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.

***************************************************

HONOR ROLL OF SCIENTIFIC TRUTHSEEKERS

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.

ACADEMICS, DOCTORS, AUTHORS, FILMMAKERS, REPORTERS AND COMMENTATORS WHO HAVE NOBLY AIDED REVIEW OF THE STATUS QUO

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---

Blistering letter to John Moore from Harvey Bialy

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

Cuernavaca

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)

55 Responses to “Blistering letter to John Moore from Harvey Bialy”

  1. Frank Lusardi Says:

    The hapless Moore is now being sliced and diced by a “senior colleague” in Europe:

    “When I heard of the high-handed, though cowardly manner in which you declined a public debate on HIV/AIDS, I called you a fraud on the pages of our Dutch web forum Andere Kijk, so now your name is a household word here in the Netherlands too.”

    Read all about it … here.

  2. Richard Jefferys Says:

    Wilhelm Godschalk – senior colleague! Do you have any evidence that Godschalk has worked as a virologist since completing his PhD in 1964? Meanwhile, over on the “AIDS Myth Exposed” message board, Bialy calling John Moore a faggot is not going over so well.

  3. Glider Says:

    Mr. Jefferys,

    Just because I consider some of Bialy’s word choices in his now-public email exchange with John Moore to be in bad taste (I was the one who posted the comments at Aidsmythexposed.com that you refer to in your post above as evidence that Bialy’s comments are “not going over so well”), that shouldn’t be taken to mean anything more than it does. More to the point, it shouldn’t be construed to be an indication that I’m in any way reevaluating my stance as an HIV/AIDS dissident simply because Bialy said something I consider regrettable.

    You see, after watching nearly 100 friends and acquaintances die ugly deaths in the late ’80s and early ’90s after being given AZT I decided that if I ever received a positive result from my annual HIV test that I would avoid the meds. I simply didn’t want to die the way they did.

    Well, I did in fact test poz and, true to my desire to live—and die—the way I wanted, I told my doctor I didn’t want to take the meds; he said I would be dead in 3-4 years without them. But I was determined to go out on my terms and I stuck with my decision.

    I believed my death was imminent and I actually planned for an early demise. But those 3-4 years the doctor said I had stretched to five, then seven, then ten. And now, 12 years later, here I am, still alive, still in excellent health, never having taken any of the meds.

    As a result of my own experience Mr. Jefferys I’ve come to question everything that I was told about HIV/AIDS. And it’ll take much more than an ill-considered epithet hurled by Harvey Bialy at a coward like John Moore to stop me from continuing to do so.

  4. Martin Kessler Says:

    Actually, I’m surprised that Bialy used the adjective girlish in his letter to Moore. I have his book “Oncogenes, Aneupoidy and AIDS”, and read it. Dr. Bialy may be an earlier generation than me but I would figure that a person of his verbal skills (he is a poet as well) would have employed more sophisticated wit in his letter to Moore. The term girlish used by Bialy in this case to denigrate Moore, unfortunately denigrates women as well. I don’t believe it’s necessary for Bialy or any other dissident scientist to stoop to Moore’s level.

    Martin

  5. Celia Farber Says:

    I liked Bialy’s use of “girlish,” and did not find it in any way to be misogynistic. Don’t let minor nonsense get in the way of a potentially epic dialectic.

    STOP IT.

    Stay focused on what ‘Glider’ said. I really really want to hear Mr. Jefferey’s response, so please pipe down.

    Mr. Jefferey’s–would you characterize “Glider” as a “denialist?” Is he denying his own life experience?

  6. Bialy Says:

    Glider,

    As “Truthseeker” will confirm, I have until now declined almost every opportunity to write to NAR, for reasons much too numerous to even begin to list.

    However, I was so moved by your writing above, that I felt I had to thank you in the most meaningful way that I can, i.e. by addressing these words to you. Gracias, y mucho corazon a ti.

    I hope that you also read the letter I reproduce below, which is near the bottom of the “Third Round” of the Moore self-destruction, and that you might consider reposting it (perhaps with some words of your own by way of introduction)at that other site, where I suppose that except for you I am being beaten about for being a “homophobe” (whatever that literally might be :))

    From: bialy harvey@gmail.com

    To: Darin Brown

    Date: Jun 18, 2006 9:23 AM

    Subject: a further note to jpm2003@

    Darin,

    Tell the linguistically challenged Juan Menos that I curse in the gutter Spanish of Cuba, in which “cabron” means cuckold (not “street whore”), and is the ultimate insult and one which demands you be ready to rumble for real.

    And since my three, rusty knife slashes at his neck, chest and genitals have now been made public, let me make it clear that I would never call any gay person a “maricon” in anything except the playful sense in which it is frequently used both in Mexico and Cuba — as a pejorative, I reserve it for pendejos like Moore.

    But really isn’t it bizarre that this jerk doesn’t want to defend the pseudo-science that feeds him yet behaves like a silly, internet addict quick to the sophomoric and worse insult and cheap rhetoric that would get him disqualified in any formal debate, of which he must have attended a few “whilst” at his fancy schools.

    And since he once pretended to read a book when he wrote that laughable “review” of Peter’s tome for “nature” (which helped it to terrific sales btw) when he was still in diapers — Yes even then he was a bought and paid for tool of AIDS, Inc and David Ho. I recall phoning him up from the NBT offices at the time and reaming his punk ass even more vulgarly than I have here. Indeed neither of us have changed at all in our lack of respect…he for his scientific betters, me for maricons who suffer from AMN — maybe he would do me a similar favor in the NY Times that thinks so highly of him (or did).

    Saludos,

    Harvey

    There are some blogs (like that one and Aetiology) that I no longer even look at, so maybe I am wrong, and they are calling me something intelligibly awful instead of etymologically confused).

    I have also sent Moore some emails from Hollywood (where I spent a few days earlier int he week) in which I thanked him for being the “enemy I never dreamed the gods would ever send”, and in which I hoped “he was careful crossing the street because his ultra-precious self was too valuable to the “denialist movement”.

  7. Richard Jefferys Says:

    Sure, Gilder, I wasn’t reading anything more into your words than they contained, my point is that Bialy’s tone didn’t appear to be a “welcome relief” for all those sympathetic to the views articulated by blogs like these. Although I find the AIDS Myth Exposed board to be terribly, terribly, misguided, there is at least some sense there of people actually caring about each other, which offers some contrast to the activities of Hank Barnes, Harvey Bialy, Truthseeker et al. who – to my mind at least – are coming from a different place.

  8. Celia Farber Says:

    Glider (not Gilder)wrote:

    You see, after watching nearly 100 friends and acquaintances die ugly deaths in the late ’80s and early ’90s after being given AZT I decided that if I ever received a positive result from my annual HIV test that I would avoid the meds. I simply didn’t want to die the way they did.

    Well, I did in fact test poz and, true to my desire to live—and die—the way I wanted, I told my doctor I didn’t want to take the meds; he said I would be dead in 3-4 years without them. But I was determined to go out on my terms and I stuck with my decision.

    I believed my death was imminent and I actually planned for an early demise. But those 3-4 years the doctor said I had stretched to five, then seven, then ten. And now, 12 years later, here I am, still alive, still in excellent health, never having taken any of the meds.

    Mr. Jefferys: I ask you a very specific question, and please do not answer with something wooly about “caring about each other:” My question is in three parts:

    1. Do you believe what Glider writes?
    2. Do you believe that this is the experience of many other gay men as well? (Or, are they all fantatasists, having the same fantasy on different continents, in different languages, over many years now?)
    3. If this experience has been truly lived and is TRUE thereby, when what makes a person a “denialist?” I am asking: If you SEE loved ones sicken and die from AIDS drugs, and you yourself don’t get sick despite HIV antibody positive status for many years, what conclusion does a RIGHT THINKING person come to? Forget the old guard of flogged “denialists,” who cannot claim antibody positivity and cannot help being heterosexual..but what would you say to a man like Glider? Is he irresponsible in some way? If so, please say HOW, exactly?

  9. Richard Jefferys Says:

    Well, Celia, you posed a question on another thread and then never responded to the answers so I hope you perhaps will take a moment to do so. But in response to your question here, of course I don’t think Gilder is denying his experience. What I would do, of course, is disagree with his interpretation of what was (and is) going on. Most of us are infected with CMV and it never makes us sick; does that mean it is incapable of causing disease? Of course not. The spectrum of disease progression in HIV infection is pretty well described, as are many factors that correlate (e.g. HLA*B57, immune activation, CD4 T cell counts, frequency of IL-2-producing HIV-specific CD4 T cells). And HIV-infected people that never took AZT died of AIDS, so I do not think that avoiding AZT prevents AIDS, or that AZT causes AIDS. When I worked at the AIDS Treatment Data Network, most people I knew and worked with were highly suspicious of it, some avoided it entirely. But I also have a former colleague in DC who participated in the ritonavir trial in ’95 when he had less than 50 T cells and was very sick. He has been on AZT pretty much continuously for about 10 years because it works better than anything else for his myelopathy, which at one point was so bad he could barely walk. He’s currently doing really well. Would you deny his experience?

    The issue of long term non-progression is critically important and – perhaps this would be one of the only things we might agree on – has been woefully understudied in light of that importance. Still, there’s certainly been progress, and the data that has emerged on of HIV-specific CD4 T cell responses as a correlate of long term non progression are exciting and jibe with the basic T cell immunology data that has emerged over the past decade or so from murine systems. But, I suspect, there’s no room for any of this in your worldview.

  10. Celia Farber Says:

    My “world view?”

    I think that people should be free to make medical decisions without being shunned, hounded, attacked, and if not jailed on criminal charges, (the dream) at least driven to the periphery of society by the AIDS professionals that purport to speak for them, but never listen. You (Tag et al) represent only those whose experiences conform to your “worldview.” Everybody else is mercilessly attacked and only the very strongest dare open their mouths ever again.

    This I know from 20 years of interviewing people, and chronicling the violence–the cost of non conformity. These stories will get told, rest assured.

    But first we must get away from all this billowy prose and get concrete and precise.

    I propose to you that a generation of hemophiliacs (1987 era) were unthreatened by HIV, but killed outright by high dose AZT.

    Can we have that discussion? All documented? Citations for every statement? By the way, I addressed your ‘questions’ on the other thread.

  11. Robert Houston Says:

    That discussion of “a generation of hemophiliacs…unthreatened by HIV, but killed outright by high dose AZT” is already long in print, all documented, with citations for every point. It is written by a scientific genius way beyond the level of flatworld reactionaries like John Moore or Robert Gallo, or smug propagandists like Richard Jefferys. The response of such HIV fanatics would be predictable: refusal to read the analysis, contemptuous dismissal, and recitation of current buzz-terms. For others, however, who have an open mind that has not been warped by over immersion in a monolithic fallacy, the paper by Prof. Peter Duesberg is bound to be an extraordinary revelation. Click HERE to see it.

    The reliability of Mr. Jefferys as a source of information is exemplified by his gratuitous suggestion above that there’s no evidence that Dr. Wilhelm Godschalk has worked in virology since 1964. A research paper in virology by Godschalk and colleagues was published in 1974 in the Proceedings of the Nat. Acad. Sci. (71:3866-8, 1974). A trivial point, perhaps, but indicative of the frequent – nearly consistent – misinformation propounded by representatives of the various “treatment action” organizations in AIDS.

  12. Robert Houston Says:

    Speaking of such organizations, let us hope that Mr. Jefferys of the Treatment Action Group in New York will inform his co-author and colleague Nathan Geffen of the Treatment Action Campaign in South Africa about the new rebuttal to Geffen’s recent article. Geffen and Bergman wrote a vitriolic diatribe against Celia, Dr. Val Turner, and Rethinking AIDS for the offence of merely citing a study showing a lower rate of HIV vertical transmission with no treatment than with Nevirapine (“Denying AIDS and the Rwandan Genocide” at the AIDStruth website). It turns out there are a number of such studies, as detailed in the new rebuttal from Rethinking AIDS (#30) that went up this week. Click HERE to see it.

  13. Glider Says:

    Wow. This topic certainly heated up overnight!

    I have a very busy day ahead of me—the annual NYC Gay Pride Parade is today—and I don’t have time right now to hammer out the replies that I’d like to offer in response to what’s been written above. I have a lot to say, but it’ll have to wait.

    However, I do want to take a minute and thank you Harvey for offering such kind and thoughtful words. I’m warmed by them. (And, like you, I’ve occasionally wondered how such a poorly conceived word as homophobe came to be.)

    To be continued.

    Glider

  14. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    I’m very surprised to see Mr. Jefferys back posting at this site after the flap that occurred concerning his postings at Aetiology. However, he has been extremely busy, being at the forefront of recommending that gay HIV-negative men use ARVs to “prevent” HIV transmission, even though there is actually no evidence in humans that this would be effective. In fact, he put a little power point presentation together on this topic, and as you’ll see when you read it, most of the “evidence” he sites in favor of this murdereous idea comes from studies of POST-exposure prophylaxis, and two very, very small animal studies. This is the new front line of AIDS research and Mr. Jefferys represents one of the most vociferous advocates of this approach, so I must ask Mr. Jefferys — are you planning on starting treatment with tenofovir? We must all ask our doctors and treatment advocates to regale us with their experiences on these drugs. To view Mr. Jefferys lovely power point presentation, see this webpage:
    http://www.champnetwork.org/index.php?name=prep
    On it, are the endorsements of this insane approach to “HIV prevention” from some of our favorite organizations, including that organization that pays Mr. Jefferys rent, TAG.

  15. Richard Jefferys Says:

    Thanks, Celia, for your illuminating response about T cell immunology in the other thread. If you think T cell immunology exists as a result of HIV, then I am truly at a loss (you were joking, right?). All due apologies to Wilhelm Godschalk, perhaps you’ll forgive me for still thinking that “senior colleague” is a bit of a stretch. As for the rest, your appeal to Gilder’s view of his experience is emotional, but it also ignores the fact that the majority of gay men – including myself – experienced things differently. I guess it’s your thesis that we’re all duped, corrupt, or both, and we should reinterpret our experience based on the insights of Peter Duesberg, who has our best interests at heart. No sale, sorry. Given the way Duesberg blatantly misrepresents the contents of his cites in his desperation to support his theories in the published work of his that I have read, I am not about to waste more time reading his views on hemophiliacs with AIDS, who he so sweetly refers to as a “minor” and “fringe” group.

  16. Richard Jefferys Says:

    Mark, you seem to be suggesting that your threats of lawsuits were an intimidation tactic. I guess I should also assume that the email I received recently that appeared to be from you was the work of an imposter. If there is evidence that PrEP is murderous, the DSMB’s of the Family Health International and CDC trials would have halted them. The data from the FHI trials will be presented in August. I would have happily participated in the CDC trial if there was a site in New York. The reason I believe that potentially safe and efficacious approaches to preventing HIV infection are worth studying is because of the data demonstrating the damaging and potentially fatal impact of HIV on the functioning of the human immune system. It is a testament to the surreality of this discussion that much of that data is cited by Rethinking AIDS in their defense of Celia Farber’s Harper’s article, for reasons that I have yet to see explained. Absent evidence to the contrary, I’m forced to assume that the data being cited simply hasn’t been understood.

    I’m not going to defend my Powerpoint skills, which I freely concede are truly woeful.

  17. truthseeker Says:

    Given the way Duesberg blatantly misrepresents the contents of his cites in his desperation to support his theories in the published work of his that I have read, I am not about to waste more time reading his views on hemophiliacs with AIDS, who he so sweetly refers to as a “minor” and “fringe” group.

    Richard Jefferys, as we have just told you here, this blog makes a special effort not to include misleading statements. Either you will give one sustainable example of this mis-citation or your messages here will be forever bordered in red in warning to the naive that they contain blatant misrepresentation of the scientific literature, and are therefore not to be trusted on that parameter.

    One of the most disturbing things about the HIV?AIDS discussion is that those with a limited grasp of the science rush to accuse Peter Duesberg of inaccuracy, when accuracy is one of his chief scientific virtues, as it is of Harvey Bialy also.

    You of course are not one of those, so we are surprised to find you joining them in their mistake. In fact we are sure that almost as soon as you posted this rash sentence you regretted it, since as a politically sophisticated operative at the pinnnacle of negotiating with drug companies for funding for your group, warding off the threat to your operation of increasingly successful scientific skeptics, and keeping in with Anthony Fauci and Mathilde Krim, you must appreciate a simple fact.

    That is, just as a matter of simple logic, mis-citation is wholly unlikely in any paper closely reviewed by hostile peer reviewers anxious to find fault to cover their own political rear ends.

    Just one sustainable example, please.

  18. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    Well, then Richard, I very much hope you get to participate in a Tenofovir trial and I will, because you are so willing to take these drugs, respect your choice to do so, as I know it is an informed choice. I do think it would be very eye opening for you to actually take the drugs your organization is so keen on. Hopefully, instead of just testing this hypothesis on less sophisicated peoples overseas, they will allow sophisticated folks like yourself to take the drug too.

    The email you refer to, by the way, was a blip — I had the wrong settings on my “auto-reply,” and everyone I had ever written an email to got the same email. Sorry if it disturbed you so much. Truthseeker also received a set of such email blips. Try not to project too much, dear Richard.

    Also, I was not referring to the lawsuit I discussed with you (for which we are still very much within the statute of limitation, I might mention), but the fact that Tara at Aetiology confirmed my employment situation in California, as I requested, and then decided to take down what she perceived to be defamatory statements on both of our parts. I thought her approach was very reasonable. I would simply request you stay out of my personal life, which is, after all, not relevant to any of this. I didn’t hunt down little facts and references to your personal life on the internet and then post them for the world to see, so I would hope that you would refrain from doing so regarding me in the future.

  19. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    Oh, and I will be very interested in the results of the FHI trial too. I certainly hope that the investigators/sponsors of the trial don’t have to hire WESTAT again to actually tell them what happened. I don’t know one HIV- negative gay man in the states who is in the least bit interested in Tenofovir, but that is of course a non-representative sample. Still, I think it might be a hard sell here. Perhaps easier to sell it overseas, where most study participants do not have home access to the internet or are able to read medical literature at a local medical library. All they have are the trial documents, written for them, by the trial designers. I wouldn’t call that good access to information. So, yes, let’s do hope that they pilot a large-scale trial here in the U.S. Do you think, maybe, we should include effeminate boys in the age range, of say 7-12, also? I mean, many of them might actually end up being gay. Best to treat them even before they’re aware of that, don’t you think?

  20. truthseeker Says:

    Standards of discussion:

    That discussion of “a generation of hemophiliacs…unthreatened by HIV, but killed outright by high dose AZT” is already long in print, all documented, with citations for every point. It is written by a scientific genius way beyond the level of flatworld reactionaries like John Moore or Robert Gallo, or smug propagandists like Richard Jefferys. The response of such HIV fanatics would be predictable: refusal to read the analysis, contemptuous dismissal, and recitation of current buzz-terms. For others, however, who have an open mind that has not been warped by over immersion in a monolithic fallacy, the paper by Prof. Peter Duesberg is bound to be an extraordinary revelation. Click HERE to see it. – Robert Houston

    I guess it’s your thesis that we’re all duped, corrupt, or both, and we should reinterpret our experience based on the insights of Peter Duesberg, who has our best interests at heart. No sale, sorry. Given the way Duesberg blatantly misrepresents the contents of his cites in his desperation to support his theories in the published work of his that I have read, I am not about to waste more time reading his views on hemophiliacs with AIDS, who he so sweetly refers to as a “minor” and “fringe” group.
    – Richard Jefferys.

    Two out of three is not bad, Robert, with the third no doubt to come. However, we hope that ad hominem remarks to present company will be avoided unless complimentary, even if ironic.

    This may seem to be inconsistent with the current post saying that it is about time that HIV?AIDS critics stopped pulling their punches and being altogether too deferential, and admiring Harvey Bialy for being a firebrand willing to scorch the backsides of HIV?AIDS poo-bahs and their lackeys with one of his burning logs of language.

    But what we are trying to do is maintain discussion of the scientific and medical rights and wrongs of the present paradigm, without getting into mutual flaming which might set fire to the house.

    In this respect Richard is to be complimented for finding other ways of spiking the discussion, if that is his intention, which of course it certainly is not, given his enduring interest in the objections to the paradigm, and scripturally informed replies to same.

  21. Celia Farber Says:

    Jesus. Am I the only one who finds it hard to have 46 simultaneous catfights when none of them ever stay focused past the first indignant exclamation? I walk away for an hour and I have six new shades of my own idiocy to address from Richard Jefferys, who can’t seem to grasp what we are talking about any any given point, or perhaps does not wish to. It’s like dealing with the Dahlonega Mind Bender at Six Flags, when you didn’t even ask to get on it.

    I wasn’t trying to be “illuminating,” about T cell immunology Mr. Jefferys—that’s your role. I was trying to climb down from a different branch you sent me to after I asked YOU a simple question. Let’s trace our way back down through the World Biggest Hairball, to just a few days ago: I asked you (on another thread) whether you agreed with the assessment (expressed by Dr. Andrew Maniotis in my recent article in LA City Beat) that Total Lymphocyte Counts are a valid guage of immunity. You said not really, in so many words. WHO disagrees with you, as published in an article in June 2005, in JAIDS.

    This article states:

    “CD4 cell counts are not routinely available in most resource-limited settings because the tests require special laboratory equipment, but total lymphocyte counts can be carried out more easily and provide a fairly reliable surrogate for the CD4 cell count. “

    The link is here:

    JAIDS 2005 article

    I asked you whether you agreed with this because I am trying to truly understand whether EJ Scovill can be said to have had a shattered immune system, ie died of AIDS. You may maintain that HIV causes AIDS and I will respect your position. You may not, however, move all goalposts at will, year in and year out. If this WHO determination is valid, then fair is fair, and you must concede that EJ Scovill did not have a weak immune system by recognized international standards.

    My comment about T Cell immunologists was only meant to reflect my own understnding that T Cell immunology burgeoned in the post HIV era, so one would not expect to find T Cell Immunologists who do not think HIV causes AIDS. But I don’t claim expertise in T cell immunology. This is one of the reasons I was asking you what YOU thought, about the Maniotis statement. I am trying to learn, and trying to check my own assumptions as I go.

    Now, can we or can we not have a rigorous discussion about hemophiliacs and AIDS?

    If yes, I would like to bring somebody in from the UK, whose name is Alex Russell, and who has just written a letter to the New York Times, documenting some of his findings on this serious matter.

  22. Richard Jefferys Says:

    Since you made a reference to “scripturally informed,” perhaps you’re in a position to help me understand where the work of the NIH-funded immunologists like Zvi Grossman and Mike McCune, whose work refuted David Ho’s “tap and drain” model, fit into this supposed scripture. As I’ve said, their work is cited by Rethinking AIDS; the cognitive dissonance is quite stunning. Incidentally, I think the last time I gave up on one of these threads was when Robert Houston cited a study of malnourished Ugandan children with gingivitis who showed evidence of CMV in their gums…as evidence that malnutrition can suppress the cellular immune response profoundly enough to cause CMV retinitis. This was accepted by all as a sage contribution, supposedly demonstrating that malnutritition can indeed suppress the cellular immune response with the same severity as HIV or the immunosuppresive drugs used for transplantation. Even though, in fact, there is no study in all the literature that shows any such thing.

    On to Peter Duesberg. In the interests of time I will appropriate something I already posted to Aetiology:

    Here is a bit of classic Peter Duesberg, from his 1993 paper in Biotechology. He is expounding on his attempts to identify cases of “HIV negative AIDS”:

    “Table 1 includes some American and European immunodeficiencies that may not exactly fit the current definition of AIDS defining immunodeficiency without disease, which is <200 T-cells per microliter (CDC, 1992, MMWR 41, RR 17, 1-19), as for example, HIV-free male homosexuals on various recreational drugs with “<600 cells per cubic millimeter” or HIV-negative hemophiliacs with T4/T8 cell ratios of about 1 or <1 (Table 1, refs. 46-61). But even if not all of these cases fit the current definition of AIDS-defining immunodeficiency exactly, they do so prospectively. This is because their T-cells typically continue to decline either because of risk behavior, such as the consumption of recreational drugs, or because of clinical AIDS risks, such as chronic transfusion of foreign proteins as prophylaxis against hemophilia (Duesberg, P.H., 1992, op. cit.).”

    “They do so prospectively”!!

    I hope it is clear what Duesberg is saying here. In the Kaslow paper he is citing (ref 14), gay men taking drugs did not display evidence of AIDS unless they were HIV-infected. They had CD4 T cell counts in the normal range. But Duesberg has decided to count them as “HIV-negative AIDS” cases, because – according to him – “their T-cells typically continue to decline…because of risk behavior, such as the consumption of recreational drugs.”

    In other words, my theory predicts their drug use will cause their T cells will decline to less than 200 cells, ergo I am counting them as “HIV-negative AIDS” cases in order to support my theory that their drug use will cause their T cells to decline to less than 200 cells. And Duesberg accuses other scientists of circular reasoning! If you can read this and still be surprised that Duesberg can’t get published in a serious journal, then I am at a loss. As you can see, he takes the same approach with the literature on hemophiliacs.

    Another interesting thing is that the reference to what the HIV-negative gay men’s T cell counts actually were is in the PDF of the Biotechnology paper that is on Duesberg’s website here:

    http://duesberg.com/papers/the%20hiv%20gap.pdf

    But in the version that is reproduced in HTML form on the “Virusmyth” website, it reads thusly:

    http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pdbiotech93.htm

    “HIV-free male homosexuals on various recreations drugs with “X cells per cubic millimeter” (Table 1, ref. 14) or HIV-negative hemophiliacs with T4/T8 cell ratios of about 1 or 1 (Table 1, refs. 46-61).”

    Now, why would the Virusmyth website replace ”
    If you go on down through the other references in this paper, I am sure you will that find Duesberg is similarly abusing them (e.g. counting cases of “HIV negative AIDS” from papers that are saying that those cases do not, in fact, represent cases of AIDS).

  23. HankBarnes Says:

    Glider,

    You are a courageous fellow. Despite the heat and intensity of these somewhat esoteric debates, its important to recognize that a whole generation of people — mostly gay men — have been terrorized by the AIDS orthodoxy, whose entire reductionist mentality has been “take the anti-virals, and shut up.”

    You see, after watching nearly 100 friends and acquaintances die ugly deaths in the late ’80s and early ’90s after being given AZT I decided that if I ever received a positive result from my annual HIV test that I would avoid the meds. I simply didn’t want to die the way they did.

    Best wishes for your continued good health. Watch out for folks advocating anti-virals who are PAID by the orthodoxy to spread the word. Your common sense and good instincts are better guides than so-called “AIDS experts.”

    Hank Barnes

  24. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    I have a two questions:

    1. Why do you post here at all, Richard? Do you hope to actually win someone back to the establishment’s view? What is your motivation to post here when you know that the majority, of not all readers of this site disagree with your views? Have you been asked by some other party to respond to posts on this site and others?

    2. Why do people feel it so necessary to respond to Mr. Jefferys? Do any of us hope to convince him of the validity of our points? I don’t. My new plan is not to respond to Mr. Jefferys assertions. It would make sense to do so only if one thought one could engage Mr. Jefferys in productive debate, but I think we all know that’s quite impossible in this situation, so why do we all (including you, Richard) continue to participate in these kinds of exchanges? It seems rather pathetic and masochistic on all our parts.

  25. DB Says:

    Back to Harvey Bialy…I’d rather see “us” on the offensive, rather than this mode of debate where we seem to be asking permission to question shoddy science.

  26. truthseeker Says:

    Since you made a reference to “scripturally informed,” perhaps you’re in a position to help me understand where the work of the NIH-funded immunologists like Zvi Grossman and Mike McCune, whose work refuted David Ho’s “tap and drain” model, fit into this supposed scripture. As I’ve said, their work is cited by Rethinking AIDS; the cognitive dissonance is quite stunning

    Can we help you to understand? Sure. The work of the assiduous Zvi Grossman, like so much of the mainstream HIV/AIDS literature, can be profitably quoted as authoritative to show how foolish and inconsistent and empty the entire HIV/AIDS intellectual bag of dangerous trinkets is after 22 years of billions of dollars of research. That is always the reason why the critics quote scripture, and are delighted to have it quoted by its defenders. Because it does their job for them.

    The difference between chief HIV theoretician Grossman and the rest is that he is an honest man, philosophically speaking, plugging away faithfully trying to shore up the non-science by trying convert it into sense. As the chief theorist of the campaign, he has a very difficult job, but he sticks at it admirably. And when he comes to a dead end, he admits it.

    As we recall, he just wrote a review paper in March wherein he labored through an examination and rejection of every suggested mode of T cell despatch that your leaders have come up with for HIV and rejected them all, ending with the plaintive conclusion that once again, how HIV got rid of T cells remained a “conundrum.”

    Not having the paper in front of us we cannot give you the exact citation, but you’ll find it easily enough, given your copious research skills. But these kinds of telling quotes are all over the place.

    How about Abraham Karpas’s review from Cambridge of the general scene in 2004, “Human retroviruses in leukaemia and AIDS: reflections on their discovery, biology and epidemiology” (Biol. Rev. 2004, 79, pp 911-933) where we see the slightly independent minded Karpas, no friend of Gallo’s, write that “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.” So much for the hope for a vaccine – HIV does it already, as Fauci has now finally acknowledged in his own grand review (see previous post).

    Of course, then the redoubtable apologist goes on to say, as you will hurry to point out, that “despite a vigorous immune response that is protective for many years, eventually one or more mutants emerge that manage to evade the immune response and lead to disease progression and death.” Well, we guess he hadn’t read “Rapid evolution of the neutralizing antibody response to HIV type 1 infection” by Douglas Richman of the University of California at San Diego, forwarded to PNAS (Vol 100 # 7 April 1, 2003 4144-4149) by Robert Chanock of the NIH.

    “And Duesberg accuses other scientists of circular reasoning! If you can read this and still be surprised that Duesberg can’t get published in a serious journal, then I am at a loss”

    Your quoted mis-citation by Duesberg is material too tedious to go through at this time, since other duties call, but we look forward to assessing it later. Though one has to wonder, is this the best you can do, a non-peer reviewed “Last Word” Commentary from Bio/Technology in 1992? What we were confidently expecting was a mis-citation from Duesberg’s paper in “serious journals”, which you may not have read, if you think that your comment above is accurate.

    Perhaps you would like to go through the 200 footnotes of the Proceedings of the National Academy February 1989 Vol 83 # 3 piece, “Human immunodeficiency iirus and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome: Correlation but not causation”, whose sole author is Peter H. Duesberg, and point out ANY citation which is misleading, or indeed any statement at all which is misleading in any way? Or even incorrect in import today, 17 years later? Nine different referees, and the great Robert Gallo himself, who promised a rebuttal to the editors which was never forthcoming, let alone the breathtakingly authoritative Anthony Fauci, came up empty handed, so we look forward to your restoring of the balance.

    Or if you prefer, why not find one in the latest and most thorough thrashing Duesberg has given to HIV/AIDS pretenders in the esteemed Journal of Biosciences, in 2003, assuming you can find it in yourself to grant the Indian Academy journal the status of “serious”.

    As to the question that Mark Biernbaum raises, as to why you post here at all, our own problem is that we cannot understand why you cannot understand the simplest point of all this, which is everything you say and quote uses as a premise the claim (HIV causes AIDS) that is the one at issue, and so does the entire literature that we are discussing.

    Thus in HIV?AIDS all papers and all statements tends towards one most basic error, which is not just to assume that HIV causes AIDS but, more significantly, that every symptom that is being assessed is caused by HIV and not even by the most obvious other factors such as drugs and malnutrition which are long known to cause these very same effects.

    The post you wrote above, for example, which jeered at Robert Houston for blaming “CMV retinitis” in Ugandan children on malnutrition, demonstrates exactly that reflex, and while we imagine that Houston will produce studies from the literature that will back his point, or correct your interpretation of it, the point we wish to emphasize is you are simply joining in here in the peculiar myopia induced by the HIV?AIDS paradigm, which is to dismiss drugs and malnutrition as causes in clinical phenomena where they are all too likely to be the culprits.

    What is the point of discussing any of this if you cannot free your mind from this pattern, even for the sake of argument? That is why time and again the interchanges you undertake are sterile. No wonder your respondents complain. No interchange is productive unless both sides are free to consider that the other side has a point. In this paradigm debate, the HIV critics fall over themselves to grant you your point, and then examine it, and only then raise objections against it. HIV supporters, on the other hand, are never able for a moment to leave behind the assumption that the paradigm is correct, and nothing else need be considered, even when they write their own papers.

    This is what results in the sterility of their thinking and the comedy of their endless search of their mental horizon for the dog that is sitting right under their nose barking at them.

    It is hard not to conclude that the only suitable answer to their points is Woof! Woof!

  27. Robert Houston Says:

    Dr. Biernbaum has asked some pertinent questions, and I’m inclined to agree with the direction of his remarks. It is foolish to think one could influence the opinion of a paid committed agent of an antagonist organization, or even expect any fruitful exchange of views. It’s plausible that the participation of such an operative may represent a planned effort by one or more “treatment action” groups to disrupt AIDS dissident websites. I respond mainly to correct some misrepresentations. So on to the cleanup.

    Mr. Jefferys claimed that “Duesberg blatantly misrepresents the content of his cites.” I have had occasion to check many dozens of references in many of Dr. Duesberg’s papers, and never found a single case of misrepresentation of a cited study. He is, in fact, scrupulously accurate in his citations.

    Challenged by Truthseeker, Mr. Jefferys gave as an example a Biotechnology article in which Duesberg noted which studies in a table included cases that would not qualify as immunodeficient by CDC criteria. So Duesberg is being faulted for representing the studies accurately! (In a prior paper on drug consumption, he gave evidence of immune decline with length of drug abuse.) Would one also fault the CDC for the fact that about 20% of the cases they term AIDS have normal T-cell counts which are expected to decline?

    As I predicted, Mr. Jefferys responded with contemptuous dismissal and refusal to read a paper by Duesberg. That’s why I did not provide the link for him or his ilk but rather, as I stated, for those with an open mind.

    Mr. Jefferys also misrepresented a prior comment by me: “Robert Houston cited a study of malnourished Ugandan children with gingivitis who showed evidence of CMV in their gums…as evidence that malnutrition.. can cause CMV retinitis.” I did no such thing. I was responding to a question he posted on the Kramer thread on 4/27/06: “Were you also able to find any cases in the literature involving malnourished humans developing CMV disease?” This was my answer (5/1/06):

    “Indeed there are. For example, half of the malnourished children in a study in Nigeria exhibited severe CMV-induced gum disease versus none of the well nourished children. All the children were HIV negative…” I was speaking of CMV-induced disease, not CMV retinitis. Click HERE to see the full comment (paragraph 5).

    The question has been raised as to why NIAID’s theoretician-in-chief for HIV, Zvi Grossman, has been cited in the Rethinking AIDS rebuttal (e.g., #48). Perhaps it’s because Dr. Grossman is in the best position to fully know and evaluate the explanatory value of the HIV theory. His conclusion, after 22 years of effort based on the theory, is that “The pathogenic and physiologic processes leading to AIDS remain a conundrum.” (Nature Medicine, 12:289-295, March 2006).

  28. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    Thank you Truthseeker and Robert Houston for taking my questions seriously. We really must ask ourselves: Why is it always Mr. Jefferys? Why doesn’t Gregg Gonsalves post here? Or John Moore, or anyone else from the AIDS Industry? Too often we are put off track in a productive discussion by the interruptions of Mr. Jefferys, who as Truthseeker pointed out, seems to be totally immune to an intelligent argument.

  29. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    I’d also like to buttress Celia Farber’s questions and argument regarding total lymphocyte count vs. CD4 counts. In my own experience (again, not representative), there has been a zero-order correlation between my CD4 counts and my viral load, even though current AIDS science predicts that there should be a strong inverse correlation between these two numbers. Although my CD4 count has gone down over time, my total lymphocyte count has always been in normal ranges, and my viral load has not increased — in fact, it is significanlty lower now that it was when I was first diagnosed, and by all standards, is exceedingly low for someone not taking ARVs. My doctor tells me that this is one form of “long term non-progression.” Apparently, there are many forms of “long term non-progression,” which, to my knowledge the AIDS estabishment has been unable to adequately explain. But clearly, such types of long-term non-progression do add to the “conundrum” expressed by the estimable theoretician, Zvi Grossman.

  30. George Says:

    “Truthseeker”,

    Did you place a green box around the comment from Mr. Barne’s above to call attention to its strangely contradictory content?

    <i>Best wishes for your continued good health. Watch out for folks advocating anti-virals who are PAID by the orthodoxy to spread the word. Your common sense and good instincts are better guides than so-called “AIDS experts.”</i>

    he writes. I parse this as follows:
    <i>
    Best wishes for your continued good health</i> has (at least for me) the most definite implication that Glider’s health might be precarious despite *not* consuming prescription poisons. And why might that be Mr. Barnes? Do you somewhere still project that myth of the deadly antibody test, or was it just one of those slips that comes with no thought?

    Or perhaps it is part of the condescension of the remaining sentences?

    Can you tell Glider and the rest of us where your authority to advise Glider like that derives? From what I read, he is the one with all the authority and you would do much better to listen instead of lecture.

  31. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    George, your comment is surprising. Hank Barnes is not the enemy, and I’m sure meant nothing but to be supportive by saying what he did. We are all here very familiar with his support, and grateful, I think, for that and for the coverage he makes of this issue with his web blog. Also, why is there no link to an email address for you? I would have rather communicated this to you directly rather than via the reply board, but there was no way to do so.

    Finally, it is important to remember that some dissidents actually do believe that HIV is more than a harmless passenger virus. You assume otherwise. That assumption is incorrect. Dissident voices are heterogeneous when it comes to that question, although you might not get that impression by reading the posts at AME, which are highly censored.

  32. Rebecca Says:

    George,

    There is nothing “contradictory” in Hank Barnes’ wishing Glider “continued good health”. As so many of us have observed, the psychological terror that is willfully imposed upon people who test HIV-positive is alone a significant threat to one’s health – both emotional and physical.

    I don’t suspect Mr. Barnes was attempting to give Glider medical advice, just showing him support for a decision he made by himself. God knows that HIV-positives who choose not to take “antiretrovirals” are harrassed endlessly for this choice by doctors and treatment activists alike. Why shouldn’t people who agree with his decision be able to express that, too?

  33. George Says:

    Martin, Rebecca

    You are both 100% correct when you write:

    (1) … it is important to remember that some dissidents actually do believe that HIV is more than a harmless passenger virus. You assume otherwise. That assumption is incorrect.

    and

    (2) …the psychological terror that is willfully imposed upon people who test HIV-positive is alone a significant threat to one’s health – both emotional and physical.

    and I apologize for my pedantry grounded in partial data, and confounded by my own ‘projections’– very similar to the “real AIDS denialists” that I so detest.

    So thank you both again for being such a clear two-sided mirror.

  34. DB Says:

    …it is important to remember that some dissidents actually do believe that HIV is more than a harmless passenger virus. You assume otherwise. That assumption is incorrect.

    Got to chime in here. I personally don’t know any people who identify as dissidents who believe HIV is more than a harmless passenger virus. Sounds like “AIDS-lite”, or just plain old “AIDS”. I’ve found that AIDS dissidents define themselves as either finding HIV’s very existence questionable, or HIV as a harmless passenger virus.

  35. noreen martin Says:

    Double chime ring in here. While there is a lot of talk about HIV, I wonder what any of you think about HHV6A or mycoplasmas, especially man-made ones, possible contribution to AIDS?

  36. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    George — who are you? I can’t understand a thing you wrote — lost on me, I’m afraid — it seems like it was some sort of inside joke — between you and yourself. But if what I wrote made you happy, well, I guess I’ve done my good deed for the day. I was most interested in defending a friend against a baseless attack. Apparently you hold some grudge against Hank Barnes. Could you be the infamous Dr. John Moore? Lucky for Rebecca and I that we don’t take such crap as yours seriously. And I am not an AIDS denialist. Sorry. I’ve seen too many people die to be in denial about AIDS. AIDS dissident, thank you very much. Denial, you know, is actually a scientific term with a very specific meaning — you might benefit from researching it.

    DB — I would offer Root-Bernstein as an example. If you consider his work “AIDS-lite,” so be it. The AIDS establishment certainly does not. Nor does Virus Myth.

  37. George Says:

    Martin,

    You completely misunderstood my use of the term “real AIDS denialists”. It was used in reference to the Darin Brown piece at Rockwell that I thought you were familiar with. Is it not obvious that the real denialists are Moore et al? They deny and deny and deny the data, and have done so for 20 or more years.

    For the rest, I thought I was very simply agreeing with you (which apparently some others do not, see above), and thanking you for pointing out my error. No jokes at all, implied or intended. This is not a laughing matter to me.

  38. George Says:

    Mark,

    Forgive me for addressing you as Martin in two places. I am an old man and in the early stages of andropausal dementia.

  39. Michael Says:

    Mark,
    the following is in reference to your comments about Mr. Jefferys and the seeming futility of responding to him and others like him whom share the mainstream “HIV causes AIDS” belief system. I am sure that this blog is not being played out only to a few well informed dissidents, but is playing out before the public at large. In light of this, every response and counter response has clear value for the public. Converting Mr. Jefferys to a dissident viewpoint is not even a point to be sought. This online interchange is 24/7 informing the public via the usually very intelligent discourse of the blogs and all of its postings, and, enables the public to be educated and to make up their own minds on the issues.

    I myself, am thankful for Mr. Jefferys posts, as it enables all of you to bring before the public the “bigger picture” of HIV?AIDS, thereby allowing the reader to decide upon the truthfullness and integrity of the opposing viewpoints. Even the most uninformed reader can usually and quickly determine which is which, by a simple reading and following of the postings. Although I am most always in disagreement with Mr. Jefferys, I myself am thankful for Mr. Jefferys comments, and others of the same staunch HIV?AIDS advocate postings, as it allows a broader discussion of the entire issue. These online exchanges may end up being the only understandable debate on the issue that the public will ever be able to access without an ego threatening personal confrontation from either side of the paradigm. I certainly hope that you will continue to take every opportunity to respond to postings such as his, for many have learned much from your additions. Keep the hope alive, because you and all of the other contributors to this are making a tremendous difference, far greater than you know.

    Rebecca, thanks for the reminder of the effects of psychological beliefs on ones health or illness. On the main Wikipaedia site, is a listing for Dr. Luc Montagnier, the original discoverer of HIV, wherein he himself certainly seems to be in full agreement with HIV dissenters and even Peter Duesberg. Virtually saying that death and illness thought to be caused by HIV?AIDS, is due to co-factors and psychological belief systems, he certainly seems to be saying very directly that death by HIV?AIDS is all in a persons head.

    The exact quote by Dr. Montagnier:
    “AIDS does not inevitably lead to death, especially if you suppress the co-factors that support the disease”. (I am sure he would also include Duesberg’s lifestyle argument of malnutrition and drug abuse as co-factors) Dr. Montagnier goes on: “It is very important to tell this to people who are infected. I think we should put the same weight now on the co-factors as we have on HIV. Psychological factors are critical in supporting immune function. If you suppress this pschological support by telling someone he’s condemned to die, your words alone will have condemned him”.

    It must be hard for the Dr. Moores, and Mr. Jefferys of the world to argue that HIV causes death and illness, especially when the man whom discovered it and studied it for the last 23 years is himself a “denialist” HIV?AIDS dissenter at heart.

  40. truthseeker Says:

    “Truthseeker”, Did you place a green box around the comment from Mr. Barne’s above to call attention to its strangely contradictory content?

    George, as you now realize, we were just appreciating Hank Barnes’ support for an individual who was somehow able to act according to his own independent will rather than accede to authority’s edict, and who thus saved his own life – even though he only questioned the scripture of HIV?AIDS later, as a result, rather than at the beginning, when he accepted it completely.

    We have found in the past that it is uniformly hopeless to suggest to patients of this kind, those who have been diagnosed positive and then accept medications, that they search out the paradigm review and assess it before continuing to be swept along by the mainstream.

    Seems that even those who normally double check their information – a journalist, for example, writing for Vanity Fair – suffer from the Arthur Ashe syndrome. Ashe reportedly read Duesbeg’s ideas but decided that though they made sense to him, he could only trust his doctors.

    We conclude that the authority of doctors becomes overwhelming when the patient’s emotional independence is overwhelmed by the threat of death by virus. So we too applaud the independent will shown by Glider, and his recent independence of mind.

    Your misinterpretation of Barnes’ post calls attention to the real problem that plagues screen discussions and emails, which is the high proportion of guessing or projection that goes on in an information starved environment. We’ve always though that the only solution tis to avoid misunderstanding by stating everything fully and clearly, however tedious that might be.

  41. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    Michael

    I appreciate your point of view on the Jefferys matter. I hope that you’ll continue to be available to respond to his posts. My decision, however, remains not to respond.

    Gordon — I understand now. No worries about “Martin.”

    Respectfully,
    Mark

  42. Glider Says:

    First of all, thanks to Hank Barnes for the kind words in his post. I really, really appreciate it.

    Also, a point of clarification. Truthseeker wrote above that he applauded my “recent independence of mind.” While my introduction and personal story may be new to the regular cast here, my independence of mind is not at all recent (though after looking at my original post I can see how he and others might have concluded I was new to the scene). In fact, I began exploring alternative views of HIV/AIDS quite a few years ago.

    And I’ve had little trouble digesting the science of it all. The challenge for me has always been dealing with the psychological aspects. Rebecca wrote: “…the psychological terror that is willfully imposed upon people who test HIV-positive is alone a significant threat to one’s health – both emotional and physical.” She couldn’t be more right. In my case, even after reading and understanding everything dissident-related that I could get my hands on, it was a long time before I could look at an ad for the latest anti-HIV drug and not feel a moment of panic. And to make it worse it seemed those damned ads were everywhere!

    Since there’s really no support to speak of for us HIV+ dissidents I often come to sites such as this to draw encouragement, learn a little, and be assured that there are indeed others like me out there. SO I want to add my support to what Michael wrote above: this site (and others like it) are tremendously important to people like me.

    Glider

  43. noreen martin Says:

    GLIDER, You hit the nail on the head. We have been brainwashed or hypnotized into believing that HIV is the problem and that we cannot exist without the drugs. You are so right, even when we consciously know better, it is still difficult to break away. However, when one finally can and doesn’t look back, it’s such an exhilarating feeling, sort of like finally getting over a bad romance.

    These type of sites are great and a wonderful support group as not every one lives in large cities which has such organizations. I really appreciate these sites and those who share their personal experiences.

  44. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    I second Noreen’s praise of Glider. And I would just like to say a word more about debating Richard Jefferys. I believe Michael is right, and he should be engaged, but I personally cannot do it — something I know from previous experience trying. It really upsets me and gets to me in such a way that it is, for me, not a healthy thing to be involved with. I would also point out that the more time we spend debating Mr. Jefferys, the less time we spend discussing alternate theories, which I think we are all very intereted in. In other words, we spend a lot of time discussing a theory we reject. I hope we can spend more time discussing theories that we might be interested in, like Noreen’s question regarding HHV6 — something I believe Chuck Ortleb is very interested in.

  45. Patrick Moore (no relation) Says:

    As spectator from the side lines with my own reasons for distrusting anything coming from any “money machine”, I would like to voice my support for Mark’s quest for discussing alternative therapies. HIV-Questioners don’t need any more proof or reason for what they do, they simply want to hear about other people’s experiences (if indeed anything needs to be done. I personally don’t believe anything needs to be done other than to avoid the snake-oil salesman and listen to one’s own body) Anytime the Jeffrey’s et al come on they spill more of their science-techno-goo all over the place that confuse the rest of us from the much bigger picture. I have no doubt that Jeffreys MEANS WELL but I believe he can’t see the forest for all the trees(science-techno-goo). For some reason we have all these wanna-be activists hopping on the very convoluted bandwagon called HIV=AIDS=DEATH. Why? because everybody wants to DO good or be SEEN to DO GOOD, with very few exceptions. As we say: “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”. The problem? The problem is with the hysterical masses hoping on the first band-wagon to plough through town. I can rattle off tons more of these proverbs, like “fools rush in”, “…swallowed it hook, line and sinker”. No science in proverbs, only generational experience. You have to pull back from the tree for any of them to make sense.
    But then again the point of this blog IS to smack the fools on the head and demand of them to make sense of their disease-causing bug and snake-oil remedies.

  46. No Name Says:

    Who are these “dissidents” that accept that “HIV” causes “AIDS,” and just why are they calling themselves “dissidents”? Or are they? Mark offers Root-Bernstein as an example, so perhaps we should add Sonnabend, Montagnier and other co-factor theorists. Given some things he has said, why not add Gallo and even Wainberg since he has admitted to a role for meth in causing disease. Why call them dissidents when the co-factor theorists sat with the apologists at the Mbeki Inquiry? I think whether somebody is a dissident has more to do with their current actions than their historical theorizing, and inclusion of articles at virusmyth (a website which is no longer updatd) hardly means one is a “dissident.”

    I received an “HIV” diagnosis in 1999 and like Glider had watched my friends die on ARVs — most in the early 90s when as perfectly healthy gay men they triggered a test and were immediately put on AZT and drugs liike prednisone and bactrim. By the time I was diagnosed I was clear I was not about to jump on the ARV bandwagon despite incredible pressure from doctors and a great deal of terror. I stumbled on the dissident case researching natural treatments and it did not take very long to be convinced of the apologist errors. In fact what I had witnessed over two decades finally made sense.

    I don’t thnk dissidents should underestimate the potential of reaching out to newly misdiagnosed people While the blog commentaries may play a role in reaching people, and will hopefully discourage some people from testing in the first place, I think the discussions among dissidents at forums like AME or in actual groups like HEAL NY or Alive and Well, are far more effective in helping misdiagnosed people thrive and survive than endless “debates” with apologists. I also recognize that as a “positive” my priorities are very different than somebody like “Truthseeker.” My big concerns do not revolve around Duesberg, but rather finding actual dissident health providers for myself and others, and making sure that stories of people who are “positive” and live without ARVs get told — which beyond the work by Christine and the stories on Christine, has really not been happening. Dissidents are mixed group who agree that “HIV” does not cause “AIDS” and I hope we can learn to support each other in our different priorities and make use of these differences as a strength. I see no benefit to the project by claiming Root-Bernstein or Montagnier as “dissidents.”

  47. truthseeker Says:

    You are so right, even when we consciously know better, it is still difficult to break away.

    Unfortunately, we are all sensitive to that influence, and if we break away we have to find our own group, even on the Web. So thank you to those who say they find this blog is useful.

  48. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    Dear “No Name” (how impressive):

    Being a dissident means questioning the claim that HIV is the sole necessary and sufficient cause of AIDS. Nothing more than that is required, since that is what the establishment claims.

    Forgive me for being scientifically cautious, but as I have written (now numerous times), I am not willing to accept any theory of AIDS causation without that theory explicating a causal mechanism for the depletion of CD4 cells that supposedly defines AIDS. And when I say “causal mechanism,” I mean one that provides a clear definition on the physiological and cellular levels. NO theory does so at this time.

    I have also extended that by saying what others (including, yes, Root-Bernstein and Montaigner) have also said — that AIDS is likely to be multi-causal — rejecting the “sole” cause for HIV implied by the AIDS establishment. All of this makes me a dissident. I do not claim that HIV is one of the causes, but I don’t reject it outright either. No causal mechanism connecting HIV to AIDS has been found yet, so the theory fares poorly by my requirements, but like I said above, no theory has yet to produce a causal mechanism. Until one does, I refuse to align myself with any of them. This, to me, is theoretical and scientific conservatism, which is necessary when no data on causal mechanism exists. It is also clearly a dissident viewpoint. You may not like it, but current co-factor theories are dissident by definition since they posit more than one cause for AIDS, which stands in stark distinction to the establishment’s single cause model.

  49. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    I’d like to just add, that I have been labelled a “denialist” by the infamous John Moore, and told I was in denial regarding the truth by a number of dissidents. I find myself in the unique situation of having my scientifically conservative views hated by all parties, and I think this is a good situation to be in, as it indicates that I am more interested in real data, than dogma.

  50. noreen martin Says:

    Mark, you are right, do your own thing! Truthseeker, who are you, I like your way of thinking! This site is wonderful, there probably are more people than you realize viewing it and really appreciating some truthful news.

    Hey, does everyone realize that this is National HIV Testing Day? I heard this on the news this morning, I didn’t know that there was such a thing. The test is performed via salvia. Maybe, for fun, I will go and get tested, can’t wait to see the look on their face!

  51. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    Getting tested again today sounds like a great idea, Noreen. I might follow suit. And yes, we owe thanks and appreciation to Truthseeker for all the hard work I know goes into maintaining this site.

  52. noreen martin Says:

    Why don’t all HIV postives go and inflate their statistics. We joke, however, can you see what is happening? Before long, one will be tested when applying for a job, entrance into college and on down to the high school level. It is a recruitment campaign with more and more being brought into the fold and brainwashed to go on the medicines. This is why it is so important that sites likes these stay up and running as the new media does not see the need to print the truth.

  53. Gene Semon Says:

    For everyone’s information, I’m reproducing exchanges from Aetiology with Richard Jeffereys:

    To Richard: My comments specifically addressed Ho’s model and HAART, which was the most important justification (Times’ Man of the Year, remember!?) for the cocktails you love so dearly. Now you have a new, brand new guaranteed correct theory. And you’re resorting to ad hominem because obviously I am not part of the revised standard official version of your vanguardist movement. You’ve taken a page from the playbook of Vladimir Illich. Congratulations Richard. You’re sure to make Cardinal.

    In the meantime. I will continue to make posts that are OF A PIECE and consistent with previous posts and, hopefully, move the discussion forward. If you choose to make progress measured in inches and want to belabor points endlessly, beating your chest to impress all of us with your great knowledge of T-cell dynamics, fine.

    Carl T. Bergstrom and Rustom Antia. How do adaptive immune systems control pathogens while avoiding autoimmunity? Trends in Ecology &Evolution . Volume 21, Issue 1 , January 2006, Pages 22-28

    EXCERPTS

    (B)ecause pathogens interfere with immune function, immune systems must be robust against sabotage. We describe here how these challenges are met by two immune systems, the intracellular RNA interference system and the vertebrate CD8 T-cell response. We extrapolate from these two systems to propose principles for strategically robust control.

    By deploying multiple redundant defense pathways, the host can influence the evolutionary trajectory of a pathogen population. Redundant defense mechanisms reduce the selective advantage to the pathogen of knocking out a single mechanism.

    Systems that have to deal with internal subversion (and the retrovirus must be demonstrated to reach that stage)* must go one step further and be strategically robust: that is, they need to function properly despite efforts to sabotage their workings. *(added to text)

    The distinction between robustness and strategic robustness becomes clear through analogy. A robust computer circuit would function effectively even if a few resistors burned out at random. A strategically robust computer circuit would function even if a disgruntled technician tried to sabotage the machine by removing precisely those resistors that were most crucial. (Added to text: if the AIDS virus can be demonstrated to be equivalent to the “disgruntled technician”, without invoking teleology, then we have something like compelling evidence.)

    RNAi is a system of post-transcriptional gene silencing that is broadly conserved across eukaryotes; it appears to have evolved as a form of adaptive immunity to prevent viruses from replicating within infected cells, by targeting foreign nucleic acids. (Added to text: something the classical virologists knew nothing about. Score one for the antidenialists.)

    END EXCERPTS

    Assuming an HIV “hijacks”, what about the armed guards RNAi?

    This paper can be accessed at:

    http://www.barnesworld.blogs.com/ => Science Stuff => Trends in Ecology &Evolution

    (Posted on 6/22/06)

    Response to Richard 6/24, 4:26PM

    There is a distinction between “arguing” and defining. I originally stated the possibility of CD3- cells and you replied that CD3 is part of the T cell receptor (not mentioning alpha/beta), by definition on each and every T-cell. I find examples of CD3- cells in ONE NEJM paper at hand and you hand wave about “abnormal”.

    My earlier post said “by deploying multiple redundant defense pathways, the host can influence the evolutionary trajectory of a pathogen population. Redundant defense mechanisms reduce the selective advantage to the pathogen of knocking out a single mechanism.”(authors) This was, for your consideration, a network model discussing adaptive responses and functional redundancies of T cells. “Three patients” with “abnormal CD3+CD4-CD8- cells” are suggestive of functional redundancy for the helper/memory function. I make an analogy to an emergency cooling system for a chemical plant reactor, not normally turned on. So nothing here is inconsistent with the idea that detailed understandings of lymphocyte dynamics have different schools of interpretation, which should be a given when evaluating such papers as Hellerstein.

    The leukemic effect? You’re really exercised over this one. I would say it’s an effect consistent with severe, life threatening hypersensitivity reactions of HAART NNRTIs. Other effects consistent: eosinophilia(!), lymphadenopathy, general malaise, flu-like symptoms, etc. And let’s not forget that “(mechanism and long term consequences of) redistribution/accumulation of body fat including central obesity, dorsocervical fat enlargement (buffalo hump), peripheral wasting, facial wasting, breast enlargement (are currently unknown)” (PDR, 2006)

    (Posted at 4;01PM, 6/27/06)

  54. No Name Says:

    Mark,

    Sorry if you don’t like my handle, but there is no more reason for me to use my name on this blog than there is for “Truthseeker” to use his. Unlike you I believe in working quietly and calmly, and have no desire to be a star gay “positive” dissident. Also unlike you I don’t think CD$ depletion has much to do with what gets called “AIDS.” In fact I am convinced the syndrome itself is incoherent and only leads us away from finding treatments for actual illnesses. I am happy for you that you are so satisfied with your so-called scientific conservatism, although in my view it is the acceptance of the existence of “AIDS” which is dogma. I am surprised to hear you so boldly praise “Truthseeker” when it was not so long ago you were attacking him and trying to lead a campaign to “out” him. I do hope further reading of the history and science will lead you to change your mind about who is and is not a dissident. I hardly see the point of claiming as dissidents people who attack us as :denialists. I will end my part of our exchange here and promise not to respond to you in the future as there really is no point in this exchange.

  55. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    Equating my honesty in using my real name in these discussions with some sort of “need” to be a gay positive celebrity is ludicrous, and insulting beyond measure. I use my name because I believe in standing behind what I say and being readily identifiable if someone wants to question my beliefs. I also use it because I have published work on gay psychology which has been widely disseminated, and if using my name can draw attention to this issue, then I think that’s a good thing.

    I find your beliefs very coherent concerning questioning the internal coherence of “AIDS”, but I frankly don’t really care who labels whomever a “dissident” or a “denialist.” I don’t require a label, exactly because I use my real name. I am simply myself.

    As for my warm regard for Truthseeker, friendships go through both good and bad phases and both parties make good and bad decisions — you know nothing of my relationship with Truthseeker. I do happen to admire him and am grateful for his dedication, and sometimes he frustrates me. Not abnormal in a friendship, I should think.

    I wonder why it is you feel it so necessary to attack me. I certainly am not your enemy in any way. But this kind of talk is clogging what was otherwise a productive discussion on this blog. If you want to continue in your crusade against me, please feel free to do so, but email me directly rather than taking up space here. And if you do me the honor of sending me an email, please do let me know who you really are.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Bad Behavior has blocked 1290 access attempts in the last 7 days.