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---

AIDS 2012 Conference: 25,000 Rally In Washington Folly

Celebrities Lead Latest Performance of Science’s Global Pantomime

Activists and Media Briefed Before Curtain Rises

Scientific Literature Remains Corrupted and Unread

Please help this earnest young woman find a way to stop the epidemic of HIV antibodies by correcting the science of HIV/AIDSIn what, according to critics who read the peer reviewed scientific literature, is the greatest piece of tomfoolery in science and medicine today, a very great gathering is upon us.

Surfing onto the broad bureaucratic beach of the nation’s capital on a wave of media coverage leading up to Global AIDS 2012, an army of HIV/AIDS scientists, health workers, NGO staff and like assorted taxpayer, pharma and charity funded HIV assault teams of all sizes have descended on Washington.

These serried ranks of HIV warriors will spend the week sharing their latest insights, achievements and ambitions, not to mention their latest tips on how to win more funding for a fight that the general public seems to be less impressed with than ever before.

As usual the excitement will be stirred to a higher level by activists, who were especially briefed by the Conference organizers yesterday, before the grand pow-wow officially opened. The media, too, were relieved of any puzzlement as to the official scientific and public health ideology on which the entire enterprise rests in a special briefing yesterday also.

The fly in the HIV/AIDS ointment

Unfortunately, these media students like the rest of the vast assembly will not be apprised of what is the most extraordinary aspect of the enterprise, which is that according to the best published peer reviewed scientific analysis it is founded on a giant mistake. The cause of all the AIDS symptoms that all these worthy people are striving to cure is, unfortunately, not the notorious virus that they have written into the very name of the disease they imagine themselves to be addressing, HIV/AIDS.
The method of science is the method of bold conjectures and ingenious and severe attempts to refute them. – Karl Popper
According to articles written by the most intellectually distinguished scientist in the field a quarter century ago, in two of the most reliable publications in science, HIV was not and could not be the cause of AIDS, or indeed of any illness of any kind. The research reviewed in the articles showed, the author demonstrated, with the imprimatur of his peers affixed to his work by virtue of unusually rigorous peer review, that HIV was too limited genetically to do any harm, let alone perform the rather complicated trick of devastating your immune system as long as twenty years after you had been exposed to it.

The articles in Cancer Research in 1987 and in the Proceedings of the National Academy in 1989 pointed out that not only was HIV a type of virus that had never been found to damage any cell, let alone kill it, but it was a type suspected earlier of causing cancer, which is the exact opposite of cell killing. Not only that, but HIV had proved almost impossible to find in AIDS patients, even dying ones. Then, and ever since, “HIV positive” actually meant that a test for HIV antibodies was positive.

A positive HIV test should be reassuring, but tell that to the 25,000 people in Washington this weekBy the standards of accepted medicine this should be very welcome news for any testee with a positive result, since it means that his body has overcome all the HIV which entered it, which is why it is very hard to find HIV in an HIV/AIDS patient, even a dying one. This is a very simple principle understood by any ten year old that is taught it in school. A disease causing agent when overcome by the body’s immune soldiers, your antibodies, is banished, leaving only antibodies, the evidence of your new immunity to it, and that immunity will typically last for a very long time.

The two articles pointed out this fundamental flaw in HIV/AIDS thinking, as well as many more technical problems with the idea that HIV caused any illness of any kind, let alone AIDS.

The complete and firm rejection of HIV as the cause of AIDS was in fact the conclusion of both articles, based on the copious research that had been done on HIV by that point, which was referenced in hundreds of footnotes.

Follow up articles on the same lines clinching the case against HIV have followed through the years, as research expanded to show that HIV was in fact not transmitted between heterosexuals, and that there was never any epidemic of HIV/AIDS in the US, where the number of people who are HIV positive has remained around one million for 25 years, according to the CDC.
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers. – Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
What then could be blamed for the massive death rate in the US of victims of AIDS, and the catastrophic loss to society of many artists and other distinguished patients who succumbed to the devastating disease? According to these and later critical reviews, the answer was clear.

In the US and in Europe it was at first recreational drugs which destroyed patients’ immune systems, not HIV. But soon enough, the culprit was the drugs administered to them under the dangerously false theory that HIV was the cause of their symptoms.

In Africa and Asia, what was happening was not HIV/AIDS either, but a relabeling of other diseases and deprivation as HIV/AIDS by health workers and politicians who soon found, like their US counterparts, this was an Open Sesame to an Ali Baba level of funding.

Why haven’t you heard that HIV is harmless?

Whatever happened to all these damning reviews, and some thirty five books so far which have explained all this to a lay audience?

The initial two reviews rejecting HIV mentioned above were never answered in the same journals, even though the leading HIV/AIDS scientists promised to reply. The chosen means of defense has been political, damning the critique in the press, on the Web and behind the scenes.
It is difficult to mark the limits of superstition. – Voltaire
The leading scientific critic, till then impeccable in reputation and a favorite son at the NIH whose grants were never denied, has not won an NIH grant in the 25 years since he rejected HIV, even for the cancer research in which he is still a recognized leader and innovator.

It aint over till the fat lady sings...but what if the truth is hidden away behind the scenes?In a telling incident recounted in the sharpest book so far surveying the history of this debacle, that most dangerous critic was invited to the opera by a leading HIV/AIDS scientist. At drinks afterwards, a paper renouncing his critique was produced and his signature sought “for your own good”.

What little contradiction of the central points of the scientific critique has been attempted in other scientific journals has been marked by limited debate cut off prematurely by editors, in one famous instance Nature publicly denying the most prominent and expert HIV critic the “right of reply”.

Even by the time the first critique was published in 1987, HIV research had become a sacred cash cow, and resistance to questioning it was already intense, as internal memos at NIAID have revealed.

It’s the drugs, stupid; the weaker the better

But what eventually became and remains the single pillar of support of the belief that HIV is the culprit for AIDS in the US and therefore in the world (despite the radical difference in nature of symptoms in Africa and elsewhere) has been the idea that, as President Clinton put it to us once, “the drugs work, don’t they?” Contrary to the early experience of AIDS, patients began living longer when new drug “cocktails” (with protease inhibitors) designed to attack HIV were introduced in the mid nineties.

This improvement was trumpeted as the great success of HIV/AIDS policy which finally proved that it was on the right track in attacking HIV directly as the cause of AIDS. If the cause was not HIV, why would such drugs benefit patients so impressively?

Unfortunately, given the astonishing lack of proof that HIV causes harm (not a single paper demonstrating that this or any other retrovirus kills cells exists) an infinitely more likely interpretation is that as the drugs have been slowly reduced in toxicity, patients have naturally done better under their assault.

Initially death rates were high and death was quicker when AZT was prescribed in high doses, which was not surprising, since AZT had earlier been shelved as a tumor killer because it was rapidly more lethal to the patient than the cancers.

Since the AZT dose was reduced in the nineties as the new protease inhibitors were mixed into the new “cocktails”. life under standard HIV treatment naturally became better and longer, and by the time AZT was removed from the standard regimen in 2006, everybody was convinced that the newer drugs against HIV were more effective, rather than they simply had fewer side effects. The more sensitive patients still eventually die at a high rate in the end, the CDC shows: the current rate of US HIV/AIDS is still 17,000 a year.

This simple reasoning is not rocket science, yet the global HIV/AIDS army still uniformly follows the ideology of HIV/AIDS as posted on the Web site of NIAID, whose un-peer-reviewed pages currently serve as the impervious counter argument to any critique of HIV/AIDS lore. After earlier global conferences when anyone suggesting that it was more than HIV at fault was run out of town – including Luc Montagnier, the Frenchman who would eventually win the Nobel with his colleague at the Pasteur Institute for discovering HIV – there has been no discussion of any alternative to HIV for a decade.

Science by name calling

Elephants charging the gaps in HIV/AIDS theory, but all the HIV/AIDS proponents can see is the ivory of their billion dollar tusksIn the media, questioners of HIV seem to be routinely filed with climate change deniers, whether by reporters or defenders of the faith among scientists, the most prominent of whom wrote a notorious Op Ed piece in the Times labeling them “denialists” and the idea that HIV did not cause AIDS “deadly quackery”, “bizarre” and “dangerous” because one head of state, South Africa’s thoughtful Thabo Mbeki, became reluctant to authorize anti-HIV drugs until the contradictions in the standard dogma were explained.

This disrespect for opponents is an embarrassment to good scientists, who know that free exchange of ideas is the lifeblood of scientific progress, But it is also a signal that HIV/AIDS defenders do not have the answers. It is not just that they don’t have answers to the technical questions scientists might ask, such as how does HIV actually cause immune weakness, the central characteristic of “acquired immune deficiency syndrome”. It is that they cannot answer simple questions that occur to any layman who reads the New York Times on HIV/AIDS attentively.

More than one elephant in the room

Among the most obvious of these is the odd fact the HIV test is one that tests for antibodies, not HIV. Why is this? Because there is not enough HIV present in anybody to test for it directly. In fact, while billions have been spent in search of a vaccine for HIV, it is clear that HIV itself would do very well as a vaccine – against itself. Like any cold virus, three weeks after HIV enters the body, it has roused so many antibodies to rout it that it is effectively banished from the body and impossible to find.

Then there is the fact that supposedly the same disease has been concentrated in gays in the West for thirty years, while in Africa it has spread evenhandedly between the sexes. A related anomaly is that a supposedly transmissible disease which began with one million infected 25 years ago in the US infects no more today. Year after year, the CDC has recorded around one million HIV positives in the US, though it recently has raised its estimate to 1.2 million. The expected heterosexual epidemic has never transpired in this country.

This of course is not surprising when you consider that the HIV tests are for antibodies to HIV, and actual HIV is effectively absent from patients. HIV tests have to be for antibodies, since any HIV present is so negligible in quantity that it can only be detected with PCR, a special means of multiplying any vestigial HIV or its parts until it can be identified, which is like finding a single needle in a hayfield and multiplying it into a sackful.

In fact, the bottom line scientific truth, which by rights should bring all proceedings in Washington to a screeching halt, is this: a “positive HIV test” means you are actually HIV negative. No danger, no transmission.

25,000 chasing a phantom epidemic

JohnAlexander's Ship Of Fools has nothing on the 25,000 passenger liner berthed in Washington this week So what attendees at the Washington Fair should be contemplating is the puzzle of why they are fighting what must be a phantom epidemic, since any transmission of HIV antibodies through sex is clearly impossible: your antibodies do not transmit to me or anyone else.

In fact, contrary to official propaganda warnings, science has confirmed that HIV positivity does not transmit through heterosexual sex. A leading HIV/AIDS research general, Nancy Padian, ran the largest study ever of discordant heterosexual couples (one positive, one negative) in California in the nineties for six years. Nearly fifty of the over four hundred couples took no precautions whatsoever, yet Padian was unable to record one single transmission.

The spectacle of 25,000 people pursuing a phantom epidemic while people suffer and die from ailments labeled HIV/AIDS which might be cured by different drugs and treatment, especially by better nutrition, always a key to a healthy immune system, would be laughable if it wasn’t so tragic, and didn’t involve the misspending of billions of public and charity dollars and the waste of the energies of so many virtuously motivated people.

Those at the top of HIV/AIDS who have resisted so strenuously any outside review of their efforts have much to answer for. But it doesn’t look as if they will have to worry any time soon. So large is the system around the world that combines vast public funding and global bureaucracy, charity, health officials, health workers, medical providers, drug companies and activists that this Ship of Fools is probably now incapable of changing course, let alone turning and steaming back in the opposite direction.

9 Responses to “AIDS 2012 Conference: 25,000 Rally In Washington Folly”

  1. OMSJ Says:

    The conference was an obvious pharmaceutical and government marketing fest, designed to keep the believers, followers and groupies from turning on their prophets and mullahs. Then again, what can we expect from an industry that has paid $10 billion since 2009 to settle thousands of criminal and civil complaints related to the illegal marketing of drugs that kill or injure 2-4 million Americans, ANNUALLY?

    Since 2009, OMSJ has forced prosecutors to dismiss or plea-bargain dozens of HIV-related criminal and military by simply forcing HIV experts – like those who attended and spoke at this conference – to testify under oath and under penalty of perjury. It’s one thing for Fauci and Gallo to blather at a pharmaceutically-funded Klan meetings, but quite another when called to testify under oath, under penalty of perjury.

    Last May, OMSJ successfully defended a US Army sergeant, who was accused of having unlawfully exposed four women to HIV. Despite 1) multiple positive HIV+ test results, 2) four accusers, 3) an HIV expert’s opinion that the tests were unquestionable proof of TD’s alleged infection), and 4) a sworn confession, the court acquitted Dixon of all HIV-related criminal charges. Although the media ignored the case, more than 400 .MIL and .EDU servers downloaded more than 150 gigs of information from our server that month alone.

    OMSJ doesn’t pay attention to AIDS conferences for the same reason they don’t follow ComiCon, porn or astrology conferences. And as much as OMSJ disdains public disobedience, it’s hard to think of an industry or government agencies more deserving of a medieval pyre.

  2. Truthseeker Says:

    There are few finer actions by lawyers and those that help them (in this case the admirable Clark Baker, an erstwhile LA police detective who is now an unstoppable bloodhound tracking HIV/AIDS political and scientific felony) than defending people who are “HIV positive” from what amounts to a witchhunt based on scientific ignorance and falsity, where they are not only innocent by definition from actually risking the health of others but also effectively free of the HIV to which they have antibodies, as established by the “HIV test”, which is actually for antibodies to HIV and proof they are permanently free of the agent itself in their bloodstream.

    That people’s lives should be ruined by this devilish fantasy is a scandal of grotesque proportions and that responsible outsiders such as the editors and reporters of the New York Times should go along with it is a disgrace for all who participate.

    But that others who need only stand aside and let it all happen without intervening instead sacrifice their time and perhaps (among the misguided) their own reputation to help the victims of this witchhunt, some of whom have been sentenced to years of prison, is nothing less than heroic.

    That they are still forced to plea bargain some cases is evidence of the shameful resistance of the prosecutors to the rational view of the situation, which dictates that all such prisoners should be released with compensation.

    This would make room in the cells for the “experts” who mislead the court and are willing to sacrifice other people’s lives and health rather than acquire a proper expertise in line with the peer reviewed scientific literature which they irresponsibly neglect to read and understand, even on the simplest level, which would tell them what HIV tests actually show.

    “an HIV expert’s opinion that the tests were unquestionable proof of TD’s alleged infection”

    This is more than an opinion, this is a clear factual misstatement, since the tests all have inserts stating the opposite, that they are not unquestionable proof of infection, and quite aside from its inaccuracy and partially contextual reading, the Western blot is no more proof of HIV infection than any other test. It is evidence of past infection, but since it is a test for antibodies to HIV, it is evidence of not being infected by HIV any more. So there seems to be a case here for purposely misleading the court, which should be prosecuted.

    It is quite extraordinary how Dr John Moore and others get away with calling the Western blot the “gold standard” and how any “expert” gets away with saying that a positive test means you “have HIV”. Did the judge somehow see this? Why did he/she not accept this false testimony?

  3. OMSJ Says:

    Kind words, Truthseeker – thank you.

    BTW, in another trial, Army HIV experts told the court that doctors are permitted to ignore package inserts (that they admit they don’t read) because, they say, the warnings are obsolete. How exactly do defendants defend themselves by doctors who say they can ignore FDA warnings because they are doctors?

    In any case, OMSJ is developing other defenses that will further expose the incompetence and corruption that permeates an industry that pays bribes and kickbacks to doctors who push HIV tests and drugs.

    As a 501c3 corporation, OMSJ accepts tax-deductable donations that help us defend parents, children and defendants who are targeted by these doctors.

  4. Truthseeker Says:

    OMSJ, that Army HIV “experts” – who are they? the people who observe that year after year the HIV seropositivity rate of recruits is steady at 1,5 per cent, but don’t see that means it is endemic in the population at that rate courtesy of mother to son/daughter transmission? – tell judges that doctors may ignore package inserts because they know better, and that the statement that it proves nothing about the presence of HIV is out of date, is interesting. Where do they get their “facts” from? The web pages of NIAID and CDC reports, no doubt, certainly not the scientific literature, which they presumably do not read and if they do read probably don’t really understand, or certainly are not capable of evaluating as far as the quality and consistency of HIV claims and study results are concerned.

    Whatever the truth, you are stating that they can contradict the package inserts freely in front of the judge by saying they are obsolete, on their own authority?

    The question then that remains unanswered in your reply above is, why did the judge accept this, or is it that he/she did not accept it, since after all the prisoner was discharged presumably because the Army “HIV experts” and others were discredited in some way.

    Did the judge specifically and publicly reject their claims? This seem unlikely, since judges are notoriously slow to contradict scientific experts. But you state that the prisoner was let go. So what were the reasons cited for the judge to set him free? How were the “experts” discredited and how was the judge able to choose between the “HIV experts” testimony and the “anti-HIV experts” testimony?

    Did the judge conclude publicly that he/she could not accept the official story that HIV was a danger and that the HIV seropositive prisoner was a danger?

    If so why do you need to adopt any different approach in such cases than the one which was totally successful in this case?

  5. OMSJ Says:

    You’ve asked a lot of questions…

    THEY are the orthodoxy, also known as the majority or consensus. In this case, the witness was Navy Commander Timothy J. Whitman, MD.

    THEY get their facts from participants of the shell game: – some facts come from the CDC, others from the NIH and FDA. But when you contact those agencies, replies come from social marketing websites like AIR and Edelman, which are contracted by those government agencies. Ironically, the NIH, FDA, and CDC post disclaimers at the bottom of their websites that warn visitors not to trust websites and correspondence from third-party websites (like AIR and Edelman). I described the shell game in this report.

    In another recent case, THEY (prosecution witnesses from MHRP) said that FDA package inserts are obsolete and that doctors can ignore FDA warnings and CDC guidelines with regard to the testing, diagnosis and treatment of HIV. So when prosecution experts are confronted by established rules, THEY simply change the rules because, as doctors, they can.

    Judges are required to weigh evidence. In the Ft. Bragg Case, the judge acquitted the defendant of all HIV-related charges and released him. In our more recent case at Ft. Belvoir, the judge convicted but only sentenced our client to a year in prison – a fraction of the 17 years he faced.

    OMSJ has several projects underway that will, at least temporarily, further complicate the testimony of gov’t HIV experts. But these highly technical cases are a lot like playing chess with six-year-olds – it’s hard to win when they keep changing the rules; and its bad form to publicly humiliate them.

    The Gov’t is although loathe to embarrass or discipline military officers who are called as experts. And by virtue of their alleged expertise, qualified experts are called to render opinions, not facts. Experts are also immune from liability when rendering misguided opinions. So unless the defense is prepared to cross-examine these experts, outrageous opinions often stand.

    There are no post-trial interviews with judges, so it’s impossible to say what they were thinking when they render decisions. They do not specifically or publicly reject expert claims. They simply weigh the evidence and opinions and make a decision.

    While we don’t need to adopt different approaches in the defense of these cases, we must adapt when prosecutors modify their tactics. As we win more cases, prosecutors will have time to share notes, change strategies and prepare for our experts and cross-examination. No two cases are the same.

  6. cervantes Says:

    History will show Hiv/AIDS drugs and deaths championed by the two (con)men Robert Gallo and Anthony Fauci will far surpass death and misery brought by all other iatrogenic regimens – excepting the plethora of cell-killing cancer drugs.

    It’s not hard to summarize: Take no Fauci recommended drugs; eat well, get well. It’s that simple, and ever more true for those who are told they have “Hiv antibodies” (antibody tests stemming from Gallo’s fraud!)

  7. Truthseeker Says:

    Surely, Clark, in theory the proper way to defend any unfortunate prisoner accused of murdering women by exposing them to HIV antibodies is to point out that the scientific literature rests on a fatuously incorrect and impossible idea that HIV antibodies indicate that HIV is still a threat when they indicate the opposite and that the person who is HIV antibody positive ie HIV negative could not possibly be any kind of threat to him or herself or others.

    This is such a plain and obvious fact that no judge could possibly misunderstand it if presented in clear fashion quoting standard sources in science and in HIV/AIDS, and any attorney who cannot expose it to the court so that everyone can understand it and demonstrate that it is the story that the so-called HIV/AIDS experts are claiming which is prima facie false and against all common knowledge and common sense is surely incompetent or prevented from exercising his skills to proper effect by some extraneous factor (see the PNAS study “what the judge had for breakfast” ).

    You are saying in likening the process to “playing chess with six year olds” that it seems that courts are mired in a kind of mud of foolishness and initial assumptions which make the task of making this plain very much more difficult that it should be. It is easy to believe you, since anyone who has been involved in a court case has to be aware of how easily the truth is obscured by false analogies and rhetoric and other logical and psychological diversions.

    But that is the challenge facing every attorney and in this case one cannot help feeling it should be able to be solved even though science is a closed book in most courts that therefore generally prefer to rely on the authority of experts. But this is a matter of establishing what the experts claim, and then demonstrating very easily that it makes no sense even in their own terms. The core of the argument in this case is so simple and self evident that it surely can be demonstrated to any court’s satisfaction that the claim on which any prosecution is based is so obviously wrong by the standards of conventional science and common sense that it cannot serve as a basic assumptiom of conviction.

    Far more complex concepts are argued over and resolved in courts that deal with financial matters.

    Surely the judge in the case where the charge was dismissed was persuaded that the prosecutor had failed to demonstrate his case that an HIV positive prisoner could possibly infect others. Is that not so? Did he not give any reason for his decision? What is not clear is why the second prisoner referred to received a sentence of one year. On what grounds?

    A year in prison is a very long time. His defense was not a great success in this light, although it was certainly much better than 17 years. But why any time at all?

  8. OMSJ Says:

    Truthseeker… With due respect, your logic illustrates the futility of such a strategy.

    Courts don’t care as much about the “scientific literature” as they do expert testimony – nor should they.

    Ioannidis and others under-report that nearly half of all major journal reports are proven false within a few years, but only alludes to how their inclusion as reference pollutes virtually ALL subsequent research. While a few papers on Resveratrol might soil a few dozen research papers and scientists, Gallo’s reports (1984) have poisoned thousands of reports and defective pharmaceutical products, threatening hundreds of reputations, billions of dollars in funding (tests, drugs, treatment, shareholder value… ) and the undeserved reputation of the US Government. With so much at stake, HHS and the recipients of their funding acquiesce to the presumption that the condemnation of a few undesirables (homosexuals, blacks, browns, drug addicts, Africans, their offspring…) is the most efficient way to protect US interests.

    In the case of Sgt. TD, prosecutors simply assumed that a few test results and expert testimony would be enough to convict; and when OMSJ isn’t involved, that’s usually overkill. But when our team challenges the testimony, the prosecution experts are forced to change the rules. For example – in a subsequent military case, another Army expert testified that FDA package insert information is obsolete (!) – a statement not unlike ignoring the boundaries of a tennis court or the limitations of a chess pawn. At that point, OMSJ can only hope that juries will be sophisticated enough to notice.

  9. Truthseeker Says:

    “Courts don’t care as much about the “scientific literature” as they do expert testimony – nor should they.”

    This is an absurd statement, to say the least. Courts can pay attention to the scientific literature if it is quoted by an expert witness, and it is entered into evidence in the proper manner, as it should be, and they should pay attention to it and they will inevitably do so. There is no higher authority than the peer reviewed scientific literature. However, I grant you that if a second batch of scientific literature is introduced to contradict the import of the first batch, then we will have a wrangle between expert witnesses and lawyers as to which the Court should go with, or at the very least, which is convincing and which is not.

    Since you haven’t yet answered the $64,000 question, we were forced to go to your excellent site and find the explanation ourselves at, a report on the case with additional interviews. Apparently the individual accused of supposedly risking the lives of his lovers by sleeping with them without informing them of his positive reaction to the “AIDS test” got off scot free (in penal terms, God only knows how the prosecution ruined his life) because the Court was not convinced that “AIDS tests” were sufficient evidence that he was a danger to others.

    Since a positive test is actually convincing evidence that one is safe from HIV and so is anybody one has sex with, since it demonstrates one is not, pace Dr Anthony Fauci of NIAIDS et al, a carrier of HIV, this suggests that the Court was wide awake during the trial, though unfortunately he probably didn’t follow the logic to that conclusion or its ultimate conclusion, which is that the supposed HIV/AIDS epidemic is a rewrite of reality, and that the causes of immune collapse should be sought elsewhere than in the presence of a harmless retrovirus.

    But you never know. Perhaps the illogical fantasy which was served up there and globally became apparent later to him as he mulled it over.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Bad Behavior has blocked 1328 access attempts in the last 7 days.