representing a large number of scientists who are now questioning the HIV theory of AIDS.
It should also be said that this remarkable letter to Science also cites a Federal Department of Health Office of Research Integrity inquiry that reported the paper so poorly recorded the experiment purported to prove HIV the cause of AIDS that it had since proved impossible to repeat and verify this experiment.
Could it be that the reason why several hundreds of billions of dollars have been abortively spent on trying to discover how HIV causes AIDS and to find a cure or a vaccine is because the foundations of this research have been built on sand from the beginning?
Janine RobertsAuthor of Fear of the Invisible.

Posted by Janine Roberts on 12/28/2008 @ 12:33PM PST

Hank Barnes,

I thought I had made myself clear: The fraud addressed in Rethinking AIDS’ letter to Science concerns specific photos of specific samples for a specific publication(s), and quite frankly it doesn’t concern me much either.

What does concern me is proof of purification and isolation of so-called “HIV”. You will now quote for us from Montagnier’s paper the relevant passages showing that a novel exogenous retrovirus had been purified and isolated. If you cannot do that, who gives a hoot what Gonda thought he saw (or not) in Gallo’s samples?

Posted by Ruairidh MacDonald on 12/28/2008 @ 12:37PM PST

Janine, did Matthew Gonda document and micrograph productive infection with HIV as he describes in his letter of 12/14/83? What is your evidence that the letter Gonda wrote on 3/26/84 refers to micrographs that were published by Science?

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/28/2008 @ 12:39PM PST

Federal Inquiry Finds Misconduct By a Discoverer of the AIDS Virus

Evidence of HIV fraud.


Nobel Medicine Prize row as HIV scientist is excluded

Robert Gallo is obviously a fame and fortune seeking fraud and this is where the lies all began.

How someone can so staunchly defend something that has been proved to be steeped in fraud and corruption from day one I’ll never know. Unless, that someone has a personal stake in it.

“Hank Barnes” – and other HIV apologists – Please tell me what you have to gain from doing what you are doing. Why is it so important that you get people to believe you? You’re not really coming across as a genuinely altruistic kind of person who cares about saving lives. In fact, you act as if you are someone who has some kind of personal stake in perpetuating what appears to many, many people (who have actually done any research on it) to be a horrendous fraud.

Posted by David Collins on 12/28/2008 @ 12:41PM PST

Please tell me one thing: Why don’t YOU want a new proper investigation of the basics?
I think it will not be yours to pay for it…

Posted by Stefan Risch on 12/28/2008 @ 12:43PM PST

Hank/Snout/Noble/Bennett whoever you are – your argument is irrelevant. If I had photographed Joseph Ratzinger in 2004, who then became Pope Benedict in 2005 I can now claim with full authority that because he is German, and was living in Germany at the time, that he is a Nazi war criminal.Of course he wasn’t, but my assumption that being a German during the war equals Nazi criminal murderer is no less assumptive and ridiculous as claiming an EM of “something” proves that the “something” runs amok and murders people. Under your reasoning Ehrlich should have concluded the cause of infection was the white blood cells themselves. He, however, wasn’t so dumb. He realised we all have white blood cells when healthy, and that these cells increased in response to infection. The 400-fold dilution required for ELISA suggests very strongly that we all have plenty of “something” that reacts on ELISA – doesn’t prove it’s a pesky genocidal virus though does it?

Posted by Cathy Thompson on 12/28/2008 @ 12:45PM PST

Do you have any ideas why Gallo didn’t succeed in persuading people that HIV was a member of the HTLV family, David? You seem to be saying that Gallo lied by suggesting that the virus “may” be the primary cause of AIDS (and that is what he said in those Science papers), and the scientific community and everyone else credulously accepted this lie. And yet, for some reason, these same people were remarkably obstinate in refusing to accept Gallo’s suggestion that the virus belonged to the HTLV family.

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/28/2008 @ 12:50PM PST

Nice attempt to turn the question back on me. Now, stop being evasive and please just give us casual readers enough information about yourself to allow us to decide how much weight to give your dogmatic and prolific posts here. Many of the posters in support of this idea have done so. Your continued refusal to do so is really getting tiresome, though at least you are helping to rack up the comments count. 🙂
Posted by Jon Barnett on 12/28/2008 @ 12:25PM PST

“Hank Barnes” – and other HIV apologists – Please tell me what you have to gain from doing what you are doing. Why is it so important that you get people to believe you? You’re not really coming across as a genuinely altruistic kind of person who cares about saving lives. In fact, you act as if you are someone who has some kind of personal stake in perpetuating what appears to many, many people (who have actually done any research on it) to be a horrendous fraud.
Posted by David Collins on 12/28/2008 @ 12:41PM PST

Please tell me one thing: Why don’t YOU want a new proper investigation of the basics?
I think it will not be yours to pay for it…
Posted by Stefan Risch on 12/28/2008 @ 12:43PM PST

So, Hank, who are you and what is your stake in this? If you are refusing to answer, just say so. Then we can ignore you from here and move on…
Posted by David Collins on 12/28/2008 @ 01:01PM PST

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:”Table Normal”; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:””; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} Wow,
There are some good posts and links here. We have a wealth of information right under the noses of all the politicians, do they not see it or not want to see it. This website is called by a politician that promised change. Will President Elect Obama be able to take time out of his undoubtedly busy schedule to look at this issue that dwarfs any issue on the table today. The policy in our nation on HIV/AIDS affects the world.

I don’t like the term conspiracy either but I do think it is rather odd that there is an orchestrated group of AIDS dissident bashers on various blogs all over the internet that do nothing but blame Peter Duesberg and anybody else that is on board with us.They remind me of bashers that are paid to bash a stock until the the price of stock goes down.

I just want to say to Barack Obama that if you look into the HIV/AIDS issue, look past all of the pseudo-science that goes along with it. The AIDS establishment will not give you straight answers and they want to keep all of their funding. This is a sacred cow that you will meet much resistance with.

I just want to say this in closing, So many people that have quit the so called AIDS drugs are getting better and healthier. All of the HIV tests are surrogate markers and does not actually measure HIV, (even if HIV exists which I do not think it does).

The biggest proof I can tell you is that my wife Karri was on the drugs for 11 years and quit them over 1.5 years ago. She had so many side effects that she did not realize they were side effects until she quit the drugs and started feeling and looking better. We always thought they were from progression of the dis-ease. She is no longer on any pharmaceutical drugs and she does not plan to. So far there has not been anything that has come our way that high doses of Vitamin C, natural herb tinctures, or essential oils could not cure.

Don’t only take my word for it, there are many others that have taken control of their own health care and we would not give you 2 cents for any government sponsored health care that did not include time tested good old common sense and natural methods for healing. We will never trust the government or medical establishments until the USA owns up to is past “mistakes ” .
Joe Stokely
Lakeland, FL

Posted by joe stokely on 12/28/2008 @ 01:05PM PST

Jon, Stefan, David etc. Investigations deal with primary documentation. What we have seen here is the complete inability of AIDS deniers to deal with a single primary document that contradicts their claims. This is why their call for an investigation is specious. AIDS denial is a cult with a specific false view – that HIV does not cause AIDS – and any investigation that did not agree with this view would be dodged and vacuously attacked the same way the work of Matthew Gonda has been in this thread. And Gonda is someone whose expertise “Rethinking AIDS” had just endorsed.

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/28/2008 @ 01:09PM PST

Mr. Hank,

Going back to the famous press conference April 23 1984, where Margaret Heckler announced that the “probable” cause of AIDS has been found. Can you please provide what date this “probable” cause (“HIV”) made a miraculous jump to being the difinitive cause? What date was it? When did that change? Can you please share that with your wide audience here? That would be very helpful. Do you know? I would hope so since you seem so much up on the subject.

Posted by Brian Carter on 12/28/2008 @ 01:10PM PST

Were Obama to appoint you to an independent commission to investigate the cause of AIDS, what credentials would you supply to the administration that you are a qualified candidate to serve?

Curious onlookers: note that the sole, vociferous defender of AID$, Inc. is unwilling to step out from behind the curtain where he plays with levers and gadgets to generate a lot of noise and smoke.

Posted by Jon Barnett on 12/28/2008 @ 01:12PM PST

Jon – Hank would just lie about it anyway. He is obviously not here to actually make headway in the discussion. He is here to attempt to discredit anything that goes against his “religion” and to keep the truth from gaining ground. Period.

Posted by David Collins on 12/28/2008 @ 01:17PM PST


Independence is not a part of Hank’s vocabulary.

Posted by Brian Carter on 12/28/2008 @ 01:27PM PST

Jon, I would say I’m a hospital technician who tests people for sensitivity to UV radiation. With some sort of degree in Biophysics. Or perhaps an organic chemist, who has studied murine retroviruses but never a human pathogen. David, if you think you know the truth already you don’t need an investigation. I was trying to make headway by getting some key questions answered, alas the effort was unsuccessful. Since several signatories to that letter to Science had posted here, along with the writer of the book on which it was based, it seemed reasonable to ask. If you think HIV tests lie, David, do you think we should stop testing the blood supply?

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/28/2008 @ 01:28PM PST

One drug fixes over 50 diseases, huh? That’s some drug…

Posted by Jason Hart on 12/28/2008 @ 01:53PM PST

You are a perfect example of a basher. Stick around, I want others to see what you are doing, although you are not worth my time argueing with. I tell you folks, the AIDS machine is not going to go away quietly.

Posted by joe stokely on 12/28/2008 @ 02:01PM PST

We need an investigation because we are moving closer and closer to forced testing and forced medication. I do not want to be forced on toxic medications, that are proven to kill people, based on a phony test for a retro virus that has not been proven to do anything.

When they start forcing the test and then forcing toxic medicines on people, those people who are not directly affected by this scam right now will begin to perk up and listen… If it’s not too late.

Posted by David Collins on 12/28/2008 @ 02:22PM PST

Like so many parts of our so called “health care system” this notion of HIV being the cause of AIDS is absurd. Almost as absurd as Cholesterol causing Heart disease. I and millions of others urge you President Obama, to look at the real causes of these diseases, and not what this so called science is telling us, so Pharma can rape us for billions of dollars. I urge you to consider China’s policy on accepting bribes from Pharma, such as their handling of Zheng Xiaoyu.

Posted by Christopher Wunsch on 12/28/2008 @ 02:50PM PST

Some years ago when there was first talk about routine testing of everyone across the board the first thing that came to my mind was that it may not be such a bad idea in the sense that when some 65-year-old nuns test positive they’ll have to ask themselves what’s going on with that test. The HIV gestapo could in that way bring about their own undoing.

Posted by Reg Bielamowicz on 12/28/2008 @ 02:58PM PST

As far as the “conspiracy” issue goes, most certainly, there is a concerted effort to silence information … the John P. Moores and Mark Wainbergs would have people believe that such silencing of “dangerous” people is necessary to safeguard public health.

The increasing criminalization of HIV – people serving lengthy prison sentences for having sex, women losing their children to the state unless they agree to give them the toxic drugs – make this an important human rights issue.

Posted by Laura Ogar on 12/28/2008 @ 03:00PM PST

Reg – I’ve had the very same thought about routine testing.

Posted by Laura Ogar on 12/28/2008 @ 03:02PM PST

As irrelevant as they are to the fundamental problems, I think some of the points “Hank” makes deserve an objective approach and clarification by the HIV/AIDS skeptics. Even though it’s not comparable to the extreme bias of the HIV/AIDS orthodoxy, I don’t think that the rethinkers are completely free from bias either.

We know very little about the Gonda’s letter/published EMs issue. There are some documents indicating certain things but it’s hard to connect all the dots in a way they will accurately represent the reality. We know that Gonda in the past recognized a “lentivirus” in some samples before the publication. Whether or not those samples are really the ones relevant to Gallo’s experiments(assuming there were some experiments done) can’t be known as far as I know. Also the published EMs may even source from much earlier dates. Publishing EMs from irrelevant samples would still be some kind of fraud, but it would be a different kind of fraud than the one implied by the letter to science, with too much certainty in my opinion. That Mr. Gonda denies communication about all this doesn’t make the whole thing easier of course.

I apologize if my thoughts cause any discomfort but that’s the way I see it currently.

“Hank Barnes” is probably “Snout” by the way… Who “Snout” might be is another question…

Posted by Sadun Kal on 12/28/2008 @ 03:09PM PST

“Hank Barnes” says: “the complete inability of AIDS deniers to deal with a single primary document that contradicts their claims”

There’s no need to “deal with” the innumerable HIV/AIDS articles if there is even a single one that falsifies the theory.

Padian falsifies sexual transmission. Rodriguez et al. falsifies connection between “viral load” and CD4 decrease. The mass of HIV-test data published by CDC falsifies “HIV+”as a contagious agent. The irregular changes of mortality among PWAs over the years falsifies the notion that “PWA” means “risk of death from HIV disease”.

It’s meaningless to talk of Rethinkers’ “claims” as something we need to establish against every publication. Our claim is that HIV/AIDS theory is wrong, and I’ve just cited SOME of te proofs of that fact.

Posted by Henry Bauer on 12/28/2008 @ 04:23PM PST

Hank is clearly staying clear of the main reason why the letter has just been sent to Science demanding the withdrawal of the papers said to prove that HIV causes AIDS. The main evidence of fraud is certainly not the Gonda letter – it is the authenticated draft of the lead paper with the evidence of major scientific fraud that it clearly contains.
As for Gonda, you ask me about his 1983 letters. I see no problem with him having imaged retroviruses back in 1983. What was missing were any experiments designed to prove these imaged particles were the cause of AIDS. No one is claiming that this experimental work was successfully done before 1984.
What we do know is that 3 days before Gallo sent in his papers for publication in Science, he received a letter from Gonda, the head of Electron Microscopy, saying that the samples Gallo had sent him for imaging ‘for publication’ claiming ‘they contained HTLV-III (his alleged AIDS virus) – contained only cellular debris.
We also know that Gallo submitted the papers to Science on the 30th March, that they were peer reviewed within 3 weeks and given to journalists days later, over a week before they appeared in Science.
When they appeared they contained images by Gonda that Gallo stated were of HTLV-III. Of course it is just about possible that Gallo rushed in other samples for imaging before the papers were peer-reviewed -and it is also possible he had older images of retroviruses taken by the Institut Pasteur. Thus in my book I only argue that Gonda’s letter casts strong doubts on these images. I say the other evidence is more powerful.
Incidentally, Gonda did not take “photographs” – as photons cannot be employed to do this as viruses are shorter than light waves. The correct term is imaging or micrographing.
Thus I repeat, the main arguments made by the Scientists in their letter is not based on Gonda’s letter, but on what they believe to be the convincing evidence of fraud found in the draft of the key manuscript.
Incidentally, Gallo has been confronted with this evidence and in his reply he did not contest the authenticity of this document. nor the evidence of grave fraud it contains. Instead he chose to contest my statement that the US Secret Service had investigated laboratory documents he put forward as legal evidence and found evidence of falsification in them. This was a mistake by Gallo. Two days later I had on the phone the former Head of the US Secret Service who had headed up the inquiry into Gallo. He confirmed that their laboratory found grave evidence of falsification.
I also regard seriously the evidence produced by the Office of Research Integrity of the Federal Department of Health. They reported that this key experiment, the one ever since reported as proving HIV causes AIDS, was so poorly recorded in this same paper that in the following 9 years it had proved impossible to repeat it to verify it.
Since then other evidence has mounted from many sources such as from Dr Nancy Padian’s paper reporting her testing of the hypothesis that heterosexual sex can spread HIV. She mounted the largest study ever done on this in the USA, and reported zero cases of transmission, even among couples who failed to use condoms. Scanned citations of her work are also in my book.
Then there was of course the recent Rodriquez study that showed HIV could not be killing most of the blood cells previously held to be killed by HIV. It is still an enigma in AIDS research circles just how HIV does the damage it is blamed for.
However research on contesting theories on AIDS are rarely if ever funded. Instead scientists that contest the establishment’s views lose their grants. Gallo himself boasted last year that after he published these papers in 1984, all funding on alternative theories of AIDS causation immediately ceased. This is despite the FDA by then having published scores of papers that indicated AIDS might well have other causes. I would suggest that it is definitely time we researched again all possible alternative theories given how little success has been achieved so far.
The last time the CDC published the figures, over 60% of those put on antiretroviral chemotherapy type drugs had no evident symptoms of illness at the time. The main cause of death among people on these drugs is now liver disease caused by the toxicity of these same drugs as administered over years.
It would be relatively simple to set up confirming experiments. It would not cost a great deal to endeavor again to fully isolate the AIDS retrovirus from an AIDS victim, and prove it causes AIDS. This could settle this great argument for good.
After all, if a retrovirus does not cause AIDS, then antiretroviral drugs are entirely the wrong medicine.
with respect
Janine Roberts
author Fear of the Invisible

Posted by Janine Roberts on 12/28/2008 @ 05:29PM PST

This was a satisfying response for me, it clarifies some points which were open for criticism in my opinion. Maybe that one should also be sent to Science. 🙂

Posted by Sadun Kal on 12/28/2008 @ 06:07PM PST

Hank: “David, if you think you know the truth already you don’t need an investigation.” Doesn’t that sum up the whole ethos of your “religious” thinking? I’m sure many Christians would say the same if technology could be developed that could detect the presence or absence of a deity. You claim to be a scientist and then in one short sentence dismiss the whole scientific method.Imagine the horror if the Police took this attitude “No investigation necessary madam because we all know the butler did it!” Oh wait, we don’t need to imagine the horror; we see it every day in the High Church of AIDS.

Posted by Cathy Thompson on 12/28/2008 @ 06:12PM PST

After the latest embarrassing failure to produce an AIDS vaccine, there was a whole flurry of articles about thoroughly perplexed, head-scratching scientists forced to do some “soul-searching,” and serious calls to “go back to the drawing board.”

I couldn’t agree more. But it is always best to start at the beginning.

As Janine said:

“Research on contesting theories on AIDS are rarely if ever funded. Instead scientists that contest the establishment’s views lose their grants. Gallo himself boasted last year that after he published these papers in 1984, all funding on alternative theories of AIDS causation immediately ceased. This is despite the FDA by then having published scores of papers that indicated AIDS might well have other causes. I would suggest that it is definitely time we researched again all possible alternative theories given how little success has been achieved so far.”

Posted by Laura Ogar on 12/28/2008 @ 06:43PM PST

Can someone explain why the 1980s are so important tato HIV/AIDS denialists? The discovery, the cell lines, LAV and HTLV, the press conference, the Science papers, the fraud, AZT….WHO CARES? There are 20 years of sound biomedical research from around the globe that have brought us to our very clear understanding of how HIV causes AIDS.….what is the obsession with Robert Gallo? Does this just go back to the Duesberg-Gallo thing? There are far bigger issues to contend with. For example, there remains no evidence that David Crowe – the supposed President of the Rethinkers – may be a fictitious identity. There seems to be no proof of his existence. There is some speculation, but no proof. It has been suggested that Gary Null has created the David Crowe persona to push the vitamin and micronutrient sales agenda, backed by Big Veggie and Rath International. But no proof of that either. If David Crowe does not exist, what does that say about all AIDS denialism? For more on the failure to prove David Crowe exists visit We also have to account for the suffering that AIDS denialism is causing. Just visit the health message board at Brian Carter’s MSN site people who were lured into AIDS denialism have posted crying out for help. If someone living with HIV makes the informed to not take antiretroviral medications that is a decision that any one should respect. I certainly do. The problem with denialism is it persuades people to make a misinformed decision. That is what makes denialism so harmful. Checkout the MSN message board and see for yourself.

Posted by Seth Kalichman on 12/28/2008 @ 07:01PM PST

Cathy, I don’t think “Hank” meant it like that. He was actually criticizing David Collins when he said that. But your critique still applies to him to some degree since he acts like he knows the truth and since he doesn’t support rethinking; he voted for 4 of the top 5 ideas in global health. Guess which one he didn’t vote for and why?

Posted by Sadun Kal on 12/28/2008 @ 07:14PM PST

Ah, the return of Seth. Yes, it’s true, David Crowe does not exist! All those videos and podcasts made by “David Crowe”, why, that’s actually an actor paid very handsomely by Gary Null!

I’d like to say that Mr. Kalichman at least provided some comic value, but I find him too much of a sad case.

Posted by Laura Ogar on 12/28/2008 @ 07:21PM PST

What do you mean by “denialists” Seth? What does that mean? Care to define it? Sounds like a pretty anti-scientific label to supress dissidence towards weak science to me.

Posted by Sadun Kal on 12/28/2008 @ 07:23PM PST

Oh how cute Seth – you borrowed Sarah Palin’s “there you go Joe, always looking back” meme to obfuscate the war crimes of the likes of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.
It is important when an ill-conceived scientific sleight of hand leads to what we now have today – fraudulent science. Why so hysterical at the thought of independent eyes examining this issue?
Should we rewrite history and state that the assassination of Ferdinand has no bearing on WWI?
Come on Seth – I would have expected someone with a PhD in psychology to have a better grip on the debate than this childish hand waving nonsense.

Posted by Cathy Thompson on 12/28/2008 @ 07:36PM PST

Denialism is the proper term for what we see in this blog.Dissident is not. Neither is delusion, although it is close. Wikipedia ( defines denialism as follows… Denialism is the term used to describe the position of governments, political parties, business groups, interest groups, or individuals who reject propositions on which a scientific or scholarly consensus exists. Such groups and individuals are said to be engaging in denialism when they seek to influence policy processes and outcomes by using rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none.[1][2]The term was first used in the sense of ‘holocaust denialism’, but the usage has broadened to include ‘AIDS denialism’,[3][4][5][6][7] ‘climate change denialism'[8][9][10] and ‘evolution denialism’.[11] I really do not mean to use the term in a hurtful or nasty way. It is just the correct term.

Seth Kalichman,

Posted by Seth Kalichman on 12/28/2008 @ 07:38PM PST

Why do you think that the “consensus” about “HIV/AIDS” is “scientific” or “scholarly” when there are so many obvious deficiencies?

Many of them were pointed out above. Gallo, obviously a fraud no matter what one believes in, is still regarded as the one of the most respected scientists in the HIV/AIDS field. You’re talking about a consensus coming from a “scientific” community allowing/accepting something like this. That should be enough to make my point clear but I can continue if you wish.

Posted by Sadun Kal on 12/28/2008 @ 08:07PM PST

While I admire the efforts to involve Mr. Kalichman in a proper discussion, I’m not sure his posts to date – particularly when one includes those of “Bob Bolgger” – would pass the Turing Test.

Which is not to claim he doesn’t exist. I just don’t see him capable of engaging in rational discourse.

Posted by Laura Ogar on 12/28/2008 @ 08:22PM PST

Truth does not need the consensus of scientific, scholarly or any other thought and many things that were widely regarded as “truth” have been shown to be demonstrably false.
The truth is the truth even if not one person currently alive on this planet believes it.I
n order to belong to the group one has to think like the group. This effectively ensures the sheep will band together and baah in unison. Not baahing in unison bars them from belonging.
The AIDS establishment – and lets make it clear to other readers here – yourself and your wife both make a living from this fairy tale and have strong, visceral reasons to argue that “you are right” and “we are wrong”. But that doesn’t make you right. You aren’t right because you are “in a bigger gang” – that just makes you nothing less than a bully Seth.
We don’t believe your fairy tale because it has never been scientifically proven, period.
Hitler, the German Army, the SS, the Gestapo and the German people all entered into “consensus” that Jews, homosexuals, the mentally handicapped and other unfortunates did not deserve to share breathing space on the planet. Did that make them “right” Seth? It makes your habit of lumping us in with Holocaust denialism rather ironic.

Posted by Cathy Thompson on 12/28/2008 @ 08:59PM PST

The two faces of Seth Kalichman:

Posted by Jason Hart on 12/29/2008 @ 12:50AM PST

“Should we rewrite history and state that the assassination of Ferdinand has no bearing on WWI?” _ excellent metaphor: ALL of “HIV” “science” is derived from the cellular soup labelled “Pure HIV” back in 1984.
One dog barks at a shadow… a hundred bark at its sound.

Posted by Jason Hart on 12/29/2008 @ 01:07AM PST

Jason. Or to put it in the words of Arthur Conan Doyle it was more the dog that “didn’t bark” that alerted Holmes as to the true crime of the theft of Silver Blaze. Only this time it isn’t just a horse. It is millions that haven’t noticed the absence of the dog’s bark. WE need to bark, and bark as loud as possible. WOOF, WOOF, WOOF. Just to add a bit of theatrics: “WOO, the hounds of the Baskervilles are after you dirty lying charlatans.” Feel free to have sweaty nightmares you death-dealing industry prostitutes.

Posted by Cathy Thompson on 12/29/2008 @ 01:59AM PST

Much as I love a good dog barking reference, can we return to Martin’s original proposal?
Martin claims that “There is a growing group of doctors and scientists who believe the common understanding of the cause of AIDS is incorrect. It is not caused by a virus but instead by drug abuse and (in Africa ) malnutrition.” Let’s leave aside the question of whether there are more than a handful of genuinely qualified doctors who actually treat AIDS in real life or scientists who have done actual research in this field who agree with his statement. (The standard “rethinker” lists on the internet have very few names in these categories. Nearly all of them are non-scientists, retired people with an internet hobby, or people pushing crank “health” agendas).
So let’s break down Martin’s claim about the relationship between illicit drug use and AIDS.
AIDS is a particular disease of the immune system characterized by a loss of CD4+ cell mediated immune function. There are several other similar immune system diseases that are characterized by a similar immune dysfunction but they have no relationship whatsoever with illicit drug use. One is CD4+ lymphopaenia associated with prescribed cancer treatment or transplant antirejection drugs. Another is ICL, which is probably several different immune system disorders – but none of them associated with unusual substance use patterns. Out of all the different immune system diseases characterized by CD4+ lymphopaenia, AIDS is by far the most common. Nearly everyone in the world with clinically significant CD4+ lymphopaenia has HIV infection demonstrable through HIV testing.
All people with AIDS have HIV. Some are also illicit drug users, partly because illicit drug use is common, partly because needle sharing is a fairly efficient way of transmitting HIV, and some because the use of some illicit drugs such as psychostimulants and inhalants correlates with sexual risk taking. However, illicit drug takers do not develop AIDS unless they have HIV. Conversely, people who have HIV who don’t take illicit drugs still get AIDS.
The only variable that predicts getting AIDS is infection with HIV. Drug use alone doesn’t. Drug users who don’t have HIV don’t get AIDS and rarely get anything that even looks remotely like AIDS, although they often have other health problems, some of them serious.
People who have HIV and don’t take antiretrovirals often get AIDS, about half of them within 10 years of infection, others later than that. A few have had HIV for decades with no treatment and no AIDS. People with HIV who use antiretrovirals at the appropriate time are less likely to get AIDS than people with HIV who don’t. People with AIDS who control their HIV infection with antiretrovirals live longer, healthier lives than people with AIDS who don’t.

This the mainstream understanding, based on over a quarter of a century of many thousands of scientists and physicians studying the phenomenon of AIDS in the lab and in the clinic. For some reason, Martin has decided they are all wrong, and believes we need to fund some other kinds of studies that will show that the “real” picture is different, and that in fact drug use per se rather than HIV infection is the real cause of AIDS. Is there any plausible evidence for that claim?

(Oh, and Cathy, I think you just Godwinned a couple of posts up).

Posted by The Snout on 12/29/2008 @ 03:11AM PST

Snout, you like the dog metaphor? If the shoe fits, wear it!

The Perth Group on scientific consensus: “Only a minority of the world’s scientists work on HIV or AIDS. Of these most are cloistered in specialist fields where of necessity particular matters of significance are accepted in good faith as fact. For example, scientists working on the ‘HIV’ genome do not question the origin of the DNA molecules they research. Just as laboratory technicians performing antibody tests never question the origin of the proteins in their test kits. And it goes without saying that no protagonist questions the existence of HIV. (The same acceptance in good faith applies to the vast majority of medical practitioners as well as health planners, politicians, patients and relatives. This is not a criticism since no one has time to check up on every facet of every disease that afflicts mankind). When it comes to the question ‘What is the proof that HIV cause AIDS?’ in reality there are only a relatively small number of scientists who would be regarded by all the other scientists in the field as competent to explain and defend the HIV theory. In fact the numbers of such scientists may not be that greatly different from the number who argue there is no proof that HIV causes AIDS.

Posted by Jason Hart on 12/29/2008 @ 03:11AM PST

Jason, real scientists don’t talk about “proof”. They talk about “evidence”.
The so-called “Perth Group” are not scientists in the field of HIV or AIDS. One works as a technician in a medical physics lab at the Royal Perth Hospital testing people for sensitivity to radiation, and the other used to be a doctor in the emergency department of the same hospital. Neither have ever so much as treated a patient for AIDS, formally studied any of the relevant basic science, or conducted any productive research in the field.
Their claims to be “experts” were laughed out of court (and in the Australian media) a couple of years ago when they presented themselves as “expert witnesses”. They are buffoons, a national joke in my country.
Neither of them are competent to evaluate the question of the EVIDENCE for the causation of AIDS.

Posted by The Snout on 12/29/2008 @ 03:28AM PST

If it were theology, you’d say only priests & theologians can discuss God? If that were so, then we’d all still be Catholics. Tell me (& *please* be point to point in your answer) – how is what you advocate, deferring exclusively to the “experts” different to blind faith in a cult, or in the Vatican? You’re contradicting your own philosophy of auhtority worship, right now, yourself.
‘Do not believe in what ye have heard. Do not believe in the traditions because they have been passed down for many generations. Do not believe in anything because it is rumoured and spoken by many. Do not believe merely because a written statement of some old sage is produced. Do not believe in conjectures; do not believe in that as truth to which you have become attached by habit. Do not believe merely in the authority of your teachers and elders. After observation and analysis, when it agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and gain of one and all, then accept it and live up to it. -The Buddha, Kalama Sutra

Posted by Jason Hart on 12/29/2008 @ 03:47AM PST

Folks, i think we should ignore anonymous posts. They are not worth the trouble….

Posted by Stefan Risch on 12/29/2008 @ 03:48AM PST

Interesting phrasing, Jason. If anyone looks at the “evidence” produced by both sides, one can see that it is the orthodox view that is backed by the scientific method and evidence-based medicine.

It is the “denialist” view that is entrenched in ideology, and fails to adapt or modify its hypotheses in the face of new evidence and information. Instead, the “new” evidence is dismissed and derided as irrelevant, purely so you can stick to your dogmatic preconceptions about the subject.

The papers I cited regarding the efficacy of antiretroviral drugs are a case to point. Instead of objectively looking at this evidence, we hear accusations from Gos how the metanalysis must have looked at drug company-funded studies, or how the studies did not go on for more than 5 years (even though this “short” period of time showed clear differences in clinical outcomes and survival), or how some of the studies are too “small” (hint for you Gos, that’s why they do metanalysis, to increase the evaluable number of study subjects). This is all done so the denialists can jump to the conclusion (delusion?) that the studies mean nothing. I see no attempt to address the science or data, no objective critical analysis, no thinking as to what the studies did actually show and reasoning why they might have done so, no attempt to reappraise their own view in the light of new evidence…… no, let the denialists just rubbish the study and move very quickly on, hoping noone will see through the hand waving routine.

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/29/2008 @ 04:11AM PST

Reg and Laura – regarding testing. Testing is already routine in many situations – blood donors, pregnant women, health care attenders. I have yet to hear of any scandals where hundreds of people are being diagnosed as positive, when there is very little possibility of it being so. In my view, this mererly confirms the accuracy of HIV testing.

I remain entirely open to changing my view on this, so any references that it has happened will be welcomed (I am not holding my breath)

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/29/2008 @ 04:20AM PST

Why are some of you ignoring that now heart, liver, and kidney failure and a higher rate of cancer among those who take the antiretrovirals are killing AIDS persons. These are not in the 30 AIDS defining diseases but are side effects of the disease. And maybe you sweep the Lancet study under the rug, where does on the meds don’t live any longer than those of us not on them. Don’t forget the Padian study, no one, I repeat no one who was HIV- became HIV+.

We have been lied to by the NIH and the CDC, which states that HIV is a sexual disease. No numbers just don’t show that either. In fact, HIV and AIDS is extremely low in the states, .004% out of 300 million. Explain how the many who have stopped the toxic drugs have lead normal lives. We have developed or redeveloped AIDS. Is this just a coincidence too? We think not. We have found a better way, a way of life not death!

Posted by Noreen Martin on 12/29/2008 @ 04:22AM PST

The above should state, are the side effects of the drugs!

Posted by Noreen Martin on 12/29/2008 @ 04:23AM PST

According to a published paper, Most Published Research is Wrong:

Posted by Jon Barnett on 12/29/2008 @ 04:31AM PST

Derek – interesting means nothing – is what I say true or false, & why?
As for the medical evidence supporting the orthodoxy, you are factually wrong. Please follow the links to dozens of peer-reviewed studies & articles here:

Posted by Jason Hart on 12/29/2008 @ 04:37AM PST

I’ve just had a look at the “letter to Science” by 37 “top scientists”.
What a laugh.

Tell us Jennifer Craig, in which biomedical field are you a “top scientist”? Could you cite some of your recent research? Could you enlighten us as to your qualifications to speak on the subject of HIV/AIDS?

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/29/2008 @ 04:40AM PST

No, Jason, I was replying to your citation of Mrs Eleopulos-Papadopulos and Dr Turner as if they were some kind of experts in the field. They’re not – they’re clowns with a transparent crank agenda to get their ideas about oxidative stress recognised. Rather than do actual scientific work to test their hypotheses and demonstrate their validity, they have become bogged down making endless tedious nit picking “critiques” of real AIDS science and demanding to set the rules of virology – a field in which neither of them have the slightest formal training or experience.

Feel free to discuss what you think the cause of AIDS is. However, if you want to be taken seriously in any scientific sense, you need to produce evidence. “Observation and analysis which agrees with reason”, as the Buddha might have put it.

The Perthians have never made or reported any actual observations. This is why their claims to “authority” are laughable – they have never done any actual work, just sat on their bums thinking about the work of others trying (very unconvincingly) to pick holes.

Martin has suggested that drugs cause AIDS. At least this is a positive assertion, although it fails the test of close observation and analysis, and as such is unreasonable.

There is no necessity to take this on faith, or to accept this simply because some “authority” says so.

Read the evidence yourself. It’s all there on PubMed or in the libraries of your local university. Ask for help navigating through it if you need to.

Posted by The Snout on 12/29/2008 @ 04:41AM PST

Jason, I checked the letters to the empire link for all the “evidence” that HIV does not cause AIDS.

First link was to a paper describing how one man developed anaemia 4 years after starting AZT, thought to be a side effect of the drug.

Wow! I am impressed. I will now conclude HIV does not exist, and even if it does it cannot cause AIDS. No need for me to check the other links, this one on its own is so overwhelming.

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/29/2008 @ 04:47AM PST

LOL, Jon, and 78.2% of statistics are nonsense.

That’s why you need to read stuff critically. It’s a learned skill, particularly when what you are reading is a relatively arcane field like virology, or immunology, or epidemiology. Genuine experts can help here – not to tell you what to think, but to provide essential background and help you sort the good stuff from the nutty.

Critical reading is not simply a matter of scanning stuff and mechanically saying “bulldust!”

That’s denialism.

Posted by The Snout on 12/29/2008 @ 05:04AM PST

Ho ho ho Derek. Your intellectual lack of integrity is recorded here on this page for posterity. Yes, the medical literature often contains single case-studies. But you read no further? Is this how you usually investigate evidence pertaining to a complex & abstruse subject?
For the many people reading this thread, & not posting, & whom you are alerting to the rotten dishonesty of the Aid$ orthodoxy as a group (headless monster that it is), let me post a couple of other entries, at random (note: these are from the New Enlgand Journal of Medicine & similar “top” medical journals):
“participants of open-label ZDV [AZT] still had four to five times the incidence of ARC/AIDS/death of participants on blinded therapy [of which approximately half were on AZT and half on placebo]…The unadjusted hazard of ARC/AIDS/death was 4.6 times higher for participants [in the deferred group] who had received ZDV…after adjustment for latest CD4 this became 1.6…There was a suggestion of a benefit in terms of [slower]progression to ARC, AIDS or death [with AZT], no effect on progression to AIDS or death, and a suggestion of an increase in mortality.”White IR et al. Impact of treatment changes on the interpretation of the Concorde trial. AIDS. 1997 Jul 11;11(8):999-1006.
“Extended follow-up of patients in one [AZT] trial, the Concorde study, has shown a significantly increased risk of death among the patients treated early…where is the evidence that for a patient with a CD4 count of 450 cells per cubic millimeter and a low plasma viral level, it would not be better to wait before initiating therapy?…In 1990…a patient with a CD4 count of 450 cells per cubic millimeter would have been advised to start monotherapy with zidovudine. We now tell such a patient that, in fact, follow-up data for up to 4.5 years since that time have shown no survival benefit”Phillips AN, Smith GD et al. Viral load and combination therapy for Human Immunodeficiency Virus. N Engl J Med. 1997 Mar 27;336(13):958-9; author reply 960.
“The mortality rate was significantly higher among [a group of 1372] patients who had received antiretroviral therapy [principally AZT] before enrollment in the clinic”Chaisson RE, Keruly JC, Moore RD. Sex, race, drug use and progression of human immunodeficiency virus disease. N Engl J Med. 1995 Sep 21;333(12):751-6.
“None of the LTAs [long term asymptomatics] received any antiviral drugs during the study; however, 3 [of 6] rapid progressors…were treated with zidovudine…[and] a rapid progressor was treated with didanosine during the study.”Hogervorst E et al. Predictors for non- and slow progression in HIV type-1 infection: low viral RNA copy numbers in serum and maintenance of high HIV-1 p24-specific antibody levels. J Infect Dis. 1995;171:811-21.
I could go on & on; you will of course respond with counter-citations (non-randomized, uncontrolled, drug company-funded) , citing the effectiveness of AZT. The fact is, the studies I have cited here *exist*, and dozens and dozens more like them, concerning every facet of “HIV” science, not only treatment.
All honest intellectuals, please see for yourself: click on the links at the end of the entry to be found at for *dozens* of peer-reviewed articles &verbatim extracts from studies detailing the deadly toxicity of “life-saving” ARV’s.

Posted by Jason Hart on 12/29/2008 @ 05:09AM PST

Noreen, you are picking up on widely disseminated rumors that the drugs are wreaking havoc by causing cancers and other problems like liver failure and cardiac disease.

Like all rumors, there is a grain of truth. But only a grain. Since HIV related mortality has plummetted with the use of ARVs, the relative importance of other things has increased. ARVs may well increase some cardiac risks. People may get liver failure (but these are always patients with Hep B or C, so the drugs actually play a minor part). As people age (they survive longer on ARVs) they become susceptible to cardiac problems and cancer – that is only to be expected. Next you will be blaming the drugs for causing people to die from “old age”. Yup, ARV-induced old age is the commonest cause of death! Stop the ARVs!

If you don’t believe me look at the actual data in this paper.

Some quotes:
“Among 6945 HIV-infected patients followed for a median of 39.2 months, death rates fell from 7.0 deaths/100 person-years of observation in 1996 to 1.3 deaths/100 person-years in 2004 (P=0.008 for trend). Deaths that included AIDS-related causes decreased from 3.79/100 person-years in 1996 to 0.32/100 person-years in 2004 (P=0.008).”

ARVs have dramatically cut the death rate.

“Proportional increases in deaths involving liver disease, bacteremia/sepsis, gastrointestinal disease, non-AIDS malignancies, and renal disease also occurred (P=or<0.001, 0.017, 0.006, <0.001, and 0.037, respectively.) Hepatic disease was the only reported cause of death for which absolute rates increased over time, albeit not significantly, from 0.09/100 person-years in 1996 to 0.16/100 person-years in 2004 (P=0.10).”

Deaths from “non-AIDS” conditions increased, but only RELATIVELY because AIDS deaths had dropped. The only thing which increased in ABSOLUTE terms was liver deaths. This rose from 0.09 to 0.16/100 person years. When you consider that ARVs have reduced death rates from AIDS from 3.79 to 0.32/100 py, is that not a very small price which is worth paying?

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/29/2008 @ 05:11AM PST

Jason. The fact that the drugs have side effects is not news to me or anyone else. The only question a doctor will ask is whether the drugs do more benefit than harm. With HIV drugs, the benefits are clear and exceed the harms.

What will you be advocating next, that we stop treating meningitis because the antibiotics might cause a rash? Perhaps you will take this argument to the same illogical conclusion as you deploy for HIV, and decide that since antibiotics cause rashes, then meningitis does not exist.

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/29/2008 @ 05:15AM PST

Erm… did you actually read the three extracts above? (And please, spare us the non-sequiturs, or go back to high school).
Intelligent people out there: READ FOR YOURSELF! Don’t take anyhting on authority. You might be surprised by what you find.

Posted by Jason Hart on 12/29/2008 @ 05:24AM PST

Death is a side-effect? Then what’s the main effect? Healing?

Posted by Jason Hart on 12/29/2008 @ 05:37AM PST

Derek & Snout,It’s all been so well said on this blog, that I really can’t add anything else, except how incredibly painful you both are to read.By the way, we don’t spend ANY of our valuable time on your pathetic sites, such as aidstruth or avert, why would you possibly spend so much time here, if you weren’t really very fearful that this scandal might be exposed?

Posted by Karri Stokely on 12/29/2008 @ 05:51AM PST

I suppose that the antiretrovirals are not messing with one’s blood either. I monitored my blood reports every three months while on the meds and believe me, my blood was far from being normal. I would recommend that others do the same, the proof is in the pudding as the saying goes. Whether one believes in HIV or not, LDN or low dose naltrexone is a much better way to go. It doesn’t interfere with one’s blood reports and it certainly keeps any opportunistic infections away. But then, it’s a cheap drug, so the drug companies are not interested in promoting it. It’s all about money, not the health of the patient!

Posted by Noreen Martin on 12/29/2008 @ 05:53AM PST


No doubt you’d like to dismiss personal experience as irrelevant in the fields of science. I disagree. Indeed ultimately it is all that matters. I’ve taken those drugs before and the answer to your question is: No, it is NOT a very small price worth paying.

Your argument is based on some flawed definitions of “health”. As long as I pursued good health based on some meaningless lab results I was miserable. Only when I turned my back on your so-called “science” and sought out ways to actually improve my health did I start to feel better.

Today I feel GOOD and have been free of ALL prescription drugs for nearly two years, ARV drugs for about five years. All the studies, papers, research and arguments you make cannot change that. Though I must confess that the underlying intent and condescending tone of your and Snout’s posts have cost me my appetite this morning.

Not one single doctor has directed me to a research study for why my experience defies the “science” you defend. Can you help me and others like me find a clinical trial so we can help find an even better way to deal with immune deficiency?

We lesser humans do not exist for your ideal of science. Science exists to serve US.

Denial of open research into all the possible causes (yes, plural) as espoused by you and your associates is unhealthy. Your strategies and tactics are not unlike the virus you defend; stealthy, invisible to the naked eye, mutating… and deadly.

We ask only that the original research be evaluated, repeated and verified. You charge us with heresy and even murder.

What the hell motivates you guys? (rhetorical question)

Posted by Jon Barnett on 12/29/2008 @ 05:58AM PST

Over the years, I have heard AIDS patients complain that they were concerned that if they had some other health problem, they would not be treated appropriately. Well, they are right. I recently had a similiar experience. I had difficulty breathing and went to the emergency room. Instead of treating my breathing issues, the infectious disease doctor was called. I went to the er not breathing well and left the same way.

The only acceptable way to deal with AIDS patients is with antiretrovirals, which does not address every problem in life. I would recommend that if one has issues and seeks out a doctor, to not reveal their HIV status, or risk not being properly treated. My problem was asthma and I only got better after seeing the proper specialist and proper medications.

I respect those who choose not to see the AIDS doctors. I still go because they read my CD4’s, so-called viral load, and they see my improved lab reports. It has to be messing with them.

Posted by Noreen Martin on 12/29/2008 @ 06:13AM PST

Snout et al

I asked a very simple question back up in this thread to Hank. Maybe you have an answer?

Going back to the famous press conference April 23 1984, where Margaret Heckler announced that the “probable” cause of AIDS has been found. Can you please provide what date this “probable” cause (“HIV”) made a miraculous jump to being the difinitive cause? What date was it? When did that change? Can you please share that with your wide audience here? That would be very helpful. Do you know? I would hope so since you seem so much up on the subject.

Posted by Brian Carter on 12/29/2008 @ 06:19AM PST

While we’re at it, maybe some of the believers in the faith can tell us what proved that having “antibodies” to HIV equated to having an active infection. Also, what proves that CD4’s have any significance at all. Lastly, if we have a dangerous virus in us, then why can’t it be found in our blood or body without PCR, which is only one violation of Koch’s Postulates. If it is real, then it should be found freely circulating in our body fluids.

Posted by Noreen Martin on 12/29/2008 @ 06:28AM PST

Just stopping the AIDS drugs was enough for me to regain my physical and mental health. I also avoid AIDS doctors, that is important.

When testing positive, the belief in HIV/AIDS itself can affect our health, like a nocebo effect.

Maria Papagiannidou
Author of the book “GoodBye AIDS! Did it ever exist?”

Posted by Maria Papagiannidou on 12/29/2008 @ 06:30AM PST

Jon, I don’t dismiss personal experience; I see it every day in the clinic among the cohort of patients I help look after (I am a health care worker in an Infectious Diseases facilty). Witnessing something with one’s own eyes is always convincing (and I personally am as convinced about the benefits of therapy as you are of any harm). But the point I make is that we can all be fooled by personal experiences, we generalise and extrapolate our own onto the remainder of people with the problem. Personal experience and anecdote is why parents whose children have had a vaccine reaction are so implacably antivaccine, or why someone who was ill on ARVs and feels better when they stop thinks the drugs do not work. But the final judge of whether treatments work or don’t work is not anecdotal experience, as powerful as it may seem. It is analysis of the treatment in sufficient numbers of people to detect significant effects. These studies will also incorporate information about the harms from the treatments. If a treatment is toxic and kills people, then studies will not demonstrate that it lengthens overall survival unless the survival benefit of being on treatment greatly outweighs the reduced survival through toxicities. It’s that simple, really. You can post as many studies of how “harmful” the drugs may be as you wish. Overall, they are of benefit.

What motivates me is a desire for patients with HIV to be able to experience the benefits that medical science has brought to the field of HIV medicine. This applies not just to the developed world, but to the developing world. Stories such as Mbeki’s denial of ARVs to his own people, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths and infections appal me.

But science has moved on. Go look at the contents list of an HIV research journal. Try this one:

While we sit here arguing about irrelevancies such as EMs of virus, every day researchers are refining techniques for HIV resistance assays, genotyping, tropism assays, gene therapy, coreceptor affinities, and so on. Things haved moved way past any historical “questions” you have about say Gallo’s 1983 virus paper. This whole discussion is an anachronism.

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/29/2008 @ 07:01AM PST

Derek / Seth, “You can post as many studies of how ‘harmful’ the drugs may be as you wish. Overall, they are of benefit.” – Ok, so we’re quitting the realms of evidence-based medicine here, officially? If you’re not basing your testimony on the medical literature, then you’re basing it on voodoo or your gut feel; & that’s of no use to anyone, I’m afraid.
Free thinkers, again I invite you, read the medical literature yourself: an extensive overview of relevant material is linked at

Posted by Jason Hart on 12/29/2008 @ 07:30AM PST

“Extended follow-up of patients in one [AZT] trial, the Concorde study, has shown a significantly increased risk of death among the patients treated early…where is the evidence that for a patient with a CD4 count of 450 cells per cubic millimeter and a low plasma viral level, it would not be better to wait before initiating therapy?…In 1990…a patient with a CD4 count of 450 cells per cubic millimeter would have been advised to start monotherapy with zidovudine. We now tell such a patient that, in fact, follow-up data for up to 4.5 years since that time have shown no survival benefit”Phillips AN, Smith GD et al. Viral load and combination therapy for Human Immunodeficiency Virus. N Engl J Med. 1997 Mar 27;336(13):958-9; author reply 960.
……..there are many, many more.

Posted by Jason Hart on 12/29/2008 @ 07:34AM PST

We’ve yet to hear how antibodies equals active infection. Where is the proof? If you can’t answer basic questions, then no one is going to believe you. Why are those of us who no longer or who have never taken the meds, not sick and dying. Are you going to tell us about some ridiculous latent period. We are living proof that the current paradigm is incorrect.

Also, wouldn’t it make more sense to give starving people clean water, nutritious food, and a clean living environment? After all, that’s what they really need.

Posted by Noreen Martin on 12/29/2008 @ 07:37AM PST

“Can someone explain why the 1980s are so important to HIV/AIDS denialists?”

This is Mr Kalichman’s purported “appeal to reason” which apparently is the definitive rhetorical flourish that finishes off “denialism”.

Can someone explain why the genomic studies that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt where molecular signatures of retroviruses come from are ignored by the likes of Mr. Kalichman?

And why do they ignore the stress and retroelement studies that explain AIDS-like diseases?

But since humor is now his tack re David Crowe as a fictitious persona of Gary Null, why not also be aware that Mr Kalichman is a creation of John P Moore – or at least his arguments indicate a mind meld with the distinguished Cornell professor?

Thus his refusal to engage Dr Maniotis on the quite current subject of retrogenomics at his own blog site.

Come on tuff guy, you say the papers on HIV in the form of reviews are the final proof that any idiot can understand. So what do they add to what was published in the 80’s on the “unique cytopathic variant”. How do they go beyond the logical fallacy of assuming the conclusion that HIV is pathogenic?

Posted by Gene Semon on 12/29/2008 @ 07:38AM PST

Snout/Hank/Seth and all those HIV advocates,In spite of all these scientifical evidence debate, sometimes I really wonder, if HIV = AIDS ( as what the world is led to believe ), and that the medical establishments claim that the evidence for HIV = AIDS is overwhelming, why are you guys seem to concern about the aids dissidents debating about HIV doesnt causes AIDS ? I mean logically speaking, if those evidence that you guys/medical establishment says exist, when this debate is being brought up to Obama, Im sure they will not win the case, right ? But, somehow all you hiv advocate guys seem to be trying DESPERATELY proving that all of the aids dissidents are wrong, at times making negative statements…I really wonder

It is very clear to me, somehow you guys seems very concern of the AIDS dissidents proving that HIV does not cause AIDS(and just keep rejecting without analyzing the aids dissidents point of view, is this science anymore?). If the evidence of HIV=AIDS are there, why are you guys concern about ?

something fishy here….

Posted by brandon lopez on 12/29/2008 @ 07:59AM PST


A most excellent post! Interesting how perspective can affect how we perceive things.

We now know that your very livelihood is dependent on the validity of the paradigm. Small wonder you want to defend it. I know how guilty I feel for participating in die-ins in the 1980s to demand the very drugs that made me and other victims of the HIVAIDS myth deathly ill years later.

I know how difficult it will be for the tens of thousands of well-intentioned “helpers” like you to finally realize that you’ve been a good little German (to use an earlier analogy of how probably well-intentioned Germans put Hitler and the Nazis in power). That you are here is a good sign. It signifies that you aren’t quite so sure yourself, so there’s hope.

I too have watched as friends struggled to fight their disease, only to succumb to death in as horrible a manner as any prior to the drugs. Unlike you, I was not paid for my services. I remember a few years ago the look on the shell-shocked face of my HIV doc the morning he shared that another patient of his and friend of mine had recently died very suddenly. “It was like every organ in him just blew up… I don’t understand what happened…”

Mark Chaney was a compatriot of mine in the ACTUP wars demanding treatment. Like me, at the time he was convinced enough that modern researchers knew what they were doing to put his life in their hands. Mark died a ghastly death, Derek, and if you work in a clinic, you’ve seen this too.

Are YOU “poz”, Derek? Have you taken an ARV cocktail for years?

How in the world (or rather, in the developing world, to use your words) can you wish drugs on a population such as Africa when so many there do not even have clean drinking water, let alone sufficient food or adequate basic health care for previously existing illness that are now being misdiagnosed as “AIDS”? You may as well give a laptop to every kid in that village without electricity or basic education. Appalling? Try nonsensical.

The “techniques” with impressive sounding names that you list are not treatments, Derek. They are accessories on that useless laptop mentioned above. Let’s upgrade them to high-end gaming laptops with built in GPS and wireless network adapters. “What? No Internet connection in your village? That’s not important. What’s important is that you have this modern, expensive laptop!”

How can you say ARV drugs “overall” are beneficial on one hand, and simply dismiss any studies that contradict that on the other hand? I’m not so dogmatic as to say I will NEVER take any ARV drugs under any circumstances (though they’d have be mighty extreme circumstances and I would try to stop taking them as quickly as possible). The system you are defending, on the other hand, will only be satisfied if every single person testing “positive” is not only on the drugs, but monitored to ensure they take them for life!

Unlike you, I’m willing to answer “I don’t know” to the question of whether HIV exists or whether it can cause disease. When a scientist/researcher/clinic assistant claims to know they have the sole correct answer, they can only claim to be objective and indeed become suspect sources of information… especially if they won’t even use their real name.

You are obviously enthralled at the state of modern research from your side of the one-way mirror. It is this very profit-driven system that makes some of us so wary. I cannot get so excited about research that is based on previously accepted knowledge that is now known to be fraudulent. It is frightening that we are expending so many resources this way. No wonder so little (virtually none) progress has been made in treatment, let alone a vaccine or cure.

Except, that is… for the thousands of us who ARE living healthy lives with your incurable disease. What the hell good is genotyping a retrovirus that may not only be harmless, but actually necessary for good health in some people?

I strongly encourage you and others to read the excerpt below from Janine Roberts’ book Fear of the Invisible. IF the biologists are right, this amazing progress of virology just might be what is killing people. I salute Janine for making this information freely available on the web for those who may not be able to afford (or otherwise interested in buying) her book.

Posted by Jon Barnett on 12/29/2008 @ 08:01AM PST

Janine Roberts, thank you for acknowledging that your claims regarding Matthew Gonda are based on selectively ignoring his micrographing of HIV and speculation regarding what he was writing about in his March 84 letter. You should inform Semmelweis Society International, an organization whose credibility you endorsed earlier in the thread. For some reason, they treated your claims about Matthew Gonda’s letter as proven facts. From their statement: “After fellow researcher Matthew Gonda PhD informed Gallo that his electron microscopy showed no evidence of a virus in 1984, Gallo used Gonda’s name and photographs to corroborate his claim that he had isolated the virus.” And from their board resolution, which is featured and linked to on the front page of Janine Roberts website: “WHEREAS, Matthew Gonda, head of NCI electron microscopy, reported four days before Popovicís paper was submitted for publication, that nothing in Dr. Gallo’s samples contained anything more than cellular debris. WHEREAS, Dr. Gallo used Dr. Gonda’s photographs of cellular debris and Dr. Popovicís heavily edited report to support his assertion that HTLV-III was the cause of AIDS.” What Gallo wrote in the paper, btw, was that his data “suggests” that HTLV-III “may be the primary cause of AIDS.” Barre-Sinoussi, Jay Levy and others were saying the same thing (more accurately, in that they weren’t mistakenly suggesting the virus belonged to the HTLV family). Barre-Sinoussi was working with the virus Gonda micrographed.

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/29/2008 @ 08:40AM PST

David Crowe does exist and so do I. We also know that this subject is very important to you and me, why else would we be here? (although we are both here for different reasons)

You and I (and every one else here) are very different from those that have not ever heard about that there might be another reason people get AIDS.

Don’t you think that all people should at least hear that HIV might not cause AIDS and that it might be chemical and/or malnutrition? That way they can make their own decision on how to heal themselves. With cancer, people have a choice and they do with most other diseases too.

!.5 years ago I had no idea this debate even existed and I believed everything I had been told by the medical establishment. I looked the evidence and I was so angry that the doctor that diagnosed my wife never told us that there was another side to this story. I doubt he even knew.

Taking ownership of your health is a freedom that all should exercise. Anyone that wants to censor all of the information we now know, does not want health freedom and they do not have our best interests at heart.


Posted by joe stokely on 12/29/2008 @ 09:09AM PST


You continue to harp on and on about EM photos that were derived from cord blood.

What part of harmless endogenous retroviruses in cord blood have been well known since 1979, do you not yet understand.

To this, of course, you will argue that it was assuredly a lentivirus. But then, when asked for evidence that it was not common lab contamination and artefacts, by showing us an EM from the same patient in peripheral blood, you just slink away and ignore the fact that your 12/14 EM is meaningless without further verification that any other supposedly “infected” sick individual had any such thing in their peripheral blood.

I would ask you to show us a sample of any lentivirus from any hiv positive person’s periperal blood, but I am already quite aware that you can NOT do so.

So until and unless you do show us HIV from the blood of a sick aids patient, you are welcome to put your cord blood harmless endogenous retroviruses, right beside your lab artefacts, and politely place them where the sun don’t shine.

Posted by Michael Geiger on 12/29/2008 @ 09:35AM PST

It is amazing how otherwise intelligent people such as Derek, Hank, Snout, et al, can be so overcome by their willingness to believe that all sickness in the gay community of the 80’s (and even currently) in individuals who were stressed to breaking by “coming out of their closets” and being disowned by their families, publicly humiliated by being kicked out of their jobs and out of the military for being gay, who were suffering from extreme self loathing, who were drugged out of their minds on alcohol-mixed with-crystal-coke-poppers-uppers-downers, who had shit diets, who took loads of antibiotics, who often had their own internal death wishes, who were taking experimental live hep-b vaccinations, who were often and repeatedly infected by sexually transmitted diseases……..

and yet foolish people like yourselves and other hiv/aids advocates and believers would expect that these people were all going to be just perfectly healthy if they just didn’t catch that one single unfindable in their blood, the boogyman retrovirus, hiv.

Serious question to Hank and Derek and Snout, et al….

Are you guys complete incompetent imbeciles, or are your childhood fears of the boogeyman and of cooties are still controlling your ability to observe life around you.

Posted by Michael Geiger on 12/29/2008 @ 09:54AM PST

Noreen Martin wrote: “Over the years, I have heard AIDS patients complain that they were concerned that if they had some other health problem, they would not be treated appropriately. Well, they are right. I recently had a similiar experience. I had difficulty breathing and went to the emergency room. Instead of treating my breathing issues, the infectious disease doctor was called. …My problem was asthma and I only got better after seeing the proper specialist and proper medications.”


I have had the exact same experience, over and over and over again. In fact, when I nearly died of “AIDS-related pneumonia” in November of 2000, it turned out later that the real problem was an allergic reaction to structural mold in my living environment, and the reason it progressed over the course of two years to “AIDS-related pneumonia” was that I continued to live in the same environment for the whole two years, while treating the illness with ARVs for the first year (I had to be withdrawn after a year due to abnormal liver enzyme readings.) And as with you, when I sought and obtained appropriate treatment for my real health condition, I got real results, and my “AIDS” symptoms have improved every year since.

What a wild coincidence, that two extraordinary cases such as ourselves, should meet in a place such as this, where there are dozens of others with extraordinary stories just like ours, and not a single one of the ordinary cases that Derek claims are the rule, where we are the exception…

…and speaking of extraordinary stories….

Derek Neumann wrote: “Could you enlighten us as to your qualifications to speak on the subject of HIV/AIDS?”

I’ll tell ya my qualifications, buddy, I’m what you’d call an “AIDS patient”, and that makes me the expert and you the student. You got that?

I don’t care if there are 500 patients in your clinic, I don’t care how many of their hopes and dreams you claim to have heard, I don’t care how many of them you claim to have held as they cried on your labcoat, and I don’t care how many letters you’ve got behind your name, you will never be the expert that the patient is, because you do not live with AIDS, and your own life does not depend on knowing everything you can about it. Only your job depends on your knowledge, and if you knew half as much as people like Noreen and I know about AIDS (not to mention the other dozen or more “AIDS patients” in the room, not one of whom has spoken in your defense,) the next words out of your mouth would be, “Ya want a coke and fries with that?”

So first of all, quit pretending that you and those like you are the only people qualified to speak on AIDS. By the same logic, if we have doubts about the existence of God, we should only consult with priests, ministers, and rabbis, because they are the only experts on God; and under no circumstances are we to ask the opinion of an atheist or agnostic.

By your logic, we should not ask our modern doctors whether masturbation causes disease, since they’ve never treated masturbatory disease, and instead we should defer to the opinion of William Acton, who made a name for himself in the mid-19th Century, treating masturbatory disease whose symptoms included (I couldn’t make this up) blindness. After all, Acton treated the victims of masturbatory disease, so he’s the expert, right?

Let me ask you something, Derek: What are your qualifications to question anyone’s qualifications? Do you hold a degree as an expert on credential? No? So who are you to speak on the subject of qualifications?

But then again, if you could attack the message, you wouldn’t need to attack the messenger’s credentials.

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/29/2008 @ 09:55AM PST

“Hank Barnes”, go back to read what I wrote in my book – and here in my previous email – and what was said by 37 independent scientists who sent the letter to Science – and do not misquote us so gravely.
The evidence of fraud is primarily the Popovic et al draft paper as said before. What Gonda imaged in 1983 is totally irrelevant – seeing a virus-like particle in a cell culture sample from the Institut Pasteur does not prove it causes AIDS! Retroviruses are normally healthy particles found in intra-cellular fluids. We now know they play a vital role in evolution and in our immune system.
May I make a suggestion? On this site in particular, it would be good if you would write in your own name. We surely should be advising Obama in our own names.
Janine Roberts

Posted by Janine Roberts on 12/29/2008 @ 09:59AM PST

Very well said, Michael.

Posted by Karri Stokely on 12/29/2008 @ 09:59AM PST

Michael, it was “Rethinking AIDS,” Janine Roberts, etc. who tried to abuse Matthew Gonda’s findings and use them to support their specious arguments about the 1984 Science papers. You provide an excellent example of why denialist dogma can never be addressed by an investigation or any other method – you can’t even accept the fact that endogenous retroviruses cannot productively infect cells! HIV is being isolated from the peripheral blood of infected people every day, even Peter Duesberg understands that the virus has been isolated. It’s the two unqualified people in Australia who think they understand the Pasteur Institutes 1973 manual on viral isolation better than people at the Pasteur Institute who argue that the virus hasn’t been isolated.

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/29/2008 @ 10:01AM PST

“Derek” says, “Yup, ARV-induced old age is the commonest cause of death! Stop the ARVs!”

The National Center for Health Statistics reports that the median age of death from “HIV disease” in 2005 was 45.

Yup, ARV-induced old age!

That’s a decade after HAART started, which is claimed to add decades to life expectancy, even for AIDS patients who started HAART in 1996/7 or later.

Posted by Henry Bauer on 12/29/2008 @ 10:03AM PST

Jon, you make a lot of assumptions, and speak from a position of ignorance. If AIDS ended tomorrow, I would still have a job in Infectious diseases, and if all infections ceased to exist (some HIV deniers are in the camp of the germ denial too), then I would get employed in ER where I previously worked. I make no money from AIDS/HIV, I get a standard fixed salary, and get no money from pharma companies. Sorry to disappoint you. I often wonder why it is that anyone supporting mainstream views on HIV automatically is labelled as being in the pockets of pharma, or somehow making money from it. Well, I don’t wonder actually, it is clear that when the scientific arguments dry up, denialists are left with nothing but ad hominems and slurs on the motives or reputations of their opponents in the debate. It’s generally a sign their own ideas are bankrupt, and they have lost the argument.

In some ways I don’t really care about what happens to you people who diss the ARVs – you are adults who have made up your own minds about this. Noone would force you to take ARVs or do anything you don’t want to do. But you may influence others who don’t have full access to the information, or who are gullible enough to buy into your theories/denial. That’s what needs to be stopped.

So you go ahead and take drugs, then stop them as soon as possible as you say you would. However, I should warn you that the SMART study showed those stopping treatment was linked to a higher mortality (2.3 per 100 person years) versus 1 per 100 person years) for those continuing to take drugs. [Yet another anomaly – over twice as many people STOPPING the ARVs die than those who continue to take the toxic, lethal poisons. Fancy that!]

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/29/2008 @ 10:10AM PST

Hello everybody:

Just search the name: STEFAN LANKA on Google!


Thanks in ADVANCE.

PS: Dear Mr. President Barack Obama:

Posted by Severino . on 12/29/2008 @ 10:13AM PST


If you’d ever encountered “The Snout” and his buddies before, as I have, you wouldn’t be using your real name here.

Especially not considering the fact that in this forum, we’re actually giving them their comeuppance for the Yahoo massacre — they’re not gonna sit still for it, and they are NOT a harmless bunch.

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/29/2008 @ 10:14AM PST

Henry, you will also have seen the data showing that those diagnosed with HIV and requiring treatment have an average predicted survival 39 years (if they don’t have other infections like Hep C).

20 years ago, before antiretrovirals, life expectancy was around 2-3 years for AIDS patients.

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/29/2008 @ 10:18AM PST

Derek Neumann wrote: “Noone would force you to take ARVs or do anything you don’t want to do.”

That’s not entirely true, now is it, Derek?

…and let’s not forget the children at Incarnation Children’s Center and accross the US being taken from their parents who stopped ARVs, and being forcefed the drugs, and even having PEG tubes implanted if they refused the drugs, and in some cases even being enrolled in drug toxicity studies against their and their parents’ will.

So yes, there are those who would force myself and others to take ARVs, even if we don’t want to.

Are you kidding, that’s why people like Janine, myself, and other “AIDS patients” are here — we’re tired of having a myopic treatment approached forced on us whether we want it or not.

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/29/2008 @ 10:20AM PST

So Janine, it’s dangerous to use your real name? Nice to have confirmation that Gos is a pseudonym.

I would actually agree with him, Janine. You see, if you use your real name, people can easily find out what other whacky ideas you subscribe to. Like your idea that MMR vaccine causes AIDS and cancer, for instance.

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/29/2008 @ 10:21AM PST

Janine, you are still doing very poorly with the facts. Gonda did not see “a virus-like particle in a cell culture sample from the Institut Pasteur.” Gonda described and micrographed productive infection with HIV in two different cell lines, HUT 68 and T 17.4. Are you claiming the Pasteur sent these cell lines to Gonda? There is no way for any endogenous retrovirus to productively infect cells, and they cannot be transmitted from cell to cell. So your attempt to suggest that Gonda micrographed an endogenous retrovirus is a completely impossible fantasy.

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/29/2008 @ 10:30AM PST

Noreen’s comment about her experience in the ER with asthma reminded me of when my HIV doctor sent me to the ER when I complained of excruciating pain in my scapula and numbness and tingling down my left arm. I absolutely knew it was a recurrence of a pinched nerve that had first occurred 11 years earlier. I hadn’t been tested at that time so I was treated for a pinched nerve, no mystery involved. This time though, the doctor in the ER, seeing on my chart that I was HIV positive, said it could be caused by “some rare virus, perhaps sort of like herpes that attacks HIV-positives”. (I quote him.) He ordered a spinal tap and got a somewhat incredulous resident to administer it. After 3 punctures and coming up dry every time I finally just pulled my pants up and said “I’m getting out of here.” The resident said, “OK, I’m sorry. I’m sure it’s just a pinched nerve anyway” and gave me a look that showed he, too, thought that “rare virus” doctor was a fanatic. I’m sure every HIV positive person has heard scores of ridiculously inane comments from doctors who treat HIV.

Posted by Reg Bielamowicz on 12/29/2008 @ 10:30AM PST

“I would actually agree with him, Janine. You see, if you use your real name, people can easily find out what other whacky ideas you subscribe to. Like your idea that MMR vaccine causes AIDS and cancer, for instance.”
Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/29/2008 @ 10:21AM PST

“…left with nothing but ad hominems and slurs on the motives or reputations of their opponents in the debate. It’s generally a sign their own ideas are bankrupt, and they have lost the argument.”
Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/29/2008 @ 10:10AM PST

Posted by David Collins on 12/29/2008 @ 10:32AM PST

Derek, MMR causes AIDS! What a nonsense. I never said anything of the sort – as I think you well know.As for a possible link with Cancer – that was a citation from a NIH transcript.


Posted by Janine Roberts on 12/29/2008 @ 10:38AM PST

Hank and Derek,

Do you admit or deny that aids drugs have directly caused death in many people who took them?

Of course you admit it, because the literature is filled with such cases.
Do you admit or deny that you yourself have promoted these drugs, that did indeed cause death in many who took them, to those who are diagnosed as hiv positive?
Of course you admit promoting and advocating these drugs, because you have done so right here in this thread.
Therefore, the evidence is in. You yourself are indeed GUILTY of promoting drugs that are well PROVEN to cause early death, disfigurement, and a host of other health problems.
As such, I now fully understand why you are here. You are in DENIAL of your own roles in having caused human death and suffering.
Deny all you like, guys, you are still GUILTY OF CAUSING DEATH AND SUFFERING, whether it was intentional or not.

Posted by Michael Geiger on 12/29/2008 @ 10:45AM PST

Pseudo Hank, In 1983 the Pasteur Institut loaned cell culture samples to Gallo’s lab. It was not until February-March 1984 that the experiment was done that has since been claimed to have proved a retrovirus in these samples was the cause of AIDS.My critique is primarily of that experiment – as I have repeatedly said. The evidence of fraud is in the same document that also proved that this experiment deliberately and illegally used the French sample renamed as if it were the American.

Posted by Janine Roberts on 12/29/2008 @ 10:50AM PST

“But without the drugs, they would all have died of AIDS.”
PROVE IT! Not a single one of the dozens of aids drugs have been placebo tested since the 4 month original trial of AZT.

“But they are life extending”
PROVE IT! And the proof better be more substantial than comparing current drugs and regimens to the years of highly toxic AZT monotherapy.

Derek and Hank and Snout and Seth are 100% GUILTY of promoting drug treatments that are well proven to cause DEATH and DISFIGUREMENT and a host of other health problems.

Posted by Michael Geiger on 12/29/2008 @ 10:56AM PST

The French sample of what, Janine? It’s not clear whether you’re acknowledging that the sample contained HIV, as Gonda documented.

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/29/2008 @ 11:06AM PST

ARV’s causing death: sad recent case in point: Dan Dunable:

Posted by Jason Hart on 12/29/2008 @ 11:15AM PST

Reg, Noreen did not say she had asthma. What Noreen wrote is that she went to the ER because of “difficulty breathing.” Anyone with experience of the risks associated with a blood CD4 count of less than 200 is sure to have had a sinking feeling reading that. The most common cause of difficulty breathing in that setting is PCP or pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia. The trouble breathing often is worse when lying down. I was going to ask Noreen about this but also knew this would lead to accusations of wanting to put a disease hex on her or something. I don’t, and I hope the problem is resolved already. If it isn’t, I’d urge Noreen to get a proper work up whatever her decisions about HIV treatment (PCP can be treated directly, although the success rate of treatment declines as the severity of immune deficiency becomes greater).

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/29/2008 @ 11:15AM PST

Derek Neumann wrote (12/29/2008 @ 10:10AM PST): “Noone would force you to take ARVs or do anything you don’t want to do.”

As ‘Gos’ mentioned earlier (12/29/2008 @ 10:20AM PST), what about the HIV-positive mothers, who are forced to take ARVs in the last three months of pregnancy, and during the delivery. Here in Athens, Greece, babies are often taken away from their mothers for 40 days, so that ‘AIDS’ doctors can enforce their (mis-)treatment. Those babies are then given an antibiotic (Bactrim) “to prevent future infections” and an AZT syrup called Retrovir. Even if the baby does not test ‘HIV’ positive.

More details at

In some countries (USA, Canada), they send the police to mothers who refuse to give their baby AZT, and threaten to take the permanent custody of the child.

Posted by Maria Papagiannidou on 12/29/2008 @ 11:27AM PST

Gonda is an electron microscopist . He did not attempt to prove the retrovirus he was imaging was HIV – as I think you know? Nor did the other scientists involved claim to prove this at the time. He simply described it very generically.
And incidentally, retroviruses are now known to be naturally ‘infectious’. They are a means used by cells to exchange information. Evolutionary biology is based on this.
Countless HIV papers now describe HIV as an exosome – which is defined as a particle made by cells that leaves cells and is absorbed by other cells – and as a “cargo-loaded small vesicles released into intracellular space”. They can carry from one cell to another a wide variety of codes. This is simply achieved. “An non-infectious non-infectious retrotransposon” becomes “a budding infectious retrovirus merely by appending a retroviral MA domain.” Journal of Cell Science, 113, 3365-3374They are now said to be one of the most important mechanisms our cells have to facilitate the transmission of information and regulate cellular activity. In 2007 it was reported that ‘cells send RNA messages to each other by packing them into exosomes.” See “The Exosome exchange” in Journal of Cell Biology, 21 May 2007.

Posted by Janine Roberts on 12/29/2008 @ 11:36AM PST

To clarify my last post – I am describing exosomes, into which family all retroviruses have now been put. Some of those that believe in HIV now state it must also be an exosome. Hildreth was reported in 2003 as saying HIV was an exosome in every sense of the word. Astonishingly, this has lead some to now propose that all exosomes be destroyed in the search to find a way to kill”HIV – no matter that exsomes are reported to be a major part of our cell regulatory system.

Posted by Janine Roberts on 12/29/2008 @ 11:45AM PST

So you don’t believe Gonda micrographed HIV? Even though that virus has since been sequenced and the match to HTLV-III demonstrated? You think Gallo stole an exosome? Exosomes cannot productively infect cell lines. You talk about “merely appending a retroviral MA domain” as if this would somehow create something similar to HIV! You also neglect to mention who has to do the appending. I can’t find that quote in the paper you’re citing:
Can you point out where it is?

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/29/2008 @ 11:53AM PST

Don’t worry Janine, I found the paper, it’s here:

People can read for themselves. They’re saying the exosomal pathway is used by retroviruses for budding, not that retroviruses are harmless exosomes. More selective misrepresentation of the scientific literature.

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/29/2008 @ 12:08PM PST

AIDS Social Worker Experiences Paradigm Shift November 27th, 2008 Sarah Breidenbach was a highly regarded social worker who specialized in assisting people diagnosed HIV positive or with AIDS. For Sarah, this position was far more than a job, it was an opportunity to make a real difference in the lives of her clients, and she approached her work with great dedication and conviction. She felt very strongly that by encouraging compliance with AIDS drug treatments and discouraging skepticism about the causal link between HIV and AIDS she was offering HIV positives their best possible chances for staying alive. But after more than half a decade of a professional and personal life that revolved around AIDS from the mainstream perspective, Sarah very reluctantly agreed to watch the documentary film, The Other Side of AIDS, and something remarkable happened as a result: she began to question the basis for her staunchly held views, and ultimately the direction and meaning of her life’s work. Listen in as David and Christine speak with Sarah about her journey from certainty into the unknown, an experience she recounts with intelligence, grace and unusual honesty.News items include a Ugandan drug trial testing the idea of “reduced transmission” a proposed HIV prevention drug combo in the UK, and the criminalization of HIV in a growing number of countries.

The Other Side of AIDS:

Posted by David Collins on 12/29/2008 @ 12:09PM PST


Are you saying that first they had a virus called LAV, hen a different virus called HTLV III, then a different virus called HIV, then they sequenced the different viruses and found out they were the same?

Posted by Ruairidh MacDonald on 12/29/2008 @ 12:17PM PST

Michael Geiger wrote:

“Derek and Hank and Snout and Seth are 100% GUILTY of promoting drug treatments that are well proven to cause DEATH and DISFIGUREMENT and a host of other health problems.”

No Michael they are sick bastards who promote a Genocide agenda,They are politically motivated by modern day Genocide denialism and they can and will hurt anyone who opposes their quack-medical-Jim Jones belief system.

The Time is defintely now,that African People and The Gay Community stand up for their rights and take back control of their lives.

Obama must give us a forum! Obama must investigate these Pharmaceutical drug pushers! It’s a shame that Society has people like this walking around or working in our hospitals.

Isn’t it ironic that the ones who call us a denialist are the ones who are guilty of marketing a genocidal fraud

Posted by Eddie Brewster on 12/29/2008 @ 12:23PM PST

I did state that I had asthma, which was not properly treated. But they choose to give me two arterial blood gas tests, blood tests from both arms, and a chest x-ray. In fact, I had three x-rays in a very short period of time. They couldn’t believe that I didn’t have some sort of AIDS related problem. I won’t reveal my status to incompetant doctors again. If I had not been HIV+, I would have gotten much better medical care.

Also, I had sinus and allergy problems long before being diagnosed with AIDS.

Posted by Noreen Martin on 12/29/2008 @ 12:23PM PST

Here’s the story…
Nature 363, 466 – 469 (03 June 1993); doi:10.1038/363466a0

The origin of HIV-1 isolate HTLV-IIIB

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/29/2008 @ 12:31PM PST

Don’t make me laugh, Hank!

Go talk to Karry Mulles who invented PCR. There is no proven evidence that any of these so-called isolations of tiny fragments of cellular and intracellular RNA are proof of any contagious, yet alone harmful, retrovirus being found.

These are not full retrovirus isolations. These are PCR cellular fragments that, at best, are less than 5 percent of a 9kb retrovirus. They are also, as yet, unfound by any verification of Electron Microscopy to be found in the blood of even the sickest of hiv positives.

PCR of tiny portions of genetic fragments is NOT retroviral isolation.

Now, please Hank, just answer the question.

Have you promoted the use of drugs and treatments that you fully know are the cause of death and disfigurement of many thousands of hiv positives?

Do you understan that having done so makes you fully liable for their deaths and disfigurement?

Posted by Michael Geiger on 12/29/2008 @ 01:44PM PST

Noreen wrote: “If I had not been HIV+, I would have gotten much better medical care.”

That’s the problem I run into time after time myself. I have autoimmune issues (asthma, multiple allergies, Crohn’s disease, arthritis (likely rheumatoid, though never formally diagnosed as such,) and I can’t get appropriate treatment for these illnesses anymore, because if I have difficulty breathing, or rash, or diarrhea, or abscesses in my colon or rectum, or any number of other symptoms of diseases I’ve had which predate my “HIV infection”, the doctors always want to call it “AIDS” and treat it with ARVs.

…But if I were to die from these untreated diseases, it would be claimed that I died from complications arising from “HIV infection”.

Ironically enough, this would be in a way true, since the “complication” that killed me at that point would be the complication of being unable to get appropriate medical treatment, which would be directly caused by my “HIV infection”.

…So I guess you guys are right after all — HIV does cause AIDS, by causing medical professionals to give you an entirely different standard of care from any other patient, and then when you die, it causes them to call your death “AIDS”.

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/29/2008 @ 01:54PM PST


Since the story you referenced is about LAV and HTLV-III, I take it this was just a clumsy formulation:

“So you don’t believe Gonda micrographed HIV? Even though that virus has since been sequenced and the match to HTLV-III demonstrated?”?

Because it looks like you’re saying that something was called a “Human Immune-deficiency Virus” before it was even sequenced.

Posted by Ruairidh MacDonald on 12/29/2008 @ 02:14PM PST

Now, please Hank, just answer the question.

Have you promoted the use of drugs and treatments that you fully know are the cause of death and disfigurement of many thousands of hiv positives?

Posted by Michael Geiger on 12/29/2008 @ 02:58PM PST

I will frame the question a little more accurately.

Have you promoted the use of drugs and treatments that you fully know are the cause of death and disfigurement of many thousands of THOSE who have been DIAGNOSED as hiv positive by antbody tests that, as the manufacturers of the tests themselves still admit, have as yet no recognised standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV- 2 in human blood?

It is a YES or NO question, Hank. Should be a simple one for you.

Posted by Michael Geiger on 12/29/2008 @ 03:15PM PST

Janine, you HAVE promoted, or at least given publicity to, the idea that MMR vaccine causes AIDS and cancer.

There is no use denying it, because it is quite plain in “The dangerous impurities of vaccines” [AKA Chapter 7 of your book “Fear of the Invisible”]. Perhaps you should read it again sometime. In this chapter you discuss the supposed finding of RT activity in MMR vaccine, and expound on the theory that this means MMR contains retroviruses which cause cancer and AIDS.

I quote you directly: “[There was a] two-year investigation into the safety of MMR headed by the World Health Organisation. She explained that this study was initiated in 1996 after the discovery in MMR of RT. an enzyme linked to retroviruses as well as cells. In the back corridors of virology this had immediately caused alarm as some retroviruses were thought to cause cancers – as well as AIDS – for HIV is said to be a retrovirus….. What they then discovered confirmed their worse (sic) fears.”

You said it yourself, “what a nonsense”. I guess we can at least be reassured that you think AIDS is caused by a retrovirus, a concept quite in contrast with the views you have expressed on this thread.

Yes, Janine, perhaps it would have been better to post here anonymously, then noone could see how duplicitous and filled with nonsense you are.

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/29/2008 @ 03:53PM PST

Michael, I’ll answer for you.

I have given people ARVs. I appreciate they might have side effects, sometimes severe (or rarely even fatal), but we constantly work to minimise these side effects and chose the most appropriate combo for each individual. But I do so in the knowledge that the benefits to the patient outweigh the risk of harm from these side effects. So I am a genocidal maniac by your criteria.

I have also given antibiotics in people dying from meningitis. I appreciate that antibiotics have side effects, sometimes severe (or rarely even fatal in the case of anaphylaxis). I do so in the knowledge that the benefits of antibiotics outweigh the risk of harm from these side effects. So I am also a genocidal maniac for treating children dying from meningitis with antibiotics.

I have also given patients in diabetic coma insulin…. etc.
I have also given patients with myocardial infarction thrombolytic drugs….etc.
etc. ad infinitum…..

So Derek is guilty as charged, your honor.

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/29/2008 @ 04:02PM PST

Gos, if a medical doctor ignores any relevant ilnesses in someone’s history they are not a very good doctor. Look at it from the other viewpoint. We have several Crohn’s patients with HIV. When they see their gastroenterologists, the doctors seem focussed on the idea that all bowel symptoms must be due to their Crohn’s. In fact in several of these patients there were infections such as salmonella (related to their HIV-induced immune deficiency, and nothing to do with their Crohn’s).

So, to take your story from the perspective of the patient who thinks Crohn’s does not exist, these anecdotes would provide confirmation that doctors are focussed solely on Crohn’s and not other medical issues. Of course, in your book this would be “evidence” that Crohn’s does not exist.

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/29/2008 @ 04:11PM PST

“Derek” said “Henry, you will also have seen the data showing that those diagnosed with HIV and requiring treatment have an average predicted survival 39 years (if they don’t have other infections like Hep C).

Yes. I’ve also read Walensky et al., Bashkaran et al., & Antiretroviral Collaboration (Lancet 2006, 2008). As I said, PREDICTED survival is several decades AFTER HAVING ALREADY HAD AIDS; but the actual fact is that the median age of death of PWAs in 2005 was 45. The prediction is wrong.

Posted by Henry Bauer on 12/29/2008 @ 04:20PM PST

Derek: besides the obvious problem with your statement that you KNOW that the benefits to the patient outweigh the risk of harm from side effects, I’m curious … do you ever consider that throwing drugs at a problem such as apparent immunodeficiency might not be the best, let alone the only, treatment option?

Posted by Laura Ogar on 12/29/2008 @ 04:21PM PST

Forgive me, I gave the wrong reference. Do not ridicule this quote so lightly Hank – if you disagree take it up with the paper’s authors – the correct citation (as in my book) is from give the quote more fully….”This notion is consistent with the ability to convert the mouse LTR retrotransposon MusD from an intracellular, noninfectious transposon into a budding, infectious retrovirus merely by appending a retroviral MA domain to the N-terminus of its Gag-like protein [58].”

Also”An exosomal mechanism of retrovirus budding is also likely relevant to the evolutionary relationships between retroviruses and LTR retrotransposons [11]”

May I remind you that Nobel Laureate Barbara McClintock described elegantly how cells use their retrotransposons to modify their DNA to protect themselves from toxins and other challenges. Since retrotransposons are so invaluable, it is surely likely that the retroviruses they can become are also valuable to us.
This paper also states “The primary significance of these observations is that they reveal retrovirus budding to be a manifestation of a normal, cell-encoded exosome biogenesis pathway”
and that “we proposed that retroviruses are, at their most fundamental level, exosomes.”

My other quotes stand on how useful exosomes are proving to be – as does my comment that it is plain stupid for some to propose to destroy all exosomes – or retroviruses – in order to protect us from HIV, given how important these particles are turning out to be.
Hank what is your stand on this? Would you attack all retroviruses or exosomes in order to attack HIV – even if these particles are invaluable to us?

Posted by Janine Roberts on 12/29/2008 @ 04:27PM PST

Derek, thank you for reading my book so carefully. It is clear from the quote you give from my book that I am citing the words of a senior government scientist responsible for vaccine safety in the US.
Their words are their own. They worried at the evidence they had uncovered for the presence of retroviruses in the MMR vaccine – and particularly because they believed that retroviruses can be linked to AIDS and cancers. They were particularly concerned because chicken leukosis virus had been widely found in the MMR vaccine – and worried that this might get out to the public. Their concern arose from their inability to clear this contamination from all vaccines produced from fertilized eggs – like mumps and measles. It remains in them to this day. They also greatly worried about the particles of DNA and RNA still remaining in the vaccines, saying this too might cause cancers. I would be glad if you helped to spread information about this contamination.
This is from an authoritative NIH transcript of a meeting of our top vaccine scientists.

Posted by Janine Roberts on 12/29/2008 @ 04:39PM PST

Janine – Derek is over on the “Vaccine Schedule” thread pushing vaccines too… He’s not going to be much help to anyone but the pharmaceutical and medical industries…

Posted by David Collins on 12/29/2008 @ 04:45PM PST

Yup, just categorise anyone who disagrees with you as a pharma shill or drug pusher. As I said earlier, resorting to such tactics is a sign you have lost the argument, since you are failing to debate the science.

I think people looking at this thread can judge for themselves whether what I say about the benefits of ARVs merely assists the pharmaceutical industry. I like to think that what I say might benefit patients, by persuading them to look again at the pup they have been sold by the AIDS denialism industry, and helping keep them healthy and living longer than they would do otherwise.

Big pharma gains no plaudits from me. They have behaved reprehensibly regarding pricing and using anticompetitive practice, and restricted availability of ARVs through patent protectionism. This has directly harmed people with HIV.

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/29/2008 @ 05:06PM PST

Henry, we’ve already been over the “median age of death” issue on your blog, at least until you started deleting posts when it became crystal clear that you had no idea at all about the mathematical relationship between mortality and median death age and were merely waving your hands about. The fact is that median death ages are continuing to rise with the fall in mortality associated with antiretroviral and other treatments. They are rising at the expected rate. By 2006 it was 47.2 years. Your argument is based on not understanding the math. The 2005 median age of death applied only to those few per cent of PWAs alive that year who actually died. They are not a representative sample of the group as a whole – most survived the year and will die in subsequent years where the median death age will be significantly higher on current trends. Your modus operandi is quite transparent. Recently on your blog you said: “At any rate, AIDStruthers [i.e. virtually the entire scientific community] are not the audience to be courted. Their arguments must be countered with answers directed to the media and the general public in terms that are understandable by and clearly convincing for unengaged observers. That means the points cannot be too technical.” Anyone with a modicum of scientific background in the field of HIV and AIDS can tell that your arguments are flawed and fallacious. That is why you target a lay audience with your specious nonsense. That is intellectually cowardly, and ethically reprehensible for someone with supposed pretensions to scientific credibility. It is no wonder that you choose to present your ideas on your own self moderated blog and at conferences like “Collapsing Paradigms at the Frontiers of Consciousness & UFO Research” rather than to real scientists with the background to critically assess your claims on their merits.

Posted by The Snout on 12/29/2008 @ 05:12PM PST

So, Janine, do you agree with the “top vaccine scientists” only when it suits you? According to you they think retroviral contamination of MMR can cause cancer and AIDS.

If you agree, then how do you explain that you called this claim “nonsense” earlier in the debate?
At least you would still agree a retrovirus cause AIDS if you did agree though.

If you do not agree, why did you put this extraordinary claim in your book? Because you thought it was untrue, and just wanted to show how ridiculous it was?

Go on, pull the other one.

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/29/2008 @ 05:14PM PST

Derek said: “Yup, just categorise anyone who disagrees with you as a pharma shill or drug pusher.”

As opposed to categorising anyone who disagrees with you as a “denialist”?

My question to you about whether you ever consider non-drug-based treatments was a genuine one, and I’m looking forward to your answer.

Posted by Laura Ogar on 12/29/2008 @ 05:21PM PST

(A digression: I’m not sure which aspect of Snout I’m most fascinated by: is it that someone so assured of his rightness would spend so much time posting on every blog and forum in sight without ever revealing his identity? Or is it the idea that somebody actually chooses to be known by the name “Snout”?. Aye, it’s a puzzler, either way.)

Posted by Laura Ogar on 12/29/2008 @ 05:44PM PST

Derek Neumann wrote: “Gos, if a medical doctor ignores any relevant ilnesses in someone’s history they are not a very good doctor. Look at it from the other viewpoint. We have several Crohn’s patients with HIV.”

Then what you’re saying is that every single doctor I’ve been to in the past 10 years wasn’t a very good doctor.

It doesn’t surprise me that you have several Crohn’s patients who test positive on HIV tests, since Crohn’s is an autoimmune disorder, and autoimmune disorders are known to cause false positives.

However, your comparison to Crohn’s patients doesn’t hold — hell, it was my gastroenterologist who used to test me regularly for HIV.

However, I’ve never been to a doctor for asthma, and had them say, “You have Crohn’s and you’re not currently seeing a gastroenterologist, therefore I won’t treat you unless you first see a gastroenterologist.” On the other hand, I went to see an immunologist/allergist earlier this year who refused to treat my allergies unless I first went to see an infectious disease specialist for treatment of HIV.

In fact, this doctor formed her opinion that I had “classic” signs of HIV infection based on three criteria: 1) My CD4/CD8 count was inverted (748/1726); 2) My ANA titer was high (166); and 3) My Westergren sedimentation rate was elevated (32).

Now, my CD4/CD8 count wasn’t inverted because my CD4s were suppressed — in fact my CD4 count was normal (748), but my CD8 count was more than twice what it should have been(1726). When I asked my doctor how it is that HIV boosts CD8 counts instead of lowering CD4s the way it’s supposed to, she developed a sudden, inexplicable inability to look me in the eye, and said that my question was outside her field of specialty, and that I’d need to see an infectious disease specialist.

As for the Westergren sedimentation rate, I went to LabCorp’s site (, where they had this to say: “Use: Evaluate the nonspecific activity of infections, inflammatory states, autoimmune disorders, and plasma cell dyscrasias.”[emphasis mine]

Now, as for the ANA titer, I looked that up on Wikipedia (, and here’s what I found: “They are present in higher than normal numbers in autoimmune disease. The ANA test measures the pattern and amount of autoantibody which can attack the body’s tissues as if they were foreign material. Autoantibodies are present in low titers in the general population, but in about 5% of the population, their concentration is increased, and about half of this 5% have an autoimmune disease.”[emphasis mine] Not a word about HIV causing high ANA titers.

Now, Derek, I get what you’re saying about a gastroenterologist (for example) mistaking salmonella symptoms for Crohn’s symptoms in a Crohn’s patient. Not only would I agree with you on this point, I’d say that it’s so widespread in medicine that if you let 4 different specialists examine the same patient, the GI doc would diagnose Crohn’s, the infectious disease specialist would diagnose salmonella, the nutritionist would call it a dietary deficiency, and the chiropractor would want to start twisting the patient’s skull. When you’re holding a hammer, everything looks like a nail — I get it.

However, how do you explain an allergist/immunologist, seeing a patient with a lifelong history of autoimmune disease, presenting with a high ANA titer, a high Westergren sedimentation rate, and an absolutely normal CD4 count, and concluding that the patient is suffering from AIDS? That’s exactly the opposite of what your theory should predict — according to you, she should have called it an allergy even if it was AIDS.

This is the sort of myopia I’m talking about, and I don’t care how many specious analogies you try to present, you’re not going to find a single other disease on the planet which causes such a great degree of myopia among doctors.

This is hardly an isolated example, either — this is how I’ve been treated by every doctor I’ve seen in the past 10 years. And now that I’m meeting all of these other HIV-positives in this forum, all of whom tell similar stories, it is obvious that I’m not an isolated case either — doctors are treating ALL HIV-positives this way, but then when we die from our untreated diseases, they call it AIDS.

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/29/2008 @ 05:48PM PST

Addendum to the above post: Incidentally, a high ANA titer is also one of the conditions which is known to cause false positives on HIV tests.


Schleupner CJ. Detection of HIV-1 infection. In: (Mandell GI, Douglas RG, Bennett JE, eds.) Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases, 3rd ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1990:1092.

Cordes R, Ryan M. 1995. Pitfalls in HIV testing. Postgraduate Medicine. 98:177

Steckelberg JM, Cockerill F. 1988. Serologic testing for human immunodeficiency virus antibodies. Mayo Clin. Proc. 63:373

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/29/2008 @ 05:54PM PST

Yes Derek, you are one of the worst Genocide Denialists I have ever observed since Annie Lennox joined the other Pharmaceutical Political Party over in South Africa.

There is no Science that can explain away Toxic drug induced Diseases camoflauged by the term ‘Side Effect’. a diseases is a disease! and Genocide is Genocide no matter how many Pubmed abstracts you post.

Posted by Eddie Brewster on 12/29/2008 @ 06:04PM PST


Do you know Dr. Stefan Lanka?

PLEASE, just search on Google the name: STEFAN LANKA.

Thanks in ADVANCE!

Posted by Severino . on 12/29/2008 @ 06:09PM PST

So-called HIV positives just aren’t allowed to get sick the way other people do all the time, because after you are pronounced to have the devil HIV in you, once you get sick, why, it was the HIV wut done it. But who is to say you wouldn’t have gotten that yeast infection (or whatever) anyway? No one can make that claim.
But this whole notion is behind most of the frequent redefinitions of AIDS, as more and more conditions (some of them having nothing to do with immune deficiency) were called AIDS when they occurred in anyone who had tested “HIV+”.

Posted by Laura Ogar on 12/29/2008 @ 06:28PM PST

It appears that there are enough “real” people (as opposed to paid plants – or unconscious drones) with legitimate doubts about what is expressed in the mainstream as unquestionable science regarding HIV to warrant an expanded look at AIDS and what could be the possible causes of a failing human immune system besides what appears to be an unproven retrovirus. If it were so cut and dry then there wouldn’t be so much fraud and deceit and there wouldn’t be so many anomalies to the dogma. Why have so many people from many different backgrounds questioned the flaws in this issue when given the opportunity to know more information?

What would motivate anyone to deny an expanded look at such a relevant subject concerning the life and death of millions? Why would anyone fight so hard to keep deadly pharmaceutical drugs as the only possible way to treat a “disease” regardless of any information to the contrary? Why would it seem that there are people who do not want to find a better way but wish to keep poisoning people with highly toxic black box drugs? Why does it feel like these people have something to gain by keeping the status quo and something to hide from shutting down dissent? If they are simply ignorant, then they are willfully ignorant and shoving that ignorance down a lot of people’s throats.

The only thing I keep coming up with is that these people have a personal stake in toeing the line. It usually turns out that they have ties to the pharmaceutical and/or medical industries which reaps huge profits from the sale of HIV tests and HIV medications. They usually say they work for the clinics that need the point of view they offer to keep their funding. They usually say they have jobs that they would probably lose if the mainstream view were found to be less than true. I guess this is an attempt to gain credibility or something (saying you are a medical professional), because it really seems that it would be a full-time effort to scour the internet for these discussions and then spend so much time hijacking threads and derailing conversations (Yes, these same people show up over and over all over the internet). If they really have the jobs they say they have, they really aught to be fired because they’re not paying attention to what they say their being paid to do – or are they? They are way, way too busy engaging people on the internet and spreading disinformation wherever they can find to do it.

I’ve not yet seen one of these AIDS religionists say how much they care about the “risk groups” that suffer the most from this paradigm. They don’t come across as very “caring” people at all. They are just as quick to attack those they believe to be “victims” of a disease that don’t agree with them as quickly as they will attack anyone else. I never witness any compassion or concern for anyone but themselves and there need to be right. They don’t give anyone credit for having enough sense and knowledge to take care of their own health. No, we need them to tell us what to do.

AIDS seems to mainly afflict gays, blacks, poor people and their innocent children. The same groups that a lot of “certain people” would love to see disappear off the face of the Earth. It looks like the cleverly concealed genocide of the unwanted of the world to which these people flock to do their part.

You people who are fighting so hard to keep the HIV=AIDS paradigm alive don’t give a flip about me or anyone else suffering from the outcome of this fraud or you would welcome all the research that could be done to find all the answers that could be found. You actually work to stall progress, stop debate and shut people up. You care about your AIDS religion, not people. You care about your ego, your job, you money, your reputation, your credentials, etc. You are programmed drones motivated by all of the above. I suppose I should have more sympathy for you. It’s like getting shot with a gun and getting upset with the gun instead of the person aiming it at you. You are a tool.

For all those who are new to this idea that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, but a distraction from finding the real cause… Don’t believe ANYONE here. Research for yourselves and make an intelligent and informed decision for yourself. There are unscrupulous people on both sides. Question everything. Follow the money! The AIDS religionists, like other elitists, don’t believe you have the capacity to do this. They think you are ignorant “little people” who need to be told what to accept and to accept it without real question. They will tell you to ignore everything but the mainstream “program”. You will be rewarded with support and encouragement (or at least tolerated) for “believing” and you will be punished with intimidation and ridicule if you don’t. I speak from experience. I’ve been on both sides.

Don’t fall for it!!

Most people don’t look at this information unless they have too. Unless they are already frightened and vulnerable. If this is you, please give yourself some time, time to adjust and educate yourself.

You really do have brains and the ability for critical thinking. The only people really being harmed here are the ones who won’t research and think for themselves. Unfortunately, not everything can be summed up in cute little sound bites or a few online posts. Today’s media has programmed a very short attention span into the public mind. AIDS Religionists count on you being too busy, too confused, too ignorant, too drugged and too programmed to ask questions and to actually look for the answers. It is VERY daunting (especially if you’ve recently been informed that you’re going to die from an incurable disease) to go through the overwhelming amount of information that is out there and some of it can be very technical and very boring. But, if you don’t research and do some thinking for yourself then you’re giving your power to make a choice for yourself to someone else. Someone else who only has their own best interests at heart NOT yours.

AIDS Religionists, again, are very elitist and will try to convince you that you can’t possibly make any decisions without their knowledge and expertise or without telling you where to look and where NOT to look. You don’t have to have some sort of PhD or be a doctor, virologist or anything other than what you are to know the truth. Knowledge is available to everyone who seeks it and we all have the ability to know the truth. You do not have to know EVERYTHING there is to know to make an informed decision, as that would be pretty much impossible. But, you can make a decision for yourself.

This may not win me any popularity here (thankfully I’m not running in a popularity contest), but I personally do not think the Obama administration will do a damned thing. There is only one real political party in America and that is the party of the wealthy elite (who just got a lot wealthier thanks to Bush and the Bailouts). They control everything and only let you think you have some sort of choice. The wealthy elite would, particularly, like to get rid of “useless eaters” like racial minorities, gays and the ungodly poor and only keep enough of us to work and supply them with their material goods and services.

The AIDS apologists on this thread are not debating anyone. They are creating an illusion of debate. How can someone who believes that they have all the correct answers, without exception, debate anyone? No, they are here to put people in their place and influence those silent readers out there. They could very well even be playing both sides of an argument to make their case. It is useless to “debate” these guys as they use psychological warfare designed to intimidate, confuse, redirect and just plain ole wash your brains out.

This website is an illusion of choice and freedom. Just like the presidential election. The wealthy elite own Obama and Obama will do what his masters (not you) tell him to do. This issue is only one of the many, many tentacles of the beast used to distract you from it’s head, which needs to be hacked off and burned if America or, indeed, the planet is to survive.

This country is no longer ruled by the people. The people have become a nuisance to be dealt with.

In defense of AIDS religionists online… See Plausible Deniability:

When the full truth comes out these drones will scurry like cockroaches to the nearest rock to hide under lest they end up on trial for complicity.

See also:

Posted by David Collins on 12/29/2008 @ 06:31PM PST

Laura, here’s a related quote from a “HIV/AIDS” believer:

“…From the early to mid ‘90s, a lot of investigators had jumped into the ’HIV bandwagon’ – not only in the US, but in other countries as well. The HIV infected immunocompromised patients were live receptacles for many other infections, then considered ‘opportunistic’, and the focus on HIV research was so expansive and urgent (rightly, of course) that it encompassed easily ‘HIV-associated infections’. Which was fine. But gradually, perhaps, it resulted in the focus getting diluted, and among the first affected was funding. Many investigators found that their otherwise important disease research was in the danger of being under-funded or non-funded unless a link – however tenuous – was made with HIV. When they got the grants, they continued to work in their own existing areas, with just a passing nod to HIV. The big name Pharma companies were pushing money into anti-retrovirals and cocktails, once again, with barely a passing nod to basic HIV research. And then there were the so-called HIV researchers, who knew that their livelihood and continued funding depended upon tenaciously maintaining their link to HIV, and therefore concentrated on diagnostics, therapetics and such like, but less on the basic biology. Some exciting discoveries did come about during this time through some enterprising investigators. But for myriads of others… Well, here is the hearsay. A friend of mine works in the lab of reputed HIV researcher in big city. When he joined the lab, he found that the research was extremely haphazard with no strictness in record/result keeping, and the scientific standards in that lab were low enough to accept arbitrary results from assays done with no controls if they jived well with the hypothesis, and disregard equally arbitrary results, if they did not, all without any further scrutiny. Now that is a pretty serious accusation, to my mind, and for want of hardcore evidence, I would not want to make a case of it. But this, taken together with the current status of HIV research (read ‘repeated failures of testable hypotheses’), raises severe doubt in my mind as to the true direction HIV research has taken. Now the question: Given the amount of money that has been put into it, the time spent and the number of people involved all over the world, why have we not yet been able to demystify HIV? Why have we not found a sure shot cure? Is HIV the bin Laden of the microbial world? Why do we fall back upon the same excuse that the virus mutates rapidly to avoid eradication? …”

You can read the rest of it here:

Despite all that this person says above, he can’t imagine the possibility of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis being wrong… such is the power of consensus nowadays…

Posted by Sadun Kal on 12/29/2008 @ 08:09PM PST

I had never heard of this before:

UW: Researcher faked AIDS data, altered images

” A former University of Washington AIDS researcher committed scientific misconduct by altering images and fabricating data, a UW investigation found. … All his research is now “viewed with suspicion” and subject to independent verification, according to a UW Investigation Committee Report.

Not only did it cast doubt on Brodie’s own work, but it also created problems for many other researchers who relied on his data, Liggitt said. “The problem with things like this is that people build on someone else’s knowledge. It wastes money, it wastes time and it can lead science in a wrong direction,” Liggitt said. “Even the smallest misguidance can cripple a very large investigation.” … ”

Someone was inspired by Gallo I guess. 🙂 But one wonders why Gallo’s work is still not really viewed with that much suspicion. Funny really…a perfect demonstration of how powerful vested interests can be.

Posted by Sadun Kal on 12/29/2008 @ 08:41PM PST

It gets better:

Banned Scientist Now Works At Schering-Plough:
A scientist that the University of Washington found guilty of research misconduct now works for the big drugmaker.

The comments left there are also interesting:

“If the accusations against Dr. Brodie are true, he will fit it beautifully at Schering-Plough. The company probably hired him because they knew he’d have no problem with their lack of ethics….”

Posted by Sadun Kal on 12/29/2008 @ 08:56PM PST

Sadun I think the drug companies actually advertise for staff in the Jounal of Scientific Research Fraud, edited by and contributed to, by frauds in medicine and science.
Why anyone would believe one word out of the mealy mouths of anyone in this industry is unbelievable.

Posted by Frank Murphy on 12/29/2008 @ 09:10PM PST

What? Gambling? In Casablanca?

Posted by Laura Ogar on 12/29/2008 @ 09:14PM PST

Sadun Kal wrote: “such is the power of consensus nowadays”

Why single out nowadays? Do you not realize that this very same scientific community believed only last century that masturbation caused blindness, and that they’d believed this dogmatically for 150 years before they finally were forced to see the truth? And they were just about as dogmatic about that consensus as they are about this one.

Indeed, in his seminal (no pun intended) work on the subject of masturbatory disease, Tissot denounced all previous publications on the subject, because they were based upon the Bible, where his claim that masturbation is a deadly act was rooted in (and I quote) “sound science.”

Now, 248 years after Tissot’s wholesale plagiarization of the very religion he denounced, we have a bunch of neo-Puritanical scientists telling us that sex (and most especially homosexual sex) is a deadly act — but all those Christians who say the exact same thing are wrong, and OUR erotophobic and homophobic consensus dogma is rooted not in the Bible, but in (and I’m quoting again,) “sound science”.

Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it, and with AIDS, we are repeating the lessons of spermatorrhea.

Sadun Kal wrote: “If the accusations against Dr. Brodie are true, he will fit it beautifully at Schering-Plough.”

Interestingly enough, I refer to taking AIDS-cocktail drugs(*) as “getting Schering-Ploughed in the Astra-Zeneca.”

— Gos

(*) – “AIDS cocktail” is an appropriate name if I’ve ever heard one — When your doctor prescribes them, he’s really saying, “Come over here, boy, and let me stick this big AIDS c*** in your tail. I wanna Schering-Plough you in your Astra-Zeneca.”

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/29/2008 @ 09:49PM PST

I once worked with one Dr Malcolm Pearce – a charlatan and honestly a bit of a pervert. He got the job and got published in the British Obstetrics Journal because he was good buddies with “the distinguished” Prof Geoff Chamberlain – who was actually not a bad surgeon but a fat twit and a buffoon nonetheless. Well, after rejecting Pearce’s disgusting sexual advances he made my life on the ward a complete misery. Even placing a patient’s life in danger – I had rushed down the ward to grab a doctor for a burst abdomen – and he basically told me to eff off! I did what I could for the lady (surgipads and warm saline), rang theatre etc. Luckily she survived no thanks to him. He also put my life and that of my unborn child in danger when I went into early labour myself a couple of years later.
Imagine my absolute delight when a few years later he was struck off the register for falsifying not one but two papers (with the full co-operation of Chamberlain). In the first he claimed to have re-sited an ectopic pregnancy and brought the pregnancy to a successful conclusion. Err no, not only was the purported patient about 90-years-old at the time, but she was dead! In the second he claimed to have successfully treated some 280 PCOS women for infertility – at a time when his clinic didn’t have that many patients at all.
I still chuckle when I think about his come-uppance; it couldn’t have happened to a nastier git. If you ever google yourself Pearce and happen across this post – I’m still laughing in late 2008 – and I sure hope you remember who I am!
For newbies to the health system – doctors and nurses are not all saints. I’m not saying that there aren’t some truly dedicated and altruistic doctors and nurses out there but they ain’t the rule but the exception, and nowhere more so than in the whacky world of HIV-AIDS.

Posted by Lucinda Arkwright on 12/29/2008 @ 09:58PM PST

More details – and I’d like to add, Chamberlain, who allowed a queue of med students into theatre to perform vaginal examinations on women under general anaesthetic WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT was NOT liked by many of us that worked with him.

Posted by Lucinda Arkwright on 12/29/2008 @ 10:07PM PST

Christine Maggiore has died. Please see LA Time article,0,7407966.story Her tragic death should give everyone who is buying into AIDS denialism pause. It should make Peter Duesberg, the only credible scientist who influences AIDS denialism, back off from his destructive stance. AIDS denialism is killing people and it has to stop. For information on AIDS denialism visit and

Posted by Seth Kalichman on 12/29/2008 @ 10:24PM PST

“William Summerlin from the Sloan-Kettering Institute in New York, one of the world’s leading biomedical research centres, claimed to have transplanted human corneas into rabbits. He also faked transplantation experiments in white mice by blackening patches of their skin with a pen; an extraordinarily crude form of forgery. Eventually, Summerlin’s misconduct could no longer be ignored, but his behaviour was attributed to a mental health problem. This is a response that is seen repeatedly. It is a form of scientific denial.[emphasis mine]

John Darsee worked in the department of cardiology at Harvard and was observed falsifying data. His boss, Eugene Braunwald, an eminent cardiologist, decided that this misconduct was an isolated incident and so did not fire him. A few months later, however, it became clear that results he had obtained in a study being conducted in several places were very different from those of the others. An investigation was started and went back to when he was an undergraduate. Many of his more than a 100 studies proved to be fraudulent and had to be retracted.

Case after case followed, but scientists were slow to respond.” —

If there’s anything that I’ve learned about the High Church of Science (or as I like to call it, the “Church of Saint Thomas the Agnostic”,) it’s that the scientific establishment protects corrupt scientists the same way the Church protects child-molesting priests. They move them around, they transfer them to another department, they bury complaints against them, or excommunicate their accusers. And, in fact, they do it for the same reason: To protect the image of the institution.

Other “denialists” are quick to accuse our detractors of being in the pay of “Big Pharma” or protecting their own jobs, or whatever, but I think that the example of Robert Gallo is one of the very sort of denial to which Smith alludes in the above passage.

I had a debate earlier this year with a biologist on the subject of AIDS causation. When I brought up the subject of Gallo’s checkered reputation (to put it at its sweetest,) he became hostile, and accused me of trying to drag the discussion into the mud.

I countered by saying that I was just calling a spade a spade, and said something to the effect that the only reason he didn’t want to be in the position of defending Gallo was that Gallo was indefensible.

He then said something VERY interesting: “Gos, I am still rereading your other e-mail but I would like to point out that I agree with you on one aspect of Gallo. I have no doubt that he did indeed take a culture of HIV from the other lab and claim it as his own. This was something we learned in our Biology of AIDS course in college. I also know that a professor who was researching HIV in our university had to rush patent something that he and Gallo had collaborated on because Gallo was trying to “steal” the patent by getting it first.[emphasis mine] As you said, this isn’t a world of angels. I have no doubt Gallo would do things like this but I also have no doubt about the existence and causality of HIV. As this debate goes on I hope to, at the very least, show you why I believe this to be so, regardless of whether you ultimately agree with me.”

Bob Gallo has enjoyed the knowing protection of the scientific establishment for 40 years or more — and they knew he was a con man and a thief. His reputation is no secret in the scientific community, but they guard the secret like it’s the crown jewels.

If you ask me, that’s why he didn’t get the Nobel Prize, along with Montagnier and Barre-Sinoussi(sp?). The Nobel committe knew that if they gave Gallo the Nobel Prize, it would scandalize the whole scientific community that this two-bit pickpocket got it. But on the other hand, they had to give the Nobel Prize to somebody, because it was starting to look awful suspicious that no one had gotten a Nobel Prize for this momentous discovery. (I myself was making an issue of it on Tribe only two years ago, and I actually lamented for Montagnier in the aforementioned debate, that he’d never get the Nobel because of the Gallo taint.)

So, if you’re anything but a scientist or a Catholic priest and you are corrupt and/or criminal, you go to jail. If you’re a Catholic priest, you get tranferred to another parish. But if you’re a scientist who has never legitimately discovered a virus in your entire career and you’ve claimed to have discovered no fewer than four, you get snubbed by the Nobel Committee. Bummer.

I don’t think that those who defend the failed HIV/AIDS hypothesis are crooked or in the employ of Big Pharma or anything like that. I think the accusation that they make against us (like all accusations) is an admission of their own failing: They are in denial. Just like Catholics don’t want to believe that priests have genitals, much less that they molest children, scientists and their followers don’t want to believe that scientists are as human and as prone to corruption as anyone else.

This tendency to close ranks and protect the most corrupt members will be the undoing of science, the same way it has driven many Catholic churches into bankruptcy.

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/29/2008 @ 11:20PM PST

This is the comment I left at Seth’s blog, I doubt he’ll approve it:

“Even though you still abuse it to a degree and you’re too eager to jump on to certain conclusions, thanks for limiting your rudeness in this case. And as you’re aware, such incidences can’t make essential scientific questions simply disappear, that’s not how real science works. In fact, you’re probably too biased to notice but even you should be thankful to Christine for what she achieved in her life. Asking questions like she did is crucial for all sciences. She would’ve been welcomed by the scientific community if what’s being pursued was only the truth and nothing else. A patient as courageous as she asking questions was labeled as “denialism” instead. What a shame for humanity that this woman’s worth couldn’t have been recognized by the “best minds”…

I wish a lot of strength to everybody… including you Seth. You may not be aware but you need even more strength than those who really perceive her loss as an important loss for the entire humanity. ”

And Seth, you still don’t realize it apparently but this is beyond Duesberg or Christine. It’s about questions without answers and questions don’t magically go away, it doesn’t even matter who asks. If you people can’t do it, then somebody else has to do it. There are still people with enough courage and interest. Christine was one of those and in the future there’ll be many others. These are questions that matter and you should better concentrate on the questions instead of those who ask them. Or you’ll never ever succeed at stopping whatever it is that you want to stop.

Posted by Sadun Kal on 12/29/2008 @ 11:58PM PST

Seth (if that is indeed your real name),

I was wondering how long it would take you ghouls to begin dancing on Christine’s grave, the way you danced on her daughter’s grave two years ago. Have you no shame? Did your mother teach you no respect? Have you no common human decency? Obviously not — Her body’s not even cold yet, and you’re already gloating.

I’ve spent much of this evening on the phone with people who (unlike you) knew her personally, and those who knew her best tell me that she never fully recovered after E.J.’s death, and I can’t say I blame her. I was just telling someone that I doubt I could survive 2 1/2 weeks of what Christine has gone through, much less 2 1/2 years. My immune system would probably shut down after 2 1/2 minutes of the hell she’s endured at the hands of people like you.

On any other day, I’d say I hope you never have to experience what Christine went through, but right now I hope you lose a child, and rather than being given time to greive as any parent should, I hope that you are immediately (and wrongly) accused of your child’s death, and that your name is dragged through the mud in the national papers and on TV, and that people write fictional TV shows about you in which you die horribly, and that even after you are exonerated in your child’s death, people like you are still calling you a murderer. You have no idea what that’s like, but right now I hope you live every moment of it, and I hope you survive for more than 2 1/2 years, because you deserve to suffer for as long as possible, you soulless vulture.

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/30/2008 @ 12:18AM PST

People like Seth may be able to relate to the wishes expressed above better if they listen to the ninth and the last episode of Christine’s podcast with David Crowe:

I’m not sure if anyone else has to live through the same though…

Posted by Sadun Kal on 12/30/2008 @ 12:52AM PST

Only a scum-sucking bottom feeder like Seth “Trust Me I’m a Psychologist” Kalichman could come out in all his “professional glory” and make the case that Christine was the architect in her own death BEFORE he even knows what the fricking cause of death is.
If this doesn’t sum up the “I’m an expert and you’re going to die, trust me, no evidence required” mindset of you witch-burning establishment apologists I don’t know what the hell does.
Okay Seth “I’m not the murderer here” Kalichman can you name me ONE person whose life has been saved by AZT, any ARVs or HAART? No you sodding well can’t because there aren’t any. “Her tragic death” – you are rubbing your damned Shylock (and yes I’m well aware you are a Jew, making your alliance with JT “Kike-hating” Deshong all the more suppuratively gross) fat sweaty hands together like you already have a chapter written for your next irrelevant and inconsequential tome.
You Seth are a leech, a tumour, a growth on society. You produce nothing except negative hack writings that feed off society and offer nothing in return. Can you, you ego-driven bag of rat excrement point to one single act in your whole ego-driven stinking life that actually made a positive difference in someone’s life?
Won’t be holding my breath.

Posted by Cathy Thompson on 12/30/2008 @ 01:01AM PST


Jeez, I thought I’d stepped over the line.

Calm down, girl — if we let them take away our ability to speak in even tones, they’ve taken away our ability to think evenly, and if they take away our ability to think evenly, then we become just like they are.

Christine, even at the lowest point in her life, did not lash out, but kept up a calm demeanor, even as her heart was breaking and her soul screaming to be reunited with E.J. She would want us to remember her by doing as she did.

Let’s not allow monsters like Seth to turn us into monsters ourselves, let’s do as Christine would have done, and continue to calmly and rationally argue the facts, while our opponents throw feces, and see if the onlookers can tell who the monkeys are.

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/30/2008 @ 01:10AM PST

I agree with that last one.

Posted by Sadun Kal on 12/30/2008 @ 01:22AM PST

Gos I saw your post after I had mostly written mine. While I agree “temperance” is often called for this is my raw emotions calling it as I see it – as a mother and as someone involved in a case along these lines, yes my emotions get the better sometimes. So sorry, I’m posting anyway. I know Christine kept a calm demeanour – the last podcast she did with David Crowe shamed me in that she exerted such serenity that I felt ashamed in her shadow. But alas it did not diminish my baser instincts right now. So I’m going to post what came from the heart:
Now I’ll tell you how I really feel. If Christine had succumbed to ARVs early on after her “diagnosis” you would say “Oh, how sad, we didn’t catch it early enough… and she died (subtext – our drugs are wonderful and “life-saving” but she didn’t get treated early enough) of AIDS.
But when someone tells you to shove your crap drugs when the sun doesn’t shine, and then goes on to outlive your dire bone-pointing death predictions by many, many years, when she finally does die – even though no cause of death has even been speculated in the most preliminary manner, you immediately make the assumption she died from HAART deficiency.
I admit I am very upset at Christine’s death. I had immense respect for this lady. It upset me in the extreme as a mother myself that she attracted the kind of gutter politics employed by the drug companies to smear her devotion and love for her children as somehow “misguided” or outright “loony”, aided and abetted by the likes of Nick “the only offspring I have is a bunny” Bennett, Chris “I have no life” Noble AKA “Hank Barnes” on this blog (Queensland, Australia) and “Snout (another Nigel-no-mates somewhere in the vicinity of Melbourne)”.
It’s like that card trick where the person playing the trick always has the “right card” whatever happens. Except people’s lives are not a goddamn card game, and complete tossers like Bennett, Noble or Kalichman do NOT dictate the game. You might think people’s lives are expendable in your “great experiment” but the day someone you love is touched by this you might feel differently.
Sadun Kal – no offence, you are a lovely person and always want to engage in a civil and personable manner – and I respect that. But sometimes these (insert the worst word imaginable) need nothing less than a right Royal kick in the @$$ for being such retarded total gits. Sometimes it requires a little more than a Ghandi approach.

Posted by Cathy Thompson on 12/30/2008 @ 02:18AM PST


Don’t get me wrong — I don’t blame you.

However, if we lose our minds right now, we lose the fight, and if we lose the fight, then Christine died in vain.

Christine is not the first dissident friend I have known who has died, and whose corpse was paraded about by these heartless buzzards. I doubt very seriously that she’ll be the last. I have every expectation that after I smoke myself to death, I’ll be listed at as a “denialist who died” of “AIDS-related” emphysema.

But I’ve learned something from Christine, and from Kelly Jon Landis, and from David Pasquarelli, and from Ken Anderlini, and that’s that you can’t let yourself get too emotionally attached to the fight. You have to back off sometimes, and give your soul time to heal. Christine didn’t do that, and now her death is a setback to the very cause she fought so hard for, just as Kelly Jon’s, David’s, and Ken’s before her have been used for cannon fodder in John P. Moore’s sick little war.

If you let them get to you, you let them win. If you let them win, then Christine died for nothing.

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/30/2008 @ 02:29AM PST

A joke oughtta lighten the mood in here:

Q: What’s the difference between Robert Gallo and a catfish?

A: One’s a scum-sucking bottom feeder, and the other’s a fish.

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/30/2008 @ 02:49AM PST

Just to clarify, the words “you” and “yours” were not pertaining to Gos. It was just that I had already written most of it when I got his comment via the email. I have nothing but respect for Gos, who has lived this nightmare and God love him, has still retained a sense of perspective.
Then I caught your next post. You are right of course. I’m letting my emotions for a woman I never met face-to-face run away with me. Funny you describe them as buzzards – only today I used the description “vultures” to describe them.
I don’t want Christine’s life to be in vain; I want to fight, but my fighting is maybe too much on a visceral level.

Posted by Cathy Thompson on 12/30/2008 @ 03:00AM PST


Hey, like I said, I don’t blame you. I only recently learned to fight the urge to want to gouge out their eyes when they’d mention E.J.

Anger, hate…the path to the Dark Side these things are, young Jedi. Fight them you must, or destroy you they will.

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/30/2008 @ 03:08AM PST

It greatly saddens all of us to hear about Christine’s most untimely death. She touched so many lives and will be sorely missed. I had the privilege of speaking with her several times on the phone. Christine was genuine and spoke the truth, unlike many in the mainstream. Her book, What If Everything You Thought You Knew About AIDS Was Wrong, was the first dissident book that I read. She and others were the reason that I stopped the meds and became an AIDS Rethinker.

In honor of Christine, I suggest that every one touched by her, buy her book from Alive and Well or from Amazon and pass it on, as she did not die in vain and her work will live on through us. Our deepest sympathies go out to her family, who needs our support now.

Posted by Noreen Martin on 12/30/2008 @ 05:03AM PST

Great idea, Noreen. I just bought 3 of them last month.

Remember guys, the evidence hasn’t changed.

I pray this site has a time of peace today, as we reflect on Christine’s memory, all that she accomplished, and what Robin and Charlie will be experiencing now.

Posted by Karri Stokely on 12/30/2008 @ 05:25AM PST

My sympathy to her family.
I have heard of Christine, obviously, and am just sad that things did not work out differently for her and her family.

Cathy, thank you for your post above. It serves as a nice reminder of the type of person and reaction one should expect from the “denialists”

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/30/2008 @ 05:36AM PST

Jon Barnett wrote:
“By sundown, former ACT UP NY activist Peter Staley wrote on his blog at that Christine died ‘…because she refuses to believe she has a treatable illness’.

Before any cause of death has been announced, another gay blogger, has already declared: ‘Christine Maggiore, the notorious AIDS denialist who barely escaped felony charges in 2006 after her baby died untreated for HIV, has herself succumbed to the disease she claimed did not exist.’

These, I fear are only a hint of what is to come.”

I don’t think there’s the tiniest whit of doubt that these do presage what’s to come and what it does and will come to symbolize: the profound expression of gloat and triumph on the part of the faithful *non-denialists* who hold true to their orthodoxy — very much like a faithful church devotee witnessing the burning of a witch.

Remember, as yet there is no autopsy report but the cause of Christine’s death is already a certainty.

Posted by George O’Connor on 12/30/2008 @ 07:54AM PST

Derek, why don’t you take a break and listen to the podcasts I linked to..?

Posted by Sadun Kal on 12/30/2008 @ 08:09AM PST

There are some really evil people in this world…… Derek, Seth – whoever you really are… I’m trying really hard not to wish the same on you as you have done to Christine and people like her. You are not healers or even good people… Gloating over someone’s death and using it to try and score some kind of points. Derek has even been on the “Vaccine Schedule” thread trying to shame mothers who have lost their children… You are the scum of the Earth and I wish everyone could just completley ignore the sacks of crap that you are. Just my opinion, of course. I really hope their is a saavy IT tech out there tracing people and taking names for when the trials begin.

Posted by David Collins on 12/30/2008 @ 09:29AM PST

Sadun, I’ll listen when I have a few spare minutes.
I see one of them is about Christine discussing the “Law and Order” episode where someone based on her let her kid die from AIDS. Spookily, the mother went on to die also. So life imitates art. Prescience or what? Maybe she should have paid more attention to the message in the film. And no, David, I’m not gloating at all, just very sad. And sad that others remain fixated in the same frame of mind that Christine was.

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/30/2008 @ 09:56AM PST

David, you and Cathy have stated it well.
Thank you for saying what everyone else is thinking.

I really don’t get how these poor excuses for human beings can live each and every day with hundreds of thousands of peoples blood on their hands. AND, pretend like they’re not responsible.

Shall we take a count of how many deaths these demons of destruction have caused over the years, in comparison to the dissident deaths?!
Someday, they will ALL meet their MAKER, and at that time, they will not have the flippant answers that they do now.

People die every day, all over the world, at all ages, for many reasons. For them to comment on this tragedy in any form just goes to show how much pleasure they derive from their sin.

Posted by Karri Stokely on 12/30/2008 @ 10:03AM PST

How about the 330000 South Africans who have died because of Mbeki’s denialism? Or don’t they count, because they are from a far away place, out of sight and out of mind?

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/30/2008 @ 10:27AM PST

“Cathy, thank you for your post above. It serves as a nice reminder of the type of person and reaction one should expect from the “denialists””- Derrek

Well Derrek, maybe you and I can open a club. The reaction you speak of is well represented on either side of the fence and dont pretend otherwise because it will make you look silly. When I asked questions and showed some doubt I was IMMEDIATLY labeled a murdering denialist.

Posted by pat moore on 12/30/2008 @ 11:01AM PST


Do you remember the days when S. Africa fought tooth and nail to get affordable drugs for their HIV patients while in the west we just sat on our fat asses hidding behind our patent rights. Who was killing whom then?

Posted by pat moore on 12/30/2008 @ 11:04AM PST

Derek, if you are sad it’s because Christine didn’t do what you think she should have done and now she is dead because of that. A conclusion you’ve reached because you are hopelessly trapped in a construct of lies and are unable to see anything else.

You are not sad because you cared one iota about who she was or what she accomplished. Don’t try to act like you have feelings now… You’ve already painted the picture of who you are what is important to you and it has nothing to do with people and life. You’re sad for your own lost cause.

I, too, am sad she has died but I will celebrate her work and will double my efforts to see that the truth is known. If what I have concluded from my hours and hours and hours of research is wrong I will concede. But, I have not made any decision lightly. I spent about 13 years of my 15 year “diagnosis” believing people like you and only the last two years looking at the other side.. Do you think I’m being biased? You are defending your scientific religion and your “beliefs”. I am defending my life.

From my viewpoint, you have lost touch with your soul. You and people like you are cold and unfeeling monsters who will do anything to prop up your own egos. If you think it’s not obvious to the many of us looking at you right now, then it proves that you are clueless as to what it means to be human.

I see past your psychological maneuvers and techno-babble and I see a dark, empty, soulless creature who has caused untold suffering and many, many premature deaths. Maybe you don’t work for “Big Pharma”. Maybe you really do this for your own personal satisfaction. Maybe your are in denial like Gos has suggested. These ideas only make you look worse… If you are going to shill you might as well get paid for it. You certainly spend enough time doing it.

Do you work with people with HIV or AIDS? Do you give them all the information they need to make a fully informed decision about how to proceed with their health care or do you only tell them what YOU have decided is relevant because you’ve been brainwashed into believing you endanger lives by revealing information? How many people’s lives have you taken into your hands, whose fates you’ve then decided for them. You’ve decided what’s best for everyone here, mr neumann, why do you even bother asking what others think?

As far as “beliefs” that can’t really be proven (like HIV)… I do believe in a cosmic justice and that you will get yours and none of us who see you for who you really are will have to lift a finger in retribution. You will get yours whether you end up on trial or not.

You have the very same things in you that will set off an HIV test as anyone else and I, too, will be sad for you the day that you are handed a death sentence and then forced to take toxic medications that will hasten your death. I will be sad when you feel trapped and hopeless because people talk about you like your not in the room and your every word will be reacted to with looks of pity. I will be sad for you when you realize that you have no choice in the matter of your own health, but will have it all decided for you by someone you don’t even know and that doesn’t even know you and has NO idea what you are going through.

Seth just posted the announcement of Christine’s death on one of my blogs…. Oh, how he must be in such glee today over this and wanting to spread the good news far and wide. Oh the humanity!
Posted by David Collins on 12/30/2008 @ 11:08AM PST

Derek, you claim that you’re just very sad. Yet you have already determined that Christine’s death was her own damn fault, as you cluck and tsk-tsk that she probably should have “paid more attention to the message in the film.”

Paid more attention? Do you think Christine had the program on for a little light entertainment while she did the ironing? Tell me, Derek, how emotionally devastating do you think it would be to watch a television show in which Derek Neumann causes his child’s death? What effect on your immune system do you think it would have, Derek, to watch a depiction of Derek Neumann dying horribly?

Christine was an amazing, lovely, woman and a wonderful mother. She is very terribly missed, and my heart goes out to her family.

Posted by Laura Ogar on 12/30/2008 @ 11:09AM PST

Aids: An Iatrogenic Depopulation Strategy?
posted by Sepp Hasslberger on Sunday December 28 2008

It is hard to make sense of the numerous contradictions in the official explanation of what causes Aids and how to best fight the scourge. But then – the confusion may be fully intentional. Aids as a strategy and cover for de-population would make perfect sense. It is race specific, its victims are the poor and socially deviant, and if we believe the press, the whole population of the African continent is at grave risk. A high percentage of those treated eventually do die. What they die of is the hard question that must be asked.

Aids testing, prevention and treatment are promoted by the medical/pharmaceutical world and by the mainstream press as essential counter-measures. Yet both Aids testing and treatment target certain racial and social groups and the populations of developing countries, especially if they are located on the African continent.

The interpretation of test results is largely arbitrary. Prevention consists of giving both mother and child a highly toxic shot of medicine, and treatment – more often than not – seals the fate of the victim. Treatment leads to a more or less certain death. All that is promised is that the death will be slowed by “life extending” drugs.

What makes me think of a deliberate strategy with regards to Aids and the confusion that surrounds it, is the point-blank refusal of the reigning pharmaceutical/medical establishment to even address those contradictions, to discuss in an open way with those who point out that something’s not right. Perhaps I am too suspicious, but it seems to me that so much bungling cannot be the result of mere inadequacy.


See also:

Cognitive dissonance: a human condition

Here Henry Bauer, author of a book titled “The Origin, Persistance and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory” and author of an excellent blog that looks behind the news on Aids, details how it is impossible for scientists steeped in AIDS orthodoxy to even consider that there might be alternative explanations for what they are looking at. The lie has become so pervasive it is nigh impossible to even make someone look at it to see.

Video: Denying AIDS: The HIV Industry, Political Denialism, and Mass Genocide

Denying AIDS means to to rethink what we have all been told about HIV, about AIDS and about Africa. Mass hysteria in the world media outlets about African AIDS on a daily basis would drive a person into rage when noticing how hyped up estimates and statistics are and how Scientists feed the market for Antiretrovirals. Denying AIDS means to replace Toxic drug regimens with medications for the same classic diseases running rampant in Africa, the need for food, shelter, clean water and better sanitary conditions. Denying AIDS does not mean to deny diseases – every country has had them. Denying AIDS means to let go of the phoney construct the HIV Industry invented.

Posted by David Collins on 12/30/2008 @ 11:49AM PST

You CAN’T be serious “Derek”.

Many people die in Africa all the time, just like here, and have for as long as we’ve had documentation. How can you suddelnly attribute it to “HIV”?
Are you a complete fool? This is getting ridiculous.

Nothing has changed about their illnesses.
The ONLY thing that’s changed is the population, IT’S INCREASED!

It’s frightening that you and your cohorts are trying desperately to finish them off though.

My heart very sincerely goes out to the Africans. As well as many others around the globe that we hear from all the time. They are now finding hope! despite your attempts to “point the bone”.

I’m in contact with MANY people from Africa who know the truth, and are spreading it.

Unlike the others, I will not engage in any conversation with you whatsoever. You are not worth 1 minute on my worst day.

Posted by Karri Stokely on 12/30/2008 @ 11:59AM PST

Derek Neumann wrote: “And no, David, I’m not gloating at all, just very sad. And sad that others remain fixated in the same frame of mind that Christine was.”

Once again, Derek, you have spoken like a true quasi-religious fundamentalist: “We don’t glory in the death of a sinner, but we would like to remind his loved ones that if he’d died in Christ, he’d be in Heaven now, rather than burning in Hell.”

Derek Neumann wrote: “I see one of them is about Christine discussing the ‘Law and Order’ episode where someone based on her let her kid die from AIDS. Spookily, the mother went on to die also. So life imitates art. Prescience or what?”

Derek, you cold, heartless sack of empty flesh that calls itself a man, does the term “psychosomatic” mean anything to you? Or is that outside your specialty?

Did you know that when Christine saw that SVU episode, she broke out in an immediate rash from the stress it caused? And she told me that the most stressful part of it was when her character died horribly, because she felt it was an on-screen portrayal of the collective wishes of people like you who wanted her dead in real life — in effect, she felt she’d been burned in effigy.

But then again, I probably shouldn’t waste my breath, because you couldn’t possibly care less about human suffering — at least not beyond the immense satisfaction that you get from knowing how you made an innocent bereaved mother suffer for the last 2 1/2 years of her life.

As for the rash, you’re probably clucking your tongue and blaming HIV for that too.

Derek Neumann wrote: “How about the 330000 South Africans who have died because of Mbeki’s denialism?”

Name one that you knew personally.

You can’t, because to you they are nothing more than a statistic
that you can quote when you want to pretend to be a human being who has a shred of empathy for his fellow man.

Derek Neumann wrote: “Cathy, thank you for your post above. It serves as a nice reminder of the type of person and reaction one should expect from the ‘denialists'”

And Derek, I want to thank you for all of today’s posts, and I want to encourage you to keep talking, because with every word you say, the American public is getting a glimpse behind that mask of false piety, and they’re getting a glimpse of the cold, inhuman creature that lives behind it.

So enjoy your little dance on Christine and E.J.s graves. Dance, monkey, dance! Don’t stop the show now that it’s gotten so entertaining. Dance, you soulless, self-righteous robot clothed in human flesh and the flowing white ceremonial robes of a High Priest of Science, wearing your mask of false piety, (the same mask worn by the Inquisitor as heretics were broken on the rack,) spouting made-up numbers as though they were the names of personal friends of yours who had died. The public is watching — let’s give them a show.


— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/30/2008 @ 12:13PM PST

Derek and all the others like you,

You sicken me in my spirit.
My only repreave is that I believe in justice, and what goes around comes around.

One way or another, you WILL be tried for these “war crimes” against humanity.

Thank you to all the brave, strong courageous people on this board taking your valuable time to post. It encourages many.I’m done.

Posted by Karri Stokely on 12/30/2008 @ 12:25PM PST

Karri Stokely wrote: “I’m in contact with MANY people from Africa who know the truth, and are spreading it.”

Y’know, Karri just reminded me that I too know someone in Africa.

Earlier this year, I was invited to Africa by a dissident friend of mine there, to help her do a documentary on what she sees as the genocide of her people by means of poisoning with ARV drugs.

It turned out that I wasn’t able to go, not having the money to make the trip. It actually turned out, though, that if I’d gone, I’d have been her traveling companion when she and her traveling companion were arrested, held incommunicado for several days, and basically given the Guantanamo treatment, for filming without permission too close to an HIV testing/treatment facility.

So how about it, Derek — how many Africans can you say you know, and what are their stories? You do an awful lot of talking about Africa, do you know one human being on the continent?

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/30/2008 @ 12:29PM PST

There are five references to “living proof’ in this thread alone. When people who are claimed to be “living proof” die, the inevitable inference that the claim sets up is that they weren’t “living proof,” after all. Most of the people who provided testimonials for Christine Maggiore’s book had passed away already. The people being accused of being “genocidal” and “gloating” are upset because they know that the claims being believed and promoted by deniers in this thread are based on deceit.

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/30/2008 @ 12:50PM PST


Posted by Karri Stokely on 12/30/2008 @ 01:19PM PST


I’m “infected” with this deadly, killer, mutating virus 20 yrs now. Diagnosed full blown AIDS in 1996 by NOTHING but a t-cell count (29) Given 6 months to live, back then.
Told I would die right away when I quit the poison.

Swallowed your poisonous bullshit for 11 yrs, faithfully. Never missed a dose!
Finally found out the truth.

Quit the “AIDS Zone” 1 1/2 yrs ago and NEVER FELT BETTER!There’s TONS OF LIVING PROOF out there. I talk to them personally, EVERY DAY!The truth is painful when it ‘s not on your side.

Posted by Karri Stokely on 12/30/2008 @ 01:25PM PST

I know, you guys HATE these true life sagas so much that you’re coming unglued!NO OTHER DIS-EASE IN HISTORY ARE YOU CONDEMMED WHEN YOU OVERCOME! THAT’S HIV LOGIC AT IT’S BEST!

Posted by Karri Stokely on 12/30/2008 @ 01:28PM PST

I’m very suddened by the death of Christine Maggiore. It is a great loss for our campaign and the fight for the truth. All I’m asking those who have been following and supporting her to continue even stronger and not give up. If she didn’t save herself from those toxic drugs in the early nineties she wouldn’t be here with us all this time. I lost many of my friends who religiously took those toxic drugs. Even doctors today tell us those drugs killed people, but they still give them to those who are not aware and blame their death to HIV. My condolonces goes to her husband, family, friends and those she couragesly worked with. Alive and Well continues! We will miss her tremendously.

Posted by Winfred Mwebe on 12/30/2008 @ 02:36PM PST

Gos makes a good point. Hank, Derek, Seth – do you know any actual Africans? Ever been to Africa? Sponsor a child in Africa? Donate to Red Cross, Oxfam? Do you even have any African American friends? No?
Your faux concern over those “300,000” deaths of Africans is the cheapest, lowest act of cowardly disingenuousness and racism. Your faux sadness at Christine and EJ’s death while you metaphorically dance on their graves in ghoulish glee is despicable.
You might think your “dispassion” becomes you but it merely highlights what empty soulless devils you really are.

Posted by Cathy Thompson on 12/30/2008 @ 02:39PM PST

So the death of 330 thousand Africans do not matter, because “they are just a statistic”?

And you dare to call others heartless bastards? You are nothing but an uncaring, despicable racist. Yes I do know Africans with AIDS. I know of some who have been desperate to get a fraction of the care and opportunities that you lot have, but have been unable to because they cannot get treatment back in Southern Africa, and have been deported back to Zambia and South Africa because of their HIV status. There are hundreds of thousands of truly deserving people in the world struggling to get care, and you call them a “just a statistic”. You are truly, undescribably evil. You and your fellow denialists have shown yourselves to be nothing but a bunch of intolerant, bigoted, antisemitic racists. 60 years ago you would have fitted in well with the ethics of the 3rd Reich.

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/30/2008 @ 02:49PM PST

Greetings & peace to everyone. I have an extract from an article to to post, it’s somewhat long, but to the point, & non technical. I think it may be relevant to the discussion.
Its from Aids & Voodoo Hexing by Dr Matt Irwin.

[…] A more recent article by Meador appeared in the Sothern Medical Journal in 1992. Dr. Meador gave case histories of two people who received death-hexes from medicine men. The two men had very different outcomes, apparently due to the ability of one of their physicians to alter the belief structure of the patient. One of the most astounding elements of his case histories is that one of the men was a Haitian given a death hex by a medicine man, while the other was an American given a death hex unintentionally because of a false positive liver scan which appeared to indicate widespread metastatic cancer, when in actuality there was none. The “medicine man” who placed this second hex was Dr. Meador, himself, the author of the article.The first patient, a poorly educated man near death after a hex pronounced by a local voodoo priest, rapidly recovered after ingenious words and actions by his family physician. The second, who had a diagnosis of metastatic carcinoma of the esophagus, died believing he was dying of widespread cancer, as did his family and his physicians. At autopsy, only a 2 cm nodule of cancer in his liver was found. (page 244)The actions of the physician whose patient made a dramatic recovery were truly remarkable, and involved something more akin to theatre, rather than medical treatment:The patient had been ill for many weeks and had lost a large amount of weight. He looked wasted and near death. Tuberculosis or widespread cancer was considered the likely diagnosis. The patient refused to eat and continued a downward course depsite a feeding tube.
He soon reached a stage of near stupor, coming in and out of consciosness, and was barely able to talk. Only then did his wife ask to speak with Dr. Daugherty privately… The wife told him that about 4 months before hospitalization, the patient had an argument with a local voodoo priest. The priest summoned him to a local cemetery late one night, and… annonced that he had “voodooed” him, that he would die in the very near future.
Dr. Daugherty spent many hours that evening pondering… what he could do to save this moribund man. The next morning he gathered 10 or more of the patient’s kin at the bedside; they were trembling and frightened to even be associated with this doomed man. Dr. Daugherty announced in his most authoritative voice that he now knew exactly what was wrong. He told them of a harrowing encounter at midnight the night before in the local cemetery where he had lured the voodoo priest. Dr. Daugherty reported that he had… choked the priest against a tree nearly to death until the priest described exactly what he had done. Dr. Daugherty announced to the astonished patient and family “That voodoo priest made some lizard eggs climb down into your stomach and they hatched out some small lizards. All but one of them died leaving a large one which is eating up all of your food and the lining of your body. I will now get that lizard out of your sustem and cure you of this horrible curse.” With that he summoned the nurse, who had, on prearrangement, filled a large syringe with apomorphine (a powerful emetic for inducing vomiting). With great ceremony, Dr. Daugherty squirted the smallest amount of clear liquid into the air and lunged towards the patient, who by now had gathered enough strength to be sitting up wide-eyed in the bed. Although he pressed himself against the headboard trying to withdraw from the injection, Dr. Daugherty delivered the entire dose of apomorphine. With that he wheeled about, said nothing, and dramatically left the ward.
Within a few moments the patient began to vomit. When Dr. Daugherty arrived at the bedside the patient was retching, one wave of spasms after another. His head was buried in a metal basin. After several minutes of continued vomiting and at a point judged to be near its end, Dr. Daugherty pulled from his black bag, carefully and secretively, a live green lizard. At the height of the next wave of retching, he slid the lizard into the basin. He called out in a loud voice, “Look what has come out of you. You are now cured. the voodoo curse is lifted.”…
The patient’s eyes widened and his mouth fell open. He looked dazed. he then drifted into a deep sleep within a minute or two, saying nothing. The sleep lasted until the next morning. When he awoke, he was ravenous for food. Within a week the patient was discharged home, and soon regained his weight and strength. he lived another 10, or more, years, and died of an apparent heart attack. No one else in the family was affected…
I reflected on this case for many years. I could make no sense of it until I read Walter Cannon’s classic paper, “Voodoo Death”. (pages 244-245)Dr. Meador goes on to describe Cannon’s paper, and summarizes the aspects necessary to cause a voodoo hex to succeed, including deep belief in the hex by the victim, the family, and the community, as well as initial social isolation followed by expectant preparations for death. Before describing the American man who died after a false liver scan, he asks the following question: Even if such a strongly held belief could cause death, most Westerners think of hexing as a bizarre superstitious practice limited to ignorant people. It has no pertinence to modern Western society… does it? (page 245).This patient died with only a small patch of pneumonia and a small nodule of cancer in his liver. His wasting syndrome was unresponsive to antibiotics, and he died “thinking that he was dying of cancer, a belief shared by his wife, her family, his surgeons, and me, his internist” (page 246). Meador asks yet another question of the reader: “If the first patient was cured of a hex, did the second die of a hex?”.
Some of the descriptions of the first patient’s illness bear remarkable resemblance to AIDS. The patient “had lost a large amount of weight”. He looked “wasted and near death”. Tuberculosis or widespread cancer was considered the likely diagnosis, and tuberculosis is one of the most common “AIDS-defining illnesses”. Several types of cancer are also considered AIDS-defining. The patient “continued a downward course depsite a feeding tube”, showing that malnutrition alone did not explain his demise. He also suffered from severe dementia.
Kaada (1989) presents a review of research into the opposite of the placebo effect, dubbed the “nocebo” effect. This is the negative effect on health associated with harmful beliefs and psychological stressors. He comments on voodoo hexing and the ability to resist its power as follows:“In its most extreme, nocebo-stimuli may cause death, as in voodoo-death in
primitive societies, an example of the fear-paralysis reflex. Whether the outcome is
positive or negative is determined, inter alia, by the subject’s possibility of coping with the situation.”This could explain why some people live for years after an HIV diagnosis with no ill health, while others succomb in much shorter time.

Posted by Jason Hart on 12/30/2008 @ 02:52PM PST

By the way, I’m born-and-bred South African, presently residing in South Africa, have all my life, & I tell you the truth: I have never met anyone with Aids. It’s easy to mythologize the Dark Continent – who’s going to argue? The West has been doing it for centuries. 330 000 dead from not getting ARV’s? It’s a cooked up number, a thumbsuck!

Posted by Jason Hart on 12/30/2008 @ 02:57PM PST

A South African Prison Medical Officer’s Letter To The BMJ

Posted by Jason Hart on 12/30/2008 @ 02:59PM PST


Time to go bye-bye. You’ve LONG worn out your welcome.
This site is called
You are through here.

Posted by Karri Stokely on 12/30/2008 @ 03:12PM PST

Any suggestion how we can continue to network (newsgroup, etc.) after this discussion has ended? (Seth / Derek, you’re not invited)

Posted by Jason Hart on 12/30/2008 @ 03:25PM PST

Whatever you think of Dr. Mercola, he didn’t make up the statistics…

Drugs and Doctors May be the Leading Cause of Death in U.S.

By Joseph Mercola, D.O.

At one time, the main title of my Web site read:

Doctors are the Third leading Cause of Death

Many of you reading this have read or seen this in many places other than my Web site. This article, available on my home page, was widely circulated on the Internet and was one of the reasons why my Web site was initially popular. What you may not realize is that I am the one who made this analysis and popularized it. The original study was published by Dr. Starfield, a full professor of public health at the most prestigious hospital in the United States, Johns Hopkins. Her study never had the headline in it, but instead listed the published research documenting the various causes of deaths that doctors contributed to. I simply added them all up and compared them to cardiovascular diseases and cancer and came up with the above headline, which was widely circulated on the Internet.

Interestingly, when I contacted Dr. Starfield by e-mail she disagreed with the headline I had come up with. She did not feel that doctors were the third leading cause of death, but thought they were the number one cause of death because of their failure to inform their patients about the truth of health. Now this might be a bit too harsh as even if people understand health truth they have freedom of choice and can choose to use sugar, soda and drugs (legal and illegal) to compromise their health and longevity.

However, JAMA actually published a study a year earlier that could support that doctors may be the leading cause of death in the United States.

This finding is more of a speculation though, so below I have provided some other studies to support this assertion….


As health reporter Nick Regush said last year:

“There is no way to be nice about this. There is no point in raising false hopes. There is no treatment or vaccine in sight. There is no miracle breakthrough on the horizon.

Medicine, as we know it, is dying. It’s entering a terminal phase.

What began as an acute illness reached the chronic stage about a decade ago and progression toward death has been remarkably swift and well beyond anything one could have predicted.

The disease is caused by conflict of interest, tainted research, greed for big bucks, pretentious doctors and scientists, lying, cheating, invasion by the morally bankrupt marketing automatons of the drug industry, derelict politicians and federal and state regulators – all seasoned with huge doses of self-importance and foul odor.”

Posted by David Collins on 12/30/2008 @ 03:33PM PST

Shame: A Major Reason Why Most Medical Doctors Don’t Change Their Views

By Frank Davidoff

In the 1960s the results of a large randomized controlled study by the University Group Diabetes Program showed that tolbutamide, virtually the only blood sugar lowering agent available at the time in pill form, was associated with a significant increase in mortality in patients who developed myocardial infarction.

The obvious response from the medical profession should have been gratitude: here was an important way to improve the safety of clinical practice. But in fact the response was doubt, outrage, even legal proceedings against the investigators; the controversy went on for years.


An important clue surfaced at the annual meeting of the American Diabetes Association soon after the study was published. During the discussion a practitioner stood up and said he simply could not, and would not, accept the findings, because admitting to his patients that he had been using an unsafe treatment would shame him in their eyes. Other examples of such reactions to improvement efforts are not hard to find.

Indeed, it is arguable that shame is the universal dark side of improvement.

Posted by David Collins on 12/30/2008 @ 03:41PM PST

Hilarious Derek
Your strawman argument sucks. You know exactly what Gos meant – that the deaths are a statistic and don’t matter to YOU. How did the fair Max arrive at this figure? The same way all epidemiologists and scientists do when the feel their funding might be threatened – using the finest GIGO technology to pull the biggest figure, to cause the greatest amount of hysteria, out of their rear ends. Chicken little science at its worst.
“Yaaaah!! 400,000 lives lost due to obesity!!!” I don’t know about you Derek but I’ve never encountered “smothered by his own adiposity” on a death certificate.
“Waaaaah! Waaaaah! The chicken flu is coming… wait… and everyone is gonna die… wait… it’s coming… it’s just around the corner… and did I tell you we’re all gonna die… any day now… is it here yet??”
“Aaaarrrgh! The whole of Africa is going to be wiped out by the HIV plague!!!” Still waiting Derek.
If you cannot see that all these dire predictions are based nothing more than financial and political ends then you are either the most naïve person on the planet or the biggest liar.
Amateur. Now get out of the sandbox.

Posted by Cathy Thompson on 12/30/2008 @ 04:07PM PST

Karri, when you were taking “poisons” consistently for 11 years, did you have a lot of side effects? Were able to go about your life OK or were you debilitated? Did you feel much better as soon as you stopped?

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/30/2008 @ 04:16PM PST

J.P. Moore has NEVER been to Africa but tried to design a vaginal Bactericide for Afrcan women to protect them “black male-imposed HIV infection”. All he produced was a science FAIL through more “HIV-infection”.

Bias is a dead-end.

Posted by pat moore on 12/30/2008 @ 04:25PM PST


Why, on earth, are you interested?

Posted by Karri Stokely on 12/30/2008 @ 04:40PM PST

People are being accused of promoting genocide, disfigurement, poisoning. You’re saying you took poisons for 11 years and I was hoping you might explain more about how they poisoned you. Btw David, please don’t put words in my mouth, I did not say anything about the cause of Christine Maggiore’s death and I most certainly did not wish her or her family harm. If you are concerned about speculation regarding Christine’s death, please take note that “Rethinking AIDS” has already posted as statement:
“We wish it to be known that Christine’s HIV status was not a factor in her death, nor could it have been. ”
Liam Scheff has written to the LA Times:
“She was wane, tired, exhausted, worn out, worked too much, too often, alone, didn’t eat enough, was still grieving for her daughter, and never stopped to grieve, I think.”
A number of people are offering opinions on the “AIDS Myth Exposed” message board:
Including Michael Geiger: “From what I am aware, Christine passed from the wear and tear of ever more stress.” and Alain: “She has died because she certainly took antibiotics. This is what killed her.”

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/30/2008 @ 04:58PM PST

A message from Robin Scovill:

Dear Friends,

It is with deep sorrow that I tell you my wife, Christine Maggiore, died unexpectedly on December 27th. She leaves behind our son, Charlie, and the memory of our daughter, Eliza Jane.

Christine was a beacon of hope for many people whose lives, like her own, had been turned upside down by an HIV positive diagnosis. When she received this devastating label in 1992, Christine—in spite of predictions that she had five years to live—did not give up, but devoted her life to helping others. For several years she was a public speaker for AIDS Project Los Angeles, LA Shanti Foundation and was a founding board member of Women At Risk. It was in the process of trying to find a doctor that she felt comfortable dying with that Christine starting getting conflicting information from AIDS experts, particularly troubling in the search to save her own life. One doctor in particular suggested that Christine retest and she finally did, testing HIV negative, positive and indeterminate over a dozen times insubsequent months. She was shocked. Christine took her questions and confusion to the very AIDS organizations that she was helping to build and their unanimous dismissal of her inquiries forced Christine to look outward. This series of events profoundly shook her faith in mainstream AIDS beliefs and sent her down a rabbit hole of exploration that would challenge everything that she had been led to believe.

Over the subsequent years, Christine’s research put her in touch with people all over the world whose work and commitment to open dialog and debate caused her to rethink everything she had been taught to teach others about HIV and AIDS. Most importantly, it led her to question the absolute assertion that an HIV positive diagnosis meant she had to die.

In 1995, Christine set out to assemble a three-fold brochure outlining a series of facts that had been most compelling in her search for truth. That brochure turned into the first incarnation of her seminal book, What If Everything You Thought You Knew About AIDS Was Wrong? It took Christine years to unearth the many studies, writings and facts that began to alleviate the shame and terror of her HIV diagnosis. Her desire was to create something concise and informative and empowering that she could give to others who had received a similar diagnosis and who were ashamed and terrified and alone.

Christine’s book—now in it’s 4th edition— has been translated into seven languages; her monumental work with her non-profit organization, Alive and Well AIDS Alternatives, has redefined what we think about AIDS; and her tireless communications, writings and pod casts have touched thousands of lives around the world and continue to provide a beacon of hope for anyone who lives in fear of AIDS.

In spite of Christine’s strength, she was also under tremendous pressure and scrutiny. She often felt that she wasn’t allowed to get sick like other people. After her daughter died in 2005 of an allergic reaction to an antibiotic for an ear infection, the LA County Coroner—ignoring evidence to the contrary—declared it a death from AIDS and Christine’s suffering increased horribly. She was vilified in the world media and harassed by outspoken opponents of her work who openly gloated that this was her just comeuppance. She and her family endured a yearlong criminal investigation that not only terrorized them, but also robbed them of an opportunity to mourn the loss of their daughter. That loss was twisted into sensationalized and mean-spirited television episodes that portrayed Christine as a quack and a murderer and ultimately as dead. Christine never fully recovered from the unjust treatment that she received around the loss of Eliza Jane and that treatment ultimately exhausted her.

A week and a half ago, Christine was diagnosed with bilateral pneumonia and did not conjure the strength to overcome it. She died unexpectedly in her home with her husband and a dear friend. Christine Maggiore’s death is a shock and devastating blow to her family and to the thousands of people around the world who loved and respected her.

For anyone who lives in fear of an HIV or AIDS diagnosis, Christine’s legacy will live on. She was committed to sharing vital facts and essential dialog that would give HIV positive people everywhere the chance to consider a destiny that differs from the one of death and despair that they are taught to expect. For that she was loved.

Christine will be deeply missed.

A memorial will be planned within the next couple of weeks but please join us at our home tonight (Tuesday Dec. 30) for an informal gathering of friends and family. Please bring your musical instruments.

We are gathering from 1pm today well into the night.

Our address is:
5806 Tobias Ave.Van Nuys, CA 91411

-Robin Scovill

….I guess that just about says it all, and I couldn’t have said it better myself.

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/30/2008 @ 05:11PM PST

Thanks Gos for sharing that. My sincerest condolences to Robin and Charlie.

Posted by Cathy Thompson on 12/30/2008 @ 05:27PM PST

There is also a posting by Celia Farber.

What Killed Christine Maggiore?by Celia FarberI got the devastating news yesterday that my very good friend Christine Maggiore died at home on December 27th, from a bout of bilateral bronchial pneumonia, that afflicted her in recent weeks, and which she was unable to overcome.The news has been shattering to all who loved her around the world. Speaking for myself, I can say that Christine Maggiore was one of the strongest, most ethical, compassionate, intelligent, brave, funny, and decent human beings I have ever had the honor to know. I spoke to her in great depth about all aspects of life, death, love, and this battle we both found ourselves mired in, and I will be writing about her and about those conversations here, in the future. No matter what she was going through, and it was always, frankly, sheer hell–every day of her life, since 2005, she faced, acute grief, sadistic persecution, wild injustice, relentless battle, and deep betrayal–she was always there for her friends, and she never descended to human ugliness. She always tried to take the high road. She always tried to be stronger than any human being could ever be asked to be. I feared for her life, always. I feared the battle would kill her, as I have felt it could kill me, if I couldn’t find enough beauty to offset the malevolence. This is a deeply occult battle, and Christine got caught in its darkest shadows.She had apparently been on a radical cleansing and detox regimen that had sickened her and left her very weak, dehydrated, and unable to breathe. She was shortly thereafter diagnosed with pneumonia and placed on IV antibiotics and rehydration. But she didn’t make it.Those who loved her, as I did, have our own interpretations of what ultimately killed her–a combination of unrelenting heartbreak and the effect of being subject to a constant, unrelenting media driven hate campaign, despite the complete legal clearing of her name in the death of her daughter Eliza Jane in 2005, who died after taking an antibiotic, and whose cause of death has been tortuously debated. Christine and her husband Robin were denied the right to adopt a child, or foster a child, due to a single article in the L.A. Times which cast her as a murderer.Here below is the letter that Robin Scovill sent out. I ask that people try to respect this family’s agony, and refrain from hurtful speculation in whatever they choose to comment. We all agree that it is imperative that an impartial and thorough autopsy bring to light all facts about Christine’s cause of death, and the state of her immune system, and how these facts might bring us all closer to the ultimate truth we all seek. She had been HIV positive since 1990, and never had an AIDS defining illness. Her foes have predictably begun their attacks, and there is already a misleading statement from the LA County Coroner’s office, against whom Christine was scheduled to testify two days from when she died, stating that she had had pneumonia for six months. This is incorrect, but helps foster the impression that it was an AIDS related pneumonia (PCP) which is a longer term illness.

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/30/2008 @ 05:28PM PST

The whole HIV-AIDS fiasco is the Stanford Prison Experiment on a global scale. Where the “guards” loyal to the “theory of imprisonment” developed extremely sadistic tendencies towards the “prisoners” because they thought they were “doing the right thing”.
Substitute scientists/doctors for the guards and “HIV-positives” for the prisoners, allocated in random manner by a coin toss (the unvalidated “HIV” test) and you get a look at what drives the defenders of “the faith”. Just like the students in the original study these “guards” have immersed themselves so deeply in their given roles (superiority and power) they have no perspective on what they are doing. Only in the global HIV-AIDS “experiment” there is no Zimbardo to call a halt.
It also has elements of Milgram’s recently replicated study. Dr Burger found that most (70%) humans are willing to inflict horrible suffering on innocent people if an authority figure told them to. Those willing to inflict the shocks to the highest voltage were described as “those prone to obedience”.
One of the things the dissidents are constantly accused of is not agreeing with each other. Sure, defenders of “the faith” are unwavering in their united assertion that “HIV” causes AIDS. We the dissidents squabble amongst ourselves because we are NOT PRONE TO OBEDIENCE.

Posted by Cathy Thompson on 12/30/2008 @ 05:52PM PST

So every medical professional in the world is an ignorant monster, and Cathy Thompson’s unique insight trumps them all. Do you have a theory as to why people failed to be cowed by Bob Gallo’s attempt to convince them that HIV belong to the HTLV family and should be called HTLV-III? Is Gallo not one of your favorite authority figures? He also didn’t do too well in covering up the sequencing studies which showed he had been working initially with an isolate from Pasteur – what happened there?

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/30/2008 @ 06:05PM PST

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/30/2008 @ 04:58PM PST
…Btw David, please don’t put words in my mouth, I did not say anything about the cause of Christine Maggiore’s death and I most certainly did not wish her or her family harm…

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/30/2008 @ 12:50PM PST:
“There are five references to “living proof’ in this thread alone. When people who are claimed to be “living proof” die, the inevitable inference that the claim sets up is that they weren’t “living proof,” after all.” Most of the people who provided testimonials for Christine Maggiore’s book had passed away already…”

Your post, and please don’t pretend it’s not what you meant, insinuates that she was not “living proof” because she died of some kind of AIDS related complications and this was a non too subtle “gloating”. So, yes, you did say something about the cause of her death. If she did not die from any HIV or AIDS related issues then she was still “living proof” that HIV does not kill, because that’s not what killed her… regardless of what you obviously want to insinuate.

As far as I know, people who have been stigmatized with a “HIV diagnosis” have never claimed they were immortal and immune to all forms of death. We are certainly not immune to constant stress of harassment and trying to defend ourselves against the likes of you.

BTW – SETH, DEREK, HANK – talk all you want, as far as I’m concerned you guys are just the lowest form of life and I will no longer respond to your baiting and bullsh*t. I have nothing to gain from deceiving anyone, but I really, really think you do.

Posted by David Collins on 12/30/2008 @ 06:25PM PST

You didn’t understand what I meant. I meant exactly what I wrote, which is that citing “living proof” sets up the inference. You write: “that’s not what killed her” so it appears your anger about speculation regarding Maggiore’s death only pertains to speculation that it was caused by HIV infection, not speculation that it wasn’t.

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/30/2008 @ 06:43PM PST

Bless you Hank. I sure do love you. Stick around and continue spreading your light. You are a “Godsend” to the world and we all desperately need you. I wish I could give a great big hug right now. Your presence here has been nothing but a delight. Please, please continue to enlighten us with your knowledge and wisdom though we may be so unworthy.

Posted by David Collins on 12/30/2008 @ 06:57PM PST

Hank – more obfuscation. I don’t personally give a stuff what Gallo wanted to call “it”. What he should have more appropriately named “it” was “the snark hunting virus”.

Posted by Cathy Thompson on 12/30/2008 @ 07:04PM PST

Cathy – I’m curious. Why equate Hank Barnes with myself and other anti-denialist people – when Barnes has a denialist blog?

Also – how on Earth did you know I had a bunny? You must have a lot of time on your hands to have dug that pearl up. Sadly not enough to realize that it’s not the only “kid” I have. I imagine your research into AIDS and HIV is just as rigorous.

What a curious idea this is anyway. Thankfully our new President has two braincells to rub together, or else this might actually get somewhere…phew.



Posted by Nick Bennett on 12/30/2008 @ 07:17PM PST

You’re making an extraordinary and serious accusation about the integrity of millions of people Cathy so yes, you do need to explain. How is your claim – that a false proposition regarding the role of HIV in AIDS has gone obediently unchallenged – compatible with the fact that Gallo’s proposition that the virus was related to HTLV was challenged and not accepted?

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/30/2008 @ 07:19PM PST

Bennett – how do you know I don’t live next door?
Hank when Gallo wanted to name his virus HTLV-III he didn’t occupy quite the “revered” position he does now – thanks to the mythical snark hunting virus.

Posted by Cathy Thompson on 12/30/2008 @ 07:29PM PST

Cathy – because if you did you’d know I didn’t just have a bunny 🙂

Posted by Nick Bennett on 12/30/2008 @ 07:36PM PST

Jason Hart wrote: “By the way, I’m born-and-bred South African, presently residing in South Africa, have all my life, & I tell you the truth: I have never met anyone with Aids. It’s easy to mythologize the Dark Continent – who’s going to argue? The West has been doing it for centuries. 330 000 dead from not getting ARV’s? It’s a cooked up number, a thumbsuck!”

Jason,I don’t really have a comment on your post, I just thought what you said bears repeating.

Derek has claimed before that he’s saved hundreds of lives of HIV-positives, and that he’s listened to their hopes and dreams (somehow he managed to work all of their hopes and dreams into the 23 seconds that the average medical professional spends listening to his patient,) and yet not a single one of his patients, nor any HIV-positive who would speak in his defense, has graced us with their presence. In fact, to the contrary, by now more than a dozen HIV-positive long-term survivors have popped by to contradict him, but of course, they’re all HIV-positive, so they’re all in denial.

Now, he’s claiming to have all sorts of HIV-positive friends in Africa, but the only Africans in this room are (much like the HIV-positives,) apparently in denial, because the Africans in the room are saying (much like the HIV-positives) that Derek is not quite the saviour that he makes himself out to be. His claims to know people in Africa are as devoid of meaning as his statistics.

But, we’re supposed to shed tears over the number 330,000 which does not correspond to one human life, much less 330,000, having been spit out by a computer whose input data was not from surveillance on the ground, but from the previous year’s estimates, minus the previous year’s overestimates as documented on the ground.

For those who have never researched AIDS (so-called) “statistics”, allow me to give you an example of what passes for stastistics in HIV-land:

Since 2000, the number of HIV-positives in the world has increased from 42 million to 33 million.

Allow me to repeat that: Since 2002, the number of HIV-positives in the world has increased from 42 million to 33 million. (Source: WHO

“Now, Gos,” you say, your eyes wide, “C’mon, how can that be? Don’t you mean that it decreased from 42 million, rather than that it increased?”

“Nope, it increased,” I would tell you, “Every single year there are more new infections than deaths, but every single year, the total number of HIV-positives shrinks.”

In fact, if you look at the numbers (, you’ll find that since the beginning of the millennium, tens of millions of HIV-positives have apparently just evaporated into thin air, leaving no trace at all, almost as if they never existed in the first place.

Apparently, in addition to all of its other Sci-Fi Channel abilities, HIV can cause spontaneous evaporation. Man, screw finding a cure for AIDS, I don’t wanna evaporate!

But seriously, the real reason (Derek will back me up on this,) is that every year our surveillance methods get better and better, and so the numbers get more and more accurate as past overestimations are corrected. Funny how the more accurate the numbers get, the closer they get to zero.

I actually wrote a whole article about this, for anyone who wants to read it. It’s called The Incredible Shrinking Pandemic. (

So Derek hands us his phony baloney tales of all the AIDS patients he has personally comforted and whose lives he has saved through the miracle of modern medicine, and all the nonexistent friends he has on the African continent — even though not one African or HIV-positive in present company has had anything to say in support of him or his “lifesaving” medicine, and spouts this computer-generated number, and unless we are all cold, heartless bastards, we must believe every unsubstantiated claim he makes, and get all teary-eyed over a number that comes with not a single name attached, and whose origin is a WHO computer that has been consistently wrong, year after year after year.

Especially about Africa. Did you know that the current adult seroprevalence in Sub-Saharan Africa, according to the most recent figures, is only 5%? (Source: Kaiser Family Foundation

“But wait, Gos,” you say, your eyes widening even more, “Isn’t Sub-Saharan Africa the place where they used to say, way back when, that more than half the population had HIV? What happened to all those HIV-positives in Sub-Saharan Africa? Did they all die?”

“Nope,” I would say, “In fact, for the past 25 years, the population of Africa has grown at twice the rate in the U.S. — We’ve grown at an average of 1.5% per year, and Africa has grown at a steady 3% per year, consistently for the past 25 years. Apparently, all those HIV-positives in Sub-Saharan Africa simply evaporated. I blame Thabo M’beki, damn his denialist hide, sitting around doing nothing while millions of his people evaporate into thin air.”


Now, having said all of this, I have to concede to our opponents. I was wrong, and Derek may well be the proof of this — the fact that there’s been no vaccine, no cure, and no treatment that isn’t more deadly than HIV itself may well not be because HIV doesn’t exist, or doesn’t cause AIDS.

I’ve been assuming, all this time, that the colossal failure of the War on AIDS was because HIV didn’t exist, and so all of the people on the front lines of the War on AIDS were simply barking up the wrong tree.

However, now that I’ve met Derek, I note that he is one of the few people here who has spent more time in our little corner of the blogosphere than I have over the past several days, and I’m unemployed/self-employed, where Derek tells us that he’s got 500 AIDS patients in his care.

If Derek has so much time on his hands, who is caring for his patients, while he parks his butt in cyberspace, calling people names and dancing on the graves of innocent women and children? And if Derek is in any way exemplary of those on the front lines of the War on AIDS, is it any wonder we’re losing?

Folks, it may well not be that HIV doesn’t exist, or that it doesn’t cause AIDS, but that the whole reason our “best and brightest scientists” can’t seem to beat (or even figure out) HIV is that they’re a bunch of Dereks who spend most of the time idly boasting about how many lives they’ve saved and how many AIDS patients whose hopes and dreams they’ve shared, instead of doing their jobs.

[pause for dramatic effect]

ROFL …Nah, I’m just yankin’ yer chain. Seriously, there’s no such thing as a “virus that causes AIDS”, whether or not all of the Dereks in the failed War on AID$ are doing their jobs.

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/30/2008 @ 07:38PM PST

10 yrs I spent on the drugs thinking there was no reason to question. Mono therapy AZT about killed me multiple times same goes for the protease cocktails.
Thanks to you dissenters I am now 4 years cocktail free and enjoying wonderful physical health.
AZT was forced on my unborn son until he was spontaneously aborted. My x-wife is permanently handicapped from the cocktail (strokes & seizers) I have never witnessed in my own body or another a AIDS symptom only drug side effect horrors.
The pain is too much for me so I must forgive or be destroyed.
I have been following this thread and wanting to share but it has been so hard…
Christine’s death tipped the balance and I am speaking up
Thank you dissenters so very much for helping me make an informed choice about the most toxic drugs ever approved for long term human consumption in the free world

Posted by tracy ellis on 12/30/2008 @ 07:54PM PST

Thank you, Tracy.

…Hey, Derek. Psssst…where are the testimonials of all the patients you’ve saved? Perhaps you should give your friends in Africa a call and see if they can give you a lil help over here…

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/30/2008 @ 08:08PM PST

In answer to your question to my wife….

“Karri, when you were taking “poisons” consistently for 11 years, did you have a lot of side effects? Were able to go about your life OK or were you debilitated? Did you feel much better as soon as you stopped? “Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/30/2008 @ 04:16PM PST

Don’t twist my words around. These poisons made her sick very slowly over the years. I think if she had been diagnosed before they lowered the azt dosage, she would be dead now. She would also be dead if she had not lived a healthy life by being on these poisons. I guess it makes more sense to keep patients alive and slowly poisoning them so the docs and pharmas will have longer living customers. More money in their pockets, less for the undertaker.

Yes many side effects but we were always led to believe it was disease progression, hence the prescribing of more drugs. If she wants to be specific about all the side effects, I’ll let her tell you. All I will say is that the vomiting stopped, migraines stopped, many other things went away, the color came back to her face, and the classic AIDS wasting syndrome look went away. We also don’t worry about her dying anymore. Hey as a sidebar she feels a lot healthier today. We don’t know or care about the silly surrogate markers. All I know is that I have a wife that is a lot healthier today than she ever was during the 11 years of hell. Its strange that AIDS drugs have the same side effects that the dis-ease is supposed to cause????? It makes you wonder.

If you are promoting these poisons, I would love to see you take them for 11 years straight. Why would anybody want to destroy a perfectly good liver because they have a phantom virus?

Do me a favor, can you please leave this message board? You and your buddies don’t belong here. I think there are many message boards for those like you that believe/perpetuate this deception that HIV causes AIDS. You have taken a perfectly good forum and turned it in to a big argument. We all have lost a very good friend here but you and your buddies are gloating over some perceived victory in the death of Christine. I’m sure the good Lord knows your heart.

Posted by joe stokely on 12/30/2008 @ 08:14PM PST

Thanks for the post. i’m glad to hear that you are healthy now and saddened to hear about your ex-wife. Is your ex off the drugs too?take care,joe

Posted by joe stokely on 12/30/2008 @ 08:19PM PST

Nick Bennett,
Aren’t you the “doctor” on AIDSTRUTH? LOL 🙂

Posted by joe stokely on 12/30/2008 @ 08:26PM PST


Well he sure ain’t the doctor on “Scrubs”, though he’s got a real talent for making me wanna laugh out loud.

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/30/2008 @ 08:33PM PST

I’m amazed. We have people here saying no one in South Africa has AIDS and people still wonder why we call it “denial”?

Gos, you had beter look at your source again. It’s a good one, using the latest UNAIDS data, and deserves more than having you cherrypick one single statistic out to try and make a point (Adult African seroprevalence is 5%)

It says AIDS cases rose from 22 million to 33 million. Even if the earlier figure is a revised and more accurate estimate, this hardly means cases are vanishing to zero.

Regarding seroprevalence in Sub Saharan Africa , you missed the bit where it says:
“In 9 countries, more than 10% of adults are already estimated to be HIV positive. South Africa is estimated to have more than 5 million people living with HIV/AIDS, the highest in the world, and almost one in five South African adults is HIV positive. Swaziland has the highest prevalence rate in the world (26.1%).”

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/30/2008 @ 08:34PM PST

He’s not a real doctor, He only plays one on aidstruth.

Posted by joe stokely on 12/30/2008 @ 08:40PM PST

“Forgive or be destroyed.”

I think that’s important for many to understand. Forgiving is helpful even if it doesn’t seem like a necessity actually, it allows one to focus on what really matters, like solutions for example… Anger, hatred etc. blurs the person’s vision and messes up the path taken.

Posted by Sadun Kal on 12/30/2008 @ 08:54PM PST

Sadun Kal, with all respect sometimes anger is appropriate. There is a strong correlation between appropriate anger and compassion.

Posted by Cathy Thompson on 12/30/2008 @ 09:10PM PST

Derek – it’s not worth the time or energy. According to the AIDS denialists the testing sites in Africa don’t test (despite statements to the contrary), the tests are picking up cross-reactions anyway (despite the literature not supporting that, if you can plough their their exhaustive references), and even if they are picking something up called HIV it’s harmless in any case (despite case reports, cohort studies and clinical trials saying otherwise). UNAIDS is fabricating its data to get more money, and in any case we’re all in the pocked of Big Pharma, so anything we say otherwise is proof that we’re just been bought out.

I gave up engaging in one-on-one debate when I found myself reposting data and arguments from previous years. For example here’s a post I made on similar points to your own from back in 1999

I feel gratified that my efforts weren’t wasted… You can perhaps see why the term dissidents was switched to denialists. I found myself educating only those who hadn’t already made up their minds, so instead I focus on doing that in a slightly more structured way, and I occasionally pop into odd places like this to prod a little.

Joe – I’m the one and the same, although I find it amusing that the denialists find the need to put my job description in quotes.



Posted by Nick Bennett on 12/30/2008 @ 09:12PM PST


Appropriate? Probably.
The most productive way for finding solutions to problems? Unlikely.

Posted by Sadun Kal on 12/30/2008 @ 09:16PM PST

Derek Neumann is a fake – and not a very convincing one. On the vaccine thread he said: “Yes, there are a lot of additives in vaccines, mostly to ensure the safety and sterility of the vaccine. Aluminum has become the new mercury, but has been used in vaccines since time immemorial,” Aluminium is NOT the new mercury – mercury is a preservative. Aluminium is an adjuvant added when attenuated virus, or LPS does not produce enough of an antibody response.

Nick – is this an example of fine upstanding behaviour by your contemporaries?

“Behind the door, authorities say, is a Medicare racket. Manassas Medical Center in Doral has billed the taxpayer-funded insurance program for therapy that patients with HIV or AIDS haven’t received. Among the men stepping in on a June morning is Alexander McCray, who regularly stops at Manassas and dozens of Miami-Dade clinics.
McCray, a 40-year-old Opa-locka resident, admits he pockets thousands of dollars in kickbacks in exchange for giving the clinics his Medicare number to bill the agency for phony HIV infusion treatments. Manassas is among hundreds of Medicare-licensed clinics in South Florida that defraud the system with fake HIV-drug claims, according to federal claim records and authorities.

”Yup, yup, just saving lives – nothing to see here!

Posted by Cathy Thompson on 12/30/2008 @ 09:19PM PST

Derek Neumann wrote: “Gos, you had beter look at your source again. It’s a good one, using the latest UNAIDS data, and … It says AIDS cases rose from 22 million to 33 million.”


Thank you for playing…..

… right into my hands (sucker).

First of all, you should learn the difference between HIV and AIDS, because the document in question doesn’t say that AIDS cases rose from 22 million to 33 million. First of all, a 50% increase in a single year, 25 years into the epidemic, would certainly be pretty spectacular, but that’s not what it says at all to begin with. Second, the 33 million figure refers to HIV-positives, not AIDS cases. You’d think a guy who doesn’t know the difference between antibody immunity and current infection could at least learn the difference between HIV and AIDS.

…But let’s let that slide, because there are bigger fish to fry here, and here’s where you played right into my hands.

I’m glad you’re impressed with my sources, because I have another fact sheet from the previous year, from the same source:

According to this document, the number of HIV-positives at the end of calendar year 2006 was 39.5 million.

Now, returning to the document you cited, let’s see what we can cherry-pick there:

Now, let’s see here — it says that there were 3 million new infections, and 2 million deaths in 2007.


39.5 million + 3 million – 2 million = 33.2 million???

Wait, wait! I can’t possibly have added that right. Let me try again.

39.5 million + 3 million – 2 million = 33.2 million

Where’d the other 7.3 million HIV-positives go? Did that many people simply evaporate in a single year?

Now, let’s take 7.3 million nonexistent HIV-positives, and compare it to the handsome figure of, say, 330,000.

7.3 million / 330,000 = 22.12 times more HIV-positives who never actually existed, LAST YEAR ALONE, than your estimate of how many died as a result of M’beki’s policies.

Go Gosmer, itsya birfday! Go Gosmer, itsya birfday!

— Gos

And on that winning note I’m gonna say “‘Nite y’all” — I’m gonna give it a rest, before the effort of slugging it out with these Neanderthals puts me in the same place it put Christine. I would suggest that some of my more exhausted compatriots do the same (Cathy, I’m looking in your direction…?)

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/30/2008 @ 09:20PM PST

I sincerely wish the best to everyone here, regardless of anything I’ve posted in the “heat of the moment”. I hope that the subject of “HIV” and “AIDS” soon becomes nothing but a part of history. I hope that we can learn some really big lessons from it all and make some really “positive” changes so that all those people that have died, will not have totally done so in vain.

Since I have an open mind, I am susceptible to changing my mind. It was not easy to learn that there was another side to the “AIDS” story. I didn’t want to believe it. It hurt to believe it. Also, I have been an outcast as a gay person then I have been an outcast of the gay community because I have very, very strong doubts about the “official” HIV story. How much more outcast can one get? And they tell me it’s a choice!

“Chronic social isolation is linked to heart disease—it stresses the entire cardiovascular system—and can also hurt our ability to fend off colds and other viruses. But the cause of those connections has been unclear.” The HIV/AIDS stigma becomes a self fulfilling prophecy – or a curse – depending on which direction it’s coming from and how one reacts to it.

In many ways it was much easier before I knew. I struggle with this every day. I have not stopped educating myself, I continue to do research every day.

I am human and I have doubts about many things. But, I have no one to really depend on but myself and my partner because my trust has been severely betrayed. Somewhere along the way information was not forthcoming because I was not given a complete picture of my situation by ANY of the caregivers I’ve dealt with in the last 15 years of my “stigma”. Of course I believe that nearly all of them were unwitting accomplices that didn’t know anything more than what they were “taught”.

I will never have a “complete” picture because I am not a doctor or a scientist and therefore much of the material out there is Greek to me. I have find others out there that I can trust that can understand the technical stuff and can interpret it fairly and honestly to me as a lay person. I have to look at the motives of the people who are saying what they are saying. I have to read as much as I can possibly understand and stretch myself each time to understand more. I have to listen to my “gut feeling”. I have to take into account many factors and then come to a conclusion based on the information that I know up to that date.

See, I’m not a doctor or a scientist – and I don’t even work in the field as a clerk or a technician or play one on tv – but I’m not stupid. I can think for myself and I am capable of learning. I’m not a genious but I don’t consider myself the typical “dumbed down” American either.

That’s all I have to say. I’m going to continue to make as many people as possible aware of the fact that there is a side to this HIV/AIDS story that the mainstream does not want them to know about. I’m going to continue to ask people to do their own research and to make up their own minds based on their own conclusions.

Posted by David Collins on 12/30/2008 @ 09:25PM PST

This is relevant, watch the referenced video:

Read: The HIV/AIDS establishment becomes so adept at creating the illusion of helping people as best as they can that they come to believe that they actually achieve it…

Posted by Sadun Kal on 12/30/2008 @ 09:36PM PST

Or read: The HIV/AIDS establishment becomes so adept at deceptively portraying those with reasonable questions as lunatics that they actually come to believe that asking any question is just insane…

Posted by Sadun Kal on 12/30/2008 @ 10:36PM PST


Nick Bennett always feels he has to explain why he is limiting himself to popping in and “prodding a little” – AKA trolling. Above he has given one of his usual excuses for this cowardly approach.

“I gave up engaging in one-on-one debate when I found myself reposting data and arguments from previous years.”

The fact is that Nick Bennett gave up one-on-one debates because he repeatedly got his butt kicked when he tried to debate informed Rethinkers, such as the Perth Group or Dr. Jeffrey Dach. That is the reason he has chosen to hide behind the group anomymity offered on AIDStruthdotorg. Click this link for an informative account of a collegial exchange, which made even the shameless Dr.Bennett blush briefly:

Nick Bennett has been one of the chief smear merchants attacking Christine Maggiore. Needless to say, he has been too busy saving livelihoods to be able to meet her in person, although not too busy to post his uninformed opinions about her everywhere.

For comic relief I recommend a read through the verbal contortions Christine Maggiore (writing under the pseudonym Casey Cohen) elicited from Nick “the TV Doc” Bennett when she asked him to defend some of his claims against the persons he had smeared.

This is a beautiful illustration of Christine’s wit and fearless spirit contrasted with the sheer cowardice of the witch hunters. Please note how much time and energy the good doc spends on explaining why his schedule is too busy for him to respond to requests (-:

Posted by Ruairidh MacDonald on 12/30/2008 @ 11:58PM PST

Sadun Kal said (on 12/30/2008 @ 8:54PM PST): “Forgive or be destroyed.”

Anger and hatred are destructive, I agree.

But you can only forgive someone who has acknowledged his mistake and stopped destroying other lives. We do not want to go so far as becoming silent accomplices.

Posted by Maria Papagiannidou on 12/31/2008 @ 12:17AM PST

There seems to be a discrepancy in regards to the VOTE COUNT for this “Take a New Look at the Cause of Aids” issue.

So far our issue shows a whopping 370 comments but only 134 confirmed votes have been registered by so much activity. And since yesterday there have been many new posters commenting on Christine Maggiore’s passing.

The issue above us in second place shows a mere 4 comments in relation to 159 votes…Please explain this to me.

Posted by Anthony Tarpin on 12/31/2008 @ 12:26AM PST

There seems to be a discrepancy in regards to the VOTE COUNT for this “Take a New Look at the Cause of Aids” issue.

So far our issue shows a whopping 370 comments but only 134 confirmed votes have been registered by so much activity. And since yesterday there have been many new posters commenting on Christine Maggiore’s passing.

The issue above us in second place shows a mere 4 comments in relation to 159 votes…Please explain this to me.

Posted by Anthony Tarpin on 12/31/2008 @ 12:26AM PST

well, guess that the HIV proponents manage to use christine maggiore’s death to make people confuse and causes fear among those who arent and are infected…unfortunately. Her death timing couldnt be better for those people.

because for those who are infected, it’s really clear-cut. They know what is happening to their body and obviously they need to tell those who are infected about this. seriously, it’s really very simple, if those medical establishments are looking at the right things, they dont need 27 years to look for a solution. Besides, I see this idea as a good thing because even if HIV does proven to exist, it will open up another kind of treatment that is always being given the bad name, homeopathy….which makes more sense because it treats the body wholistically and it lacks one thing from the modern science, that is the ability of giving death sentence to people…

Posted by shaq shaq on 12/31/2008 @ 12:40AM PST

Oh yes Ruairidh MacDonald – far too busy in between his mall talks on phalangic hygiene (don’t pick your nose) and his private company (terribly designed website) Samurai Scientific; traffic – well he has disabled that function but previously was around 2 visits per week so I guess that isn’t going so well eh Nick?
Added to which Bennett appears to have been a solid “blogger” (i.e. practically 24h per day for over 10 years, HIV mostly, gaming, visual basic, oh and let’s not forget homeopathic bunny care, which on any other forum he calls “quackery” when it comes to human beings, whatever). And all at a time when he claims he was doing a “double degree”, got married to Erin McDonald, and was ALSO teaching undergrads. My God Nick – are you superman or what? Or are you just a big fatheaded fake plant?

Posted by Cathy Thompson on 12/31/2008 @ 12:51AM PST

Gos, if you are still here, the error was mine – the UNAIDS figures pertain to “HIV/AIDS cases” and not just AIDS. My error and I’m happy to admit I was wrong. So where does that leave us? With zero HIV or AIDS cases? Not a single case in South Africa as Jason would have us believe? Absolutley nada?

I find it quite strange that when the official figures for a particular event are adjusted in the light of updated information, or when predictions about a possible event don’t reach the scale they were feared to, this somehow indicates to denialists that the entire thing is a fabrication and conspiracy.

“In 2007 it was forecast that annual car production would reach 4.5 million units by 2009, but it has only reached 3.9 million units.”

Denialist translation:
Obviously cars cannot exist. There are no cars in the USA, and I have never seen a car in my entire life. When “cars” are pointed out to me, I can see they are hallucinations, or cardboard cut outs that people call “cars”. They are merely a figment of everyone’s imagination, part of a vast conspiracy forced upon the unsuspecting public by the industrial complex. People do not actually drive around in cars, they are transported by magical bioenergy under the delusion they are physically present in a vehicle.

Oh, and by the way, when I said regarding vaccination that “Aluminum was the new mercury” I was waxing metaphorical. Since mercury has been shown not to cause autism and when its removal from vaccination schedules did nor correspond with a drop in autism cases, but a rise, the antivaccine lobby has now turned to aluminum in the search for another culprit to blame. Hence my claim. (Of course I know it is an adjuvant, and not a preservative like Hg is). Hope that clears that up, though why this statement supposedly shows me to be “a fake” is beyond me.

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/31/2008 @ 01:35AM PST

What Gos said that on the evolution of the population in Africa is true:

In 2004, the U.S. Census Bureau provided 49 million people in South Africa without AIDS, and 43.5 million without AIDS. In 2008, he announced 48.5 million. (slide 6)

The mortality rate estimated by this organization is also much higher than that given by the Government of South Africa (900,000 instead of 600,000)

Regarding the relationship between seropositivity (the presence of P24, for example), particles of HIV, and AIDS, I have an opinion that differs somewhat from rethinkers who write here.

First, the experiments published in 2007 by Aquaro et al. show that the presence of P24 is directly linked to the presence of simple chemical compounds called peroxynitrite

Samples of HIV in culture therefore also produce peroxynitrite. But in the cell, are they the only possible sources of peroxynitrite?

Of course not.

Chemists have shown that peroxynitrite is formed very quickly when the amount of nitric oxide increases and when the quantity of cellular reducing agents decreases.

And almost all chemical causes described by Peter Duesberg and David Rasnick are compounds that release nitric oxide and often consume reducing agents.

So I think these are the substances that are the true cause of the increase in protein of th so-called HIV and that HIV itself is a by-product able to be a low source of peroxynitrite.

Had HAART improved or not the life expectancy of patients?

By analyzing the experimental data, I think the rethinkers are wrong to minimize the impact of what happened in 1995-1996. There was improvement in life expectancy.

But the above scenario should also be able to explain it, without a so-called antiretroviral mechanism.

And it is in fact very simple.

All drugs used before AZT to treat patients were donors of nitric oxide and consumers of glutathione (Bactrim, nitrates, antibiotics zith function oxime ,…). It is not surprising that these substances have added effects to drugs already in use and known to be donors of NO (poppers, cocaine, methamphetamine).

AZT (an azide) is special because it is NO donor while having a reducing character in the presence of glutathione.

During the first weeks, the rate of cell peroxynitrite decreased, resulting in an improvement.
Then, as AZT slowly reacts with glutathione, the initial positive effect is canceled, and it accelerates the onset of death.

That’s what show the graphs of Derek and Hank

In 1990-96 one finally founds a substance that gives a spectacular result, 3TC (discovered by chance, as is common in pharmacology)

And 3TC is a trap of peroxynitrite, it’s a thioacetal which is easily opened by electrophiles derived from NO and from peroxynitrite, as demonstrated Carey and Sundberg.

The substances so-called protease inhibitors are often very good traps of peroxynitrite. Thus lopinavir aromatic ring is very sensitive to nitration.

The new ARV drugs are also reducing agents, but their toxicity prevents a significant improvement since 1996. For example, the active site of tenofovir has a structure similar to that of glyphosate (roundup).

Posted by umber jean on 12/31/2008 @ 03:08AM PST

Ruairidh – The Casey Cohen debacle was upsetting to me, because at worst it was Maggiore herself (as I suspected since “Casey” initially wrote to me from Christine’s email account, and you seem to confirm) and at best it was someone very close to her, trying to actually portray themselves as a anti-denialist to set me up to debate Christine and “annihilate” her (her words).

I couldn’t understand how she could leverage her daughters death in this way. Almost none of the anti-denialist commentators initially made much of it at all (most of the noise came from the denialists complaining about our “inevitable” attempts to capitalize on it), at least not until her board member child-abusing-parent-protector-for-hire Al-Bayati stepped up to write his report (and I’m not suggesting that’s his role with Maggiore, but he does make a living reinterpreting medical evidence to defend cases of child abuse!). At that point he became more of a target, if anything. I certainly wasn’t going to try to engage what I thought was a grieving mother in a public debate on the issue that I felt killed her daughter – I had more taste and empathy than that. The first thing I did when I heard about EJ was write to Christine to send her my best wishes and thoughts. The next thing I wrote was my comments on Al-Bayati’s report a considerable time later. I would like to think that you’re incorrect in your statement that Casey was indeed Christine, because it makes it easier to stomach if it were an unrelated third party.

Cathy – well, you’ve proven beyond doubt that you’re a less than accurate, but nevertheless hard-working internet stalker. Nice. Did you notice the gap in debate posts during the PhD years…? Yes, even I cannot do it all. But why omit my other activities such as editing and writing for, including topics such as, er, HIV.

Denialists and interested readers might want to check it out for useful descriptions of how HIV causes AIDS and how effective antiretroviral therapy has been.



Posted by Nick Bennett on 12/31/2008 @ 04:47AM PST

Nick Bennett: Very impressive, your article “HIV Disease”, at

You said ” check it out for useful descriptions of how HIV causes AIDS and how effective antiretroviral therapy has been”.

I could not go much further than a few paragraphs, to realise it builds up on false assumptions such as: “HIV is a blood-borne, sexually transmissible virus. The virus is typically transmitted via sexual intercourse, shared intravenous drug paraphernalia, and mother-to-child transmission”.

But there is no proof of the existence of a Human Immunodeficiency Retrovirus, let alone of its transmission.

As far as the antiretroviral therapy is concerned, may I remind you, some people here have experienced this nightmare.

It made my life a living hell: Only one example here, even with the latest medication in 2006, I could not rest at all during the nights because all my bones ached, more in the joints.

It was such a relief when I discovered the other side of ‘AIDS’, and stopped the prescribed medication.

Posted by Maria Papagiannidou on 12/31/2008 @ 05:37AM PST

A factual correction:

Bennett asserted that “Hank Barnes” has a denialist blog. Whoever has been posting here as “Hank Barnes” is an imposter, not the founder of Hank’s “You bet your life”

Posted by Henry Bauer on 12/31/2008 @ 05:52AM PST

By the way, thank you to Jason for the post yesterday on voodoo hexing. Very insightful.
I have enjoyed Michael Ellner’s similar “bone pointing” speech.
It’s something we all need to remember and be aware of as victims of this ‘curse’.

It’s SO TRUE. Especially in the world of HIV junk science.

Posted by Karri Stokely on 12/31/2008 @ 06:08AM PST

“But you can only forgive someone who has acknowledged his mistake and stopped destroying other lives. We do not want to go so far as becoming silent accomplices.”

My proposal wasn’t to become silent, it was only to use our voices more effectively and wisely. And you can only feel sorry for those who’re incapable of facing how much destruction they’re really causing. If for example Derek were to truly realize that all these years his assumptions and his actions were causing more bad than good overall, what do you think this would do to him? It’s not an easy thing to digest and that’s where the defense mechanism kicks in to reduce cognitive dissonance, in form of bias…which perhaps is good for his psychology, yet it’s still not beneficial for all the lives he affects.

But the point is, he doesn’t have much choice. It takes a special kind of character to face the truth at all costs and unless someone like Derek is still working to improve their objectivity, that change of approach is not about to come anytime soon. Blame the flawed education system, the society and the human nature for allowing people to lack absolute objectivity, not the people who suffered because of the system.

This episode of HPAY podcast was enlightening in that sense:

Posted by Sadun Kal on 12/31/2008 @ 06:58AM PST

It’s Jason, the true blue South African, sitting here shrtless in my shorts in front of my computer under a partly clouded Capetonian sky on the last day of 2008.
Inasmuch as I don’t believe any discreet particle “HIV” has ever been proven to exist, yes, I believe the “HIV” infection rate in South Africa to be nada, zip, zero, nothing; in fact, I believe the global “HIV” infection rfate to be nada, zip, zero, nothing.
But if, for the purposes of the discussion, we are going to discuss statistics pertaining to something that doesn’t exist (analogous to discussing the number of demon piossessions rooted out by the Inquisition – many witches burnt, not one demon), then, in terms of brownian motion, there should be people in my street, in my neighbourhood, at my work, who have faded away & died from the dread plage – but there are not. By sheer dint of brownian motion, I should be bumping into & hearing about people affected by “the disease” on a daily basis – but I do not. Here, like there, the “HIV pandemic” is mostly a matter of press reports, & very, very large rounded off numbers.
Please look again at my short post which bears on this: it’s actually quite humourous. To get the humour, you must click on the links in the post.

Happy New Year, & if you can’t be good, be careful 😉
JasonObservatoryCape TownSouth Africa

Posted by Jason Hart on 12/31/2008 @ 07:36AM PST

Maria – you’re a perfect example of why medicine has to treat people as individuals, not as a herd. One thing I do agree with that many denialists argue is that the medical establishment is far from perfect. I’m sure I’ve fallen into the same potential pitfalls on occasion, and I can only hope I don’t do it too often.

Having said that when faced with a new patient who I don’t know how they’ll do, I have to weigh the tens of thousands of positive outcomes from the research against the few unfortunate people who either can’t tolerate the meds or who the the meds harmed, and be willing to change track where needed. I don’t care if people are off the meds and doing well, so long as they too are willing to change track when (and if) needed. I think the major sticking points are the various values of “need” – some would say HAART is never needed, some would say that it’s needed when opportunistic infections occur, recent data suggests that CD4 counts as high as 500 may be a cutoff for risk/benefit in favor of starting treatment. Clearly the “hit hard hit early” mantra was wrong, and I believe the “wait until you get sick mantra” is wrong too, because the one time a patient gets sick might be the last.

Alas I don’t have a prepared document regarding HIV isolation…so no easy cut/paste link there. I can only say that even Duesberg believes HIV has been isolated, and the “isolation” criteria that HIV supposedly fails were invented by the Perth Group who admitted on the BMJ debate that they couldn’t be met because HIV was killing the culture cells and creating debris (and therefore simultaneously they admitted that HIV wasn’t an entirely harmless virus…) They never did respond to that point…

Henry – hmm, so the Hank here is an imposter. Maybe I am too… It would be all too easy to fake it wouldn’t it… 😉


Posted by Nick Bennett on 12/31/2008 @ 07:40AM PST

Gos! It is so nice to read you again, you are a funny guy with about as many “extraordinary” stories as me ha! I go by Fondoo on aidsmyth and have greatly missed you there.
I believe like most re-thinkers I have met that AIDS is a big problem that has multiple and complex causes yet observable causes,maybe not profitable causes but observable ones none the less. Does this make me a horrible denialist?
I have a great idea for a vaccine study. We get one thousand healthy HIV+’s oh wait I mean long term non-progressers oh wait I mean elite controllers (snicker) Ok ok,then we the folks that want us +’s back on our chemo. Next the second group proceeds to bend over and grab their ankles…
I think the folks that had to endure years of chemo before finding out they were an “elite controller” should get first dibs, but I am probably more than slightly biased on this account
OK seriously I don’t want to see anyone punished maybe we can talk about HIV amnesty some here?
In answer to an earlier question my x-wife is back on the cocktail. She could not take the pressure from friends and family not to be on the life saving drugs. Last week she turned yellow from head to toe couldn’t breath and had to be hospitalized for a week. she has been to the emergency room so many times in the last two years.
You see she was forced the cocktail that killed our son inside her and crippled her for life while she was unconscious in the hospital. Her mother convinced them she was dying of AIDS and not bacterial pneumonia and that we were both crackpots off our meds. She opened up criminal child neglect case on Sherri for being off her meds and letting herself get too sick to take care of our daughter and one on me for being some kind of a junkie out on a bender and not taking care of our 1yr old daughter. The facts that Sherri’s mom lived out of state and the fact that child protection immediately found my family “to be doing very well under the circumstances” made absolutely no difference to the hospital and they woke her up in an unsound state had her sign some papers gave her the cocktail and Sherri went from “recovering” into a toxic comma that involved the death of our son and a crippling stroke. Sherri is in denial her Mom could do such a thing to us even though I told her it’s in her case file her mom signed.
I was warned by CPS that the hospital was on a “witch hunt” for us and if I wanted to fly to the other island to see my dying wife I should leave my daughter behind because they could not protect her there.The witch hunt lasted two months and kept me from stopping the life saving drugs. sob

Posted by tracy ellis on 12/31/2008 @ 07:45AM PST

Henry, interesting that you came back to correct that fact but did not address the mathematical error described by Snout – perhaps now is a good opportunity to do so? You are trying to persuade people that the literature on treatment and life expectancy is wrong, after all, so I’d hope you feel some responsibility for explaining and defending your claims. Peter Duesberg’s friend and biographer Harvey Bialy once attempted to engage in a debate with Nick Bennett on Dean Esmay’s blog:
It gets a little confusing because Bialy starts also posting under the name “Eccles the Idiot.” After Christine Maggiore’s daughter died, Bialy and Duesberg wrote to the LA Times:
The letter was not published, but it gives an insight into their honesty and integrity. They write: “A post mortem finding of PCP in the lungs means nothing since it is 100% ubiquitous in human beings.” Is this a true statement? No, it is not.
“At the National Cancer Institute, only 7 of 2,887 consecutive autopsies revealed PCP, a prevalence rate of only 0.2% in a high-risk population.” (Vogel CL, Cohen MH, Powell RD, DeVita VT.
Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia. Ann Intern Med. 1968 Jan;68(1):97-108)

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/31/2008 @ 07:47AM PST

wow I still have a link to my post about my wife
cut & pasted from aidsmyth
From: Fondoo (Original Message)Sent: 3/1/2006 7:39 AM This is very hard to type, my wife is on a ventilator with severe bacterial pneumonia. She has not breathed on her own in over 10 days. My in-laws have managed to take over her medical treatments by having her woken up in an unsound state and agreeing to take a 4 drug cocktail with the goal of protecting our unborn baby. At the same time making her mother and brother in charge when she is unable to make her own decisions.(living will) My wife’s condition has now declined she may now never wake up.
I was unable to be by my wife’s side because our 10 month old daughter and my elder cousin were also very sick at home and they had to fly my wife from Hilo to Honolulu. We have recently moved to the big island so we had no friends and family here to help.
My wife’s family have convinced the social workers at the hospital that I had radical medical veiws my wife did not share and launched a child endangerment case on me and my 10 month old. It was found to be groundless of course but it has been keeping me off balance. When they did finally tell me she was being given a cocktail they lied and said they had our family HIV doctor from the mainland’s approval. The exact opposite is true.
Our HIV doc has 15 years front line experience and is going nuts trying to stop this as well.
The social investigator that has our child endangerment case is doing her best to help but she says Honolulu is on a witch hunt and will not cooperate with her.
Good GOD who do I call!

It was months later I accidentally stumbled on the knowledge my wife had criminal charges against her filed by her mom as well

Posted by tracy ellis on 12/31/2008 @ 08:18AM PST

Bennett, I’d like to ask you a question I asked (twice) of Derek, without receiving an answer: Do you ever consider that throwing drugs at a problem might not be the best, let alone the only, treatment option?

A related question: would you be in favor of funding research on non-drug-based therapies for immunodeficiency?

By the way, if the “unfortunate people who either can’t tolerate the meds or who the meds harmed” amount to only a “few,” as you blithely claim, then apparently they’re all on this forum.

Posted by Laura Ogar on 12/31/2008 @ 08:37AM PST

this is a link to my posts, I offer it to anyone it may help although it is difficult to share. I’m scared to re-read it myself, I was out of my mind with grief and horror and shame. The shame I can intellectually know has been wrongly put upon me but I have yet to emotionally realize this lesson.

Posted by tracy ellis on 12/31/2008 @ 08:38AM PST

Another thing … if it were only a “few” people who have problems with the meds, there wouldn’t be so many problems with “HIV treatment noncompliance”.

Posted by Laura Ogar on 12/31/2008 @ 08:52AM PST


As you stated to Maria, she is “a perfect example of why medicine has to treat people as individuals, not as a herd.”
Are you kidding me! What planet do you live on!! Since when has medicine EVER done that.

I worked in (dis)organized medicine for years. VERY RARELY is ANYONE treated like an individual.
Medical workers, of all types, are taught “herd mentality”, drugs for everything, and NEVER question or think outside the box.
I know, it was a hard paradigm for me to break out of.

By the way, I’m another one, like Maria, who is, as you state, a “perfect example”. And, I have met MANY others like me. We are NOT the exception to your rule.And can you explain to me why, when I was diagnosed with a t-cell count of 29, and a sky high viral load, did I not, nor have I ever, had any opportunistic infections????
It was at this point in 1996 that the HIV doc told me I’d be “lucky if I had 6 months left”. It’s been a long 6 months.
Talk about the voodoo hex!
This is voodoo medicine at it’s finest.
I’m glad I was strong enough mentally, and had a great support system, so as to not succumb to “the bone”.

By the way, “they” told me the very same thing in April 2007 when I quit all the toxic drugs. My t-cell count was a whopping 96 then. “You’ll be DEAD, VERY SOON” were the exact words.

I’ve never felt better. And I’m getting healthier looking every day. I finally have my life back. The one that YOU and many others robbed me of, some of the best years of my life.

I, as well as many others on this board, realize what fear and terror can do to a person.
I am quite certain that you and all your sad, brainwashed crew are feeling this same type of fear and terror, as you read, observe, and watch, right before your very eyes, this deceitful empire of death you’ve all built, getting ready to crumble.

With this modern age of the Internet, the information/TRUTH is getting out there.
Your days are numbered my friend.

Posted by Karri Stokely on 12/31/2008 @ 08:53AM PST

And Tracy, I’ve read your posts, and I am so very sorry you and your family have had to experience this most horrible, disgraceful spot on human history.
My prayer for you is that you will continue to get stronger, in all ways, and your wife will “see the light” and recover as well.

Remember, there are always powerful lessons to be learned from all of life’s circumstances.
You will be able to continue to help others on their journey.
And, “what doesn’t kill you will only make you stronger”.

Thank you deeply for sharing your life with us.

Be Blessed my friend!

Posted by Karri Stokely on 12/31/2008 @ 08:59AM PST

Jason, do you mean to say Dr Beetroot was wrong all these years for promoting cures for diseases that did not exist? Or that Mathias Rath is a quack for telling all his clientele (not so far away from you) that he could cure their AIDS with vitamins?

Enjoy your last hours of 2008, Jason, as you sip your Cape Red on your shaded verandah. Don’t spare a thought for the millions of your compatriots with this infection, the thousands that have died in 2008 because of Dr Beetroot and her idiotic baas, or the thousands more who will die next year. Lean back on your deckchair, relax, admire the sunset and dream of the Empire…. Everything is lekker. There is no HIV, no AIDS, no sickness or death, no plague rampaging through the townships, no massed funerals for healthy adults struck down in the prime of life, no “goffel Christine Maggiores” for you to trouble your conscience.
Sweet dreams.

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/31/2008 @ 09:01AM PST

Laura, the drugs only come into play when there is evidence of immunodeficiency. They are so effective at reversing this in most patients that other approaches to therapy are way down the list. Some do not respond, though, or have such advanced immune failure that treatment cannot restore immune function. It can virtually eliminate the virus, as repeated tests will show, but the immune system has sometimes taken so much damage it is incapable of spontaneously recovering. The doctors in my clinic have put some people in this situation on trials of Interleukin, an immune stimulant. There may be other drugs that can serve as immunotherapy, or be an adjunct to ARVs.But the primary and most effective approach to treatment remains ARVs, started at an appropriate time. Everything else is just tinkering around the margins. If your car is misfiring because of impurities in the fuel, it might appear to help if you clean the carburettor, or adjust the mxiture. But it won’t really be sorted until you replace the fuel and stop the cause of the problem, rather than treating the symptoms or consequences.

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/31/2008 @ 09:12AM PST

What’s the matter with you Derek, can’t you read?! Or are you just plain ignorant.

Jason is not claiming that ‘AIDS’ doesn’t exist. All ‘AIDS’ is is a made-up acronym for a condition of immune suppression.
There are MULTIPLE reasons why and how people become immune suppressed.
Tons, right here in America. I certainly don’t have to explain that to you, do I?

He stated that, right in his area, there is not a huge pandemic of HIV infected.

As a matter of fact, where I live, here in the States, I don’t know but only ONE other person near my town that is dealing with this. Luckily, he’s a dissident too. And healthy!

Posted by Karri Stokely on 12/31/2008 @ 09:13AM PST

How is you liver after 11 years of HIV treatments, Karri? The results of the Strategies for the Management of AntiRetroviral Therapy (SMART) trial, which I think may have been mentioned already in this thread, are consistent with the experiences described here. The average time people had been on treatment prior to joining the trial was six years. ~97% of the over 2,500 people that stopped treatment did fine for the 1.5 years they were followed afterward. But the comparison group of people who stayed on treatment did better, as ~98.5% of the similar number of people in that group did fine. This was a significant difference, so the study was stopped. Although the absolute risk of anything bad happening as a result of stopping was low (at least for 1.5 years), the relative risk compared to staying on treatment was higher. Also, the significantly increased risk of disease and death in the stopping group persisted even after people in that group restarted treatment, which is also part of the reason intermittent treatment is not being recommended. But the low absolute risk associated with stopping still leads some people to make an informed decision to use treatment intermittently, particularly if the treatments and daily pill-taking are reducing quality of life. Tracy, do you know what caused your wife to develop a severe bacterial pneumonia that required ventilation? Was she taking HIV treatments when that happened?

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/31/2008 @ 09:21AM PST

On a lighter note a question for the guys.Have any of you noticed that denielist chicks are hot? I haven’t put to much on gender in my HIV studies over the years but pictures seem to be more common and well I have noticed a trend. They seem to trend towards being smart,independent and very spirited and many are nice to look at too boot.

Posted by tracy ellis on 12/31/2008 @ 09:26AM PST

Derek, you say that the drugs are so effective at reversing immunodeficiency that other approaches are way down the list. Please clarify exactly what you mean by “reversing immunodefiency.”

Posted by Laura Ogar on 12/31/2008 @ 09:37AM PST

The immune deficiency caused by HIV infection is very specific and unrelated to other immune deficiencies. Pretending that it isn’t is just one of the many grotesque deceits promoted by AIDS deniers. But I think after that last comment I’m going to give up. Robin Scovill’s statement makes me realize that nothing will ever stop this cult, the uninfected leadership will live on to sucker a fresh round of infected recruits, drugs that caused “no side effects to speak of” will suddenly become toxic poisons because Peter Duesberg says so (although his claims about viral isolation will never be received with the same credulity). And when this round of recruits is gone, speculative excuses about their deaths will be offered and the campaign will continue on. Winstone Zulu, who actually appeared in Robin Scovill’s film at a time when he had embraced denial, puts it best. “What mattered to me as person living with HIV was to be told that HIV did not cause AIDS. That was nice. Of course, it was like printing money when the economy is not doing well. Or pissing in your pants when the weather is too cold. Comforting for a while but disastrous in the long run.”

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/31/2008 @ 09:43AM PST

With timing, this just might be comment #400.

All this chatter and the choice for anyone given an “HIV” diagnosis remains the same:

Take the drugs and die, or don’t take the drugs and die.

Meditation for the day: Since death alone is certain and the time of death is uncertain, what should I do?

Posted by Jon Barnett on 12/31/2008 @ 09:44AM PST

Since it was asked. “Please clarify exactly what you mean by “reversing immunodefiency.”
Science. 1997 Jul 4;277(5322):112-6.
Positive effects of combined antiretroviral therapy on CD4+ T cell homeostasis and function in advanced HIV disease.
Autran B, Carcelain G, Li TS, Blanc C, Mathez D, Tubiana R, Katlama C, Debré P, Leibowitch J.Laboratoire d’Immunologie Cellulaire, URA CNRS 625, Hôpital Pitié-Salpétriêre, 47-83 Boulevard de l’Hôpital, Paris, France.
Highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) increases CD4(+) cell numbers, but its ability to correct the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-induced immune deficiency remains unknown. A three-phase T cell reconstitution was demonstrated after HAART, with: (i) an early rise of memory CD4(+) cells, (ii) a reduction in T cell activation correlated to the decreasing retroviral activity together with an improved CD4(+) T cell reactivity to recall antigens, and (iii) a late rise of “naïve” CD4(+) lymphocytes while CD8(+) T cells declined, however, without complete normalization of these parameters. Thus, decreasing the HIV load can reverse HIV-driven activation and CD4(+) T cell defects in advanced HIV-infected patients.

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/31/2008 @ 09:48AM PST

You’ve still not answered my questions??

I don’t know how my liver tests are currently, as I don’t use any of type of “voodoo medicine” anymore.
I do happen to have a doctor, an M.D., who is also a Naturopath, and believed the dissident view MANY years ago. I don’t see him very often though, no need.
It’s comforting to know that if or when I get sick, with anything, as all people do from time to time, he will treat me accordingly. As all doctors should, but none seem to be capable of this.

While I was still getting tested by the invalid surrogate markers, they had to change out my med once, due to some liver changes/damage. After that, liver tests would vary, but nothing life threatening.

I don’t see how you can possibly state that the ARV’S are “so
effective at reversing immunodeficiency”. The longer I was on them, the MORE immune deficient I got.
Now that I’m off, I’m healthier than I’ve been in 11 yrs.

And Tracy,Thanks for the laugh and light-hearted humor!

Posted by Karri Stokely on 12/31/2008 @ 09:56AM PST

We know for sure that the Virus was man made in a lab specifically target a certain gene that of color. If one can follow the Boyd Graves petitions will be able to understand. We also know that the antidode was made caoled Tresil Imusil which help up and can not be released.
For for once other circles have come up with a way of pushing out the virus which I did after taking holistic treatment for 100 days my P24 antigen test was negative.
I had been on ARVs for 3 years plus and almost got killed due to poor knowledge in handling of ARVs. I was given drugs which were depleting my blood despite getting so many blood transfusions.
Those who want same treatment can get whole information by sending a blank email to ‘
It is a bit costly but no side effects and do not need to take it for life. only 100 days and the virus is kicked out of the body.

Posted by Darlington Kapasu on 12/31/2008 @ 09:57AM PST

Laura – I’m in favor of any kind of therapy for anthing, so long as it works and the risks/benefits pan out. The research has to be done properly though (well designed studies, informed consent etc). Just because it might be non-pharmaceutical doesn’t mean its safe, and just what counts as a pharmaceutical anyway, since so many drugs are derived from natural products to begin with?

I wouldn’t for example support the Rath Foundation in its unethical vitamin studies on HIV-infected patients.

HIV treatment compliance has got a lot better in recent years, mostly as a result of simplfying the regimens, but combination pills don’t help if the problem is side effects or there’s a resistant strain involved. We follow a considerable number of kids in the Peds ID clinic with HIV, and the majority of “non-compliance” is related to very poor social situations.

For any particular problem the solution depends on the mechanism that caused it. Even then, there’s room for common sense and conservatism. Believe it or not I spend at least half my time trying to tell people to cut _back_ on antibiotic use to treat infections, rather than throwing the biggest, baddest drugs we have at every case.

As regards the number of people here talking about their problems with the meds…well, if they hadn’t had a problem perhaps they wouldn’t have started questioning their diagnosis, hmm? This is a rather self-selected group. I’m not saying it’s something to ignore, to wave aside as if it doesn’t matter – if people are, statistically, putting themselves at risk of getting sick because of an inability of modern medicine to help them without hurting them, then that’s the fault of modern medicine.

I believe it’s the best we have, most of the time, for most of the people. I’m open to suggestions. I was even open to AIDS denial to some degree until the reams of literature sent my way made less and less sense and ultimately the arguments boiled down to “Well, I don’t believe that research”, at which point I became, for want of a better word, a born-again AIDS believer – because refusing to accept research for the sake of supporting an otherwise untenable position was simply denial.


Posted by Nick Bennett on 12/31/2008 @ 09:59AM PST

“Tracy, do you know what caused your wife to develop a severe bacterial pneumonia that required ventilation? Was she taking HIV treatments when that happened?”

Sherri has been exposed to high amounts of fire retardants. A lawsuit was settled that helped victims and ordered the demolition of a Boston DMV building. Sherry never followed up on the lawsuit but tested positive a short time later trying to go on her new husbands insurance. The Doctor phoned her at home and said at 22 yrs of age in apparent radiant health except for a recent rash from your workplace that you are HIV+ and you have advanced AIDS (3 t-cells) ut you could possibly win a “lottery” and get on a experimental drug program, Sherri won! and became very ill on drug side effects a short time latter. The fact that her sexual history only included two high school boyfriends with a con dome and no drug history no transfusions never enters into it.
Why did Sherri need to be vented? 10 years of chemo for t-cell counts , breast cancer which required full radiation and chemo, optic neuritis resulting in blindness before HIV, Getting accidentally pregnant after finding out we never wanted too AZT another child of ours and in the current political situation that meant no more kids.
Folks in our neighborhood got like this tropical flue here in Hawaii and Sherry got it too but went crazy with the stress of being 6 months pregnant with the flue and scared if she needed a hospital they would force AZT on our son, stress baby big stress hurts our bodies. She had been off her AIDS chemo for about 10 months before her illness and was enjoying a comfortable healthy pregnancy when the fear was not on her to bad
Posted by tracy ellis on 12/31/2008 @ 10:07AM PST

Karri – I’ve hardly had time to read your post, never mind reply. Some of us are working today…

You only asked one real question – why didn’t you get sick with a CD4 count in the 20’s? A good question. I would simply say you weren’t exposed to an infection that could take advantage of that. Opportunistic infections are just they – opportunists. They have to come along. It’s a matter of chance unfortunately, and impossible to predict exactly if or when any one person will get sick with a particular CD4 count. We know on average what happens, and we know it’s not good. Being better than average doesn’t change the averages!

The real question you should be asking is how the hell did your CD4 T cell numbers drop to less than 5% of normal…?



Posted by Nick Bennett on 12/31/2008 @ 10:15AM PST

I’ll revise my question: please demonstrate how changes in CD4+ numbers relate to overall health and wellness.

Bennett, you say: “Just because it might be non-pharmaceutical doesn’t mean its safe, and just what counts as a pharmaceutical anyway, since so many drugs are derived from natural products to begin with,” and I completely agree.

As to what you said about dissident arguments: pointing out the numerous flaws in most studies, such as unquestioned assumptions and lack of proper controls, is not the same as “refusing to believe”. But as I’ve said before, shoddy work is so commonplace that such criticisms are viewed as just so much nitpicking.

Posted by Laura Ogar on 12/31/2008 @ 10:19AM PST

For the folks that work in the clinics of the HIV field. I know you want to help so tell me how we can better diagnose long term non-progressors before we scare them into chemo?
How do we better diagnose false positives?
I see so many people take the chemo out of fear and religious like belief. They are not able to listen to there own bodies to know whether they are terminally ill or cross reacting. The dissenting view at least helps us to maybe ask our bodies and maybe take a moment to listen

Posted by tracy ellis on 12/31/2008 @ 10:27AM PST

I think there is an even better word for us than “elite controllers” and that is the misdiagnosed.
My daughter needs a mother figure in my household, giving me back my sexual rights could help that greatly.
Giving back my rights to relocate to foreign lands would greatly help my meditation practice
My t-cells were 350 ish starting AZT mono therapy. Based on my negative result 2 yrs prior I was diagnosed as a fast progressor 10 yrs or so later I left the HAART program 4 or 5 yrs ago with t-cells at 350 ish. My current health is excellent and with 2.5 yrs of Ashtanga Yoga under my belt my clinical health is better than it was in my 20’s in most ways but my energy level. 42 ain’t 20 baby no matter how much yoga you do ha!
My question is am I an elite controller yet? If not when?
Whats the possibility of getting a misdiagnosed status some day and getting my rights back?
I would do blood work but up till now I have not wanted to sign up for services and take the chance of another witch hunt but using my real name here is probably a sign for change is on the way. So sorry to ask a question like this without your markers.
I also needed to stay away from monitoring markers awhile just to let the voodoo curse effect die down. I think I can do it now for myself and others without to much mental terror, err I think… lol

Posted by tracy ellis on 12/31/2008 @ 11:16AM PST

Two excellent questions from Laura and Tracy….

CD4 numbers are unashamedly a surrogate marker of risk, but CD4 cells have a lynchpin function. They regulate and direct the responses of both the specific killer T cells (CD8s) and antibody producing B cells. Without the CD4’s the immune system lacks direction.

You can argue from that perspective alone that a low level of CD4 T cells would be a bad thing, but that’s just a lab parameter. We also know that over time pre-existing immune responses to infections disappear as the CD4 T cell numbers drop, so you’re less able to mount a response to things like CMV and candida, that might otherwise live with a person but not cause any problems. We also know that acquiring new responses is less easy, so fighting off previously unseen infections more difficult. But the real question is what does this mean in simple terms for the person. What does “more likely” and “less easy” mean.

A study from Johns Hopkins gives some numbers – in their data if your CD4 count was under 50, your risk of acquiring an AIDS defining infection in the next 6 months was 24 times higher than if it were 250-350. If your count was between 50-150 you were only 6 times greater risk, and if you were 150-250 you were at less than 3 times the risk.

So, if you had a large group of people with HIV, and all the groups were the same size, in the group with counts 250-350 one person might get an OI versus 24 people in the group with CD4 counts under 50, in the next 6 months.

That’s just one set of figures I pulled from a conference abstract, there’s plenty of other studies out there with similar outcomes.

CD4 count alone doesn’t help with decided how sick you are at that time, but there’s good evidence that it helps predict the risks of getting sick in the near future. Also, some opportunistic infections such as PCP really don’t get very common until counts drop below a certain level (usually 200), so they also guide prophylaxis for those OI’s. The other trick is, as I’m sure you know, CD4 counts vary, and really the best way to judge them is to look at trends and several counts in a row.

I agree that pointing out legitimate flaws in research is the correct way to go – hence my problem with most denialist arguments. Denying that HIV culture controls are performed for example is not the same as pointing out that HIV cultures don’t have controls… It’s far easier to say that than to read the paper’s methods section to check for oneself.

Diagnosing false positives and LTNP’s. These days LTNP’s aren’t scared into anything, as if they’re an LTNP they don’t qualify for starting meds. If they qualify to start the meds they are, by definition, progressing and aren’t LTNPs any more.

There are rare, true false positives. A good history is critical to sort out potential issues – the two that I know of were both caused by EBV infection. Making sure that if stuff doesn’t make sense it’s followed up (e.g. persistantly undetectable viral loads and normal CD4 counts). The cases I’ve read about where false diagnoses were made usually have an issue with someone somewhere missing something, or making an assumption without checking. If need be things like viral culture, antigen testing, proviral PCR can all help. I’ve also read of false diagnoses being made because the doc ordered the wrong test e.g. quantative viral load, which is not meant for diagnosis, and a low viral load was interpreted as infection (rather than a spurious result…)

The truth is that cross-reactions causing false positives are really unusual – even the literature touted by the denialists as “proof” that it happens, if you actually pull it out and read it, as I have, shows that it really doesn’t happen. Maybe a positive ELISA/negative WB, maybe a single rare disease or case report. Most of the time it’s a mistake and a misinterpretation or misreading of the paper. There are a few real things of course, but nothing like the list promoted online.



Posted by Nick Bennett on 12/31/2008 @ 11:23AM PST

Just remember that the posters that are associated with are here to change your mind. They would love nothing more than to see the AIDS rethinkers go away. The rethinkers are here to tell you that you have options. Like I tell everyone, you need to become a student on HIV/AIDS and look at both sides of the issues, and think for yourself. Don’t blindly take anyones word for anything. If you are on the fence, weigh all of your options and do your research.


Posted by joe stokely on 12/31/2008 @ 11:55AM PST

Thank you Mr. Bennett I appreciate your time in this
“Diagnosing false positives and LTNP’s. These days LTNP’s aren’t scared into anything, as if they’re an LTNP they don’t qualify for starting meds. If they qualify to start the meds they are, by definition, progressing and aren’t LTNPs any more.”
Mr Bennett I am scared sh_tless and I know many others who are too. I have had multiple docs and seen others with similar stories after a positive test or two nobody cares about finding out anything more about you. Help us to better communicate with the clinics we ain’t frigging rare and many do not know we are LTNP’s just give me some what if I am right ideas. My goal would be to help educate other positives like myself to do more body meditation and possibly more drug holidays to find out if they really need the drugs or not. It is so hard not to be labeled a freak and attacked, how do I overcome this?

Posted by tracy ellis on 12/31/2008 @ 12:09PM PST

So how about a death joke for our little death cult here
Guy goes to his doc for blood test results
Doc says sorry you got HIV and not enough t-cells and you are gonna die die die most horribly!
Guy says good god doc is there anything I can do?
Doc says we got ARV’s
Guy says,they work?
Well doc says some say they make ya dead faster and some say they make you last longer , you can try and see
Guy says,don’t you have anything that would help me for sure and not hurt me maybe?
Doc says,got mud packs
Guy asked what on earth can mud packs do
Doc says they can help you get used to being under ground 🙂

Posted by tracy ellis on 12/31/2008 @ 12:32PM PST

The AIDS “truthers” like to list and mention every “denialist” who has ever died, as if that is evidence supporting their claim that “drugs save lives”.

Google “AIDS obit” and get more than a million hits. Most of them took the drugs and died.

Or this site:, which lists AIDS “activists”, most of whom took the drugs and died. Yeah, Pasquarelli in on the list, but he’s the only questioner I recognized.

While surfing, I noticed aidstruth has now added Christine Maggiore to their own list. The entry states that her death was “likely of an AIDS-related illness.”

So much for “truth”fulness. They couldn’t even wait for the autopsy.

We get it. We die. All of us. Some of us just want to keep our liver, spleen, heart and mind until we go. The only thing I’m denying is an inhumane profit for the AID$ industry that apparently has enough money to support you guys who lurk here all day long!

Posted by Jon Barnett on 12/31/2008 @ 12:40PM PST


Let’s be serious, you are NOT working today. Okay, maybe you are. I’m sure they must pay you some pittance to spend all day long on boards that have nothing to do with you.

Your answer was pitiful. It basically says “I have no idea, and I can prove nothing at all”.
And it’s in direct opposition to many other posts of “evidence”.

If I were you, or the rest of your plants, I’d have been shamed into leaving by now.

Posted by Karri Stokely on 12/31/2008 @ 01:22PM PST

It tickles me that aidstruth is working for my benefit.

Posted by tracy ellis on 12/31/2008 @ 01:23PM PST

Tracy – I’m sorry, I guess I should have said “LTNP’s aren’t _intentionally_ scared into anything…” My bad.

I put the onus of communication firmly in the laps of the doctors – as a group we’re bloody awful at it, but it shouldn’t be up to the patient to have to stand up for themselves. Unfortunately that’s the case all too often. I have a pet peeve about that whole topic.

If your counts were 350 on AZT mono and still 350 on HAART 10 years later I’d be curious as to what they were off meds. 350 isn’t too dangerous if you believe the literature, although it isn’t normal by any stretch, and if there’s a positive HIV test in the mix it would be the most likely explanation by far. You’re absolutely right that people such as yourself aren’t rare, and in fact with earlier testing more and more people with a diagnosis of HIV are off meds and being followed and doing just fine, from a medical perspective at least.

Mental health is crucial. One of the earliest factors linked to progression was mental depression. You won’t hear that in many places, but it’s been researched and known for some time, and I’ve not heard of anyone refuting it.

Drug holidays are a mixed bag. Some people say they’ve shown they work and reduce side effects, some people say that it’s risky and promotes drug resistance. I think kids do less well than adults, but the research really isn’t clear cut. For some (especially those started on meds early on) it may be the only way to tell if they really need them… In an ideal world medical care is a partnership between the medical team and the patient and family. We don’t live in an ideal world, but you should at least feel able to ask the questions, and if the doc won’t listen (they don’t have to agree, but they should listen) then find another doc. Find a middle ground with someone you who work with.

I can’t help with much of the issues – I as a white, middle class trainee doctor from England needed to pass two HIV tests to get my Green Card for the USA. It seems wrong, horribly politicised and fraught with stigma, and I can’t think of any other medical condition that comes with that kind of baggage. It’s crazy. I don’t know if or when it’ll get fixed. I think it’s got a lot better since the 1980’s, but it’s not fixed.

Joe – I think I’ve made it clear that in my experience I can’t change minds. I don’t mind teaching or helping out where I can, if I can, without putting my foot in my mouth at some point.

Jon – if you know of how I can get hold of some of this money that is supposed to support me, let me know.


Posted by Nick Bennett on 12/31/2008 @ 01:31PM PST

Derek Neumann wrote: “I find it quite strange that when the official figures for a particular event are adjusted in the light of updated information, or when predictions about a possible event don’t reach the scale they were feared to, this somehow indicates to denialists that the entire thing is a fabrication and conspiracy.”

First of all, I find it quite strange that when you guys are forced to admit an undeniable fact, your first argument is, “I don’t see how this one thing proves, BY ITSELF, that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS.”

No one thing, by itself, is going to prove that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS. As Heinlein used to say, “This has more aspects than a cat has hairs.” But you’re saying, “Just because the entire coat doesn’t disappear when I pull one hair, that doesn’t mean that all of the rest of the hairs are as wispy and as insubstantial as this one.”

Which is why I would encourage onlookers not to take anything either I or Derek (or anyone else in this room) say as fact, but to research it for themselves, and make up their own minds on each and every aspect of this issue on which they might have questions.

If you’ll look at our comment count as compared to other issues, we’re in the hundreds while the rest are in the single and double digits. And yet, we haven’t scratched the surface here, of the massive fraud/blunder that is the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. Do the research, and make up your own mind. Derek doesn’t want you to do this; I for one do.

And yet, Derek would have you believe, just because the 2006 numbers were inflated (and therefore downwardly revised in 2007) by 7.3 million people, who simply evaporated from the computer screen (the only place they’d ever existed in the first place,) that, by itself, doesn’t mean that HIV doesn’t exist.

Oh, Derek, if it were only this one thing that I’d investigated personally, all of which collectively proves to me, at the very minimum, that those who say that AIDS is caused by a sexually-transmitted retrovirus are not only barking up the wrong tree, but they’re not even in the right forest. Matter of fact, that’s a showroom for plastic Christmas trees, and you guys are barking up the telephone pole in the parking lot.

BUT — just because I pulled a single branch off of one of the trees, and said, “It’s fake, see? Plastic and wires;” you say, “Sure, that one is, but that doesn’t mean every tree in here is fake, or that my dog is barking up a telephone pole.

Now, let’s put that 7.3 million figure into perspective. Currently, there are ESTIMATED to be 33.2 million HIV-positives, according to the current computer-generated estimate. 7.3 million is nearly a quarter of the number of HIV-positives that they’re telling us exist today. That’s a pretty significant fraction of the whole, to simply evaporate in a single year.

But if only 2007 were the only year in which this was the case.

Check out the figures for yourself:

Look at all the fact sheets listed there, and compare the figures between them. Year after year after year after year, millions of HIV-positives simply vanished! Poof! Gone! Tens of millions of them. And Derek is conceding that yes, this is because they’re making up the numbers as they go along, but just because they’re making up the numbers doesn’t mean that the numbers are false — and it certainly doesn’t mean that there are no HIV-positives, because there’s no such thing as HIV.

Decide for yourself, I say. Derek wants you to take his and his colleagues’ word on it.

Derek Neumann wrote: “Denialist translation: Obviously cars cannot exist….etc ad nauseum.”


Your attempt to reduce this discussion to absurdity reminds me of the conversations I used to have with my Pentecostal mother, as I began to reject her religion. I want to thank her (“Hey, Ma!”) for honing my skills against the likes of you for my spectacular victory over you today.

She used to do the same things:

“Well, just because God considered Lot (a man who, among other things, impregnated his two daughters,) the only righteous man in Sodom and Gomorrah, that doesn’t mean that God’s law isn’t eternal, or that God doesn’t exist.”

Or she’d say, “Charles, what you’re saying is like saying birds can’t fly. And if you actually see God’s miracle of a bird flying, you just say to yourself, ‘Nope, didn’t see it. It was a fairy or a bug or something.'”

….but I digress. Back to the coup de grace:

Derek Neumann wrote: “I find it quite strange that … when PREDICTIONS about a possible event don’t reach the scale they were feared to…”[emphasis mine]

…And the reason that I call this the coup de grace is that I’ve got you, with the following paragraphs. Checkmate.

It’s all in that one, single word: “Predictions”.

Derek, I’m going to pretend for the moment that this debate between you and I will go on for one more day, and make an insincere offer for you to offer me ONE prediction you guys have made that has ever come true. ONE.

You can’t, and you and I both know it.

Where’s the massive spread of the epidemic that was predicted back in the 80s and 90s? Oh wait, there still predicting that it’s gonna happen tomorrow. Somehow, the massive “pandemic” that we were all promised never arrived — most people don’t even know anyone with AIDS. Much like the Second Coming of Christ, it’s always just around the corner, but never quite here yet.

Where’s the global heterosexual epidemic predicted by the alleged heterosexual pandemic in Africa? Still today, Africa’s the only place where HIV is even claimed to be an equal-opportunity infector — everywhere else on the planet, it seems to prefer infecting males (particularly gay and ethnic minority males for some reason) by a wide margin over females. Somehow, it knows what continent it’s on, the gender, race, bank balance, and sexual preferences of its hosts, and it behaves accordingly.

Why are there more closeted Republican senators getting caught cruising bathrooms and cyber-pinching page-boys on the butt, than there are of this particular risk group getting outed by an HIV/AIDS diagnosis?

We were told that those of us who didn’t take ARVs would get horribly sick and die, and yet every HIV-positive who has testified in this forum, has either been ARV-free and healthy, or has told horror stories of how sick they got sick and/or nearly died from the side effects of the medications.

Further on the subject of ARVs, we have also heard the “expert” testimony of one Derek Neumann, who predicted that ARVs save lives, but when forced to offer proof that they actually do, he dismissed the debunking of his “proof” by complaining that it wasn’t objective. (Honestly, Derek, do you expect a debunking to be objective? Where I come from, a debunking is supposed to be critical — I don’t know how they play this game in your neck o’ the woods.)

Prediction after prediction after prediction after prediction after prediction….

…BUT, that doesn’t mean that the whole thing is as empty of scientific validity as the Flat-Earth Theory.

Ummm, yes, I think it does.

Game, set, match.

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/31/2008 @ 01:45PM PST

Nick Bennett,

WTF?! You make your living as a medical professional, specializing in AIDS (aka “pediatric infectious disease”). That your paycheck may be cut from the state treasury, rather than Burroughs-Wellcome, just means it’s a waste of tax dollars that didn’t get funnelled through bigPharma or a research facility.

Barring a verifiable full financial disclosure, no one knows how much you make or where it comes from. Non-monetary perks and “honors” must be considered as well.

You and I will never agree. It’s like having someone quoting from the Bible to try to “save” me from hell. I don’t think that book is any more credible than Aesop’s Fables, so it’s an exercise in futility.

You won’t change my mind and I won’t change yours. You, “doctor”, are the bone-pointer. Why can’t you just accept that your curse only works on Believers. I will continue to try to raise doubts and save lives from your poison.

Frankly, you should know that this whole debate has only strengthened my commitment to the rethinker cause. I owe you and others here a debt of gratitude for convincing me that I must increase my resolve to be more public, regardless of the names you choose to call me.

Posted by Jon Barnett on 12/31/2008 @ 01:57PM PST

Nick Bennet wrote: “Henry – hmm, so the Hank here is an imposter. Maybe I am too… It would be all too easy to fake it wouldn’t it… ;-)”

No, Dr. Bennett, your unique kind of unctuousness is almost impossible to fake. But of course there might be a few infectious clones of you in circulation.

Tell you what, though, since you’re having another busy day, and therefore only have been able to post twice as many words as everybody else here, how about being mercenary about it and limit yourself to a one-on-one with me? That would also free up some time to go look up real references instead of your conference transcripts and recycled points from your blog.

I see you feel short-changed by the Perth Group on the issue of HIV and cell killing, which you claim they never answered fully in the BMJ debate. Why don’t we start there, old chap?

“Alas I don’t have a prepared document regarding HIV isolation…so no easy cut/paste link there. I can only say that even Duesberg believes HIV has been isolated, and the “isolation” criteria that HIV supposedly fails were invented by the Perth Group who admitted on the BMJ debate that they couldn’t be met because HIV was killing the culture cells and creating debris (and therefore simultaneously they admitted that HIV wasn’t an entirely harmless virus…) They never did respond to that point…” (Bennet)

It’s a darned shame you didn’t happen to have a prepared document on HIV isolation ready, it really is, but if you link to the relevant posts, I might be able to sort it out for you. You’re not too busy to supply a couple of links, perhaps some verbatim quotes to convince the good folk here you’re not just full of it, are you?

I don’t have any children , and I am not posing as an anti-denialist so you need not feel uncomfortable debating these points with me.

If, after I have helped you understand the Perth Group’s criteria for HIV isolation, you are still not satisfied with them, we could always discuss which criteria you think should apply.

I don’t know if you can handle two issues at once, obviously I wouldn’t want to distract you from any livelihood-saving duties, I’d like to know if you stand by your definition of an opportunistic infection as something that has to “come along” in Maria’s case:

“I would simply say you weren’t exposed to an infection that could take advantage of that.Opportunistic infections are just they (sic) – opportunists. They have to come along.”

Do you think Maria has been living in a plastic tent all her life, and so no opportunistic infections had ever come along?

Thank you for your time Doc.

Posted by Ruairidh MacDonald on 12/31/2008 @ 02:00PM PST

Paging Dr. Bennett… there are some sick kids that need you to give them drugs who have been in the waiting room all afternoon…

Paging Dr. Bennett…

Posted by Jon Barnett on 12/31/2008 @ 02:03PM PST

Thank you Mr.Bennett for the respectfull and well thought out reply. You aren’t any monster you are just like me, you want to be happy and to avoid suffering and when you can you want to help others do the same.
Thank you rethinkers for your supportive words here and e-mails.If I can be of service too you please let me know
In times of trouble ultimately it’s the bridges we build and not the walls that we defend that saves us

Posted by tracy ellis on 12/31/2008 @ 02:15PM PST

Mr. Bennett over the course of my assumed infection I have had three relationships ranging from 2 to 5 years in which my sero negative partner failed to sero convert even after hundred’s of acts of anel sex. You see I loved these women and we would try to behave ourselves but another thing we had in common is we also loved lots of condom less anel sex. Why no dead yet doc? We kept doing it and doing it and doing.. I mean christ on a crutch I aint even blind yet.How can you help me and others like me get off this meat hook of an industry. Sorry it’s not you it’s my life that’s the joke today.
I’m calling in sick at my top customer to play with you guys that’s pretty funny right there. I can see why we don’t have to do this for money this forum stuff has an addictive buzz about it I like I like lol

Posted by tracy ellis on 12/31/2008 @ 03:10PM PST

Nick Bennett wrote: “One of the earliest factors linked to progression was mental depression. You won’t hear that in many places, but it’s been researched and known for some time, and I’ve not heard of anyone refuting it.”

Dr. Bennett,

So what you’re saying, then, is that — OOOooh, let’s just say there was this middle-aged mother of two whose daughter died suddenly and unexpectedly, and instead of being allowed to grieve, she was accused of killing her daughter, and she was ostracized by the larger community and subjected to a yearlong witch-hunt of an investigation (which eventually found no evidence of wrongdoing,) and even after she had been exonerated people were still calling her a child-killer, and she was forced to watch fictionalized depictions of her own death over and over on national TV, and she had all sorts of legal hassles and the like, that the resulting stress might have some sort of an effect on her immune system?

In fact, not only is stress linked to disease progression in AIDS patients, but it’s been known for centuries that stress, by itself, can cause illness and even death, particularly if prolonged, and it has more recently come to light that stress is immunosuppressive even in someone who doesn’t have HIV.

Which, in turn, suggests that stress, by itself, can cause immunosuppression and even death, regardless of one’s HIV status.

You may have heard that I recently lost a friend to “AIDS”. Would you mind telling me how HIV was necessary, let alone sufficient, to kill her?

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/31/2008 @ 03:39PM PST

Jon – if I gave a full financial disclosure you’d only think I was lying… You can see how much I make online. As a fellow I’m a 4th year post-grad.

I get no money from any pharmaceutical or biotech company. I do get some income from my medical education articles, and believe it or not my programming pays for itself as well, but I can safely say it ain’t much and certainly doesn’t put me above 60k! If you think Peds ID is all about AIDS you’re very sadly mistaken… The success of preventing mother to child transmission of HIV means that pediatric HIV infection is thankfully becoming almost an unheard of thing, in NY state at least. The last case I know of, the mother didn’t take AZT to prevent transmission and that was several years ago. I think our most recent infection was a sexual assualt case in a teen.

Ruairidh – ok, for poops and giggles I’ll take the bait and “debate” this one issue with you. The second point regarding OI’s is a non-issue. People with low CD4 counts are at higher risk of getting sick, period. It doesn’t say that they WILL get sick, or when, just that they’re at a higher risk. There are no certainties in medicine, except that it’s a profession with a 100% failure rate (we all die). I can no more explain why someone with low counts doesn’t get sick than I can explain why the car ahead of me skidded in the snow this morning and the car behind me did not, driving exactly the same way. By the same token if a healthy someone with a CD4 count of 2000 gets Pneumocystis that requires just as much (if not a whole lot more) explaining then why someone with counts of 20-30 does not!

I fully understand the PG’s protocol, my point is that it’s inherently flawed and cannot purify HIV and that they admit it cannot be used to purify HIV, but still maintain that scientists use their protocol or else anything else is invalid.

Their protocol, most recently written up for the SA AIDS presidential advisory panel includes the instruction:

“7. Compare the EM pictures obtained from the test and control cultures. Particles with the morphology of retroviruses should be present only in the EMs from the test cultures. To claim that the
1.16gm/ml band is pure then the EM should show no other material but retroviral-like particles.”

The problem is that in their article “ISOLATED FACTS ABOUT HIV – A REPLY” on their website they say that:

“…unlike all other retroviruses, HIV is said to kill cells. Thus, unlike the supernatants (cell free culture fluids) from other retroviral cultures, in “HIV” cultures one would expect to find subcellar material, at least “cellular fragments”, microsomes from disrupted cells and “membraneous vesicles which may enclose other cellular constituents including nucleic acids””

So if one expects to find cellular debris from the killed cells (which does happen) how do they expect to get isolation using their protocol, which by all accounts in the literature is unable to do this?

They never answered that question.

Instead, I proposed using methods such as Anion Exchange Chromatography and Optiprep centrifugation, which others have used to get pictures of wall-to-wall virions, free of debris. These virions have been used to PCR up full length genomes of HIV (a full 9000 bases worth), to characterize the viral proteins and to show that some human proteins aren’t contaminants to the viral prep but are in truth incorporated into the virus and used by the virus.


Mouland et al. J Virol. 2000 Jun;74(12):5441-51. The double- stranded RNA-binding protein Staufen is incorporated in human immunodeficiency virus type 1: evidence for a role in genomic RNA encapsidation.

Dettenhofer M, Yu XF. J Virol. 1999 Feb;73(2):1460-7. Highly purified human immunodeficiency virus type 1 reveals a virtual absence of Vif in virions.

Richieri SP et al. Vaccine. 1998 Jan-Feb;16(2-3):119-29 Characterization of highly purified, inactivated HIV-1 particles isolated by anion exchange chromatography

This evidence is rejected/ignored by the PG as it doesn’t follow their protocol. The one which they know can’t work.

I can also throw a few links your way covering this same issue, and a couple of other topics about HIV/AIDS. Please take a look as I went to all the trouble of referencing them.

I hope that’s a reasonable place to start. I’m a little rusty at the one-on-one thing. Alas you see I’ve resorted to cutting and pasting…the same old topics yet again. Just as well the denialists were kind enough to archive my material!



Posted by Nick Bennett on 12/31/2008 @ 03:41PM PST

Mr Bennett could you list the denialists that are guilty of killing Africans and then the ones guilty of saving my life so I know whats what? Who is responsible for the fiasco that killed my son and crippled my wife in your mind? ? Who is in power to fix these kind of messes that are happening in this “free” country every day?

Posted by tracy ellis on 12/31/2008 @ 04:02PM PST

In an earlier thread I said “The only thing I’m denying is an inhumane profit for the AID$ industry that apparently has enough money to support you guys who lurk here all day long!”

This was followed by some back and forth about whether Nick’s livelihood is dependent on “the AID$ industry”, culminating in this nugget:

“…I can safely say it ain’t much and certainly doesn’t put me above 60k!”

That’s more than my household of two wage-earning adults made when I was functionally employed. Multiply that by the tens of thousands of similarly employed AID$ professionals and you have an industry.

If AID$ was found to be a fraud tomorrow you and tens of thousands of others would be filing for unemployment. On the other hand, we (taxpayers) could afford to pay your claims with the money saved from the AID$ toilet and have enough left over to actually provide sick people with information and care to IMPROVE THEIR HEALTH, not just “manage their disease” with toxic drugs.

I’ve been active in the “AIDS movement” since the earliest days of organizing the gay community to help sick people. I can only shake my head at the shear size and budget of so many groups that now exist.

Does anyone have numbers to put this into perspective for us?

You can have the last word, Nick, as you have nothing to do but earn some overtime pay. I’m outtie… gotta’ to kick 2008 out the back door.

Happy New Year all you “denialists”. I love you.

Posted by Jon Barnett on 12/31/2008 @ 04:05PM PST

Yea, I get it Bennet. As you stated:

“People with low CD4 counts are at higher risk of getting sick, period. It doesn’t say that they WILL get sick, or when, just that they’re at a higher risk. There are no certainties in medicine…”

There’s apparently NO CERTAINTIES in HIV medicine.

Again, really low CD 4 counts for me, “supposedly infected with HIV” for about 20 yrs, had two children and unprotected with my husband for 7 yrs BEFORE “getting diagnosed”.

Still, no illness for me.
Both kids born negative.
Husband negative.
I’m NOT bragging. Just curious and confused. And frankly, NO ONE on your side has ever been able to answer me, let alone be interested in studying me.
Why would that be?

This is NOT a very convincing arguement for a sexually transmitted, mother to child transmission, higher rates of sickness and disease, deadly, contagious illness.

And to the post above by MacDonald, who I think might have mistakenly referred to Maria instead of me, as they said:Do ya think I’ve lived in a bubble the last decade +???My children were babies when I was handed the death sentence. I’ve been all over the place, every event, every public anything that had to do with living life.
And yes, even places where there were lots of sick people.
And yes, my children, with strep throat coughed in my face while I was taking care of them, chicken pox….the list goes on.

Thanks for at least making an attempt though::))

Posted by Karri Stokely on 12/31/2008 @ 04:06PM PST

Jon – as a resident that 50k works out at around 12 bucks an hour after tax. As a fellow the hours are better at least… My salary depends zero% on AIDS. I get plenty enough ID experience dealing with genetic immune syndromes, cancer kids on chemo, septic premies in the NICU and the wierdness of everything from Acanthameoba to West Nile virus. Is that true for others working in the field? Of course not, but it’s true for me. You can choose to believe otherwise if it helps…

Karri – I’m terribly disappointed that no-one’s interested in answering your questions, even for their own curiousity. A distinct lack of imagination there. God Bless you, and here’s to keeping you and your family healthy for some considerable time to come.

Tracy – difficult questions. Ironically some of what Duesberg said (AZT monotherapy might not be a good idea) was right, for the wrong reasons. Maybe he stopped some people from getting unnecessary side effects from the meds. But he also contributed to convincing Mbeki to not treat his people in SA. The blame for your family tragedy I have no idea about. Who can fix it? I’m not sure than one person _can_ fix it. Maybe, and we can get back on topic here, a new President can make some changes to fix the underlying flaws in US healthcare that contribute to so many problems for so many people. I dunno.

Gos – I’m not going to speculate on Christine. We don’t even know exactly what happened there except she was recently ill. All I can say is that stress in all its guises doesn’t usually look like AIDS, by labs or by clinical illnesses.

Happy New Year all.


Posted by Nick Bennett on 12/31/2008 @ 04:35PM PST

“My question is am I an elite controller yet? If not when?
Whats the possibility of getting a misdiagnosed status some day and getting my rights back?”

That would also interest me. Is there a criteria for that? Is it enough if you test negative once? Twice? Thrice? How was it determined in other cases?

And if a person tests negative, positive, negative, positive…doesn’t this basically debunk the tests? What does it debunk then; the negative result or the positive result?

Posted by Sadun Kal on 12/31/2008 @ 05:15PM PST

I want to say that I think the tone of this board has changed today since Mr Bennett took Q & A and was very respectful of everyone. It would make sense that the aidstruthers would want to be respectful to everyone on a public forum like this so others would percieve that they are fair. I have no idea if it is genuine respect or not but it did surprise me after reading posts and emails from other aidstruthers like John Moore, Kevin Kuritsky and James Murtagh, etc.

These guys are a liability to the aidstruth belief. I could not believe the nasty email sent to Celia Farber by these two guys that were mentioned in Clark Bakers investigative article “Gallo’s Egg” .
The “This is war” email sent from John Moore to Michael Geiger was also a very ugly and mean spirited. This was also included in Gallo’s Egg.

I honestly think by reading Mr Bennett today that aidstruth has changed their frontman to one has better PR qualities. Mr Bennett you did sucessfully diffuse a lot of anger on this forum today. You were a point person for many questions asked today. I don’t dislike you, but I do question your motives. You have truly accomplished your goal today. Signing off, I want to wish everybody a Happy New Year.


Posted by joe stokely on 12/31/2008 @ 05:36PM PST

Sorry Karri, I was probably referring to you.

Dr. Bennett, I don’t know who has actually taken the bait here, but since you’ve just conceded the point about OIs AND very graciously given me examples of what you consider sufficient valid criteria for virus isolation – which I can always keep and use against you on future occassions (-: let’s just see if we can define each other’s positions without keeping score cards.But first I need some further clarifications. I hope you don’t mind me proceeding slowly and attempting to simplify.

First things first, the Perth Group doesn’t admit in the quote you have given that HIV kills cells. They are saying that even on your own terms the cell cultures aren’t “pure”. That is why a purification process is needed to separate viruses from cellular debris. Thus I don’t understand why you claim it would be an insurmountable obstacle to purification (Perth style) if the virus were cytopathic. I am afraid you have to elaborate.The references you have given to BMJ are arguments for the molecular clone – in essence that you can fish out pieces of RNA, insert them into cells, and if these cells produce particles with the characteristics of the RNA you have inserted, and these in turn can infect other cells in culture, it is proof the RNA originally came from a whole, exogenous virus.

In other words, if you can produce this phenomenon, you don’t even have to look in the human genome to see if the sequences are there;the RNA will be exogenous per definition, right?
Although we are straying a bit, may I ask why this simple argument is rarely made?

Posted by Ruairidh MacDonald on 12/31/2008 @ 05:45PM PST

Tracy, you ask: “how do I overcome this?”

Joe answered: “Don’t blindly take anyones word for anything. If you are on the fence, weigh all of your options and do your research.”

Posted by Gabriela Adelstein on 12/31/2008 @ 06:04PM PST

“I want to say that I think the tone of this board has changed today since Mr Bennett took Q & A and was very respectful of everyone. It would make sense that the aidstruthers would want to be respectful to everyone on a public forum like this so others would percieve that they are fair. I have no idea if it is genuine respect or not but it did surprise me after reading posts and emails from other aidstruthers like John Moore, Kevin Kuritsky and James Murtagh, etc.”

Hear! hear! Nice work today Mr Bennett!

Posted by tracy ellis on 12/31/2008 @ 09:13PM PST

Where do I start?
That HIV was never isolated?
That Roche just quit all AIDS research, essentially admitting that HIV=AIDS was a hoax?
That all AIDS vaccines failed – – – logic would suggest that that’s so because HIV doexn’t cause AIDS!
That the LANCET published data that showed NO decrease in the death rate from AIDS in those taking HAART?
That the same publication showed connections between taking HAART and an INCREASE in the death rate from AIDS?
That HAART drugs cost $ 5,000 to 7,500 per month!
That 72+ publications demonstrated a connection between drug abuse and AIDS?
That prof. Peter Duesberg was awarded the prestigious Semmelweis award!
Want more data?

Posted by Dr. Hans J. Kugler, PhD on 12/31/2008 @ 11:22PM PST

So Mr. Bennet, you are a pediatric doctor who gives AZT to new born babies and children? You are my man.

Can you please justify to me (or any mother) why should I give to my so much wanted new-born baby AZT, a drug that gave me anemia, almost blinded and killed me 13 years ago?

Please don’t say that they will give to my baby a lower dose of AZT than that given to me. It is a drug which has the skull and crossbones sign on the laboratory bottle!

I was for a while desperate again that we could not be able to stop people like you from poisoning my baby. The legal solution made me feel better.

Giving out any kind of drugs, especially those that are given out compulsory even though it is known that they are harmful, demands thorough scientific justification. If that does not exist, then the whole medical act is illegal and could do bodily damage.

By the way, as Karri mentioned earlier today, ‘seropositive’ healthy women do not need AZT in order to have healthy babies.

Posted by Maria Papagiannidou on 01/01/2009 @ 02:01AM PST

A short summary for the readers who does not know what is AZT:

AZT was designed as a chemotherapy for cancer and withdrawn from that usage because it was too toxic. It was approved for AIDS treatment using sloppy and fraudulent AIDS research data, as documented in the article “FDA Documents Show Fraud in AZT Trials” (

It is the main drug given to pregnant women “to prevent transmission of HIV to their fetus”. However (besides the fact that the “HIV” tests are not reliable, and almost meaningless) there are no proper scientific studies justifying that usage, considering the well documented flaws invalidating the AZT clinical studies.

Alliance for Human Research Protection, March 2007 (

For the invalid AZT clinical studies, we are talking about very serious consequences:

“My daughter is considered a success by medical standards because she tests negative, but I don’t care about HIV anymore. I am concerned about the effects of the AZT she was poisoned with while I was pregnant. Rachel has an enlarged cranium, seizures and a strange deformity near the base of her spine. At age three she still does not speak. I went to this conference on HIV and pregnancy at The Children’s Hospital here in Denver. A lot of mothers there had taken AZT during pregnancy and had their kids with them. Every single one of those kids had enlarged craniums. Their heads looked exactly like Rachel’s. They’re all AZT babies.”

From a letter published in the book “What if Everything You’d Been Told About AIDS was Wrong”, by Christine Maggiore, 1996.

To see the effects of AZT and other ‘AIDS’ medication on children, the BBC documentary titled “Guinea Pig Kids”, presents New York city orphans who were forced to take the pills with sometimes lethal results.

(from “Giving AZT to pregnant women and babies should be considered criminal”,

Posted by Maria Papagiannidou on 01/01/2009 @ 03:35AM PST
Browse Ideas by Cause
Select Cause:

First Round Voting Closed
First round voting for the Ideas for Change in America Competition closed at midnight on December 31, 2008.

This idea finished in 3rd Place in the Global Health category and has therefore qualified for the final round. Final round voting will run from January 5th – 15th, and voting totals will be reset at zero for all qualifying ideas to ensure an equal playing field.

Top 3 Ideas in Global Health
237Peace Care — Bring Together Peace Corps and Resident Physicians to Impact Global Health
204Create a Global Health Corps
158Take a new look at the cause of AIDS

Causes People Nonprofits About Us Ideas Blog Privacy FAQ Jobs
© 2008, All Rights Reserved.

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

December 26th, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But is Obama too spiritually elevated?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Punching feathers

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

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

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

The Aussies were even less help

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daschle seals our prediction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HIV critics retiring from the fray

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tara Smith’s Mbeki thread

March 30th, 2008

This is a copy of the thread Mbeki: Still in Denial on Tara Smith’s Aetiology blog on SEED Blogs, as of March 30, 2008. It is saved here for comment and preservation, in case any posts are removed at the original location. Onlookers can note the difference between the proponents of the conventional wisdom on the aetiology of AIDS and the critics who decry it, sometimes with surpassing wit and wisdom, always with the raw energy of total conviction.

tarasmithcute.jpgGiven that as far as we know Tara Smith (she of the delectable self portrait copied here)
is still a fond supporter of the status quo for reasons which are not clear, but seem to have little to do with reason and evidence, we rather admire her restraint in carrying what is increasingly an embarrassment to the case for the paradigm she unswervingly supports. By this time she surely ought to be indeed what her admiring title under her picture by Kevin Beck says – “”…a veritable expert on tawdry cosmetic procedures gone horribly awry…” – yet there is no sign of it in regard to HIV=AIDS.

Is this an example of the power of the Meme, or are there financial and political considerations involved? Surely not. – TS


Tara C. Smith is an Assistant Professor of Epidemiology. Her research involves a number of pathogens at the animal-human nexus. Additionally, she is the founder of Iowa Citizens for Science and also writes for The Panda’s Thumb and WIRED SCIENCE’s Correlations. Please note the views expressed on this site are Dr. Smith’s alone and may not be representative of the groups mentioned above.

Mbeki: still in denial

Category: AIDS/HIV • Politics • Public health
Posted on: November 6, 2007 1:45 PM, by Tara C. Smith

In our paper on HIV denial, Steven and I started the introduction off with a note about South African president Thabo Mbeki:

This denial was highlighted on an international level in 2000, when South African president Thabo Mbeki convened a group of panelists to discuss the cause of AIDS, acknowledging that he remained unconvinced that HIV was the cause. His ideas were derived at least partly from material he found on the Internet. Though Mbeki agreed later that year to step back from the debate, he subsequently suggested a re-analysis of health spending with a decreased emphasis on HIV/AIDS.

Though he’s not been publicly vocal about his views in recent years, it has been suggested that they’ve not changed–that he still remains unconvinced, at best, of HIV causation of AIDS. An article in today’s Guardian suggests he’s ready to start speaking on it again–and it’s the same old schtick:

President Thabo Mbeki remains an “Aids dissident” who has told a biographer that he regrets bowing to pressure from his cabinet to “withdraw from the debate” over the disease ravaging South Africa.


Thabo Mbeki: The Dream Deferred describes how the president contacted the author earlier this year to reiterate some of the views that caused uproar in the medical community before Mr Mbeki stopped talking publicly about Aids several years ago. Mr Gevisser also describes how the president’s view of the disease was shaped by an obsession with race, the legacy of colonialism and “sexual shame”.

The book will reinforce the view of Mr Mbeki’s critics who say his unorthodox opinions have cost hundreds of thousands of lives by delaying the distribution of medicines, and that the health minister, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, has continued these views.

This may sound familiar to those who’ve read our PLoS Medicine paper (or who’ve simply dealt with pharma-phobic deniers) as well:

The president said he was seeking an open debate but portrayed those who disagreed with him – who include Nelson Mandela, trade union leaders whose members were dying in large numbers and Aids activists – as in the pay of the drug companies.

And while Mbeki attributes much power to “drug companies,” it sounds like many who’ve disagreed with his stance on AIDS have been fearful to tell him as much:

Mr Gevisser says that while Mr Mbeki has never explicitly denied the link between HIV and Aids, he is a “profound sceptic”. The issue came to a head in the cabinet in 2002 after Mr Mbeki’s political advisers and some ministers told him it was running out of control and damaging South Africa’s reputation, which had been so high under Mr Mandela’s leadership.

“What happened was not, quite, a rebellion,” writes Mr Gevisser. “Only one elected ANC representative, Pregs Govender, the chair of a parliamentary committee on the status of women, resigned and publicly criticised Mbeki. And even behind closed doors only one or two people actually had the courage to tell Mbeki they thought he was wrong.”

Send this entry to: icon StumbleUpon Toolbar Slashdot Digg icon Reddit icon Newsvine icon Searchles icon

email icon Email this entry to a friend technorati icon View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry


(TrackBack URL for this entry:


Any quality political leader worth his salt will go out of way just to make sure there are people close to him that will disagree with him sometimes. Sadly, there are few political leaders anywhere like that any more.

Posted by: Dave S. | November 6, 2007 2:54 PM

Stand by for the deluge of denialists hijacking this thread. I’ll bet the first one will appear within the first 10 posts.

Mbeki is stubborn. Perhaps he is unwilling to admit he was wrong, or unwilling to admit others may be right. Either way, he is not helping the situation in the RSA at all, and should shut the hell up about AIDS.

Posted by: wheatdogg | November 6, 2007 6:29 PM

I take it that Mr Mbeki is willing to be injected with HIV to prove his point? I understand that, after the demonstration, he can heal himself with traditional medicines. No? Not stepping forward, sir?

Posted by: Ex-drone | November 6, 2007 7:27 PM

I am interested in hearing Dr. Braganza’s take on this story, since he seems well-informed on SA politics and also stated that Mbeki had forsaken Duesberg’s denialism.

Sometimes I try to decide which is better: a “stupid” leader who delegates to experts or a brilliant leader, full of ideas (like Mbeki), who insists on making his or her own decisions against conventional wisdom? Of course there are dangers in both. Why do we so rarely find a brilliant leader who is willing to take advice from brilliant experts?

Posted by: ElkMountainMan | November 6, 2007 7:58 PM

This is bizarre.

Mbeki’s official biographer claimed that Mbkei was never a Denialist!

Now in fiction: the president on Aids

Is Mbeki now denying that he denied that he was a Denialist?

Does Mbeki still claim that he doesn’t know anybody who died from AIDS?

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 6, 2007 8:59 PM

“Stand by for the deluge of denialists hijacking this thread. I’ll bet the first one will appear within the first 10 posts.

Posted by: wheatdogg | November 6, 2007 6:29 PM”

“Once again, I wonder how long it will take the HIV/AIDS denialists to hijack this thread.

Posted by: SLC | September 19, 2007 8:29 AM”

“Once again, I wonder how long it will take for the HIV/AIDS deniers to hijack this thread. Counting one, two, three, …

Posted by: SLC | October 10, 2007 5:12 PM”

“The AIDS/HIV denialist whackjobs whould be hijacking this thread any time now.

Posted by: SLC | October 25, 2007 5:50 PM”

“I wonder how long it will take for the HIV/AIDS denialists to pollute this thread with their bogus claims?

Posted by: SLC | September 14, 2007 9:23 AM”

Posted by: pat | November 6, 2007 9:32 PM

You have actually found something you can predict! congratulations!

Posted by: pat | November 6, 2007 9:36 PM


I think it comes down to the technicality:

In the Guardian article:

Mr Gevisser says that while Mr Mbeki has never explicitly denied the link between HIV and Aids, he is a “profound sceptic”.

and in Nicoli’s article:

Claiming that Mbeki was not an Aids denialist because he “never said that HIV does not cause Aids” is a red herring.

Mbeki can claim he was never a “denier” because he never explicitly said (to my knowledge) that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS–though policies he implemented and invitations he made to deniers shows otherwise.

Posted by: Tara C. Smith | November 6, 2007 9:42 PM

President Mbeki is a bona fide hero. He prevented the pharmaceutical cabal from polluting the country with toxic AZT. Probably saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

Glad he got re-elected in a landslide.

Posted by: Mountain Man | November 6, 2007 11:18 PM

As someone who has held a child that died because of Mbeki’s denialism, Mountain Man makes me sick. Of course, the children at the same orphanage suddenly stopped dying when they were put on antiretrovirals like AZT. Fascinating coincidence? No, Mbeki is guilty of negligent homicide, if not worse.

Posted by: bdkeller | November 6, 2007 11:30 PM


Hey moron — do you really think giving cancer chemo (AZT) to pregnant woman is a good thing?

If so, that is why you are a loser on the internet, while Mbeki worked tirelessly at Mandela’s side to smash apartheid and now runs a country of millions.

Go crawl under your rock — or better yet, take some AZT for 30 days and tell us what it does to you.

Mbeki is a hero — I hope upon his retirement they make him General Secretary of the UN.

Posted by: Mountain Man | November 6, 2007 11:41 PM

You do realize that insulting me for using the internet is rather ironic, eh?

The question of whether or not giving AZT to pregnant women is a good thing is answered by research, not by your rantings. Because women treated with AZT reduce the likelihood of their children getting HIV (which leads to AIDS and eventual death without treatment), yes, I think it’s a very good thing.

Mbeki’s admirable work against apartheid does not make his views on HIV/AIDS correct. If it did, by that logic Mandela’s even greater work against apartheid would justify his stance (which happens to be correct) that HIV does cause AIDS.

Posted by: bdkeller | November 6, 2007 11:49 PM

Jeez, bkeller, you’re like a trained seal. Good at regurgitating a narrative, terrible at any real thought. You sound like one of those gullible assholes who thought it was a good idea to invade Iraq or that driving a Prius somehow makes a difference in the environment.

Here, Moron, is some research on AZT, a deadly cancer chemo drug:

Within 48 weeks on AZT, 172 (56%) out of 308 Australian AIDS patients developed one or more new AIDS diseases, including pneumonia and candidiasis [1]. This indicates that AZT induces AIDS diseases with less than 1 year and thus much faster than the 10 years HIV is said to need to cause AIDS [2]. Likewise, no therapeutic benefits were observed in a study of 365 AIDS patients from France after six months on AZT, but new AIDS diseases and approximately 50% leukopenias and 20% deaths occurred within nine months on AZT, Further, no therapeutic benefits were observed in four Norwegian AIDS patients after six months on AZT [3].

The annual lymphoma incidence of AZT-treated AIDS patients was reported to be 9% by the National Cancer Institute and was calculated to be 50% over 3 years [4]. The lymphoma incidence of untreated HIV-positive AIDS risk groups is 0.3% per year and 0.9% per 3 years, derived from the putative average progression rate of 10 years from HIV to AIDS [2,5,6] and the 3% incidence of lymphoma in AIDS patients [7]. Thus the lymphoma incidence is 30 to 50 times higher in AZT-treated than in untreated HIV-positive counterparts. In addition, “during the past three years [of AZT therapy] a progressive increase in the number of [AIDS] patients dying from lymphoma…”, to a current total of 16%, was noted in 1991 in a group of 346 AIDS patients in London, most of whom were on AZT.


1. Swanson et al,(1990) Factors influencing outcome of treatment with zidovudine of patients with AIDS in Australia. AIDS 4, 749.

2. Lemp et al, (1990) Projections of AIDS morbidity and mortality in San Francisco. J Am Med Assoc 263, 1497

3. Reinvang et al, (1991) Only temporary improvement in imparied neuropsychological function in AIDS patients treated with zidovudine. AIDS 5, 228

4. Pluda et al,(1990) Development of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in a cohort of patients with immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection on long-term antiretroviral therapy. Ann Int Med 113, 276.

5. Duesberg (1991) AIDS epidemiology: inconsistencies with human immunodeficiency virus and with infectious disease. PNAS 88, 1575

6. Moss et al, (1988) The cause of AIDS. Science 242, 997

7. Centers for Disease Control (1991) HIV/AIDS Surveillance. (January) US Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, GA

Posted by: Mountain Man | November 7, 2007 12:12 AM

Glad he got re-elected in a landslide.

My impression was that the ANC did their best to eliminate HIV/AIDS as an election issue at the previous election.

They agreed to start distributing ARVs and Mbeki shut up. The silence was deafening. He stopped making any Denialist statements and the official ANC policy was that HIV causes AIDS and that ARVs are the appropriate treatment.

If Mbeki had any guts he would have taken his HIV denialism to the election.

Why didn’t he come out and say what he apparently thinks? He’s obviously a clever politician and knew that he would lose votes from many of the voters who had lost family members to AIDS. Much better to keep quiet and instead do your best to slow down the distribution of ARVs.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 7, 2007 12:20 AM

Trained seals must bark loudest at other seals. You say that I regurgitate a narrative (my personal story of involvement with children with HIV/AIDS is original, as were my comments on Mbeki and Mandela), and then you copy and past large sections of research from This is called irony.

As I am not a trained seal, I will however read the articles (not just the conclusions) you cited when I get the chance. It may take me a day or two to do them justice as I have a genetics test coming up soon. (Ie., I need to go memorize some more of that baseless Mendelian dogma.)

Your characterization is again, rather inaccurate. I think invading Iraq was a terrible idea and driving a Prius is more about impressing the Joneses than having an appreciable impact on the environment. You’re right on one count; I do have an anus. I’m sure you’ll find a way to sprinkle any future responses with more invective, and I look forward to it. It’s one of the main reasons I respond.

Posted by: bdkeller | November 7, 2007 1:37 AM

Within 48 weeks on AZT, 172 (56%) out of 308 Australian AIDS patients developed one or more new AIDS diseases, including pneumonia and candidiasis [1]. This indicates that AZT induces AIDS diseases with less than 1 year and thus much faster than the 10 years HIV is said to need to cause AIDS [2].What sort of mind could possibly distort these papers in this way? It can’t be simply ignorance. It has to be concious deception.

In the first study all patients had already been diagnosed with AIDS and had opportunistic infections.

Figure 2 shows the survival of people in this category in the period before AZT and the survival when given AZT. I can’t imagine what happens when “Mountain Man” looks at this figure. Do his frontal lobes shut down? Do his magical denialist spectacles turn opaque?

In the period before AZT only about half of the patients were alive 1 year after diagnosis with AIDS. To claim that this paper demonstrates that AZT causes AIDS is monumentally stupid. AZT increased the survival rate.

The Concorde study gave 1000mg per day of AZT to the immediate group and a placebo to the deferred group. During in 55 weeks only 24 out of 505 in the immediate group developed advanced ARC or AIDS.

The Concorde study completely refutes the idea that AZT causes AIDS. If AZT caused AIDS you would expect that the immediate group would get AIDS at a higher rate than the deferred group who received a placebo. This was not observed. “Mountain Man”‘s assertion that AZT caused AIDS within a year is also refuted.

The only question that I have is why does “Mountain Man” provide citations when they contradict his claims? Does he think that people won’t read them? Does he think everybody else is stupid? Is he so blinded by his own stupidity that he can’t comprehend these studies?

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 7, 2007 1:37 AM

Good at regurgitating a narrative,…

I should have checked before I assumed that you had the mental capacity to compose the pseudoscientific nonsense you posted.

There is a quaint scientific custom whereby text is attributed to the original authors. If you copy and paste text without attribution it is called plagiarism. I doubt that Duesberg is going to complain but it is still plagiarism. Changing the reference numbers to hide this fact suggests that it was deliberate.

That explains why you cited this paper

1. Swanson et al,(1990) Factors influencing outcome of treatment with zidovudine of patients with AIDS in Australia. AIDS 4, 749.

You haven’t read it. You are just relying on Duesberg’s misinterpretation.

Go to the library. Get the paper. Read all of it. Look at figure 2.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 7, 2007 2:00 AM

President Mbeki is a bona fide hero. He prevented the pharmaceutical cabal from polluting the country with toxic AZT. Probably saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

How Mbeki wanted to poison his people with Virodene(TM)

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 7, 2007 3:29 AM

Mbeki’s South Africa is the only government in the world to reject the HIV causes AIDS toxic drug propaganda. They recognize it for what it really is. In a phrase so aptly coined by Rebecca Culshaw, HIV drugs for Africa is a form of genocide masquerading as philanthropy. South Africa is a test case scenario for the political battle between big pharma paid activists who harass government officials, and the a democratically elected government opposed to iatragenocide.

South Africa has had its long years of suffering under apartheid and colonial racist rule which have made it wary of further oppression at the hands of a western medical system which has blundered itself into the untenable and fraudulent hypothesis that toxic drugs should be given to Africans suffering from chronic medical problems of poverty, malnutrition, tuberculosis, contaminated water.

Mbeki and his colleagues have tremendous courage and wisdom to lead their people away from the corruption of Big Pharma money and toxic drugs. For the benefit of their people, may these great leaders continue in strength and health for many years.

Posted by: Neverapeen | November 7, 2007 4:57 AM

Mbeki is a hero — I hope upon his retirement they make him General Secretary of the UN.

Being a hero and being infallible is not the same thing.

How old are you not to have noticed that…?

Posted by: David Marjanović | November 7, 2007 7:42 AM

For years South Africa fought for it’s right to acquire inexpensive generic ARV’s for its people. For years the HIV team has DENIED them this right.

United Press International – November 1, 2001

Activists: Poor countries need AIDS meds
Kelly Hearn

WASHINGTON (UPI) — Under heavy security, activists converged Thursday on the office of U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, calling for a relaxation of drug patents, a move that would let Third World countries produce generic medicines for millions of impoverished AIDS sufferers.

The protests, organized by the AIDS activist group ACTUP based in Philadelphia, comes a week before a key World Trade Organization meeting in Doha, Qatar, and days after U.S. officials threatened to break a patent for the antibiotic Cipro, forcing German drug maker Bayer Corp. to lower its prices.

“(President) Bush talks of breaking the Cipro patent after four people died (of anthrax). But he refused to extend AIDS drugs to 30 million AIDS suffers, most of whom are black,” said Asia Russell of Health Gap, an HIV/AIDS drug activist organization. “It is a racist policy.”

Btw: we still hear this one thrown about wildly:

“South Africa is currently experiencing one of the most severe AIDS epidemics in the world. By the end of 2005, there were five and a half million people living with HIV in South Africa, and almost 1,000 AIDS deaths occurring every day.1”

according to Statistics

Table 4.4:
The ten leading underlying natural causes of death, 2004

10. Human immunodeficiency virus [HIV] disease
total deaths: (hold tight) 14’532 or 2,5%

Ok, who the f..k is pulling my leg?
And people wonder why Mbeki is skeptical about the “Aids world”

Posted by: pat | November 7, 2007 8:20 AM

I think Tara incessantly posts a blog entry about AIDS denial to get into that TOP FIVE / MOST EMAILED list as often as possible.

Well, who cares. I think these are great threads, it’s a real treat. Once you’ve unraveled the HIV=Aids nonsense, discussing with any member of the Scientific Community defending the equation is like playing soccer with guys who have only one leg but who nevertheless boast about being the only people in the world to know how to play that ball. What did I say? One leg? No legs at all, that’s closer to reality. And drunk!
No wonder the denialist camp is leading about 98757 to 0.
No, 98757 to 1. I once scored against my own camp when I wrote amoebea instead of Plasmodium spp.

Posted by: jspreen | November 7, 2007 8:26 AM

Tara omitted the claim in the article I found even more disturbing (emphasis added):

[A] 100-page paper secretly authored by Mr Mbeki and distributed anonymously among the ANC leadership six years ago … compared Aids scientists to latter-day Nazi concentration camp doctors and portrayed black people who accepted orthodox Aids science as “self-repressed” victims of a slave mentality. It describes the “HIV/Aids thesis” as entrenched in “centuries-old white racist beliefs and concepts about Africans”.

That he’s still some sort of denier is a “dog bites man” story. Not a big surprise.

It’s the claim he apparently thought, and may still think, that HIV/AIDS researchers are “Nazi concentration camp doctors” is what astonished me. That’s seriously muddled “thinking”. I’m sure Orac could expand on this point!