Science Guardian

Truth, beauty and paradigm power in science and society

I am Nicolaus Copernicus, and I approve of this blog

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

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



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


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

I am Albert Einstein, and I heartily approve of this blog, insofar as it seems to believe both in science and the importance of intellectual imagination, uncompromised by out of date emotions such as the impulse toward conventional religious beliefs, national aggression as a part of patriotism, and so on.   As I once remarked, the further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.   Certainly the application of the impulse toward blind faith in science whereby authority is treated as some kind of church is to be deplored.  As I have also said, the only thing that ever interfered with my learning was my education. I am Freeman Dyson, and I approve of this blog, but would warn the author that life as a heretic is a hard one, since the ignorant and the half informed, let alone those who should know better, will automatically trash their betters who try to enlighten them with independent thinking, as I have found to my sorrow in commenting on "global warming" and its cures.
Many people would die rather than think – in fact, they do so. – Bertrand Russell.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am Richard Feynman and I approve of this blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Illusion is the first of all pleasures. – Voltaire

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

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

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

Celia Farber fights back

The New York Post has printed the following story today (May 9 Sat) on Celia Farber filing a suit for libel against the promoters of the HIV/AIDS paradigm who have harassed her with insults and false detractions in her long battle to report on the repressed debate on this important policy issue.

Page Six, the key gossip column in Manhattan run by Richard Johnson, has reported earlier on Celia Farber, as readers will recall, since Johnson is one of the few significant members of the press who is not swayed by the sometimes vicious attacks of the paradigm defenders who have the otherwise respectable New York Times in their pocket.

Given the abysmal cowardice and lack of professionalism of the Times and most other mainstream media in concealing by omission the important public policy issue that the AIDS paradigm may be dangerously incorrect (as readers here know all the literature of the field argues that it is quite wrong and has shown this from 1987 and increasingly since), Johnson probably deserves some kind of prize for his editorial stance.

Perhaps when Farber finally gets her Pultizer, he will share in the glory. :

Writer Hits Back at AIDS Rants

AFTER years of being attacked by a faction of the AIDS pharmaceutical/research community, journalist Celia Farber is fighting back with a libel suit.

Farber’s lawyers filed a 21-page libel complaint this week in Manhattan Supreme Court accusing Richard Jefferys, of the Treatment Action Group, of orchestrating a campaign against her last May when she was given the Semmelweis Clean Hands Award for Outstanding Investigative Journalism for an article she wrote in Harper’s in 2006, “AIDS and the Corruption of Medical Science.”

The Harpers article gave credence to the work of Peter Duesberg, who believes HIV is a harmless “passenger” virus and not the cause of AIDS, and questioned the value of expensive antiretroviral drugs. Jefferys and his team blitzed the Semmelweis Society with e-mails claiming Farber had altered quotes and falsely misrepresented scientific papers.

The Semmelweis Society, in turn, launched its own investigation, and concluded the AIDS industry itself has all the characteristics of a multibillion-dollar criminal enterprise that desperately needed whistleblowers. Farber, the daughter of talk legend Barry Farber, kept her award, though the battle to rescind it garnered fresh attacks, in which she was likened to Pol Pot, Stalin, Mengele, David Irving, David Duke and O.J. Simpson.

The former Spin columnist recently launched a new literary Web site called the Truth Barrier, with former New York Press editor John Strausbaugh. In appreciation for her work on AIDS, the artist Robert Crumb submitted an original drawing and a hand-written three-page letter expressing his despair over what he believes is the distortion of the AIDS story.

“Actually, Crumb’s letter was too true even for the Truth Barrier,” says Farber. “I redacted it. I don’t want these pharma-bullies attacking him next.”

The behavior of HIV/AIDS protectors

Perhaps it should be repeated for those new to this scientific debacle that Richard Jefferys is or at least was when we last checked one of the several people running the Treatment Action Group with the generous help of the drug companies which manufacture the dangerous and revolting drugs with which unfortunate gays and blacks are mismedicated for symptoms that have nothing to do with the antibodies they harbor to HIV (which itself has long left their bodies, it is clear, even if the test is a reliable indicator, which is not the case).

Jefferys is given to long and reliable sounding (to newcomers) rationalizations of the chasm between AIDS theory and AIDS facts as reported in the scientific literature, but no one should be misled. The best reference site in this field is Peter Duesberg’s site on AIDS at UC Berkeley, and the other sites listed in our blogroll on the right hand side of the front page of this blog, which have an asterisk beside their title.

The story of the Semmelweis awards given to Farber and Duesberg a year ago was written up here at the time. The report of the appalling behavior of the opponents to the awards who tried to sabotage them by discrediting the pair is at Politics briefly quash science in Washington furore

Whether the suit has a chance of success or not, it just might attract the interest of people who are not involved in the politics and science of AIDS, which is without doubt the sewer of science. In that case, in the Obama reform era where great scams and scandals are being forced into the light of day, with an administration willing to take action in cases where huge sums are at stake and people are pulling the wool over the eyes of officials and the public at large – a good description of the situation in AIDS for the last 22 years – it just might result in what the frantic hounds of hell are most desperate to avoid, a review of the field from outside.

This of course is what the defenders of the improbable nonsense that is the conventional wisdom in HIV/AIDS are always frantic to avoid, and why they are so venomous to deal with.

They will get their just deserts if Celia, having been driven finally to defend herself after two decades of calumny and vicious attacks for her resolutely objective investigative coverage of their antics, manages through this case to be their nemesis, as they have always feared.

107 Responses to “Celia Farber fights back”

  1. Truthseeker Says:

    Here’s a copy of the suit complaint, which is very helpful in establishing the credibility of Celia Farber and her journalism, and the disgraceful behavior of three HIV activist professionals.

    It should influence many people outside the field of HIV/AIDS to understand how likely it is that she is well justified in spending two decades in investigating the behavior of the people in the field, both scientists and lay personnel, and their sometimes rabid defense of their favored paradigm, and how likely it is that it is the weakness of their scientific claim which impels them to head off proper review by attacking any questioner as strenously as possible on non-scientific, and frequently libelous grounds:




    COMPLAINT Index No._____/2009

    CELIA FARBER, Plaintiff,

    -against –





    PLAINTIFF CELIA FARBER, by her attorneys Nesenoff & Miltenberg. LLP, as and for her Complaint, respectfully alleges as follows:


    1. This is a libel action brought by the Plaintiff Celia Farber (“Plaintiff Farber”), an investigative journalist, who was the victim of a campaign of defamation by the named Defendants.

    The campaign of defamation was launched by an e-mail communication in May 2008 by Defendant Richard Jefferys in response to the scheduling of testimony by Dr. Peter Duesberg, Ph. D (“Dr. Duesberg”), and Plaintiff Farber to be given during “Whistleblower Week in Washington” held May 11-14, 2008, and the award of the Clean Hands Award by the Semmelweis Society International, a non-profit corporation dedicated to the protection of whistleblowers, to Dr. Duesberg for his scientific work challenging onco-viral paradigms and to Plaintiff Celia Farber for her reporting in Harper’s Magazine, in March of 2006, on corruption in pharmaceutical industry funded AIDS research.
    Since Plaintiff Farber began reporting and writing in 1986, she has been published in major magazines including Harper’s, Rolling Stone, Esquire, Vogue, and others. No periodical for which Plaintiff Farber has written has found error in her reporting, nor has any ever had reason to retract or repudiate her work.
    4. The aforementioned campaign of defamation was continued by e-mail communication in June 2008 by Defendant Murtagh and Defendant Kuritzky after the Clean Hands Award was given to Dr. Duesberg and Plaintiff Farber.


    5. Plaintiff Farber is an individual who resides at 216 West 102nd Street – Apt. 7A, New York, New York 10025.

    6. Defendant Richard Jefferys (“Defendant Jefferys”) is an individual who resides at in care of Treatment Action Group, 611 Broadway – Suite 308, New York, New York 10012.

    7. Defendant Kevin D. Kuritzky (“Defendant Kuritzky”) is an individual who resides at 3315 Roswell Road NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30305.

    8. Defendant James J. Murtagh (“Defendant Murtagh”) is an individual who resides at 511 Calibre Woods Drive NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.


    9. Venue lies in New York County under New York CPLR § 503 based on the place of residence of Plaintiff Farber and Defendant Jefferys.


    10. Plaintiff Farber began her work as a print journalist in high school in her native Sweden and continued as a print journalist while attending college in New York, starting to write for the US rock magazine SPIN in 1986. Her first “beat” was AIDS, a subject she reported on between 1986 and 1994. She edited and frequently wrote SPIN’s AIDS column which she created, called “Words From The Front.” These “columns” often grew into lengthy, investigative feature articles that required global travel, including across Sub-Saharan Africa and across Europe. In 1987-88, the column featured the second print interview in the U.S. media of virologist Peter Duesberg, allowing him to explain his published contention that retroviruses, including HIV, are harmless. The following month, SPIN published a response from virologist Dr. Robert Gallo, in which Dr. Gallo, in colorful but abusive terms, declared why he felt Dr. Duesberg was wrong and he was right, about HIV being the cause of AIDS. This argument soon bloomed into extensive coverage of the burgeoning “HIV debate” which Plaintiff Farber was assigned to cover assiduously over the coming decade.

    11. Dr. Duesberg, one of the youngest members ever voted into the National Academy of Sciences (“NAS”) at age 50, mapped the genetic structure of retroviruses and identified the first putative onco-gene (cancer gene) in the 1970s, reaping top NIH grant awards, including the highly coveted “Outstanding Investigator Grant.” Before that work, Dr. Duesberg had been hand-picked by the National Institutes of Health (“NIH”) in the 1960s from Germany’s Max Planck Institute. Dr. Duesberg has published 151scientific papers on retroviruses and three books on HIV/AIDS.

    12. Plaintiff Farber, after leaving SPIN in 1995 and becoming a free-lance journalist, was commissioned by numerous periodicals nationally and internationally, to cover a range of subjects. In 1997, Esquire dispatched her to Los Angeles for several months to obtain a story about recently acquitted O.J. Simpson’s post trial life. That work resulted in a 1998 Esquire cover story called “Whistling In The Dark”, which broke publicity records at Esquire and was syndicated in over 20 foreign countries including China. It was also included in a “Best of Esquire Love and Murder” anthology published the following year in 1999.

    13. Plaintiff Farber, prior to 2006, wrote publications for numerous periodicals, including Rolling Stone, (German) Vogue, Interview, New York Post, New York Press, Salon, The Herald on Sunday (Scotland,) Stop Smiling, Alive, Media Post, as well as numerous online literary and journalistic outlets. She was invited to lecture on journalism around the world, including London, Buenos Aires, Nairobi, Amsterdam, Los Angeles and elsewhere. In 1994, she spoke at the American Association For The Advancement of Science (“AAAS”) on a panel that included Nobel Laureate Dr. Kary Mullis and other distinguished scientists. Her writings were used as course material in several college media and science courses, and she continues to lecture to journalism students to this day. She also wrote scripts for VH-1, BBC radio, Swedish Radio (Sverige’s Radio) and co-produced a documentary film for BBC, in addition to appearing on numerous radio and TV shows, including CNN, The Today Show, Politically Correct with Bill Maher, The Charlie Rose Show, ESPN, and the Keith Olbermann Show on MSNBC.

    14. In 2004, then Harper’s editor Lewis H. Lapham invited Plaintiff Farber to propose a science story to him at Harper’s, which she did. Plaintiff Farber’s proposal was accepted, and the subsequent article “Out of Control: AIDS And The Corruption of Medical Science” was published in March of 2006.

    15. Plaintiff Farber’s article in Harper’s was developed over a period of over a year and a half, and fact-checked for over three months prior to publication. The terms of the fact checking were that Farber had to supply Harper’s with original source material to confirm each fact and quotation in the article of Harper’s to the complete satisfaction and Plaintiff Farber satisfied those terms. Harper’s accorded an unusually long and arduous fact checking period in order to ensure the accuracy of the text. The final published version was an 11,000 word article which detailed the corrupt and repressive science culture emanating from the NIH and centered on the first hand testimony of NIH whistle-blower and Clinical Trials Safety Officer Dr. Jonathan Fishbein. Dr. Fishbein confirmed the accuracy of the sections pertaining to his experience prior to publication. To illustrate the punitive culture of NIH, Harper’s requested the inclusion of a brief synopsis of the plight of Dr. Duesberg, whose funding and professional life were blighted following publication of his first dissenting article on HIV in 1987. The original assignment was to cover Dr. Duesberg’s cancer work and the abuses he has suffered as a scientist. That article was accepted for publication, and later, at Harper’s own insistence, was compressed to one long section that comprised one third of the larger, more expansive story that was published. The published story also covered the death of Joyce Ann Hafford, a pregnant single mother from Memphis who died of acute toxicities resulting from the AIDS drug Nevirapine, given to her as a participant in an experimental trial in which she was enrolled.

    16. Plaintiff Farber’s article in Harper’s triggered attacks by a group of AIDS activists and researchers who were associated with the Treatment Action Group (“TAG”), a non-profit corporation that has maintained an address at 611 Broadway, Suite 308, New York, New York 10012. TAG holds itself out to the public as an independent AIDS research and policy think tank that fights for better treatment, a vaccine and a cure for AIDS and that works to help people receive life saving treatment, care and information. TAG is openly, by its own admission and from its inception, funded by pharmaceutical companies profiting from the manufacture and sale of drugs for HIV. TAG has engaged in vicious and relentless attack on anyone who highlights the toxicities of the ARV drugs that are the basis of its business operations in the United States and around the world, particularly the developing world.

    17 Dr. Gallo lent his name to the document entitled “56 Errors”, which purports to identify errors in the Harpers article by Plaintiff Farber; however, a review of the “56 Errors” document by a group of nine scientists and medical doctors not working in the AIDS industry found the “56 Errors” an absurdly biased document containing character assassination, but finding no significant errors in Plaintiff Farber’s article. More significantly, Harper’s itself carefully reviewed “56 Errors” and concluded that it found no reason to retract or amend anything in Plaintiff Farber’s article.

    18. Dr. Gallo has been the subject of more investigations than any scientist in recent memory. Between 1990 and 1995 there were five major investigations of possible fraud surrounding Gallo’s lab, and the research that led to the publication of his 4 papers in Science in 1984 that laid the foundation for the hypothesis that he had isolated a new pathogenic retrovirus in his lab and that it was the causative agent in AIDS. After an 18 month investigation conducted by the NIH, as reported in 1991 in the Chicago Tribune, it was found that Dr. Gallo’s 1984 report on the isolation of the “AIDS Virus was … riddled with fabrication, falsification, misleading statements and errors” (Chicago Times, Nov. 6, 1991). A panel that supervised the numerous Gallo investigations–the Richards Panel, comprised of eminent NAS and Institute of Medicine scientists–concluded that there was a “…pattern of behavior on Dr. Gallo’s part that repeatedly misrepresents, suppresses, and distorts data and their interpretation in such a way as to enhance Gallo’s claim to priority. (Chicago Tribune, May 27, 1992, John Crewdsen, “Criminal Inquiry Urged in AIDS, Lab Scandal”). In 1994, a criminal prosecution of Dr. Gallo was aborted due to the applicable five year statute of limitations hearing expired.

    19. The Semmelweis Society International is a non-profit corporation organized under the law of Tennessee and maintaining an address at 276 Whitebridge Road #36, Nashville, Tennessee 37209-3229. The Semmelweis Society International is dedicated to ending the practice of “sham peer review” in which hospitals and physicians use false pretexts to attack and destroy healthcare professionals who compete with, or report dangerous conditions within, those hospitals. The Semmelweis Society International regularly honors individuals who report medical or scientific corruption at great personal and professional risk. In April 2008, Plaintiff Farber received a telephone call from the Semmelweis Society International member Gil Mileikowsky MD, who informed Plaintiff Farber that her article in Harper’s “Out Of Control: AIDS and The Corruption of Medical Science” had earned her the Semmelweis Clean Hands Award to be presented during “Whistleblower Week in Washington.” At Dr. Mileikowsky’s request, Plaintiff Farber prepared two presentations, one of 40 minutes and one of 10 minutes duration, to present in Washington D.C., at the Whistleblowers Conference.

    20. For the week of May 11-14, 2008, there was scheduled “Whistleblower Week in Washington.” Walter E. Fauntroy, a former Congressman, was the Director of “Whistleblower Week in Washington. Along with Mr. Fauntroy, a number of interested organizations coordinated the scheduling of testimony to be by various individuals with experiences in whistle blowing and retaliation against whistleblowers. The coordinating organizations included: the Semmelweis Society International (Dr. Roland Chalifoux, President); the office of Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee; Alliance for Patient Safety (Dr. Gil Mileikowsky, M.D., President); and “No Fear Coalition” (Marsha Coleman Adebayo, Ph.D., Director). Among those originally scheduled to testify to the U.S. Congress at hearings as part of “Whistleblower Week in Washington” were Dr. Duesberg and Plaintiff Farber.

    21. On May 12, 2008, TAG operative Defendant Jefferys sent an e-mail to Walter Fauntroy, who was a coordinator of testimony for the “Whistleblower Week in Washington.” Defendant Jefferys stated in his email:

    “It is my understanding that you have accepted Celia Farber and Peter Duesberg to give testimony at your tribunal. These individuals are not whistleblowers, they are simply liars who for many years have used fraud to argue for Duesberg’s long-discredited theory that drug use and malnutrition — not HIV — cause AIDS. I can provide many, many examples, including their altering of quotes from the scientific literature, false representations of published papers, etc. They use instances of genuine medical malpractice simply as ammunition to support their erroneous ideas about HIV and AIDS (which Duesberg has said is ‘caused by a lifestyle that was criminal twenty years ago’). The inclusion of these individuals will, regrettably, discredit and demean your efforts to support the very real issues of recrimination against legitimate whistleblowers.

    “Richard Jefferys”

    (Emphasis supplied.)

    22. In his e-mail dated May 12, 2008, Defendant Jefferys libeled Plaintiff Farber with non-privileged defamatory false statements of fact that were culpably published and that were damaging. Plaintiff Farber is not a liar, did not engage in fraud, did not alter quotations from scientific literature and did not make false representations from published papers; and Dr. Duesberg is not a liar, did not engage in fraud, did not alter quotations from scientific literature and did not make false representations from published papers. Defendant Jefferys’ e-mail dated May 12, 2008, was, however, circulated to Congresswoman Jackson-Lee, who shared it with the coordinating organizations. As a result, Dr. Duesberg and Plaintiff Farber were dropped from the list of persons who were to testify and did not in fact testify as had been originally scheduled. This news was immediately published to damaging effect in a pharmaceutical funded HIV/AIDS periodical “The Body.” Major newspapers were also alerted, at least one of which (The Washington Post) contacted Dr. Mileikowsky for comment, but never published its story upon learning that the awards to Plaintiff Farber and Dr. Duesberg were intact. The Semmelweis Society International did present the Clean Hands Award to Dr. Duesberg and Plaintiff Farber as announced, in a private setting, at the end of the conference.

    23. Several weeks after the “Whistleblower Week in Washington,” on June 7, 2008, Dr. Patrick Campbell, M.D., the Secretary of the Semmelweis Society International, sent an e-mail to, among others, Dr. Roland Chalifoux and Dr. Gil Mileikowsky, M.D., politely stating “[w]ith all due respect, I do not agree with the ‘Duesberg hypothesis.’”

    24. That same day, June 7, 2008, Defendant Murtagh, a co-chair of the International Association of Whistleblowers, sent an e-mail to Dr. Patrick Campbell and copied to the recipients of Dr. Campbell’s June 7 e-mail, including Dr. Roland Chalifoux and Dr. Gil Mileikowsky, agreeing with Dr. Campbell’s rejection of the “Duesberg hypothesis” and asserting that the “Duesberg hypothesis” had no support and did damage because people who are told myths do not get treatment and if people did not get treated with anti-retrovirals, they would die from AIDS. Defendant Murtagh further stated that the “fact that HIV causes AIDS is beyond dispute,” that the Semmelweis Society International loses credibility if “anti-scientific” positions are backed and that the Semmelweis Society International should only make awards to “persons based on fact in the future.” On June 9 2008, Defendant Murtagh called Dr. Pigott at home to tell her that their friendship was “over,” and that she “would be attacked.” Pigott replied, “OK, if that’s how you operate,” to which Defendant Murtagh replied, “That’s how I operate.”

    25. In the subsequent week, numerous e-mails were exchanged, including by Defendant Kuritzky and Defendant Murtagh, about the awards by the Semmelweis Society International to Dr. Duesberg and Plaintiff Farber.

    26. In one e-mail dated June 11, 2008, to among others Dr. Roland Chalifoux, Defendant Kuritzky falsely represented himself as a student of Dr. Duesberg. Defendant Kuritzky’s June 11 e-mail denounced Dr. Duesberg, asserting among other things that Dr. Duesberg had failed to defend his thesis in class, that Dr. Duesberg “has indirectly killed many human beings through his complicity in South Africa’s limits on antiretroviral medications given to pregnant women,” that Dr. Duesberg was run out of South Africa “as a murderer,” that Dr. Duesberg’s positions were “sick” like anti-Semitism and that he (Defendant Kuritzky) had difficulty being part of the Semmelweis Society International given the award to Dr. Duesberg. These statements were knowingly false, as Defendant Kuritzky never attended any of Dr. Duesberg’s college courses and was expelled from Emory Medical School for misconduct and plagiarism.

    27. Defendant Murtagh sent an e-mail dated June 11, 2008, stating that patients in South Africa were not truthfully told their options and that Dr. Duesberg “has a great deal to answer for.” In another e-mail dated June 13, 2008, Defendant Murtagh stated that Dr. Duesberg is “a liar.” In two other e-mails dated June 13, 2008, Defendant Murtagh complained that the Semmelweis Society International was being attacked by AIDS activists, that a number of members of the Semmelweis Society could not belong to an organization associated with the “Duesberg hypothesis” and blaming the award made to Dr. Duesberg and Plaintiff Farber.

    28. In response to the controversy, on June 13, 2008, the other co-chair of the International Association of Whistleblowers, Michael McRay, sent an e-mail to members of the Semmelweis Society International, stating that he was “disturbed” by the recent e-mail traffic, that as the co-chair of the International Association of Whistleblowers he denied any official position concerning the matters discussed in the e-mail traffic, that “certain individuals” had expressed their personal opinions concerning Dr. Duesberg and that the International Association of Whistleblowers was an “open and democratic organization.” Mr. McRay then stated that he “personally deplore[d] the disharmony and spectacle within the whistleblowing and public health communities which recent events have occasioned.”

    29. Despite Mr. McRay’s plea for harmony, on June 15, 2008, Defendant Kuritzky and Defendant Murtagh kept the acrimonious e-mail communications going, descending into further libeling Plaintiff Farber.

    30. In Defendant Kuritzky’s e-mail dated June 15, 2008, at 8:23 AM, to Semmelweis Society International Society members, including Dr. Shirley Piggott, M.D., and to Dr. Patrick Campbell, Dr. Roland Chalifoux, Dr. Gil Mileikowsky and Plaintiff Farber, Defendant Kuritzky communicated his resignation from the Semmelweis Society International, asserting that “Duesberg/Farber’s work” is “indirectly causing people to die” based on “false evidence, manipulating data,” that, quoting Dr. Gallo, “there is no room for the propagation of shallow and sensationalist thinking” and that the Farber article in Harper’s contained “falsities, misleading statements.” To date, Harper’s magazine has stated that it found no errors in its article authored by Plaintiff Farber, and it continues to stand by it, as stated in New York Times article “An Article in Harper’s ignites a controversy over H.I.V.” by Lia Miller, March 13, 2006. In said article, the editor of the Farber article, now the editor of Harper’s, Roger D. Hodge, said: “The fact that she’s been covering this story does not make her a crackpot, it makes her a journalist. She’s a courageous journalist. I believe, because she has covered the story at great personal cost.” The article also stated: “Mr. Hodge said the magazine stood behind the article and Ms. Farber.” (New York Times, March 13, 2006, “An Article in Harper’s Ignites a Controversy over H.I.V.”)

    31. In Defendant Murtagh’s e-mail dated June 15, 2008, at 10:35 AM, to Semmelweis Society International Society members, including Dr. Shirley Piggott, M.D., and to Dr. Patrick Campbell, Dr. Roland Chalifoux, Dr. Gil Mileikowsky and Plaintiff Farber, Defendant Murtagh asserted that while he (Defendant Murtagh) was no longer a member of the Semmelweis Society International, he stated he hoped all agree to “fairness to medical students is important,” that Defendant Kuritzky was a “valued member of our coalitions,” that Defendant Kuritzky had been a student of Dr. Duesberg (a false representation), that Defendant Kuritzky should be kept out of the line of attack, that people who “deny” that HIV causes AIDS prevent adequate prevention, education and treatment of AIDS, that Defendant Kuritzky should be thanked for “rounding up the facts,” and that Defendant Kuritzky should not be subject to attack.

    32. Defendant Kuritzky, however, continued that day, June 15, 2008, to send more e-mails attacking Plaintiff Farber to Semmelweis Society International Society members, including Dr. Shirley Pigott, M.D., and to Dr. Patrick Campbell, Dr. Roland Chalifoux, Dr. Gil Mileikowsky and Plaintiff Farber. At 9:14 PM, 9:33 PM and 9:34 PM, on June 15, 2008, Defendant Kuritzky’s e-mails mocked the award of the Clean Hands Award to Plaintiff Farber and engaged in personal attack on Plaintiff Farber.

    33. June 15, 2008, at 9:14 PM, Defendant Kuritzky sent an e-mail suggesting Nominations for the next year’s Clean Hands Awards. These suggestions included Holocaust denier and fraud David Irving, former KKK leader David Duke, and Nazi torturer Dr. Josef Mengele — all implying to a reasonable ordinary person that Plaintiff Farber was a mendacious liar and complicit in murder.

    34. Plaintiff Farber was moved to reply in an e-mail on June 15, 2008, at 9:39 PM, to Semmelweis Society International Society members, including Dr. Shirley Pigott, M.D., and to Dr. Patrick Campbell, Dr. Roland Chalifoux and Dr. Gil Mileikowsky. Plaintiff Farber defended her reporting on AIDS as going back to 1986, the negative damning history of the drug AZT and Dr. Duesberg’s (and her own) critiques of AZT, and urged a “close reading of relevant historical texts.”

    35. Defendant Kuritzky replied at 9:50 PM on June 15, 2008, in an e-mail to Plaintiff Farber and copied to eighteen persons, including members of Semmelweis Society International Society, university professors, scientists, and practicing doctors. Those eighteen persons included: Gil Mileikowsky MD (President, Alliance for Patient Safety); Shirley Pigott MD (Semmelweis Society International); Patrick Campbell MD; Roland Chalifoux DO (Semmelweis Society International President); Terry Bennett MD, MPH; Sharon Kramer (Semmelweis Society International); Michael Geiger (Advocate); Peter Duesberg, PhD; David Steele (attorney); Clark Baker (Private Investigator); Henry Butler MD; Blake Moore MD FACS; Richard Schneider MD; John Scheinman MD (Kansas University Professor of Medicine); Karl Stecher MD; George Holmes PhD (Semmelweis Society International Treasurer); Saundra Counce RN (Semmelweis Society International VP); William Hinnant MD JD (Semmelweis Society International Board member & past President). Defendant Kuritzky began his e-mail: “Celia – why don’t you take your parasitic, attention-whore behavior elsewhere, to a place where people actually care….The entire world has basically discredited you countless times, and all the attachments I have sent verifies this. Go back to doing what you appear to know best, which is to have sex with your employers for career-gains, unless you are currently employed and still working as a candle maker.” Defendant Kuritzky disparaged Plaintiff Farber’s writing as “anecdotal stinking pile of bullshit” and stated that her “false, damaging and absurd views on HIV are not welcome in the medical community.”

    36. Defendant Murtagh, a licensed and practicing physician, joined in the abuse in an e-mail dated June 15, 2008 at 10:05 PM, to Defendant Kuritzky and Plaintiff Farber. Defendant Murtagh wrote that he had asked Defendant Kuritzky “to be kind to Ms. Farber because she is obviously ill. Her sexual harassment at the hand of Bob Guccione has distorted her judgment.” He continued: “[w]e are dealing with very sad pathology in the AIDS denialists…” Defendant Murtagh continued, rhetorically asking who put up Dr. Roland Chalifoux and Dr. Gil Mileikowsky to giving the Clean Hands Award to Plaintiff Farber and Dr. Duesberg, stating that Plaintiff Farber “again resorts to made up facts” and ignores that “5,000 scientists who demonstrated that Koch’s postulates have been fulfilled” and commending Defendant Kuritzky for his “good work” and “extremely well thought out research.” In fact, Plaintiff Farber has reported that while 5,000 (mostly) HIV/AIDS scientists and researchers did lend their names to a New York Times advertisement stating that HIV causes AIDS and that Koch’s Postulates had been fulfilled, some 2,600 other scientists and academics have lent their names to a contrary conclusion, namely that the true cause or causes of AIDS have not been identified or proven and urging a re-opening of the prematurely closed question.

    37. On June 16, 2008, Clark Baker, seeing the e-mails by Defendant Kuritzky and Defendant Murtagh, wrote an e-mail to members of the Semmelweis Society International recommending that they block e-mails from Defendant Kuritzky and Defendant Murtagh “as junk”; an email to Dr. Gil Mileikowsky asking that he not respond to Defendant Kuritzky and Defendant Murtagh; and an e-mail to Defendant Kuritzky and Defendant Murtagh “You ladies protest too much. . . .



    38. Plaintiff Farber repeats and realleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 37 as set forth herein.

    39. Defendant Jefferys, in his e-mail dated May 12, 2008, quoted in paragraph 21 above, libeled Plaintiff Farber with non-privileged defamatory false statements of fact that were culpably published and that were damaging.

    (a) The specific statements accusing Plaintiff Farber and Dr. Duesberg of being “liars,” having “used fraud,” engaging in “altering of quotes from scientific literature” and making “false representations from published papers” are factual: the language used and the context in which that language appears makes clear that Defendant Jefferys is factually accusing Plaintiff Farber of lying, committing fraud, altering quotations from scientific literature and making false representations from published papers.

    (b) The aforesaid factual statements were false. Plaintiff Farber was not (and is not) a liar, did not engage in fraud, did not alter quotations from scientific literature and did not make false representations from published papers; and Dr. Duesberg was not (and is not) a liar, did not engage in fraud, did not alter quotations from scientific literature and did not make false representations from published papers.

    (c) The aforesaid factual accusations are defamatory per se against Plaintiff Farber in her capacity as a journalist, as such behavior would not only subject the person to public contempt, aversion, disgrace, induce an evil opinion in the minds of right thinking persons and deprive the person of friendly intercourse in society, but also were defamatory concerning Plaintiff Farber in her performance of her trade and profession as a journalist.

    (d) The aforesaid defamatory and false statements were not privileged, as the communications were not made in the kind of circumstances in which an absolute protection applies or in which it was necessary or appropriate to make those communications subject to a qualified privilege.

    (e) The aforesaid non-privileged, defamatory and false statements were culpably uttered. The statements that Plaintiff Farber was a “liar,” “used fraud,” engaged in “altering of quotes from scientific literature” and made “false representations from published papers” were made knowing they were false or with reckless disregard whether they were false and with gross irresponsibility.

    (f) The aforesaid non-privileged, defamatory, false and culpably uttered statements were damaging to Plaintiff Farber’s abilities to earn a living as a journalist.

    40. There should be a declaration of rights that Plaintiff Farber was libeled by Defendant Jefferys in his May 12, 2008 e-mail quoted in paragraph 21 above, and there should be an award of damages to Plaintiff Farber from Defendant Jefferys for damages to compensate Plaintiff Farber for losses and injuries suffered by her and for punitive damages due to Defendant Jefferys’ libelous statements being made willfully, wantonly and maliciously.



    41. Plaintiff Farber repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 40 as set forth herein.

    42. Defendant Kuritzky, in his e-mails dated June 15, 2008, quoted in paragraphs 30, 33 and 35 above libeled Plaintiff Farber with non-privileged defamatory false statements of fact that were culpably published and that were damaging.

    (a) The specific statements accusing Plaintiff Farber of “indirectly causing people to die” based on “false evidence, manipulating data,” engaging in “the propagation of shallow and sensationalist thinking,” having published “falsities, misleading statements” in Harpers, of having “many demons,” engaging in “parasitic, attention-whore behavior,” writing “anecdotal stinking pile of bullshit” and having “false, damaging and absurd views on HIV [that] are not welcome in the medical community” are factual: the language used and the context in which that language appears makes clear that Defendant Kuritzky is factually accusing Plaintiff Farber of “indirectly causing people to die” based on “false evidence, manipulating data,” engaging in “the propagation of shallow and sensationalist thinking,” having published “falsities, misleading statements” in Harpers, of having “many demons,” engaging in “parasitic, attention-whore behavior,” writing “anecdotal stinking pile of bullshit” and having “false, damaging and absurd views on HIV [that] are not welcome in the medical community.”

    (b) The aforesaid factual statements were false. Plaintiff Farber was not “indirectly causing people to die” based on “false evidence, manipulating data,” was not engaging in “the propagation of shallow and sensationalist thinking,” did not have published “falsities, misleading statements” in Harpers, of having “many demons,” was not engaging in “parasitic, attention-whore behavior,” did not write “anecdotal stinking pile of bullshit” and did not have “false, damaging and absurd views on HIV [that] are not welcome in the medical community.”

    (c) The aforesaid factual accusations are defamatory per se against Plaintiff Farber in her capacity as a journalist, as such behavior would not only subject the person to public contempt, aversion, disgrace, induce an evil opinion in the minds of right thinking persons and deprive the person of friendly intercourse in society, but also were defamatory concerning Plaintiff Farber in her performance of her trade and profession.

    (d) The aforesaid defamatory and false statements were not privileged, as the communications were not made in the kind of circumstances in which an absolute protection applies or in which it was necessary or appropriate to make those communications subject to a qualified privilege.

    (e) The aforesaid non-privileged, defamatory and false statements were culpably uttered. The statements that Plaintiff Farber was “indirectly causing people to die” based on “false evidence, manipulating data,” engaging in “the propagation of shallow and sensationalist thinking,” having published “falsities, misleading statements” in Harpers, of having “many demons,” engaging in “parasitic, attention-whore behavior,” writing “anecdotal stinking pile of bullshit” and having “false, damaging and absurd views on HIV [that] are not welcome in the medical community” were made knowing they were false or with reckless disregard whether they were false and with gross irresponsibility.

    (f) The aforesaid non-privileged, defamatory, false and culpably uttered statements were damaging to Plaintiff Farber’s abilities to earn a living as a journalist.

    43. There should be a declaration of rights that Plaintiff Farber was libeled by Defendant Kuritzky in his June 15, 2008 e-mails quoted in paragraphs 30, 33 and 35 above, and there should be an award of damages to Plaintiff Farber from Defendant Kuritzky for damages to compensate Plaintiff Farber for losses and injuries suffered by her and for punitive damages due to Defendant Kuritzky’s libelous statements being made willfully, wantonly and maliciously.



    44 Plaintiff Farber repeats and reallges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 43 as set forth herein.

    45. Defendant Murtagh, in his e-mails dated June 15, 2008, quoted in paragraphs 31 and 36 above libeled Plaintiff Farber with non-privileged defamatory false statements of fact that were culpably published and that were damaging.

    (a) Defendant Murtagh used his medical degree and implied clinical privileges to lend credibility to his assertions. The specific statements that Defendant Murtagh made that Defendant Kuritzky was a student of Dr. Duesberg and was doing “good work” with “extremely well thought out research” and that Plaintiff Farber was preventing adequate prevention, education and treatment of AIDS, was “obviously ill,” and was resorting to “made up facts” while ignoring “5,000 scientists who demonstrated that Koch’s postulates have been fulfilled” are factual: the language used and the context in which that language appears makes clear that Defendant Murtagh is factually asserting that Defendant Kuritzky was a student of Dr. Duesberg and was doing “good work” with “extremely well thought out research” and that Plaintiff Farber was preventing adequate prevention, education and treatment of AIDS, was “obviously ill,” and was resorting to “made up facts” while ignoring “5,000 scientists who demonstrated that Koch’s postulates have been fulfilled.”

    (b) The aforesaid factual statements were false. Defendant Kuritzky was not a student of Dr. Duesberg and was not doing “good work” with “extremely well thought out research,” but rather engaging in false personal attack on Plaintiff Farber, and that Plaintiff Farber was not preventing adequate prevention, education and treatment of AIDS, was not “obviously ill,” and was not resorting to “made up facts” while ignoring “5,000 scientists who demonstrated that Koch’s postulates have been fulfilled.”

    (c) The aforesaid factual accusations are defamatory per se against Plaintiff Farber in her capacity as a journalist, as such behavior would not only subject the person to public contempt, aversion, disgrace, induce an evil opinion in the minds of right thinking persons and deprive the person of friendly intercourse in society, but also were so defamatory concerning Plaintiff Farber in her performance of her trade and profession.

    (d) The aforesaid defamatory and false statements were not privileged, as the communications were not made in the kind of circumstances in which an absolute protection applies or in which it was necessary or appropriate to make those communications subject to a qualified privilege.

    (e) The aforesaid non-privileged, defamatory and false statements were culpably uttered. The statements that Defendant Kuritzky was a student of Dr. Duesberg and was doing “good work” with “extremely well thought out research” and that Plaintiff Farber was preventing adequate prevention, education and treatment of AIDS, was “obviously ill,” and was resorting to “made up facts” while ignoring “5,000 scientists who demonstrated that Koch’s postulates have been fulfilled” were made knowing they were false or with reckless disregard whether they were false and with gross irresponsibility.

    (f) The aforesaid non-privileged, defamatory, false and culpably uttered statements were damaging to Plaintiff Farber’s abilities to earn a living as a journalist.

    46. There should be a declaration of rights that Plaintiff Farber was libeled by Defendant Murtagh in his June 15, 2008 e-mails quoted in paragraphs 31 and 36 above, and there should be an award of damages to Plaintiff Farber from Defendant Murtagh for damages to compensate Plaintiff Farber for losses and injuries suffered by her and for punitive damages due to Defendant Murtagh’s libelous statements being made willfully, wantonly and maliciously.


    WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Celia Farber demands Judgment as follows:

    (i) On the First Cause of Action against Defendant Jefferys, a declaration that Defendant Jefferys libeled Plaintiff Farber in the May 12, 2008 e-mail quoted in paragraph 21 above and an award of compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

    (ii) On the Second Cause of Action against Defendant Kuritzky, a declaration that Defendant Kuritzky libeled Plaintiff Farber in the June 15, 2008 e-mails quoted in paragraphs 30, 33 and 35 above and an award of compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

    (iii) On the Third Cause of Action against Defendant Murtagh, a declaration that Defendant Murtagh libeled Plaintiff Farber in the June 15, 2008 e-mails quoted in paragraph 31 and 36 above and an award of compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial; and

    (iv) Granting such other and further relief as to the Court deems just and proper, together with the fees, costs and disbursements of this action.

    Dated: New York, New York

    May 4, 2009


    By: _______________________________

    Andrew T. Miltenberg, Esq.

    Attorneys for Plaintiff Celia Farber

    363 Seventh Avenue – 5th Floor

    New York, New York 10001


  2. DavidRCrowe Says:

    I am always pleased to see resistance, and Celia’s legal action is a new front. AID$ Inc. tries very hard to destroy the lives of those who refuse to be easily silenced. Celia has been one of the bravest and most articulate foes of the AIDS Empire, and thus the hatred aligned against her has been greatest. If dogmatists are forced by the courts to cease using invective against us, perhaps they will have to debate us…or run away and hide.

  3. MartinDKessler Says:

    I hope this trial (assuming it isn’t settled out of court) goes better than the Parenzee trial in Australia. But being in a local venue convenient for the parties involved, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Treatment Action Group along with its cohorts in big pharma, those receiving AIDS funding, etc. will pull out all stops to preserve their lucrative jobs. I would expect Larry Altman of the New York Times to be a paid “expert” witness for the defense. This could really turn out to be a circus. If Celia Farber prevails, it just might be a stake in the heart of the New York Times, while not directly implicated in this lawsuit, will hopefully lose considerable (undeserved) credibility.

  4. Baby Pong Says:

    I hope that her attorneys are working (I forget the term they use for this) without charging her fees, instead taking a percentage of any settlement. This could get expensive.

    We haven’t prevailed yet in any lawsuit that I’m aware of, probably due to behind the scenes intervention by those with infinite power and zero accountability. But perhaps this case will be different. Good luck, Celia!

    And maybe other honest, uncorrupted scientists and academics who were fired due to the well-funded efforts of Aids Inc. mercenaries might follow suit.

  5. cervantes Says:

    TS, Terrific you posted verbatim the lawsuit, and I passed it on to Barrister Brink in SA, in case he hadn’t seen it already. But no harm in sending it anyway, just in case.

    As maybe most know, Anthony Brink has been in some serious lawsuits in this venue regards the mortal toxicities of the antivirals, yet, best I know, the cases have all been settled out of court – or dropped when witnesses die, or decline to appear, or accept monetary settlements (kept secret by terms of the settlement).

    However, here we have the indefatigable Ms. Farber, bless her soul, who will not roll over, despite what mountains of garbage are coming her way…

    She must take strength in knowing so many are with her.

  6. Truthseeker Says:

    The hounds of hell

    For the record, we have posted this correction on the grievously misnamed/accurately named denialismblog (dont mistake denialism for debate) run by one Mark Hoofnagle (“Mark Hoofnagle has a MD and PhD in physiology from the University of Virginia, and is now a general surgery resident. His interest in denialism concerns the use of denialist tactics to confuse public understanding of scientific knowledge.”) and his brother (presumably) Chris Hoofnagle (“Chris Hoofnagle is a recovering Washington, DC lawyer and information privacy law expert at UC-Berkeley Law School. Denialism became apparent to him while working on consumer protection laws in Washington. The Denialists’ Deck of Cards is essentially a how-to guide for being an industry lobbyist”) on the scienceblogs site hosted by SEED Magazine, the struggling newcomer to popular science print journalism.

    The scienceblogs site is a mixed bag of enthusiastic science blogs often given to celebrating mainstream wisdom at the expense of any critics. The Hoofnagles apparently assume naively that any critics of the established paradigm HIV=AIDS must be wrong by definition, and their comment thread is a stew of contributions from likeminded HIV=AIDS defenders joyously slamming paradigm questioners, such as the notorious and grievously misnamed Chris Noble, a computer programmer from Australia, whose automatic and relentless defense of the increasingly improbable and now incredible core belief of HIV/AIDS has still not flagged after many years.

    We posted this correction on the comment thread to the Hoofnagle’s post
    Journalist becomes the story: Discover Magazine luvs teh (sic) denialists
    . The post was written by the Hoofnagle’s third partner in mainstream denialism (ie the very active boosters of the paradigm who always and with eyes wide shut deny that there is any case to be answered from their critics, critics they define as “denialists” in one of the small ironies of this unscientifically debated issue), one PalMad (“PalMD is a practicing internist in the Midwestern United States. Aside from the great joy he finds in his family and his work, he likes communicating some of that joy to others. He has a special interest in the ways patients—and we are all patients at one time or another—are deceived by charlatans. He aims to change the world, one reader at a time”):

    Guccione was instrumental in getting Celia Farber’s early HIV denial pieces published. There was resistance from other people at Spin but Guccione got them through. Guccione is on the list of scientists (and journalists, engineers, conspiracy theorists and quacks) who deny that HIV causes AIDS. He seems to also be reponsible for Anthony “Tony Baloney” Liversidge’s HIV denialist articles getting published in Omni while he was the editor. After Guccione took over Discover we start getting articles by Celia Farber and articles about Peter Duesberg.

    All I am doing is noting a pattern here. (I don’t think Guccione was sleeping with Liversidge though)

    Posted by: Chris Noble | May 17, 2008 2:49 AM


    “He seems to also be reponsible for Anthony “Tony Baloney” Liversidge’s HIV denialist articles getting published in Omni while he was the editor.”

    Childish disrespect and baloneous misinformation, gentlemen. No articles on “HIV denialism” (ie news about the very qualified people who have written peer reviewed articles in the best journal literature rejecting Chris Noble’s favorite paradigm) were published by me in OMNI, except for one which included Peter Duesberg’s mistreatment (ie the grossly political and unscientific response to his well reasoned, peer reviewed, copiously footnoted – ie based on mainstream claims and data – and evidently irrefutable pieces rejecting HIV=AIDS in Cancer Research, Proceedings of the National Academy etc) as one of three “Modern Galileos” (the others being Linus Pauling and Thomas Gold, not bad company).

    Bob Guccione Jr the founder/editor of SPIN was never the editor or an editor of OMNI, and the editors of OMNI never had any favorable attitude towards HIV critics. In fact they had the standard mainstream media attitude, which was not to cover it responsibly in case they alienated their usual sources, ie the leaders of the field and of the career-and-funding profitable if grossly improbable paradigm, Anthony Fauci, Robert Gallo, David Baltimore, etc.

    Posted by: AL | May 19, 2009 5:56 PM

    Of greater interest and relevance to our Celia Farber post above is the equally lively comment thread (so far 53 of them) which has followed Seth Kalichman’s post of the New York Post Page Six article without comment at his odd Denying AIDS and other oddities blog, Court Jester: Celia Farber’s New Libel Suit Against Treatment Action Group, where much the same tone of derision and calumny from all the usual suspects is maintained against the few intelligent critics of HIV/AIDS that trouble to counter the misinformation peddled by Web comment thread defenders of the HIV/AIDS faith any more, in this case the irrepressible Michael Geiger, who wields a deft pen.

    Readers who come upon these exchanges unawares must surely be driven to ask the obvious question: if the established theory of HIV causing AIDS is as intellectually and scientifically impregnable and immune to critical review as these rabid defenders like to suggest, why is it necessary vehemently to discredit and disparage those who demand outside review?

    The vitriolic hazing that critics and reporters who cover them are subjected to by the Animal House of small time defenders of the HIV faith on the Web is prima facie evidence that (apart from the delights of the lynch mob mentality easily awoken in primitive souls who lack proper training and experience in scientific discourse) objective scientific discussion is being avoided, and suggests that they consciously or not know very well that HIV is not proven to be the cause of AIDS, that the claim is vulnerable to examination and that there are innumerable scientific and common sense reasons to reject the hypothesis.

    The characteristic of any scientific well reasoned and evidenced claim in normal professional science is that its knowledgeable supporters have no fear of criticism that provokes them to sling mud and scorn at their critics. On the contrary, they are sure of their ground and welcome impartial review. They are happy, in fact, to teach those who do not yet understand that their belief is fully justified and validated by the best evidence.

    In this case, the actions of the paradigm supporters high and low who behave in such a disgraceful fashion amount to defensive politics and a prima facie declaration of lack of confidence in their own unscientific position.

    Like dogs defending their home turf, they snarl and clamp their teeth on the trouser cuffs on the police who demand access to the house whose neighbors have reported cries of suffering within.

  7. Maria angus Says:

    Thank God for Celia! Isn’t this the United States of America? How can doctors force horrible drugs onto our children. We must fight back. Do we have any doctors in this group? Will know one stand up for patients anymore?

    We must help Celia with her lawsuit. What can we do? WE need to take down all these dastardly doctors who are poisoning our families, our children. WHY ARE WE ALL NOT SUING? WHY ARE WE NOT SHOUTING? WHAT CAN WE DO TO HELP?

  8. Maria angus Says:

    My God! I think I know one of the doctors Celia is fighting. What can I do? This man must go down!

    (Warning -this is an attemot at satire, a form of pointed humor which the commentator apparently only recently discovered and is practicing hard – Ed.)

  9. Robert Houston Says:

    Celia Farber is a gifted and courageous journalist who deserves all the praise that many are giving her as she wages her new lawsuit. But is it fair for this sensitive woman to be put through the prolonged stress and annoyance and expense of another court battle? (A Federal case in the 1990s into which she was dragged but eventually exonerated was a terrible experience for her.) Furthermore, victory in the current case seems far from certain and of little potential recompense, for those being sued are not known to be wealthy. At the same time, they are well-connected and may have unlimited legal support from the drug industry and its front groups, as well as testimonial support from professors and officials of prestigious institutions.

    While lawyers may counsel for her to go ahead and sue, the legal bills could be enormous. The prospect thus appears that, win or lose, she may wind up deep in debt, after going through anguished months of legal conflict. Forgive me if in sympathy for her I fail to join in cheering the news.

  10. Truthseeker Says:

    Should reporters judge an issue they cover?

    Fair commentary, Houston, in our book. One of the prime characteristics of the kind of injustice that reigns when the mainstream popular opinion is dead wrong, but generated by leaders who mislead the public, as in this case, is that those who object are trashed gleefully by all the sadists, suckers up, henchmen, and other opportunists who gather their verbal turnips and onions to defend the status quo, who by definition have public prejudice on their side ie onlookers mostly assume that any person who is marching out of step is wrong and antisocial to boot.

    Starting a lawsuit against such miscreants is a fool’s errand in a way, since the skunk will when kicked emit the most horrendous stench, but let’s not forget that it offers the opportunity to “discover” a heap of compromising material which will show how well the drug companies fund so much of the paradigm defense force. But of course the main intent of the accused will be to detract from Farber’s reputation as furiously as ever, so we assume she has something really major to use as a weapon against this spurious evasion.

    Any claim that Celia is not an objective journalist in her coverage of HIV/AIDS exploiters and their grossly anti-scientific antics is going to go nowhere fast, it seems to us, and this is the crux of the matter – the objectivity or lack of it on either side in what is really a dispute in science which should be conducted without political or economic bias, but instead is laden with it on one side – the army in defense of this prima facie absurd claim.

    Defenders are riddled with compromising self interest of one kind or another – funding being the main one, but emotional and political investments in the status quo of all kinds as well. Doesn’t really matter what all the compromising influences are, there is simply no question that the defenders insult, marginalize and repress those who call for review at every opportunity, from the top – Peter Duesberg – to the bottom, the ordinary citizen who asks what the heck is going on, as “dangerous” etc. But if they are wrong and Duesberg etc is right, then of course it is they who are dangerous to the public health and the public purse. Very dangerous.

    Celia Farber writing descriptions of this behavior is hardly deserving of insults and calumny, and in any court case where judgement is free of politics this point can be rammed home, however ignorant the judge or jury may be of the scientific facts.

    Her lawyers can argue that this is a public policy issue of major consequence involving huge amounts of public spending and large numbers of lives. No one has the right to block discussion by attacking critics with calumny. The libel laws exist to stop that kind of thing.

    Most of these shenanigans hinge on logical confusions in the minds of the players which are exploited by those who have no other means of defending the paradigm, which has been thoroughly shot down in the best journals (Cancer Research, Proceedings of the National Academy) by Peter Duesberg without any direct refutation and with only indirect attempts at rebuttal, in other lesser journals which blocked debate after the first round (Science) or blocked Duesberg’s full responses (Nature) or are not peer reviewed (Web statements by NIAID and CDC) or even signed.

    Muddy thinking on reporter objectivity

    One logical confusion which has always seemed to us rather silly but which has handicapped Celia’s efforts to defend her work against this kind of smearing is the idea that a reporter who reports without bias both sides of an issue, but who then makes up his or her mind as to who is right in their own personal judgment, is not “objective”.

    For a reporter to convey the points advanced in a scientific dispute and the behavior of both sides without fear or favor, and for a respectable magazine to publish the material he/she writes with rigorous fact checking, and then neither reporter nor editor to tell the public which side he or she believes to be correct, for fear of compromising “objectivity”, is absurd.

    Both Farber and the editor of Harpers should have freely given the public their personal judgment – who better qualified than these two, who had so much at stake in the accuracy of the reporting and the facts stated in it, which they had mastered so well?

    Instead, Celia tried to maintain she had not yet after twenty years decided herself whether HIV caused AIDS or not, which merely allowed her detractors to find places where she had rendered a judgment and suggest she was not being forthright.

    The editor of Harpers didn’t grasp the nettle either, and while initially standing by his writer’s work as completely reliable and fact checked, which iit was, declined to say (as far as we know) whether he was persuaded that a review of the HIV/AIDS was urgently needed, which was the conclusion of most readers of the article. In fact, after a few months passed he was heard by us while giving a public talk on his first year at the helm of the magazine to say that “Duesberg is probably wrong”, which was not at all the implication of Farber’s piece as we read it, in fact, quite the opposite. The take home point seemed pretty clear. It was. on the contrary, that Duesberg was probably right. Anyone can check this for themselves since the full article “Out of Control” from March 2007 is still freely available at the Harpers site.

    The reluctance of Celia to say straightforwardly, as she has in comments at this blog and elsewhere, that the chances of the paradigm being correct and that HIV is the cause of AIDS seem pretty low to non existent at this point, or as we like to put it ourselves, as likely as Director Anthony Fauci of NIAID jumping clean over the moon, is premised on the idea that if she has her own opinion on the matter she will be a biased reporter and all her despatches from the front will be distorted by this “lack of objectivity”.

    This naive idea of objectivity in reporting should be dismissed outright as an impossibility, of course, since all humans will form a view of some kind on an issue simply by investigating it. But the political point often made, that if they form a judgment as to who is right in a dispute they are no longer trustworthy as objective reporters, is also a red herring, because the two things are easily kept separate. In fact, reporters often write stories about personalities they may detest without letting it affect their work. And the number of reporters who belong to one party eg are Democrats who write about the other party eg Republicans must be legion. Impartial reporting is a professional skill conducted separately from forming an opinion about who is right.

    But twenty years of writing about a topic – which is what Celia has under her belt in HIV/AIDS and its disputed paradigm – makes her one of the best people in the world to ask who she thinks is right, and the implication that if she gives her view then she is not a professional and reliable reporter is simply an ignorant confusion which is being used by the people who oppose her revelations to gag her, and it should not be given in to.

    Reporters are among the best informed people on any topic and they above all should be consulted by the public as to what is going on in any scientific public policy dispute.

  11. jtdeshong Says:

    Come on Houston, “sensitive woman”? Are you serious? It seems that she only becomes sensitive when her propaganda is exposed for what it is!
    As for you (supposed) truthseeker, you wrote: “…a reporter who reports without bias both sides of an issue, but who then makes up his or her mind as to who is right in their own personal judgment, is not “objective”. ‘ That is basically correct, however, when would you say that Farber “made up her own personal judgement”? Since she had been reporting on HIV/AIDS since the 80’s, I would bet she had made up her mind on the subject way before she wrote the Harper’s piece. I would submit said Harper’s article as my proof that Farber had made up her mind on the subject based on the sensationalistic slant of the article.
    Case in point, she included a letter to the editor of Nature which was written by major denialist, Valender Turner of The Perth Group. Also, the article was 15 pages long with only 15 sources cited. That is one source per page. However, in my reading, I found this to be incredibly lacking with regards to the content. Farber should have included at least 6 times the number of sources for the information she presented.
    Also, Farber included no less than 6 pages on who Peter Duesberg is and all the wrongs that he has had to endure based on his illogic that HIV does not cause AIDS. Again, why does she devote 1/3 of the article to Duesberg? The story had nothing to do with Duesberg whatsoever! It is just another example of Farber being sensationalistic and pushing her agenda!
    One other thing is that Farber wrote twice in the article that Canada had refused Nevirapine into the country twice, in 1996 and 1998. She made this such a huge point in the piece and yet it is a LIE!! I was able to verify that lie just with a phone call and an email. That email, along with other lies and fabrications in the Harper’s piece as well as the supposed “lawsuit” such as the fact that the first page of the suit, which you, truthseeker, conveniently did not include above, showed that two of the three defendant’s names were mis-spelled, can be found at my blog. Of course I am sure you will dismiss and ignore these facts as you always do, rather than try and refute them rationally without letting your childish emotions getting in the way of logic and fact.
    J. Todd DeShong

  12. Maria angus Says:

    (Warning: This is a post by a troll, who is actually a member of the HIV defense army, though merely a private second class. – Ed.)

    Deshong, you low life. My husband was poisoned at the VA by a murderous doctor. He is a criminal, just like Farber says. Then I see his name in Gallo’s egg! My god, this guy needs to be stopped! We should all join this lawsuit!

    Unlike you, I’m not going to jump to any conclusions. I want to check out more what Farber and Baker are saying. BUt after I am sure, I’m gonna shout his name and yours from the rooftops! Thank God, Dr. Miliekowski hired Baker to set those doctors right. I had never heard of Semmelweis before, but it was a den of vipers until Gallo’s egg and Mileokowski set them straight. Serves them right. This is a democracy!

    Dr. Mileokowski, thanks so much. You are doing God’s work, and now that Farber has your backing, she can’t be stopped. How can we help you? How can I reach you? How can we put this guy Deshong down for good? I’m tired of this no-nothing. He isn’t a man of God.

    (Warning 2 -this is an attemot at satire, a form of pointed humor which the commentator apparently only recently discovered and is practicing hard – Ed.)

  13. Truthseeker Says:

    The Harpers article was fact checked strenuously for the obvious reason that the political fall out was clearly going to be radioactive – you can’t kick this skunk without a smell capable of levelling a herd of elephants emanating from reflexive paradigm defenders. So DeShong, your statement that you corrected a point in it with a phone call and an email –

    One other thing is that Farber wrote twice in the article that Canada had refused Nevirapine into the country twice, in 1996 and 1998. She made this such a huge point in the piece and yet it is a LIE!! I was able to verify that lie just with a phone call and an email. That email, along with other lies and fabrications in the Harper’s piece as well as the supposed “lawsuit” such as the fact that the first page of the suit, which you, truthseeker, conveniently did not include above, showed that two of the three defendant’s names were mis-spelled, can be found at my blog.

    is very impressive. However, it is also incredible. Perhaps you would like to state what the truth is here, so we can all appreciate it, or contradict it, as the case may be. Given that the article was descended upon by a pack of howling wolves whose anxiety that their daily feast of paradigmatic red meat was threatened reached a crescendo of desperation, judging from the tone of the letters and phone calls to the editor by Gallo et al, it seems unlikely that you, DeShong, celebrated as your research skills are, have discovered an easily corrected flaw they overlooked, particularly a significant error of this kind.

    So kindly quote the exact sentence and give your correction, and its source, if you don’t mind.

  14. Truthseeker Says:

    As for you (supposed) truthseeker, you wrote: “…a reporter who reports without bias both sides of an issue, but who then makes up his or her mind as to who is right in their own personal judgment, is not “objective”. ‘ That is basically correct

    DeShong, it seems that you cannot quote my comment correctly but actually reverse its meaning by removing the context. My statement is that he/she can be and is perfectly objective, even after he/she has formed a judgment as to who is correct. His/her reporting is entirely unaffected if he/she is a reliably professional reporter.

    Do you not understand this? Or did you merely not make it clear in your comment? We hate to think that you misled the reader on purpose. That would be very disturbing for all who seek the truth, and assume you do too.

  15. jtdeshong Says:

    Aw, TS, how nice it feels to once again be exposed to your disingenuous, controverted double-speak!! I understood your quote perfectly. It seems that you either do not understand that I am calling your little quote hypocritical. I am saying that yes, indeed, IF a reporter reports the facts, they can have whatever opinion they would like. However, it is quite obvious that Farber’s Harper piece is rife with her own personal views and her duplicitous nature is evident here with her sensationalistic agenda. Again, she quotes the Perth Group and spends 1/3 of the entire paper kissing Duesberg squarely on each cheek! That screams how she feels about the HIV/AIDS issue.
    How much more clear do I need to be regarding her statements about Canada and Nevirapine? She said twice that Canada refused to allow Nevirapine into Canada in 1996 and in 1998, and she made that out to be a huge point of her article. However, Canada did indeed allow Nevirapine into it’s borders in 1998 and it has been used there eversince. If you want to read the email I received from Canada’s Health Protection Branch, just go to
    Also, if you have not read the Harper’s piece, I think it best that you do before you go off half cocked again.
    Now, for the mis-spelling of defendants Kuritzke and Murtagh, here you go… From my dear, wonderful friend Clark Baker!!
    Kuritzke is spelled Kurtsky and Murtagh is spelled Murtaugh!!
    Anything else I can school you in, just let me know!!

  16. Truthseeker Says:

    Poor DeShong, you flail like a child in shallow water. What Celia wrote about the Canadians is absolutely correct. They rejected the application. Only when it was later revised did they allow the drug in.

    Glad you accept my point about reporters being allowed an opinion. Now try and be consistent and allow Celia hers. It may be a lot better researched than your own, judging from your performance today.

  17. Maria angus Says:

    (Warning: This is a post by a troll, who is actually a member of the HIV defense army, though merely a private second class. – Ed.)

    Truthseeker, it is time for all citizens to unite. We need real freedom of speech. That is what Fauntroy and Gil Mileikowsky and Congresswoman Sheila Jackson fought for in giving Farber the award. It is time for DeShong to realize the truth is the truth, and it is time to eliminate AIDS through free speech. Patrick Henry didn’t mince words. Now, we need all truthseekers to come out and shout to the world that FARBER IS RIGHT! MILEOKOWSKY IS RIGHT! BAKER IS RIGHT ON! It is time to sue everyone who doesn’t agree with Duesberg! Their venom has poisoned the world. Thank God the truth is being made known. Fauntroy and Gil Mileikowsky Invented whistleblower week just for this purpose. They invented the clean hands award just for people like Duesberg. Who can argue with Fauntroy and Gil Mileikowsky? They must be backing this suit. I hope they will come out and say so publicly.

    (Warning 2 -this is an attemot at satire, a form of pointed humor which the commentator apparently only recently discovered and is practicing hard – Ed.)

  18. jtdeshong Says:

    Well, TS, (notice how my integrity will not allow me to even write your entire bullshit moniker),
    I wondered how long it would take for you to “duck, bob and weave” behind a nonsense statement. This is exactly why I chose to not write the truth here for so long. I find it very frustrating, being a man of truth, integrity and justice, trying to deal with the likes of you who are complete and utter fakes. Even when you try to write in your lengthy, dichotomous prose, which may sound grand and intellectual to you, reads as completely boring and forced to those of us who read real prose by the likes of John Irving. (BTW, all should read “Until I Find You”, Iriving’s latest. That is, if you are able to read a book of 800+ pages without cartoons or captions!) Yet I digress. TS, you really need to ask yourself why it is that you choose, (and make no mistake, it is a choice) to support factually degenerate “journalists”. I understand that Farber (and Scheff and even Baker) may support your sad, disillusioned beliefs, but is there not a fine line of integrity that even you would dare not cross? I know there is for me. That fine line begins and ends with the likes of pseudo~intellectuals and “journalists” like Farber, Scheff and the less than wanna~be, Clark Baker.
    P.S. Please try and consider opinions of others as I do. I suggest ScienceBlogs. There are over 50 to choose from. They all actually have real degrees and real experience. Perhaps if you increase your web of knowledge, then, and only then, will you be able to accept what sad, perverse psuedo~intellectuals you are.

  19. Robert Houston Says:

    In his sleazy if gleeful effort to denounce Celia Farber, Mr. DeShong has offered his self-discovery of an instance of alleged inaccuracy in her March 2006 Harper’s article: “…Farber wrote twice in the article that Canada had refused Nevirapine into the country twice, in 1996 and 1998. She made this such a huge point in the piece and yet it is a LIE!!”

    However, Ms. Farber’s statement – which occurred only once in her article – was correct. According to the online encyclopedia “Nevirapine…was twice rejected by Canada, in 1996 and again in 1998, due to its high toxicity and lack of evidence of its effectiveness, though it was later approved in 1998.” The same facts are verified by several other online sources of medical information (e.g.,

    At his own website on May 13th, Mr. DeShong quoted a letter from the manufacturer to Brian Foley that states: “The initial application was filed with Health Canada in June of 1996 and it was rejected. The application was re-submitted to Health Canada in 1998 and in September of that year Health Canada granted conditional approval for the drug.” What’s left out, however, is that the “conditional approval” came after considerable political agitation by AIDS activists and that earlier in 1998 Canada rejected a 1997 submission for Nevirapine (Viramune). According to an April 1998 statement from the Canadian Ministry of Health:

    “The efficacy of Viramune was not clinically significant… There are, in addition, safety concerns associated with Viramune use in clinical trials. On March 6, 1997, a Notice of non-compliance (NON) was issued by the Therapeutic Products Programme. On July 2, 1997, the manufacturer filed a response to the NON. In the absence of scientific evidence of efficacy and…concerns relating to safety, the data available for Viramune are judged to be inadequate to support the clinical benefit of the drug.”

    Once again, Ms. Farber was accurate and her critics were the ones in error.

  20. Truthseeker Says:

    TS, you really need to ask yourself why it is that you choose, (and make no mistake, it is a choice) to support factually degenerate “journalists”.

    Well, DeShong, are you sufficiently chastened by Houston’s correction of your “factually degenerate” statement to admit you don’t know whereof you speak, because your research is faulty? Are you not in fact a “factually degenerate” misleader of all who trouble to read your adolescent prose, replete with ad hominem insults which completely ignore the honor and integrity of your targets, who show as much respect for science and truth as you do the opposite in escaping the obligations of either?

    You find yourself in the company of promoters of error such as the inimitable John Moore, who praises psychologist Seth Kalichman’s efforts in the current Nature, when Kalichman actually boasts that he is under-researched in not troubling to read Duesberg’s papers before spuriously pathologizing dissenters in HIV/AIDS in the Soviet manner. Yet you ask why we support the work of journalists such as Farber, who are so accurate that Robert Gallo was not able to offer any valid “error” in over fifty attempts in Harpers’ letter column, which seems too revealing even to need characterizing.

    No wonder it is impossible to take you seriously, when you cannot understand such a simple motivation as supporting science as a search for truth, rather than supporting error in the service of political or monetary gain.

    However, close examination of your contributions here suggests that we should not be too hard on you, since you are not trying to be taken seriously. You are in fact, we judge, a supporter of truth and good science who is cleverly detracting from the reputation of the paradigm promoters in HIV/AIDS by pretending to be one of them and expressing yourself in this discreditable manner, and we applaud you for it.

  21. jtdeshong Says:

    Well, Houston, at least you did not cite Wikipedia! But close. I happen to have gone to the source, The Canadian Department of Health. Below is their correspondence!
    God, you people will never learn that just because you say something you want to be the truth, does not make it so. Enjoy!
    A GOOGLE search quickly showed that nevirapine is currently approved in Canada, soI called the Canadian Department of Health and they said that I could cite this:
    Created on: 09/15/1998 Nevirapine receives green light from Health Protection Branch
    On Friday 03 September, 1998, Canada’s Health Protection Branch (HPB) granted a conditional Notice of Compliance to Boehringer Ingelheim’s anti-HIV drug nevirapine (Viramune). Nevirapine belongs to a class of drugs known as NNRTIs (non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors) and is related to the drugs delavirdine (Rescriptor) and efavirenz (Sustiva). As part of the conditional approval process, Boeringer must submit additional efficacy and safety data on nevirapine from ongoing and planned studies to HPB. Those people receiving nevirapine through an expanded access protocol will continue to do so until the end of the year, by which time the cost should be covered by provincial formularies.=======——
    Forwarded MessageFrom:
    Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 14:51:14 -0400
    Subject: RE: Question about Canadian approval of Viramune (Nevirapine)?
    Dear Mr. DELETED,
    I am responding to your medical information request about the approval process in Canada for Viramune. The initial application was filed with Health Canada in June of 1996 and it was rejected. The application was re-submitted to Health Canada in 1998, and in September of that year Health Canada granted conditional approval for the drug. The authority requested quarterly updates and additional clinical data to consider before granting traditional full approval in Canada. The application for traditional approval and additional data was submitted to the authority in July 2001 and full approval was granted in 2004.
    Regards, Medical Information Boehringer Ingelheim Canada Ltd. ——
    End of Forwarded Message
    J. Todd DeShong
    Now what? This is too easy!

  22. jtdeshong Says:

    Also, TS, I certainly acknowledge that you are very clever with your little put downs of me. In fact, I quite enjoy them. However, you are not quite so clever with your manipulation of facts, information and truth! But please, keep trying.

  23. jtdeshong Says:

    This should further prove that Farber made errors in the Harper’s Article.
    There are not 56 blatant lies which Re Thinking AIDS as well as the “lawsuit” implies. The errors are broken down right from the document, which is linked below:
    in the following categories:
    Misleading: 16
    False: 25
    Fairness (including implications of sinister motives): 10
    Bias (by neglecting key facts): 5
    Each error is pasted directly from the Harper’s article and corresponding supporting facts that prove the errors are real.
    For anyone who actually cares about the truth, and will bother to actually read the link.

  24. Truthseeker Says:

    Dear DeShong, Sad to say, the problem is that you are operating on a different level of attention and sophistication than your dutiful teachers here. You apparently don’t realize that all the fatuous “corrections” in the document you quote above, “Errors in Farbers Article” are themselves incorrect. You didn’t realize this? How odd. After all, the corrections to the corrections (Correcting Gallo: Rehtinking AIDS Responds to Harpers’ “Out Of Control” Critics) have been up at the Rethinking AIDS site for over three years, and pointed to by David Crowe’s Alberta Reappraising AIDS site and this site. At the time we did a EezyGuide version to suit those who might not readily understand the simple points of explanation of the rather silly attempts of Gallo et al to bluff the untutored and unwashed that their corrections were valid, but we decided at the time (prompted we admit partly by laziness) it wasn’t necessary, since they were so obvious. Perhaps at this point, given your laughable respect for this absurd document as a reference, we ought to dig up our draft, dust it off and serve it up for the edification of those such as yourself who were taken in by it. Is that your desire?

    Meanwhile it is incredible yet satisfyingly revealing that you quote the Canadian Ministry of Health backing up exactly what we said, ie our correction to your Gallo-like failure at proving the information you are provided with at this factually impeccable site is ever incorrect in even one instance. The Canadians rejected the application to send this potentially lethal drug into their relative well administered country in 1996 and 1998, then owing to the activist gay fraternity causing a skunk like stink out of ignorance and incapacity to read the scientific literature correctly or at all, they were led to relent for entirely political reasons, as we told you and your little missive notes.

    The breathtaking naivetee and shallowness of your claims that our research is faulty are astonishing but of course as we have said before we recognize very well that you are a staunch defender of truth and beauty in science and in medicine, and we once again gratefully salute the subtlety and power of your efforts to bring HIV paradigm defenders into disrepute as they deserve, and that you have seen fit in your spirit of self sacrifice for the common good to ram home this truth in your unmatchably primitive manner, of which we thoroughly approve since the crudity and rapacious nature of such people can only be stopped by your kind of rogue efforts, exposing the malignancy which only you, Kalichman, Moore, Jefferys, Noble and a few others can make so crystal clear to outsiders who otherwise fondly believe that all scientists are trustworthy professionals whose only interest is to serve the public that funds them by seeking the truth, and only the truth, so help them, and not allow it ever to be bent and undermined by selfish personal gain, and the desire to benefit their long suffering wives and children, if they have any, or their partners in their life unions, if they do not.

    We salute you, Sir, for your brave efforts at what must be great personal cost. Not many of the wise and good are willing to pretend to be idiots in order to bring down a Papacy of science which otherwise seems impregnable in its fortress like Vatican.

  25. Robert Houston Says:

    When it came out three years ago, I read the propaganda document by Gallo et al. purporting to find 56 errors in Celia Farber’s Harpers article. The Gallo document seems to be written for the HIV/AIDS party faithful and for those who are easily snowed by specious reasoning, baseless assertions, and one-sided selection of studies. Each of the claimed “errors” was effectively answered in a Rebuttal from Rethinking AIDS, which showed that in every case what Farber wrote was correct. The rebuttal was written by a group that included two M.D.s and three Ph.D. scientists. It has not been answered by the Gallo group or its supporters, probably because they are unable to do so and would prefer to pontificate without challenge.

    Even Gallo et al. did not question the accuracy of the statement in Farber’s article that “Canada rejected nevirapine twice, once in 1996 and again in 1998…” In context, she was contrasting these Canadian rejections of its data at the time with the U.S. FDA’s approval of the drug in 1996. That the Canadian health ministry, yielding to intense political pressure from AIDS activists based in British Columbia, gave Nevirapine “conditional approval” in Sept. 1998 (a politically devised form of approval never before granted in Canada) does not alter the fact that on medical and scientific grounds the drug had been rejected earlier in 1998 as well as in 1996.

    Apparently Mr. DeShong may have a reading disability, for he repeats the letter from Nevirapine’s manufacturer oblivious to the fact that I already quoted it in my prior comment. (His entire passage, starting with “A Google search quickly showed ” and “I called the Canadian…” was lifted from a document by Brian Foley, which DeShong falsely presents as his own.) In the letter to Foley, the manufacturer admits that “The initial application was filed with Health Canada in June of 1996 and it was rejected.”

    Thus, the manufacturer corroborated half of Farber’s claim. The other half, Canada’s rejection of Nevirapine in 1998, was corroborated by as well as other sources and by an April 1998 statement from the Canadian Ministry of Health which I quoted in my previous comment and which can be found at the end of the Nevirapine file of the Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society.

  26. Truthseeker Says:

    Maria Angus, please don’t post birdbrained drivel which is entirely contrary to the spirit of this blog. We assume you are not serious, and merely trying out some convoluted and misplaced satirical imitation of DeShong, but if you are actually deluded, you should know that here we go by good logic, scientific reasoning and scientifically established evidence, not by emotions of any kind except for the love of truth and accuracy.

    If your support of Celia Farber’s journalism is based on some belief that her work is not accurate in fact or that it doesn’t make sense in terms of good reasoning, please go to some other site to render your worthless comments apparently designed to detract from her and her cause, which is to expose to the light of day irresponsible public policy and those who peddle irresponsible science and medicine to justify it.

    We know she is a very good journalist whose reporting is entirely accurate and any foolishness she describes is that of the subjects of her articles who cannot think straight for love of money, or one of the other behavioral distortions humans are prone to which professional science should never admit (see our Master List of Scientific Corruptions).

  27. cervantes Says:

    TS, Several times, friends I have cajoled to read this blog have unfortunately (by bad timing, sigh –) been initiated by similar to these last 10 – 20 contributions. I’m afraid respect for my judgment has become tattered when so much keeps being repetitively batted back and forth like an interminable point on clay-court tennis played played by two excellent women, baseline players – all for one tiny point at the beginning of a set.

    At any rate, can you not put a limit of say, two, maybe three entries per contributor, per topic? Of course, this could be done after-the-fact, when you have the time (if ever). As I appreciated when you corrected a first note of mine, and at the same time, you deleted my corrective missive (properly so).

  28. Truthseeker Says:

    Cervantes, not sure what you are aiming at here. Is whipping DeShong trivial? Seems very useful to nail those who post misleading stuff here or elsewhere, otherwise it muddies the water and newcomers go astray. Gives us a reason to state the purpose and principles of the blog, too. Maria Angus appears to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing, also, which was not evident in the beginning.

    Sophisticated readers can skim over the banal material in a jiffy and easily savor your own incisive contributions shorn of the fluff. Actually, we think that Comments here have a pretty high standard of cogent contributions. Sometimes it is amusing to see the time wasters flagellated. On the other hand, since some people print out the results for proper reading and reference, we will always try to cut out silly stuff. But it often excites corrections with references which are very useful, for example, Houston’s exemplary comments above.

  29. cervantes Says:

    Ts, I agree, the contributions do indeed have many nuggets. However, It is those newly thinking about the paradoxes (ney, impossibilities) of the Hiv paradigm I refer to, who may eventually turn the tide. But, assuredly, the tide will not turn until U.S. federal dollars are greatly diminished.

    There are the “sophisticated” who have already taken sides. First, those ‘sophisticated’ who earn a living from believing the Hiv=fatal outcome, at the current rate of $30 Billion Federal dollars per year, funding the Trials of myriad terrible drugs, Ryan White Act into perpetuity, safe sex programs, PEPFAR, etc., and thousands of NIAID-granted scientists peering into every molecule of fragments of purported Hiv RNA, these federal monies employs.

    Versus those not making any money on this, in fact mostly undergoing derision and monetary suicide, (“just the facts, ma’am,” from Dragnet, with Jack Webb) – exemplified by the Duesbergs, de Harvens, and the plain, experienced, sensible, citizen such as Christine Maggiore – and their many scientist and doctor allies.

    However, the newly fabricated hysteria of the H1N1 flu will be an unrelenting diversion to not only truth in medicine, but also divert any revelations on the Hiv sham.

    Those having independent thought or truth (in Hiv or Flu), are as in a small boat in front of the giant Titanic, first keeping from being crushed by its bow wave, and second, avoid being sucked under by its wake. Tennis, anyone?

  30. MartinDKessler Says:

    Dear TS, My first impressions of “maria angus” is that of a pseudonym – “she” may be a mole. Inconsistency and contradictions are usually the clue and “maria angus” has them in spades. Deshong and Seth Kalichman and also John Moore have done this to get a targeted response to then post on the actual originator’s website. So don’t be too surprised to see your repsonses (and other rethinkers responses as well) deconstructed and reassembled and taken out of context and subsequently posted. I may be wrong, but it certainly seems that way.

  31. Truthseeker Says:

    Martin, surely you are not suggesting that comments and posts here will be taken out of context and their meaning reversed by these disinformation specialists? Hasn’t someone explained to them the golden rule of public relations that any publicity is better than no publicity?

    On the record so far it seems that these stalwarts of HIV protectionism have been averse to noticing this site, and we like to think that is because it is impossible for anyone to visit it and not realize that it has much to offer those intelligent enough to appreciate its message.

    We place our faith in the web and its peculiar translucence which allows the true nature of authors to show through what they write on it. No wonder renowned NYTimes Op Ed editorialist John Moore has always been loathe to emerge from the corridors of Cornell and stand naked on the Web stage. See his mention of AIDSTruth in his review of Kalichman’s book in Nature, without taking the credit for instigating it as one of its founders.

    We also noted some time ago that John Moore’s name has been removed from the AIDSTruth site. Now why would that be, pray? We believe it is as we have long surmised, that John is a fine fellow at heart and like DeShong really a sheep in wolf’s clothing, ie a true skeptic and scientist who knows very well that HIV has always been tripe but is only able to let us know very subtly, by publishing his thinking along these lines in obscure medical journals never visited by journalists or other members of the scientific illiterati, and otherwise advancing such poor thinking and engaging in such horrendously unscientific political maneuvers that he gives the game away whenever he appears in public, but again only to the cognoscenti to whom he is signaling. “Remember me when it all crashes down – I am really on your side!”.

  32. MartinDKessler Says:

    Hi TS, You wrote: Hasn’t someone explained to them the golden rule of public relations that any publicity is better than no publicity?
    I believe publicity is of any sort is good for the entertainment world lest they suffer from Tod Schweigen. Are you suggesting that what Deshong and Moore are engaging in is public relations when they post on your blog? Angus, whoever that person is, engages in theatrical histrionics. When Angus writes: “Plain and simple, we don’t like AIDS drugs, and we don’t care about the truth.” Does that mean that whoever “we” is. that they prefer lies to truth? So if Angus says “Celia does not need your false arguments” and Angus does not care about the truth, Angus makes no sense at all. I think you had it right: Angus is a birdbrain – with appologies to birds.

  33. Truthseeker Says:

    Those last two comments by Maria are the kind of thing that wastes everyone’s time and brings the site into disrepute, so they will have to be erased shortly. However, we admit that we agree that some people in the HIV skeptic fold are less respectful of standard science than they should be. That is, they feel that the research done may not be interpreted correctly by the leaders of a field. None of them, as far as we know, thinks with his/her emotions in saying this.

    Maria appears to have discovered the art of satire, whereby you exaggerate someone’s position to make it appear foollish But there isn’t a shred of truth in her attempted irony when applied to Celia or any other follower of Peter Duesberg or any other good scientist. Celia is the last person to question science, and nor are we doing so at this site, which is dedicated to comparing scientific claims with scientific evidence in the scientific literature.

    What Celia questions is not science but scientists who talk nonsense, make hollow claims and don’t accept the lessons taught by their own research, which is that the HIV paradigm is a hot air balloon that was shot down in 1987 by Peter Duesberg, then and often since.

    Duesberg used the research papers of the HIV enthusiasts against them, and in fact was kind enough not to deny the evidence they asserted even when he could also show it was coming from studies that were very badly done and whose results were therefore unsubstantiated.

    That is the whole point of Duesberg’s evisceration of the claptrap that is HIV science. He showed that by their own lights, and according to their own papers, their fond and well funded theory doesn’t hold up. They themselves disprove their own hypothesis.

    We have demonstrated this on Science Guardian often enough to suggest that Anthony Fauci and John Moore and even Robert Gallo could well be dissidents themselves. Luc Montagnier of course is a dissident, who has long held that HIV by itself is not sufficient to cause AIDS, and therefore may not be the cause at all. Of course, since he was silenced with a Nobel Montagnier hasn’t expressed himself along these lines very often.

    The trouble with Maria’s strenuous efforts at satirizing Duesberg, Celia and all those who have detected the bad science of HIV/AIDS is that she uses it to include misleading statements, such as

    Who cares if scientists have extended the life expectancies of AIDS patients by decades?

    This is an example of the misinterpretation of results. The only reason that HIV/AIDS patients are doing better than before is because their current drug regime is less lethal. The dose of AZT has been reduced by 75% from the glory days where it killed off patients in two or three years (compared to HIV supposedly in an average of ten years!) when they had already damaged their immune systems severely with designer drugs. Nowadays they live longer, therefore, that they did before, ceteris paribus.

    However, the current drug regime is keeping up a (un)healthy rate of mortality. About 16,000 die of HIV/AIDS each year in this country.

    It is interesting to compare this rate with countries in Europe, where the tests are more selective than the Robert Gallo tests used here. They number in the hundreds or less, last we heard. In the US far more people are reckoned HIV positive because the Gallo test is used. A more accurate test is used in Europe.

    Interesting, isn’t it? Robert Gallo may be directly responsible for the deaths of many US gay men who might otherwise have been treated appropriately for whatever ails them, but are counted HIV/AIDS patients and dosed with and done in by the unpleasant and eventually fatally debilitating AIDS drugs.

    And poor Gallo still missed out on the Nobel after all he has achieved!

  34. jtdeshong Says:

    Watch this, I can do something NONE of the rest of you can do, and that is admit the truth!!
    Houston is correct, the communication was to Brian Foley. However, I have been in contact with Brian Foley, (all us Pharma Shills know each other) and he OK’d me to post the info at my blog,, but he did not want it advertised that it was sent to him.
    Now, Houston, can you admit your error? If you read the Farber article in Harper’s, Farber did indeed claim not once, but twice, that Canada rejected Nevirapine not once, but twice. Farber claims the rejections were in 1996 AND 1998. Yet the truth, above, shows that Canada rejected Nevirapine only ONCE in 1996 and allowed the drug in 1998! Do you understand the difference?
    As for Maria Angus, I thought she was an idiot from previous posts, but boy, she is not taking any crap from you fucktards!! I may actually have to respect at least one denialist! Keep it up, Angus, and I might just send you a little stipend from my monthly Big Pharma payoff!!

  35. Truthseeker Says:

    You say you are going to erase my comments because they are slightly different than your own? C’mon.

    No, your comments are going to be erased because they are silly, and in them you cannot even keep your satirical facts straight, and thus they are an utter waste of even Web space, infinite though it is and which is freely available here for all who have something cogent to contribute, but not to silly people, who have nothing to contribute, and who post bird brained drivel that even Monty Python would consider silly.

    We don’t mind carrying nonsense here if it is amusing, however cretinous, as per DeShong, who is of course a sheep in wolf’s clothing, bringing the established wisdom into disrepute with every post. But your comments are just silly, and this site is only open to silly geese if they are sincere and witty to boot. You are not yet either, although practice may raise your standards, in which case you will be welcome, even though misguided, for the site exists both to entertain and to instruct.

    So unless someone sensible speaks up on behalf of keeping your last posts here on the grounds that they, like DeShong’s masterful work, only bring the established regime into severe, if not fatal disrepute, they will be sent into the ether to roam the universe like ghosts of their former empty selves.

    This is actually a service to you as well as to us, since you will be prompted to find some other use for your life other than trolling.

  36. Robert Houston Says:

    This site is being overrun by devotees of AIDStruth who pretend to be what they are not. On the one hand, those depicting themselves as a “denialist”, the favorite pejorative of the HIV/AIDS dogmatists, are obvious imposters trying to depict AIDS rethinkers as anti-science wackos – the apparent agenda of “Maria angus” and his/her new nom de plume of “ClarkT”. (By the way, T is not the middle initial of Clark Baker.) Such comments are totally dishonest and intended only to malign all who dissent from the HIV paradigm. For that reason, I agree they should be erased.

    Celia Farber has taken a rational position, quite different from what “Maria” and “Clark” allege. It is that she is not a scientist, but a journalist. Unlike most journalists who write about AIDS, she has given attention not only to the dominant, government view of AIDS but also to the remarkably under-reported phenomenon of there being another scientific side that includes distinguished scientists and even Nobel laureates who have pointed to other plausible causes for AIDS besides HIV. That does not make her anti-science but rather an upholder of the classical tradition of debate in science rather than regimentation.

    Mr. DeShong, on the other hand, is honest about his views but pretends to be a simpleton. Is he really so dense that he can’t conceive that different things could happen in the same year? I have provided evidence that in 1998 Canada did two things at different times regarding Nevirapine (Viramune): 1) Early in the year it rejected the manufacturer’s 1997 submission (it was “judged to be inadequate” according to the Deputy Minister of Health); 2) It yielded to political pressure and in September 1998 gave the drug “conditional approval”, i.e., approval in the absence of adequate evidence, something never before granted in Canada.

  37. Truthseeker Says:

    Sad though it is to erase evidence of the misspelled inanity of these footsoldiers of HIV maintenance, which has never before been made so apparent, we are forced to do so by the simple fact that responsible investigators who wish to correct the grievously misleading paradigm of HIV=AIDS in AIDS need to print out Comments here, and should not be handicapped with surplus copying, as is possibly the intention of the self-exposing HIV nitwits above, laughable though they are. Or rather, perhaps not so laughable, given that they knowingly support a misapprehension that costs many gays and blacks their health and ultimately in some cases their lives, and thus can be reliably estimated to be murderously anti-gay and anti black, as well as against truth, beauty and science.

    So pffft, when we return from breakfast in the Rainbow Room.

    (The offending comments were not erased. While we were at breakfast in the Rainbow Room, feasting on excellent crisp bacon and quiche, they were automatically detected by the recently installed Science Guardian patented TrollTrapper software, and removed to a new page, Science Guardian Comment Troll Trap, where they may be studied at leisure with pride by their authors, and with dismay by all those who supposed that minor league HIV=AIDS promoters were at least cogent.-Ed.)

  38. Sadun Kal Says:

    What is this? Is this the latest silly divide’n’conquer operation attempt of the “scientific” “AIDS” establishment? How widespread is it? I notice that the mysterious newcomers like “Maria Angus” are also on Facebook and other blogs. Maybe somebody should really try to keep a track on what’s going on. It can turn into an opportunity to demonstrate the ridiculousness of these people if exposed properly.

  39. jtdeshong Says:

    Houston, can’t you even remember what you wrote previously?
    Stop contradicting yourself. Was it 1997 or 1996 that Canada rejected Nevirapine? And why, if “they caved into political pressure” did you not state that previously as well?
    Come on. The communication Brian Foley received from Canada states that there were two applications, one in 1996 and was rejected. A totally separate application in 1998 was conditionally accepted, based on continuing research that showed Nevirapine worked. That’s the truth straight from the horse’s mouth, so to speak.
    That is the last time I will write this. I have given the exact same information four times now with definitive proof. Yet all you do is change what you say, and all we have are your useless words. This is the exact reason I did not post at this site for four months. Every time I give you people the truth, complete with definitive proof, you move the goal posts, or just out and out lie.
    Grow up and learn to accept when you are wrong and learn from it and move on.
    That is why the same core group of three people comment here. Everyone else who drops by and sees the lies and misinformation, just laugh at your lack of integrity and move on.

  40. Truthseeker Says:

    Very amusing, DeShong, though not entirely in the way you intend. Your statements are quite wrong, but at least have some content. The latest driveling posts by the so-called Maria etc have been removed with a long pair of tongs to a bin or page named Science Guardian Comment Troll Trap where they can be admired by their authors as long as they like, and by anyone else (their fans, perhaps) who wishes to see why they were removed from center stage, which is for the simple reason that they have no content, not even of the wrong kind.

    What all these budding satirists don’t seem to understand is that stretching the truth into an exaggerated cartoon is the way to go if one wishes to be satirical. Stretching falsehood doesn’t work at all.

    But then, it is quite clear that the problem common to all is that they believe the truth is false, and the false is true, in HIV/AIDS, so that when they stretch a falsehood it seems to them it is stretching the truth, and they expect it to be funny, and become very gleeful at their supposed success at humor, and are encouraged to write another post along the same tedious lines.

    Alas, this blog is not the audience for them. They should go over to, where truth is falsehood and falsehood truth, an upside down world where to cure an ailment you take drugs that destroy your health, where blood cells are destroyed by a virus that is not present in the blood, where a virus proven virtually impossible to transmit causes a global pandemic, and similar Alice in Wonderland stuff, which they call science, since it is, consistent with their topsy turvy world, religious faith, and religious faith to them is… you guessed it, science.

  41. Robert Houston Says:

    For the benefit of the visiting troll now pretending to be a “re-thinker”, Clark Baker has nothing to do with this site. TS is not Baker. “Maria” the Troll has announced a plot: “Now, we are going to take over rethinking AIDS.” Rethinking AIDS is a different website. Obviously, the “re-thinking” that Maria has in mind is to spout bizarre inanities in an attempt to discredit HIV skeptics.

    Although my last three comments mentioned political pressure from activists to get Nevirapine its “conditional approval” in Canada in 1998, Mr. DeShong writes “why…did you not state that previously as well?” Mr. DeShong puts his faith in a PR letter from the drug’s manufacturer to Brian Foley as the final word. But drug manufacturers are anxious to cover-up any rejections of their drugs. It’s remarkable that Dr. Foley received any admission from the manufacturer about the Canadian rejection of Nevirapine (Viramune) in 1996. The new application submitted in 1998, mentioned in the manufacturer’s letter, was required because its previous submission in July 1997 was rejected as “inadequate” by early 1998.

    According to a statement of 22 April 1998 from Canada’s Deputy Minister of Health: “On July 2, 1997, the manufacturer filed a response… In the absence of scientific evidence…the data available for Viramune are judged to be inadequate to support the clinical benefit of the drug.”

    That’s what’s called a rejection. Ms. Farber was right again.

  42. Truthseeker Says:

    Thank you, Houston. The point that Celia was accurate, and DeShong DeWrong, has now been established every which way, the wriggling DeShong nailed, and any further attempt on his part to escape by separating himself into two halves like one of those lizards in Nature that can escape by losing a limb will be dealt with summarily as another example of wishfulness and lack of sincerity on his part, which have no place in public discussion on this blog, and the Comment will be removed as swiftly as those trying to cross the bridge in the Monty Python movie who answer the old man’s question incorrectly – with a whoosh they are sucked up by an invisible hand and sent into a ravine of vast depth from which they will never return – and deposited in the Great Chasm of Science Guardian where all tripe laden comments are deposited, the new page Science Guardian Comment Troll Trap.

    Please see Science Guardian Comment Troll Trap for any future comments which cannot answer the question from the host, What possible value of any kind can this drivel have for any sensible reader?

  43. jtdeshong Says:

    For the last time! Canada did NOT reject Nevirapine twice! Only ONCE! In 1996. NOT in 1998. Here you go…
    etc etc….JTD

    (Comment removed to Science Guardian Comment Troll Trap by the patented automatic nil-relevant-content detection and removal software SG TrollTrapper now in full operation. – Ed.)

  44. Truthseeker Says:

    The new application submitted in 1998, mentioned in the manufacturer’s letter, was required because its previous submission in July 1997 was rejected as “inadequate” by early 1998.

    According to a statement of 22 April 1998 from Canada’s Deputy Minister of Health: “On July 2, 1997, the manufacturer filed a response… In the absence of scientific evidence…the data available for Viramune are judged to be inadequate to support the clinical benefit of the drug.”

    DeShong, can you not read?

    Your comment will be removed to the SG Comment Troll Trap unless you have a very good reason to explain why you do not accept the statement above, and inadequate prescription lenses is not going to be good enough.

  45. Truthseeker Says:

    Well, DeShong, sorry to say, the SG TrollTrapper software automatically kicked in just now and sent your Comment to the SG Comment Troll Trap.

    We were shocked to see this happen so early but according to the software manual this reflects the Drivel Rating exceeding a certain ceiling score, which brings the TrollTrapper analysis to a sudden halt as the offending Comment is whisked away in the Monty Python style.

    But we did call up Galen in the Medical Greats building in Heaven and ask him whether he thought the software was working OK or perhaps needed resetting, and he replied as follows (reading from his Book Two, On the Natural Faculties):

    “When a man shamelessly goes on using circumlocutions, and never acknowledges when he has had a fall, he is like the amateur wrestlers, who, when they have been overthrown by the experts and are lying on their backs on the ground, so far from recognizing their fall, actually seize their victorious adversaries by the neck and prevent them from getting away, thus supposing themselves to be the winners. “

  46. Robert Houston Says:

    The three articles Mr. DeShong now cites reported that Nevirapine (Viramune) received “conditional approval” in Canada in September 1998. I already acknowledged this politically generated “conditional approval” (i.e. licensing without acceptable evidence) in each of my four previous comments on the matter. Apparently, Mr. DeShong hopes that readers will be as simple-minded as he pretends to be and accept his silly premise that only one event could happen per year.

    So what happened in Canada earlier in 1998 with regard to the manufacturer’s July 1997 submission? For the benefit of those with reading disabilities who couldn’t grasp this the first four times around, here’s the answer again: it was rejected. This early 1998 outcome was affirmed not only by Celia Farber and several encyclopedic reference services, such as, but also by the Canadian government itself:

    “The data available for Viramune are judged to be inadequate.”
    –Canada’s Deputy Minister of Health, April 22, 1998

  47. Maria angus Says:

    (Warning: This is a post by a troll, who is actually a member of the HIV defense army, though merely a private second class. – Ed.)

    Durban Declaration

     Durban Declaration, signed by 5,000 people including Nobel Prizewinners, directors of leading research institutions, notably the  National Academy of Sciences, The Institute of Medicine, the Max Planck Institutes, The European Molecular Biology Association, The Pasteur Institute in Paris, The Royal Society of London, The AIDS Society of India, and The National Institute of Virology in South Africa.
    In particular, let me quote:
    “The evidence that AIDS is caused by HIV-1 or HIV-2 is clear-cut, exhaustive and unambiguous, meeting the highest standards of science. And also, HIV causes AIDS. It is unfortunate that a few vocal people continue to deny the evidence. This position will cost countless lives.”

    (Rest of comment whisked by SG TrollTrapper software to SG Comment Troll Trap page as empty headed, uninformative and misleading.- Ed.)

  48. Truthseeker Says:

    A note to onlookers who may be unaware of the true depth of misinformation being conveyed by the scientific propaganda of HIV promoters in AIDS, large and (in this case very) small: they are indeed forced to fall back on the Durban Declaration as their supposed proof of the “overwhelming evidence” that HIV causes AIDS, since there is no science in the peer reviewed literature that supports the claim, although this small problem doesn’t prevent it being assumed and presumed in every establishment member’s paper on every AIDS topic.

    The Durban Declaration was a statement (misquoted above) subscribed to by every scientific worker that could be scraped up by the leading HIV promoters in AIDS, including people in their labs and in other labs and elsewhere in science who had no knowledge of the issue for reasons sometimes including that they were in a different field entirely and had never read the reference literature scotching the HIV claim.

    Having collected (we assume) the 5000 signatures they published the statement, seemingly unaware that it was itself prima facie evidence that there was no scientific proof and or even convincing evidence for the claim that HIV caused AIDS. If there were, of course, there would be no need for a statement of this kind, asserting religious faith in a scientific hypothesis.

    The fact that the statement was an advertisement and was not a peer reviewed statement in a respected scientific publication matched the ruling principle in all these efforts to keep the utterly incredible HIV paradigm in place, despite its overwhelming rejection in peer reviewed articles in the most respected journals in science, articles which have never been answered with one word by opponents in the same peer reviewed venues.

    What is that principle? It is that there is no possibility of effective rebuttal of the peer reviewed rejection and condemnation of the idea that HIV is a cause of AIDS in peer reviewed journals.

    So all the argument against this refutation of HIV=AIDS, which has held since 1986, a continuing threat to funding and respectability, has to take place outside the realm of peer review, in newspaper advertisements, articles written by friendly journalists largely ignorant of or resolutely ignoring the science, Op Ed editorials in the New York Times and elsewhere, and on the Web in sites run by paradigm promoters, such as, and in pages put up on the Web by NIAID which are not peer reviewed and not even signed.

    All intelligent people can see this reality, but not apparently, the vast army of scientifically illiterate HIV supporters such as Maria Angus, whoever this troll may be.

    On the recent advice of Galen we may have to lower the trigger point of the TrollTrapper software a notch to ensure that such posts are now sent to the Science Guardian Troll Trap without any delay whatsoever if they continue.

  49. cervantes Says:

    Does common sense count? – As in anybody who eschews, rejects, the dangerous anti(retro)virals?

    Such as the 17,000 – 20,000 American hemophiliacs that were most all “hiv+” 25 years ago, with 80% still alive today, without taking anti-hiv drugs because their fragile hemophiliac conditions could no way tolerate the toxic drugs?

    But, they are still ‘hiv positive’ and alive. So go figure.

  50. Carter Says:

    That Troll-Trapper software you have installed is a mighty fine addition to your outstanding blog.

    Speaking of outstanding, is your summation of the Durban Declaration. Many have commented on it much the same for years. However, it’s written in such a way that the commoners who stumble upon it mistake it for factual information, except for the people who are independent and think outside the little box that AIDS built. Thank you for reminding us of its true nature.

  51. Robert Houston Says:

    The Durban Declaration of 2000 was a statement of the faith that was signed by thousands of believers in the HIV-AIDS dogma. It was taken apart by Duesberg et al. in their 2003 paper on The Chemical Bases of the Various AIDS Epidemics (J. Bioscience, June 2003). In Table 4 on p. 390-391 of the paper, seventeen of the key beliefs underlying the HIV-AIDS hypothesis, all taken from the Durban Declaration, are each shown to be in contradiction with the documented facts from the the peer-reviewed mainstream scientific literature.

  52. cervantes Says:

    I was responding about hemophiliac longevity because it was/is a perfect example of the Durban Declaration signers completely ignoring monumental evidence that having “hiv” antibodies does NOT inevitably (or perhaps barely more than random background occurrence), foretell a person will then progress to a degenerated immune system, unless, and it’s a big unless, that person proceeds with a clearly destructive life of recreational drugs, prescribed antibiotics, prescribed antivirals/antiretrovirals, woeful nutrition, etc.

    Of course, almost certainly the vast majority of Durban signers had no clue that the specificity of the hiv antibodies was/is a bankrupt tenet, but still used, even today. This being what Peter Duesberg first laid out in 1986-87, reiterated many times on this site for years.

    Today, NIAID posits that RNA copies of what they say are specific to fragments of hiv RNA, basically by fiat, though many papers have shown this also to be a false tenet.

    The trap Dissenters fall into is arguing endlessly with the Hiv Faithful about the most minute, subtle, molecular, details of the pharmacology and bio-molecular aspects of so many “created” issues of hiv and Aids. Yes, it’s fun to perhaps win arguments, one at a time, and put another ‘win’ mark on the blackboard. I agree, keep sharp the wit.

    But only when such gigantic anomalies such as the hemophiliacs not dying, and the U.S. having a 50 times the AIDS death rate compared to most Western Countries having similar ‘hiv’ positivity (once African immigrants are discounted; Africans who arrive, get tested, go on antiretrovirals, and die at a disproportionate rate compared to native Europeans for instance, about 75% of current UK AIDS cases/deaths are African immigrants, of total UK AIDS deaths close 276 in 2006, and falling). It is known, but never mentioned that the U.S. Aids definition comprising low white blood cells (and testing positive for Hiv) creates, compared to the rest of the world that rejects this Aids category, an Aids case rate orders of magnitude higher. Thus, in the U.S., orders of magnitude higher people treated with drugs that inevitably cause iatrogenic death. Arguing obscure molecular facets becomes meaningless when compared to this situation.

  53. MartinDKessler Says:

    Cervantes wrote: The trap Dissenters fall into is arguing endlessly with the Hiv Faithful about the most minute, subtle, molecular, details of the pharmacology and bio-molecular aspects of so many “created” issues of hiv and Aids. Yes, it’s fun to perhaps win arguments, one at a time, and put another ‘win’ mark on the blackboard. I agree, keep sharp the wit.
    Yes I agree with you insightful observation. Here is an analogous situation many years ago, a psychologist named Evelyn Hooker wanted to show that homosexuals who never had psychoanalytic therapy were no more psychopathalogical than heterosexuals that were not in therapy. She used an MMPI (Minesota Mutiphasic Personality Inventory) for the testing. She then gave the test results to a battery of psychologists to try to separate the gays from the straights. They could not differentiate one from another. The psychiatric community, who held (until 1973), that homosexuality was psychopathological, was unconvinced by Hooker’s findings. The reason was that they (psychiatrists) claimed the test (MMPI) simply wasn’t good enough, since Homosexuality was ipso facto a disease and that was that.
    My observation is that Hooker could not see the forest for the trees. What I mean is that Hooker accepted that something called psychopathology had something to do with medicine, when behavior should be only judged on moral and ethical grounds i.e. good or bad not healthy or sick – behavior can only be “sick” in a metaphorical way. Hooker was really playing by psychiatry’s rules in the same way many HIV/AIDS rethinkers are playing by the AIDS establishment rules. They criticise this or that paradigm like Cervantes said and end up not convincing the AIDS establishment.
    Why did the psychiatric establishment in 1973 drop homosexuality as a disease from the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)? It wasn’t because of some new scientific evidence that showed homosexuality was not a disease. There wasn’t any scientific evidence that showed homosexuality was a disease. What occured was the political climate had changed – the idea that homosexuality as a disease had become a liablity to the credibililty of the psychiatric community. So like a stock broker who had a portfolio of stocks where one of the stocks was lowering the value of the others in the portfolio, the stock broker divests himself of the bad stock (for the APA (American Psychiatric Association) dropping homosexuality as a disease).

  54. jtdeshong Says:

    I am sure this will go to the troll trapper BS as it contains too many facts in direct opposition to the crap posted above by cervantes. My integrity will not allow me to read such lies without at least attempting to bring the truth to all three people who post here.
    Really cervantes, it’s not enough that a hemophiliac has to endure constant regimes of injecting coag factors into themselves, but they also have to be called degenerate and drug addicts too? That is so typical of you denialists having to blame the person for the disease. I bet you are a prosecuting attorney and you love to blame rape victims for their “short skirts”.
    To prove you wrong, I have two links for you. The first is proof beyond doubt that hemophiliacs prove the HIV=AIDS truth and that Duesberg is a goal post mover just like the rest of you. I present, The Duesberg Phenomenon by Jon Cohen from SCIENCE 1994, and then a link to a notoriously denialist site,, where Duesberg does not directly address the truth presented by Jon Cohen regarding the largest cohort study ever done, but instead, goes around the truth to say, “well, instead of that study, they SHOULD HAVE done this one”.
    That is a direct contradiction to what Duesberg said before being presented with the info from Jon Cohen. Duesberg previously claimed that “hemophiliacs who had received the most Factor VIII with the accompanying contaminants are the ones infected with HIV.”
    It is truly dispicable when you denialists ask for proof, it is handed to you on a silver platter, as Jon Cohen did with 4 different aspects of HIV=AIDS that Duesberg said he wanted, and then ignoring or changing the criterion when it is given.
    You’ll have to read both links for yourselves, as I am not going to waste my time “handing it all to you on a silver platter since you will A) not understand it and B) will send it the truth to your troll trapper thingy ma~jiggy (i.e. bullshit moderation) in hopes the other two people that read this site will be too lazy to go to the moderated site to find the truth.
    You can find all 4 parts of the SCIENCE article here:
    TruthGiver a.k.a. J. Todd DeShong

  55. Truthseeker Says:

    Jon Cohen’s piece in Science is famous as an article that annoyed the heck out of Yale’s media watchdog the impeccable Serge Lang for its mendacious inaccuracy, you should know, DeShong, and was held up by him by as a prize specimen of journalistic incompetence and egregiously thoughtless defense of the status quo. Lang even refused to continue to talk to him because he was so incompetent, and wrote the editor of Science to explain why.

    Among Lang’s comments on Jon Cohen’s work on Duesberg in Science:

    I regard the Science article of 9 Dec 1994 (The Duesberg Phenomenon) as tendentious and skewed. ..I object to personalizing dissent about the official line that “HIV causes AIDS” in (this article)…I object to lumping together different people …. as part of “the Duesberg phenomenon.” What has “not gone away” is that an increasing number of individual scientists, with different points of view, different backgrounds, and different responsibilities, have publicly documented reservations about the official position of the government or the scientific establishment concerning HIV and AIDS. Lumping together independent scientists under the single category of Duesberg “supporters” skewed the perspective on the dissenters and on their multiple reaons fo dissent….

    Second, the article completely omitted mention of dissenters such as Bialy and Haverkos, as well as many points raised by the dissenters. For example, the BDA meeting of May, the position of Harry Haverkos on nitrite inhalants, the situation in Africa, the fact that malaria, tuberculosis, leprosy, and influenza, test false positive on the HIV antibodies test, were still not mentioned in the Science article. The AAAS June meeting was mentioned in only one sentence… “a daylong meeting at which the dissidents offered their points of view”. No indication was given what were these points of view. Especially significantly,…the article also made no mention of Kaposi’s sarcoma. (Challenges, Springer, 1996, p.649-650).

    Re Duesberg’s critique of the hemophiliac research you don’t seem to understand the points he made. That’s one of the great difficulties in HIV/AIDS. The foot soldier believers and often their leaders don’t understand the critique because the errors are logically subtle, though profoundly important. Sadly enough the whole discussion is vitiated by this tendency for the corrections to be above their heads, which we suppose is why they turn to verbal violence so readily. (DeShong, you should be ashamed of the words you used in your last paroxysm of armless and legless knightly challenge to Houston, which have been preserved in the Troll Trap for your perusal, in case you want to review them).

    The bottom line is that there is still no evidence that HIV positivity affected the health of hemophiliacs in any way, and as has been pointed out here just recently, this is one of the great anomalies HIV believers have to explain.

    We’ll leave your post up. It seems sincere, if biased, and makes factual claims, without impolitesse. But it would give a better impression if you spelled eg despicable correctly.

  56. Frank A. Says:

    As a completely healthy asymptomatic Hemophiliac who has been diagnosed “positive” for over 20 years now, I consider myself living proof of the falsehood of the HIV=AIDS=Death Dogma. The fact that a disproportionately high number of Hemophiliacs like myself had antibody reaction on the tests was because of the flawed tests high reactivity with the foreign protein Factor VIII treatment injected into the blood stream intravenously.

    The truth is Hemophiliacs only started dying quickly AFTER mass testing around 1986. The terror and stress brought on by being told that death was imminent coupled with high doses of toxic AZT administered prophylactically killed off an entire generation of hemophiliacs. Luckily I was one of the few to escape as I NEVER took the drugs and was skeptical from the very beginning. Over the years I became informed on the issue and have read Duesberg and other eminent researchers. Please note that with the dilution of thousands of donations which was then stored in powdered form over many months prior to administration that the infectious theory makes no sense. There is no way a hypothetical virus could survive in a cell free environment. Please review the CDC document which in 1994 admitted that hemophiliacs could not have died from any hypothetical virus…

    Today the ARV treatments are of course less toxic than AZT and it saddens me to see some of my peers on these drugs. By reducing the toxicity of the drug, profit can be made over years by keeping the patient on a regimen for a “lifetime”. The attending doctor then tells the patient that they have a manageable disease. Eventually the toxic side effects of the drugs will invariably lead to liver and/or kidney damage and reduced lifespans. Healthy patients like me who have resisted the treatments are ignored and despised for trying to expose these diabolical crimes against humanity. My story-

    Also please read-

  57. Truthseeker Says:

    Thanks, Frank that’s the kind of comment that we need around here. It is astonishing how few people look a gift horse in the mouth when a sorry old knock kneed nag is presented by a smooth tongued salesman as a thoroughbred front runner in the Derby.

    The fact is that patients in AIDS, the public and their delegated officials have been sold a Madoffism which is about as likely as the cow jumped over the moon. If you test positive for antibodies to a virus which is no longer present in any relevant amount in your blood, antibodies which show that it is no longer a viable presence, if it ever was, then the virus will kill you in absentia, and it will kill the 9999/10000 T cells in which it is never found active. For this you must take drugs which shorten your life span and make you sick, here you are, drink up!

    Hello, Rev Jones!

    Or rather, come back Jacques Beneviste, all is forgiven! (Beneviste believed that a substance in water after dilution to the level of one atom in the universe still left an “impression” and was usefully applied in homeopathy, which amounts to much the same logic.)

    Anyone who believes this stuff is either not thinking through terror or self-interest, conscious or not, or has an IQ of 75 or less, perhaps because those influences are crippling the operation of the neurons. On the record of recent Comments, we are inclined to believe that it is often simple lack of intelligence which is the key factor, unless it is a patient who is panicking.

    How much intelligence does it take to open the New York Times and ask how come the same disease is a gay disease in the US killing 16,000 a year, and a gay disease in Europe where it hardly kills one hundredth the same number of people, and yet a universally heterosexual disease in Africa and other places where the “global epidemic” is found?

    Surely 75 would do it.

  58. jtdeshong Says:

    Serge Lang, huh?
    I will not even begin to say if he was a great mathematician or not as I am a complete dumb shit regarding math, and I can admit that. I wish people who did not know science would not comment on that subject. However, if you are trying to impress me with the words of a mathematician (who was an out and proud HIV denialist), then you picked the wrong person.
    Whatsmore, the two paragraphs you quoted from Mr. Lang were merely his opinions, and not backed up by any direct quote from the article. However, when one is simply stating his/her opinion, I guess no direct proof is required.
    His main problem with the article is that it was “personalized against dissenters” which again, is his opinion, and I did not get that from the article what-so-ever. Also, Mr. Lang is quite the hypocrite in that he says: “I object to lumping together different people …. as part of “the Duesberg phenomenon.” The next part is where the hypocrisy come in: “What has “not gone away” is that an increasing number of individual scientists, with different points of view, different backgrounds, and different responsibilities, have publicly documented reservations about the official position of the government or the scientific establishment concerning HIV and AIDS. Lumping together independent scientists under the single category of Duesberg “supporters” skewed the perspective on the dissenters and on their multiple reaons fo dissent….” In other words, Mr. Lang complains that Cohen lumped different people together, yet it’s ok when Lang lumps himself points out what has not gone away with the rambling, senseless quote above about individual scientists, different backgrounds, yada yada, with their publicly documented reservations…. Really? Come on. Read that sentence, tell me it’s not double speak, and tell me what the hell these reservations are. Is it not clear to you that he has simply put forth his opinion, which, by the way, does not say a hell of a lot?
    Cohen, furthermore does not mention Bialy etc, because they are not respected, especially because the nitrite inhalants is thinking is complete bull crap!!
    Lastly, he is completely off the mark, when he says the article does not mention KS.
    Maybe it’s what you left out of the quotes in b/w all the …’s! Maybe what you edited out of the quote was even more stupid than what you included.

  59. Truthseeker Says:

    Bravo, DeShong, admirable response in several ways, you do not join in kowtowing to a great man just because he is a great man, you look at what he says and gauge it for what it is, not in its frame, so to speak. Excellent iconoclasm, except that it is not iconoclasm so much as refusal to kowtow, and we admire that. Moreover, as you correctly point out, Lang is criticizing the journalistic approach of Cohen, rather than his actual data, and that is not really your issue, except that, as Lang suggests, it vitiates his reporting as something that can be relied on to guide readers without bias.

    In fact, Cohen’s reporting is full of bias and cherry picking which misleads the reader by giving an incomplete account, that is Lang’s complaint, and it is highly relevant to whether it is fair and accurate. The fundamental problem is that Cohen’s reporting is unclear analytically and because it lacks intelligence of that sort it misleads the reader. Science is one field which requires a reporter to have good powers of analysis and it seems that Cohen is not as good as one would wish in this regard. Of course one is never sure whether weak analysis is due to incompetence or bias, the kind of bias induced by the desire go along with the belief system one is reporting on and into. Whatever the reason, Cohen is a good journalist but lacking in this respect, which means that he is very readable and by virtue of that, convincing to unsophisticated readers, but to any mind on the academic level he is unsatisfactory as a guide to the material and issues he is reporting on.

    Lang was the world’s greatest stickler for the highest standards of accuracy in speaking and reporting and was naturally disgusted by Cohen’s inability to rise above the fray and deal with the issue and with Duesberg honestly on the meta level. But you won’t necessarily see this unless you read his book Challenges, which contains the materials of the Files of correspondence he put together on misleading statements he challenged in academic and media life, written up by him in various chapters. Then you might appreciate just how much junk and hypocrisy he was trying to move out of the way in journalism and public statements.

    As to whether Cohen mentioned Kaposi’s Sarcoma in the Duesberg Phenomenon, Science, 9 December 1994, pp 1642-1649, Lang says “especially significantly, the 9 December 1994 article also made no mention of Kaposi’s sarcoma.” You say he is “completely off the mark.” OK, quote the passage. Cohen’s Science “Research News” article Is a New Virus the Cause of KS? was on December 16 1994, a week later. Where is KS in the Cohen Dec 9 piece?

    Bialy unworthy of mention by Cohen? You should know by now that Harvey Bialy is a very fine logician, sharp as a scalpel and achieved a science classic in his Oncogenes, Aneuploidy and AIDS: A Scientific Life and Times of Peter H. Duesberg, which ought to be on the shelf of every scientist young and old. The scene where a certain scientific colleague flew into San Francisco, took Duesberg to the opera, then for a drink, and pulled out a paper for him to sign, which stated that he agreed with a senseless paradigm after all, and all would be forgotten and he would be welcomed back into the fold and the funding tap would be turned on again, tells in two pages all you need to know about how cheap the souls of modern scientists can be.

    You say that Lang was an out and out denialist. Lang merely pointed out all the poor definitions, logical inconsistencies and unreliable mess that comprised HIV=AIDS thinking in Science, the CDC, NIAID etc. He showed all these things. He didn’t deny anything in the sense you presumably mean, which is to deny logic and evidence. He pointed out that the logic was faulty and the evidence was lacking, insufficient or wrongly assessed.

    By your standards, Cohen (and Altman of the NYTimes) were denialists when they raised the possibility of another virus (herpesvirus) causing KS. By doing so they certainly became HIV dissidents, whom you like to label denialists.

    Anyhow, kindly quote the KS mention in Cohen’s December 9 article. We are waiting.

    If you can do it, you will become our new guru of AIDS Truth.

    If not, we will have to sadly conclude that you have no idea of what is going on.

    So which is it? By this you stand or fall. If you stand vindicated, we will be mightily impressed and mail you a copy of Bialy’s classic.

  60. jtdeshong Says:

    WOW! Thank you, I think…it is 3:15 a.m. and I am at work and exhausted. Working nights is hard on this old man! That is why I am not sure if you are actually being cordial, or if I am just tired and not able to read b/w the lines at the moment, especially since your wit sometimes goes a tad over my head!
    I will be happy to discuss this further when I have had a little sleep, and when I can again research the KS comment, as I could be wrong about that.
    *Note of interest: If I am wrong about the KS comment, please remember that it will not be the first, nor even the second time when I have admitted a mistake here at this blog.
    Until a few hours later,

  61. cervantes Says:

    Thank you Frank for your elaboration and relating your personal experience, particularly your insight that injection of clotting factor would not have transmitted the purported Hiv, as the factor processing would not permit a viable Hiv to survive to cause “infection.” This has, in fact, been written before by several sources (maybe even Duesberg), and I was aware of it, but did not mention if for a reason, but first,

    You said “Please review the CDC document which in 1994 admitted that hemophiliacs could not have died from any hypothetical virus… ” I pulled up the web addresses you provided but did not see any CDC document mentioned (maybe I missed it).

    Back to my point, in any case, it’s an indictment of the CDC and their allies such as NIAID and those who have staunchly defended supposed anti-hiv drugs from their inception.

    Since the only hemophiliacs who died throughout the 1980’s and early 1990’s were virtually only those who subjected themselves to AZT while their non-antiviral-taking compatriots kept getting healthier with the improved purified clotting factor, and whether (or not) the CDC said what you have referred to, the only homicidal suspect in the hemophiliac mortality is none other than AZT.

    Therefore, since AZT killed the hemophiliacs that took it (actually my analysis of years ago documented a relatively low number percentage-wise) that otherwise mostly would still be living, then it is beyond rational doubt that AZT (and its many lethal cousins, even before the FDA approval of AZT in March, 1987) was also killing all non-hemophiliacs who stuck to their AZT regimens – called compliance or adherence.

    It is critical to note that HAART commencing with great fanfare in late 1996 with its Comibivir ingredient still comprised 600 milligrams of AZT a day, plus 300 milligrams of lamivudine (another nucleoside analogue as is AZT), along with 2,400 milligrams of protease inhibitor!

    So, it’s no wonder since the inception of the original HAART that AIDS deaths in the U.S. remained stuck around 17,000 a year. AZT and the other drugs still kill, fairly quickly at those doses.

    Yet, the Alice In Wonderland world of CDC and Fauci (NIAID) boasted HAART and still boasts their ever changing regimens (now Atripla since late 2006 has replaced all the ingredients of the original HAART) were “prolonging lives” – “making Hiv a manageable ‘disease'” – hogwash of the highest chutzpah.

    It all makes me want to puke (as AZT and HAART did to everybody).

  62. Frank A. Says:

    I agree with all the points you make here Cervantes. It upsets me greatly that the three headed monster of the medical/pharma establishment, government institutions and controlled media have kept the cover up going for so long. Undoubtedly hemophiliacs were targeted with these toxic drugs along with gays, blacks or any vulnerable group big pharma could exploit. The quote from the CDC paper I was referring to can be found here In the left hand box click on the link heading “Hemophilia – HIV and Blood Products.

    The fact that AZT was still given in high doses with HAART since 1996 explains how the orthodoxy was able to keep the body count “around 17,000 a year”. It seems to me then that a phenomenon of “Patient Rebellion” has been occurring in recent years. Undoubtedly Big Pharma can always count on a certain pct of patients in NA to follow their regimens with disinformation and propaganda (and robotic doctors) at their disposal. However, the patients who have recently stopped treatment on their own accord and moved toward recovery and health again are indeed growing and influencing the still captive group. This is great news but a worrisome trend for the orthodoxy. That’s why there has been an increased effort I believe to expand profit and compliance in Africa/Third World as more people in NA become aware of the dissident message. Any hypothetical loss of profit here must be made up elsewhere to keep shareholders happy.

    I DO feel that the dissident message is now having a worldwide impact. The fact that an academic like Kalichman would need to write a book to spread more fear and try to attack honourable scientists is a sign of panic and failure. As more patients tell their story, the public will HEAR the message and listen attentively to the truth. And they will ignore and despise all the criminal liars of
    AIDS Inc. whose sole motivation is ego and profit….

  63. Truthseeker Says:

    So the bottom lines are

    a) HIV could not affect hemophiliacs (yes, where is that CDC document admitting this? worth using if it exists)
    b) HIV did not affect hemophiliacs
    c) what helped hemophiliacs into their graves with a push in the back was AZT
    d) which also helped push other docile patients into the grave
    e) a temporary extension was achieved for all when the doze of AZT was reduced,
    f) thus supposedly “proving” that since the new HAART regime was directed against HIV, HIV must be the cause of the sickness unto death that is known as AIDS North America,
    g) though in fact proving that AZT caused sickness unto death, with a little help from its new friends.

    Gee, reduce the dose of a deadly drug, add back a little rose water, and bingo! rose water is the new cure all, at the usual high price, please, lives are at stake, thank you, Congressmen.

    Guess I’ll put up my Anthony Frauci is the new/old Madoff of science post, which I wrote but decided was too obvious a point.

    That is why I am not sure if you are actually being cordial, or if I am just tired and not able to read b/w the lines at the moment, especially since your wit sometimes goes a tad over my head!

    My dear DeShong, why would you think our cordiality is false, when one of the principles of this site is our fond admiration for anyone who has the wit to examine what he is told by the powers that be and see if it really makes sense. That makes you a member of the exclusive Club of those born to think for themselves.

    Except that given that habit, one wonders why you haven’t yet noticed that a claim floated by a soon to be out of work NIH scientist with an expensive million-plus dollar lab that the new sensational disease GRID/AIDS was caused by the newly discovered kind of virus he had just invested his lab and career in, but was still missing a life threatening example to attract funding, was as unlikely as winning the lottery.

    You mean you still haven’t noticed that in their efforts to represent a sow’s ear as a silk purse funding-wise they have made more and more outlandish claims, more and more transparently foolish, such as an effectively undetectable virus kills cells it never enters, in absentia, in the overwhelming presence of antibodies which are present and confirmed by the “AIDS test”, which does not detect virus, and have you ever wondered why? Because there is virtually none to detect, except with PCR, which can amplify the only needle in a field into a haystack of needles.

    Something has thrown off your skepticism. It’s pointed in the wrong direction. You are trusting the very authorities that in Lang’s case, you question. Consider what’s at stake for parties when listening, and notice that Lang was like most people who try and correct public nonsense, they have little to gain and much to lose, and vice versa for those on top of the hill, who have everything to lose.

    Anyway, no, we are entirely cordial, and are delighted to read cordial comments of yours here, since arguments can only be reconciled in partnership when they get this distorted by politics.

  64. jtdeshong Says:

    I have to apologize for my late reply. I have been working nights at the hospital lab and have been exhausted. I am too old to work all night and sleep all day. Anyway, I have to say that I am glad to be writing under, as Patti LaBelle would sing, “A New Attitude”, which is in thanks to your cordial words two or so days ago.
    With that said, however, I hate to rain on your parade, but I am a bit confused as to your belief that “something has thrown off (MY) your skepticism.” I’m not sure where you came up with that, but let me clarify. I said that Mr. Lang (or should I say Dr. Lang, as I do not want to offend) may be a genius of math, (and most certainly is), but that does not mean that he is a genius in all fields. Quite the contrary in that his words, as I stated earlier, are only his opinion. However, with that in mind, I must fully admit, that I was 100% in error regarding his claim of KS within the Jon Cohen piece, The Duesberg Phenomenon. I actually went back and read the entire article and did not find one single mention of KS. The night I made that comment, I had been doing much research, which must have lead to my erroneous, and sadly, quick comment. With that said, I am still at a loss as to why Kaposi Sarcoma would be “so significant” to Dr. Lang within the article. You stated that KS was originally claimed to be a human herpes virus, but I cannot find otherwise. I only found corroboration that KS is indeed a herpes virus.
    Next, I must say that I completely disagree that Jon Cohen is not a capable science journalist. In fact, I found that Jon Cohen is an incredibly well respected science journalist of over 20 years with two prestigious scientific journalistic awards. (I could not find where Celia Farber had anywhere close to that amount of journalistic integrity.)
    Yet I digress.
    I do not want to make this too long, but I completely believe in the validity of scientific research in general, as well as specifically regarding HIV research.
    I am getting to the point at this site that the site does not keep up with my typing, so I will sign off for now. However, please know that I enjoy the discussions I have regarding the science of HIV/AIDS, but I do not enjoy being moderated.
    Would it be possible to genuinely call a truce in which we can further debate the subject of HIV/AIDS?
    I look forward to your reply.
    Humbly yours,
    J. Todd DeShong
    P.S. Please forgive any type~O’s.

  65. jtdeshong Says:

    Also, I would like to comment to Frank, the hemophiliac. I am very happy that he is healthy. I also completely understand and respect his thoughts regarding his personal experience. One reason I respect his experience, is that I am communicating from my personal experience, and therefore, my point of view. Not only have I been HIV+ for 14 years and on meds for the entire time, but I also am a scientist and I have many, many friends who are in my same boat, so to speak. From that experience, I am at a complete loss as to why so many Re~Thinkers tend to think that their experience should be everyone’s experience.
    Again, with that thought in mind, I would like to say that I feel that Frank is the exception, and not the rule. For example, from Jon Cohen’s article, I would like to point out a few facts. Hemophiliacs in the beginning of this disease, were a great example of how this disease manifested itself. From the Jon Cohen article (which when read, showed a complete lack of emotionalism.) When I read the Jon Cohen article, it seemed to me, that Mr. Cohen reported the facts, without a great deal of emotionalism on the author’s part.) That is in direct opposition to Celia Farber’s reporting which, to me, demonstrated Ms. Farber’s belief/agenda.
    What do I mean by this? Well, in Ms. Farber’s piece in Harper’s she gave 1/3 of the article to Dr. Duesberg. Granted, Harper’s states that it wanted Ms. Farber to give a synopsis of Dr. Duesberg’s beliefs, but Harpers did not state that Ms. Farber should dedicated 1/3 of the article to Dr. Duesberg. It just screams of dichotomy on her part. However, I acknowledge that I read the article thru the eyes of an HIV+ Scientist with many years of exprience dealing not only with my personal experience (inluding my friends’ experiences), but also thru the eyes of someone who read the article several years after it’s publication. Yet I hope and pray that I am professional enough to not let my experience and my emotions cloud my judgement…but again, I am only human.
    In my reading and interpretation, Ms. Farber’s interpretation of the facts, completely allows her Re-Thinkers beliefs’ to shine thru the facts.
    Frank must not be allowed to ignore the facts that hemophiliacs were greatly impacted in the beginning of this disease. From what I have read, at least 1/2 of the hemophiliacs became HIV+ and died before the blood supply was adequately screened for HIV.
    Now there can be no doubt that since the blood supply has been monitored, hemophiliacs have NOT experienced the same impact as before strict screening measures were employed.
    I am amazed that anyone can compare the blood supply before strict screening measures were employed with the state of the blood supply AFTER said screening measures.
    Also, now that the blood supply of the US and Europe are under the strictest screening measures, there are relatively zero transfusion OR blood factor HIV Positive test results encountered. That is a fact that cannot be overlooked or ignored.
    Thank you, again,
    J. Todd DeShong

  66. cervantes Says:

    JTDeshong, your personal experience is remarkable, thank you.

    I have studied the “side effects”* of many drugs, not just antiretrovirals, but also microbicidal drugs such as Bactrim (aka Septrim, Cotrimoxazole) that are given those assessed to be Hiv+. Basic to all drug treatments are the dose strength and the duration taken. Correct me if I’m off base, but I think we all concur on this.

    *(An aside, the term “side effects” is such an inadequate euphemism, belying the lethal toxicity of so many of the “side effects.)

    For instance, Irving (Magic) Johnson, first said to be Hiv+ in 1991 first tried AZT, dropped it quickly when it made him really sick, kept off it for about 12 years, then says he takes one pill a day of Combivir (each pill having 300 milligrams of AZT) the last 6-7 years. Of course, he has been very well paid by its maker GlaxoSmithKline to sell their produce. Does he really take it? Who knows?

    But, if he does, since Magic weighs close to 300 pounds, then it is certainly reasonable his large bulk may not too affected (yet), even if he does take Combivir.

    Greg Louganis, the Olympic diving champion, Hiv+ for over 20 years, is doing great at training and having a kennel for dogs now in 2009, after having tried AZT and other drugs, getting horribly sick, then refusing them. Louganis is the picture of health today – at least 22 years after his diagnosis, and drug free.

    There are countless anecdotal stories on both sides of this, and, in my analysis, these personal stories have, in fact, much greater weight than the Trials run by vested interests, including NIAID, who are hopelessly biased with preconceptions — the basis of all Trials is that Hiv is deadly, otherwise no investigator will be granted money, and big $money it is.

    (As another aside, one wealth of published studies/papers citing innumerable contradictions, are found in the mammoth publications of the Perth Group – just click them up!).

    Bottom line: Mr. JTDeShong, will you share as much as you care to, over the years, since you said you were first diagnosed Hiv+ 14 years ago, what drugs of dose and duration you have taken, when you started, and still do take? This would be terrific enlightenment to all of us concerned, thank you. (As usual, pardon typos)

  67. Truthseeker Says:

    Pretty good posting, DeShong, if you are as sleepless as you say, in the cause of other people’s health. The phalanx of editors and beautiful gopher interns at this site usually correct the typos of those we respect, which includes you.

    Though we have to say we are worried by reports of your site featuring gleeful congrats for having beaten Celia over the head over nevirapine being rejected in 1996 and 1998, though it was allowed in later in 1998, which Houston showed you was correct, with the proper references, several times, which if true is very wrong – you should not carry that on your blog, if you are, but remove it, if you want us to respect you as a debater who is helpful in approaching the truth.

    And by the way, your contradiction was based on a quick Google, you gave us to understand, and your contradiction of our statement that Jon Cohen had included no mention of Kaposi’s Sarcoma was also hasty according to your own handsome apology and climb down just now, so one has to ask you, don’t you think you should now ratchet up your respect for those who deny the credibility of HIV=AIDS, instead of so blithely contradicting them at the drop of a hat?

    The problem with Cohen

    We know it is uncomfortable to change a basic assumption and rethink one’s world view, but we are afraid that that is what is needed in this case, given the 22 years of overwhelming propaganda and vicious politics on behalf of the paradigm, irresponsibility endorsed by the New York Times instead of keeping an unbiased record of the dispute.

    The problem with Jon Cohen is not that he is technically incompetent, he is perfectly competent, but that is what makes the irresponsible assumptions which imbue his reports all the more disgraceful as a supposedly professional science reporter writing for a respected Science journal, and panelist commentator. Of course, this phenomenon of those who are well versed in the establishment line incorporating the incorrect HIV=AIDS assumption that pervades the literature, apart from the reviews which have been set aside, is familiar to all students of the topic, and it is precisely what is wrong with the field. An assumption which was exploded in a set of lengthy peer reviewed reviews continues to be the pesticide laden soil in which all the scientific research is rooted, and the great reason why it is barren of the fruit of prevention or cure.

    The result in the admired Cohen’s case is that his material is worked up according to the same assumption – which in the case of the Duesberg Phenomenon he was supposedly reassessing, for God’s sake – and the result is to overlook important points against the belief and include wrongly interpreted evidence for it. Can’t recite chapter and verse without studying it properly again which is not a priority right now, after 22 years where every single time we reassess establishment apologia there is nothing there to give us pause, but we suggest that if you reread Cohen with a skeptical eye, removing the assumption he uses throughout, the picture will become clearer.

    Cohen becomes a dissident in AIDS

    For example, why does it matter that Cohen left out Kaposi’s sarcoma? Because a week later Science published a technical paper suggesting that a new herpes-like virus caused KS, greeted by Lawrence Altman of the Times on December 16, the same date, with an article reporting this and not mentioning HIV at all, and Jon Cohen in Science also went along with the idea that not HIV but a new herpes-like virus cause KS, then the leading symptom of AIDS among gays and supposedly one of the principal causes of death. In fact Chang et al had found only DNA sequences, which is far from finding a virus. Moreover they only found the sequences after amplification with PCR, which indicated what very little of it was there was inactive and as Duesberg pointed out viruses don’t cause cancer or anything else when they are latent.

    In other words Altman and Cohen became HIV dissidents, as we said, and wrote drivel in reporting “strong evidence” (Altman) “solid headway” (Cohen) and being taken in by the pathetic Harold Jaffe cheerleading to Science that it was “tremendously exciting”. Lang commented correctly that it was yet another example of the fixation all these guys and the journalists involved had on finding a virus instead of looking into other possibilities such as drugs. Of course Cohen then continued with the hype at the beginning of 1995 (“dramatic examples of progress…stunned AIDS researchers” until he started backpeddling in the summer (“deep reservations” “misgivings” and “doubts ” about the role of the virus) as researchers continued to find absolutely nothing to pin these empty hopes on any more.

    Gallo you may not recall was busy pouring scorn on all this at his summer Bethesda meeting (“a withering critique” – Cohen) because as far as he was concerned it was NIH (Not Invented Here) , but guess what happened later – he came up with his own herpes virus candidate as an AIDS cofactor, if memory serves.

    Why Challenges is the must have book

    Jon Cohen is in fact a very stupid man whose work is atrocious and he bears part of the responsibility for the grand debacle of AIDS science, if viewed from an informed perspective. But of course very few people are properly informed so such a statement just looks intemperate and incredible to most. But the details of how he behaved in dealing with Duesberg and Lang are in Lang’s book Challenges, which all intelligent people with an interest in the topic – such as yourself – should read cover to cover, and if they ever get a copy will surely do exactly that, for it is one of the finest assemblies of examples of how badly the elite of science and journalism, and academia, have behaved in this and other issues.

    Lang was a remarkable man and it is typical of the devil’s luck enjoyed by the grandees of HIV/AIDS that he died before he could achieve what he surely would have done in the end, forced a proper reassessment of HIV/AIDS claims and research.

    The not so delightful effects of needless drugs

    How much all this bears on your own life only you can say, but all we have ever read of this topic argues that there is no good reason for you to have taken AIDS drugs over a sizable number of years, and we are sorry for it – and glad to hear that you have survived intact, though perhaps night work would be easier for you than you say if your constitution hadn’t had to deal with them. There seems to be no doubt that reasonably strong people can survive them for years, and the belief in their appropriateness and efficacy itself helps in that, we imagine. (But they risk buffalo humps – did you get one?)

    But there is no doubt that they do no good at all except for acting as a kind of Rotorooter to get rid of parasites in people who are ailing already, such as malnourished Africans whose immune system is starved, which gives them a temporary feeling of improvement, we suppose. So they leap out of bed and climb a mountain, or at least return to their villages walking when they were wheelbarrowed in three months earlier. Then they must undergo an extended assault on their immune system as long as they take them, which by definition is not good for them. The science states quite clearly that there is no good justification for it, so in our opinion the medical community should read more of it, especially the literature reviews they are ignoring. But is this realistic? No.

    In your case, however, you should do more of it – but only if you can root out the basic assumption you have lived by for so long. Of course, we always wonder if people who act as you do, gung ho to beat up any denialists you can find, betray a certain unconscious knowledge that the assumption may not be justified. But we have no right to speculate. We are just glad if you are willing to have a civil and open minded discussion.

    Why Harpers gave Duesberg space

    As far as the Harpers piece is concerned, you have to understand that the design of a such a piece is the result of a host of research and editorial decisions of where to dig and what is in the end the most important material to present to the reader. In that case the whole thing was in production about two years, as far as we understand it, and was recast as new material came up in the news.

    The original idea was to deal with Duesberg, but because the important revelations of bad behavior in regard to drug research came out, the article was changed to cover them, probably on the general grounds that it is possible to prove such things whereas disputed theory can just go on being disputed forever if the audience is ignorant, as Gallo and his friends immediately proved after the piece was published.

    The facts were more sensational too, compared with the mistreatment of Duesberg, where the behavior is so subtle. But the editors with their months of fact checking learned how right Duesberg must be.

    Even so, we don’t know why you should object to one third being devoted to Duesberg, which concerns the greatest uncorrected error in science and medicine extant, if we are correct, one that involved the abuse of the health of millions of people and the waste of huge amounts of money just so Anthony Fauci can buy good suits.

  68. Truthseeker Says:

    Next, I must say that I completely disagree that Jon Cohen is not a capable science journalist. In fact, I found that Jon Cohen is an incredibly well respected science journalist of over 20 years with two prestigious scientific journalistic awards. (I could not find where Celia Farber had anywhere close to that amount of journalistic integrity.)

    Whether the respect of peers, and garnering prestigious awards, is a sign of “integrity” or any other virtue in journalism is wide open to debate. Those who question conventional wisdom will find it hard to win such tributes however excellent their performance.

    You’d be surprised how much talent there is around which doesn’t ever win a Peabody, or a Pulitzer. In fact, we would say they are usually a sign that the winner is in the second rank as far as originality and lively style go, just as in piano contests.

  69. Carter Says:


    Inasmuch as I admire your posts here, do you really think a leopard can change his spots?

  70. Truthseeker Says:

    Well, Carter, the general idea is to open the doors and the windows and let the fresh air and sunlight in, rather than change a leopard’s spots, which is up to the leopard, leopards being what they are.

    If he is not just simply suffering from exhaustion from his public spirited efforts to stay up all night looking after patients while stressed himself by the dreaded “meds” (we do hope we can influence him somehow to give them up having just heard about the latest PDR’s list of side effects for nevirapine, especially the skin damage, which can be as horrifying as Celia reported) JTDeS does appear a little flummoxed by finding our reaction to his bombarding our citadel with cannonballs, insults and cows catapulted over the battlements is to wave olive branches from the turret window slots, yes.

    But if we have inspired him to move onto a higher plane of mutual respect we are delighted. That’s how differences are resolved to the mutual benefit of all, as President Obama implied in Cairo this week. Certainly we didn’t mean to short circuit JTDeS’s brain cells by complimenting him on his iconoclasm, for we do admire people who are not impressed by position or reputation or at least don’t let it stop them from examining what the great man or woman says.

    Of course in our case we assume that the tendency of commentators here not to disagree with let alone insult the host is either because they fear being “moderated” as JTDeS put it in a mild complaint about having his posts moved to another page (though we don’t recall moving many of them there at all, it was mostly those of the Maria Angus oddity that were removed there for lack of satirical finesse, which forces removal from Comments for fear of diluting the high standards met by others) or because they consider the host such a fool as not to bother to correct him at all, since he wouldn’t understand the point if they tried.

  71. jtdeshong Says:

    Does all this really matter in the long run?
    We will probably never agree on this subject!
    However, perhaps we can agree on the more important, very urgently pressing matter of who to watch now that Letterman and Conan are in the same time~slot?
    My loyalties are to Letterman, but Conan, oh he has that crazy hair flip!!

  72. cervantes Says:

    Perhaps my long experience in the arena of technological troubleshooting, and hearing from many (biased, or entrenched) sides of those who have brought a sophisticated program to near ruin, has my antennae twitching. I must wonder why JTD (being such a passionate advocate of Paradigm drugs) seems to be ducking his detailing his specific prescriptions (and dose strength) starting back perhaps 14 years, and whether he has stayed faithfully ‘compliant,’ as General Fauci himself has solemnly proclaimed is the key to treatment success, and making Hiv a ‘manageable disease.’

    With JTD taking the he has in time writing to this blog, it seems trivial for him to jot down his treatment history – and let us all know.

    JTD (and a small host of others) objectively detailing his/their extended compliance, would be worth their weight in gold (ney, rhodium) in convincing me there was other than the brief initial benefit of killing bad pathogens, and then continuing indefinitely with overall good health.

    It is certainly plausible some antiretrovirals at appropriate dosing could be quite successful in treating other afflictions having nothing to do with Hiv/Aids – such as glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, autism, who knows? After all, serendipitous discovery has been a hallmark of science forever.

  73. Carter Says:

    The thing is, dealing with JTDeS, unlike dealing with other AIDS-Thruth/pundits/purveyors, etc., is that the others haven’t been on anti-HIV meds, let alone for 14 years. Todd professes no side effects, but how would he truly know that unless he seeks help for long term drug induced psychiatric conditions?

    “Side effects of HAART and complications of HIV infection may overlap significantly. Establishing etiology of neurologic (neuropathy and neuropathic pain, changes in cognition, dementia, and myelopathy) and psychiatric (neurocognitive disorders, depression, anxiety, substance abuse and dependence [his Mom], and others) complications can present a significant challenge. In particular, the NNRTI efavirenz has been associated with neurologic and psychologic complaints that may be difficult to differentiate from preexisting mental illness, substance abuse, and HIV-related neuropsychiatric symptoms.” Identification and Management of Neurologic and Psychiatric Side Effects Associated With HIV and HAART , Presented by John A. Bartlett, MD; Stephen J. Ferrando, MD

    Behind what could be an otherwise bright independent thinker of a man, is quite possibly a scared little boy, who has nothing to believe in but anecdotal evidence, exacerbated by his profound HIV religious belief and the meds he ingests on a daily basis.

    If I didn’t know better, I’d say this is a classic example recipe for train wreck about to happen, and I’ve been hoping all along he could change his spots.

  74. jtdeshong Says:

    I really do not have the time or patience for people like Brian Carter.
    A few days ago, I was the victim of Clark Baker. He called the hospital where I work and told them lies that resulted in Human Resources calling me and telling me I could not go back to work until they had investigated the “accusations”. The very next day, the Director of the Laboratory called me and said that the found no truth in the accusations, and not only did I go back to work, but I was also paid for the night off.
    Just today, Sunday, I found out that Baker also called my mother and threatened to sue her and take her house away!!
    Do you see the pathology of the likes of Baker and his followers such as Brian Carter?
    I have written more in depth at my blog, for anyone interested in seeing the truth behind the leaders of the “Re~Thinkers”!
    It’s dispicable!!

  75. Carter Says:

    I rest my case.

  76. Truthseeker Says:

    Could posters be more circumspect in their speculations about other people and perhaps ask for information from them (the horses mouth, so to speak) before imaginatively characterizing them in somewhat disrespectful terms, even if no offense was meant?

    If Mr Baker really did call up and make accusations about JTDeS behind his back and endanger his employment – which he reports straightforwardly above – then it would show that there are loonies on both sides of the debate, a debate that really isn’t profitable once it descends into name calling, cat calling and other disgraces which the Web somehow encourages with its peculiar dehumanizing effect on communication, though this may have a lot to do with the use of pseudonyms.

    It is hard to see what Carter means by “I rest my case”. The reports of this kind of thing being perpetrated by John Moore, Nancy Padian and other miscreants of the paradigm defense league in HIV/AIDS, if true, disgust all civilized people. Apparently there are many people in this society who think this behavior appropriate even in science. But we were not aware that any well known HIV skeptics believed in it, including Mr Baker. We very much doubt if it was him, though we have no hard evidence either way other than his very respectable performance in taking the lid off the HIV/AIDS debacle ever since he started investigating it as a total innocent.

    Calling people’s employers up on the phone to suggest they should be fired has been in the past entirely a paradigm defense strategy. Why would Mr Baker be motivated to do it? He is perfectly happy acting as an upright citizen and private investigator gone public in this case. Of course, perhaps he is reacting to similar tactics being perpetrated on him. None of this is worth speculating and being rude about pending further reliable information.

    It is even harder to see why anybody here would want to discourage honest communication by JTDeShong by speculating freely about him and his inner motives in a slightly derogatory manner. If JT has behaved similarly in the past and decided to reform for the purposes of decent and fruitful discussion here it is doubly appalling to slip back into disrespect at this time.

    All such stuff completely wastes the efforts of this blog to encourage a proper discussion with people such as JTDeS who have experience in the trenches so to speak and at least manage to think about it, whether you feel they have chosen the right interpretation or not.

    Any future disrespectful posts are going to be automatically removed to a second collection page run by the reset TrollTrapper software (patent pending) entitled Trash Talk Filter Residue. This applies to all. Not the entire post, just the bits which do not treat other people with the utmost respect, whether they deserve it or not.

    Of course, if the disrespect is sufficiently witty and lighthearted it may be excused. But serious and sincere disrespect however slight will never pass the TrollTrapper software gatekeeping algorithm.

  77. Clark Says:

    I guess I’ll have to call Human Resources back…

  78. Clark Says:

    Truthseeker – if I used my employer’s computer and YOUR name to tell one of YOUR friends to kill himself, you MIGHT appreciate why I called JT’s mother and employer.

    Anyone who reads my posts or knows my appreciation for evidence. The evidence I collected is the basis of Farber’s lawsuit and the basis of my complaint to JT’s employer.

    Evidence is how I determined that the man who spent three years “investigating” Robert Gallo and the history of HIV and wrote the book “Dissecting a Discovery” is actually a licensed security guard who also sells filters from his garage:

    Evidence is how I determined that Sustiva is a highly addictive drug that, when stopped, suppresses immune function, reduces T-cells and elevates viral counts the same way that corrupt clinicians diagnose AIDS – and that when Sustiva is resumed all of those symptoms disappear just like a junkie who ingests cough syrup or an alcoholic who drinks a martini.

    I called JT’s mom because, as a 20-year cop, I know that many dysfunctional 45-year-old men who live with their mothers often victimize their mothers as well. I wanted Freda to know that she wasn’t alone and isolated if Todd behaved with her as he does on the Internet. She assured me that she is okay. If you doubt me or my convesation, ask JT to play the tape recording of it. He has the tape.

    But Truth – I’ll ask you the same question I’ve asked since I began investigating the dispute between skeptics and truthers:

    “Where is the document that shows exactly who, when, where, and how it was proven that HIV attacks cells and causes AIDS?”

    Unless you can answer that question, I doubt that we have anything important to discuss.

  79. Carter Says:

    Rest my case, as in; we really do not know what is true coming from JTD or what is made up delusional fantasy. My speculation is it’s because of his 14 year prescription of anti-HIV drugs.

  80. Truthseeker Says:

    That is the kind of additional information we were referring to, Clark, thanks. As you know, this site doesn’t exist to act as a platform for bad behavior or assailing bad behavior, but merely to compare claims with peer reviewed science and established the correct data and interpretation. That said, however, if such material does enter in, we want to include factual responses and corrections of this kind, to corral misleading claims before they escape forever into the realm of Web myth.

    Anyone who reads my posts or knows my appreciation for evidence. Yes, Sir. Also, solid reasoning. The reports of hallucinations induced by AIDS drugs unearthed in your second-latest post that you reference above, to which we were going to draw attention in a post, are an important finding which could explain much of the abandonment of reason exhibited by otherwise alert gays in this arena. Voluntary self immolation is hard to explain and now you have found part of the answer, as Carter also suggests.

    Meanwhile your latest post (your first ref above) on Gallo and his biographer is a must read for all who follow this scandal.

    “Where is the document that shows exactly who, when, where, and how it was proven that HIV attacks cells and causes AIDS?”

    Science Guardian has been going for four years and you ask such a question? Suggest you, above all, read a few more of our past posts – above all because your own work seems solid and reliable , as we said above. But to betray the fact that you have no idea where this site stands on this issue and what we have said about it is dismaying. The site exists to brief intelligent newcomers to this and other issues, newcomers such as yourself, and we are sorry if we didn’t play a part in your remarkably rapid acceleration up to top speed in mastering the truth about HIV/AIDS and its politics. People who understand at once what we are talking about in suggesting that some scientists play politics with the truth, are unfortunately rare, though lawyers are one species which seem to come prepared, perhaps for the same reason as you did.

    So the answer is, there is no such document. Which is why there are important things to discuss.

  81. Truthseeker Says:

    Clark, in your Gallo’s Egg report, you write

    At the time of his endorsement of Duesberg, Gallo headed the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Although Gallo’s cancer and leukemia research was fraught with controversy, he still enjoyed significant influence in the distribution of research funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Once Dr. Duesberg questioned Gallo’s hypothesis that HIV (alone) caused AIDS, all his proposals for research funding were suddenly rejected. Before raising questions about the role of HIV in AIDS causation, Duesberg’s grant applications were never denied.

    See Sunday, July 20, 2008: Gallo’s Egg post at Ex Liberal Hollywood.

    Gallo at the time was merely head of the Laboratory of Tumor Cell Biology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda.

  82. cervantes Says:

    Clark Baker wrote in his attachment: “It also explains why the editors of Science refused to respond to the demand by these cretinous doctors and scientists to depublish Gallo’s four original 1984 reports and how Gallo got his revised version of AIDS history published Nature.”

    I can only surmise that Clark’s comment was extreme sarcasm as it referred to Dr. Etienne deHarven, Harvey Bialy, and the other dozen or so distinguished signatories signing the letter going to the ‘editors of Science’ — I’m sure it must have been, otherwise it’s a singular contradiction to the rest of his text strongly damning the likes of Gallo and Fauci.

    To have Clark as a tough ally brings always welcome energy and puts brisk, needed wind into the sails of truth too often sagging in the still air of the doldrums. But, a misstep where angry sarcasm can be taken out of context (and intent) and may be used to reinforce the lies and fabrications of the Fauci/Gallo/Moore goons (an appropriate word if there ever was one), I caution should be avoided — welcome aboard, Clark Baker!

  83. jtdeshong Says:

    You may be able to fool these people for a while, but all this is coming down on you very soon.
    I do not currently, nor have I ever had the FBI investigate me, as they are currently investigating you.
    Also, I am happy that in one of your recent blogs you admit that you were responsible for Police Brutality in the 90’s (of course you do not actually accept responsibility, you blame the Chief of Police for YOUR ACTIONS!) Also, I think it is also quite telling that in the same blog, where you link to the actual court documents, I noticed that the “criminal” you beat up while he was cuffed and defenseless, was a hardened, thug of a criminal…a JAY~WALKER!!
    Thanks for keeping the streets clean from those Jay~Walkers.
    If you people here still want to be in the company of someone like Clark Baker, then take a second to think about what that says about you!
    Also, Mr. Baker, IF what you say about me is true, and it is NOT! Why did you not contact me personally? Why call my employer and lie to them? They did investigate your lies, and found in my favor and I got a night off with pay for it!! Also, why call a 68 year old woman and lie to her and threaten to take away her house? Yes, that is just what a man would do. Grow up and be a man for once in your life!
    J. Todd DeShong

  84. Truthseeker Says:

    DeShong, we are worried that the TrollTripper software will whisk your Comment above off in its entirety, since you mostly flout the rule just stated that we cannot provide a platform for a match between mudslingers.

    On the other hand, you ask Clark Baker why he didn’t call you first, rather than your employer. Good question, but surely it was because you applied the same non scientific move first, and even applied it to the distinguished Peter Duesberg? If so, this would be very disappointing for those who had faith in your ultimate goodness, such as our staff, including the pretty gopher interns.

    We are asking for information, not any more personal brickbats thrown, since the staff of this site do not have time to research this sensational trivia. On the other hand, putting your blog side by side with Clark Baker’s, would it not be justified to assume you started the misbehavior first? Please reply specifically to the question, did you start it first?

    Clark Baker does not look like a man whose work would be compromised by childish tactics of this kind, which every good truthteller must deplore, unless he was forced into it. Ad hominem exchanges are quite useless in advancing the truth, as we have stated. We urge you to avoid indulging here, since you have plenty of room on your blog.

    By the way, why is the subtitle to your Dissidents4Dumbees blog “Fun with AIDS”? It suggests that you would rather have fun trolling than advance any serious purpose in this tortured arena, and surely you are aware that the accusation levelled against paradigm promoters is exactly that – irresponsibility in the face of life or death matters.

    Come to that, what is the meaning of the site name, exactly? If you believe Dissidents RDumbees, why don’t you write that? Dissidents4Dumbees seems to have no rational meaning, as it stands. Please explain. We ask merely for information.

  85. jtdeshong Says:

    I started dissidents4dumbees, subtitled Fun with AIDS, because when I first discovered these people existed in August of ’08, I was shocked. I knew back in the beginning of HIV these type of people existed, but it was understandable then. We knew nothing about what was happening. However, after 25 years of scientific research, it is absolutely absurd to believe this bullshit. However, I gave it a shot. Brian Carter (unfortunately for me) was the first person I communicated with. He sent me a video by Duesberg called “The 10 Things that are wrong with HIV” or something like that. Well, the first thing Duesberg claimed is that since the body produces anti-bodies to HIV proves that no one would die from this disease, because everytime the body make anti-bodies, the body wins. Which is outrageously stupid. Just look at auto~immune diseases! The anti-bodies are usually the cause of the disease, not the cure!! Also, has anyone ever died from say TB? Does the body not make anti-bodies to the causative agent? How about allergies? Christine Maggiore would not have been able to lie about her own daughters’ death if it were not for anti-bodies made during an extreme allergic reaction (anaphylactic shock). I could go on and on, but you get the point. And that was just the first thing Carter threw at me!! I punched a million holes in other parts of that propaganda video as well. Maybe some day I’ll make an entire post about it.
    I am going to continue with aother post, as this site is slowing my typing. Why does this site do that?

  86. jtdeshong Says:

    Another reason why I was so turned off by denialists in the beginning, is because Brian Carter turned me onto AIDSMythexposed site! That site really disturbed me, because those people are truly scientifically challenged. I read all sorts of stuff there lilke, not only does HIV not exist, but neither does Mycoplasma! WHAT? Also, they were really hyped about Dr. Hulda Clark’s ZAPPER! They thought that was the cure for acne to cancer! Also, Dr. Clark, whom I researched and found to be a huge fraud, touted that AIDS was caused ONLY by Faciolopsi buskii, a parasite that is found ONLY in Asia!!
    Now, let’s talk about Clark Baker. You wanted to know who started this bull crap? He did when he sent me an email months ago threatening me and my family with physical violence and threatened me with extortion. Well, I would venture to say that him calling my employer and my mother with threats and lies, IS extortion! If that is the quality of people who are “Re-Thinkers” then I think that gives 90% reason to not trust them.
    Now, you want to compare my blog to his? SIMPLE. Read his blog where he tries to say that HIV Meds in general and Sustiva, specifically are addictive and he tries to equate them to cocaine, meth and heroine AS WELL AS anti~depressants! They are three completely different classes of drugs, which shows he knows zero about pharmacology. NOW, read my blog, where I prove without a doubt that Baker is full of crap regarding HIV meds being addictive. It’s childs play proving him wrong, and yet he continues to spout lies!!
    Is that enough?

  87. Truthseeker Says:

    Sorry about the slow down in typing. There are so many possible reasons for that in so many parts of the Web and PC that we have given up trying to pin down the cure. But we haven’t experienced it for a long time, so maybe your browser is acting up. Even browsers are troublesome these days. Google Chrome for example only proves how dumbee intelligent people can be, since the designers left out one of the most obvious necessaries. When you click the page close X by mistake when speeding along, it will close the page and its entire set of tabs! If you have 64, say, that is 64 you have to retrieve one by one in the unreliable history list. Firefox, on the other hand, asks if you really mean to close 64 tabs, and you can say No. Smart vs dumbee, for sure. Then Chrome clogs up all too easily if a single plugin or script doesn’t suit it. etc. Not a good record for supposedly the smartest company on the planet.

    You have some interesting reasons to think that the rethinkers are misleading you, and you are right in thinking they do not provide a solid shining spectrum of fine minds. But to so easily dismiss what Duesberg said about antibodies rampant when the triggering virus is no longer present is simply fighting schoolroom basics. Wonder why you don’t see fit to credit such a fine scientist, who has an indisputably fine mind, as you would see if you troubled to read any of his papers (at Again, we believe that your thinking is ruined by the one assumption that the bold skeptic and intellectual iconoclast should not make, which is that the authorities have more authority in scientific claims and debate than their high level critics. Science in fact progresses by replacing current ideas with better ones, so by definition much of it results from proving the authorities wrong.

    Wonder also if you read the other side of a discussion attentively, or if it is always distorted for you by a similar assumption that it is not worth as much as whatever you think already. For example, you haven’t said why or how you ever believed that Dissidents4Dumbees made sense, as a blog title. Still curious about how you settled on it, rather than say DissidentsRDumbees.

  88. jtdeshong Says:

    I actually thought it would be obvious, dissidents4dumbess is a blatant rip off of Computers 4 Dumbees and all those other rip off BLANK 4 Dumbees books. I was being facetious. However, I quickly learned taht the “Re~Thinkers” do not have much of a sense of humor, if any.

  89. onecleverkid Says:

    Dear J. Todd DeShong,
    In that case, you should have spelled it dissidence4dumbees, unless of course you did not want to make any sense.

  90. onecleverkid Says:

    Actually, I should take back my last posting. I now understand that DeShong was wrapping “dissidents” up in a neat little package for his readers (the “dumbees”). It’s an invitation for the dumbees of the world to come and gaze upon the strange spectacle of dissidence, through the filter of one man’s assumptions. With each posting, which seems to be an attack on a specific person, Mr. DeShong is trying to expose the dangers of a dissident mindset. He is therefore attempting to teach dumbees about specific dissidents and not the concept of dissidence.

  91. MacDonald Says:


    I don’t know how you can say Clark Baker is mistaken about the addictive and psychosis- inducing properties of HIV drugs, since you are living proof of the truth of his assertion. You have been on the drugs for 15 years now and you’re clearly violently and irrationally opposed to anyone who suggests you might not need them. Furthermore, you are growing more incoherent by the minute, asking nonsensical questions and taking the lack of answer as proof that you are right in some not fully understood sense. For example, you ask an essential question of Mr. Baker, which you obviously think will prove a point:

    Also, Mr. Baker, IF what you say about me is true, and it is NOT! Why did you not contact me personally? Why call my employer and lie to them?

    Mr. DeShong, IF what Mr. Baker says is true, it is thoroughly nonsensical to ask why he is lying, don’t you think? Or were you perhaps just being facetious in ways only Nick Bennett understands?

    Leaving that aside, IF Mr. Baker really has received threatening mail coming from your employer’s computer, whether it was written by you or not, is it not quite clear why he contacted your employer and not you?

    IF, on the other hand, it is all lies about you invented by Mr. Baker, it should be equally obvious why he didn’t contact you, don’t you think? What could he possibly gain from lying about you to you?

    The truth is, no matter how you look at it, your question is utterly nonsensical, and the same goes for everything else you’re saying – like claiming that a website can slow down your typing. Your typing speed is exclusively a function of your finger-keyboard-eye-coordination (the last excepted if you’re a pro and brain activity excepted in any case) and the present condition of each of these elements. The only way the “website” could slow you down is if what you have already typed appears on the screen after a delay and you therefore have to wait for it to correct typos. But since you evidently don’t correct typos, that possibility is quite out of the question.

    Finally, I have now read the explanation for your blog name three times and I still don’t find it funny. Please explain again, and in more detail, why it is funny that you have ripped it off. If you do not, I will take it as an admission that it is simply stupid and unoriginal.

    To show that rethinkers do have a sense of humour, here’s a Fun With AIDS Fact: Mentally ill people are statistically over-represented among HIV-positives.

  92. Carter Says:

    Since JTDeShong has forcefully brought history into this blog, allow me to enlighten those who’d like to know how I so happened to bring the skunk out of it’s hole.

    DeShong was a recipient, in a long list of (100) emails, containing a long winded and boring mainstream propaganda piece, picking also my friend in Florida, who responded to all recipients by saying this; then added me to the list;

    In a message dated 8/3/2008 10:22:45 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, writes:
    Gay and black Americans are being continuously maligned by the AIDS industry and I’m not believing any of it any more. I suggest one educate oneself here: and here: http://www.AIDSMythExposed rather than spoon-feeding off of government propaganda.

    I responded;

    Thank you Jeff!
    You’ve been such a long time friend (Since 1984) and I am so glad that your caring and concern continues to this day since this grand mind-fuck debacle began.
    Thank you!
    Brian Carter
    Los Angeles
    Assistant manager, AIDSMythEXPOSED

    DeShong replies in an email to me directly, “I am hoping you would do me this favor of truncating your views seeing that I was unwittingly a party to this forwarding of a mass email, but am very curious as to the true belief of HIV/AIDS being a myth.

    The rest is history. SO JUST SHOOT ME.

  93. Truthseeker Says:

    Thanks for that clarification, Carter. That explains all.

    And thanks JTdeS, for explaining your title. So there is a series for “Dumbees” on every subject? Fair enough. Anything that explains things clearly and accurately is welcome, in our book. However, if you will allow us to say so, your postings do seem to be mostly casually researched rants, rather than thoughtfully researched deconstructions and clarifications.

    Surely if they are fueled by emotion and their impetus is to automatically attack those who challenge conventional wisdom, they are not very helpful to Dumbees or anybody else, are they? The Web is littered with people attacking those who doubt HIV and pointing out what they claim is their thousand flaws of logic and evidence, just as Dissidents point out the thousand flaws of logic and evidence in the HIV=AIDS paradigm, not to mention its conflict with all that is known about disease.

    The defenders enjoy themselve enormously bullying the Dissidents with disrespectful insults and contradictions and getting automatic credit for defending the conventional wisdom. If your posting is based on a similar automatic assumption that conventional wisdom is right, then you will never independently assess what is going on, and you will never find out if the Dissidents are right after all, but merely enjoy your feeling of herd approval as you bash the opposition.

    But that feeling of self-justification is spurious, since you defend a conventional wisdom in this case which has been taken apart and proven Dumbee and false at every level, so expertly that its defenders don’t bother to try to rebut it in the same terms in the same journals, but resort to nasty politics designed to silence the critics rather than answer them. And you will not ever know that as long as you assume the contrary. All that will happen is that genuine thinkers will ignore you or set you straight from time to time, and you will have to apologize for simple errors of fact, as you did here above, handsomely enough.

    So why continue? Surely your critics must be right in saying that you are simply being defensive, knowing consciously or unconsciously that the drugs are not good for you and not justified, and may even affect the workings of your mind. If so that is a sad fate for a human being who is otherwise full of energy and employed in the public interest. We hope that it does not throw off your work in the lab, as seems likely if it is throwing off your blog posts.

    As Dissidents, we see that you are not informing Dumbees accurately, which is the implicit promise of your Website. But you are obviously having Fun with AIDS, one of the few who do so in what is usually a dreadful topic. But that Fun is very irresponsible, is it not, even to yourself? Are you really looking after yourself in all this?

    We would think that the potential of these drugs to harm you and even induce hallucinatory effects is clear enough that you should seriously think of taking a holiday from them, as Magic Johnson and others evidently do most of the time, cherish your sanity, and use that period where you can be sure that at least you are clear headed to reassess the whole situation vis a vis the supposedly Dumbee Dissidents and carefully review your judgment as to what is true and what is best for you.

    Then you would find yourself on firmer ground and not in the position of lightly dismissing a provably distinguished scientist whose publications on this issue have been fought every step of the way by reviewers anxious to find fault, so that what he said was tested and tempered like the steel for a Japanese sword, and after it was published, produced the same result as a Japanese sword, ie lopped the head off the HIV paradigm with one irretrievable stroke.

    Such tested and tempered reasoning, based as it is on the research of the mainstream in AIDS and using it to prove its own basic assumption is false, is utterly unlikely to be so obviously incorrect that a tired night worker who has never read it can instantly identify why it is quite wrong, when the peer reviewers whose behinds were on the line politically desperately searched and argued but could not find any fatal flaws.

    At least do yourself the favor of stopping the KoolAid and reassessing. You may be worshiping the wrong God. See the next post. Do you really want to be a mental slave of high priest Dr Fauci?

  94. jtdeshong Says:

    You may be correct, perhaps I did not accurately say that I do belive in the psycotic protion of Sustiva. I wrote that Sustiva is the one drug I would not try, and I thought I made it clear, my reasoning is because I had heard horror stories of the scary dreams it could manifest. Although I did hear from many people that they enjoyed the vivid dreams, I am not one to try that. I admit that I have dropped acid and loved it…as a matter of fact, I have a 6 hour video in which my friends and I video tapped ourselves having much LSD induced fun. And make no mistake, it was fun….back in ouir early 20’s!!!
    However, if I ever decided in the future to drop acid, it would not be in conjunction with my HIV Meds.
    With that EXTREME TRUTH, being said, and I hope you have some respect for the fact that if I would admit to taking recreational drugs here, than everything else I say has at least an impetus of being acknowledged as truth!
    Just because a medication may have some funky side effects for some (which the med instert admits to, and the link Baker provided admits to as well) should be adequate proof that the manufacturers are not trying to slip anything by the consumer. This is a major problem I have with the denialists. The mfg’s of these medications list all SCENARIOS. From best case to worst case. However, whenever “journalists” of the caliber of Celia Farber or Liam Scheff write an aritcle, they 100% lay into the horrible side effect and purport them to be the rule, and not the exception. They also provide pictures of worst case scenarios and purport them to be the rule!!! It is wrong. It is in~definsible and it is a LIE!! Yet do they care? NO! Why? Because it does not fit into their agenda. Scheff and Farber wants all their readers to believe that they have uncovered the biggest, most horrible and most common side effect that is never mentioned. When in fact, the very manufactureres of the medication are the ones who initially and origianally showed what can happen.
    Denialist are liars. They are instigators and the are duplicitious at best.
    How anyone can even pretend that they are “doing their due~dilligence” is just succumbing to the worst part of a jouranlist….the part that speaks ONLY for their mis~guided agenda.
    J. Todd DeShong

  95. Michael Geiger Says:


    Marcia Angell, the former 20 year long editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, wrote a book called “The Truth About About The Drug Companies” just a couple of years ago. She exposed much about the process, and clearly showed how the drug companies control all study data and they themselves determine what information is given to the FDA.

    Perhaps you are of the mistaken belief that drug companies are public benevolence associations, but surely, you are not that naive. Surey you already know they are for profit corporations. Surely you are at least semi-aware of all of the problems in many and various drugs that have been exposed recently, as you have at least heard of the vioxx episode. Hopefully, you have followed the various exposures of how weak the current FDA is, and of how deeply it is partnered with drug companies.

    But perhaps you are not all that aware of any of the information that has been outed in the last several years, including the information that 530 of the top NIAID and FDA directors and scientists were recently caught recieving undeclared funds from drug companies, and that the dept of NIAID was the worst offender. Perhaps you are not aware that the former director of clinical aids drug trials, Dr. William Paul, had been caught taking nearly 1 million dollars in stock and cash from drug companies.

    You have been so agitatingly hateful toward dissidents, when you already likely owe us your life, as you may already have been done in by toxic drugs if it was not for dissidents screaming about drug toxicities such as AZT and DDI had.

    So, you are welcome to put all your faith and trust in the drug companies and in the FDA all you want. But it still does not change the fact that you know little of what you are talking about, and know even less of what has already come to light.

    Perhaps you have some internal subconscious death wish that you yourself are not aware of. Perhaps you simply do not wish to be a long lived older gay man once your youthful looks are gone. There are many possibilities as to your internal motivations for wishing to fight the dissidents, but I seriously doubt that you yourself yet knows what makes you tick. Nor do you even know why you find yourself so angry at the dissidents or rethinkers. The dissidents are not stopping anyone from prescribing or taking the drugs. We are all fully aware that everyone has to make their own choice. But what is your beef with us? You already know full well that there are many HIV positives who WANT to hear what we are presenting, and who DO NOT WANT to use hiv drugs. So, what is your problem with all this? You are welcome to your own opinion that you will die without hiv drugs. You are welcome to take them all you like! None of us have ever stopped you. Only you yourself could do that. And even if we told you to go jump off a cliff and you did so and ended up dead, it is still ultimately your choice to do what we told you to do or not to do so. While you claim that “denialists are liars”, you have lied often enough yourself. And you really do NOT KNOW if sustiva has the adverse addictive effects Clark believes it has or not. You only THINK you know.

    But either way you look at it, there are no victims on either side of this. Only volunteers. You yourself volunteer to take the drugs. So enjoy your decision and allow others to decide for their own selves if what we are presenting is true to them or if it is nonsense. We all make our own decisions what to believe and what we do because of them, and we are all responsible only for ourselves, and not what others choose to do or not do. Every human being is here with free choice of what to do, think, believe, or feel. We are not responsible for how you feel toward us. YOU ARE. We do not cause you to be angry. You choose to do that all by yourself. We are not responsible for what you do or what you believe or what you choose or how you choose to act or react. You alone are responsible for everything you think and do and create in your own life.

  96. Truthseeker Says:

    A very fine and true post, Michael. JTDeS, it is your responsibility to decide whether or not to listen to Dissidents, and to do it on a rational basis, and to avoid emotional reactions which have nothing to do with what Dissidents have done or said, but arise from your imagination.

    For example, in reporting dire side effects Dissidents are in no way significantly different from the drug companies themselves, which are punctilious enough as you say in informing the profession and any member of the public who care to look into the PDR the latest information on side effects, and when those side effects are very dangerous, they draw attention to them, which is no different from the journalists you cite, when they emphasize them by highlighting extreme cases, which is the way to dramatize and draw attenton to what is risked and actually experienced in some cases, and not distortion – they never state or mean to imply that vicious side effects are typical.

    For example, the PDR entry for viramune (nevirapine), which is a horror parade about ten pages long of nasty effects which prescribees may experience, has a new box right up at the beginning of the entry in the new PDR, which arrived about a month ago. This is what it says:

    See full prescribing information for complete boxed warning
    *Fatal and non-fatal hepatotoxicity (5.1)
    *Fatal and non-fatal skin reactions (5.2)
    Discontinue immediately if experiencing:

    *Signs or symptoms of hepatitis (5.1)
    *Increases transaminases combined with rash or other systemic symptoms (5.1)
    *Severe skin or hypersensitivity reactions (5.2)
    *Any rash with systemic symptoms (5.2)
    Monitoring during the first 18 weeks of therapy is essential. Extra vigilance is warranted during the first 6 weeks of therapy, which is the period of greatest risk of these events (5).

    Read the Celia Farber article in Harpers “Out of Control” which describes a particular case of a woman who suffered the most appalling fatal skin reaction which cannot even be described here without sickening readers, and tell us it is unfair of her to report this, and to report that the studies justifying giving nevirapine to pregnant Africans were massaged by the NIAID miscreants under the command of Anthony Fauci to justify allowing this filthy stuff to be given to Africans and as we recall to Americans too, though this hasn’t happened or hadn’t happened last we looked.

    Massaged or wrongly described in this criminal manner when another study had showed that the supposed cut in transmission from African mothers to embryo of HIV positivity was in fact to a level HIGHER than the transmission rate recorded by an African group which DIDN’T take nevirapine, a fact which is so fantastic that you may think we are misleading you, but we are not. The evidence is that vitamins or possibly even placebo are better than nevirapine in preventing transmission in Africans from mother to child. Read the Corrections to Gallo’s “Corrections” at the Rethinking AIDS site, specifically Item #30 Nevirapine and a Study with 561 People:

    Additional research by us uncovered another study that produced very similar results, an HIV transmission rate of 7.2% at birth, in a much more stable African country, Tanzania. No war interrupted this trial. Consequently, data on HIV status on birth was available for 838 of 925 mothers:
    “The Tanzania Trial of Vitamins was conducted between 1995 and 2003 among 1078 HIV-1-positive women who were pregnant at enrollment to ascertain the effect of vitamin supplements on MTCT, pregnancy outcomes, and other survival and health endpoints…Antiretroviral medications were not available in Tanzania at the time of the study…Of the 925 live births that occurred in the group of women considered for analyses, HIV status at birth was known for 838; of these, 60 (7.2%) were positive.” [2]
    By comparison, the HIVNET 012 study in Uganda gave the rate of HIV transmission for nevirapine as “8.2% at birth” and “11.9%” at 6 weeks [3]. The latter figure is similar to the 6-week rate of 11.1% in the placebo group of another large clinical study in Tanzania that did not involve antiretrovirals [4]. Furthermore, a large prospective study in South Africa, in which “no woman received antiretroviral therapy,” reported that the 3 month rate was only 14.6% “for those exclusively breastfed for 3 months” [5]; this is only slightly higher than the 13.1% for nevirapine at 3 months (3). In Kenya, the 3 month HIV transmission rate with nevirapine “was 18.1%, similar to the 21.7% before the intervention” [6].
    In the study of nevirapine and AZT in Uganda [3], 120 of “the 616 assessable babies,” or 19.5% , were left out of the 3 month analysis (see section, “Primary efficacy analysis”). This proportion is only slightly less than the 22% (60 of 275) who were missing from follow-up in the Ladner study [1] due to civil war in Rwanda.
    The main point, that the Gallo document ignores, is that trials without a placebo cannot conclude that either active treatment A (e.g. AZT) or active treatment B (e.g. Nevirapine) is better than doing nothing (i.e. a placebo). It could be argued that in the Tanzanian trial [2], which was conducted by Harvard researchers, the rate of HIV seropositivity in infants was reduced due to the provision of vitamin supplements. But, if that is the case, it is shocking that less effective toxic drugs are preferred over cheap and non-toxic vitamins (which also have other benefits unlike drugs intended to be specific for HIV).

    We hope you are not too busy defensively ranting against journalists who draw attention to these risks that you don’t carefully read through the whole list for whatever drugs you do take.

    1. Ladner J et al. Chorioamnionitis and pregnancy outcome in HIV-infected African women. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1998 Jul 1; 18(3): 293-8.
    2. Villamor E et al. Wasting during pregnancy increases the risk of mother-to-child HIV-1 transmission. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2005 Apr 15; 38(5): 622-6.
    3. Guay L. A. et al. HIVNET 012 randomized trial. Lancet 354:795-802, 1999.
    4. Baylin A. et al. Effect of vitamin supplementation to HIV-infected pregnant women on the micronutrient status of their infants. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 59:960-968, 2005. (See Table 1.)
    5. Coutsoudis A et al. Influence of infant-feeding patterns on early mother-to-child transmission of HIV-1 in Durban, South Africa. Lancet 354:471-476, 1999.
    6. Quaghebeur A. et al. Low efficacy of nevirapine (HIVNET012) in preventing perinatal HIV-1 transmission in a real-life situation. AIDS 18:1854-6, 2004.)

  97. Michael Geiger Says:

    I don’t belive that was Censorship TS, but more likely a change or heart, or perhaps did that sporting ego I mentioned just get tweeked and freaked by what we both had just written?

    By the way, I think you should probably also erase this one while your at it.

    Sometimes, TS, you crack me up!

  98. MacDonald Says:

    DeShong wrote:

    Just because a medication may have some funky side effects for some (which the med instert admits to, and the link Baker provided admits to as well) should be adequate proof that the manufacturers are not trying to slip anything by the consumer

    DeShong, whatever addictive stuff you are on, you seriously need to control it! Now let me attempt to rewrite your nonsense in a semantically coherent way – hoping that I have guessed your meaning:

    “In the med inserts, including the one Baker linked to, the drug manufacturers admit to the charge that the medication may have funky “side” effects for some. This should be adequate proof that they are not trying to slip anything by the consumer.”

    DeShong, I hope you can see that even when coherently stated, you are simply not capable of establishing logical coherence. Please tell us How “admissions” could ever be proof of intent?

    Let’s try a parallel case and see if you get it:

    When Kalidh Sheik Mohammad (allegedly) revealed a terror plot against the US after being waterboarded a couple dozen times, does that mean he told the truth? Does it mean that he told the whole truth and didn’t try to “slip anything by” his interrogators? Or, most importantly, does ot mean that he never intended to hide anything?

    As you can see, the idea is simply absurd that admission proves (benevolent) intent. And It is equally absurd to think that your “admission” to using LSD would somehow make you more trustworthy, or that anybody even gives a shit.

    It is not your alleged LSD kapers that make you blurry, dear delirious friend, it’s your prescription meds. Either that or you were just born that way. In any case, you need to start dealing with it.

    Here is a classic example for of trying to “slip something by” the consumer that one has already supposedly “admitted” to. As Michael says, drug manufacturing and marketing is a business, not a social service:


    By Lisa Richwine

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Television ads for drugs and medical devices should avoid distracting images and music that can reduce viewers’ comprehension of potential side effects, U.S. regulators advised in guidelines proposed on Tuesday.

    Advertisements also should use similar type styles and voice-overs when conveying benefits and risks, the Food and Drug Administration said.

    The guidelines follow complaints that manufacturers use various techniques in their widely seen television ads and other promotions to downplay risks while emphasizing potential benefits.

    Leaving out or minimizing side-effect information is the most frequent violation the FDA cites in letters to companies complaining about misleading promotions.

    The draft guidelines advise manufacturers on how to present risk information adequately in print and broadcast promotions to consumers and doctors without running afoul of federal regulations. The guidelines are not mandatory.

    The advice covers techniques ranging from the use of contrasting colors to highlight information, the location and timing of risk details and other factors that can influence how well viewers understand a product.

    Prescription drug ads have drawn fire for portraying healthy-looking, active and smiling patients while explaining benefits and then rushing through or providing distractions when required risk information is conveyed.

    At a congressional hearing last year, a Schering-Plough Corp ad for allergy drug Nasonex drew criticism for featuring a bee that flew around during a description of side effects but simply hovered while benefits were explained.

    In the new guidelines, the FDA said busy scenes, frequent scene changes and moving camera angles “can misleadingly minimize the risks of the product being promoted by detracting from the audience’s comprehension.”

    The FDA also warned against speeding up an announcer’s description of risks. “If risk information is considerably more difficult to hear and process than benefit information because it is presented at a much faster pace, the piece will not convey an accurate impression,” the agency said.

    Reviewers will consider “the net impression conveyed by all the elements of a piece. For this reason, manufacturers should focus not just on individual claims or presentations but on the messages conveyed by the promotional piece as a whole,” the guidelines said.
    Groups representing drug and medical device makers said they were still reviewing the FDA guidelines. . . .


    There, Mr. Deshong, you have your proof of intent, although it is probably too subtle for you to grasp. Have a valium next time.

  99. Truthseeker Says:

    Michael, you already said the same point very well at great length in your previous post, and this blog exists to correct false claims, bad data, misapprehension and misunderstanding etc and act as a reference in itself as well as reference to references ie reliable sources in the literature, so any off the cuff extended speculative philosophical ruminations on whether people must be free to make their own decisions in life etc can only stay up briefly.

    Otherwise readers who need to print out the material in Comments will be burdened by the expense in money and time of dealing with sections that they don’t need, which is also why the TrollTrapper software was installed,to whisk away rudeness etc to another page, not that your posts were rude or false in any way, although they did suggest in their unbounded freedom that you might be taking some kind of substance yourself, we have to say.

    Anyhow all contributions welcome as always but those which don’t seem to be intended as permanent will be removed after a time, just like the ones from the trolls which spread false information and are not worth correcting and keeping around to display how idiotic they are.

    This applies to the host as well. The software has no favorites.

    If you want us to repeat what we posted, which was erased, it was simply that if we can save DeShong from death, this blog will have achieved its purpose in at least one instance.

    t is not your alleged LSD capers that make you blurry, dear delirious friend, it’s your prescription meds. Either that or you were just born that way. In any case, you need to start dealing with it.

    Very good clip, MacDonald, thanks. But you may be wrong about the LSD, if you will allow us to say so. We have often found that people who have taken LSD, or even plenty of marijuana, in their youth, are permanently affected, and show a freedom of thought and expression beyond normal bounds which we suspect was not in them before their drug experience. We know one man who smoked too much pot while at the Wharton School of Business, dropped out and has been immensely cheerful ever since, smoking away, and selling cars for a living quite happily.

    And by the way, we are very grateful for TDeS letting his hair down and confiding his early use of LSD and so on, and would appreciate it if you treated his honesty with kind interest. The basic principle of this site is that the more informed people are, the better they are able to assess the truth we seek.

  100. MacDonald Says:


    I am of course interested in honest stories about drug experimention. As you must know, Groff observed people regressing to reptilian or even vegetable-state memories during his experiments with LSD. T o me that representsthe intriguing possibility that either our entire evolutionary history lies dormant in our genes and can be called forth, or LSD enhances the imagination greatly, or both.

    However, it is my feeling that DeShong presented his little LSD-and-a-video-camera college boy interlude to much the same effect as the buzzing bee in the pharma ads: He wanted to distract attention from the psychosis-inducing HIV meds by introducing a known culprit, LSD, as an alternative explanation for his erratic behaviour. But, as your own tale so clearly demonstrates, LSD and other much reviled recreational drugs can have a liberating effect on the mind, which has never been observed when it comes to HIV drugs, even when smoked.

  101. Truthseeker Says:

    “Even if smoked”, which is, we should note, happening in South Africa, according to the BBC, whose news story which refers to “Hallucinogenic” twice.

    Getting high on HIV drugs in S Africa by Alka Marwaha BBC News

    Anti-retroviral drugs used to treat HIV/Aids are being bought and smoked by teenagers in South Africa to get high. Reports suggest that the drugs are being sold by patients and even healthcare staff for money. Schoolchildren have been spotted smoking the drugs, which are ground into powder and sometimes mixed with painkillers or marijuana. Aids patients themselves have been found smoking the drugs instead of taking them as prescribed. Anti-retrovirals are used to boost the immune system of people with HIV and to suppress the virus in the blood.

    “I couldn’t believe it. I was shocked at first, these were school boys in their school uniforms,” documentary-maker Tooli Nhlapo told the BBC World Service’s Outlook programme. “They take a pill and grind it, until it is a powder. Some also mix it with painkillers and others mix it with marijuana,” said Ms Nhlapo. “They showed me how they roll it and smoke it.”


    When the South African Broadcasting Corporation documentary-maker first investigated the story, she was told to wait until school finished, so she could actually see how young some of the users were.

    The pills are crushed and mixed with other ingredients, like marijuana. “I thought I was going to go to a tavern and see older drug addicts doing this, but I was shocked when I saw school children,” she said. “One who spoke to me very frankly was only 15 and the oldest person I spoke to was 21, but it’s mainly youngsters, teenagers.” Smoking the pills has a hallucinogenic and relaxing effect….etc

  102. Maria angus Says:


    I posted all the answers he sought. But he censored me AGAIN!

    Good readers, understand that free expression is not tolerated on this website. It is time to throw off the yoke of the so-called truthseeker. He can’t stand the truth, and he continues to censor anything he doesn’t want.

  103. MacDonald Says:

    Hi Maria,

    You are clearly not Todd Deshong because there are several sentences in your rants that make sense taken individually. It only becomes a mess when you start putting them together. Perhaps you are Todd Deshong on a drug holiday?

    I am especially impressed by your tale of redemption. DeShong could never have comeup with something as moving as this:

    I started out as a devoted re-thinker. But Clark has turned me back. I’ve never encountered such censorship and such bullying. I thought this was a community that cared about AIDS victims. Instead, it just tears apart anyone who deviates from Clark’s thinking.

    All good Americans love stories of sin, redemption and forgiveness. As you know, Clark Baker is also a repentant and redeemed ex-liberal. You have much in common, and you should be grateful that Clark has shown you the right path even if His ways are mysterious to you.

    Since you are a strong woman, or a “bottom” as we call it, I’d be interested to know what you think about the state of the porn industry in postmodern society. When answering, please remember to use metaphors and euphemisms, so as not to offend the new FilthTrap software, which btw is fully automated and therefore non-discriminatory with regard to race, creed, colour and political leanings. Its criteria are purely aesthetic, Aesthetics being an inherently censorious field, much as life itself.

  104. Maria angus Says:


    You are way, way off topic. How dare you bring up such filth? The issue is Clark Baker, and why it took him so long to figure out who I am! Every client of this so-called “detective” must now demand a refund!

    Clark and I are opposites. He is a censor and a bully. I dare the so-called “truthseeker” to let readers of this blog read the truth! MacDonald, you must be Clark Baker on a drug holiday!

  105. MacDonald Says:


    Did I not just tell you that Clark’s ways are mysterious? First you must get on your knees and understand what it is He has done for you, then you might be able to appreciate what He is now doing for all of Celia’s other supporters.

    I can see you’re back on the drugs again because the real issue can’t both be why Clark didn’t recognise you and Celia Farber at the same time – unless of course you secretly wish that you were Celia Farber. Maria, are you trying to communicate that your underlying issue is vagina envy, and that you are yearning for the day when you no longer have to attempt to get pregnant through your ear, as was the case with your namesake (a unique case by all accounts. Don’t get your hopes up in that regard)?

    If that so I will contact my good friends, Onan and Lector H. MD. They have a more liberal view of drugs, porn and the Immaculate Conception than I do, but they would be able to contact your mum in a professional capacity before the bricks get auctioned off.

    Please advise.

  106. jtdeshong Says:

    I took a much needed break from the lunacy of this site.
    Michael Geiger, you are just an idiot.

  107. Truthseeker Says:

    Dear Mr Todd,

    There is no lunacy on this site, Sir, one reason being that it is devoted to exposing lunacy in others, such as those who subscribe to absurd and unsustainable paradigms as if they needed them to be true for psychological or pecuniary reasons. Since it is our purpose and duty to carry on this work despite the self sacrifice it demands, we allow lunacy from time to time to enter its comment columns, in order to demonstrate its existence in regard to silly and entirely incredible conventional beliefs which have misled the otherwise reliable editors of the New York Times etc.

    That was why we allowed the above series to stand rather than cart it all off to the special section entitled Science Guardian Comment Troll Trap, where most of the nonsense purveyed by HIV paradigm defenders is instantly sent by the software we have implemented here, Troll Trapper (pat. pending).

    Quite why the series suddenly halted when your extraordinary mind turned its attention elsewhere we have no idea. But it was not the doing of Troll Trapper.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Bad Behavior has blocked 1204 access attempts in the last 7 days.