Science Guardian

Paradigm power in science and society

I am Nicolaus Copernicus, and I approve of this blog

I am Richard Feynman 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, 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/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, 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 /vd, 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, 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, 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, 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

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

(Click for more Unusual Quotations on Science and Belief)

IMPORTANT: BEST VIEWED ONLY IN VERY LARGE FONT
All posts guaranteed fact checked according to reference level cited, typically the original journal studies. Further guide to site purpose and layout is in the lower blue section at the bottom of any home page.

Burzynski! Alternative medicine pioneer conquers tumors, FDA

Riveting documentary exposes official misbehavior in suppressing cancer pioneer

NCI patented medicines while FDA tried to jail their Polish discoverer

Patients sob at their lucky escape from the forces which hold back progress

Stanislaw Burzynski has been rescuing children from radiation and chemotherapy with nontoxic remedies which seem to reliably boost the body's capacities to overcome cancer, and has many grateful adults to provide heartfelt testimony as to his achievement, as well as copious publications in the peer reviewed medical literature, and has excited envy at the NCI - but the FDA has done its best to send him to jail even as it cooperates with his trials. The fine, illusion busting, investigative cancer documentary “Burzynski”, whose limited, one week Oscar-qualifying run just ended at New York’s Cinema Village and in LA, is a must see for any intelligent observer of the politics of medicine in the US.

Readers should by no means credit the irresponsible reviews it suffered at the New York Times from freelancer Jeannette Catsoulis, the familiar Times’ pit bull for movies on unorthodox medicine or science, tho’ here able to complain only of the “visual aridity” of the documents presented which “destroy the film” and “trample the eyes”, while acknowledging that “director Eric Merola, presents Dr. Burzynski as a stoic victim of patent fraud, government harassment and scientific sabotage. No one appears to contest the efficacy of his treatment; the problem, the film suggests, is a pharmaceutical industry with nothing to gain — and much to lose — from the introduction of a highly successful, nontoxic competitor to chemotherapy and radiation”, or the Village Voice where Ella Taylor, evidently a tyro fresh to the vicious politics faced by alternative medicine pioneers, which is the topic of the movie, is so inattentive, seeing “no credible proof of the drug’s success” in this “conspiratorial rubbish”, that she had to edit her piece after publication, and raised a serious question as to whether negative reviewers actually sit through much of the movie.

More attentive takes listed at Movie Review Intelligence include Kevin Thomas at the Los Angeles Times and Ronnie Scheib at Variety, though we would choose James Van Maanen’s review and interview at TrustMovies as the best and brightest so far.

Reflex repression

Such flat dismissals of “Burzynski” are specimens of the same uninformed and possibly venal teacher’s pet hostility to novelty from outsiders that forms roadblocks to progress in every field, but especially medicine, where the media has a very bad track record in unfairly damning news of progress outside the dominant institutions – for example, the powerful expose of shoddy and unproven AIDS science in House of Numbers.

***********************************************************
All the major elements of what is wrong with modern medicine are present – the overwhelming official prejudice against novelty from outside the system, the distrust of independent unorthodox practitioners and the heartfelt testimony of their patients, the devotion of power to the defense of current treatment even though it achieves little and imposes its own horrendous torment on patients, and the immense influence of pharma on regulating officials who tend to end up with jobs in industry after they serve in government.
*********************************************************

This kind of unthinking resistance and counterattack is the theme of “Burzynski”, which exposes the irrational antagonism of FDA officials towards a successful maverick who has at the very least found a frequent cure for hitherto uniformly and rapidly fatal brain cancers.

Too many documents? The well arranged document-ary lives up to its description and proves its shocking and exhilarating case with documents more than personal interviews, it is true, and leaves out “balance” ie the standard defensive sources at the NCI and elsewhere. But this is either because those who stood up for him in the past wouldn’t talk any more (Petronas) or because Merola was discreetly avoiding the kind of vicious counterattack suffered by its hero by not alerting the vast and powerful opposition before his film could be released.

For “Burzynski” tells the tale of one of the most distinguished and successful pioneers of alternative medicine in cancer treatment, Stanislaw Burzynski MD PhD, his clinic, and the trials and tribulations faced by this sturdy optimist in fighting the vindictive, reflex hostility of FDA officials, self serving “quackbusters” paid by the insurance companies and other mindless servants of the status quo for over three decades.

Burzynski’s bright idea

Burzynski has a rock steady air about him, and even has a sense of humor about the irrational antics of his tormenters, possibly because he knows that he is on the right track with his magic wand in cancer tumorsThe Polish born, West Houston based Burzynski had a bright idea early in his career, when he noticed that certain harmless peptides are seen in the blood and urine of cancer patients at less than normal levels, and wondered whether they might be involved in the body’s natural defenses against cancer.

The result, as covered in his over 200 articles in predominantly peer reviewed journals, is that he has been treating cancer in patients since 1977 with a novel protocol based on boosting these constituents (now about twenty varieties of small peptides and amino acid derivatives, synthesized since the early eighties and called antineoplastons by Burzynski) with signal success, judging from his carefully kept records, voluminous publications on his lab work which shows they interfere with cancer cells, and the fervent testimony of his patients cured of different tumors, and their families.

As the film spends its first half hour demonstrating, his results are promising enough to deserve the opposite of the political and legal attacks that have dogged him every step of the way to the Phase III trials now finally in view. The egregious assaults on his work (and it seems clear, the lives of his patients) have included confiscation of his entire records for 14 years, costly prosecutions by local authorities with a view to jailing him for several lifetimes, luckily all in vain, and a blatant attempt on the part of NCI staff (including a woman who earlier served as his consultant) to rob him of his patents by supplanting them with their own.

Fair and lovely, and not dead

The grand claim made at the start, that this MD, PhD physician and biochemist has “discovered the genetic mechanism that can cure most cancers,” may be over reaching, but one thing is certain: Burzynski’s potions serve notoriously deadly and untreatable brain tumor patients better than the standard expensive and medieval regime of radiation, surgery and chemotherapy with its horrendous side effects which do little except delay death by a few months, if that. The horrors visited upon children with brain tumors without hope of real benefit by the orthodox priesthood in cancer are vividly described by parents who turned to Burzynski in the hope, quite often realized, that he could do better with his non toxic remedies.

Jodi Fenton has very good reason to feel she was saved by BurzynskiSome of the examples of his success are startling, with those diagnosed with fatal disease but lucky enough to come under the kind doctor’s care telling of their escape from the tortures of the damned years later, having won total remission and now flourishing in youth and beauty. When the current image of one condemned boy, now a handsome 18 year old, reached the screen the audience at the crowded penultimate showing at the Cinema Village burst out in applause.

The humorous twinkle in the stoic Burzynski’s eyes as he recounts the irrational but costly attacks of his enemies must reflect his utter certainty that he is on the right track, a confidence presumably bolstered when the official at NCI in charge of Phase II trials of his discovery, who went to the FDA (Michael Friedman), together with a consultant Burzynski once hired (Dvorit Samid) and a drug company which had offered to partner him (Elan Pharmaceuticals), paid him the compliment of trying to supplant his patents. Dvorit Samid was a believer in the promise of Burzynski’s method, but was banned by the NCI from mentioning Burzynski in her publications on the breakthrough, even as a reference.

An approach which makes sense

However unorthodox it may sound to the naive (and extracting useful products from urine is not as unusual as Ella Taylor the Voice reviewer seems to think – women all over have taken Premarin, an extract from horse urine, for years, for relief from symptoms of menopause) his protocol is officially recognized as promising both in these NCI patent applications and in the establishment of FDA approved Phase II and now soon (when the requisite millions are raised) Phase III trials.

Saving children from death and worse - the current conventional treatment for central nervous system tumorsThe principle is prima facie sensible and the proposed mechanism makes sense, and the results seem now well established. According to his careful records of FDA licensed patient treatment and outcome, it typically results in permanent remission in about a quarter of his cases compared with zero remission for orthodox treatment, if separate studies on the outcome of each approach are compared. The urgent public need, clearly, is for Phase III trials to be done as soon as possible.

Exactly how his urine extracts (can you say “antineoplastons”? its last syllable should be short, though in the film it is emphasized in the French manner) work their wonders is not fully detailed, but is generally supposed to be action against cancer gene expression. What is made crystal clear is the mechanism by which progress in medical science is stultified. Unless you have the ideal lawyer as Burzynski does in Richard Jaffe, who has a degree from Stanford in the Philosophy of Science, and whose Congressional testimony is featured on camera, you will be shot down by the FDA and put out of business.

If you are outside the great institutions it is almost impossible anyway to get the entrenched old guard to look open mindedly at your novelty in medicine, however good your results. In fact, they will naturally treat it as a threat to their present style of life, and counter attack (the HIV/AIDS establishment is a perfect example of this attitude, even though after 25 years there is no mechanism for the reigning and unproven claim). The FDA acts as the palace guard keeping newcomers outside, the media act as their barking dogs, and all the while Big Pharma bankrolls the status quo.

Dining on the public grave

His mother broke down sobbing when recounting how her son Dustin Kinnari was saved before a Congressional enquiry in 1996, and when the film showed his current state of 18 year old health, the audience in New York City burst out clappingIn carefully exploring how Burzynski himself is mistreated, the well developed expose takes the lid off what is nothing more than a disgusting can of political and mercenary worms dining off the corpse of the public interest in cancer.

All the major elements of what is wrong with modern medicine are present – the overwhelming official prejudice against novelty from outside the system, the distrust of independent unorthodox practitioners and the heartfelt testimony of their patients, the devotion of power to the defense of current treatment even though it achieves little and imposes its own horrendous torment on patients, and the immense influence of pharma on regulating officials who tend to end up with jobs in industry after they serve in government.

Such complaints have been widespread for many years but this film’s account is exceptional in its clear exposition of just how unjustified and automated are the official attacks on independents such as Burzynski. He is five times taken before grand juries even though they not only refuse to indict but jury members join in demonstrating with protesters in subsequent cases.

Abuse of power

The Texas authorities go after him at the bidding of the national office of FDA even though no law forbids his treatments locally (until 1995, when they changed the law), and eventually after losses in court the FDA begins to approve his work. Even so, his records remain confiscated for twelve years, preventing him from easily treating patients without laboriously Xeroxing his own records at the offices where they are held, which on the basis of past experience costs some patients their lives. A useless NCI trial conducted by the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center uses its own protocol, diluting the medication 170 times and evidently costing the nine patients their lives, according to Burzynski’s ignored protests. And why did it use patients who were so far advanced in their deterioration, that Burzinski’s medicine was unlikely to do much good? Was the renowned Mayo Clinic trying to sabotage his work?

All along the legal complaints do not suggest that his treatments are anything but harmless and beneficial (“the efficacy of antineoplastons in the treatment of human cancers is not of issue in these proceedings” – Texas State Board of Medical Examiners). In fact, by 1995 it is quite apparent and acknowledged by an expert at the Cleveland Clinic in the movie and other other establishment reviewers that the Burzynski treatment is both safe and evidently often stunningly beneficial, and will produce complete remissions in many more patients if they are not irradiated and drugged under the standard regimen beforehand, a regimen whose awful effects in at least one case produce a death even after Burzynski had erased the tumor completely.

Trail of stunning documents

Burzinski has a thriving practice but his chances of funding Phase III trials seem a little more complicated than they would be if the NCI handed over some of its public money for what looks like the anti-cancer leap of the quarter centuryA documentary maker cannot shoot film inside the minds of the actors in his drama, of course, but New York filmmaker Eric Merola powerfully suggests that money is at the root of all this evil as he takes filmgoers on a tour of the documents that expose all these horrid truths , bolstered with interviews mainly with Burzynski and Julian Whitaker MD, of the Whitaker Wellness Institute in Newport Beach, California. Nicholas Patronas MD who was chief of neuroradiology at the NCI is featured not on camera but in Congressional testimony being highly supportive, as well as in a report on Burzynski’s cases.

Only the most cynical will find the journey dull. It is high drama, with lives at stake. Merola uses an effective technique to clarify and dramatize written material which is usually safely fenced off from prying public eyes by medical and official jargon. He reads judiciously selected phrases out loud as the camera jumps from one to the next, leaving out the obfuscating Latin, but ensuring the audience gets it from the horse’s mouth, not from a voiceover summary.

The real criminality

The bottom line is that the film portrays an endemic vice of the current medical culture, the unthinking, lethal prejudice against potential cures which are Not Invented Here which motivates attempts to kill the messenger at the same time as appropriating the gifts he bears. Burzynski seems a sterling character who can see the absurdity of the criminally irresponsible tactics of his opponents even as he points out that his own experience indicates they are costing patients their lives.

But for public servants to admit on the one hand that his ministrations are effective against deadly cancers immune to current regimens, and on the other try to railroad him into jail and take him out as a leading competitor in the medical Olympics of curing cancer, as the film documents, is self evidently crooked.

At least one lawyer is telling the filmmaker that the miscreants in his case deserve jail, and has offered to put them there (see James van Maanen’s excellent review and interview at TrustMovies: Seek out BURZYNSKI (maybe its doctor, too) in Eric Merola’s new documentary; Interview with the filmmaker

In summary, no one who is touched by cancer should fail to look into Burzynski for themselves, and obtain the DVD immediately from Eric Merola’s movie website, Burzynski the movie, which also features upcoming showings, such as the ones in Asbury Park, New Jersey, June 23-26, where Merola will appear for a post film panel discussion and a current breast cancer patient of Burzynski’s.

Best good news in cancer for years

For the first time for many people, they will see that alternative medicine has been offering better treatments for cancer as in other diseases for thirty years, unremarked in the media except for special mention usually accompanied by disparagement, and enthusiastically repressed by the saviors of the status quo. In this case, however, Burzynski and his workers have overcome the counter army and achieved buildings that cover two city blocks, FDA permission to proceed with Phase III trials, and a growing population of sick made well from the deadliest of tumors.

Let’s hope that this thorough expose of both the bad news and the best good news in cancer in years is on its way to an Oscar, since its story should be disseminated as widely as possible.

11 Responses to “Burzynski! Alternative medicine pioneer conquers tumors, FDA”

  1. Truthseeker Says:

    Folllowing Ella Taylor’s brain and eye deficient Voice review and the outrage it sparked from those who actually saw the film, QUACK-QUACK! Where to Find This Week’s Awesomest Critical Skirmish By S.T. Vanairsdale, Bozo Chavez added to the very good comment thread at the Voice the following bunkerbuster:

    Ella’s review was a well written screwup with a dangerous potential to steer people away from an important film which could help save lives. In fact Burzynski is the most impressive alternative medicine man in cancer and the most successful, despite the reflex hostility of the FDA, Ella and all the other mindless supporters of the status quo. The science so far is all on Burzynski’s side, and his trials are FDA approved, and now entering Phase III if he can get the money, so easy for Big Pharma and so hard for outsiders who are attacked by their blind pitbulls. He won in court because his medicines are harmless and apparently (short of huge trials to confirm) astonishingly beneficial, and his theory makes sense. The guy has published over 200 articles on his stuff in mostly peer reviewed publications. His results in brain cancer, usually quickly 100% fatal, are around 25% total remission, against nil for the medieval methods practiced by standard medicos. Their efficacy and safety were never even challenged in court. Anyone who is touched by cancer should research Burzynski properly starting with this movie, so ignorantly trashed by this unqualified reviewer who contradicts facts established in the film. At one point NCI and others tried to supplant his hundreds of patents with their own. That’s how much they believe in it, despite their repeated attacks on Burzynski personally in court, where the Texas State Board of Examiners stated the “efficacy was not of issue in the proceedings”. The lay defenders of conventional medicine in cancer are a shoddy crowd who are driven more by teacher’s pet identification with the conventional wisdom than any informed knowledge, and Ella is a good example. It is probably an unhappy experience for her to stir up a hornets nest but the truth matters in cancer when so many are tormented uselessly by expensive current treatments, which have gone nowhere in decades.

  2. MartinDKessler Says:

    Hi Truthseeker, I wonder how Dr. Burzynski’s work corelates with Dr. Duesberg’s Aneuploidy theory.

  3. Truthseeker Says:

    Well, Peter Duesberg of Berkeley trashed the oncogene theory in Cancer Research in 1987, just as he trashed HIV as the cause of the now misnamed “HIV/AIDS”, both in the same article, subsequently tip toed around by all loyal members of the status quo. Duesberg essentially rejected the simpleminded notion that particular genes lead to specific cancers, since that would suggest that the same DNA in every cell in the body would give rise to cancer all over, and that things must be more complicated than that. He went back to the 1910 understanding that every cancer cell has a seriously disrupted array of chromosomes, sometimes double the normal number, which makes sense if you consider how likely it is that cancer causes such as chemicals and radiation would be widely disruptive, the disruption resulting in “aneuploidy” in the professional terminology. It follows that cancer must therefore be attacked in two ways – prevention and by boosting the body’s natural defenses. Burzynsky’s contribution lies along the latter lines, if his idea works for the reasons he has suggested and as often as it seems to.

    Experts are probably throwing up their hands in horror at that simpleminded explanation but to refine it you will have to go to his papers at his cancer site (click here), and read them (click here).

  4. MartinDKessler Says:

    Thank you. I got that impression about Burzynski – is he familiar with Duesbergs Aneuploidy Cancer theory? I’ve read Bialy’s book. I am familiar with what aneuploidy is – thanks for summarizing it well.

  5. Truthseeker Says:

    HIV/AIDS was treated in one of the five part series segments on the Leonard Lopate show today, on NPR. The particular angle was the ethical issues around the virus and how they have or have not changed over the decades, a period misstated by the inattentive Leonard as “12 years” at one point in his friendly milking of Dr Robert Klitzman, Director of the Ethics and Policy Core of the HIV Center at Columbia University, presumably one of the very best funded arms of the grand medical boondoggle of HIV/AIDS which has now been running for a quarter century as the greatest sucker punch society has suffered in recent memory from the trusted scientists who guide us as to how to spend public money in the cause of public health. By at least one estimate over $330 billion has been spent on this mostly fantastic threat to said public health in the States and all over the world. Anyhow Leonard Lopate performed at his usual level of deep obeisance to authority (where the sucking up meter often gets stuck at the topmost reading) and hurried to throw softball after softball at the large bat wielded by the Columbia ethicist, mentioning Thabo Mbeki and giving Klitzman the chance to deliver the standard regretful analysis of how Mbeki’s independent view arose from the sheer horror of what was happening or going to happen in South Africa as HIV did its deadly work. In other words, Mbeki rebelled against Western science because he was “in denial”.

    One tires of this kind of fellow traveling that mainstream media giants like Lopate indulge in when it comes to HIV/AIDS, and so this time one rose to the occasion to post the following corrective on the discussion thread, since we spotted a brief contribution from another indignant listener, a g from n j, who said “if you don’t have dissident voices ie kerry mullis, gary null, peter deusberg, you are not giving us a narrative other than the accepted drug driven paradighm. shame on you!” Pity that a g from n j didn’t spell the names correctly, kary mullis and peter duesberg, it gives such a poor impression. But even though posting on such threads is probably ineffective in gaining the attention of most people, we feel it should be done, just in case.

    AnthonyL from nyc:
    This parade of subtle extrapolation of the basic premise that HIV causes HIV/AIDS and that HIV/AIDS is infectious by an expert on bioethics from Columbia continues the irresponsible journalism on a national level by the agreeable, smart but far too trusting Leonard, whose research staff if any should at least look into how many very good scientists say that the 1987 article in Cancer Research rejecting HIV as the cause of HIV/AIDS, and that HIV/AIDS is AIDS misnamed, was peer reviewed, correct and has only been refuted politically, not scientifically in the 23 years since. At the very least Leonard should consider just how much of the ruling wisdom makes sense, and sharpen his questions to demand an explanation of all the oddities and inconsistencies in HIV/AIDS theory. If he hasn’t seen the film House of Numbers, he should view it at least once. The meek acquiescence of Leonard to the statements retailed by such spokesmen who assume that HIV is the cause of AIDS is a little reprehensible given how much this assumption is disrupting people’s lives and costing the nation uncounted billions – by some calculations over $300 billion so far. Come on Leonard, please accept the basic principle that human nature can distort science and medicine as readily as any other field. Have a look at Peter Duesberg’s site and try not to assume that the mainstream is guiding you with 100% reliability – you and your Columbia commentator on the ethics of HIV/AIDS. The misleading of the world by these scientists who have been promoting HIV after it was thoroughly rejected in their own literature is the big ethical problem in HIV/AIDS, since it has so many disruptive consequences for people such as those now being thrown into jail for infecting partners, which the science has shown is impossible (see Nancy Padian’s study of the supposed infectiousness of HIV, which she found to be zero). How long must journalists of goodwill be fellow travelers of this nonsense?

    Jun. 21 2010 12:07 PM

  6. James van Maanen Says:

    Great article, Mr. Guardian! Makes mine look puny by comparison. Keep it up, and eventually a few of the powers-that-be will pay attention. And jail you. (Just kidding…)

  7. Truthseeker Says:

    The lack of any sign that the powers that be are impelled to jail me for blowing their cover and revealing the extent to which self serving peddling of nonscience (pron. nonsense) is part and parcel of their funding strategies aimed at thrusting their hands as deeply into the public pocket as possible is worrying, James, I admit, since it implies probably correctly that they do not think that any important politician or bureaucrat will take this site seriously, but perhaps they are just assuming that said politicians and bureaucrats are Web illiterate, or couldn’t care less what the truth is as long as it doesn’t affect their own lives.

    In this case however I feel I am blameless since I merely report what the excellent Eric Mercola has investigated and reported so effectively, although admittedly it is well known to all those who read books such as The Cancer Handbook: What’s Really Working (Ed. Lynne McTaggart, Vital Health Publishing, 2001), or previously and more erudite, Robert G. Houston’s Repression and Reform in the Evaluation of Alternative Cancer Therapies (Project Cure, 1987 and 1989), or most informative and thorough of all, Ralph Moss’s seminal The Cancer Industry (1996), which devoted a fifty page chapter to Burzynski, the very chapter that turned film maker Merola onto the pioneering physician/chemist.

    The fact that too few in the media or the general public seem to know about Burzynski is merely evidence of the extraordinary repressive power of the medical establishment and its sharp toothed lapdogs the FDA and the pharma financed “quackbusters” that litter the Web with their misleading falsities, which the innocent take as gospel. After a while those in the know give up the unequal struggle and stop writing about the corrections of the standard wisdom that need to be made, since it so often disturbs the mental balance of the priests and congregation of the holy writ.

  8. Truthseeker Says:

    Yet another busybody slam against empty headed Peter Duesberg detractors posted on the interesting blog “STOAT” (“taking science by the throat”) tonight by “AnthonyL”:

    “Peter Duesberg points to people who have had HIV infections for many years without developing AIDS as exceptions that disprove the theory that HIV causes AIDS, but he’s wrong.” – Jonathan Gilligan

    Now that his university has cleared Duesberg of any wrongdoing, perhaps the incessant avalanche of this kind of inane casual dismissal of Peter Duesberg as “wrong” can begin to slow down after 25 years. What is truly “unscientific” is this kind of offhand dismissal of Duesberg by the underresearched and uninformed who assume that all the mindless media hacks at Science on down are guiding them correctly by following the party line in HIV/AIDS. The plain truth is that Duesberg published complete and thorough dismissals of the Gallo 1984 claim that HIV was a “probable cause of AIDS” in 1987 in Cancer Research and in the Proceedings of the National Academy in 1989, and none of the self serving exploiters of public gullibility and the public purse who have run HIV/AIDS since have dared essay ANY rebuttal in either journal for 23 years and nor do they show any sign of ever doing so, for the obvious reason that they only come up emptyhanded whenever they try to tackle the problem, as their pathetic attempts to refute Duesberg in that truncated exchange between the two in Science shortly afterwards demonstrated. It really is about time that Web thread posters either learned about the science of HIV/AIDS and why HIV was rejected as a cause by Duesberg for reasons that remain as valid now as ever, or shut up with these silly vacuous comments about matters which are above their heads.

    If you want to use Duesberg as an example of any truth in science apart from the tendency of pinheads to rush to the defense of the status quo for mysterious psychological reasons when they have no idea what the debate actually entails, then use him as an example of how second rate scientists such as his opponents are too often ruled by their flawed human nature in preferring their own interests to truth seeking, despite their supposed implicit agreement with the key professional and vocational standard of good science which is to check their own bias at the door with their hats.

    And by the way Nancy Padian a four star general of HIV/AIDS found in the biggest study ever undertaken of the supposed transmissibility of HIV between heterosexuals that it was precisely zero. And only a child would have accepted Gallo’s initial 1984 claim that HIV was a “probable” cause of AIDS when he found it in barely one third of the AIDS patients whose blood he tested. These and other obvious flaws in HIV/AIDS theory should be clear to any schoolchild, and it should be the task of the vast army of well funded HIV/AIDS researchers to explain these and other problems away, preferably in front of a Congressional committee, instead of enjoying the reflex support of the thoughtless on a blog devoted to real science vs fantasy. If you would like further info turn to scienceguardian.com where we also support real science as against fantasy.

    See this in context at STOAT

  9. Truthseeker Says:

    Seems that AnthonyL has been irritated on STOAT by the scorn of an HIV supporter, and has posted the following comment in reply, for the benefit of the few readers who may be interested in correcting their assumptions:

    http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/06/cover-up_by_the_economist_all.php

    (Oh dear, one of the Duesberg-cheerleaders has found his way to stoat…

    Regarding Nancy Padian:
    http://www.aidstruth.org/denialism/misuse/padian
    Which tells you everything about the credibility of AnthonyL and the position he is supporting.

    Of course, there also have been many rebuttals to Duesberg’s claims. For example, Ascher et al, in Nature no less, completely demolished Duesberg’s assertion that drugs cause AIDS. It wasn’t the first study to do so, either.

    Posted by: Marco | June 25, 2010 8:32 AM)

    To which AnthonyL replied, rather irritably:

    Yes, I am a Duesberg cheerleader, because I support good science and good scientists, and their peer reviewed reviews of idiotic claims made by their colleagues who are not only inferior minds but deal in politics and not in factual science when protecting their favorite paradigm, in this case the prima facie absurd claim that HIV was/is the cause of AIDS symptoms.

    How lucky they are to have the support of active minds such as Marco, who gives us the entertaining AIDSTruth reference where Nancy Padian tries her best dutifully but ineffectually to retract her own embarrassing paper, which demonstrated that conveying HIV antibodies through heterosexual sex was entirely impossible, as any schoolchild would expect. Marco may be unaware that HIV tests are for HIV antibodies, because there isn’t enough HIV is any patient however close to death from “HIV/AIDS” to find without magnifying it colossally with PCR. But perhaps Marco has struck upon a way that antibodies can be transferred from one person to another? If so he should publish his results, since a Nobel awaits.

    For anyone interested in the back story AIDSTruth is a disinformation site run by HIV promoters such as John Moore of Cornell et al who publish there the best propaganda they can manage in support of HIV, the virus that pays their bills. A better reference would be my http://www.scienceguardian.com, if I may be allowed to say so. But it is written for critical minds, not those who automatically assume that conventional wisdom must be correct, a fond belief which science upsets every year.

    The plain truth is that none of the vast library of HIV-paradigm based research stands up to scrutiny, since it is all based on the premise that HIV=AIDS is a valid theory, from which a mountain of bad assumptions and results have flowed. Part of the problem is that any time anyone mentions this in a helpful spirit we get the usual invalid reflex scorn trotted out, with the usual invalid references. Since lives are at stake, perhaps it would be helpful if robotic (or possibly invested) defenders of the status quo such as the otherwise estimable Marco should open their minds to what has been published in the peer reviewed literature, and not let the cheap propaganda of HIV defenders influence their attitude to good science, and to good scientific professional reviews published at the highest level which no one has ever dared to directly contradict in the same journals.

    After all, is that open minded critical examination of reason and evidence not what this blog stands for in the matter of Global Warming?

    Posted by: AnthonyL | June 29, 2010 12:19 PM

  10. Truthseeker Says:

    The above Comment somehow failed to pass the Stoat security barrier, so we tried again with:

    Marco’s misleading riposte should not be allowed to stand as if it was true. I cheer on Duesberg because he is right, unrefuted in the same journals he published his rejections of HIV as above. The Padian statement Marco linked to is something all should read, indeed, as it shows her stating that transmission Woman to Man is 1 in 1000 to 10,000, and Man to Woman 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 320, carefully not using her own Western study as a reference, because it showed NIL transmissions, and had to be massaged even to get her figures up to 1 in 9000 for Woman to Man, and 1 in 1000 for Man to Woman, not enough to support an epidemic of any kind. The Ascher study has been exposed as poorly done and misleading by Duesberg. It is about time that people learned that Nature and Science are capable of publishing poor work, and should not be assumed to guarantee quality in every case.

    The point is on topic here because it demonstrates that the disruptive influence of human nature on the claims of science endures in the 21st Century, as in global warming, as this post complains.

  11. Truthseeker Says:

    Ah, the mysterious failure of the latter two posts to appear on the STOAT blog is now explained – apparently the text was too complicated and novel for the blogger or his friend to fathom:

    “AnthonyL:[cut] I don’t understand your ramblings about HIV antibodies and… [cut]

    [No, neither did I, so I've deleted the comment (and truncated yours, sorry). I can do without AIDS denialism; GW denialist is quite enough for me -W]

    Posted by: Marco | July 3, 2010 3:44 PM”

    So we have posted the following to see if THAT shames W, the blogger, into allowing it, though we predict probably not:

    Apologies Marco for not making myself clear. Apologies also to WMC for introducing HIV mythbusting here, since he automatically categorizes it as “AIDS denialism”. I won’t argue since I am not sure that all GW questioning is “GW denialism” either, and am sorry to hear that this blog is labeling views as a means of dismissing them, rather than assessing reason and evidence on both sides in the manner of decent and responsible science.

    Is this the level which Brit climatology has fallen? Tut tut! We shall have to write up this finding on scienceguardian.com, where till now we had always thought that Oxbridge education reigned supreme. Must be those blasted provincial universities, which Kingsley Amis dismissed as “more means worse”!

    In fact STOAT is written by one William M. Connelly, a mathematician who modeled climate at BAS before “making little radios” for CSR a big chip maker in Cambridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_M._Connolley), and is a senior editor at Wiki.

    According to the dictionary, stoat is a form of weasel. Is this revealing, in the manner of a Freudian slip – that a climatologist should name his blog STOAT, and with a subhead, “Taking science by the throat”? What does he intend to suggest with the latter line? That he is attacking science in order to throttle it? Surely not.

    Of course, it is probably a fool’s errand to pursue such an inquiry in regard to any blog under the “ScienceBlogs” umbrella, since this is the site owned by SEED magazine, possibly the most muddle headed science magazine ever published, when last we looked.

    However, from this bottom feeding has emerged a worthwhile proposal. Any reference to “HIV/AIDS denialists” should be corrected to “HIV/AIDS mythbusters”.

    Meanwhile, the Wiki write up of “Stoat”, presumably vetted by William M. Connelly with particular, proprietorial interest, informs us that the stoat is “a small predatory mammal (which) moves in a sinuous manner when pursuing its prey It is extremely quick over the ground considering its small size. In all seasons the stoat has a black tip to its tail. The black tip probably serves as a decoy to predators, which would include almost any carnivore large enough to eat a stoat (e.g. wolves, foxes, wolverines, and some birds of prey). The stoat is territorial and intolerant of others in its range, especially others of the same sex. Copulation occurs during the mating season with multiple partners and is often forced by the male, who does not help raise the offspring. The stoat’s visual resolution is lower than that of humans and color vision is poor although night vision is superior. When alarmed, a stoat can release a powerful musky smell from glands near its anus.”

    A science blogger who adopts “Stoat” as his pen name would seem to be warning interlopers complaining of his poor vision that they risk considerable discomfort and unpleasantness of the smelly kind if they are not at least the size of a fox, wolf or wolverine, in which case they can simply eat him. In general, it would seem, not a lot of good behavior can be expected, and the suggestion is that any ideas (“offspring”) which pop up on the blog will not be ones that the said Stoat will take any kind of responsibility for.

    All in all, a remarkable example of how a science blogger of his own accord alerts readers in advance not to take him too seriously as a scientific commentator, which we briefly did, and got caught.

    Stoat science in HIV/AIDS: testing goes universal

    Be that as it may, we return to HIV/AIDS and other mythbusting with undiminished vigor, since we see that New York State is now legislating universal HIV testing, where oral permission will do for hospital emergency room patients, for example, so we are now entering an time where almost anyone who can manage any of the sixty plus cross reactions which trigger false positives, and their repeated confirmations with Western Blot, will be emblazoned with this Scarlet Letter, and be liable for prosecution with severe criminal penalties for “transmitting the AIDS virus” to any lover he/she doesn’t warn of this imagined danger.

    The bill to allow verbal consent for rapid HIV testing has passed the New York Assembly 91 to 0, and with Senate backing in hand it now goes to Governor Paterson for signing.

    So much for good science, and the ongoing march of bad science in HIV/AIDS in taking over the treatment of people whose ailments are due to another cause and deserve treatment which does not include damaging and ultimately lethal drugs.

    People who could well include now people such as you and me, if we happen to be in the tiny fraction of people who will score an antibody positive result and are otherwise in normal health – 1 in 310 people, in fact. Given the abysmal level of accuracy of the tests when let loose among a general population where genuine positives are at that minimal level of 1 in 310, we shudder to think how many lives will be needlessly and unjustifiably ruined.

    After all, if the accuracy is claimed without proof to be about 99.8 per cent (the baseless claim of the dynamic individual running the HIV testing van we came across at the Academy of Medicine the other day), that means 2 per 1000 will yield false results, ie false positives, from inaccuracy, and there will be 3 in 1000 true positives. So we can expect 2 out of 5 positives to be false, even before adding the ones – the supposed ‘true” positives – which are cross reactions with some trigger other than HIV antibodies.

    That is the kind of mess we will find ourselves in, even before asking the obvious question, if these subjects are only testing positive for HIV antibodies, and it takes PCR to find any HIV in them at all, even the 9,999 units out of 10,000 that are dormant, what is dangerous about them?

    The fundamental principles of high school science dictate that antibodies are not infectious.

    Meanwhile, let’s recall that JAMA in 1985 (vol 254:1342-45) opined that more than two in three positives on the Gallo Elisa test were false (68 to 89 per cent on normal blood). At the higher end, that would be 9 out of 10 false.

    Have they improved it since? Not as far as we can detect. But we lost interest in nailing down the true situation as retailed by the current propaganda years ago, when it became clear that HIV testing results are questionable on so many fronts that measurement accuracy is the least of the issues.

    To put it bluntly, HIV/AIDS testing is Stoat science, and New York State legislators have no business acting on it.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Bad Behavior has blocked 3311 access attempts in the last 7 days.