Science Guardian

Truth, beauty and paradigm power in science and society

I am Nicolaus Copernicus, and I approve of this blog

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

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

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

HONOR ROLL OF SCIENTIFIC TRUTHSEEKERS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am Richard Feynman and I approve of this blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Illusion is the first of all pleasures. – Voltaire

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

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

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

Shoveling the stable (Frog 6)

We return to the task of cleaning out the Augean stable of the Smith-Novella PLoS paper

There may be no end to its flaws, but we refuse to be defeated by sheer quantity

A service to newcomers, though tedious to the knowledgeable

herculescercopes.jpgRefreshed by our close contact with power, influence and celebrity, we return briefly to swatting two minor HIV apologists for their complacent insistence against all the evidence of the literature of the field that HIV causes AIDS.

Examining the real deniers of HIV/AIDS again

The notion has been endlessly eviscerated as logically and scientifically untenable for two decades, but Smith and Novella, being apparently somewhat illiterate in the science of the matter, still seem to view it as inviolable gospel, to be defended by faith bordering on religious zeal.

They deny paradoxical impossibilities that even laymen can see immediately are flaws as big as the Grand Canyon, and can only occasionally answer the challenges of the critics by reversing their arguments, as if they had none of their own, recalling the famous remark of Mathilde Krim of AMFAR to this author, referring to Peter Duesberg, the chief critic and tormentor of the HIV faithful and their exploiters: “Well, we can’t prove that HIV causes AIDS, but Peter can’t prove it doesn’t!”

So, we now embark dutifully on what we hope will be the final laborious half hour of the grand dissection of the PLoS Frog HIV Denial in the Internet Era, by the highly presentable and conventionally minded Tara C. Smith, University of Iowa epidemiologist and Aetiology blogger at SEED, and the modestly establishment and handsome Steven P. Novella of Yale. We believe it is important as a public service to continue, lest this misleading essay enter the uncritical bloodstream of the US media without any antidote.

A Herculean shoveling task

Here are the remaining errors in reason and understanding of good science which are paraded for the indignation of critics in this now notorious specimen of paradigm presumption, that is, the phenomenon of imagining that a working scientific assumption employed by most scientists in a field is by definition necessarily correct and accurate:

Reflex scorn of alternative medicine

Distrusting mainstream medical practitioners, many HIV deniers turn to “alternative” medicine in search of treatment. One such practitioner, Dr. Mohammed Al-Bayati, suggests that “toxins” and drug use, rather than HIV, cause AIDS [18]. Dr Al-Bayati personally profits from his HIV denialism: for $100 per hour, Al-Bayati will consult “on health issues related to AIDS, adverse reactions to vaccines and medications, exposure to chemicals in the home, environment or workplace” (http://www.toxi-health.com/). Similarly, German vitamin supplier and HIV denier Matthias Rath not only pushed his vitamins as a treatment for AIDS [19], but his spokesman refused to be interviewed by Nature Medicine about the case because he claimed the journal is “funded to the hilt with drug money” [20].

Nowhere do these babes in the scientific woods show their political naivete more glaringly than in these comments, where they presume that alternative medicine is automatically quackery. Clearly they have no inkling (or at least for the purposes of their polemic prefer not to acknowledge) that standard medicine protects its territory as fiercely as a hungry mongrel defends a juicy bone, and heavy sanctions are rapidly visited upon practitioners for the smallest deviations, quite quickly extending to loss of license to practice.

al_bayati.jpgBut as history often has shown those who pursue alternatives to standard care may be honest pioneers trying to improve treatment. Certainly in the case of HIV/AIDS, there is every reason after a close reading of the peer-reviewed literature to suppose that men such as Al-Bayati are on the right track, and may be saving health and lives. To assume otherwise is to assume that the paradigm is correct without review or independent assessment of the mainstream studies carried out in the field to date, and the time for that is long past. In fact, for anyone who troubles to read that literature, there is no excuse for it at all, since year after year mainstream studies explode the basic assumptions of HIV/AIDS from the notion that HIV kills T cells to the idea that viral load correlates with immune dysfunction.

Meanwhile, Al-Bayati’s $100 fee is hardly outrageous exploitation of quackery in an era where most Manhattan lawyers won’t even speak to you for less than $300 upfront, and certainly not for a man with extensive qualifications in toxicology, including a Ph.D from the University of California at Davis in comparative pathology and who is a dual board certified toxicologist with two decades of professional experience.

The benefits of fitting in with the paradigm are not an influence on opinion

Deniers argue that because scientists receive grant money, fame, and prestige as a result of their research, it is in their best interest to maintain the status quo [15]. This type of thinking is convenient for deniers as it allows them to choose which authorities to believe and which ones to dismiss as part of a grand conspiracy. In addition to being selective, their logic is also internally inconsistent. For example, they dismiss studies that support the HIV hypothesis as being biased by “drug money,” while they accept uncritically the testimony of HIV deniers who have a heavy financial stake in their alternative treatment modalities.

Apparently in the minds of our two tyros Al-Bayati charging a modest $100 an hour for his heavily researched expertise weighs as heavy in the balance as the billions being spent on research, drugs and infrastructure by the paradigm army and its supportive governments and corporations. To argue that millions in grant money, fame and prestige don’t oil a paradigm is silly enough, but to equate generous drug company funding for HIV=AIDS activists and their organizations with the money raised by the vitamin advocates and alternative medicine practitioners who fight the paradigm is deluded. The fantasy that HIV dissenters are in business to make money off their books is also absurd, though not specifically mentioned here. Sales are typically in the hundreds or low thousands.

Critics’ case is distorted, or completely misstated

Portraying Science as Faith and Consensus as Dogma

Since the ideas proposed by deniers do not meet rigorous scientific standards, they cannot hope to compete against the mainstream theories. They cannot raise the level of their beliefs up to the standards of mainstream science; therefore they attempt to lower the status of the denied science down to the level of religious faith, characterizing scientific consensus as scientific dogma [21]. As one HIV denier quoted in Maggiore’s book [10] remarked,
“There is classical science, the way it’s supposed to work, and then there’s religion. I regained my sanity when I realized that AIDS science was a religious discourse. The one thing I will go to my grave not understanding is why everyone was so quick to accept everything the government said as truth. Especially the central myth: the cause of AIDS is known.”

On the contrary, the objections of critics to HIV/AIDS have been peer reviewed at the highest level and they have exposed the mainstream premise that HIV=AIDS as not meeting rigorous scientific standards, but rather, as based on faith and uncritical acceptance. To say otherwise is a complete falsehood, unworthy of publication by the Public Library of Science. The initial very thorough review and rejection of the paradigm in 1986 and 1987 in elite journals stands without rebuttal after twenty years, and mainstream studies in the literature since have continually confounded the initially absurd claim with their results.

What these defenders of the faith are referring to is that debate has been successfully banned from nearly all scientific journals and other media except for the Web. Having used hostile politics to shut out debate, or even mention of the objections of critics, from scientific journals, the New York Times and most other media, the paradigm defenders have successfully moved all complaints to the Web where they can ignore them more readily, or think they can.

We wonder how long that will be true. In fact, the Web now publishes much journalism and other writing which can be relied on by readers as credible, sometime more credible than newspapers and television coverage, since it may draw on more sources among its many readers and is more subject to their immediate correction, and can have much wider readership than many books. We like to think that this blog is one example of more informed and reliable information on HIV/AIDS and its validity than mainstream media and even scientific journals, where the paradigm is an unquestioned assumption of virtually all HIV/AIDS research and discussion.

But the disparagement of criticism as ‘unscientific’ is anyway a red herring – current dissent is based on the best scientific standards, and on reading the mainstream peer-reviewed literature, and using it to expose the contradictions of the claim that HIV causes AIDS, or anything else, and the lack of credibility of the claim that the drugs are aimed at the right target and have a beneficial effect.

Naturally, with so much science of record contradicting the paradigm, and the paradigm so blatantly and unreasonably opposed to scientific and common sense, the dissenters certainly must point to the religious impulse as the only thing that can account for so many loyalists such as Tara clinging to a scientifically unjustified and dangerous belief. The faith of the experts can likewise only be accounted for in this way, as long as the motivation of self-interest is ruled out by the presumably impeccable character of the leaders of the field.

Thoughtless exaggeration of critics’ views

Others suggest that the entire spectrum of modern medicine is a religion [22]. Deniers also paint themselves as skeptics working to break down a misguided and deeply rooted belief. They argue that when mainstream scientists speak out against the scientific “orthodoxy,” they are persecuted and dismissed. For example, HIV deniers make much of the demise of Peter Duesberg’s career, claiming that when he began speaking out against HIV as the cause of AIDS, he was “ignored and discredited” because of his dissidence [23]. South African President Mbeki went even further, stating: “In an earlier period in human history, these [dissidents] would be heretics that would be burnt at the stake!” [1].

In fact, this description by HIV “deniers” of the way things have gone is perfectly accurate. Duesberg two decades ago was a golden boy of science, a National Academy member whose NIH grants were never turned down; in fact they culminated in a $350,000 grant to do whatever research he liked. But he has never been able to get one dollar OK’d by his colleagues since his stand against their newly lucrative HIV∫AIDS paradigm in 1987, even when his grant application was strongly supported by the ex-editor of Science.

Even though he was invited to the NIH recently to give a lecture on his productive new ideas on the development of cancer, he is still unable to find support from his peers for any grant proposal, after having about twenty refused – a striking contrast with his previous record of having every single grant he ever applied for from the NIH passed with flying colors.

Shame on you, authors

These babes-in-the-scientific-woods make fools of themselves with this paragraph, especially. More than that, it is morally revolting to misinterpret what stands as a shame of science, the lethal financial punishment of a scientist of integrity for standing by his judgment and his publications despite being turned into a pariah for it.

The invidious confusion of elite, peer-reviewed dissent with crackpot notions such as creationism

HIV deniers accuse scientists of quashing dissent regarding the cause of AIDS, and not allowing so-called “alternative” theories to be heard. However, this claim could be applied to any well-established scientific theory that is being challenged by politically motivated pseudoscientific notions—for example, creationist challenges to evolution. Further, as HIV denial can plausibly reduce compliance with safe sex practices and anti-HIV drugs, potentially costing lives, this motivates the scientific and health care communities to exclude HIV denial from any public forum. (As one editorial has bluntly phrased it, HIV denial is “deadly quackery”) [24]. Because HIV denial is not scientifically legitimate, such exclusion is justified, but it further fuels the deniers’ claims of oppression.

This is a perfect voicing of the blatantly unscientific attitudes of these paradigm defenders, who, rather than confidently expose the supposed flaws in HIV criticism, would rather censor the objections with prejudicial politics, and vociferously claim that the doubts are dangerous to efforts to combat HIV, when that is precisely the premise that is being doubted – that is, whether HIV is the right target for dangerous anti-HIV drugs.

Repeating doubter’s claims as if they were a priori baseless

Expert Opinion and the Promise of Forthcoming Scientific Acceptance

Although the HIV deniers condemn scientific authority and consensus, they have nevertheless worked to assemble their own lists of scientists and other professionals who support their ideas. As a result, the deniers claim that they are just on the cusp of broader acceptance in the scientific community and that they remain an underdog due to the “established orthodoxy” represented by scientists who believe that HIV causes AIDS.

In an effort to support its claim that an increasing number of scientists do not believe that HIV causes AIDS, Reappraising AIDS has published a list of signatories agreeing to the following statement:

“It is widely believed by the general public that a retrovirus called HIV causes the group [of] diseases called AIDS. Many biochemical scientists now question this hypothesis. We propose that a thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for and against this hypothesis be conducted by a suitable independent group. We further propose that critical epidemiological studies be devised and undertaken” [25].

The HIV critics do not condemn scientific authority and consensus per se, but only when it blatantly flouts the findings of the peer-reviewed scientific literature of the field, produced by the very same authority.

The line of defense that takes comfort in the idea that the generals of HIV/AIDS are the ones who can rattle their medals and issue science by edict because they are at the top of their profession, and their critics are a motley crew of outsiders, runs up against the simple fact that review and rejection was initiated by the top man in the field.

Peter Duesberg is a scientist whom even his opponents have to recognize has a track record that well outclasses Robert Gallo, Anthony Fauci and John P. Moore rolled into one, both in theoretically informed science experiments and in debate. Moreover, given the extraordinary institutionalized pressure against the free debate of his case against HIV∫AIDS, it is actually very significant that several thousand professionals have taken a position in public that supports the demand for proper independent review.

Independent review is blocked, but not impossible: who can sort this out?

These signatories do not, however, suggest who the “suitable independent” group should be, since, presumably, many scientists have already been “indoctrinated” into believing that HIV causes AIDS. (Indeed, many of the signatories to this statement lack any qualifications in virology, epidemiology, or even basic biology.) They also ignore thousands of epidemiological studies that have already been published in the scientific literature. And the signatories fail to provide a convincing case that there is widespread acceptance in the scientific community for their marginal position.

Probably all thinking people in science recognize that something has to be done about the peer review system, and the solution has to be some kind of more independent review.

The problem is difficult, but as science feeds on more and more money with ever increasing public and private investment, it may be the only way to stop takeovers by paradigm mafia in fields which are not well understood by outsiders, as has happened in this case. Here the leaders of a field ignore the fact that tens of thousands of papers are written on assumptions which are disproved by those studies that (inadvertently) test them. So successful has been the takeover that the rest of the scientific community never hear a proper account of the problems, so assume all is well, and that any critics they meet are kooks.

We need a Congressional investigation of HIV/AIDS

Presumably the only solution in the realm of independent review will have to be a Congressional committee staff investigation and public hearing, which this blog advocates as the only means to force full public scrutiny and debate of this vexed issue, although we recognize that unless a powerful and influential political leader takes action to promote this solution, it will continue to be prevented by Anthony Fauci, the director of NIAID, his staff and the leading scientists who defend the paradigm from such outside scrutiny.

The presumption that many papers written on an assumption prove that assumption

Nevertheless, Farber wrote in a 1992 article that “more and more scientists are beginning to question the hypothesis that HIV single-handedly creates the chaos in the immune system that leads to AIDS” [26]. Similarly, a March 2006 article appearing on the AIDS denial Web site “New AIDS Review” claims that, in reference to the theory that HIV causes AIDS: “…the fabric of this theoretical mantle is threadbare to the point of disintegration” [27]. Mainstream scientists, of course, do not believe in the imminent demise of the HIV theory; instead they continue to produce novel research on preventing and treating HIV and publish thousands of papers every year on the topic.

Whether the challenge to the orthodoxy spreads or is beaten back depends on science and media politics, where the smaller community is unlikely to win soon against a very successful and well financed, virtually universal belief, supported by a wide range of emotions and moral attitudes in its followers, and which employs a goon squad led by Gallo, Moore and Fauci to inquisition heretics ruthlessly.

While we are delighted to be quoted accurately by these under researched authors, we should point out that what we “deny” is that their heroes of HIV∫AIDS are being honest or intelligent in interpreting their own data, which is to say, we promote good science against those who deny it, for what reason only they know (but see list of human frailties in the heading above this blog).

It is the mainstream scientific literature which shows that there is no good reason to believe that HIV causes immune dysfunction, and more than forty strong reasons to believe it doesn’t, and that the drugs are misdirected and only cause damage to patients, conclusions that have stood for 22 years without rebuttal and are annually confirmed by more mainstream studies.

Forty reasons why HIV is a crock

augeanstableshercuules.jpegWhat are these reasons? Being short of time, like our readers, we can only quote from The Scorn of Heretics, our expanded review talk on AIDS skepticism to the conference on Democracy and Science in Naples in 2001, wherein we listed the basic inconsistencies inherent in the paradigm which prevent credibility on any other basis than blind faith, which is appropriate to a religion but not to a science.

Here is the relevant section, if you wish to check it.

The litmus of common sense

“The most significant signal to outsiders is the endless list of challenges to
common sense inherent in the seventeen year old hypothesis.

As Duesberg has pointed out again and again, to believe in AIDS, we have to believe in the following:

An infectious viral disease where the virus’s rate of infection (1 in 500 sexual contacts) is outdone by the rate of human impregnation (1 in 10); a cell killing retrovirus, when otherwise retroviruses never kill cells; indeed, a virus provided to labs in immortal cultures of the same T cells it is said to kill off; a fatal virus that cannot easily be found in most patients, even dying ones, only antibodies to it; a disease where patients merely with antibodies can nevertheless die of the disease; a disease whose nature varies from place to place, being almost exclusively a homosexual and drug user ailment in North America and Europe, but heterosexual elsewhere; a disease that correlates with drug use in North America and Europe, yet is said to alleviated or prevented by a bowl full of other damaging and lethal drugs, never proved to be directly helpful, and causing the death of at least half the AIDS patients who die; a disease whose mechanism, including an up-to-twenty-year delay in onset, is as yet quite unexplained; a cell killing disease that also causes cell multiplying cancer, with no trace of the virus in the cancer; and a disease said to be a killer epidemic in Haiti and South Africa, with no significant change in overall mortality, and long endemic in sub-Saharan Africa, where a population explosion has nonetheless added 250 million people in two decades.

Let’s pause for a breath before we complete the list, for that’s hardly all.

We also have to believe in

An epidemic mapped in Africa by the World Health Organization almost entirely without the benefit of AIDS tests, which themselves are problematic; a viral epidemic uniquely without initial exponential growth or bell-shaped rise and fall; a viral epidemic which has not found immunity anywhere; a killer disease where no doctor, nurse or researcher working with it has caught the disease; a disease with risk group, lifestyle, and malnutrition specific symptoms; a disease whose every symptom is shared with other diseases–in fact, a disease which would in every case be counted as those other diseases except for the supposed presence of antibodies to the “virus that causes AIDS”; a viral epidemic without a sign of a promising vaccine despite the best funded army of researchers in history; a viral disease which quickly achieves the antibodies of vaccination of its own accord; and a virus transmitted 25-50% through birth which has produced no epidemic among children.

That list is long enough, I think you will agree, that a New Yorker such as myself might be forgiven for saying “If you can believe all that, I have a bridge I would like to sell you.”

Duesberg asserts and shows that all these paradoxes are resolved if we simply accept that AIDS is a drug phenomenon, or elsewhere a picture artificially created by gathering other diseases under the AIDS umbrella, where any occurrence of disease is relabeled AIDS if HIV antibodies are reckoned to be present. I know of no good reason to disbelieve him. One good reason to believe him is that there is no AIDS disease among HIV positive patients who abstain from recreational and medicating drugs.”

Every single one of those absurdities remains unexplained, unjustified and as unreasonable as ever, in 2007, with many of them confirmed and underlined by recent studies, especially ones that show that drugs are lethal, however relieved and delighted the recipients may feel when they are first granted their supposed blessings, including a psychological or a placebo effect of unusual intensity, no doubt, given the fear and panic engendered in the ignorant by “positive HIV tests”.

Only two arguments now in favor of HIV in AIDS

Meanwhile the only two arguments now adduced on the side of faith in HIV as the cause of AIDS in the public mind are these, and both are invalid:

1) That “correlation proves causation” in this case, HIV=AIDS, which for some reason is said to be the one exception to the rule that correlation never does prove causation, though it may suggest it, and anyway, the correlation between HIV and AIDS is the forced outcome of the definition of AIDS as any one of more than thirty symptoms occurring in the presence of HIV. The same symptom occurring in the absence of a positive HIV test is another illness entirely.

2) “But the drugs work, don’t they?”, the Jim Watson-Bill Clinton endorsed validation which is now contradicted by several recent studies, even if it made any theoretical sense at all, which it doesn’t. Half the current AIDS deaths in the US are due to liver and kidney failure, which is a drug symptom not on the list of AIDS problems.

Pace Gallo with his totally unconvincing HTLV-1 causing leukemia, it remains only too clear that retroviruses by nature do not cause any human illness.

Exhaustion sets in

At this point, we have to leave the rest of the shoveling out of the Smith-Novella paper till later, having once again exhausted the potential interest of any newcomer to this debate, which is the only purpose of rebutting its claims blow by blow in this arduous manner.

We hope that more knowledgeable readers will forgive us, since the real problem is that rebutting nonsense takes twice as long as writing it, the great advantage of those who defend a paradigm, Alas for truth in science.

But we refuse to be defeated.

159 Responses to “Shoveling the stable (Frog 6)”

  1. hhbauer Says:

    Thanks for “Cleaning… (6)” and its reminder of your splendid piece on the interesting Science and Democracy site.
    Among additional absurdities:

    Mothers pass HIV to their infants via breast milk MORE EFFICIENTLY WHEN THEY FORMULA-FEED AS WELL AS BREASTFEED, compared to exclusive breastfeeding

    KS was iconic of AIDS, yet KS patients are often HIV-negative

    As for the mainstream claims of correlation between HIV and AIDS, my book shows that ACCORDING TO THE DATA IN OFFICIAL REPORTS AND PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLES there is NO CORRELATION chronologically; geographically; in respective impact on men and women; or in respective impact on black and white Americans.

    But the Establishment continues to put out top-of-the-head shibboleths, for instance:

    “http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071023/hl_nm/honduras_aids_dc, accessed 23 October 2007

    Reuters

    Catholic condom ban helping AIDS spread in Latam: U.N.

    Tue Oct 23, 2:31 AM ET

    TEGUCIGALPA (Reuters) – The rapid spread in Latin America of the virus that causes AIDS is made worse by the Roman Catholic Church’s stand against using condoms, a U.N. official said on Monday.
    Some 1.7 million people across Latin America are infected with the HIV virus or full-blown AIDS, and the epidemic is spreading swiftly with up to 410,000 new cases in 2006, up from as many as 320,000 new cases in 2004, according the UN AIDS program, UNAIDS.”

    However, if you look at UNAIDS’s annual reports, what you see for HIV prevalence is

    Latin America 1997: 0.5%
    2003: 0.6%
    2005: 0.55%

    That’s a truly frighteningly rapid spread.

    I’ll buy TWO of those bridges, thank you!

  2. Truthseeker Says:

    Henry, thank you, perhaps we can run up a total of fifty or a hundred absurdities in the end, what do you think? The list of impossibilities should definitely be expanded. The lack of correlation of immune system weakness with viral load is another one, of course. Your book is a fount of such points. Sometimes it seems that HIV/AIDS advocates could claim that eating pineapple doubles the rate of transmission of HIV positive test results and the New York Times would put it on the front page as a risk factor.

    The title of the post has been adjusted to “Shoveling the stables” after a period of contemplating just what we are dealing with here, metaphorically speaking. Is this too harsh? One doesn’t want to give the impression of excess, though factually speaking this would be almost impossible. The story of HIV=AIDS is so grotesque in its unlikely absurdity that the plain truth of what has been perpetrated on the credulous is so incredible that the credibility of critics hangs by a hair each time they dare to speak up.

    But the list should be expanded, definitely. All contributions welcome.

  3. Rezaf Says:

    I’m a regular reader of your work, Truthseeker. Forgive my poor english. I think that most of the people out there know, deep inside, that something isn’t right with this HIV=AIDS “truth”. On the other hand, probably most people don’t feel confortable questioning this theory in front of a medical doctor. Anyway, I was surprised to see that when I told my friends and parents about the most blatant inconsistencies of this HIV=AIDS theory, all said something like “now that I think about it, it makes sense”. But they found it hard to believe that our medical system would play such a “prank” on us all for so long by condemning us to death with useless antibody tests and toxic (chemotherapy turned anti-retroviral) drugs. Most don’t really know that AZT WAS inicially intended to be another killer chemotherapy drug. And many other things. So I guess that these HIV=AIDS defenders are trying to prevent a worldwide riot right now. The failings of the theory are so blatant that even a layman could point them out without having to do much research and the HIV=AIDS acolytes can only rely on the unbelievable dimension of the “prank” they are playing for their survival. After all, “doctors are here to take care of us, how could they do this to us?” most people think. I can’t wait to see when the faeces hit the ventilator. Heads are going to roll. Keep up the good work!

  4. Truthseeker Says:

    What poor English are you referring to, Rezal? That has to be one of the most cogent and well expressed comments out there. It is especially valuable to hear from people who are not involved in medicine or science, as you apparently are not, and hear how the message that all is not well in HIV=AIDS “truth” strikes them, especially when it is now clear that nothing at all is right in this field, which is permeated throughout with a silly fairy tale that should not have survived past its initial professional review and rejection, and perhaps not even been accepted by the media and the public in the first place, given the spurious justification offered by the renowned Dr Robert Gallo for his bright idea, which met with guffaws from all insiders in science who knew him and his history of three card monte capers up to that point (discovery of a new virus that turned out to be a contamination, discovery of and patenting a test for, and receipt of royalties ever since, a virus that supposedly causes leukemia but doesn’t show much evidence of it in a region of Japan where most people have it, without contracting leukemia any more often than anybody else, plus much laboratory skulduggery of a shameful nature).

    Surely it is easy to understand that a large system once led in the wrong direction will gather more and more momentum and be ever harder to turn in any other direction. This is why the critics of HIV=AIDS have had a good run for their money, with many magazine and newspaper articles reaching to the top of the liberal press in the US with Harpers, 25 or more books on the topic making everything very clear, several television segments on major networks, but have essentially failed to turn the ship around – rather like a tiny tug can’t turn a liner the size of the Queen Mary, except over a very long time. In this case, maybe another ten years, we estimate.

    The real puzzle is how in an age which now seems to question authority on every front the average Joe is reluctant to question the knowledge and expertise of his doctors on this front, and the average skeptical newspaper reader is reluctant to question the remarkably incoherent story of HIV=AIDS peddled by the New York Times and its media brethren who follow its lead. To our mind this reflects the disgusting nature of the worms inhabiting this particular can, which most sensible people don’t want to discuss at dinner. That and the enormous hostility to any questioning generated by the renowned Dr Fauci and his lackeys, which presumably easily deteats any influence this humble blog could possibly have by presenting the facts of the matter as drawn from the mainstream peer reviewed literature, which no one really wants to bother with, to the relief of Fauci et al.

    Thank you for letting us know that there are a few inhabitants of this planet who ask why they are being led over a cliff. Are we wrong to presume that you are quite young, and therefore still uncorrupted by the temptations and pressures of those embedded in the system for a longer time?

  5. hhbauer Says:

    Truthseeker:
    When you mentioned “lack of correlation of immune system weakness with viral load ” had you already seen what my GoogleAlert brought today? Namely:

    “http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071022122210.htm, accessed 25 October 2007
    Genetic Influence On Pace Of HIV-AIDS Progression Identified

    ScienceDaily (Oct. 24, 2007) — Viral load–the amount of virus in the blood of an HIV-infected person–has long been viewed as the chief indicator of how quickly someone infected with HIV infection progresses to AIDS.

    New data published in Nature Immunology builds on previous work that suggests that several other factors in addition to viral load significantly contribute to disease progression rates.
    ….
    viral load contributed only 9 percent to the variability in rate of progression to AIDS; variations in CCR5 and CCL3L1 combined accounted for 6 percent variability in AIDS progression rates..

    With further research, this work may lead to additional markers, which along with viral load may serve as indicators of HIV progression.
    ….
    Article: “CCL3L1 and CCR5 influence cell-mediated immunity and affect HIV-AIDS pathogenesis via viral entry-independent mechanisms” by Matthew J. Dolan et al. Nature Immunology (Published online Sunday, October 21, 2007). DOI: 10.1038/ni1521 (2007).”

    Viral load accounts for **9%**. The genetic markers that supposedly characterize long-term non-progressors and ability of HIV to get at CD4 cells account for **6%**.
    85% of what causes progression to AIDS is HIV/AIDS’s equivalent of the “dark matter” and “dark energy” that, cosmologists tell us, represents more than 90% of everything in the universe and is called “dark” because we’ve never observed it and know nothing about it.

    Note the “With further research, this work may lead to..”, intended for public dissemination and to fool the gullible among the media, instead of the proper inference, that HIV/AIDS is barking up the wrong research tree.

    This is not the science that so captivated me as a youngster that I wanted to become part of it.

  6. Truthseeker Says:

    No we didn’t read these yet, Henry, thank you for the contributions. Rather reminds one of being married, wouldn’t you say, where after a time the flaws of one’s partner become lovable virtues, irrational though they may be. Likewise the much loved Virus acquires virtues as it acquires signals that it is a crock, and the more nonsensical its story, the more we love it.

    Aren’t you being rather strict in calling the sterling scribes of the media gullible, though? Surely it is not their job to challenge the mighty authority of grand institutions on whom they depend for the only information they have to pass along to the inattentive public? Surely you do not expect them to double check the pr releases in their in trays with actual live scientists of independent mind who might throw light on what they are dealing with, so that they become more than fellow traveling stenographic conduits for whatever pap the mother ship sees fit to dispense through her lackeys?

    Dont we have to take into account how little time and resources are accorded the average hack employed by newspapers these days? Even those of more independent status ie freelance are paid no more in dollar terms than they were twenty years ago, which means with inflation the equivalent of half the remuneration they enjoyed before. And how many editors have space to cover any objections to the status quo and its pronouncements?

    We think that the proud contribution of science reporters to the total sum of useful human knowledge should be recognized and celebrated for what it is. We hope that you agree.

  7. Robert Houston Says:

    The concept of journalism as the Fourth Estate of power in society certainly would oblige journalists in science, as well as other politicized or government-dependent fields, “to challenge the mighty of authority of grand institutions” and to “double check the pr releases in their trays” with experts on the other side of the issue. In this respect, the science and medical reporters for both the print and electronic media have generally been woefully negligent, with a few outstanding exceptions in the area of AIDS, such as Celia Farber, Gary Null, and Truthseeker. Of course, the latter’s comments about “the sterling scribes of media” were probably made with tongue in cheek, but it’s possible some newcomers might get the wrong impression.

    Truthseeker has presented a superb analysis of the many misrepresentations in Smith and Novello’s propaganda piece on “HIV Denial in the Internet Era.” I would like to clarify a specific distortion in their text. They wrote:

    Distrusting mainstream medical practitioners, many HIV deniers turn to ‘alternative’medicine in search of treatment. One such practitioner, Dr. Mohammed Al-Bayati, suggests that ‘toxins’ and drug use, rather than HIV cause AIDS… Dr. Al-Bayati personally profits from his HIV denialism: for $100 per hour, Al-Bayati will consult…”

    Contrary to these assertions, Dr. Al-Bayati is not a practitioner of alternative medicine, and does not practice medicine or provide treatments. He is a scientist with numerous studies in mainstream peer-reviewed journals, and a consultant on issues of pathology and toxicology, with a Ph.D. in Comparative Pathology from the University of California at Davis and double board certification as a toxicologist (American Board of Toxicology and American Board of Veterinary Toxicology). As such, he has often served as an expert witness in legal cases relating to medical issues. As an expert consultant, his fee is quite reasonable and is actually only $50 for a half hour, according to his website.

    Dr. Al-Bayati has elaborated a compelling theory of the role of corticosteroids and other drugs in the various risk groups for AIDS, including malnourished Africans. His theory and papers are a valuable supplement to the contributions on AIDS of Prof. Peter Duesberg. Last year he published a terrific new paper on the issue, Examining the Causes of AIDS, in Medical Veritas 3:901-913, 2006.

  8. Rezaf Says:

    Well, TruthSeeker, I’m 26. I’m a chemist doing research on vanadium organomettalic catalysts in Lisbon. And I must say I’m rather disappointed in being a scientist. For I’ve seen and heard of the same corruption of scientific journals, publishers and authors alike. On the other hand, being a chemist leaves me more comfortable to question the chemical aspect of many HIV=AIDS techniques. I know immunologists that will say straight out that HIV tests are less than useless, because they know that they are extremely unreliable. These same people that do these tests on other people do not know in detail the chemical process behind the HIV tests and why it isa non-specific mechanism. Even if there was some sort of validation, the test is just too damn unreliable. To induce such a psychological trauma on a person by saying that this same person is going to die slowly, painfully and alone and there’s nothing to be done is enough to send him/her halfway to certain death. To diagnose someone based on an unreliable, unvalidated and non-specific test should be (at least) considered medical malpractice.

    Anyway, my experience with medical doctors is not the best, as they seem more motivated in pumping people full of antibiotics and painkillers than actually taking care of disease.

    Which takes me to the anti-retroviral drugs. AZT and nevirapine destroy the bone marrow, as most chemotherapy drugs. As most people know, these drugs act by tracking down and inhibiting DNA and (or) RNA replication or transcription sites. The bone marrow is a site of constant cell production. So you can see what happens next. Any tissue caught on the act of replication is destroyed. Alkyl nitrites also destroy bone marrow. Alcohol, tobacco, intense and chronic stress, steroids, all of these have negative effects on the immune system. A lifestyle could be a possible cause of immune deficiency. To overpower such an intricate defense system as our own , you would need a very powerful, aggressive and rapidly replicating virus like the ebola or the 1918 flu.

    Which takes me to the ultimate question.
    If I take a vaccine to develop antibodies in order to protect me from a certain invader, shouln’t HIV-positive tests be a good sign, for one is protected? They say the virus is an escape artist, evading our immune system by mutating and changing the outer layers. But strangely, four or so viral proteins remain constant in every single one of these viral strains. And yet, the body is able to recognize these same proteins, resulting in a positive HIV test. If the test is positive, the body recognizes the virus and is able to deal with it, no matter how much it mutates.
    Yet, the medical estabilishment, knowingly, urges people to get tested.
    I thought that having antibodies was a sign of protection, and not disease.

    And I just had to make other people think about this too, no matter how crazy it may sound to them. I had to make sure that I wasn’t the only one with a feeling that something was wrong. That after 20 or so years, all the intensive and extensive research has given us nothing. Only more chemo drugs, big pharma profit and empty hope. For I lived in terror since I was 8 years old, since I first heard of this thing called AIDS. Ever since I was terrified from being infected by this virus, for which there is no “cure” as of yet. And how it terrified me until recently.
    And I know how this HIV-phobia interferes with people’s minds and intimate lives.
    It sickens me how science has become a big political and money-making prostitute and how we, average Joes, have to pay with our lives for that.
    But I do hope things change in the near future.

  9. MartinDKessler Says:

    Well put Rezaf. Assuming that you haven’t read any of Peter Duesberg’s books or papers (especially the infamous 1987 Cancer Research paper), you as a scientist have a very logical thought process – a process expected of any competent scientist (and should be of any well educated (non-scientist) individual i.e deductive reasoning. I’m not a scientist – an engineer – but one does not have to be molecular biologist, organic chemist, or medical doctor to come to the same conclusions after reviewing the data. Assuming that most of the heavily degreed virus researchers had the rigorous scientific schooling, one would expect they should come up with the same clear-headed conclusions as you did in the previous comment. Scam is the word that comes to mind with respect to the AIDS Establishment – probably the biggest medical scam in the history of medicine.

  10. Robert Houston Says:

    My previous comment lacked a direct link to the remarkable 2006 paper by Dr. Mohammed Al-Bayati on the causal role in AIDS of corticosteroids, which are well-established immunosuppressive agents rampant in all AIDS risk groups. Entitled Examining the Causes of AIDS, it should be must reading for AIDS dissenters, yet seems to have been little noticed, as were his earlier papers expounding his thesis.

    Following my prior comment about Dr. Al-Bayati, Rezaf posted an remarkably sensible statement about the contradictions of the HIV theory and identified himself as “a chemist doing research on vanadium organomettalic catalysts.” This was an odd coincidence, for a primary focus of Dr. Al-Bayati’s original research has been the toxicology of vanadium compounds (e.g., Al-Bayati et al. Lymphotoxic action of vanadate. J Environ Pathol Toxicol Oncol 11:19-27, 1992).

  11. Michael Says:

    A piece entitled: “Bright Scientists, Dim Notions” by GEORGE JOHNSON and published in the New York Times: October 28, 2007 was poking fun at the ignorance of some scientists. His article was about Dr. Watson, who has been known for his provocative statements (please see “Stupidity Should be Cured, Says DNA Discoverer,” New Scientist, Feb. 28, 2003).

    However, the obviously not-too-bright reporter, George Johnson, then goes on to compare the gaff of Dr. Watson with the positions of Dr. Kary Mullis and Dr. Peter Duesberg for their positions on HIV not being the cause of AIDS:

    Kary Mullis, after grabbing a piece of the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, dove head first off the platform, expounding on the virtues of LSD and astrology and expressing his doubts about global warming, the ozone hole, and H.I.V. as the cause of AIDS. On the latter point he was following the lead of Peter Duesberg, a molecular and cell biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, and member of the National Academy of Sciences, who still insists that AIDS is caused by recreational drug use and even by one of the pharmaceuticals used for treatment. Iconoclasts at heart, the best scientists are faced with an occupational hazard: having left their mark on one small patch of ground, they are tempted to stir up trouble elsewhere.

    I would encourage all to send an email to the reporter at the following link:

    http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/j/george_johnson/index.html?inline=nyt-per

    I myself have just sent the following:

    Hey George. I think we need another article entitled “Bright Reporters, DIM NOTIONS.

    WTF George, just because you are too brain washed to actually look at all of the evidence that Duesberg and Mullis have presented, does not make them wrong.

    You said: Iconoclasts at heart, the best scientists are faced with an occupational hazard: having left their mark on one small patch of ground, they are tempted to stir up trouble elsewhere.

    Stir up trouble elsewhere? Do you mean as outside of their own field of knowledge?

    Peter Duesberg in the mid 1980’s was well known, even by Robert Gallo, as the “GREATEST RETROVIROLOGIST IN THE WORLD”. So please explain why the greatest retrovirologist, who also held the “Investigator of the Year” award”, which entitled him to research anything he chose, should not remark about or look into the ONLY HUMAN DISEASE said to be caused by a retrovirus???

    As for Mullis supposedly stirring up trouble in a field not his own, that is not true at all, because his position regarding HIV began with his invention of PCR being used to supposedly find HIV. He was asked to write on it, and to do so, he in turn asked for the very simple papers and cites for him to use as necessary references, that showed with any high probability that HIV was the cause of AIDS. Strangely, he never got any papers. Not from Gallo, not from Montagnier, not from the CDC and not from NIAIDS. He got no papers to cite because there ARE NONE! THERE ARE STILL NONE EVEN AFTER 25 YEARS!

    Gallo’s paper of 1984 shows ONLY 36% of his AIDS patients had evidence believed to be HTLV-III (HIV). The study itself said “MAY BE THE CAUSE OF AIDS”.

    Georgie, porgie, pumpkin pie! THIRTY SIX PERCENT DOES NOT MAKE A CAUSE OF A DISEASE!

    Perhaps YOU, BrightBoy George, will show Mullis, Duesberg, and the rest of us the paper that caused HIV to go from “may be the cause of AIDS” in April of 1984, to being called by our NIH Dept of NIAIDS: “THE VIRUS THAT CAUSES AIDS” a short 3 months later! There were no papers fool. And there still are no papers to prove HIV is the cause of AIDS.

    25 years, Zero Cured, Zero Saved! Wake UP there brainwashed boy, OR PROVE TO US THAT MULLIS AND DUESBERG ARE WRONG! SHOW US THE PROOF and we will be glad to believe that HIV causes AIDS!

    You might want to smarten up George, and actually READ what Duesberg had to say, and why he said it, as it is just as relevant today, as it was 20 years ago when he published his first paper and this time OPEN YOUR FRIGGIN MIND and shut YOUR FRIGGIN MOUTH until you have!

    When will bright reporters such as yourself, lose your own dim notions and understand that the “science of HIV” is not science, but pure politics! It is all “The Politics Of HIV” with nothing backing it but a trainload of well endowed grant recipients with blinders on who have refused to look at anything other than the belief in HIV, so they can keep themselves and the public moralized in fear of sex and keep their own gravytrain rolling!

  12. Truthseeker Says:

    Hot stuff, Michael, sock it to ‘im, as they say. In fact, Robert, Rezaf, Martin, Michael, the last five comments are of stupendous quality and will have to be made into posts which force them onto the attention of as many people as can be persuaded to come to this site, as soon as the unfortunately increasingly heavy constraints of time and resources allow the humble blogger to do this important work, plus post numerous other extremely notable developments brought to our attention by Commenters and other correspondents, as well as by the “newspaper of record”.

    The plain uncontrovertible fact now appears to be that any informed person who troubles to look at the question for more than half an hour can see now, in the aftermath of the last year’s worth of mainstream literature contradicting the empty assertion that HIV=AIDS, and all the comment that has been visited upon Fauci Moore Gallo et al by critics, that HIV does not mean AIDS, never has meant AIDS, and never will mean AIDS, as long as the moon orbits the earth and the earth orbits the sun, and not vice versa. As a scientific statement, “HIV causes AIDS” has about as much merit to it as stating that “Niagara Falls runs backwards” (which Oscar Wilde on being taken to see it said would be more impressive).

    It takes the plain statements of intelligent people like the last four Commenters to make this instantly obvious to any thoughtful person, but of course to get anywhere in the arena of propaganda and pr persuasion that is modern media-lab-investor-corporate-Nobel winning “science” it is necessary to mount an insurgent campaign of enormous financial and psychological power from a platform very high up in the pantheon of celebrity and riches, and mapping this campaign is taking an inordinate amount of time and will possibly bear fruit only in many months if not years to come, though we hope sooner.

    Anyone with a very large sum of money and willing to commit such resources and staff to assist in this campaign is enouraged to contact the blogger at the email given (anthony@newaidsreview.com) where any such help will be welcomed with open arms. Meanwhile we will continue to further this cause behind the scenes and get back to posting as soon as possible, with apologies for the interruption.

  13. Michael Says:

    TS, I don’t think JP Moore likes you: John Moore’s post today on Aetiology:

    http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/11/mbeki_still_in_denial.php#comment-632288

    Thanks, Adele, for your citation of our latest paper. I hope you found it of interest. If the trolls read it, I expect that will lead to the same kind of laughably inept deconstruction of its contents that happened when Anthony Liversidge attempted to interpret the meaning of one of my earlier papers on his Blog. All that proved to me was that the denialists were even more ignorant of the meaning of peer-reviewed science than I had ever suspected (in other words, I had been giving them way too much credit). Scientific ignorance underpins AIDS denialism, and is exemplified by the quality of the denialists’ postings on this site. It’s no wonder they ask the same questions over and over again, and then ignore the answers they don’t like – the reason is that they don’t understand the science, never have and never will. One might as well answer them in Swahili…….

    Posted by: John Moore | November 9, 2007 12:35 PM

    But my own personal favorite JP Mooron post today was:

    http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/11/mbeki_still_in_denial.php#comment-631723

    Let me be very, very clear here:

    AIDS science is indeed in a war with the AIDS denialists, and the denialist leadership is indeed being targeted, not by violence or by threats of violence, but by legal and moral methods intended to destroy their ability to influence vulnerable people who have been persuaded to make choices that damage their health and the health of others. It will take time to defeat all the denialist leadership, but it’s being done (as some of them have already found out) and, in the end, science and morality will crush pseudoscience and evil.

    That a war must be fought and will be won is sadly necessary as a life-saving measure. The time for scientific debate and discourse has long passed; the debate was held, and won by AIDS scientists, via the peer-reviewed literature over a 25-year period. The denialists refuse to accept their defeat, and continue to act against the best interests of public health. Hence the gloves came off, and it became necessary to move to a new phase – the destruction of AIDS denialism as a movement. However, I say again: this ongoing fight does not involve the use of violence against its leadership, or the issuing of threats of violence, and it never has. Geiger’s comments on this point are as foolish, inaccurate and misguided as his opinions on the relative sizes of SIV and HIV. And as he well knows, he himself is not being targeted as he’s not a leader of the AIDS denialist movement; we only go after the organ-grinders. Moreover, we consider Geiger’s craziness as advantageous to our side, so see no reason to hinder his actions.

    AIDS denialism kills people. It has killed tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of people in South Africa as a result of Mbeki’s personal denialism and dangerous public policies; it has killed very many individuals in the western world, including, ironically, many AIDS denialists who themselves died of AIDS (see the postings on AIDSTruth.org); it killed Eliza Jane Scovill. These sad, unnecessary and utterly avoidable deaths represent the casus bellum for the battle between AIDS science and AIDS denialism. We make no apologies for this war; it was thrust upon us.

    Freedom of speech has acknowledged limits when it comes to public health and safety. It is not legal to promote cigarette smoking by children; it is not legal to shout “Fire” in a crowded cinema; it is not legal to tell a drunk or a mentally impaired person to consume a bottle of bleach. At present, it is, unfortunately, still legal to deny that HIV causes AIDS and to oppose the use of antiretroviral drugs to treat or prevent HIV infection. Because the denialists do still have that legal right, there is a moral imperative to fight them, using whatever tactics are legally and ethically permissible.

    Geiger refers to my British origins (although as I am now an American citizen, his reference to having me deported is as misguided as the rest of his posting). A rather greater and better known Briton once said:

    we shall fight on the beaches,
    we shall fight on the landing grounds,
    we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
    we shall fight in the hills;
    we shall never surrender.

    This was a reference by Winston Churchill to the fight against the Nazis.

    It seems rather appropriate as a statement of AIDS sciences’ intent to defeat the AIDS denialists.

    John Moore

    Posted by: John Moore | November 9, 2007 1:25 AM

    I would have responded, but Tara has just banned all posts coming from my IP address.

  14. hhbauer Says:

    J P Moore is quoted as saying
    “Because the denialists do still have that legal right, there is a moral imperative to fight them, using whatever tactics are legally and ethically permissible.”

    I wonder how many among mainstream HIV/AIDS acolytes agree with him on “using whatever tactics are legally and ethically permissible”? Of those who do, I wonder how many regard it as ethical to attempt to have HIV/AIDS skeptics dismissed from their jobs, as Moore and Wainberg boasted of doing in a Globe op-ed some time ago? And I wonder whether the mainstream would choose Moore and his ilk as spokespeople for them?

  15. yello Says:

    Just a teensy-tiny little bit of devil’s advocate.Didn’t Dr. Harvey Bialy try to get Tara Smith in trouble with her dean at one point?

    I know, I know, that doesn’t BEGIN to compare with what the mainstream has done to us dissidents, just look at the comments at Tara’s post on the BBC Guinea Pig Kids “retraction”.

  16. Rezaf Says:

    Michael: Well, I’m not surprised that this Moore character treats legitimate criticizers of his work like he does. Here, where I live in, people are used this kind of superior attitude from MDs. In fact, people here tend to avoid doctors. Most of the doctors are doctors because of the status, prestige and monthly income of such human-made-god profession. Most of them lack the human factor so much needed for this job. But there are also very good doctors out there.

    Honestly, I don’t care if he phones my orientator, saying that I’m a mass murderer for letting people know that some things are more than meets the eye. I just tell them of the other side. I just show them the information and let them judge for themselves. I deal with people as an equal, regardless of academic rank education. Telling people that ELISA tests are not reliable for diagnosis and why is not a crime. Not telling them why is something different however. It’s as bad as a doctor handing out medicine without informing the patient of the its harmful side-effects. Or as medication without the mandatory informative sheet depicting those side-effects.
    I don’t even need to flood people with references to further solidify what I’m telling them, such is the fragility of the HIV=AIDS Goliath. Though I should.
    It’s curious, for example, the lack of ELISA testing for the flu. If one wants to be tested for the flu, the doctor draws some blood,ISOLATES AND PURIFIES the virus. That’s what I usually do with my vanadium complexes. I synthesise, ISOLATE AND PURIFY my compound, before I can properly CHARACTERIZE it with a combination of HIGHLY ACCURATE AND VALIDATED TECHNIQUES, such as 1H, 13C and 51V-NMR, FTIR, ESI-MS, DRX (if suitable crystals are grown), Elemental Analysis, UV-Vis spectroscopy and Circular Dichroism. I can’t even think of publishing whatever about a compound without at least the 1H-NMR, ESI-MS or Elemental Analysis and IR spectra of that compound. And even then, one cannot be 100% sure of what could be that compound without its crystal structure. But, hey, a true scientist like Mr. Moore doen’t need all that to safely conclude that B is the cause of A. Especially, when the big pharma knows that there’s big money to be made on B. Aside from that, he is an expert, after all. And expertise, in this case, seems to bypass all the scientific procedure necessary to produce scientific work. When there’s money to be made, of course. For years the pharma companies knew that to treat stomach ulcers all that was needed was an inexpensive antibiotic treatment. Yet, they hid this information from doctors and patients for as long as possible so that they could still reap the profits from the old and ineffective treatments. Human health is just as profitable as oil.

    Now for his attitude towards criticizers.
    We all remember when Mr. W. Bush said something like “Either you’re with us or you’re with the terrorrists”.
    Mr. W. Bush, also insisted on going to Iraq based on the (wrong) premise that Saddam had WMDs. Mr. Blair even forged reports and eliminated whistleblowers. Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair had the same propagandist speech as Mr. Moore has had until now. Of course, everyone knew that it was all about oil. They also used whatever tactics legally and ethically permissible. And probably some illegal and unethical ones. Until this day, no WMD was found in Iraq. And possibly the Iraqi is much worse now than it was before, but i’m just guessing here. The difference between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and Mr. Moore and company is that Mr. Blair has already waded his way out of the Iraq mess-up unscathed mainly because, well, he WAS UK’s Prime-Minister and powerful politicians tend to be untouchable in our European society. Mr. Bush is just the acting President of the only remaining superpower in this planet and no one is going to crucify him for the Iraq mess. His Administration will make sure he gets out untouched. That’s the power of politics for us common mortals. Mr. Moore, along with his fellow scientists, are not powerful politicians, thus, they are common mortals crucifiable just like any regular Joe. Probably to a crucifiable lesser extent, but still. Mr. Moore is just biding his time until he can safely reveal that HIV=AIDS is obsolete. In my 26 years of life, I’ve seen important people being destroyed overnight for much less. If I were in his shoes, I too would be worried battling dissenters with all my energy and might, delaying my sentence in the process. Because, if the evidence was to be known by the general public and this general public became aware of the dimension of the lie, I would also be responsible for sentencing thousandas to death with unreliable ELISA tests and deadly drugs. Mr. Moore is aware of his crucifiability at the moment. But his attitude is enough to give him away. It might work with the most gullible of humans beings, however.

    I could go on and on…

  17. Truthseeker Says:

    But his attitude is enough to give him away. It might work with the most gullible of humans beings, however..

    Good point among many, Rezaf. The guilty always help their prosecutors find the truth by giving the game away in some fashion which is secretly voluntary, so let us praise John for making it so clear by a) protesting far too much b) offering helpful tips in his papers that the dissenters are exactly right c) drawing attention to the critics as loudly as possible d) showing he has no scientific answer to scientific criticism.

    Thank you, John, for your activist support, much appreciated.

  18. Truthseeker Says:

    Well, we have posted a Comment on the Aetiology blog of the distinguished Tara Smith, and will expand it into a post anon. For the record, here is the post:

    Thanks, Adele, for your citation of our latest paper. I hope you found it of interest. If the trolls read it, I expect that will lead to the same kind of laughably inept deconstruction of its contents that happened when Anthony Liversidge attempted to interpret the meaning of one of my earlier papers on his Blog. All that proved to me was that the denialists were even more ignorant of the meaning of peer-reviewed science than I had ever suspected (in other words, I had been giving them way too much credit). Scientific ignorance underpins AIDS denialism, and is exemplified by the quality of the denialists’ postings on this site. It’s no wonder they ask the same questions over and over again, and then ignore the answers they don’t like – the reason is that they don’t understand the science, never have and never will. One might as well answer them in Swahili…….

    Posted by: John Moore | November 9, 2007 12:35 PM

    Good Lord. In view of our nomination of John (at New AIDS Review) for the Nobel for his early recognition in his own papers in peer-reviewed journals of weaknesses in the claim that HIV positivity leads to AIDS, this comment seems rather churlish.

    As anyone can check, we recently posted lengthy appreciations of two of John’s seminal papers which have offered supportive analysis and data to dissenters, which don’t seem to have been accorded the prominence they deserve. In what regard is our analysis “inept”? And why has John failed to post a correction on Science Guardian/New AIDS Review? He knows he is always welcome there, since we love to deconstruct the scientific claims of paradigm defenders by quoting from their own mainstream literature, although regrettably even fully paid up members of the HIV defense squad such as Chris Noble don’t seem to survive very long.

    We have praised John wholeheartedly for making the case against HIV/AIDS so clear by a) protesting far too much b) offering helpful evidence and analysis in his papers that the dissenters are exactly right c) drawing attention to the critics as loudly as possible d) showing he has no scientific answer to scientific criticism, and has only ad hominem attacks to offer, including appeals to universities to fire those who question the unlikely paradigm.

    In the light of all this some may think that John’s political performance in defending the HIV/AIDS paradigm is inept, but we believe there is a different explanation. We are fairly sure that Moore is a closet dissident, or at the very least, preparing his way to survive the collapse of this murderous paradigm unscathed.

    His consistent record shows us that while he may be perched on a high branch of the HIV/AIDS tree, he is driven by conscience to draw attention to the dissent and reinforce it with admissions in his papers. This is why we heartily approve of his helpful activities listed above and have nominated him for the top prize in science, which as you know reflects achievement in the cause of helping humanity.

    Bob Gallo and Anthony Fauci have also been nominated in our posts at New AIDS Review for their own contributions in making it clear in their papers that HIV is not and cannot be the cause of AIDS, Gallo managing to do this in his very first four papers on the topic, even before Peter Duesberg’s Cancer Research rejection of this irrational claim.

    We are just sorry that the Nobel committee can only include three names in any one prize, for it appears that John, for all his strenuous efforts to bare the truth in this realm, will miss out on the grand prize. Gallo, Duesberg and Fauci have already beaten him to it.

    Posted by: Truthseeker | November 12, 2007 1:01 AM

  19. Rezaf Says:

    That Moore the Inquisitor, has Moore the Silent Dissenter for an alter-ego is a real possibility. In fact, Moore the Silent Dissenter can very much be his real ego, just like Superman was born Superman. Clark Kent is the alter ego. Just like Moore the Inquisitor. Being burned at the stake by his sponsors for revealing the rotten apple now must be a scary reality. One might say that he is waiting for the next Renaissance of the medical science to finally come clean. Until then, he is covertly drawing attention to rotten apples present in the HIV=AIDS establishment without putting himself at risk.

    And it works pretty damn well too, his method. After reading AIDSTruth.org top to bottom, one can think something like ” If his theory is so true and invulnerable, then why is he wasting his energy destroying dissenters with maximum prejudice? Shouldn’t the sheer quality of his work speak for itself? So that one shouldn’t even worry about criticism at all? Then why all the propagandist speech and personal attacks? Why the terrorist label on dissenters?”.

    He knows, that by stripping the mainstream side from its professionalism, he is begging readers to take a look at the “terrorist” side for themselves. For there is a good possibility that the reader will become surprised by the sheer professionalism and expertise of the “terrorist” side. While the mainstream establishment behaves like a wounded beast, struggling to survive in the African savannah, the dissent movement easily makes its point as king of the jungle without roaring too hard or too loud. The radiant posture of a winner is enough.

    I believe that the catalyst for change for everything else in this wretched world is the Iraq fiasco. If someone can tell a lie that big, get away with it and profit from it, then anything imaginable and profitable is possible. People know this more than ever.

    P.S.: Exposing people to the other side of things doesn’t make them abandon safe sex procedures. After all, if it is not for HIV, then let it be for REAL STDs like herpes and syphilis with REAL symptoms and outcomes. I’m sure Mr. Moore knows this too.

  20. Rezaf Says:

    By the way, I’ve heard that the Foo Fighters also question the HIV=AIDS theory. And they have a solid fan base. It’s worth checking out if this is true. If it is, it seems that the wheel has been set in motion. Slowly but surely. I would love to see Mr. Moore attack these fellows.

  21. Truthseeker Says:

    The Foo Fighters an influence on national opinion? Hard to believe, since they have been admirers of Christine Maggiore for some time. Their sense that AIDS critics are right is well known, but hasn’t moved anyone as far as we know. The key is to influence people with influence, surely, rather than pop stars. Maybe Bono would have been effective, but it seems he is just as brainless at critical thinking as most celebrities are. The AIDS meme finds a warm welcome in the hearts and minds of all whose livelihood depends on crowd adulation, with the honorable exception of the Foo Fighters.

    Will the adorable Tara Smith post our post, or excise it for fear of it leading to the Frog critique? Interested parties wait to know.

  22. Robert Houston Says:

    Yes, Truthseeker, Tara Smith’s Aetiology posted your excellent
    Comment in reply to John Moore.

  23. Rezaf Says:

    Curious… In this T. Smith blog, the HIV=AIDS supporters do show a similar behaviour when confronted with simple (but crippling to their cause) logical questions, such as the ones posted by Noreen – still standing. Instead of presenting him\her with a sound and reasonable answer(s), they prefer to dismiss as another denialist\terrorist and bully him\her as soon as the questions become more direct and lethal as the virus/syndrome they so fiercely defend. They just repeat the same tape over and over, with condescending remarks like “wake up and face the reality”. Is this attitude the best HIV=AIDS supporters can do?

  24. Nick Naylor Says:

    TS, allow me to jump over all rants, battles, splits and such mind clutter at this particular moment, to congratulate you on the excellent ongoing debunking of the PLoS Novella piece and for posting at the Aetiology Mbeki thread in response to JP Moore.

    And he was in over his head with Noreen!!!

    Another woman of steel rises to the challenge.

    Best regards,
    Gene

  25. Truthseeker Says:

    Thanks Nick, after that encouraging comment it seems even more important to let the other shoe drop on Moore – specifying chapter and verse of his full list of helpful papers and the points they grant the dissenters, and see how he manages to argue with quotes from himself.

    Also we must finish off the Frog while admiring the delectable Tara’s inattentiveness to our progress in this matter, or perhaps it is her admirable dedication to free speech which permitted her to allow links to this site on her far superior one (superior at least in the scrumptious image of delectability posted at the top of every page). You have provided a kick start to both initiatives, Nick, thanks.

    Noreen certainly is feisty, and Michael is in high form too. Surely the delicious wench will not bar his posts if she countenances all the other entertaining and accurate ripostes against Mr. Moore?

  26. Rezaf Says:

    TS, your excellent work has inspired me to give my contribution to the cause. Though I’m a rookie in this very dangerous arena, I will do my best to give some more momentum to this cause.
    Heres my post on T. Smith’s blog. I tried to blend in as neutral faction so I wouldn’t be tagged on the spot. So here it goes.

    “Dr. Tara Smith,

    This particular thread caught my eye because in it I came to be aware of the so-called denialist movement. Until very recently, I never thought that such estabilished fact such as HIV being the cause of AIDS could be subject of so much dissent.
    Being a chemist, and thus, a scientist, and thus, with a natural curiosity over all things amazing, I also read what the denialist has to say about this. Though you consistently accuse them of cherry-picking and denialism, they do raise some valid points. One of which is the usefulness of the highly sensitive HIV ELISA tests.
    Being a layman in terms of medical science knowledge, say immunology, I don’t really know much about the technique of immunoassays, namely ELISA. So I used the quickest tool of readily-available source of knowledge: The WIKIPEDIA.
    I searched ELISA and antibody definitions. This is what I found on how to perform such test.

    “Performing an ELISA involves at least one antibody with specificity for a particular antigen. The sample with an unknown amount of antigen is immobilized on a solid support (usually a polystyrene microtiter plate) either non-specifically (via adsorption to the surface) or specifically (via capture by another antibody specific to the same antigen, in a “sandwich” ELISA). After the antigen is immobilized the detection antibody is added, forming a complex with the antigen. The detection antibody can be covalently linked to an enzyme, or can itself be detected by a secondary antibody which is linked to an enzyme through bioconjugation. Between each step the plate is typically washed with a mild detergent solution to remove any proteins or antibodies that are not specifically bound. After the final wash step the plate is developed by adding an enzymatic substrate to produce a visible signal, which indicates the quantity of antigen in the sample. Older ELISAs utilize chromogenic substrates, though newer assays employ fluorogenic substrates with much higher sensitivity.”
    “Because the ELISA can be performed to evaluate either the presence of antigen or the presence of antibody in a sample, it is a useful tool both for determining serum antibody concentrations (such as with the HIV test[1] or West Nile Virus) and also for detecting the presence of antigen. It has also found applications in the food industry in detecting potential food allergens such as milk, peanuts, walnuts, almonds, and eggs. The ELISA test, or the enzyme immunoassay (EIA), was the first screening test commonly employed for HIV. It has a high sensitivity.In an ELISA test, a person’s serum is diluted 400-fold and applied to a plate to which HIV antigens have been attached. If antibodies to HIV are present in the serum, they may bind to these HIV antigens. The plate is then washed to remove all other components of the serum. A specially prepared “secondary antibody” — an antibody that binds to human antibodies — is then applied to the plate, followed by another wash. This secondary antibody is chemically linked in advance to an enzyme. Thus the plate will contain enzyme in proportion to the amount of secondary antibody bound to the plate. A substrate for the enzyme is applied, and catalysis by the enzyme leads to a change in color or fluorescence. ELISA results are reported as a number; the most controversial aspect of this test is determining the “cut-off” point between a positive and negative result.”

    And now for the antibody definitions.

    “Antibodies (also known as immunoglobulins) are proteins that are found in blood or other bodily fluids of vertebrates, and are used by the immune system to identify and neutralize foreign objects, such as bacteria and viruses. They are made of a few basic structural units called chains; each antibody has two large heavy chains and two small light chains. Antibodies are produced by a kind of white blood cell called a B cell. There are several different types of antibody heavy chain, and several different kinds of antibodies, which are grouped into different isotypes based on which heavy chain they possess. Five different antibody isotypes are known in mammals, which perform different roles, and help direct the appropriate immune response for each different type of foreign object they encounter.”

    What I want is the composition of the binding section of the antibody:

    “Although the general structure of all antibodies is very similar, a small region at the tip of the protein is extremely variable, allowing millions of antibodies with slightly different tip structures to exist. Each of these variants can bind to a different target, known as an antigen.”
    “This region of the antibody is called the Fab (fragment, antigen binding) region. It is composed of one constant and one variable domain from each heavy and light chain of the antibody. The paratope is shaped at the amino terminal end of the antibody monomer by the variable domains from the heavy and light chains.”

    And finally I searched for antigen:

    “Antigens are usually proteins or polysaccharides. This includes parts (coats, capsules, cell walls, flagella, fimbrae, and toxins) of bacteria, viruses, and other microorganisms. Lipids and nucleic acids are antigenic only when combined with proteins and polysaccharides. Non-microbial exogenous (non-self) antigens can include pollen, egg white, and proteins from transplanted tissues and organs or on the surface of transfused blood cells.”

    This is where I ask you, Dr. Smith, the following:

    The technique:

    (1)-“Between each step the plate is typically washed with a mild detergent solution to remove any proteins or antibodies that are not specifically bound. After the final wash step the plate is developed by adding an enzymatic substrate to produce a visible signal, which indicates the quantity of antigen in the sample.”

    So this mild detergent recognizes the desired anti-hiv/hiv-antigen complex intact, and removes unwanted complexes like anti-flu/hiv-antigen for example? How is that possible?

    (2)-“In an ELISA test, a person’s serum is diluted 400-fold and applied to a plate to which HIV antigens have been attached.”

    To dilute 400-fold an already and naturally diluted sample is increasing the effect of associated error to any given reading. In such small concentrations, any contaminant can have a dramatic effect. And being a very sensitive technique doen’t help any further. It just just makes it a little too prone to erroneous readings, don’t you think? And who sets the limit for HIV-positive readings? Is it arbitrary? Or is there a single verified standard value?

    As for the chemical aspect of selectivity:

    (1)- “This region of the antibody is called the Fab (fragment, antigen binding) region. It is composed of one constant and one variable domain from each heavy and light chain of the antibody. The paratope is shaped at the amino terminal end of the antibody monomer by the variable domains from the heavy and light chains.”
    “Antigens are usually proteins or polysaccharides.”

    The amino terminal end is usually R-NH2. These can condense with terminal RCOOH of proteins, RCOH or RCOR’ of glycosides. Any organic chemist knows that primary and secondary amines react readily with aldehydes and ketones to yield schiff bases (RR’C=NR”R”’). In fact, this is why sugars are so damaging to diabetic people. Can you tell me then, how does an antibody tells the difference from flu or hiv antigen terminal ends? I know that there is some specificity to antibodies, this is why normal cells are safe. Mainly because they lack the terminal ends that react with home-made antibodies. But to which degree is there specificity to any given antigen?

    (2)- Few simple questions really. If HIV evades the immune system (mutates and changes envelope), why are people tested with the same constant viral glycoproteins?
    If HIV evades the immune system (mutates and changes envelope), shouldn’t all tests be negative in the first place (inability to recognize invader?).
    If HIV evades the immune system (mutates and changes envelope), and a positive test means that not does only the virus maintains certain glycoproteins constants and the body is able to recognize the invader, shouldn’t it be considered a sign of protection, as in any other disease?
    And being a recognizable invader ( thus disposable of) why does it still succeed in evading and destroying the immune system that can clearly see that hostile invader?

    I thank you in advance for for explaining me these set of doubts.

    Regards,
    Adão (Rezaf).”

    I really want to hear what they have to say for themselves.

  27. Douglas Says:

    Rezaf,

    If you look like a rookie to anyone, than I must look a moron. I posted there too a couple of days ago, just after TS. I fear I may have blocked his initial responses. A dissident posted just after me. I did see a couple of “Wows” from the adversaries that followed. It feels good to get back at them. They are clearly scoundrels and completely deplorable.

  28. Rezaf Says:

    Well, it seems that my comment did not pass Tara’s evaluation. I know it has some typos and all, but english is not my native tongue. I can always email her my questions, though.

    Douglas, I know what you mean. But I don’t consider them scoundrels and such, mainly because when one is faced with the (very possible) possibility of total annihilation, our true self comes to surface. It is the self that wants to survive at all costs in face of certain destruction. I think this is why they behave in the way they do. Because, if it wasn’t the case, then they would peacefully and confidently explain over and over why they support that theory.
    Instead, they resort to ad hominem and such underhanded tactics. If people that are questioning their theory maintain a proper attitude, even in the face of high hostility, the dissident movement will attract more and more people. Responding with hostility is just playing their game. It is their objective to make dissidents look like axe-wielding heretics.

    You don’t need credentials to think and decide for yourself, about yourself. Take comfort in the thought that you know things that most people don’t ever get to know of and you can do your part by informing those close to you about the other side of the moon. Let them see for themselves. Let them have some power of choice over their own lives. People are not as gullible as before.

    If, according to aids apologists, one can only debate this topic with proper credentials, then if we extend that to the real world, there’s no point to democracy and freedom of speech and thought, as most of us don’t have credentials to vote or debate about government policies and such, which affect people’s lives directly. AIDS apologists would make formidable dictators with their ‘Daddy knows best, son.’ behaviour.

    But there I go ranting again…

  29. Truthseeker Says:

    To dilute 400-fold an already and naturally diluted sample is increasing the effect of associated error to any given reading. In such small concentrations, any contaminant can have a dramatic effect. And being a very sensitive technique doen’t help any further. It just just makes it a little too prone to erroneous readings, don’t you think? And who sets the limit for HIV-positive readings? Is it arbitrary? Or is there a single verified standard value?

    Nice work, Rezaf. Maybe you ought to comment on the remark in the thread which explained that of course you dilute the sample, to increase the sensitivity. Roberto Giraldo, the MD who graduated with distinction from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine after obtaining an MS in clinical tropical medicine, and who has pursued infectious tropical and immunological diseases all over the world since, including AIDS since 1981, publishing AIDS and Stressors in 1997, and now works at Weill Cornell Medical Center in Manhattan as a technologist in the laboratories of clinical immunology and molecular diagnosis of the New York Presbyterian Hospital, and is thus very familiar with Elisas, Western Blots and PCR, has made the point that without dilution all blood samples are positive for HIV. What do you think of that one? He is scorned in the thread with the riposte that of course you have to dilute, in order to increase the sensitivity.

    Weill Cornell is where the rabid ad hominem defender of the paradigm (and presumably closet dissident, given the attention he draws to the problems with it) John P. Moore is perched on a higher branch, having won $500,000 funding from a drug company to test microbicides on innocent macaques and presumably sweating in the aftermath of the headline news recently that microbicides facilitate rather than deter the passage of HIV from partner to partner, though this is according to studies which don’t seem to make much sense as reported, just as the vaccine studies which reportedly enhanced HIV transmission don’t make any sense either. Should we suspect that the tests are inadequate if we get this kind of result?

    Anyhow, we wonder whether these men of science pass in the corridor with a friendly salute or in stony silence.

  30. Douglas Says:

    Rezaf,

    It just doesn’t pay to be fair with these bastards. They will not even accept your attempts to question them. They will not debate. Logic and facts do not concern them. They are completely without scruples and will snap at you without warning or reason. I suggest that we leave the snakes lie, know them for being dangerous and avoid them whenever possible but be armed with knowledge, for defense. We have better roads to travel.

    I was confronted with a JP Moore groupie only last month at a party. He slandered and libeled Duesberg as if Duesberg was Hitler. It initially Jarred my senses but I stood my ground and fought back fiercely and than terminated the conversation to enjoy the rest of the evening. At least I knew of the freaks. Thanks to TS and his blog.

  31. MacDonald Says:

    As far as I can gather from you people, your Comments on Tara’s are being held for moderation upon sending.

    As I have already explained in one of the “Frog” threads, if this is the case, they are effectually useless. This is because they will appear at the point in the thread where you posted it, NOT at the bottom. Your Comment will thus already be buried under dozens of newer Comments from people with direct acces when it appears.

    Rezaf, you can see Prof. Moore’s published answer to the 400 times dilution question here. Perhaps there is something in there that will answer some of your questions as well.

  32. Robert Houston Says:

    Here’s a link to the article by Roberto Giraldo, MD, about his experiments indicating that, without dilution, Everyone Reacts Positive on the ELISA Tests for HIV.

    To clarify Truthseeker’s previous comment: Dr. Giraldo received his medical training as an internist in his native Colombia, SA, and obtained an MS at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

    See Roberto A. Giraldo – Resume:

    Medical Doctor, Specialist in Internal Medicine with a Major in Infectious Diseases from University of Antioquia, Colombia. Graduated with distinction from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, University of London, after obtaining a Master of Science in Clinical Tropical Medicine.

  33. Rezaf Says:

    TS, McD and RH, thank you all. I’ve read Dr. Giraldo’s article and it was pretty self explanatory. It is truly a flawed technique. At least for this purpose. And when I explained this to some of my colleagues here at the lab, they all said something like:

    “What? So what is the point of one getting tested in the first place if the initial serum sample will always give positive result?”

    Deadly information to be spread. To the HIV=AIDS theory, I mean. Like garlic to Count Dracula. But since the HIV=AIDS theory is part of the undead, no matter how many deadly blows it takes, it always comes back for more. Where is that crucifix and stake when we need them?
    Or one just needs to, patiently, expose them to the sunlight?

    Btw, TS, I couldn’t find the thread where Dr. Giraldo comments about the tests. Nor the one where Moore comments on the 400-fold dilution detail. Did any of them comment on Tara’s blog?

  34. MacDonald Says:

    I’ll try again. If the link doesn’t show, google – John Moore The Curious Case of AIDS Denialist Roberto Giraldo – It’s pretty much top of the search

    http://www.aidstruth.org/howimmunoassayswork.php

  35. Truthseeker Says:

    Sorry, R, MacD is being inattentive and I forgot to find it myself. Will do. Dont ask me what was said on Tara’s blog, I don’t follow it for the simple reasons that a) too many troglodytes kicking sand b) too many trolls faking names and trying to sow dissension among the virtuous c) reams of bad science d) John Moore exhibiting his love of truth (not). It makes the mistakes and misinterpretations and misleading misapprehensions of the loyalist literature look like a refuge from the lunatic asylum.

    Not that this will stop us from launching twin five warhead nuclear missiles against the underground bunker wherein Moore lurks both there and here shortly. The effrontery of his claims that it is we who are unscientific is something to behold, and an excellent hook for the mother of all bunkerbusters.

    Good luck to John in contradicting his own words….should be an interesting spectacle.

  36. Rezaf Says:

    McD, TS, thank you again.

    This innocent bystander can’t believe the amount of propaganda speech in AIDStruth.org.

    I’ve read Moore’s explanation on ELISA. He doesn’t say, however, how the detection is made in case of chromogenic and fluorogenic assays. I suppose that such readings are made with spectroscopic techniques, in which the sensitivity not only depends on the equipment used, but on the concentration of the sample and the dimension of the sample cell as well. He fails to mention what is the colorant used in both cases, as no substance will exhibit the same absorption intensities for a given wavelength. Anyways, if this is the case, then a positive will always be a positive, no matter how diluted the sample is. The thing is that by diluting the sample, we will avoid signal saturation for a desired absorption band at a desired wavelength. A lower concentration or smaller cell will just lower the absorption band intensity. But the signal will still be there. And if one keeps diluting that sample, the equipment will not have enough sensitivity to detect that same signal, of course. But it still there. And I’m not even mentioning solvent interference. Even sample cells interfere to some extent.
    If that is the case, then Mr. Moore forgot to mention Lambert-Beer law of spectroscopy, A=elc.
    But then again, I’m supposing.

    And one washes the plates (before the reading!!!) to hide away the poly-specific nature of these tests? I would rest my case right there.
    And even if the washing is justified, if one is negative, there shouldn’t be any detectable signal in the first place, regardless of sample concentration.

    Then Mr. Moore starts talking about soups, as if there is any parallel between analyzing samples by spectroscopic method and making soups. The quantity of salt in a soup very much depends on the taste one has for salt. Some like it salty, others don’t. Some are more sensitive to the taste of NaCl, other are not. There is no gold standard for how much salt one should put in his soup. And even if there was, perception of taste varies from individual to individual. But then again, even the soup parallel is against him. If Mr. Moore is doing the cooking, then he has been giving us roasted cat instead of rabbit.

    If he says that this is a basic technique that, as he said so clearly, is “the kind of basic knowledge any professional immunologist or diagnostic specialist would learn in the first few days at work.”, then one doesn’t need 15 meter long Curriculum Vitae to blow this one out of the water. And I don’t have one. Nor I’m a professional immunologist or diagnostic specialist.
    So what’s the shock experienced by Mr. Moore when a specialist says that the tests are SO flawed (for the purpose) by questioning the same “kind of basic knowledge any professional immunologist or diagnostic specialist would learn in the first few days at work.”?

    I wonder what would happen if they did the same tests for Influenza?

    Yes…Godspeed to Lieutenant-General Moore.

  37. MacDonald Says:

    If that tickled your funny bone, Rezaf, how about the contemplated phasing out of the supposedly more specific confirmatory, gold standard Western Blot test in favour of EIA tests and a single approved NAAT test:

    Compared with newer assays, the WB and IFA are less sensitive to detect recent HIV infection, are more costly, and may require more laboratory expertise and time to perform. Since 2003, two third-generation enzyme immunoassays (EIA), six rapid tests, and a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) have been FDA-approved for diagnostic use in the United States. Several of these new assays are also approved to detect antibodies to HIV-2. Existing national guidelines do not address the application of these newer assays to help diagnose HIV-1 and HIV-2 infection. Compared with the current WB/IFA confirmatory algorithm, combinations of newer generation immunoassays and NAAT may identify some infections earlier; reduce testing costs; permit HIV-2 detection; reduce provision of false-positive, false-negative, and indeterminate test results; and increase the proportion of HIV-infected clients who learn their results and who are linked to appropriate care.

    http://www.hivtestingconference.org/

  38. Rezaf Says:

    Forgive my ignorance, McD, but NAAT is PCR, right? I thought that PCR was also unreliable.
    And those algorithms…Do they really plan to submit a patient to so much testing? With all the associated anxiety and psychological/physical stress, this is a sure plan to make anyone being tested turn positive.

  39. Truthseeker Says:

    Do they really plan to submit a patient to so much testing? With all the associated anxiety and psychological/physical stress, this is a sure plan to make anyone being tested turn positive.

    Is there any data to show a correlation between fear, panic and positivity, Rezaf, or do you just imagine from general principles that stress would cause more HIV positive results?

  40. Rezaf Says:

    Well, Truthseeker, I do not know of any data showing that kind of correlation. I don’t even know if anyone thought of that hypothesis. But after reading these articles from Dr. Giraldo:

    http://www.robertogiraldo.com/eng/papers/TreatingAndPreventingAIDS.html
    http://www.robertogiraldo.com/eng/papers/TestsForHIVAreHighlyInaccurate.html

    I do not have access to the work referenced in these articles, however.

    So I thought: If anxiety and stress are immunological stressors, thus causing oxidative stress, the immune system could produce antibodies in response to those stressors. The increase in antibody concentration in the serum could, in turn, increase the poly-specific response in the test. And since no one I know finds getting tested for HIV relaxing, an inconclusive result and further testing would only increase that stress and anxiety.

    But yes, you are right. Being a layman in these matters, what I said before was not scientific at all, but I can’t help to imagine what would be like being put through all that testing.

    Nevertheless, do you think that hypothesis could be possible?

  41. Truthseeker Says:

    Rezak, given that brain research confirms that mind and body are one, the idea of stress causing a positive result on a test which is questionable in more than one respect seems at least possible to me along the lines you suggest, if the chemistry makes sense. If you think it does we must find out if there is any data on PubMed.

  42. hhbauer Says:

    Thanks for the link to Moore’s revealing explanation of the tests (like TS, I can’t stomach following the TS blog).

    The fundamental validity of the tests depends on “the HIV antigen source (originally detergent solubilized virus, nowadays purified recombinant HIV proteins or peptides)”.
    But what was the source of the “virus” that was solubilized? A mixture of stuff collected at 1.16 density. Thereafter, “purified recombinant”–synthesized on the assumption that the aforesaid stuff was pure virus.

  43. Rezaf Says:

    Will do.
    I’ve been searching PubMed just to see if there was anything there, and I found some strange things:

    There’s this one

    (1) Cai T, Yao T, Li Y, Chen Y, Du K, Chen J, Luo W.Proteasome inhibition is associated with manganese-induced oxidative injury in PC12 cells.Brain Res. 2007 Oct 5; [Epub ahead of print] PMID: 17996855

    Which I cannot access.

    And read this one after that:

    (2) Aquaro S, Muscoli C, Ranazzi A, Pollicita M, Granato T, Masuelli L, Modesti A, Perno CF, Mollace V.The contribution of peroxynitrite generation in HIV replication in human primary macrophages.Retrovirology. 2007 Oct 21;4(1):76 [Epub ahead of print] PMID: 17949509 [PubMed – as supplied by publisher]http://www.retrovirology.com/content/pdf/1742-4690-4-76.pdf

    Both deal with oxidative stress generated by Mn compounds, in which ELISAs are used for different purposes. The first ELISA is used to measure the level of oxidative stress by detecting malonaldehyde, while the other uses ELISA to detect HIV production. In the second article, they mention that ” Moreover, evidence exists suggesting that enhanced oxidative stress may be involved in the pathogenesis of HIV infection and HIV-1 are under chronic oxidative stress.(…) In addition, elevated serum levels of malondialdehyde (malonaldehyde) and hydoperoxides, which are recognized as markers of lipid peroxidation subsequent to free radical overproduction, have also been found in asymptomatic HIV-1 patients early in the cousre of the disease.”

    While the first article says that chemical agents, such as manganese compounds, are responsible by measurable oxidative stress. In the second article, manganese compounds reduce oxidative stress?

    And this one, which I cannot access also:

    (3) Masiá M, Padilla S, Bernal E, Almenar MV, Molina J, Hernández I, Graells ML, Gutiérrez F.Influence of antiretroviral therapy on oxidative stress and cardiovascular risk: a prospective cross-sectional study in HIV-infected patients.Clin Ther. 2007 Jul;29(7):1448-55.

    In this one they measure the levels of oxidative stress after the patients were on ART, not before and after. And they conclude that peroxide levels in patients on non-nucleoside RT inhibitors were lower than in patietns on protease inhibitors. But fail to mention ( or it is not mentioned anywhere in the abstract) if the levels on both cases were higher or lower BEFORE people were subject to ART drugs.

    And then there’s this one:

    (4) Saha RN, Pahan K. Differential regulation of Mn-superoxide dismutase in neurons and astroglia by HIV-1 gp120: Implications for HIV-associated dementia.Free Radic Biol Med. 2007 Jun 15;42(12):1866-78. Epub 2007 Mar 31. PMID: 17512466 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

    Both (1) and (4) deal with neurodegenerative disorders related to Mn compounds, but with different causes.

    And this one is says it all:

    (5) de la Asunción JG, Del Olmo ML, Gómez-Cambronero LG, Sastre J, Pallardó FV, Viña J.AZT induces oxidative damage to cardiac mitochondria: protective effect of vitamins C and E.Life Sci. 2004 Nov 19;76(1):47-56. PMID: 15501479 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

    And this one too:

    (6) Velsor LW, Kovacevic M, Goldstein M, Leitner HM, Lewis W, Day BJ.Mitochondrial oxidative stress in human hepatoma cells exposed to stavudine.Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2004 Aug 15;199(1):10-9. PMID: 15289086 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

    This one looks interesting:

    (7) Gil L, Martínez G, González I, Tarinas A, Alvarez A, Giuliani A, Molina R, Tápanes R, Pérez J, León OS.Contribution to characterization of oxidative stress in HIV/AIDS patients.Pharmacol Res. 2003 Mar;47(3):217-24.

    But fails to mention levels of oxidative stress BEFORE HIV infection in order to estabilish some sort of comparison.

    Most of the papers that deal with oxidative stress and HIV infection don’t even bother to see if the levels of oxidative stress are the same before the patient is infected. They don’t even take in account the patient exposure to other stressors. How can they easily conclude that oxidative stress is caused solely by HIV? Maybe I have to look harder.

    Here’s another one:

    (8) de Martino M, Chiarelli F, Moriondo M, Torello M, Azzari C, Galli L.Restored antioxidant capacity parallels the immunologic and virologic improvement in children with perinatal human immunodeficiency virus infection receiving highly active antiretroviral therapy.Clin Immunol. 2001 Jul;100(1):82-6.

    In this one, anyone can easily conclude that you don’t need HAART to do what vitamins A, C and E do so easily.

    And there’s a whole lot of other papers that deal with oxidative stress and HIV infection. But most of them assume that HIV is responsible for the increase in oxygen radicals in the body.

    So I searched for other causes of oxidative stress, and found the following:

    (9) Long TC, Tajuba J, Sama P, Saleh N, Swartz C, Parker J, Hester S, Lowry GV, Veronesi B.Nanosize Titanium Dioxide Stimulates Reactive Oxygen Species in Brain Microglia and Damages Neurons in Vitro.Environ Health Perspect. 2007 Nov;115(11):1631-1637. PMID: 18007996 [PubMed – as supplied by publisher]

    Ooops! Some of the processed food we eat contains TiO2 as a colorant (colorant E171). It is also a pigment in cosmetic products.

    (10) Rosa EF, Takahashi S, Aboulafia J, Nouailhetas VL, Oliveira MG.Oxidative stress induced by intense and exhaustive exercise impairs murine cognitive function.J Neurophysiol. 2007 Sep;98(3):1820-6. Epub 2007 Jul 11. PMID: 17625057 [PubMed – in process]

    Intense and exhaustive exercise seems to be a cause of oxidative stress.

    (11) Bouayed J, Rammal H, Younos C, Soulimani R.Positive correlation between peripheral blood granulocyte oxidative status and level of anxiety in mice.Eur J Pharmacol. 2007 Jun 14;564(1-3):146-9. Epub 2007 Mar 7. PMID: 17395178 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

    If it happens in mice, it can very well happen in humans.

    (12) Greabu M, Purice M, Totan A, Sp̨nu T, Totan C.Salivary cortisol-marker of stress response to different dental treatment.Rom J Intern Med. 2006;44(1):49-59. PMID: 17236287 [PubMed Рindexed for MEDLINE]

    Going to the dentist and having bad teeth can be also a cause.

    (13) Arranz L, Guayerbas N, De la Fuente M.Impairment of several immune functions in anxious women.J Psychosom Res. 2007 Jan;62(1):1-8.

    In this one, it is said that ” RESULTS: The results showed diminished chemotaxis, phagocytosis, lymphoproliferation in response to phytohemagglutinin mitogen, natural killer activity, and interleukin-2 release, and augmented superoxide anion levels and tumor necrosis factor-alpha release in anxious women. Plasma cortisol was increased, while total antioxidant capacity was lowered in those subjects. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest impaired immune function and cytokine release in anxious women. This might be related to increased cortisol secretion, which would lead to oxidative stress reflected in lowered plasma total antioxidant capacity.”
    Could it be that anxiety alone does so much damage?

    (14) McEwen BS.Sleep deprivation as a neurobiologic and physiologic stressor: Allostasis and allostatic load.Metabolism. 2006 Oct;55(10 Suppl 2):S20-3. Review. PMID: 16979422 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

    Sleep deprivation is an immunological stressor. The resulting oxidative stress could lead to immune and cognitive impairment. So what happens if one gets HIV-tested and is insomniac?

    (15) Moyna NM, Bodnar JD, Goldberg HR, Shurin MS, Robertson RJ, Rabin BS.Relation between aerobic fitness level and stress induced alterations in neuroendocrine and immune function.Int J Sports Med. 1999 Feb;20(2):136-41. PMID: 10190776 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

    Again, anxiety appears to have effect on the immune function.

    (16) LaPerriere AR, Antoni MH, Schneiderman N, Ironson G, Klimas N, Caralis P, Fletcher MA.Exercise intervention attenuates emotional distress and natural killer cell decrements following notification of positive serologic status for HIV-1.Biofeedback Self Regul. 1990 Sep;15(3):229-42. PMID: 2223891 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

    An old one, but its about anxiety and immune response also.

    Though I was not able to find anything that deals with oxidative stress before and after HIV testing and status, it seems that most HIV related papers don’t measure precisely just that, what happens before and after. Is it because the HIV=AIDS scientists were never able to tell HIV-negative from HIV-positive? Is it because they know that there are other causes for immune dysfuction? Is it because they cannot prevent these interfering effects from expressing themselves in, for example, immunoassays?

    I don’t have access to the full papers, Truthseeker. I can only access Chemistry databases from the university computers. But I hope that at least the abstracts are of some use. And by cross-analyzing the results obtained by these people, I think it is very possible that intense anxiety alone could have some interfering effect on immunoassays. And that anxiety, such as many other immune stressors, are interferent factors not taken into account when HIV tests are done, because they have influence on immune function. Probably this will need more searching.

    What do you think?

  44. Truthseeker Says:

    I can only access Chemistry databases from the university computers. But I hope that at least the abstracts are of some use

    If all goes well we’ll access the full papers you list in our own university library tomorrow, Rezaf, on this interesting if tangled topic, but it seems you have something. The meaning of a positive HIV test is up in the air and its analysis is a can of worms, as far as we can see, well beyond the fact that HIV has been fully exonerated as a cause of any illness and thus the primary supposed meaning is null and void, epidemiologically speaking, as well as in the individual case. Cross reactions are multiple, of course, with TB in Africa causing much confusion there. Possibly a significant portion of test results judged positive are not caused by HIV, as has long been claimed by skeptics. But how many? Why for instance are black African Americans consistently scoring positive more often than whites? There are many here who feel they know the answers to these questions, from those who believe that the core paradigm analysis is true, to those who say that “HIV” itself is a questionable entity in this realm, as Henry suggests above (his book sounds this theme quite loudly) . But it all still seems a can of wriggling worms to us, and this issue of panic causing positivity is only one of them. But it is one of the most interesting, since fear has always played such a huge role in AIDS.

    On a point of information, Rezaf, why is your access to PubMed at your university library limited?

  45. Rezaf Says:

    There’s no department related to medical science here. It is mostly engineering and fundamental sciences. And since I’m in the chemistry department, my access is restricted solely to chemistry related journals. I have very limited access to PubMed publications, since most of them are not within the university’s subscription deals. It is especially restrictive when I’m directed to medical science journals, since it is not the area of my department.
    And I’m not alowed to go to other universities nearby and use their computers at my own discretion.

  46. Truthseeker Says:

    A post I have just sent to Aetiology, in case it gets barred:

    A challenge to Mr Moore

    “And of course I won’t respond to any questions you pose. That would involve debating or discussing science with an AIDS denialist, and our policies on never doing that are widely known.” – John P. Moore, Weill Cornell HIV=AIDS microbicide researcher, recipient of handy $500,000 grant from a drug company, and frequent analyst of fundamental flaws and omissions in the HIV=AIDS hypothesis.

    John, you seem blithely unaware of the fact that every time you make this avowal you are signalling that you lack answers. Is this wise?

    Moreover, the irony is that you yourself have raised many of the most pertinent questions as to the sense and quality of the work of HIV=AIDS researchers.

    Would you like us to give you a list of the papers in which you have made remarkable admissions of this kind?

    We have already dealt with one (and will shortly add more) on our modest blog ScienceGuardian/New AIDS Review in the posts John P. Moore Brings Down The AIDS Paradigm (Part 2)

    To quote from the introduction

    “To put it bluntly, John P. Moore Ph.D. has written a paper which tears out the thumping heart of his entire campaign in defense of the beleaguered paradigm and throws it to the paradigm attack dogs he is usually occupied with trying to kick as hard as he possibly can.

    The title of this quietly seminal work is a question: “Is there enough gp120 in the body fluids of HIV-1 infected individuals to have biologically significant effects?”

    The minireview can be found in Virology, 323 (2004) pp1-8, and is written with P. J. Klasse, who is also at the Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, 1300 York Avenue, W-805, New York NY 10021 (Fax 212 746 8340 jpm2003@med.cornell.edu).”

    Perhaps you wish to claim this is misinterpreted, but there is no comment registered by you since it was put up on May 30th. Do you have some problem in contradicting yourself? Perhaps you should ask Nancy Padian for advice on this predicament.

    Or possibly you wish to claim that your inability to reply is part of your policy of not replying to “denialists”, but again, this only signals to all thinking people that you are hiding.

    So tell us, why should onlookers credit a scientist who declines to try and answer any questions about his work?

    Can we credit him with confidence in his work?

    Can we credit him with pride in his work?

    Can we credit him with a sense of public responsibility?

    Can we credit him with a sense of responsibility towards those affected by his work?

    Sorry, we forgot that you refuse to respond to “denialists” (although as we have often pointed out to you we at Science Guardian/New AIDS Review are not suggesting any “conspiracy theory” and our role is merely to ask questions, as good journalists do, so that you may deny “denialists”, if you wish).

    Alas! Given your silence, we will have to judge all these points for ourselves, it seems.

    But will you accept our nomination for the Nobel, or at least the Lasker, for your many contributions to demonstrating the emptiness of the paradigm claim HIV=AIDS?

  47. Truthseeker Says:

    By the way Rezaf, the post referred to above at John P. Moore Brings Down The AIDS Paradigm (Part 2) harvested some excellent Comments by highly informed and acutely intelligent observers including MacDonald, Robert Houston and Nick Naylor, and among these were some by one fraorlando raising the point about stress and its effect on the immune system, which might be worth your inspection.

  48. MacDonald Says:

    Rezaf, assuming you are interested in looking further into HIV testing, let me introduce you to Rodney Richards if you haven’t already “met”.

    Rodney Richards

    Rodney Richards (2)

    Virusmyth – Rodney Richards Interview

    I will also take the opportunity to advertize Prof Henry Bauer’s new blog. which has started out with a few interesting posts about the tests from different angles.

    If my memory serves me correctly, an interesting explanation for why the virus doesn’t outmutate the tests is that the tests look for HIV core protein, p24. This protein it is claimed is under no pressure to mutate because only the envelope proteins are in contact with antibodies.

    I think it was even suggested that the reason why HIV doesn’t outmutate PCR detection is that the conserved/minimally variable regions are the very same that code for unchangeable core proteins…

    Unfortunately, when I asked if all the incriminating proteins on the WB strips are core proteins, my AIDStruth informant seemed to lose interest in the conversation and I was thus left dangling just as it got interesting. Among other things, I never got to ask about the nature of the “evolutionary pressure” (incentive to mutate) exerted by the HIV drugs.

    There is a further question of interest, however, that you or Nick Naylor might have something to say about; namely the idea that, in a highly mutable virus characterized as a “quasispecies”, only antibodies or drugs present evolutionary pressure, and that mutations in core proteins do not arise due to other circumstances, or “spontaneously” as it were.

    And so, by this maieutic flick of the wrist, I hope to get some of our biochemical experts going.

    PS. A thanks to TS for always keeping a vigilant eye on my typos. I DID notice how the offending “Z” in my previous Comment morphed into the correct “S” overnight.

  49. Truthseeker Says:

    Experimentalism in action

    The task of exploring and assessing the nonsense peddled by the AIDS scientific establishment is one of great difficulty and sacrifice, but we are driven by the spirit of scientific exploration and curiosity as to whether certain things can ever be done. Happily we are not alone, however. This spirit – and the frustrating experience of the blog host in struggling to tame the hot air balloon of irrationality that is HIV=AIDS – been experienced by others, for example, this kindred spirit on YouTube.

    Of course, despite the best efforts of Moore et al to design an HIV=AIDS balloon which resists all efforts to examine it from inside, their resistance is bound to be overcome, as our friend now demonstrates, with what we expect is going one day to be the same final outcome in our own battle with a monstrous sphere.

    Moore of course expects to suffocate us, but like our friend, we mysteriously find we can breathe even when inside his balloon of antiscience, which might be said to prove that science is on our side, even if we can’t fully explain to onlookers why, just as this character surely can’t explain how he can “still breathe!”

  50. Rezaf Says:

    Another victim of the HIV=AIDS dogma.

    It is in Portuguese, but basically it is about a cook that was fired because he was diagnosed with HIV. Curiously, he was tested for HIV while he had tuberculosis. He took the case to trial, and the trial decided that he was “threatening public health” by working in a restaurant, and there could be the possibilty of infecting another people, though the scientific community here said that the chances of that happening were zero. And it appears that the cook’s medical doctor also violated patient-doctor confidentiality by revealing the patient’s HIV-positive status to the company that the patient worked for. And as such, the patient got fired. Not because of his (now cured) TB condition.

    Perhaps Mr. Moore agrees that if HIV-positives keep getting fired this way (due to his HIV=AIDS scare tactics), they won’t have money to buy the drugs he loves so much.

    It is indeed sad.

  51. Braganza Says:

    Rezaf,

    1) The purpose of the dilution is the control of the reaction between the antigen and the antibody. Concentration (hence dilution) influence the selectivity of chemicals reactions. This can be easily understood in the context of organic chemical reactions where it is possible to have more than one product, which would be the case of reactions with chemicals with many functional groups (as proteins), heat sensitive products, and others. The variables that influence the distribution of products are pressure, temperature, concentration of reagents, nature of solvents (undergraduate knowledge). Dilution would modify both concentration of reagents and maintain a quasi-constant temperature of the reaction.

    I would therefore say that Dr. Giraldo results would have been previsible by any organic chemist with a bit of experience in protein reactions.

    2) Mild detergent remove all components of the serum that are not covalently bonded to the substrate, but would interact with it by weak dipole-dipole forces.

    3) The cutoff between positive and negative is determined by the person who developed the method and I expect to be statistical.

    4) you can read a lot more on Elisa and HIV tests, free of charge at Espacenet and at

    http://www.elispot-analyzers.de/english/elisa-animation.html;

    http://www.biology.arizona.edu/immunology/activities/elisa/main.html

    But why all this fuss ? Critical point of HIV analysis is not Elisa (“Elisa and HIV and false positive” at PubMed would give more than 2,000 hits), nobody would really be classified as HIV + only on the basis of one (or two) Elisa, there are more two assays that are expected to be performed WB and PCR, and the critical one is the latter one. (“PCR and “false positive” and hiv” would still give at PubMed some 200 hits).

    I would like to remember that both Gallo and Montagnier have sequenced the virus (this is the equivalent of the NMR/ etc.. that you were refering) Elisa is just a routine testing, as a TLC or a chromatographic analysis would be for a lab organic chemist.

    But in Aetiology, both Franklin and Adele have stated that PCR of HIV- is zero, and most of the papers on PCR errors looks to be due to errors of methodology that where not
    reproducible.

    If you really want to criticise the methodology, look at PCR for HIV and if you could find a flaw let me know.

    With all respect for your chemistry, and your interest in the HIV/AIDS question.

  52. Truthseeker Says:

    MacDonald, you are quite right, Tara’s vetting process puts the “denialists” at a disadvantage – she took 12 hours to post my last Comment. Oddly enough, however, I find that if you post a second one soon after, it goes straight through.

    Thus I just posted this and it went straight up:

    ———————————————————————————————-
    MOORE is a “useful idiot” for the denialists

    Mr. Moore, you do no one any favors by engaging these people. The very fact that a scientist from a major U.S. university considers it worth responding (over and over and over) to denialist viewpoints gives them credibility they do not deserve. You are just egging them on. And your hubris in quoting Churchill is beyond belief. You, sir, have turned into an internet troll.

    A. Carricci

    Please. Do not discourage the incorrigible incredible Mr Moore from posting copiously here, since as noted in our challenge to him above (A Challenge to Mr Moore, held up by Tara for 12 hours till safely buried in the sequence) he has been most helpful in publishing many papers pointing out fatal flaws in the established HIV=AIDS paradigm.

    We support Mr Moore fully in his strenuous publicizing of the fact that he not only has no answers to the “denialist” cliams but actually supports them in his papers.

    Now that Harvey Bialy has retired from the fray, we count Mr Moore the leading denialist in HIV=AIDS. Not only does he deny that the “denialists” have a case, he denies that the paradigm makes sense.

    In other words, Mr Moore is a brave man – a closet dissident who tells his secret in the light of day. That is why he deserves the Lasker, if not the Nobel.

    Posted by: Truthseeker | November 19, 2007 1:31 PM
    ———————————————————————————————————-

  53. Rezaf Says:

    Braganza,

    I thank you for enlightening me on those points. Please understand that I’m not used to work with proteins so it all still seems a bit strange to me, since I work with fine chemicals in catalysis. But regardless of my inexperience in the matter, here is what I think.

    1) What you said it is true in every point. And I know that, of course. In my case, the concentration of the catalyst(s) I used have an ideal value for them to catalyze asymmetrically. Above or below that value, the catalyst is not so effective for that purpose. I had to optimize the concentration doing various experiments in order to find an optimal concentration for asymmetric induction. But more diluted catalyst will not prevent it from doing its thing, even if slower and with lower asymmetric induction. The reaction is still going. So the 400-fold dilution may attenuate the poly-specific nature of the ELISA, but is it eliminated completely?
    And in asymmetric catalysis, it is very rare to find 100% enantiomeric selectivity. It means that we will almost always have some sort secondary reaction or undesired products.

    2) I see now. But mild detergent will not remove undesired components that are covalently bonded. And you suppose that only the desired protein will react in this case, since the 400-fold dilution will optimize just that.

    3) My question here is how did that person determine when it is positive or not. Since in TLC, or better, HPLC, if you have the right wavelength for detection you can clearly see if you product has formed or not. Even the minor detectable and identifiable product is a “positive”, you might say. But then again, that also depends on the detector sensitivity. So I thought, in a naive way, that a negative in HIV-test would be a complete absence of reaction. Or at least detectable one.

    4) The virus genome may have been sequenced. I’m not denying the existence of the virus or whatever has been made with the virus. But I do question the cause of AIDS being this single virus. But what is the structural or functional difference between HIV RNA and other RNA that guarantees the selectivity of PCR towards HIV RNA? And how does PCR differentiate from a single RNA nucleotide from a fragment of RNA? It appears what I’ve read about PCR didn’t mention these details. Probably it is a very simple reason that a very inexperienced chemist such as myself couldn’t think of.

    And I assume that you, Braganza, are also a scientist and are also familiar with procedures in papers that cannot be reproduced. Minor details that are not mentioned (willingly or not). Great but irreproducible results and values, despite following the written procedures to the line. Lies that sometimes published in peer-reviewed papers. You may say then that I may lack the expertise. That may be. Those that guide me are experts have tried and also failed in those cases. And even wrote e-mails to the authors asking how did they do it and never got a reply. I my short experience, I came to realize that in face of this, it is sometimes better to keep questioning what it is written in papers and develop our own methods that WORK. So you can understand why I question things. I’m curious.

    And on a personal note, the fuss is that I was always afraid of being tested and getting an unexpected result, even if the past circumstances made that unexpected result completely impossible. And I always had a feeling that the test weren’t that reliable. Call it gut feeling.

    So please, Braganza, tell me what you think and correct me, if necessary.

  54. Truthseeker Says:

    For your interest, Rezak, David Crowe has drawn the attention of Tara, Moore, Noble and the rest of the baying rabble on the Mbeki thread to his useful page of quotes on all aspects of tests, which we have now listed in the right hand margin of this humble blog under the title David Crowe page on HIV Tests.

    We like this one:

    “[on an HIV test consent form] This test will tell if I have antibodies to HIV. Having antibodies, and therefore a positive test, does not mean I have AIDS or that I will necessarily get AIDS or any other disease…Like many things, the tests are not perfect…Sometimes the tests may be positive even if I do not have the infection because the test are complex and simply not perfect. This is called a “false positive.” My health care professional will explain these facts to me and will advise me and offer me more counseling if the result is positive…The social risks of a positive test [whether true or false positive] are that I may be thought to be infected and I could be turned down for life or health insurance, housing, a job, or school even though such kinds of discrimination may be wrong or illegal”
    University of Michigan Hospitals HIV test consent. University of Michigan. 2006 Jan [accessed]
    Click here.

    A rare peep of honesty above the floodwaters of deadly nonsense, somewhat inexplicable at this late date. Perhaps it is a fantasy – the link provided leads nowhere now. Perhaps Moore got to it.

    Here is what they have now, the standard terrifying line, though couched in general terms:

    Although the HIV tests are very precise, sometimes the test result can be positive even though you do not have HIV infection (this is called a false positive test). For this reason, when a positive result occurs, labs perform a second HIV test (Western blot) to check the result.

    What if my test result is positive?

    If your first test for HIV is positive, you should have more blood tests to confirm the results. If repeat tests are positive, you should seek medical care, even if you have no symptoms. In some cases you may need to start taking medicine to try to stop the HIV infection from developing into AIDS. You need to discuss the test results with your health care provider or an HIV counselor as soon as possible to protect your health and the health of people you love.

    Written by Jonathon Evans, MD.

    The attached date 2005 is earlier than the Crowe quotation’s 2006, however, so presumably the later addition was by someone else reading NAR, whose enlightening contribution was then excised by Dr. Jonathon Evans, whose parents were evidently unable to spell.

  55. MacDonald Says:

    But why all this fuss ? Critical point of HIV analysis is not Elisa (“Elisa and HIV and false positive” at PubMed would give more than 2,000 hits), nobody would really be classified as HIV + only on the basis of one (or two) Elisa, there are more two assays that are expected to be performed WB and PCR, and the critical one is the latter one. (“PCR and “false positive” and hiv” would still give at PubMed some 200 hits) . . . But in Aetiology, both Franklin and Adele have stated that PCR of HIV- is zero, and most of the papers on PCR errors looks to be due to errors of methodology that where not reproducible.
    If you really want to criticise the methodology, look at PCR for HIV and if you could find a flaw let me know.

    Braganza, a word of advice: The shite that wins you applause over at Aetiology, such as citing Adele and Franklin as authorities, won’t fly around here. If you would care to read the history of the HIV antibody tests from Rodney Richards which I have posted just above, you might learn how moronic your question about “all the fuss” is.

    Here’s one flaw for you to start with: PCR can’t do anything on its own. Up until recently no PCR test was licensed to determine the presence of HIV. Up until recently, WB was considered the gold standard that determined whether a PCR test was a true positive or negative. Or how do you think they decided that the “errors of methodology” (not referenced by you) were errors?

    Here’s something via John Kirkham that the great scientists Adele and Franklin must have overlooked – and there’s plenty more where it came from:

    Holguin et al 1998. AIDS, Vol. 12, p2076-2077:

    “Since viral load tests have been approved for the quantification of viraemia in already known HIV-seropositive individuals, we were interested to know their specificity. For this purpose we selected 20 healthy volunteers, all of whom yielded negative results for HIV antibodies using different screening tests. Plasma from all of them were analysed by three different currently available HIV viral load tests: branched DNA (bDNA) signal amplification assay (Chiron), nucleic acid sequence based amplification (NASBA) Nuclisens, and Ultradirect reverse transcriptase (RT)-PCR Monitor. The detection limits of these assays are 500, 40 and 20 HIV RNA copies per ml respectively. Moreover, we used two different HIV-1 monitor kits (Roche, Madrid, Spain), one using primers exclusively designed for recognising HIV-1 subtype B and another with non-B primers.”

    “In summary, two samples yielded positive results by the bDNA assay, with values of 2020 and 10620 HIV RNA copies per ml. Another two specimens yielded false positive results by the NASBA Nuclisens, with values of 150 and 480 HIV RNA copies per ml. Finally, one of the 20 samples was interpreted as positive by the Ultradirect RT-PCR Monitor assay, with a value of 73 HIV RNA copies per ml. Moreover, using the monitor test with non-B primers, up to four of the 20 samples yielded positive values, ranging from 28 to 253 HIV RNA copies per ml. RESULTS WERE REPRODUCED IN MORE THAN HALF OF TESTED SPECIMENS FOR WHICH PLASMA VOLUMES WERE ENOUGH FOR REPEAT TESTING. The experiments were all performed by a single well-trained laboratory technician. Furthermore, CONTROLS RUN DURING THE STUDY EXCLUDED CONTAMINATION AS A SOURCE OF FALSE POSITIVE RESULTS.”

    Now Braganza, pretty please with sugar on top, do your own f-ing homework before you bother us again.

  56. Rezaf Says:

    I thank you again, Truthseeker. I will read those quotes with most attention.

  57. Truthseeker Says:

    Rezaf, your reaction will be interesting. The page at David Crowe’s Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society with all the quotes on false positives should have been linked here, specifically, so here it is – False Positives page.

    Here is another, perhaps better quote from that page:

    “In 1990, of 20.2 million HIV tests done in Russia only 112 were confirmed and about 20,000 were false positives, 1991 saw some 30,000 false positives out of 29.4 million tests, with only 66 confirmations…in 1991 alone some 8000 false-positive results were reported in pregnant women, with only 6 confirmations [presumably with the Western Blot test]” – Voevodin A. HIV screening in Russia. Lancet. 1992;339:1548.

    Maybe you have to go to Russia to get at the true situation.

    Others we like:

    “The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that the two tests used to identify HIV – the ELISA and the Western blot (WB) – used in combination, have a better than 99% accuracy rate, but only if they are performed repeatedly. (The exact rate is unknown and the CDC states that it has no data on just how many false positives versus false negatives occur!)…The CDC estimates that 0.6% of Americans are HIV-positive…Using the CDC estimate that 0.6% of Americans are HIV-positive, in a population of 10,000, 60 Americans would test positive! This 60 must include all the false positives, 30, leaving only 30 people actually infected. This leads to the following conclusion: using a 99% accuracy, one finds as many false positives as true positives. Even if the results of both AIDS tests, the ELISA and WB, are positive, the chances are only 50-50 that the individual is infected.” – Stine GJ. Testing for Human Immunodeficiency. AIDS Update. 1999;357-371.

    “18 subjects had 1 or 2 positive results with v.2.0 and an undetectable confirmatory test for a false positive rate of 4.4%. The rate is similar at baseline (9/183 subjects = 4.9%), wk. 4 (7/162= 4.3%) and wk. 26 (2/44 = 4.5%). Of the 18 pos. specimens, 9 tested pos. once and 9 twice. With version 3.0, 11 of 67 samples tested were pos. (16.4%). 6 were pos. once and 5 twice. The range of false pos. rates was 9.1% at wk. 4 (total of 22 specimens) to 26.7% at wk. 26 (total of 15 specimens). A week 4 sample with two values of 8,000 copies/ml on v.2.0 was neg. by DNA PCR, p24 antigen and Western Blot. Follow-up testing of this subject at wk. 26 was negative for HIV antibody and RNA. The emotional impact of a false positive screening RNA test in a recently exposed person is significant. With the high false positive rate, we do not advocate the routine use of HIV RNA tests to screen asymptomatic people. The high rate of repeat false positive tests in a given sample (50%) suggests a possible biologic mechanism ”- Roland ME et al. Pitfalls of HIV RNA testing in the San Francisco post-exposure prevention (PEP) project. Conf Retroviruses Opportunistic Infect. 1999 Jan 31-Feb 4;6(101):Abstract no. 179.

    “A small number (15% to 20%) [!] of [ELISA and WB antibody] tests from low-risk patients will be indeterminate and remain so even if repeated over many months”– Minkoff HL. Human Immunodeficiency Virus in pregnancy. Semin Perinatol. 1998 Aug;22(4):293-308.

    “We report a false-positive result on an enzyme immunoassay screening test for antibodies to human immunodeficiency virus in a 32-year-old nonpregnant woman who belonged to none of the usual risk groups. Because of the patient’s employment in an animal care facility, she had received a series of three vaccinations for rabies, and 16 days after the last vaccination, she had donated a unit of blood. It was during routine screening on a sample drawn at the time of donation that the repeatedly reactive enzyme immunoassay screening test occurred. The results of a Western blot were indeterminant. A polymerase chain reaction assay was negative for proviral DNA.”- Pearlman ES, Ballas SK. False-positive human immunodeficiency virus screening test related to rabies vaccination. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1994 Aug;118(8):805-6.

    “A 25-year-old nurse injured her hand on the edge of an operating-table. She was given a prophylactic injection of tetanus immune globulin. The following day a blood sample was taken to test for hepatitis B markers and HIV antibody…HBV markers were negative but she was anti-HIV positive with both ELISA tests used in our laboratory, and the same sample was western blot positive, showing reactivity against all viral proteins…A second blood sample, taken 12 days later, was anti-HIV negative by ELISA but showed reactivity for gp120 and p24 by western blot. A third sample, taken 1 month after the first, was negative by both ELISA and western blot” – Gonnelli A et al. Transiently positive HIV antibody test after treatment with tetanus immune globulin. Lancet. 1991 Mar 23;337(8743):731.

    “144 dog sera were tested on Chiron Western blot strips. Of these, 72 sera (50%) reacted with one or more HIV recombinant proteins” – Strandstrom HV et al. Studies with canine sera that contain antibodies which recognize human immunodeficiency virus structural proteins. Cancer Res. 1990 Sep 1;50(17 Suppl):5628-5630.

    “Tommy Morrison had a seemingly boundless future in 1996. A former heavyweight boxing champion, he had had a starring role in “Rocky V” and was in line for his biggest payday, a showdown against Mike Tyson. All that came to an abrupt end, though, when he tested positive for H.I.V…In 1996, he tested positive for H.I.V. These days, he is back in the ring. He fought in West Virginia in February, and his return has raised questions of just how a fighter whose blood tested positive for H.I.V. in 1996 could test clean today.

    This year, Morrison took two separate blood tests to support his assertion that he was not infected with H.I.V., West Virginia officials said last week. The test results provide new details on why they licensed him to return to the ring 11 years after he tested positive.

    Two nationally renowned H.I.V. experts reviewed those and a third blood test for The New York Times, and said they suggested Morrison had been knocked out of the ring by false positive tests — if, indeed, the new tests are his blood…Morrison, 38, who has often derided conventional views on H.I.V. and AIDS, said he was pleased to hear some experts supported his assertion of a false positive.

    “People are starting to wake up,” he said last week in a telephone interview. “There’s been a lot of careers destroyed along the way for no reason. Mine’s certainly been one of them.” The Times obtained copies of three documents, not previously made public, that purport to be tests of Morrison’s blood this year.

    One of them, negative for H.I.V. antibodies, was a report from LabCorp in Phoenix on blood drawn Feb. 6 and was released by Peter McKinn, Morrison’s promoter. The second, which did not detect H.I.V. in DNA, was a LabCorp report on blood drawn Feb. 14 and was released by West Virginia. The state used those tests to license Morrison to box, said Michele Duncan Bishop, general counsel for the West Virginia Department of Revenue, which oversees the athletics commission. A third test, from Specialty Laboratories of Valencia, Calif., on blood drawn Jan. 5, indicates Morrison tested positive for H.I.V. antibodies but negative for H.I.V. in RNA. That report was released by Randy D. Lang, Morrison’s former legal adviser, who said the antibody result showed Morrison was still infected. But the experts said the RNA result in the same report raised the possibility that the antibody result was a false positive…The mixed result in the Jan. 5 test makes it “likely that the antibody result is a false positive,” according to Dr. Daniel R. Kuritzkes, a Harvard professor who directs AIDS research at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and is chairman of the board of the H.I.V. Medicine Association. Kuritzkes reviewed the test for The Times. Without additional blood work, he added in an e-mail message, “it’s hard to know for sure what’s going on, but I suspect he was never H.I.V.-infected.”

    Dr. Michael P. Busch, director of the Blood Systems Research Institute and a professor of laboratory medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said H.I.V. antibody screening was misinterpreted a small percentage of the time. He said the RNA and DNA tests, which measure the virus directly rather than through antibodies, would virtually prove that the person was not harboring even a latent infection. “If those results are really all from this person, I would tell you there is no way this person is infected, so something is wrong with those earlier results,” Busch said. Busch said there was a biological basis for some false positives on H.I.V. antibody tests, which makes some people repeatedly test false positive, although the reasons are not well understood.” – Eligon J, Wilson D. Morrison says error in H.I.V. test hurt career. NY Times. 2007 Jul 22.

  58. Truthseeker Says:

    Questionable tests

    Rian Malan was rather good on the way HIV tests go astray in Africa, we were reminded just now writing the post just up in the UN humiliation in fessing up to exaggerating African statistics.

    Newcomers to the problem benefit from a highly readable style in presenting this stuff, so here are a few slices of juicy beef he wrote in Rolling Stone Magazine, November 22, 2001, AIDS in Africa: In Search of the Truth:

    On October 18th, 1993, they walked into Kinshasa’s Mama Yemo Hospital, led by Peter Piot, 34, a Belgian microbiologist who had been to the institution years earlier, investigating the first outbreak of Ebola fever. A change was immediately apparent. “In 1976, there were hardly any young adults in orthopedic wards,” Piot told a reporter. “Suddenly – boom – I walked in and saw all these young men and women, emaciated, dying.” Tests confirmed his worst apprehensions: The mysterious new disease was present in Africa, and its victims were heterosexual. When researchers started looking for the newly identified human immunodeficiency virus, it turned up almost everywhere – in eighty percent of Nairobi prostitutes, thirty-two percent of Ugandan truck drivers, forty-five percent of hospitalized Rwandan children. Worse, it seemed to be spreading very rapidly. Epidemiologists plotted figures on graphs, drew lines linking the data points and gaped in horror. The epidemic curve peaked in the stratosphere. Scores of millions – maybe more – would die unless something was done.

    These prophecies transformed the destiny of AIDS. In 1983, it was a fairly rare disease, confined largely to the gay and heroin-using subcultures of the West. A few years later, it was a threat to all of humanity itself. “We stand nakedly before a pandemic as mortal as any there has ever been,” World Health Organization chief Halfdan Mahler told a press conference in 1986. Western governments heeded his anguished appeal for action. Billions were invested in education and prevention campaigns. According to the Washington Post, impoverished AIDS researchers suddenly had budgets that outstripped their spending capacity. Nongovernmental AIDS organizations sprang up all across Africa – 570 of them in Zimbabwe, 300 in South Africa, 1,300 in Uganda. By 2000, global spending on AIDS had risen to many billions of dollars a year, and activists were urging the commitment of many billions more, largely to counter the apocalypse in Africa, where 22 million were said to carry the virus and 14 million to have died of it…….

    It seemed something was confounding the tests, and the prime suspect was plasmodium falciparum, one of the parasites that causes malaria: Of the twenty-one subjects who tested positive, sixteen had had recent malaria infections and huge levels of antibody in their veins. The researchers tried an experiment: They formulated a preparation that absorbed the malaria antibodies, treated the blood samples with it, then retested them. Eighty percent of the suspected HIV infections vanished.

    The researchers themselves admitted that these findings were inconclusive. Still, considering that Africa is home to an estimated ninety percent of the world’s malaria cases, the implications of the report seemed intriguing. I asked Dr. Luc Noel, the WHO’s blood-transfusion-safety chief, for his opinion. He insisted there was no cause for concern. Then he handed me a booklet detailing the outcome of the WHO’s evaluation of commercial ELISA assays. In it, I found two of the three tests that had been used in South America – the very ones that supposedly went haywire, kits manufactured in Britain and France, respectively. One was rated By WHO as ninety-seven percent accurate, the other, ninety-eight percent.

    On the other hand, I couldn’t help noticing that according to the literature Noel had given me, the disease police apply at least five confirmatory tests to every blood sample before such high accuracy rates are achieved. What happens if you use just two, or one? And if your subjects are Africans whose immune systems are often, as UNAIDS head Peter Piot once phrased it, “in a chronically activated state associated with chronic viral and parasitic exposure.” There may be an answer of sorts……

    In 1999, the Institute screened thousands of blood samples using ELISA tests that has achieved excellent results in a WHO evaluation. Test-driven in a lab in Antwerp, Belgium, one test scored 99.1 percent accuracy, while the other achieved a perfect 100. But in the field, in Africa, it was another story entirely. There, exactly 3,369 samples came up positive on one ELISA, but only 2,237 of those (66 percent) remained positive after confirmatory testing. In other words: a third of Ugandans who tested positive on at least one of these supposedly near-perfect ELISAs were not carrying the virus. What does this say about countries where AIDS statistics are based on a single ELISA? A high-ranking source at UVRI – one who insisted on anonymity – said that the WHO estimates for AIDS in such countries “could be as much as one-third higher than they actually are.”

    I took this up with Dr. Neff Walker, a senior adviser at UNAIDS, who at first seemed puzzled. “The standard WHO/UNAIDS protocol calls for two tests in countries with a higher prevalence,” he said.

    But according to a WHO report, “Confirmation by a second test is necessary only in settings where estimated HIV prevalence is known to be less than ten percent.” This means that in countries like mine, estimates are based on one unconfirmed test…..

    Back in 1994, Max Essex, head of the Harvard AIDS Institute, and some collegues of his observed a “very high” (sixty-three percent) rate of ELISA false positives among lepers in central Africa. Mystified, they probed deeper and pinpointed the cause: two cross-reacting antigens, one of which, lipoarabinomannan, or LAM, also occurs in the organism that causes TB. This prompted Essex and his collaborators to warn that ELISA results should be “interpreted with caution” in areas where HIV and TB were co-endemic. Indeed, they speculated that existing antibody tests “may not be sufficient for HIV diagnosis” in settings where TB and related diseases are commonplace.

    Essex was not alone in warning us that antibody tests can be confused by diseases and conditions having nothing to do with HIV and AIDS. An article in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1996 said that “false-positive results can be caused by nonspecific reactions in persons with immunologic disturbances (e.g., systemic lupus erythematosus or rheumatoid arthritis), multiple transfusions or recent influenza or rabies vaccination…. To prevent the serious consequences of a false-positive diagnosis of HIV infection, confirmation of positive ELISA results is necessary…. In practice, false-positive diagnoses can result form contaminated or mislabeled specimens, cross-reacting antibodies, failure to perform confirmatory tests…. or misunderstanding of reported results by clinicians or patients.” These are not the only factors that can cause false positives. How about pregnancy? The U.S. National Institutes of Health states that multiple pregnancy can confuse HIV tests. In the past few years, similar claims have been made for measles, dengue fever, Ebola, Marburg and malaria (again).

    And later in Africa isn’t dying of Aids in the UK Spectator Dec 13 2003:

    A year or so back, modellers produced estimates that portrayed South African universities as crucibles of rampant HIV infection, with one in four undergraduates doomed to die within ten years. Prevalence shifted according to racial composition and region, with Kwazulu-Natal institutions worst affected and Rand Afrikaans University (still 70 per cent white) coming in at 9.5 per cent. Real-life tests on a random sample of 1,188 RAU students rendered a startlingly different conclusion: on-campus prevalence was 1.1 per cent, barely a ninth of the modelled figure. ‘Doubt is cast on present estimates,’ said the RAU report, ‘and further research is strongly advocated.’

    A similar anomaly emerged when South Africa’s major banks ran HIV tests on 29,000 staff earlier this year. A modelling exercise put HIV prevalence as high as 12 per cent; real-life tests produced a figure closer to 3 per cent. Elsewhere, actuaries are scratching their heads over a puzzling lack of interest in programs set up by medical-insurance companies to handle an anticipated flood of middle-class HIV cases. Old Mutual, the insurance giant, estimates that as many as 570,000 people are eligible, but only 22,500 have thus far signed up.

    In Grahamstown, district surgeon Dr Stuart Dyer is contemplating an equally perplexing dearth of HIV cases in the local jail. ‘Sexually transmitted diseases are common in the prison where I work,’ he wrote to the Lancet, ‘and all prisoners who have any such disease are tested for HIV. Prisoners with any other illnesses that do not resolve rapidly (within one to two weeks) are also tested for HIV. As a result, a large number of HIV tests are done every week. This prison, which holds 550 inmates and is always full or overfull, has an HIV infection rate of 2 to 4 per cent and has had only two deaths from Aids in the seven years I have been working there.’ Dyer goes on to express a dim view of statistics that give the impression that ‘the whole of South Africa will be depopulated within 24 months’, and concludes by stating, ‘HIV infection in SA prisons is currently 2.3 per cent.’ According to the newspapers, it should be closer to 60 per cent.

    “A high-ranking source at UVRI – one who insisted on anonymity – said that the WHO estimates for AIDS in such countries “could be as much as one-third higher than they actually are.” Yes, sir. Confirmed today by the UN.

  59. Rezaf Says:

    I’ve managed to find some time and read part of the stuff you showed me, Truthseeker. And after reading some of the stuff, I can’t help to feel overwhelmed with relief and revolt. I can’t help to imagine what would happen to my life if I was tested positive (never happened, thank God!), knowing that past and present circumstances made that result impossible, and was unaware of all this information. What would the emotional impact do to me? I imagine if that happened, I had to carry the burden of premature, slow and painful death with the probability of having condemned others to the same death as well. All of this because of a single unreliable test (here in Portugal, all you get is a single ELISA and probably a WB. I still need to confirm that), that doesn’t even detect the virus.
    I can only imagine what others, unaware of this information, go through when they get tested and get positive. What I find even more disturbing is that doctors don’t even inform people about this. They don’t even say ” If I were you, I wouldn’t worry about those tests. It is very likely that you are ok. There are a lot of other conditions that interfere with HIV-tests. For example…”. Are they even aware of the flaws of HIV-tests?

    What I feel now is that my trust in our healthcare system is at an all-time low. If people start asking questions and start doing their own research and become aware of the other side of this story, public trust on healthcare will be broken. Probably permanently. Stories of people that got their carreers and lives destroyed because of a wrong diagnosis will come to come to the top. And then heads will roll. It is the worldwide (or nationwide) riot that I mentioned earlier.
    But this is the worst-case scenario. Politicians and doctors will find a way to crawl out of this one with minimal injury, for sure.
    And what is being done to the african people is scandalous.

    I would like to know if a hard-core, dissident-hating, HIV=AIDS crusader would really bet his/her life on a positive HIV diagnosis…

  60. Braganza Says:

    Dear Mc Donald,

    I have not a clue who is this John Kirkham.

    The Holguin paper shows that there was a problem with the primer/template design. This has been now solved with the introduction of the new test that you refer in your post. Papers like the Mendoza/Holguin/Soriano should be analysed in the historical context of a generational method development. I.e. As the basic principle is scientifically sound, the next generation assay would be more accurate.

    I also agree that PCR results from one lab may differ from the ones obtained by another lab (I dont know if John Kirkham has writen something about it, but I am guessing that this may well be another point), due to the fact that the primer design that has not been standardized.

    But is the basic principle behind PCR scientifically sound to detect (if it exist) HIV, and is the theoretical background of the method more solid than the one behind Elisa ?

  61. Braganza Says:

    Dear Rezaf,

    If you were tested positive, even in Portugal, you would probably look to your CD4 before taking any medication.

    And if you CD4 was really going down and your cytokines levels were anormal, you would look to the Net, and you would probably also look to non-antiretroviral treatments, such as Low Dose Naltrexone, resplenishing gluthatione via nutritional supplements, etc…

    The two HIV+ persons that I know are not using antiretrovirals, one is using a plant based extract and the other one is controling her Glutathione via reinforced nutrition.

    The positive test would allow you, as major effect, to take decisions to stop the eventual CD4 decline and immune dysfunction.

  62. Truthseeker Says:

    The positive test would allow you, as major effect, to take decisions to stop the eventual CD4 decline and immune dysfunction.

    Braganza, with some respect to you as someone who at least tries to think about this field, we still have to say that until you have a more sophisticated appreciation of what is going on in this arena, please restrain yourself from posting your advice on this site, since it is not only misleading but surplus to the requirements of other posters. This blog exists to inform people why the assumptions you are still making are naive and irrational, so if you would be willing to read a few earlier posts, starting from #1, it would help you raise your game. Try reading the last fifty posts, also, to catch up with what has been published in the mainstream literature in the last year or two, papers which make what you write above as null and void as it has long been thought by critics of the crumbling paradigm.

    We are trying to help people such as yourself to achieve a better understanding, not argue with you, so we don’t want to have to take apart what you write with the kind of rude characterizations which they are bound to elicit from the informed and intelligent posters here, who have reached an advanced stage of perceptions about the activity of Moore, Fauci, Gallo, Noble and other defenders high and low of the bad science which is being peddled, in direct contradiction of their own papers.

  63. MacDonald Says:

    Braganza,

    Once again, in a PCR test, how do they determine that an error has occurred? How do they determine that no error has occurred? They measure them against the results of other tests that you suggest PCR should be the gold standard for.

    You say the technical problems surrounding the primer design has been solved, and with it false positives? On what do you base this? Adele and Franklin? The fact that the test has been licenced?

    “If HIV exists”, as you say, its different strains are so divergent that no single primer can be relied on to pick up all of them. How is that possible since according to your authority, Adele, PCR is primed for the conserved parts of the HIV genome? when in doubt, they tend to go with the more inclusive test, meaning if the PCR registers a false negative, determined by reference to the, according to you, less valid antibody tests, they will amend it to pick up the undetected strain in the future.

    The problem of “standardizing the primers” is exactly this, to make the different tests correlate with each other – not the purified isolated HIV particle itself. Show me the way out of this wholly circular dance.

    Fer cripes sake, Barganza, the study I gave you above, which you call ancient history, is from 1998, more than 10 years and uncounted billons of dollars into PCR technology and HIV research. Does that not at least set off a yellow light somewhere in that dense darkness?

  64. Braganza Says:

    Truthseeeker,

    I will restrain to put my personal advice in this blog, as you request it.

    However as my purpose is to understand your position (and of the others who are regularly posting here), and check my understanding of AIDS/HIV against yours, I intend to ask questions, and make comments on your (their) answers.

    I would take some time to read all the 50 posts and this may also involve a lot of additional questions and comments.

    I just have read the Rodney Richards links provided by MacDonald, and there is at least a small problem. The reclassification of AIDS diseases does not look to be arbitrary, as they rely on similar underlying pathology, dysfunction of cytokines and unbalance of th1/th2. In some case succeptibility to these diseases as a function of the described underlying mechanism been proven as posteriory (after the reclassification) and could not therefore have been planned by some CDC officer, unless the guy was an intuitive genious.

    As Macdonald takes John Kirkham as an “HIV/AIDS authority”, he can read about what I state here in John’s link to doctor Kremer work’s at http://www.pharmharm.com/ and have more details.

    Just to clarify where I stand, I presently believe that for most HIV+ that are symtomatic and went to AIDS, Kremer description of the symptoms is correct, despite not agreing with him on the non-existence of HIV, and not knowing if the reversal of Th1/Th2, with the possiblity to pass from HIV+ to HIV- as suggested in David Lowenfells paper of Kremer book, has really been achieved.

    I believe that, on the basis of my contact with above described HIV+ people/ and others PubMed/orthomolecular medicine readings. , but I believe that HIVs+ may live normally (without going to AIDS stage) controlling their INF-alpha or glutathione, as diabetics can live controling their insulin. Others clinical parameters may be useful to follow but I presently dont have clear ideas about them. There may be a large number of techniques to achieve these results, some of them being used by a large number of HIV+ who are not using antiretoviral at the present moment, but are reading the internet or speaking with HIV+ friends.

    The fact that the classification of AIDS diseases is not arbitrary, and that there is some relation between HIV+ and them, looks to me to be an indicator that the testing is also not something that just fell from the sky.

  65. Rezaf Says:

    Braganza, I don’t know if you already read this, but here goes:

    “[Lawyer] Turner says ‘HIV experts acknowledge that there are problems measuring the actual viral load. Different laboratories and different PCR tests obtain markedly different results for the same viral load of the identical specimens’. Do you agree with that?
    [Gallo]Yes, I can’t testify to the court that it is markedly. There are also variations depending on how they purchase the assay and exactly what you look for and what your primers for the PCR are. We are getting technical but you can look for this part of the genome or you can look for that part of the genome and sometimes these don’t exactly correlate one to one. That is true…

    [Lawyer] Do you agree that the nucleic acid tests, that is the PCR tests, cannot be used to prove HIV infection?

    [Gallo] I mean of course you can use it as a component of evidence. You couldn’t use it to prove necessarily a virus.”

    Gallo RC. Testimony at appeal hearing of Andre Parenzee. Court of Criminal Appeal. 2007 Feb 12.

    “[This article is not about HIV, but it illustrates the dangers of relying on PCR-based tests for any disease] Dr. Brooke Herndon, an internist at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, could not stop coughing. For two weeks starting in mid-April last year, she coughed, seemingly nonstop, followed by another week when she coughed sporadically, annoying, she said, everyone who worked with her. Before long, Dr. Kathryn Kirkland, an infectious disease specialist at Dartmouth, had a chilling thought: Could she be seeing the start of a whooping cough epidemic? By late April, other health care workers at the hospital were coughing, and severe, intractable coughing is a whooping cough hallmark…It was the start of a bizarre episode at the medical center: the story of the epidemic that wasn’t. For months, nearly everyone involved thought the medical center had had a huge whooping cough outbreak, with extensive ramifications. Nearly 1,000 health care workers at the hospital in Lebanon, N.H., were given a preliminary test and furloughed from work until their results were in; 142 people, including Dr. Herndon, were told they appeared to have the disease; and thousands were given antibiotics and a vaccine for protection. Hospital beds were taken out of commission, including some in intensive care. Then, about eight months later, health care workers were dumbfounded to receive an e-mail message from the hospital administration informing them that the whole thing was a false alarm. Not a single case of whooping cough was confirmed with the definitive test, growing the bacterium, Bordetella pertussis, in the laboratory. Instead, it appears the health care workers probably were afflicted with ordinary respiratory diseases like the common cold. Now, as they look back on the episode, epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists say the problem was that they placed too much faith in a quick and highly sensitive molecular test that led them astray…At Dartmouth the decision was to use a test, P.C.R., for polymerase chain reaction…At Dartmouth, when the first suspect pertussis cases emerged and the P.C.R. test showed pertussis, doctors believed it. The results seem completely consistent with the patients’ symptoms…Then the doctors decided to test people who did not have severe coughing…“That’s how we ended up with 134 suspect cases,” Dr. Kirkland said. And that, she added, was why 1,445 health care workers ended up taking antibiotics and 4,524 health care workers at the hospital, or 72 percent of all the health care workers there, were immunized against whooping cough in a matter of days. “If we had stopped there, I think we all would have agreed that we had had an outbreak of pertussis and that we had controlled it,” Dr. Kirkland said…The Dartmouth doctors sent samples from 27 patients they thought had pertussis to the state health departments and the Centers for Disease Control…There was no pertussis in any of the samples…when the Centers for Disease Control tested those 39 samples [for antibodies], its scientists reported that only one showed increases in antibody levels indicative of pertussis…Dr. Cathy A. Petti, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Utah, said the story had one clear lesson. “The big message is that every lab is vulnerable to having false positives,” Dr. Petti said. “No single test result is absolute and that is even more important with a test result based on P.C.R.””
    Kolata G. Faith in quick test leads to epidemic that wasn’t. NY Times. 2007 Jan 22.

    “Because viral RNA levels [viral load] are quantified as copies of RNA per milliliter, it is possible that nonviable, but persisting, HIV-1 residues are being detected by such testing. This raises an even more fundamental question as to the validity of viral RNA monitoring in general.”
    Onuigbo MAC. Residual HIV-1 RNA After Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy. JAMA. 2000 Mar 1;283(9):301-2.

    “In contrast to previous reports…the viral load in the majority of the [long-term survivors] tested was detectable and, in some [long-term survivors], quite high…and variable over time.”
    Betts MR et al. Human immunodeficiency virus type 1-specific cytotoxic T lymphocyte activity is inversely correlated with HIV type 1 viral load in HIV type 1-infected long-term survivors. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 1999 Sep 1;15(13):1219-28.

    “The AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR Test is an in vitro nucleic acid amplification test for the quantitation of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 (HIV-1) RNA in human plasma…[It] is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV infection…Quantitative culture has limited utility for monitoring virus levels in infected individuals since only a small fraction of virus particles is infectious in vitro. Infectious virus is often undetectable in asymptomatic individuals…The clinical specificity of the…test was determined by analysis of 495 anti-HIV-1 negative blood donors. None of these specimens was reactive…Assuming[!] a zero prevalence of HIV-1 infection in the seronegative blood donors, the specificity of the test was 100%”
    Amplicor HIV-1 Monitor Test. Roche. 1999.

    Plasma viral load tests for HIV-1 were neither developed nor evaluated for the diagnosis of HIV-1 infection; therefore their diagnostic specificity is not well delineated when applied to persons who are negative for HIV antibody. We report two cases of false-positive results obtained by using branched-chain DNA assay…and one case…by using HIV reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)…These three cases illustrate the potential problems of using HIV-1 plasma viral load tests for diagnosis of HIV infection…Only patients who have a high pre-test probability of a positive result should be evaluated for primary infection by using plasma viral load testing [i.e. preconceptions about risk groups such as gay men makes a positive test more likely]…Their performance in patients who are not infected with HIV is unknown”
    Rich JD et al. Misdiagnosis of HIV Infection by HIV-1 Plasma Viral Load Testing: A Case Series. Ann Intern Med. 1999 Jan 5;130(1):37-9.

    “Initial testing of plasma by RNA RT-PCR was reported as positive. This result was not confirmed by viral cultures, nested DNA PCR, western blot, or EIA. Additional RNA RT-PCR assays gave positive results from earlier occasions in the vaccine trial. Eventually, testing of all previously reactive samples by RNA RT-PCR was repeated in a quality-controlled laboratory, and confirmed the negative HIV-1 status of the individual. Interpretation This case report exemplifies the difficulties with use of viral-genome measurement as a screening test to diagnose HIV- 1 infection, particularly in individuals who have ever participated in HIV-1 vaccine trials. Monitoring of large numbers of phase III vaccinees by RNA RT-PCR will not be feasible. The design of efficacy trials for new vaccines should be in parallel with development of antibody-based diagnostic tests that are capable of differentiating between immunisation and true HIV-1 infection.”
    Schwartz DH et al. Extensive evaluation of a seronegative participant in an HIV-1 vaccine trial as a result of false-positive PCR. Lancet. 1997 Jul 26;350(9073):256-9.

    “maintenance of plasma HIV RNA levels below 10,000/ml in early HIV disease appears to be associated with decreased risk of progression to AIDS. However, in patients with more advanced disease [low CD4 cell counts], disease progression occurred in up to 30% of patients with fewer than 10,000 HIV RNA copies/ml [In other words, viral load is not terribly well associated with progression to AIDS]…HIV RNA levels should not be measured within a month of acute illnesses or within a month after influenza and pneumococcus immunizations. Increases in HIV RNA levels in blood of as much as 300-fold have been observed within two weeks of routine immunizations against influenza, tetanus, or pneumococcus”
    Saag MS et al. HIV Viral load markers in clinical practice. Nat Med. 1996;2(6):625-9.

    “the majority (83%) of [flu] vaccinated [HIV-positive] individuals experienced a significant increase in plasma HIV-1 RNA levels within 1-2 [weeks after] immunization and returned to their prevaccination levels within 4 weeks after immunization…patients on antiretroviral therapy were not noticeably different from those not in therapy with regard to increases in plasma viremia”
    Staprans SI et al. Activation of virus replication after vaccination of HIV-1 infected individuals. J Exp Med. 1995 Dec 1;182(6):1727-37.

    “Primary infection with [HIV] is generally followed by a burst of viraemia [high ‘viral load’] with or without clinical symptoms. This in turn is followed by a prolonged period of clinical latency. During this period there is little, if any, detectable viraemia, the numbers of infected cells in the blood are very low, and it is extremely difficult to demonstrate virus expression in these cells…in patient 1 [high CD4 cell count], the frequency of HIV-infected cells is 1/10,000 in the PB [Peripheral Blood], and between 1/100 and 1/1,000 in the LN [Lymph Nodes]. In patient 6 [moderately low CD4 cell count], the frequency is between 1/1,000 and 1/10,000 in the PB, and 1/1000 in the LN. In patient 10 [low CD4 cell count], the frequency is between 1/10 and 1/100 in both PB and LN [but note that Piatak (1993) showed evidence that only 1/60,000 ‘infected’ cells were actually viable, infectious virions, and there is no word in the paper of which, if any, of these 12 people studied were ill]”
    Pantaleo G et al. HIV infection is active and progressive in lymphoid tissue during the clinically latent stage of disease. Nature. 1993 Mar 25;362:355-8.
    “Most CD4+ lymphocytes must be latently infected because we did not detect viral RNA in more than a small fraction of the cells in which HIV DNA was detectable. One in 100-400 cells with HIV DNA had viral RNA as abundant as productively infected cells; and a higher proportion of cells had low levels of viral RNA [up to 6%]”
    Embretson J et al. Massive covert infection of helper T lymphocytes and macrophages by HIV during the incubation period of AIDS. Nature. 1993 Mar 25;362(6418):359-62.

    “The [HIV-1 DNA PCR, ‘viral load’] assay did not appear more sensitive than classic serologic tests in the diagnosis of HIV-1 infection [all seronegative individuals were negative on DNA PCR, including those who had had unprotected sex with seropositive people]…it was even less sensitive, because the specimen from one of our seropositive individuals was negative on PCR with the three primer pairs. Our results are consistent with…Jackson, Taylor, and Lifson…However, our results are not consistent with those of other studies: Loche, Wolinski, Imagawa, and Ameisen observed positive PCRs in seronegative at-risk individuals. These discrepancies are difficult to explain.”
    Lefrere JJ et al. No evidence of frequent HIV-1 infection in seronegative at-risk individuals. Transfusion. 1991;31(3):205-11.

    But of course you have read this.
    But I repeat my question to you (because I want to hear it from you, since you understand more of PCR than I and also claim it is fail-proof):
    What is the structural or functional difference between HIV RNA/DNA and other present RNA(or DNA) that guarantees the selectivity of PCR towards HIV RNA? And how does PCR differentiate from a single RNA/DNA nucleotide from a fragment of that same nucleic acid (supposing that the virus was properly sequenced)? Do you think that this technology has improved much in the last 10 years?
    I find it curious that its inventor is a well-known dissident…

    It also seems that you would bet your life on a positive HIV diagnosis(not calling you hard-core, dissident-hating HIV=AIDS crusader,mind you. Regardless of your position, you are willing to debate and I respect you for that). Would you? After all, to you a positive HIV-test effectively discards all other causes of immune dysfunction. Those people that you know, what is their exposure to other immunological stressors? You know that, for example, malnutrition is a major and rapid immune destroyer (our western, refined diets are not particularly healthy). I wonder why they didn’t start on ARs? Can their deficiency be treated by proper nutrition? Or a change in lifestyle?

  66. Rezaf Says:

    Oh and I found these also interesting:

    Valdés-Ramos R, Benítez-Arciniega AD.Nutrition and immunity in cancer.Br J Nutr. 2007 Oct;98 Suppl 1:S127-32. PMID: 17922950 [PubMed – in process]

    Seifert S, Watzl B.Inulin and oligofructose: review of experimental data on immune modulation.J Nutr. 2007 Nov;137(11 Suppl):2563S-2567S. PMID: 17951503 [PubMed – in process]

    Turner PC, Burley VJ, Rothwell JA, White KL, Cade JE, Wild CP.Dietary wheat reduction decreases the level of urinary deoxynivalenol in UK adults.J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2007 Oct 17; [Epub ahead of print] PMID: 17940556 [PubMed – as supplied by publisher]

    You mentioned Th1/Th2, Braganza. I don’t quite know what that is but these guys use RT-PCR in the monitoring of celiac disease:
    Di Sabatino A, Pickard KM, Gordon JN, Salvati V, Mazzarella G, Beattie RM, Vossenkaemper A, Rovedatti L, Leakey NA, Croft NM, Troncone R, Corazza GR, Stagg AJ, Monteleone G, MacDonald TT.Evidence for the role of interferon-alfa production by dendritic cells in the Th1 response in celiac disease.Gastroenterology. 2007 Oct;133(4):1175-87. Epub 2007 Aug 14.

    Berrak SG, Angaji M, Turkkan E, Canpolat C, Timur C, Eksioglu-Demiralp E.The effects of iron deficiency on neutrophil/monocyte apoptosis in children.Cell Prolif. 2007 Oct;40(5):741-54.

    Ferguson LR, Philpott M.Cancer prevention by dietary bioactive components that target the immune response.Curr Cancer Drug Targets. 2007 Aug;7(5):459-64. Review.

    Son EW, Lee SR, Choi HS, Koo HJ, Huh JE, Kim MH, Pyo S.Effects of supplementation with higher levels of manganese and magnesium on immune function.Arch Pharm Res. 2007 Jun;30(6):743-9.

    Alvarez P, Alvarado C, Mathieu F, Jim̩nez L, De la Fuente M.Diet supplementation for 5 weeks with polyphenol-rich cereals improves several functions and the redox state of mouse leucocytes.Eur J Nutr. 2006 Dec;45(8):428-38. Epub 2006 Oct 11. PMID: 17036262 [PubMed Рindexed for MEDLINE]

    Alvarado C, Alvarez P, Puerto M, Gausser̬s N, Jim̩nez L, De la Fuente M.Dietary supplementation with antioxidants improves functions and decreases oxidative stress of leukocytes from prematurely aging mice.Nutrition. 2006 Jul-Aug;22(7-8):767-77. PMID: 16815491 [PubMed Рindexed for MEDLINE

    Alvarado C, Alvarez P, Jim̩nez L, De la Fuente M.Oxidative stress in leukocytes from young prematurely aging mice is reversed by supplementation with biscuits rich in antioxidants.Dev Comp Immunol. 2006;30(12):1168-80. Epub 2006 Apr 21. PMID: 16690124 [PubMed Рindexed for MEDLINE]

    Tauler P, Aguiló A, Gimeno I, Fuentespina E, Tur JA, Pons A.Response of blood cell antioxidant enzyme defences to antioxidant diet supplementation and to intense exercise.Eur J Nutr. 2006 Jun;45(4):187-95. Epub 2005 Dec 22. PMID: 16365696 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

    Erba D, Riso P, Bordoni A, Foti P, Biagi PL, Testolin G.Effectiveness of moderate green tea consumption on antioxidative status and plasma lipid profile in humans.J Nutr Biochem. 2005 Mar;16(3):144-9. PMID: 15741048 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

    This ONE is nice:

    Related Articles, LinksFoster HD.How HIV-1 causes AIDS: implications for prevention and treatment.Med Hypotheses. 2004;62(4):549-53. Review. PMID: 15050105 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]
    It seems that a good diet alone can reverse AIDS.

    Alhamdan AA, Grimble RF.The effect of graded levels of dietary casein, with or without methionine supplementation, on glutathione concentration in unstressed and endotoxin-treated rats.Int J Vitam Nutr Res. 2003 Nov;73(6):468-77. PMID: 14743552 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

    Beck MA, Williams-Toone D, Levander OA.Coxsackievirus B3-resistant mice become susceptible in Se/vitamin E deficiency.Free Radic Biol Med. 2003 May 15;34(10):1263-70. PMID: 12726914 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

    And I think there’s plenty more where that came from.

  67. Braganza Says:

    Dear Reza,

    Dont send me so much paper references, I have free access to most of the papers, and have been reading most of the information published in Pubmed on nutrients/ Immunodeficiency/HIV/aids and have a big box full of printed papers.

    I have looked systematically to the papers indicating relationships between each basic nutrient (Se, iron, cysteine etc …), cytokines modulation and HIVAIDS, and have been reading some books published on the subject.

    I am doint this because I have been invited to participate in a join research programme on controling AIDS in Swaziland with Mushrooms. Programme has not began because no funding has yet been found, but this is the primary reason that I am interested in the subject.

    I have submited another application with another University from Tanzania, to look to nutritional supplements, cytokines modulation and HIV/AIDS and but would have some answers from the funding charity only in January.

    Would your lab be interested in such work ? There is a funding from FP7 for collaborative work on marine products and we may do a join application, as I am in the UK. I have been contact with the University in Mozambic and they speak Portuguez like you.

    I should point that my background is in material science, so our lab is not really the best in the area, but we have all facilities to look at chemicals and separate them and I have made some partnership with others groups in the UK.

    On the two persons that are not using ARV that I have been in contact, one is using St John Worts extract, but he didnot provide me a lot of info on himself.

    The other one is a young woman, with very low cd4 (around 20). Her status was found after she was contaminated with cryptosporidium and could not eliminated the parasite naturally. She took the ARV during two months but develloped a major side effect. She had lipodystrophy, could not walk and develloped an hernia. She took the decision to stop the ARV and use Dr. Harold Foster system. Her CD4 didnot grow, but her hernia disappear (she may still have a hole) and she looks normal, she didnot have any OI during the last 9 months (after she stopped the ARV treatment).

    I am not commenting more about myself to dont upset Truthseeker.

  68. Truthseeker Says:

    However as my purpose is to understand your position (and of the others who are regularly posting here), and check my understanding of AIDS/HIV against yours, I intend to ask questions, and make comments on your (their) answers.

    I would take some time to read all the 50 posts and this may also involve a lot of additional questions and comments.

    Actually, Braganza, there are 389 posts, most if not all making some kind of point about the utter inconsistency of the paradigm HIV=AIDS with good science, good logic and even just with itself.

    Why would you need to ask questions when there is so much overwhelming evidence that it is utterly without credibility? Possibly because you do not start with the proper premise that a widely, even almost universally accepted notion can be totally out of kilter with reality. This is natural, because you like most human beings probably confuse repetition and imitation with confirmation and proof.

    The unfortunate fact is that many beliefs are repeatedly confirmed only because faith goes hand in hand with denial to produce an entirely false consistency. That is why it is extremely important not to make any basic assumptions in this area which conflict with what is generally known and genuinely confirmed in the field of health and viruses. This especially applies to the notion that HIV is the cause of AIDS or any illness, an idea which is known and referred to on this blog as the “HIV meme”, and one which once it enters the brain acts rather like a spanner shoved into the works of a racing car and paralyzes the workings of the critical faculties of your otherwise fine mind.

    What is needed is any reason to credit this paradigm, not any reason to discredit it. There is not one reason a priori to make this an assumption of your thinking, other than most people believe it, the New York Times accepts it without question, and the authorities and institutions of the world have made it a common global belief. But belief is not, of course, any kind of scientific evidence for a scientific fact, and indeed, much if not all scientific progress consists of replacing beliefs with new beliefs that often reverse the old ones.

    Bob Gallo suggested to the world in 1984 that his new candidate for the cause of AIDS, HIV, was “possibly” the answer, which quickly became the “probable” answer, and then “the right and only” answer, and finally the “incontrovertible, inarguable, sacrosanct and extremely well funded” answer to AIDS, supposedly, even though there was no evidence for that then or now that anyone can take home and put in the bank.

    And one very good indication of that is the endless discussion of details that if one pulls back and views the whole caboodle from afar are revealed as trees in a wood that one easily gets lost in if one stays on the ground. A meta view is essential if one is to see the true shape of the wood, and if one is to place discussion of the details in the context that will give overall consistency to what one finds. And that context is one which cannot contain the premise that HIV=AIDS.

    For that premise doesn’t give any consistency to the picture at all. In fact, it give rise to a huge mountain of inconsistency. It is all too easy to spend one’s life picking over that mountain for a few salvageable truths and facts, rather like the poor souls who scavenge the mountain of garbage outside Manila. Scientific confidence men like John P. Moore of Cornell are only too happy to encourage you to do so.

    What they fear is that you should reject the basic premise, HIV=AIDS, and discover that the mountain of inconsistency vanishes, and in its place is a beautiful lake of common sense and good science on which the rational scientific investigator such as yourself (we hope) can sail the slim white yacht of Reason and relax in the warm rays of the sun of Truth.

    Reach for true objectivity, Braganza, or you will be lost in the woods instead of sailing that calm open expanse.

  69. Truthseeker Says:

    I am not commenting more about myself to dont upset Truthseeker.

    On the contrary Braganza what you say seems very reassuring, since you seem to have the attitude of a genuine scientific investigator. We just hope that you are able to banish the insidious meme from interfering with your research into helpful nutritional treatments, which in our experience constantly present themselves as the real solution to the immune problems of AIDS, according to the total scientific literature on the subject.

    In a nutshell, it seems only too clear that in AIDS the immune system suffers from various assaults on its responses and its integrity from drugs, poor diet, malnutrition, starvation, and conventional disease, and the current medical treatment simply adds to the deterioration by broadening the decline to major organs, although the picture is confused by short term improvement due to temporary eradication of digestive parasites and psychological benefits, and of course improvement in diet, including in Africa simply access to decent food and water.

    The diversion of medical resources into a logically nonviable paradigm which leads doctors and other well motivated rescuers to administer poison instead of restorative nutrition is a scandal which people like John P. Moore, Mark Wainberg, Anthony Fauci, Robert Gallo and a host of drug company financed activists now have on their conscience, together with the fellow traveling editors and writers of science coverage who haven’t done the jobs for which they are paid and which readers count on.

    People such as yourself who still subscribe to this orthodoxy while searching for nutritional solutions deserve a great deal of credit for allowing their basic scientific instincts to operate regardless of the meme.

    Perhaps you like many people are forced into this position by the politics which rule funding, in which case we sympathise and would not expect you to profess otherwise.

  70. Demarque Says:

    Thanks Rezaf for your references, especially for those of Aquaro et al.

    http://www.retrovirology.com/content/pdf/1742-4690-4-76.pdf

    What I think is very suspect, is that our biologists do not verify the experiences of those biochemists, perhaps because it is just chemistry, as if life was not just chemistry.

    In my view, this discovery is crucial because it provides a means of entirely new research, which appears promising.

    For some years I think that peroxynitrites, that form very quickly when meeting NO and HO ° (k = 10 ^ 10 mol.s-1), are the main cause of death in T4.

    So I searched for what could be the compounds can be regarded as NO-donors.

    And I first found these NO-donors protect against cell death as the rate of thiols was sufficient. But as these NO-donors oxydize very slowly these thiols, after a time or longer, on the contrary, they cause cell death by formation of peroxynitrites.

    And of course, these NO-donors are those who, at one time or another, have been used on an ongoing basis by persons belonging to the so-called “risk group”.

    For example, isoniazid, a basic TB widely used in Africa, is a NO-donor.

    http://aac.asm.org/cgi/reprint/48/8/3006.pdf

    The poppers are obviously NO-donors.

    The viagra is, by definition, a NO-donor.

    The secondary amines, so easily oxidized in hydroxylamines, are also NO-donors as hydroxylamine itself.

    It is not surprising that in a recent study in Seattle, it was noted that the “transmission” of HIV is much higher in people with used poppers, viagra or crystal.

    And, last of last, AZT, like all azides, is also a NO-donor.

    What is interesting with AZT, and could reconciled us with the publication of Fischl et al., is that at the beginning of his treatment, it has an antiapoptotic effect , like all NO-donors if no impairment in thiols.
    Obviously, Fischl would have had to continue its study beyond 24 weeks, to observe the opposite effect.

    I am sure that what grows here Braganza to intervene and try to convince us to think otherwise, is that he has seen the effects of HAART since 1996, effects that we should not deny.
    But there is no physicochemical reason to believe that the only action known as “antiretroviral” can explain this success.

    On the contrary, the new chemicals used have what it takes to destroy peroxynitrites : a sulfur-II for 3TC, a phenolic ether for kaletra.

    By placing our point of view, the experimental data of Aquaro et al may also indicate that the peroxynitrites are causing an outbreak of P24, as well as budding microvésicles.

    Sorry for my trouble writing English. I am french (and chemist)

  71. Rezaf Says:

    Braganza,

    I am glad that you are trying to do what I think is a viable alternative to this AIDS problem.
    Like Truthseeker said, it is vital that alternative theories be heard and experimented. Imagine that immune dysfunction, even if HIV had some role in it, could be perfectly controlled with proper nutrition alone. That would be a hard blow to the pharmaceutical business in the field.

    Unfortunately, I work in an entirely unrelated field and have other commitments here. My interest in this matter is mostly because I fear for myself and for others close to me. I just wanted to free myself from the fear of something that not even our healthcare system is able to explain properly. I want to understand it and be able to explain to others why and why not, what is truth and what is belief. And I feel that I too have the obligation to inform others of what is going on and make them at least think twice about what is being told to us in the media. So that others close to me can free themselves from the fear of HIV/AIDS.

    Demarque,

    Don’t forget the nitrosamines. They are present in everything we eat, especially fried foods.
    So what do you think that it would be found if a set of HIV-patients or AIDS patients were subject to a restorative nutritional therapy (replenishing anti-oxidants,Fe, Se and important S compounds for example) while being protected from the action of aggressors such as NO-donors or other stressors that are responsible for oxidative stress?

  72. Braganza Says:

    Reza,

    With the new green light from Truthseeker, I would like to suggest you a potential study.

    I have understood that you are a chemist, presently working (or studying) in a chemistry department in Portugal, that you are interested in HIV/AIDS, and worry about what is happening in Africa.

    I was thinking that you may be interested in looking to the potential of using sulphated polysaccharides and nutrients to reduce mother-to-infant HIV transmission.

    I can (if you are interested) indicate why this should work.

    A success of such study may help to reduce the future and predictable large scale use of Nevirapine in poor African countries.

    As a chemistry lab, your services may be required to characterise chemically algaes polysaccharides, and provide an easy way of testing them. We are speaking of algaes which may be found in some African countries with large coastal areas-like Mozambic, South Africa, Kenya, etc.. and you will collaborate with other labs which would work on biological, and clinical assays.

    Five minutes ago I screened for potential funding agencies in Portugal and I found the name of the FUNDACAO CALOUSTE GULBENKIAN, that I thought may be approached to fund you. There may be others institutions.

    If you are still a student, don’t worry. You may prepare the proposal to have it funded exactly when you conclude and be contracted by your department to work on it. THE FUNDACAO would fund the University.

    I am out of the office without access to a computer until next Monday, but if you are interested I can provide you with some contacts at the University in Mozambic, they speak Portuguez like you and I am sure that they would be willing to collaborate in such venture.

    Dear Demarque,

    Montagnier in his book indicate that his HIV isolates induced apoptosis of CD4 cells in lab petri-dishes, and he didnot use any nitrites. My conclusion is that nitrites can only be a co-factor in the HIV/AIDS problem. (sorry Truthseeker, but I was thinking that Demarque was asking my opinion).

  73. Truthseeker Says:

    Damn. Tempted into posting again on Aetiology. But the blog had to be stood up for, even if the blog host should have kept quiet.

    ————————————————————————————–
    Tara, showing a typical disregard for the truth posters on your exciting thread here who support the orthodoxy (these two things go together, it seems) have added some shocking calumny which brings into disrepute my humble but accurate blog, Science Guardian/New AIDS Review, and besmirches my name with misleading statements.

    I know you will allow factual correction of this small stain on your otherwise great blogging achievement of hosting a no-holds-barred debate on this vexed topic of whether AIDS is a retroviral disease or a drug/conventional disease/nutrition problem.:

    Incidentally, for those posters on this thread who don’t actually know who Pat/Anthony Liversidge/Tony Baloney is, and why would you, he’s an elderly Englishman living in New York who runs a puerile Blog, New AIDS Review, devoted to AIDS denialism and other related conspiracy theories. His deadly rival, a person he loathes more than he hates any AIDS scientist, is Harvey Bialy, whose own Blog was much more popular and better written then his own. Pat/Liversidge/Baloney likes to think of himself as some kind of civilized, Anglo aristo type, but in reality he’s just Bialy-lite, posting the same material only with less humor and even sillier scientific content. He reserves a special place of hatred in his heart for the AIDS Truthies, because they listed Bialy and not him on their “Who are the denialists page”. He took this to be a huge personal slight. Pathetic when you stop to think about it – the price of a big ego attached to a small brain I guess.

    Molecular Spartacus Claw

    This is all subjective commentary (presumably by a Moore cohort, judging from the style) and not for us to contradict, but for the allegation that we detest the estimable Dr Harvey Bialy, when in fact we admire Harvey Bialy’s honesty, integrity, courage, intellectual acuity, careful vocabulary, scientific purity, and wicked sense of humor, including his explosive email hand grenades, as long as they are applied to other victims who deserve it, such as the incorrigibly disrespectful scientist, the self-celebrated John P. Moore, who by the way was eviscerated by Bialy’s dangerous literary antics only when he very rudely declined to debate Bialy in public, as is his evasive and telling wont (he also refused to have lunch with the enquiring editor from NAR, me, who applied to record his reasons for believing that HIV causes AIDS, which he has never dared detail, for some reason).

    Our single disagreement was over whether we deserved it when Dr Bialy gave us the same treatment. We hold him in great esteem. If only the establishment truth-denialists had half his brainpower and zeal for truth.

    Moore: On another subject, “Molecular Spartacus Claw” speculated about why Anthony Liversidge is not listed on AIDS Truth’s “Who are the denialists page”. We never for a moment considering adding him. Although he resembles Bialy in running a conspiracy theory/AIDS denialist Blog, it’s not particularly influential even in denialist circles. Moreover, Liversidge has no scientific training (accounting for the asinine content of what he posts), unlike Bialy who was able to use his degrees to persuade a few gullible journalists that he knew what he was talking about. Recording the reality about Bialy on AIDS Truth was therefore useful to show journalists who in fact they were dealing with; that situation would never arise with Liversidge. After all, if we listed Liversidge, we’d pretty much also have to list Michael Geiger…… One has to draw a line somewhere!….

    No “cooler”, you do not know what we’re going to do, but we are most certainly NOT going to post anything you have written on AIDS Truth. I’m afraid that, like Michael Geiger and Anthony Liversidge, you’re not significant enough to make it onto our site. So all your ramblings about “copyright” are completely irrelevant.

    John Moore

    Contrary to his shortsighted expectations, we thank God and the distinguished John Moore for his kind decision not to include us on his misleading, shamefully disrespectful, emotionally grotesque, intellectually denialist and antisocial site AIDSTruth.org since we are not at all scientific denialists, as he is.

    In fact we believe that the first principle of good science is that good scientists debate the truth with enthusiasm and respect for any person who raises a question in order to understand their science better, while politically driven and theoretically vulnerable scientists do neither.

    We are however, proud to be linked to the inimitable Michael Geiger, whose unrestrained passion for the truth results in often glorious prose whose ringing tones are literary music compared to the raspberries visited upon all truthseekers by the renowned John P. Moore, whose refusal to enlighten all of us with debate with “denialists” is not very convincing when he comments on what they say so copiously and is their best publicist.

    There is also the fact that he makes many of their points for them in his papers which as promised we will shortly be enumerating on the blog as a Thanksgiving present for the redoubtable Moore in exchange for his evident support of our position that the scientific literature of the field must remain the touchstone of truth for both scientists and laymen, including journalists.

    As to Tony/baloney having no scientific training, that’s an advantage in many ways. Being an outsider to science is an excellent qualification for seeing the Emperor has no clothes. Many advances in specialist fields come from outsiders, because they take less for granted. Journalists are outsiders trained to ask good questions on behalf of the public, and review the answers. Does Mr Moore or his goon object to this process?

    Let’s note that the flaws in HIV=AIDS are so obvious and clear that outsiders with no previous experience of science whatsoever can see through it, once they pay attention. Could this clarity be why Mr Moore prefers not to engage “denialists” directly? Surely not.

    We also enjoy and admire “cooler’s” ability to give Moore more than a run for his money. Right on, dog!

    By the way, Science Guardian is not a conspiracy theory blog, since we do not think there was ever an explicit plan to peddle the (even now still) unproven theory HIV=AIDS to government and public. But we have to say that the pr campaign to promote it and the behind the scenes bureaucratic response to dissent could count as a conspiracy, since it has been effectively coordinated by Fauci and his explicit censorship, according to memos that found their way into the public sphere.

    But in general we don’t allege any conspiracy and to say that we do is just the usual Moore ploy, an attempt to stain our reputation by association with 9/11 nuts, just as the word “denialist” tries to imply that dissent is not rational and not based on the published, peer-reviewed literature, as all comment at New AIDS Review is.

    And could it be that Mr Moore declines to publicise our humble blog for fear of what it says? Surely not.

    But how odd that a scientist who pretends to have all the science on his side is reduced to ad hominem disrespect as his only reply to our writings. What does that tell you?

    It tells us that the inarticulate Mr Moore is the dissenters’ best friend, a scientist who cannot lie, a secret ally to be cherished for his Fauci-flouting personal drive towards scientific reality which in this superb scientific mind cannot be gainsayed, even by 500,000 dollar bills.

    Posted by: Truthseeker | November 21, 2007 2:16 PM

  74. Nick Naylor Says:

    TS, I put these two up this morning.

    (1) Thabo Mbeki (excerpted from 4/3/00 Clinton letter)

    EXCERPTS: … It is obvious that whatever lessons we have to and may draw from the West about the grave issue of HIV/AIDS, a simple superimposition of Western experience on African reality would be absurd and illogical.

    Such proceeding would constitute a criminal betrayal of our responsibility to our own people. It was for this reason that I spoke as I did in our parliament, in the manner in which I have indicated.

    I am convinced that our urgent task is to respond to the specific threat that faces us as Africans. We will not eschew this obligation in favour of the comfort of the recitation of a catechism that may very well be a correct response to the specific manifestation of AIDS in the West.

    We will not, ourselves, condemn our own people to death by giving up the search for specific and targeted responses to the specifically African incidence of HIV/AIDS.

    I make these comments because our search for these specific and targeted responses is being stridently condemned by some in our country and the rest of the world as constituting a criminal abandonment of the fight against HIV/AIDS.

    Some elements of this orchestrated campaign of condemnation worry me very deeply.

    It is suggested, for instance, that there are some scientists who are “dangerous and discredited” with whom nobody, including ourselves, should communicate or interact.

    In an earlier period of human history, these would be burnt at the stake!

    ( . . . )

    The scientists we are supposed to put into scientific quarantine include Nobel Prize winners, Members of Academies of Science and Emeritus Professors of various disciplines of medicine!

    Scientists, in the name of science, are demanding that we should cooperate with them to freeze scientific discourse on HIV/AIDS at the specific point this discourse had reached in the West in 1984.

    People who otherwise would fight very hard to defend the critically important rights of freedom of thought and speech occupy, with regard to the HIV/AIDS issue, the frontline in the campaign of intellectual intimidation and terrorism which argues that the only freedom we have is to agree with what they decree to be established scientific truths.

    Some agitate for these extraordinary propositions with a religious fervor born by a degree of fanaticism, which is truly frightening.

    ( . . . )

    It is most strange that all of us seem ready to serve the cause of the fanatics by deciding to stand and wait.

    (2) “You must have missed my earlier general statement on this thread to the effect that I do not ever answer any questions asked of me by any AIDS denialist.”

    Professor Moore, you really are a lot of fun, I mean being so predictable and everything. As Truthseeker has so astutely pointed out, you’re the denialists’ best friend, and thanks to our gracious host Tara – who’s nice enough not to shut us down – we compile on the world wide web the substantive questions you refuse to answer.

    Here’s another one from a student puzzled by a biochemical paradox. How can quasispecies hypercycles according to Eigen be reconciled with lentiviruses according to Foley?

  75. Rezaf Says:

    Braganza,

    I appreciate your suggestion and offer very much. But I am about to initiate my PhD course here and the present circumstances do not allow me to actually do something useful in this matter. I have committed to work here for the next years in catalysis. But knowing what I know now and if I had the chance to do work in an alternative approach to the HIV/AIDS paradigm and do my part in boosting the reappraisal cause, I would take that chance.
    All I can do now is spread the word.

    You are familiar with Jonh P. Moore, Phd? HE is the reason why I found the dissident movement. He is also the reason why the dissent always shines and excels in the rebuttal of the HIV/AIDS theory. Ever read AIDStruth.org? That is where it all started for me. Then came the emails to his peers.

    This one is simple but very funny.

    http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/2006/06/scientists_gone.html

    An innocent and ignorant bystander such as myself thought:

    ” If Mr. Moore is so sure of his science, why all the aggressiveness and evasion? Evading debate is not a way of conveying confidence to the audience. Especially if the purpose is to convince the audience of the validity of HIV/AIDS theory in face of criticism.”

    Don’t you get suspicious when a politician goes “I will not comment on that subject”?

  76. MacDonald Says:

    The reclassification of AIDS diseases does not look to be arbitrary, as they rely on similar underlying pathology, dysfunction of cytokines and unbalance of th1/th2. In some case succeptibility to these diseases as a function of the described underlying mechanism been proven as posteriory (after the reclassification) and could not therefore have been planned by some CDC officer, unless the guy was an intuitive genious..

    The fact that the classification of AIDS diseases is not arbitrary, and that there is some relation between HIV+ and them, looks to me to be an indicator that the testing is also not something that just fell from the sky.

    This argument supposedly came from a scientist, so I must be the idiot since I don’t even understand what it’s meant to prove or refute. Can somebody with the ability to put together a coherent argumentation please help me out here?! Have I conceded something vital on the part of Rodney Richards if I accept the HIV tests didn’t fall out of the sky? Am I an ignoramus if I don’t immediately see the underlying and HIV unique connection between cervical cancer and salmonella? Am I the moron if I don’t see that Th1/Th2 imbalance in Aids patients proves HIV is the cause of T-cell depletion and AIDS?

  77. Truthseeker Says:

    Nick, thanks, that was a rather good letter from Mbeki that I hadn’t recalled reading. Presumably won him some respect from Clinton.

    You are familiar with Jonh P. Moore, Phd? HE is the reason why I found the dissident movement. He is also the reason why the dissent always shines and excels in the rebuttal of the HIV/AIDS theory. Ever read AIDStruth.org? That is where it all started for me. Then came the emails to his peers.

    The theory that John Moore is at heart the dissidents’ best friend is not such a joke, I suggest. He is smart enough for there to be no other explanation. Support John!

    Can somebody with the ability to put together a coherent argumentation please help me out here?

    MacDonald, it may be that you overlooked the operative word in the explanation “In some case succeptibility to these diseases as a function of the described underlying mechanism been proven as posteriory (after the reclassification) ” etc.

  78. Demarque Says:

    Braganza says :

    Montagnier in his book indicate that his HIV isolates induced apoptosis of CD4 cells in lab petri-dishes, and he didnot use any nitrites. My conclusion is that nitrites can only be a co-factor in the HIV/AIDS problem. (sorry Truthseeker, but I was thinking that Demarque was asking my opinion).

    You really do not understand the scope of the publication of Aquaro. It proves that the HIV itself (or what Montagnier and Gallo called HIV) is the source of peroxynitrites, as a culture of this “HIV” creates.

    Then, it is not nitrite, but peroxynitrites that Montagnier could not know in 1983, as the study of these compounds in cell only dates ten years.

    So he did not use nitrites and he just could not know that his HIV created peroxynitrites, because the methods of investigation did not exist.

    Thus, these peroxynitrites are not cofactors, but are an integral part of the “development of HIV “, which proteins contain also a large number of arginine, which, in the presence of NO-synthase, release nitric oxide and so peroxynitrites.

    You are a biologist, and we advise you to look at the chemical aspect of the problem. There is a lot to learn.

    Rezaf says :
    Don’t forget the nitrosamines. They are present in everything we eat, especially fried foods.
    So what do you think that it would be found if a set of HIV-patients or AIDS patients were subject to a restorative nutritional therapy (replenishing anti-oxidants,Fe, Se and important S compounds for example) while being protected from the action of aggressors such as NO-donors or other stressors that are responsible for oxidative stress?

    All these compounds have certainly a positive action. For example, selenium has exactly the same redox properties as sulfur, it is also oxidized irreversibly in seleniate by peroxynitrites. And unfortunately, this is the same selenium that allows, in the form of selenocysteine in the glutathione peroxidase, to reduce partially peroxynitrites. It is therefore very beneficial to take selenium when suffers from oxidative stress.

    But it is not good to abuse antioxidants because peroxynitrites are essential for the proper functioning of the cells, and in particular to induce apoptosis of cells that must disappear. I suspect the excess antioxidants to be responsible for some cancers.

    About nitrosamines, I have to relate an experience that we made in a herd of cows.
    These cows were suffering from a variety of fungal infections, intestinal for example, but also mouth. We found that the disease appeared when they grazed on their own manure, in which we poured water washes the installation of milking.

    These waters contained nitric acid, and then bleach, alternately.
    Knowing that hypochlorites give with organic matter alkyl chlorides, which can alkylate urea, nitric acid is broken down into nitrosating agent, we thought it could be forming nitrosoalkylurees capable of giving diazoalkane , while they are subjected to the action of the bleach, which is alkaline.

    Thus, a gas such as these diazoalkanes, where nitrogen is bound to an atom more electronegative than carbon is capable of causing these fungal diseases.

    Of course, when we replaced these two chemicals by peracetic acid , everything is become normal.

    I concluded that it was necessary to avoid chemicals that include a link between a nitrogen atom and a more electronégatif than carbon: N-N, N=N, N-Cl, N-O, N=O and a triple bond between two nitrogens, as in azide.

    On the other hand, the oxidative stress created by oxygenated compound is much less dangerous.

  79. MacDonald Says:

    MacDonald, it may be that you overlooked the operative word in the explanation “In some case succeptibility to these diseases as a function of the described underlying mechanism been proven as posteriory (after the reclassification) ” etc.

    I quite possibly did overlook the operative word, and I still haven’t found it.

  80. Truthseeker Says:

    Couple more posts on Aetiology, which is seductive when one is in the irresponsible holiday mood. MacDonald has hit on the secret of evading Tara’s delaying filter – just don’t include links.

    Apparently 9/11 conspiracy thinking is detected by Moore et al among HIV critics including Maggiore and Bauer (presumably a name confusion), which is a pity for their reputation, I had to agree. Moore is now delighted to find something more than the Perth denial of the existence of the virus to split his opponents. So much for the actual discussion. More and more it seems to me that this is a debate which only really works at the top of the educational pyramid, exactly where it is most repressed by collegial and NIH censoring politics. The Tara level blog thread stuff is amusing, and often informative, but conducted by such a mix of erudite and ignorant people that it has to be ignored except as entertainment and when it draws out Moore to ever increasing levels of undignified silliness and self-exposure, which is the danger for everybody that participates. Cooler is apparently a 9/11 enthusiast who cannot spell very well, at least while he is fuming against Moore. Pity, I enjoyed his posts against Moorethink in HIV=AIDS.

    ——————————————————————————————
    Truthseeker, aka Anthony Liversedge, posts his usual pretentious drivel to try to advertize his own blog which is remarkable only for the stupidity of the discussions about science that take place there. But Truthseeker does make one interesting comment when he writes

    ” But in general we don’t allege any conspiracy and to say that we do is just the usual Moore ploy, an attempt to stain our reputation by association with 9/11 nuts”

    It appears then that Truthseeker is condemning Andrew Maniotis, Lynn Margulis and Henry Bauer as “nuts”, because all of these AIDS denialists have also publicly joined the ranks of 9/11 conspiracy theorists. They are of course nuts, because the basis for 9/11 denial is as stupid and unscientific as the basis for denying that HIV causes AIDS. The statements made by Maniotis, Margulis and Bauer that they are both AIDS and 9/11 denialists therefore expose them to the world as cranks, cuckoos, flakes and nuts, and act to show AIDS denialism for the silliness that it truly is. It’s good to see that Anthony Truthseeker Liversidge is therefore of the same opinion – these people truly are “nuts”. Thanks Anthony for this little gem of wisdom among the dross of your postings here and on your own blog!

    Posted by: Liedetector | November 21, 2007 9:16 PM

    yep, the 911 truth community now includes over 200 architects and engineers, 2 swiss structural engineers that say building 7 collapsed with explosives, former CIA official and writer of the award winning movie “Syriana”
    And millions of other highly educated people around the world.

    Planes dont dissepear into thin air while terrorists passports and red bandanas survive like in shankesville

    buildings dont have all 81 columns fail at the same time without explosives, fire and damage has never caused a rapid symetrical collpase, or even a collapse for that matter.

    Please cite me evidence for your conspiracy theory? the fatty bin laden tape? Or the passport that flew on the streets of manhattan of satam al saqiumi, glad that passport survived, funny how they never found the black boxes at ground zero.

    funny how dumb you people are, you claim to be scientists, but scientists dont dismiss theories out of hand, they discuss theories in terms of evidence, and the very fact they do dismiss these theories shows how ignorant they air. “oh my government could never do that WELL THEY KILLED 3 MILLION IN VIETNAM, IRAQ ARE YA STUPID? They put plans on paper to commit acts of terrorism agaisnt americans and blame it on Cuba, operation northwoods, but of course, government atrocity apologists dont even know this info, ie they are the same types of people in germany that could never belive hitler could do evil, or the people in russia that would never beileve that he would torture dissidents in gulags. Youd call those people conspiracy theorists as well if you lived in those societies

    Architects for truth google it
    loose change the most watched movie ever online, the final cut is even better. Buy it.

    Posted by: cooler | November 21, 2007 9:49 PM

    Here’s another one from a student puzzled by a biochemical paradox. How can quasispecies hypercycles according to Eigen be reconciled with lentiviruses according to Foley?

    Are you pretending to be Duesberg’s grad student again Gene?

    Your confusion is entirely of your own making and has nothing to do with any supposed paradoxes.

    Posted by: Chris Noble | November 21, 2007 10:42 PM

    JM:

    I’m grateful to Liedetecter for bring Liversidge’s post to my attention, as I never bothered reading what Liversidge wrote (for much the same reason as I don’t feel the need to stick my finger into a pile of manure to know what it is). So I would have missed that little gem in which he (rightly, for once) dismisses 9/11 conspiracy theorists as “nuts” (exemplified by the likes of “cooler”, who proves the point rather nicely above).

    No scientist can be an AIDS denialist without automatically losing all his or her professional credibility, because to be an AIDS denialist is to display that one has no ability to properly understand and judge the contents of the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

    Similarly, no scientist/engineer can be a 9/11 conspiracy theorist without automatically losing all his or her professional credibility, for much the same reasons.

    It therefore is no surprise that there is overlap between the AIDS denialists and the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, since both groups attract people with much the same mindset, people who lack the judgement or insight to recognize the absurdity of what they believe in. The additional loss of scientific credibility incurred by being in both camps reflects synergy in action. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde: “To believe in one conspiracy theory may be regarded as merely silly; to believe in both looks like insanity”.

    It would not surprise me to learn that AIDS denialists also believe in the Loch Ness Monster and Alien-created Crop Circles (oh, hang on that’s exactly what Henry Bauer DOES believe in….). How long it will be before one or more AIDS denialist proposes that Elvis Presley is alive, busy filming the next installment of the re-enactment of the moon landings in the deserts of New Mexico, while discussing with Marilyn Monroe how they combined to shoot JFK from the Grassy Knoll? There’s no difference between the mindset required to believe that statement is true, that required to believe the CIA was responsible for 9/11, and that required to believe that HIV either does not exist or that it does not cause AIDS. Each of these views is equally absurd, and equally unjustified by the facts.

    So, I for one welcome the linkage that’s becoming apparent now between AIDS denialists and 9/11 conspiracy theorists, as it shows up AIDS denialism for what it truly is – the realm of the “nuts”, to re-use Anthony Liversidge’s word.

    Happy Thanksgiving to all the sensible, non-conspiracy-theorist people who have posted on this site (Chris Noble, Franklin, Lee, Braganza, Adele, Tara, ElkMountainMan and a few others). At these peoples’ Thanksgiving Dinners, the only turkeys present will be the ones on the plate.

    Posted by: John Moore | November 22, 2007 12:10 AM

    The statements made by Maniotis, Margulis and Bauer that they are both AIDS and 9/11 denialists therefore expose them to the world as cranks, cuckoos, flakes and nuts, and act to show AIDS denialism for the silliness that it truly is. It’s good to see that Anthony Truthseeker Liversidge is therefore of the same opinion – these people truly are “nuts”. Thanks Anthony for this little gem of wisdom among the dross of your postings here and on your own blog!

    Posted by: Liedetector | November 21, 2007 9:16 PM

    AL:

    Thank you kindly, LieDetector//Moore-goony for your humorous opinion of what we wrote above, spelling and logic challenged though you appear to be in the post.

    Apparently your litmus test as to whether what we wrote is “pretentious drivel” or “gems of wisdom” is whether it fits your fixed preconceptions. Is this enough? We daresay it is not, for reasons to do with scientific research on the framing of data as it enters what passes for your brain, a phenomenon which is fully explained on our humble blog, but seems to have passed right over your head.

    Prising your death grip from what you think you already know may be impossible, but we are willing to give it a try. Perhaps you should mull over the following questions if you can spare any time from licking the distinguished Mr Moore’s polished boots:

    1) Is saying that one feels stained by association with “9/11 nuts” the same thing as saying that all those who take a second look at the official story of 9/11 are nuts?

    We support anyone who takes a second look at any notion which is supported automatically by the sheep of society who feel that in order to graze the meadow they have to all point in the same direction as the head sheep, apparently a tendency with which you are personally familiar.

    2) Is it true that people who are wrong to question one notion are therefore wrong to question another, unrelated belief?

    Skepticism is a useful frame of mind, but its results depend on studying the data, surely. In the case of HIV=AIDS only the irrational, uninformed, and scientifically illiterate still conclude that the paradigm is airborne. All intelligent observers whose minds are in gear and who read the scientific literature can see that, theoretically speaking, it long ago crashed into the trees at the end of the runway without ever lifting one inch into the air, in spite of having enormous afterburners attached fueled by billions of dollars worth of Federal funding since it started rolling 23 years ago.

    Yes, at present the little I know of 9/11 conspiracy theory seems to me to be as prima facie silly as the current AIDS paradigm obviously is, but my opinion is as worthless as yours is in AIDS until I study the data and the reasoning of the people you mention, who have certainlly proved themselves worthy skeptics in HIV=AIDS, as you have not, it seems.

    3) We both have a duty to respect judgements and conclusions different from ours until we have thoroughly studied the data and reasoning involved, do we not?

    4)We both have a duty to respect those who have different opinions, also, do we not?

    5) Is the phrasing (“drivel” “dross” etc) you use respectful?

    6) If not, should we respect your opinion, since your ears are obviously closed to different views from people you do not respect, who have written extensive books about the topic, or in my case, a blog amounting to two books and counting?

    Since you may lose your way in following these 6 questions, here are the answers: No. No. Yes. Yes. No. No.

    For further assistance, please refer to Science Guardian, which exists to brief data challenged clever people at the top of science and society such as yourself.

    Posted by: Truthseeker | November 22, 2007 12:20 AM

    200 architects, 100 million views on the internet of movies that are being beleived by millions of far more intelligent people than the drug company hacks on these blogs, movies like Loose change, 9/11 mysteries and Zeitgeist, Former cia officials like Ray Mcgovern, and robert baer, author of the award winning movie syriana.

    Heres a message from robert baer for you conspiracy nuts, could you imagine fools like John moore/liedetector etc being able to author novels as compelling as his? Id be laughing my off………Maniotis bauer and Margulis have nothing to be ashamed of for exposing both the hiv fraud and 9/11. Just bc the government tells you something doesnt make it true, its about the evidence. Listen to your master Robert Baer, far more qualified than anyone else to show us the light.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDXurOmeJxc

    Posted by: cooler | November 22, 2007 12:21 AM

    look at this idiot moore, as usual he offers no evidence, just psychoanylisis, but what else would you beleive from a government atrocity apoligist whod piss in his pants in fear if hed have to debate real scholars like Noam Chomsky or David Ray griffin. This troll psuedoscientist moore proably still beleives they are WMD’s in Iraq, but what else would you expect from a fool that offers zero evidence for his theories, just a pathetic attempt at being a psychologist.

    Debunk this, back and to the left, idiot, the shot came from the front you idiot, even cyril wecht the worlds leading forensic scientists says so, you have to be an idiot to beleive the warren commision. Its so obvious that youre just a hack that doesnt believe your government can tell a lie. Its like living in Orwells 1984.

    Sorry, one of the leading explosive experts in the world says world trade center 7 was brought down with explosives, here is testimony.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgoSOQ2xrbI

    See zeitgeist, loose change and 9/11 mysteries on google video now.

    millions of views, people I know that are far more intelligent than moore, and have graduated from far better universities than moore inc are seeing the truth.

    Posted by: cooler | November 22, 2007 12:37 AM

    Here’s another one from a student puzzled by a biochemical paradox. How can quasispecies hypercycles according to Eigen be reconciled with lentiviruses according to Foley?
    Are you pretending to be Duesberg’s grad student again Gene?

    Your confusion is entirely of your own making and has nothing to do with any supposed paradoxes.

    Posted by: Chris Noble | November 21, 2007 10:42 PM

    Why Chris, I do believe you forgot to actually answer the question. What’s the matter, don’t you feel your science credentials are quite up to it? You were rather better in the BMJ debate. Maybe you could draw on some ofyour helpers from that occasion?

    Ok, let me give you a softer one to warm up on: how do you distinguish a lentivirus from a “conventional” virus? Which genetic or biological characteristics make a virus “lenti”?

    Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 22, 2007 12:37 AM

    Here is the link for loose change, the most watched movie ever in the internet for those that want a primer on 9/11 conspiracy theories.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501

    Posted by: cooler | November 22, 2007 12:43 AM

    Prof. Moore,

    I have now read a little further on the internet as Dr. Noble advised I do. I’ved discovered you think my son is part of a worldwide AIDS Denialist Conspiracy. This has me worried my son might get in trouble. Could you please elaborate on your AIDS Denialist Conspiracy theories, so I can make an informed decision as to whether I have to confiscate MEC’s computer or possibly turn him over to the FBI?

    Thank you for your reply

    MEC’s Mum.

    PS. Why didn’t you reply to my previous request? I’m still not sure if I should go on chemoprophylaxis since according to the infallible HIV tests, as a monogamous married woman I seem to be in greaster danger of contracting HIV than if I were an IV drug using prostitute.

    http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/11/mbeki_still_in_denial.php#comment-646540

    MM

    PPS. Prof. Moore, how have you discovered Prof. Bauer is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist? Could you plesae provide your references. I am interested in this topic but I could’t find anything written by Prof Bauer on it. So far the only conspiracy theories I have been able to find are your own. That’s why I lke reading your stuff, it’s not anything like the ususal dry and boring science.

    Posted by: MEC’s Mum | November 22, 2007 1:02 AM

    AL:

    “So, I for one welcome the linkage that’s becoming apparent now between AIDS denialists and 9/11 conspiracy theorists, as it shows up AIDS denialism for what it truly is – the realm of the “nuts”, to re-use Anthony Liversidge’s word.

    “Happy Thanksgiving to all the sensible, non-conspiracy-theorist people who have posted on this site (Chris Noble, Franklin, Lee, Braganza, Adele, Tara, ElkMountainMan and a few others). At these peoples’ Thanksgiving Dinners, the only turkeys present will be the ones on the plate.”

    Darn it, we foolishly decided not to use the turkey crack in the screed we just posted, since it seemed too obvious, and here the wit challenged John “I am a secret HIV dissident” Moore uses it without any respect for the intelligence of his readers at all… wait! he is addressing his faithful following, so that would be appropriate after all.

    Regarding the association of 9/11 nuts with AIDS critics, we agree with John “My support of HIV=AIDS is political and ad hominem, for the science please see my dissident papers in exclusive insider journals where I prepare my way for when the paradigm crumbles” Moore that this stains the reputation of HIV/AIDS critics.

    But as noted above, when lives are at stake it behooves people to study the data and the reasoning involved, not to judge with prejudice, conformity or other lazy emotional motivations. These distort science, and there are plenty of them – in fact at Science Guardian our blog logo lists too many of them to count.

    John deals in at least a dozen of them in defending his tattered paradigm against the debunking of critics who rather amazingly include himself, as our next post on New AIDS Review will show.

    Exactly how this superb mind and sensitive psyche can live with this intellectual and emotional inner conflict is not for us to say, but it is kinda cute that it shows so explicitly, or would be if his style wasn’t so wearyingly nasty. Noblesse oblige, John! Graduates even of Downing College should have more gentlemanly manners in public debate. It is embarrassing for other English expats to read these excesses.

    “No scientist can be an AIDS denialist without automatically losing all his or her professional credibility, because to be an AIDS denialist is to display that one has no ability to properly understand and judge the contents of the peer-reviewed scientific literature.”

    Substitute “believer” for “denialist” and this would be a very accurate statement, at least among the elite of the field. What readers must understand, however, is that it is very improbable that Moore doesn’t know this. Not only does he make many admissions to this effect in his papers, if you know where to find them (coming up, folks, when the more interesting side of life permits) but he is a smart cookie, as his brilliant posts on this thread show.

    What elevated genius he shows in his wordplay in so brilliantly characterizing what we write as “manure”, especially when he never read it! This man is a genius, as well as too honest to conceal from his peers the flaws in his working (read ‘fundraising’) hypothesis.

    Once again we nominate Moore for the Lasker, at least. Why is no one here supporting this?

    By the way, John, since we at Science Guardian are not 9/11 conspiracy theorists, as you have now acknowledged, what remaining reason can you possibly have for ignoring our admiring posts on the subject of your brilliant scientific comments on the flaws in the paradigm?

    Your desire to cannibalize turkey today is no excuse. Please let us know how you wish to disagree with your very own self.

    Posted by: Truthseeker | November 22, 2007 1:02 AM
    ———————————————————————————————————
    But darn it now we shall have to put up chapter and verse of Moore’s perfidious pusillanimity in perpetrating papers which deny the very paradigm he wishes to force down the throats of poor blacks and the skeptics who try to rescue them.

    We already have one turkey to roast tomorrow.

  81. Truthseeker Says:

    I quite possibly did overlook the operative word, and I still haven’t found it.

    MacDonald, you are an amazingly literate man, especially for one not using your native language (am I right?). So we find it hard to believe that you overlooked the word “posteriory”, which we take to describe the source of the scientific opinion expressed, unless we are making some kind of mistake.

    Please correct us if we are. 🙂

  82. MacDonald Says:

    I believe Braganza was referring to the a priori – a posteriori distinction:

    The terms “a priori” and “a posteriori” refer primarily to how or on what basis a proposition might be known. A proposition is knowable a priori if it is knowable independently of experience. A proposition is knowable a posteriori if it is knowable on the basis of experience.

    What impressed Braganza was apparently that diseases that were initially classified and lumped together under the “AIDS umbrella with no initial proof of relevance, were later proved to have been so justifiably, since in some cases an unspecified shared underlying mechanism confers susceptibility onto the HIV+ person:

    “In some case succeptibility to these diseases as a function of the described underlying mechanism been proven as posteriory (after the reclassification)

    That which is one of the biggest flaws of HIV science to the rest of us, that practices are being implemented on shaky theoretical foundations, which HIV researchers then struggle to justify retroactively, is in Braganza’s mind one of the most commendable traits of said paradigm because it makes intuitive geniuses – fortune tellers in everyday parlance – of its leading lights.

    It has still not occurred to Braganza that there is such a thing as a self-fulfilling prophecy, especially when large amounts of money and prestige are staked on a specific outcome.

  83. patrick moore Says:

    TS
    You can post links on Tara’s “bleuOgh”; just make sure to erase the “HTTP://” first then the overzealous filter won’t recognise it but a “link” is provided to the reader.

    Looking forward to your next article 🙂

  84. Truthseeker Says:

    In other words, I was right 🙂 Straight from the posterior.

    Happy Thanksgiving to all the souls, deluded and realistic, who try to point us in their right direction. Rescuers all!

  85. MacDonald Says:

    hmmm. . . argument from posterior…very funny. I see some of JP’s wit has rubbed off on you in the course of your latest brushes.

  86. Truthseeker Says:

    Thanks Macdonald, I have been seduced once again into posting on Aetiology along the lines pioneered by your acerbically witty self, and it must stop. But the problem is that Moore is not very witty in return, as far as I can judge. Whatever wit he manages is leaden and pedestrian, and repeats only the same old thoughts about how the HIV denialists lack credibility. There is nothing imaginative about it. Quite honestly I think that is the core of the problem, that Moore lacks imagination, and I said so in the following post.

    ———————————————————————-
    AL: Anthony Liversidge even goes so far to claim that his total lack of scientific training somehow puts him in a better position to understand the science than people who do have extensive training and research experience. Somehow ignorance becomes a virtue. The hubris is staggering.

    This total inability to accurately judge ones own skills and understanding has come to be known as the Kruger-Dunning effect

    Exactly, Chris, including the inability to see that the Kruger-Dunning effect applies to oneself, especially if one is caught supporting a failed paradigm in an area outside one’s field of expertise and operating under the illusion that one is defending good science, when one is in fact supporting bad science, science so bad that John “Please do not make the mistake of thinking I am a macaque, I am a respected scientist as long as I avoid answering HIV critics and God forbid, having to say why I support the paradigm” Moore of Weill Cornell dare not speak in its favor except with ad hominem puerility and a grand imitation of a skunk that emits an insupportable stink if kicked.

    Perhaps it is hard to operate from an obscure office in computing support in Australia, Chris, but has it not occurred to you yet that Moore is not 100% confident in his position and this accounts for his papers (so far we have counted five) freely admitting to insiders that the paradigm is built on quicksand?

    How many times do we have to point this out before you get the message? We assume that with your 100% familiarity with the literature you know what we are talking about. Surely this is so? Do we really have to cite chapter and verse before we can rescue you from your predicament of seeking fame and fortune solely on the basis of defending John Moore’s fund raising paradigm on the Web, when your squad leader himself doesn’t actually believe in it and is taking care to prepare to jump ship early before it sinks?

    We are trying to rescue you Chris but like a poor swimmer caught in an invisible undertow you fight off your lifeguard instead of keeping calm and relaxed so we can tow you to shore.

    And do we really have to explain to you why outsiders often see things which people in a field do not? Are you really so naive in the sociology of science that you are not aware that in an age of increasingly narrow specialism, intensifying crowd politics in billion dollar fields, and Kuhnian paradigm entrenchment deeper than ever before, the perceptive outsider or the individualistic newcomer is often the one who best understands what is going on and makes the breakthrough to win the Nobel?

    Contrast that type with the career shoelicker who rises by defending the status quo on the top of which his patrons sit. Which type would you rather imitate?

    Contrast the type a) Mullis with the type b) Moore, and tell us which is which. if you want evidence, just examine this latest thought by John “That is one of my macaques, and that is me, please do not confuse the two” Moore:

    (Moore) But the majority of the HIV/AIDS denialists are merely living embodiments of the old adage “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”. They know a little about science (actually, in Liversidge’s case, next to nothing) and think that means they are qualified to understand research publications and comment on them. It’s ludicrous of course, pathetically so. But unlike the harmless buffoonery of the 9/11 conspiracy nutters, the dangerous consequence of the AIDS denialist conspiracy is that these people cause the death of innocent people. That’s an important difference, and it underlies why we must continue to fight the AIDS denialists (in the real world, of course). There’s not a credible scientist among the lot of them, essentially as a point of definition, and the non-scientists do not know that they do not know what they are talking about, the Kruger-Denning effect in action!

    followed by this (spelling corrected):

    Moore: Kary Mullis is most certainly not a credible scientist. He’s an AIDS denialist, which has caused him to lose all his professional credibility. It’s not possible to be both an AIDS denialist and a credible scientist; these two things are as incompatible as being a 9/11 conspiracy theorist and being taken seriously by anyone other than nuts, flakes and cranks. That Mullis fooled you, Noreen, merely speaks to the dangers caused to laypeople by scientists losing their credibility and becoming AIDS denialists. Those very few scientists who act that way thereby cause the death of many people as a result, which is why they have been ostracized by the scientific community (and, of course, for displaying an absurd lack of professional judgement about the science of HIV/AIDS).

    Mullis won the Nobel with one of the cleverest insights into how to achieve a technical breakthrough in science there has been in the last hundred years, an idea which won hundreds of millions of dollars for the company that employed him and which has resulted in over two hundred falsely convicted prisoners being released from Death Row so far.

    The more pedestrian type b) Moore tends to criticize the type a) Mullis perhaps in envy at his enormous success is using his terrific imagination, and inevitably finds some excess of that attribute to complain about and try and bring the type a) Mullis down. Wouldn’t you know it, but Mullis has written an autobiography that reports seeing fairies at the bottom of his garden or somesuch, and type b) Moore feels vindicated.

    But in fact as everybody looking on can see this is simply just another example of your Kruger-Denning effect at work, a classic example in fact where the critic is unaware of the fact he is blind to what is really going on. Mullis has imagination, Moore has not. Mullis has the Nobel, Moore has not, and at this rate never will, until he puts funding politics aside and used his brilliant mind for what God gave him it for, which is science, not serving as Fauci’s guard dog.

    What is telling in all this is that Moore a) says his own papers refuting his beloved paradigm are misunderstood by the humble editor of New AIDS Review but cannot say how and b) never dares mention the scientist by name who so thoroughly refuted the HIV paradigm in 1986 that he, Peter Duesberg, undoubtedly one of the finest scientific minds engaged in productive science today, has never been answered in the same journals since, or indeed on any peer reviewed level, by any of the main players running this international con game.

    By big players we do not mean Moore, of course, we mean Anthony Fauci, Director and chief censor of NIAID, and Bob Gallo, renowned non-discoverer of HIV, and first to demonstrate that HIV does not cause AIDS, and maybe the lesser David Ho, now leader of the doomed search for a vaccine whose research which won him the cover of Time magazine is now scorned and repudiated by even his closest friends in the field.

    Ho of course is Moore’s patron, who recognized Moore’s special attributes and brought him over to the US from England to pursue his career role as a HIV barking guard dog who in partnership with Mark Wainberg of Montreal most viciously snarls at HIV critics as “denialists” without ever daring to try and refute their scientific points in any peer reviewed battle, just as he declined to contest publicly with Harvey Bialy, or even non-scientists such as my harmless self, whose study is the behavior of scientists rather than their work.

    But this is the habit of paradigm defenders, for some reason they have a psychological bloc against meeting HIV critics in public debate. Bob Gallo used to mysteriously develop a sudden indisposition whenever he found out that he was about to run into Peter Duesberg at a conference, and would cancel his speech rather risk having to defend his absurd concept in public against a scientist he previously wrote he admired in the highest terms.

    We admire Mr Moore as we have said before for his semi private acknowledgement of the great flaws in the paradigm, and feel he should be awarded the Lasker. The only reason we can think of why he has not already won it is that he is lacking in social graces, as indicated by this thread, where he spends virtually every word insulting those that ask him to justify what he says he thinks about his favorite paradigm.

    This is where Chris comes out ahead, for he is much better mannered. Perhaps it is he should get the Lasker, after all. The problem is that he has proved entirely incapable of seeing a single flaw in the notion HIV=AIDS, after many, many years of instruction by HIV critics. This is the kind of blindness that Kruger and Denning were referring to in their paper, so I suppose he is thereby disqualified. Pity, because he is a gentleman, a rare breed in this dispute.

    Oddly enough, it may be that our nomination will have to go to Tara, who is not only scrumptious according to her current blog photo but a good enough scientist to allow free and open debate, unlike John “I do not ever debate HIV denialists in public but am willing quietly to endorse their points in little publicized papers” Moore.

    For her understanding of this basic principle of good science, which she observes despite so far being subject to the Kruger-Denning effect in automatically endorsing the wrong side, we nominate Tara for the Lasker next year.

    Posted by: Truthseeker | November 23, 2007 12:54 AM
    ————————————————————–
    Not very witty, perhaps, but I think the main point about Moore lacking imagination is true. That is why he is a master bootlicker. It is why HIV defenders do what they do, I believe, and never question themselves.

    Imagination is a very important quality in scientists, as long as they keep it in check and allow the data to contradict it.

  87. Truthseeker Says:

    Darn it, now Chris Noble has forced me into another post. This is like quicksand. One gets sillier and siller. This will be my last.

    —————————————————————
    “Perhaps it is hard to operate from an obscure office in computing support in Australia, Chris, but has it not occurred to you yet that Moore is not 100% confident in his position and this accounts for his papers (so far we have counted five) freely admitting to insiders that the paradigm is built on quicksand?”

    The idea that John Moore secretly admits in his papers that “the paradigm is built on quicksand” is one of your delusions. How do you come to this amazing conclusion? Through some version of the bible-code? Take every 7 letter and write the result backwards?

    The only thing that you demonstrate is that you are completely incapable of understanding the science and are apparently oblivious to this reality.

    Take a trip to sci.physics.realtivity.
    You’ll find a number of internet cranks that have the delusion that they have proven Einstein’s theory of relativity to be false. They too have no training in the field and regard that as a virtue. Apparently going to a university, studying the science and passing exams is just a form of indoctrination and is to be avoided at all costs. The layperson is unfettered by all these silly dogmatic ideas and can see the problems in Einstein’s theory of relativity with just their own “common sense”. They use this “common sense” to find “flaws” or “paradoxes” in modern physics that in reality reflect only their own ignorance and misunderstanding. They too are completely deluded about their own capabilities and skills. They believe they are correct and the vast majority of physicists are a) stupid b) afraid of losing their jobs or c) just blindly follow the dogma.

    If you follow this newsgroup you will see that the same cranks come back time after time and never learn anything despite several people patiently explaining the science to them.

    The parallels with HIV/AIDS cranks are perfect. The same delusions of competence. The same appeals to “common sense”. The same arguments about “paradoxes”. The same conspiracy theories about an “orthodoxy” that is afraid of the “truth”.

    Posted by: Chris Noble | November 23, 2007 1:28 AM
    ——————————————

    Chris Noble: …The idea that John Moore secretly admits in his papers that “the paradigm is built on quicksand” is one of your delusions. How do you come to this amazing conclusion? Through some version of the bible-code? Take every 7 letter and write the result backwards?…

    Really, Chris, you reveal how little you follow the discussion, and how unfamiliar you are with the literature. No wonder you got chased off at New AIDS Review so quickly.

    Are you PubMed challenged? It is not difficult to find John “have some sympathy for my macaques, now that microbicide research has received such a huge setback” Moore’s papers under the search string John P Moore.

    You’re a clever fellow, I am sure you can read and understand them if you go through them carefully.

    However, since you may need some help, why not go to New AIDS Review where one of them was deconstructed in a recent post for your instruction?

    Your response is so revealing of your lack of familiarity with the literature that I am quite discouraged in my admiration of your talents, and relieved that I switch to nominate Tara for the Lasker, and not you after all.

    After all, the site you refer to may well describe the modus operandi of cranks who believe they can replace Einstein, and isn’t one of their characteristics that they are unfamiliar with the literature?

    Since you now demonstrate that you suffer from the same handicap, perhaps we have found the answer to the mystery of why such a clever fellow as yourself seems immune to the lesson taught by the 20,000 papers written in the field of AIDS on the premise that HIV is the cause of AIDS. That lesson, which has failed to penetrate your well fortified mind for so many years, is that every year without fail more and more assumptions tied to this notion are knocked over like skittles in a beer evening.

    Yet year after year you have failed to see this, and ground your axe against HIV critics on and on and on, impervious to logic and data which is freely available if only you would read it.

    Is this not the very definition of a crank?

    Posted by: Truthseeker | November 23, 2007 2:08 AM
    —————————————————–

  88. yello Says:

    Brava Truthseeker sir!

    To the new ones in all of this, Rezaf and Braganza, never stop questioning and never stop learning.

  89. Truthseeker Says:

    Oh dear, broke my new rule not to trouble with Barnacle and Macaque on Tara’s, but they are both so dysfunctionally tormented that one has to tie up the loose ends of their misstatements.

    —————————————————-

    Chris Noble wrote:
    Yet this is exactly what Anthony Liversidge and other Denialists do. Liversidge even goes further to make the absurd and arrogant claim that he can understand a scientist’s papers better than the scientist himself. This represents a delusion of competence that is inversely proportional to his actual level of understanding.

    Chris, you are an interesting psychological phenomenon all by your repetitive self. You deny the truth of incontrovertible statements automatically and without thought, either by rephrasing them inaccurately or by calling those who uselessly try and inform you better “Denialists”, a reversal now you have apparently now capitalized in your desperation to foist a label on others that you yourself deserve with every post you write.

    Actually as you well know we didn’t say we understood their papers better than the scientists themselves who wrote them. We said that we read them with more care than you do, and that we found they contradicted the paradigm they used as a premise. In fact, Moore explicitly contradicts the authority of the HIV research he reviews. He condemns it as badly done and its conclusions as unacceptable. Are you not aware of this? Time for you to read New AIDS Review, Chris. As a fellow guardian of good science, you should enjoy it.

    But will you? When will you learn anything new at all? Over years your only intellectual function is to deny. You are offered a Niagara of refutation of what you have attached yourself to like a barnacle to the side of a sinking ship. The ship that hit an iceberg in the form of Duesberg, one of the great scientists of the current era, whose name will still be up in lights a century from now while yours will be a footnote of obdurate denialism of good science in the history of this great affair. Yet you cannot seem to understand any of it, presumably because of the Kruger-Dunning effect.

    You are indeed the great Denialist, Chris, a Denialist of such grand stature that we can only gasp in wonder at the uniqueness of your accomplishment. For unlike your betters you actually believe on what you are purveying, isn’t that right? You actually believe in the most obvious nonsense in science since Jacques Beneviste’s proof of homeopathy, which even Nature and John Maddox doubted.

    But world beating barnacle or not, at least get your characterization of what you are denying straight. We have found a number of papers so far where your hero and mentor John “I love macaques even though I am not and never have been a macaque and am merely busy running through $500,000 kindly provided by the large drug company Bristol-Myers Squibb in painting their undersides with microbicides which enhance the passage of HIV for some reason on the basis of a paradigm whose flaws I can enumerate better than any denialist” Moore states quite clearly for all to see and comprehend the existence of fatal mistakes in the claims and research of his fellow HIV hunters, and there is already one of these papers deconstructed in detail for your delectation on New AIDS Review.com, where it lies for you to read and fail to understand as is your wont.

    Why not use your index finger to trace the words and speak them out loud as you go along? Maybe that would help.

    That’s what we do. In fact, that is how we got onto this whole thing. By examining their papers word for word, rather than skimming them as you apparently do and taking for granted that they only say whatever they say in the abstract, we found that Moore, Fauci etc were writing papers which included self condemnation.

    Presumably this is the result of their inner conflict, unknown to your simpler self, which arises from the knowledge that they have built their careers on a) a fantasy which they know very well is scientifically absurd and which kills people, and b) on the misplaced trust of a large number of decent people from you to Bill Clinton.

    Do you honestly think that any of these guys and their underlings would take ARVs if they discovered themselves to be HIV positive, which of course is impossible since they are not in a “risk group”? Would you, Mr Noble, take them? Or would you actually start reading the literature with a little more attention to the fine print for a change?

    There’s a question for you to answer yes or no. Would you consider taking the test and if positive reading the literature of HIV=AIDS with more attention?

    If so, go to New AIDS Review, where we will add another post especially for you on the topic of Moore and his covert leadership of Denialism in HIV=AIDS, denialism on both sides of the fence, denying that the “Denialists” have any points while at the same time denying that the paradigm he lives by and on makes any sense either.

    It is becoming difficult to decide whether you or he are the greater Denialist, Chris. You have longevity on your side, and have taken your stand publicly without any equivocation of any kind, since any point that HIV critics make is hidden from you by the Kruger-Dunning effect.

    But Moore has the authority of his Weill Cornell position on his side, and is flouting the interests of his patron Bristol-Myers, who awarded him his $500,000 prize for his so far unsuccessful microbicide research, and has written his Denialism up in peer reviewed papers in learned journals for all to peruse.

    We’d say it was neck and neck right now.

    Posted by: Truthseeker | November 23, 2007 1:52 PM
    ————————————————————–
    In the interest of brevity, could the denialists agree to abbreviate their “I’m not a denialist, you are!” manifestos, like the above, to the traditional standby:

    “I know you are, but what am I?”

    Posted by: Roy Hinkley | November 23, 2007 2:14 PM

    I quite agree, Roy. Although in Liversidge’s case, it would be easier if he just wrote “I am insane, and here’s the proof”. Incidentally, have you and Chris noted the delusion of grandeur associated with his use of “The Royal We” when referring to himself. There’s yet more personal pathology there to be deconstructed if anyone could be bothered……

    Posted by: John Moore | November 23, 2007 3:13 PM

    ——————————————————————–
    Moore wrote: Chris, I wouldn’t bother wasting my time in further discussions with Liversidge over my papers if I were you. I don’t read his Blog, but I was emailed his attempt to analyze the Klasse/Moore paper on gp120 concentrations in plasma, etc. It was pathetic. At one point I actually burst out laughing at the sheer stupidity of what passes for Liversidge’s “thinking” on the science that underlies this paper. A reasonable analogy would be if I attempted to deconstruct the meaning behind a poem written in Swahili, a language and a subject with which I have no familiarity at all. Of course I would never do that, because the Kruger-Denning effect doesn’t apply to me.

    Gee, John, lured out of hiding again? What happened to your vow never to respond to Denialists? Are we getting under your skin with our promise to out you as a covert leader of dissidence in HIV=AIDS science?

    Yes, your papers are written in the scientific equivalent of Swahili, ‘Ndio Bwana (Yes Sir), but unluckily for you, anyone willing to use their index finger to pore over the sentences word by word, as we do, mouthing them out loud and using three medical dictionaries and a TV tuned to TNT to avoid dying of boredom, can decipher the literacy-challenged content well enough to see you standing there as it were buck naked in your honesty, enumerating the deficits in the science of your bumbling colleagues well enough to bring into very severe question the creaking paradigm you are still standing on, supported as it is by the billions in tax payer and drug money of those who trust you.

    Having deconstructed one of your papers at length in our post John P. Moore Brings down the AIDS Paradigm Part 1 and 2) (to be found at http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/?p=495) and shown this to be nothing less than a fatal attack on the thinking of the faithful disguised as a call for better data we can understand your embarrassed laughter, since no doubt Anthony Fauci was not pleased, but we said we admired your honesty and integrity for doing it and cannot understand why you should persist in sniping at us for trying to expand the understanding of the science and politics of HIV=AIDS in the same spirit presumably as you wrote the paper explaining why HIV in the body has no “biologically significant effects”.

    Is it possible that you aimed at making these points privately only to your insider colleagues and not to the world at large? A world which might be very interested to find that you stand by the result of your study that HIV has no effect in the body, and even try to claim priority for this finding in your paper, emphasizing that you found it out many years ago but were too discreet to publish it, presumably because the HIV Inquisition for which you are a leading prosecutor would have you upside down on a hook in no time if you did, judging from the way they trashed Peter Duesberg, a far greater scientist than yourself, all but yourself would agree.

    The post is there for all to see and judge whether your laughing dismissal of it as scientifically misunderstood is valid or whether you are hung on your own yardarm.

    I shouldn’t worry John you will be admired for your honesty even though for political reasons it has to be concealed beneath a cloak of rude disrespect and calumny about Peter Duesberg, when you are really on our side.

    Posted by: Truthseeker | November 23, 2007 3:18 PM
    ———————————

    The Royal We” ???

    At least the world can see how little sense you make Moore. Stick around.

    Posted by: pat | November 23, 2007 3:20 PM

    Of course I would never do that, because the Kruger-Denning effect doesn’t apply to me.

    Wonderful! The Kruger-Dunning effect in operation again!

    Posted by: Truthseeker | November 23, 2007 3:46 PM

    —————————————————–
    This of course must be the last since otherwise it is endless. Only purely factual points from now on, though the temptation to tweak their mouse and rat whiskers is unending. One forgets sometimes there are lives at stake, and these guys are actually killing people.

    Back to real life, and a five paper post showing Moore as chief Denialist of the HIV=AIDS insanity.

  90. Truthseeker Says:

    Oh, did it again. Some character we are too lazy to identify made a post so revolting in its typical AIDS apologist chacateristics that we had to fire our airgun back, uselessly without doubt. Time to return to duty

    ————————————————————–
    Why not use your index finger to trace the words and speak them out loud as you go along? Maybe that would help.

    That’s what we do. In fact, that is how we got onto this whole thing. By examining their papers word for word,… we found that Moore, Fauci etc were writing papers which included self condemnation.

    There’s your problem right there, Truthseeker. By focusing on the words, you’re ignoring the most important part of every scientific paper. No wonder you don’t understand them.

    Posted by: Dale | November 23, 2007 9:20 PM

    I did notice the Royal We, but with the mix of arrogance and mental illness prevalent among the denialists I wasn’t sure whether to attribute it to pure ostentatiosness, or split personality disorder.

    Though, given their Highnesses latest post claiming to understand the intent of your papers better than you do, I think Mr. Liversedge suffers from such arrogance that not only have t(he)y convinced themselves their shit doesn’t stink, but apparently t(he)y thinks its really Creme Brulee.

    Posted by: Roy Hinkley | November 23, 2007 6:30 PM

    May we re-present this post by a fond supporter of John P. “I say leave my blasted bottom alone Hinkley, that is the macaque over there in the other cage fer Heaven’s sake!” Moore as a classic, in fact unique specimen of the befuddled and leaden wit of those who help John out in his rapid evasion moves when confronted by his own words, precious words spoken sotto voce backstage in specialist journals obscure to the average concerned citizen, HIV meme victim and macaque imprisoned at Weill-Cornell in Manhattan but now increasingly publicized in a spirit of admiring amazement by the critics of his paradigm platform who were under the impression that he was Ho’s lackey in insulting and jeering at them in a scientifically vacuous manner but now realize that he is their greatest supporter.

    This post is so distinguished in three dimensions of inaccuracy and disrespect that we believe there should perhaps be an annual Hinkley Prize for distinction in mispelling (‘ostentatiosness’ ‘Liversedge’), misunderstanding and illiteracy in reading posts before adding comment (“given their Highnesses latest post claiming to understand the intent of your papers better than you do”, ie Hinkley joins Noble in misreading what we wrote), and inability to come up with a non cliched metaphor that doesn’t disgust imaginative readers (“arrogance that not only have t(he)y convinced themselves their shit doesn’t stink, but apparently t(he)y thinks its really Creme Brulee.”

    What kind of mind writes such a sentence in public? Only the kind of strong, unimaginative mind willing to face the fact that drugs kill AIDS patients with liver damage but are prescribed for a harmless virus, and do nothing at all about it. But then, lack of imagination is one of the chief handicaps of HIV apologists, as we have seen.

    By the way, since Chris Noble admitted in public on New AIDS Review that he wouldn’t recommend taking the drugs himself and then, embarrassed at being taken to task by Michael Geiger over this stance, vanished from the site, perhaps we should also ask Roy whether if HIV positive he would do the same ie prefer not to take them?

    Of course like Chris Noble he may have learned to avoid giving an answer to this question.

    Posted by: Truthseeker | November 23, 2007 10:02 PM
    ——————————————————-
    Thanks, Dale. Also MacDonald, rather good posts.

    Moore’s exposure in writing papers that defeat his paradigm and the fact that we (the humble blog host and others) have unearthed them is, we fondly believe, the best opportunity yet to insert dynamite in a crack in the HIV=AIDS pyramid and light the fuse.

    Hi John, hear that hissing sound?

  91. Truthseeker Says:

    Joking apart.

    In the light of dawn, moral truths become clearer. I couldn’t stop myself trying to make the hidden point that this is a murderous abdication of humane feeling in professionals, which of course is Celia Farber’s theme all along.

    —————————————————————————————————–

    This prize will be awarded to the first person to accurately predict the date upon which the HIV/AIDS paradigm would crumble.

    But Roy, you are not aware that the HIV/AIDS paradigm crumbled in 1984? That was the year when it was announced by Bob Gallo and Margaret Heckler to the stenographers of the world press on the basis of Bob’s four papers. These papers when examined by thinking people proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that HIV did not and could not cause AIDS, since his lab detected it in merely one third of the blood samples of AIDS patients.

    You are not aware that Bob Gallo was the first person to prove that HIV does not cause AIDS? Where have you been in the last 23 years? Oh, making money out of the failed paradigm, pretending it is viable? I see. Now tell me, do you not feel any shame at exploiting a notion which puts so many innocent people in jeopardy from nasty poisons? Is there not a twinge of conscience occasionally at the end result of your efforts?

    We are assuming of course that you are in the last analysis a fundamentally decent man, who certainly had a mother and may even have children of his own. And an intelligent one, which can be easily seen from your posts.

    One always wonders how it is that fundamentally decent men can perpetrate a failed paradigm on the world simply because all their dimmer colleagues are going along with it.

    One theory might be that the truth is so painful and shocking that it is simply too horrible to contemplate that one is participating in it, especially for a good scientist.

    Of course, such inner conflict is the only way to account for John’s antics in writing such hate filled screeds against the “Denialists” while he himself quietly supports their main points in his hitherto unpublicized papers which Science Guardian is about to spotlight.

    But a man who can so easily crack urbane jokes about spelling while profiting from science that Bob Gallo showed was nonsense in 1984, what can we say about him?

    Only that the ways of the soul are deep and hidden in those who live by a system which attacks the health of women and children on the basis of science which they know in their hearts to be wrong.

    Oh well, back to joking lightly about the fate of the unwashed, who cares about them, eh? After all, 25 books have been written exploding the paradigm, articles with 200 footnotes have been written all over showing it hasn’t a logical leg to stand on, and the correct view of the entire mess is freely available on the Web, with even John supporting it in the literature, along with Anthony, Bob, and other more senior AIDS generals, as we have shown in our little read blog.

    The liberal flagship Harpers last year devoted 15 pages to exposing the scam. Yet the whole bandwagon rolls on undisturbed,

    So when when it all end? Only God knows, but perhaps you can tell us, if you look into your own soul. Maybe the question should be, when will men like you crumble?

    When at long last will conscience strike you?

    Posted by: Truthseeker | November 24, 2007 7:35 AM

    ———————————————————————-

  92. Rezaf Says:

    TS, I’m eager to see your next post about Moore’s leadership on dissidence.
    He does spend a lot of time posting on Aetology. And responding to “Denialists”. It’s almost difficult to believe that it is the REAL Moore posting there. I’d figure that someone so important and involved in the “science” of HIV/AIDS would have more important stuff to do than posting that much on a blog of the underling Lieutenant Tara Smith. And answering to those he refuses to debate. I guess that he could really be the HIV/AIDS apologists scourge and demise.

  93. patrick moore Says:

    Considering Moore’s latest failures in science (where he spread more HIV infection than he could prevent, which until then was the defining trait of denialists) it is quite possible that in utter frustration he has decided that his limited research skills are best applied to the politics of AIDS where truthiness and assumptions matter more.
    I do hope however that TS’ take on Moore turns out to be correct and that the poor gentleman from England is merely coping with the first step of grief resolution, namely denial.

  94. Truthseeker Says:

    TS, I’m eager to see your next post about Moore’s leadership on dissidence.
    He does spend a lot of time posting on Aetology. And responding to “Denialists”. It’s almost difficult to believe that it is the REAL Moore posting there.

    Moore like many in AIDS likes lambasting dissenters though with a vindictiveness that is clearly personal to him and his psyche – anyone from Downing out there who can throw light on this please post or email – but his disrespect for critics is one of the cards that every believer plays, except perhaps for the top generals who are mostly above such things, as leaders learn to be in a democracy (which is apparently what this science is, a matter of votes, unlike any other). An early take on this was my The Scorn of Heretics briefing to the Naples Conference on Science and Democracy in 2001, a sort of rundown on the bad reasoning and suspect psychology of faith in HIV, and scorn was the operative word.

    Why does an opponent scorn his critics? In this case, you can think of several reasons.

    1) He is defensive 2) They are ignorant of the world (eg kids, 9/11 nutters, etc) 3) They have arguments he can’t afford to answer in public. 4) He is better paid ie funded and therefore wiser in the ways of the world than the naively idealistic critics 5) They have a conscience and he is determined to keep his switched off. 6) He suffers from inner turmoil and the very sight of a critic is a wound to his psyche 7) Terror at the paradigm collapsing under his feet leaving him exposed intellectually, emotionally, socially and financially.

    You choose. I think all of them apply to Moore. As Patrick says, it all adds up to Denial, the first stage of grief (rather good, Patrick, thanks!). Henceforth in the lexicon of this blog the Denialists with a capital D will refer to the establishment Denialists, who are the only true denialists in this game.

    By the way, I easily checked the date for The Scorn of Heretics by searching the text of the front page of this blog, which I believe offers an unmatched service in collecting almost all of the pages of interest in this matter on its front page, so you just do a simple search on that text for any of them. Easier than Google, even.

  95. hhbauer Says:

    After a couple of brief visits, I stopped looking at Aetiology Blog because it lacks evidence-based discussion and seems just a forum for ranting. Now I find that the Comments here at Science Guardian bring some of that trash to my attention. Just for the record here, I do not now and never have given credence to 9/11 conspiracy theories or to alien-generated (or supernaturally generated or UFO-generated) crop circles. Nor do I “believe in” Loch Ness monsters, I just assert that there is strong evidence that large unidentified animals are extant in Loch Ness, see http://www.henryhbauer.homestead.com/LochNessFacts.html and writings cited (and some posted) there. For my approach to looking into scientific unorthodoxies and heresies, see my latest discussion in the 2001 book SCIENCE OR PSEUDOSCIENCE: MAGNETIC HEALING, PSYCHIC PHENOMENA, AND OTHER HETERODOXIES (http://scienceorpseudoscience.homestead.com/ has bits from various gratifyingly positive reviews)

  96. Truthseeker Says:

    Well, Henry, thank you for that. These disgraceful false claims have to be nipped in the bud, so I posted on Aetiology to that effect. With any luck, the last time, since with Moore gone (if you ibelieve that) there is no one there worth teasing.

    ———————————————————————————————————-

    Moore picks up his marbles (those that are left)

    I’ve gleaned a few useful items of political intelligence for the real-world war against HIV/AIDS denialism from these threads, but I don’t think there’s much more to be learned from this particular subset of loonies, so I’ll not be visiting this thread again.

    Wait! Come back! We need you John. You are the best living demonstration of the fact that HIV=AIDS apologists/exploiters/fanatics/ have absolutely no scientific reply to those who refute their absurd claim/23 year unproven hypothesis/massively silly theory/self-serving stupidity/dangerous rationale for killer drugs. None.

    You are our Living Exhibit No. 1 of this overriding fact. Anyone who doubts HIV=AIDS just has to review your contributions to this thread to confirm their suspicions that it is bunk. You are the most public Denialist now, and you show us that the Denialists have empty hands when faced with sincere and knowledgeable complaints. All you fire back is insults, politics, and refusals to debate dangerous heresy in case starving blacks don’t take their life saving ARVs.

    Now you are leaving us, What one wonders is how long do you think bad logic will last without your fierce counterattacks to protect it?

    A claim a retrovirus is deadly for the first time in history, contrary to all known science about retroviruses (pace Gallo and his absurd HTLV-I), with no animal model, no modus operandi, no significant presence, no “significant biological effect” (your words), no discernible health effects until you catch some other plague or poison – are you really so cynical that you think the average concerned citizen will swallow this nonsense for long?

    Well, we already know the answer to that. You have prepared your lifeboat in the form of the papers we are about to put stage center at Science Guardian.

    The real 9/11

    As a farewell present let’s acknowledge one thing. There certainly are one or two 9/11 gullibles around here. We welcome them for scoring some very good points in this debate. It doesn’t mean they are wrong about HIV=AIDS. Each case is separate. Humans being what they are it is quite hard to find anyone who is entirely sane, you and me excepted of course, and Kruger and Dunning.

    So let’s respond to jspreen, who seems to have the right idea about HIV, but runs with the loonies on 9/11, JSpreen wrote that we had the wrong idea about 9/11, “no one mentioned the Bushies,” etc.

    Well, OK, js, let’s define the terms then. What exactly is the right idea – your alternative explanation for 9/11? The Pentagon was blown up with explosives and not hit by an airplane? So where did the reported fourth hijacked airplane go? And what made the very large hole in Minnesota or wherever? Misplaced explosives?

    I am already sorry I asked.

    Henry Bauer speaks

    Getting back to incorrect claims here that the inimitable Henry Bauer is a 9/11 flake/nut/screwball, he writes to us that:

    “After a couple of brief visits, I stopped looking at Aetiology Blog because it lacks evidence-based discussion and seems just a forum for ranting. Now I find that the Comments here at Science Guardian bring some of that trash to my attention. Just for the record here, I do not now and never have given credence to 9/11 conspiracy theories or to alien-generated (or supernaturally generated or UFO-generated) crop circles. Nor do I “believe in” Loch Ness monsters, I just assert that there is strong evidence that large unidentified animals are extant in Loch Ness, see http://www.henryhbauer.homestead.com/LochNessFacts.html and writings cited (and some posted) there. For my approach to looking into scientific unorthodoxies and heresies, see my latest discussion in the 2001 book SCIENCE OR PSEUDOSCIENCE: MAGNETIC HEALING, PSYCHIC PHENOMENA, AND OTHER HETERODOXIES (http://scienceorpseudoscience.homestead.com/ has bits from various gratifyingly positive reviews)”

    Like the sound of that? All should read his latest book on the unlikely nature of the HIV=AIDS scheme. Very nice academic tone, restrained and accurately phrased.

    The bottom line is personal shame

    Getting back to no more Moore, the prospect saddens us and we have lost the zestful sense of humor his antics always put us in,

    So we have to be serious for a moment. Let’s face it, this is the most shameful scam in science and a disgrace to all competent scientists who claim authority in perpetuating it.

    What would your mother say, John, if she understood what you were up to? What would your Downing College friends say? Isn’t there anybody in your life trying to put you back on the straight and narrow?

    Are you the Lonely Guy of AIDS? Was cooler right in suggesting that you need the attention of a good woman? Or is your taste is the other direction? Would you at least consider attending a (secular) church tomorrow?

    So many questions will now have to go unanswered, on top of the fifty HIV=AIDS ones you have failed to answer so far.

    Posted by: Truthseeker | November 24, 2007 9:19 PM
    ————————————————————————————————–
    Sorry about the ad hominem bit at the bottom, cooler’s influence I am afraid.

    That kid is fun.

  97. MacDonald Says:

    It remains a tactical error as well as a waste of time to get dragged into 9/11, Creationism, Relativity theory, Crop Circles or any other kind of debate not directly related to HIV/AIDS on Aetiology.

  98. Truthseeker Says:

    Damn got caught again. Maybe I can translate these bloviations into posts on NAR:

    ————————————————————————————————–
    This verbiage is a modern day equivalent of a voodoo curse, or perhaps a witch doctor shaking a rattle while chanting a death song to the patient. It may have worked quite well from 1985-1995, driving thousands of drug abusing gays to their deaths by AZT. However, this is 20 years later and the fraud has been revealed for all to see. The witchdoctor has no teeth and is recognized as a clown. HIV is a harmless passenger virus, and those who wisely avoid the toxic drugs are labeled long term non-progressors. How many LTNPs are there? All of them who avoid the deadly drugs.

    Posted by: Each_Eye_Vee | November 24, 2007 10:28 PM

    Well said, EEV. The phenomenon of a sufficiently widespread belief led by numbskulls and charlatans in authority and leadership positions being enthusiastically and witlessly promoted by crowds of automaton supporters is one of the most interesting if depressing facets of human social nature.

    In this case the incantation of one of this species is so fatuous that it defeats itself, but the more subtle examples of this kind of witchdoctoring peddled by ignorant physicians who fail to inform themselves of the correct science they are failing to implement are even more egregious.

    A visit a couple of years ago to an expensive Park Avenue doc who tried this on a friend in dealing with his request for a prescription for a harmless malady – suggesting an HIV test just to be sure it was n’t part of that umbrella syndrome – still has him brooding about suing the wretch for the return of his fee, given his incompetence at briefing himself properly on an important area of medicine and yet charging an arm and a leg for his incorrect advice.

    No doubt if it had not been refused and by some chance was positive the guy would have been urged to take poisonous ARVs and if he refused he would have been pressured to the maximum in the ways described by some of the commentators on Science Guardian, which are so disgraceful they are hard to credit.

    But then the censoring activity of the gatekeepers of mainstream science who edit the journals specialists skim but rarely read such as Nature, Science etc, JAMA, NEJ etc is to blame for all this, so one shouldn’t castigate them too much.

    Ultimately it is Anthony Fauci of NIAID who imposed this censorship on the reporters of the major media explicitly in the first place twenty years ago who has to take responsibility for the HIV=AIDS information debacle, which leads so many people – almost everybody working in the field – to be entirely ignorant of any alternative explanation for the syndrome, as Fauci intended.

    Posted by: Truthseeker | November 25, 2007 11:45 AM
    ——————————————————————————————————

    Well, let’s face it, the task of all truthseekers in this realm is to publicise the existence of the alternative explanation all over the planet.

    The alternative explanation that HIV=AIDS is not a result of an infectious virus but a drug/conventional disease/nutritional deficit problem.

    That’s the soundbite.

  99. Truthseeker Says:

    It remains a tactical error as well as a waste of time to get dragged into 9/11, Creationism, Relativity theory, Crop Circles or any other kind of debate not directly related to HIV/AIDS on Aetiology.

    Largely true, McD, except for one hoping that jspreen will rescue himself from being dismissed as a total flake, rendering him useless as an objector to HIV=AIDS. Coller has defeated his own credibility in the same way, I notice, with Moore crowing over it all.

    That is partly why I have posted a few comments in educated prose in a probably hopeless attempt to help rescue the credibility of the views they have now undermined, except for your and the others’ informed support, luckily.

  100. Truthseeker Says:

    You are undoubtedly right that it is an unwanted distraction, MacD, but I can’t resist trying to kill the writhing dragon with one more try:

    ——————————————————————————————————–

    “What is the probability a Boeing-757 completely disappeared into the Pentagon through a hole some 20 feet across and leaving no trace behind?”

    Zero. Happy now? Silly question. Doesn’t make me a 9/11 crazy, the answer is contained in the question as stated.

    I was just trying to give you a chance to retain some shred of general credibility, Spreen, but you have failed me. Now Mr Moore is chortling, as you deserve, and the good points you have made on HIV=AIDS, where you are right, are blown away by your own breath.

    Again my notice to onlookers is, it is possible for the logically handicapped to be right on one problem and wrong on another, though their credibility will be severely weakened by their mistakes.

    Each case must be judged separately by listeners. In this case, 9/11 is a silly distraction, and an unfortunate blow to the credibility of more than one poster here, when they need all the credibility they can muster, with most of the world against them.

    Those of us who see the correct conclusion in reviewing the HIV=AIDS literature, that it supports the answer that AIDS is a drug/conventional disease/nutritional deficit syndrome and not an infectious retrovirus syndrome, do not need their own credibility called into question by the partnership of 9/11 nutters.

    I won’t give you an alternative explanation for 9/11 because I don’t know for sure what the right idea might be. But I definitely know for sure what the wrong idea is. Answer my question above. Then you will know it for sure too.

    We have answered. Now, with respect, if you wish to retain any shred of credibility yourself on this thread, and stop diminishing the credibility of others, then you should answer the question posed to you or stop mentioning 9/11, which as an unrelated, non scientific issue is not otherwise relevant in this context.

    What is your alternative explanation for the news reports and extensive media and expert reviews of 9/11?

    Those who question HIV=AIDS do provide an alternative interpretation, fully supported by the literature. AIDS is a drug/conventional disease/nutritional deficit syndrome.

    Posted by: Truthseeker | November 25, 2007 12:43 PM
    ———————————————————————————
    Of course, I forgot to mention the key problem, which is that they credit the bad 9/11 data carried on the Net.

    But any opportunity to emphasise that HIV=AIDS critics have a perfectly straight forward alternative explanation yielded by the scientific literature is useful.

  101. yello Says:

    A word of advice Mr. TruthSeeker Sir.

    You basically say, “I don’t know” when it comes to 9/11 and it’s…oddities.I admit I don’t know a lick about it myself and I think what Mr. Macdonald sir was enumerating was that the Aetiology blog should be strictly for debating the very real fallacies of the HIV/AIDS paradigm.

    In other words, kindly admit that you don’t know the subject, have no interest in it; and if Jspreen sir continues to badger you on it, refrain from anything but a polite “I simply don’t know, may we return to the thread subject at hand sir?”

    I apologise if I am too forward.

  102. Truthseeker Says:

    One last attempt to drive a stake through the heart of 9/11 paranoia and its stain on the credibility of rational HIV=AIDS critics:

    —————————————————————————————————————–

    What is your alternative explanation for the news reports and extensive media and expert reviews of 9/11?

    Main stream news reports and expert reviews of 911 are total bullshit, exactly as is the case on main stream HIV=Aids reporting and expert knowledge.
    What do you think, you dummy, that the HIV=Aids nonsense is just some detail bug in the Kingdom of the Just?
    Come on, man! The Aids lie was possible, and has kept standing upright throughout the years, only because the whole system is biased. Not only Duesberg is cut out of the mass media all over the globe, every heretic is. In other words: Science and the whole fucking world press is sold out.

    People are blind and cannot think. You, for instance, are unable to recognize that the answer “Zero” you just provided, makes you a perfect 911 nut, as you call it.
    Because, if the probability is zero indeed, it means that there was no airplane in the Pentagone. Which implies that there’s a big lie going on somewhere the whole world press, or at least the part I can see of it, prefers to ignore.

    I was just trying to give you a chance to retain some shred of general credibility, Spreen,

    Do I deserve such kindness? Me thinks no. BTW, to enhance clarity, may I suggest His Majesty decides once and for all whether it’s I or We, my or Our?

    Okay, this far and no further. This is hardly the place to get into a general fight over 911, is it? I just thought a small hint might come in handy for you to stop making an ass of yourself, but maybe it was not such a good idea after all.

    ____________________

    Me, angry? Yes, very

    Posted by: jspreen | November 25, 2007 3:35 PM

    —–

    People are blind and cannot think. You, for instance, are unable to recognize that the answer “Zero” you just provided, makes you a perfect 911 nut, as you call it. Because, if the probability is zero indeed, it means that there was no airplane in the Pentagone.

    This is your best answer to my request for your alternative scenario to explain 9/11 data? No answer at all?

    So what caused the hole in the Pentagone, Jspreen?

    If CIA explosives, what happened to the fourth plane run by hijackers, tracked in air space to the Pentagone? Is it penta-gone from your radar?

    And how about the large hole in middle American forest land? Was that a CIA explosives preparation cabin which inadvertently exploded as they were building a fuse? Or a plane?

    If you cannot answer, could we at least arrange that you post with some alternative moniker when commenting on HIV=AIDS, on which you have the right idea, but only by reason of emotional attitude it appears, not intellectual.

    Then Moore will stop crowing happily that only “cranks, cuckoos, flakes and nuts” support a revision of HIV=AIDS into drugs/conventional disease/nutritional deficit=AIDS.

    This is not to devalue your perception that something is wrong in HIV=AIDS. Your antennae are probably extra sensitive to that kind of thing, for some reason, but you spread your suspicions over too wide an area, thoughtlessly.

    But let us now agree tthat you simply fail to have any alternative coherent explanation for the 9/11 data, so all your suspicions amount to nothing but emotional attitude and the general theme “It ain’t true because I don’t believe mainstream sources”.

    Sources such as the media, the official sources or experts who wrote extensive reports presented to a huge conference at Columbia which you didn’t attend, and long PBS investigative reports – all in the pocket of the CIA, you apparently believe.

    But 200 architects and engineers have detected something wrong here, just like you and Howard Zinn!

    In other words, just emotional guff, not much different from the crazies that support HIV=AIDS on the same deluded emotional basis and spout nonsensical imprecations against Noreen, who has more sense in her little finger than you have in your entire mind.

    Use a different name, Jspreen, and stop embarrassing HIV critics and delighting John Moore and his friends.

    Posted by: Truthseeker | November 25, 2007 6:58 PM
    ——————————————————————————————————–
    I believe there is a lesson here. HIV critics have an answer to “Oh really? Well, what do you think causes AIDS, then?”

    Answer: “The scientific literature shows it is a drug/conventional disease/nutritional deficit syndrome.”

    The irrational do not; their rejection of mainstream stories are merely attitude.

    That applies to the Perth group as well, until they come up with a coherent explanatory alternative to the data-proven existence of HIV, which so far on this blog and elsewhere they have failed to do.

    They are welcome to do so, as we have always said.

  103. Truthseeker Says:

    Yello, you and MacD are right. So I returned to the topic at hand, with some quotes from Alex Russell’s Alien AIDS Archive page, which is worth noting for its explorations of gay AIDS hysteria.

    —————————————————————————————————–

    In the Parenzee case Gallo was asked about their original work in the early eighties. Work which has only been supported by later studies using improved techniques.

    Posted by: Roy Hinkley | November 24, 2007 2:42 PM

    Well, thanks Roy, for confirming that you are aware that Gallo’s original work in 1984 proved nothing. Gee, that doesn’t cause you any tremors, we gather – that a rich paradigm was initiated by lab work without meaning, later castigated as fraudulent by officials whose punishment of him was only evaded by Gallo’s lawyers manging to get a rewriting of the rules.

    On April 23, 1984 Margaret Heckler, with a concrete coiffure and severe laryngitis, croaked to a packed press conference in Washington DC that: “the probable cause of aids had been found”. This ill-looking US Secretary for Health and Human Services was flanked by gangster, Robert Gallo, somewhat apprehensive and creepy in tainted glasses, a Mafioso fearing being fingered and bumped-off.. Perhaps even then he was anticipating the inevitable ten years of sleaze and stinky revelations of scientific skulduggery that would entertain the cognoscenti. Heckler did not read her prepared statement in its entirety omitting a backhanded acknowledgement that Pasteur scientists had “previously identified a virus which they had linked to AIDS patients,” as well as the prediction that the alleged ‘French’ virus “will prove to be the same” as Gallo’s ‘HTLV-IIIB’. David Rasnick stated: “With that announcement, Gallo had publicly leapfrogged straight across the scientific process – across peer-review and analysis, across the very checks and balances of sciences. He made no attempt to demonstrate his claim but fed it straight to the global media, which broadcast it without hesitation” … Serge Lang was alarmed: “I was very upset. The cause of AIDS was discovered by government fiat…then that announcement was made at the press conference. As far as I’m concerned, from that point on AIDS research turned into seedy, criminal politics, and it remained that way.” …In a calculated pre-emptive strike, Gallo seized the initiative in establishing his discovery ‘HTLV-III’ as the cause of ‘AIDS’. It was pre-emptive because the scientific papers concerning its discovery had not yet been published and indeed, the necessary peer review process had not been completed and none of Gallo’s colleagues had a chance to assess the work or duplicate his results prior to the all important announcement. The US Government gave official backing to what would turn out to be deeply flawed, if not down right fraudulent research. The ‘HTLV-III’ (‘HIV’) hypothesis of ‘AIDS’ causation was engraved in stone and the qualifying word ‘probable’ might never have been croaked. So the premature consensus of the press-conference (23 April, 1984) pre-empted the publication of the Gallo-Popovic four Science (4 May, 1984) papers! Had the four ‘seminal’ Gallo-Popovic Science papers been subjected to rigorous and unbiased peer review they would never have been published and the press conference postponed. Regarding the four fake Science papers, The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) Reports, supported by HIH scientific advisers, found that Gallo and his lab engaged in a number of mal-practices: “lack of laboratory records…lack of attention to details which resulted in false representation…lack of scientific rigor…breached overall responsibility…to ensure the accuracy of the paper…created and fostered conditions that give rise to falsified/fabricated data and falsified scientific reports…” While in spring 1992, the press reported the OSI investigation had cleared Gallo of ‘misconduct’, criticism of the report soon surfaced and a special panel of consultants nominated by the NAS, at the request of HHS and HIH to oversee the investigation, actually charged Gallo with: “a pattern of behavior…that repeatedly misrepresents, suppresses, and distorts data and their interpretation…intellectual recklessness of a high degree – in essence intellectual appropriation of the French viral isolate…” In a written submission to the investigators, Popovic stated:”I did not agree with Dr. Gallo that the references to the work we did with the French virus should be omitted or even significantly minimized. I thought it was wrong not to credit Dr. Montagnier’s group’s contribution more clearly.” The [NIH] Office of Scientific Integrity (OSI) “Final Report” concerning Gallo’s research was revealed in Science & Government Report (June 1, 1992) to be: “a deeply flawed document reflecting an incomplete investigation. The report has been substantially ‘watered down’ from the hard-hitting draft report. Material apparently damaging to Gallo, including some of his own testimony, has been deleted…” Dr. Sonnabend was sickened by Gallo’s dishonesty: “Gallo was certainly committing open fraud. But the point is not to focus on Gallo. It’s us – all of us in the scientific community, we let him get away with it. None of this was hidden…” (Spin, June, 1992)

    Now Gallo says he was vindicated. Can you explain in what way?

    Posted by: Truthseeker | November 26, 2007 2:50 AM

    It’s no wonder jspreen, cooler, noreen, truthseeker, pat, molecular entry claw and their friends can’t get anyone in the mainstream world to pay any attention to what they think about HIV and AIDS.
    Posted by: HIVVER | November 25, 2007 10:35 PM

    HIVVER, perhaps you need a little more data as to why no one is paying much attention to any dissent in HIV=AIDS, however sound and scientific it might be:

    “As AIDS grew in the 1980s into a global, multibillion-dollar juggernaut of diagnostics, drugs, and activist organizations, whose sole target in the fight against AIDS was HIV, condemning Duesberg became part of the moral crusade. Prior to that 1987 paper, Duesberg was one of a handful of the most highly funded and prized scientists in the country. Subsequently, his NIH funding was terminated and he has received not one single federal research dollar since his pre-1987 $350,000 Outstanding Investigator Grant ran out. Duesberg lost his lab facilities and had to move twice within a few years to smaller labs on the Berkeley campus, where he spent much of his time writing futile research grant proposals asking to test his hypothesis that AIDS is a chemical syndrome, caused by accumulated toxins from heavy drug use. He lost his graduate students, who were warned that to emerge from his lab would blight their careers. He was denied and had to fight for routine pay increases by his employers at UC Berkeley, where he has tenure and still teaches. He was “disinvited” from scientific conferences, and colleagues even declared that they would refuse to attend any conference that included him. Duesberg also was banished from publishing in scientific journals that previously had welcomed his contributions, most theatrically by the editor of Nature, Sir John Maddox, who wrote a bizarre editorial declaring that Duesberg would he denied the standard scientific “right of reply” in response to personal attacks that were frequently published in that journal. Prior to 1987, Peter Duesberg never had a single grant proposal rejected by the NIH. Since 1991 he has written a total of twenty-five research proposals, every single one of which has been rejected. “They took him out, just took him right out,” says Richard Strohman, an emeritus professor of biology at UC Berkeley. And what was it, exactly, that Peter Duesberg had done? He simply pointed out that no one had yet proven that HIV is capable of causing a single disease, much less the twenty-five diseases that are now part of the clinical definition of AIDS. He pointed to a number of paradoxes regarding HIV and argued that far from being evidence that HIV is “mysterious” or “enigmatic,” these paradoxes were evidence that HIV is a passenger virus. “- Celia Farber, Out of Control, AIDS and the corruption of medical science, Harpers, March 2006.

    No wonder dissenters are mostly outside the field.

    Posted by: Truthseeker | November 26, 2007 3:13 AM
    —————————————————————————–

  104. Truthseeker Says:

    Oops.

    ——————————————————————-

    “Use a different name, Jspreen, and stop embarrassing HIV critics and delighting John Moore and his friends.”

    Hey, Truthseeker! Now I understand why Johnny pee more esteems you so much and has no esteem for me at all: it’s because you don’t criticize 911!

    But should I use a different pen name? What difference would that make? I mean, a guy who knows Dr Ryke Geerd Hamer’s New Medicine as well as I do plus perfectly recognizes the HIV=Aids lies plus clearly sees through the 911 smoke screens plus writes such witty and marvelous posts with so many typos: I’d be unmasked after two lines of writing. So, jspreen it is and jspreen it will stay.
    Besides, I have nothing to hide and am proud of my heretic ideas. ALL of them.

    Posted by: jspreen | November 26, 2007 6:03 AM

    Truthseeker wrote:
    “Dr. Sonnabend was sickened by Gallo’s dishonesty: “Gallo was certainly committing open fraud. But the point is not to focus on Gallo. It’s us – all of us in the scientific community, we let him get away with it. None of this was hidden…” (Spin, June, 1992)”

    This is the same Dr. Sonnabend who later realized that he was wrong, and Gallo was correct. Dr. Sonnabend now recommends antiretroviral therapy for his patients who are progressing to AIDS because of their infection with HIV. See for example:
    http://www.aegis.com/pubs/gmhc/2005/GM190903.html
    and
    http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/16/18/News/feature.html

    Posted by: Dr. Duke | November 26, 2007 2:56 PM

    Besides, I have nothing to hide and am proud of my heretic ideas. ALL of them.

    Apologies, Jspreen, this is a fine attitude and so is wholesale skepticism, far better than the kind of teacher’s pet automaton mental paralysis that typifies defenders of the status quo. And yes yours and coolers posts are often highly entertaining and even hilarious as they give the smug fellow travelers of power their come uppance. A danger to the keyboards of all coffee drinkers who read them!

    You guys are live and kicking and entering into life with gusto and instead of buying everything you are sold you take a second look and kick the tires, and if anyone is in need of rescue you are the kind of guys that will strip off their coats and jump in to save them, while the human sheep baa in terrified unison on land as they get herded in for slaughter.

    Good for you. I just hope that discovering the blatant corruption of HIV=AIDS hasn’t made you too cynical and distrustful about everything else, there are known to be good people in high positions who take responsibility for others and try to do the right thing, and not all of science, government and corporate leadership is corrupt and willing to sacrifice the health and lives of others for the sake of their pocketbooks.

    The human race wouldn’t survive if we were all like that. Most of us are decent people who judge others by ourselves and get too easily suckered by charlatans, perhaps, so the tire kickers such as yourselves perform a vital service.

    Posted by: Truthseeker | November 26, 2007 3:10 PM

    This is the same Dr. Sonnabend who later realized that he was wrong, and Gallo was correct. Dr. Sonnabend now recommends antiretroviral therapy for his patients who are progressing to AIDS because of their infection with HIV. – Posted by: Dr. Duke | November 26, 2007 2:56 PM

    Yes, Dr Duke, what you say is true, Sonnabend bended, perhaps even broke, after a fine early history of looking askance at what he was asked to believe and comparing it with what he saw with his own eyes in his patients. He was one of the founders of AMFAR, I believe. But being ostracized for what he thought was an experience which was followed by a change in view. Whether the one followed from the other is hard to say, but each reader can make up their own minds on it.

    I didn’t write that story, by the way, it was Celia Farber you were quoting I believe, or Alex Russell. But it rings true to me. The political pressure on dissent has been excruciating from the start, as the Duesberg saga shows.

    Ever wonder why a valid paradigm would need an Inquisition? Maybe you should.

    Posted by: Truthseeker | November 26, 2007 3:17 PM
    ———————————————————————————–

  105. Truthseeker Says:

    Ladies and gentlemen, this site is attracting so much attention that it is exceeding its CPU quota.

    Apologies to all till rectified.

  106. patrick moore Says:

    and now for something completely different…

    I am posting here because I have no clue where else or how else; kinda like a message in a bottle.

    One a long ago thread I remember Celia Faber talking about how her mother would treat their ear infections with a clove of garlic stuck in the ear. Well today I found this about garlic at

    well.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/unlocking-the-benefits-of-garlic/?WT.mc_id=HL-D-I-NYT-MOD-MOD-M004-OP-1107-PH&WT.mc_ev=click&mkt=HL-D-I-NYT-MOD-MOD-M003-OP-1107-PH.

    “Unlocking the Benefits of Garlic

    Garlic has long been touted as a health booster, but it’s never been clear why the herb might be good for you. Now new research is beginning to unlock the secrets of the odoriferous bulb”

    Comment 36:

    “October 16th, 2007 7:47 pm
    I never had a problem with my own child’s ears but my sister’s kids had persistent ear infections. After many doctor visits and much medicine that didn’t work, the only thing that cleared up her kids’ infections were cut cloves of garlic stuck in the ears!
    — Posted by Janine

    “The plural of anecdote is not data!” I already hear some fox-hole’d souls yelling about blindly in some kind of self-induced fog of war but the obvious claim is: “the plural of anecdote is clue”. I don’t think these scientists decided on garlic at random.

    Isn’t the difference between “anecdote” and “hypothesis” merely financially determined? An anecdote is the ramblings of a person with too much time on his hands and a hypothesis is the ramblings of a scientist paid too much for his time? It seems like that to me sometimes. I remember a few years back reading about a science report declaring that scientists discovered that letting children play in the mud increases immune strength. I am certain they were paid for their time and I was bored by the headline alone.
    There needs to be a Nobel prize for parents and grand-parents and grand-grand-parents and grand-grand-gra….who “believed” in all this stuff without ever having the benefit of “data”. I am thankful though that they are looking into it and hope they look at it closely, especially that ear infection thing.

    Just thought I’d share that.

  107. yello Says:

    Well, looks like you did well in posting links at Aetiology Mr. Truthseeker sir.

    Perhaps the lurkers over there will get an eye-opener here perusing the web archives and the linked websites, whatever their preconceived notions.To be honest, I had been hoping you would have done so earlier. The amount of archived information here is _vast_ for a blogger and well referenced.

    One more thing, you’re kicking ass over there, just stick to the topic you know so well at hand sir.

    To the people who are 9/11 investigators, please do not denigrate Mr. Truthseeker’s disinterest, he has more than enough on his plate as is. Act cordially to him and I am sure he will do likewise.

    Again if I am too forward, I apologise.

    ((Never too forward if larded with compliments. – Ed.))

  108. Truthseeker Says:

    Patrick, surely you don’t believe there are no papers in journals showing the effect of garlic? Just try PubMed or Google. After all, apple sauce (pectin) has just been found to cure prostate cancer: 40% reduction in cancer cells through apoptosis.
    Nutraceuticals carries that kind of news of which there has been a flood in the mainstream journals in recent months and years, which must seriously worry the commerical drug companies. But of course the mainstream media don’t headline such stuff, as the pectin story shows.

    Am I wrong in recalling Chris Noble scooted from this site when he was challenged on why he confessed he wouldn’t himself take ARVs? Had to ask him again on Aetiology.

    ————————————————————

    Sonnabend on the other hand is a rethinker. He looked at the evidence and rethought his position. He was and probably still is a skeptic. He was skeptical about the longterm benefits of AZT monotherapy. – Chris Noble

    He told Lederer at POZ magazine in April 2006 that high initial AZT doses had killed thousands needlessly. At least he held to that. Given the fact that anyone at all who reads the literature over the last 20 years can see that the HIV as cause has failed, except you, it seems, we doubt if he has any genuine faith in it. But perhaps he is too busy seeing patients to study up.

    So Chris, tell us, why wouldn’t you take the drugs if you are such a fervent believer in the dread fantasy of HIV causing death? We ask merely for information, since as an intelligent judgement it seems inconsistent with your loyalty to the cause of rank illiteracy in AIDS. Have the papers in the journals you are so familiar with revealed something to you which suggests they may be dangerous and give you a buffalo hump, and rot your liver fatally, as they do each year in half the US AIDS deaths?

    Perhaps you should read the papers Mr Moore has written that remove four main pillars of the HIV unproven hypothesis, which we are about to write up on New AIDS Review. They would confirm what thus appears to be your niggling suspicion that something in wrong in AIDS, though like Moore you are reluctant to admit it publicly.

    Posted by: Truthseeker | November 26, 2007 10:25 PM
    ————————————————————————-

  109. Robert Houston Says:

    It’s not only AZT monotherapy that Dr. Joseph Sonnabend, the co-founder of AMFAR, has continued to question. In the very same ARTICLE that Dr. Duke cited above as evidence that Sonnabend is now a supporter of ARVs, Sonnabend is quoted as questioning the value of protease inhibitors:

    “The protease inhibitors are not performing as their strongest adherents would have you believe… Most people don’t benefit…”

    “They’re doing the same thing as with AZT. People who are not sick – asymptomatic people – are being placed on these drugs [protease inhibitors], with no evidence whatsoever that they’re going to be helped by them. And those people may actually be hurt because of long-term toxicity.”

  110. Truthseeker Says:

    Oh oh. Those who deal with Chris Noble are condemned to the fate of the Laocoon:

    ———————————————————————————–

    “You could help by actually stating what you believe but this of course would mean that you would have to support your views with evidence”

    I can’t speak for Pat, but here’s what I believe:

    1. A small group of young, gay men in NY and LA and SF were partying pretty hard in the 70’s, using way too many poppers at discos;

    2. Several of them wrecked their immune systems and got sick, some got Kaposi Sarcoma;

    3. Gallo and the virus hunters who had been toiling away for a decade trying to find a pet disease to attribute to their bogus leukemia retroviruses won a political power struggle at the NIH;

    4. A scaremongering, propaganda campaign was unleashed (fatal virus will kill you thru icky sex) on the public.

    5. Homophobic right-wingers like Anita Bryant and Jerry Fallwell tried to blame the disease on gays; this caused a backlash and push to falsely state that “we are all at risk”

    6. For political reasons, the money finally started to flow from the NIH;

    7. The tests, originally designed to screen the blood supply, were bogus and over-sensitive, giving fatal HIV stigmas on a lot of innocent, healthy people;

    8. Failing to produce a vaccine, Sam Broder of NCI and Burroughs Wellcome, started making enormous amount of money selling AZT (toxic cancer chemotherapeutic DNA-chain terminators) to many AIDS patients (which further wrecked their immune systems by killing neutrophils and other white blood cells)

    9. Big Pharma realized it could make fortunes off of AIDS patients by scaring them, testing them and selling them toxic drugs. Mediocre scientsts realized they could make careers out of valiantly fighting AIDS (to no good end).

    10. The virus never spread into the general population. Magically, straight white men and heterosexual housewives almost never get the disease, so the AIDS cabal turned their attention from gays and blacks in USA, to a potentially huge market in Africa.

    Here we are today.

    Bogus science, fueled by corporate greed, cultural stigma and Macchiavellian politics.

    Posted by: Mountain Man | November 27, 2007 12:04 AM

    “So Chris, tell us, why wouldn’t you take the drugs if you are such a fervent believer in the dread fantasy of HIV causing death? We ask merely for information, since as an intelligent judgement it seems inconsistent with your loyalty to the cause of rank illiteracy in AIDS.”

    You are being deceptive again. As usual you take the “admission” that all antiretrovirals have toxicities and some more than other and run with it as far as you can. All the “orthodox” scientists are very upfront with detailing the known toxicities of these drugs. But denialists go to great lengths to exagerate these toxicities and to pretend that no benefits exist.

    A reasonable decision on taking these drugs requires a balance of harm and benefits. Denialists dishonestly say that they are so incredibly toxic that they kill in months and have no benefit. They spend an inordinate amount of time “rethinking” studies that have evidence that contradicts their believes.

    I can not honestly say what my personal decision would be in some ill-defined hypothetical case. What I do know is that I would not delude myself by pretending that HIV doesn’t exist or that it doesn’t cause AIDS.

    Posted by: Chris Noble | November 27, 2007 12:10 AM

    “Perhaps you should read the papers Mr Moore has written that remove four main pillars of the HIV unproven hypothesis, which we are about to write up on New AIDS Review. They would confirm what appears to be your niggling suspicion that something in wrong in AIDS, though like Moore you are reluctant to admit it publicly.”

    The only thing that you demonstrate in these puerile exercises is that you are incapable of understanding the science that you criticise. Have you managed to convince John that he is really a closet Denialist? Who have you convinced?

    Why don’t you get some of the Denialists with scientific training to help you?

    Posted by: Chris Noble | November 27, 2007 12:22 AM

    Moore has no respect left anymore, after the way I humiliated him in our debate he ran away like a little frog whos lost his balls.

    Scroll back and get your balls ready for the intellectual toure de force of humilation I gave moore. So he ran away, with his girlfriend jim. They couldnt handle my power.

    Posted by: cooler | November 27, 2007 12:42 AM

    The only thing that you demonstrate in these puerile exercises is that you are incapable of understanding the science that you criticise. Have you managed to convince John that he is really a closet Denialist? Who have you convinced?

    What was it that we salute as the Kraft-Dunning effect, again? Let’s see… Oh yes, that the slow witted think they are in the fast lane. Right. How about, the earnest are unaware they lack a sense of humor? Or are those two ideas much the same?

    Either way, Chris, you are the finest example extant of the Kraft-Dunning effect known to all of science, that has to be said. Perhaps this is the time to award the Kraft-Dunning prize for 2007, since the likelihood of there being a better candidate in the next five weeks seems non existent.

    So what shall we say in our award speech. How about, To Chris, earnest duffer, sweet natured but confounded by the problem of combining the uphill task of defending the status quo in HIV=AIDS as if it actually benefited anybody, with reading the literature in the topic, even in easy spoonfuls in POZ magazine.

    Ah well. We’ll have to help out. Chris, Joseph Sonnabend not only sadly evaluated the prime AZT era as iatrogenic murder – iatrogenic means physician perpetrated, Chris, as you know – but contrary to your unread assertion just a few comments back, he also compared the ARVs – which you imagine he respects as much as you do – with AZT.

    “They are doing the same thing as with AZT. People who are not sick … are being placed on these drugs with no evidence whatsoever that they’re going to be helped by them. And those people may actually be hurt because of long term toxicity.”

    What is there about these words that you do not understand, Chris? I even edited out a hard word (asymptomatic).

    “No evidence whatsoever that they are going to be helped by them.”

    What is there about these words that you do not understand, Chris?

    What is it about the 10 points the Mountain Man listed above that you do not understand, Chris?

    What is it about the twenty year critique of HIV=AIDS that you do not understand, Chris? Are 25 books not enough for you?

    A multi weekend series in the Sunday Times of London? 15 pages last year in Harpers? Innumerable Words from the Front in SPIN over a decade? Challenges by Serge Lang? Harvey Bialy’s book Oncogenes, Aneuploidy and AIDS? Harvey Bialy’s blog, You Bet Your Life? Are not ten critical unrefuted peer reviewed articles by Duesberg in the top journals enough for you to get a glimmer of what is going on? At least FIVE articles by John Moore detailing the fundamental problems with HIV=AIDS that vitiate the paradigm and its research? The reviews by Fauci and others giving up on any sensible explanation of the “conundrum” of how HIV could possibly cause T cell decline except by some magic of indirection, mechanism unknown? The book by Montagnier saying that by itself HIV is a gambolling kitten, for only cofactors introduce illness? The paper of Abraham Karpas of Cambridge agreeing that ordinary levels of antibodies seen in any healthy person exposed to HIV are sufficient to defeat it?

    Pat may have some excuse for not being entirely sure that HIV is not causing some part of AIDS but you?

    So the question is, are YOU familiar with the literature, scientific and lay? Excuse us if we doubt you can truly understand any of it except as trees in a wood whose shape you still cannot discern after tramping it for two decades.

    All that earnest effort and so little result. Chris, we feel genuinely sad, since we admire those who try so hard to inform themselves.

    Any help we can offer, just ask. Try reading Science Guardian/New AIDS Review. We make a special effort to make what the literature says discernible to those who are… what shall we say?…science challenged. It’s our raison d’etre.

    Working together, we can beat this thing. No charge. View it as our Christmas present to you, in recognition of all the effort you have put in so far.

    Those that seek the truth shall find it.

    Posted by: Truthseeker | November 27, 2007 1:36 AM
    —————————————————————————–
    Enough trivial threading. The Moore post is due.

  111. patrick moore Says:

    “Patrick, surely you don’t believe there are no papers in journals showing the effect of garlic?”

    I can believe that just try that with Tara or Orac…oohoh

  112. Braganza Says:

    Garlic works against a range of viruses, bacterias, mycobacterias and fungus (tuberculosis and against PCP, candidae etc….).

    Has also (proven) liver protective activity, which is important for glutathione deprived people.

    Liver protective effects are coupled with increased expression of human cytochrome P-450 isozymes, therefore increased metabolism of a range of substances (mainly toxic exo-substances), due to that it metabolize antiretrovirals faster, so HIV people taking garlic and HAART have less HAART in the blood.

    Against tuberculosis it has been used in traditional Indian medicine, this is very well documented, but may not be acceptable by the NIH, against PCP I can remember that a in-vitro lab dish study has been published, but no large scale study has been performed as far as I know.

    I can provide a lot of references (papers and books) if somebody require them.

  113. patrick moore Says:

    “I can provide a lot of references (papers and books) if somebody require them.”

    that must be Moi 🙂 thanks in advance

  114. Rezaf Says:

    Patrick,

    I’ve also heard of amygdalin(laetrile, I think the commecial version is called) and related nitrilosides. Probably most of you have also heard of it. And is also a big headache for pharma companies because of its (alleged) devastating effect on almost any type of cancer with a toxicity equalling that of glucose. But cannot find anything regarding the true effectiveness of nitrilosides and the only few official studies available just say it is poisonous, period.
    But in the other hand, others say that it is extremelly effective and selective cancer killer without the chemo side-effects.
    This is what I have found in my short time:

    http://users.navi.net/~rsc/krebs3.htm

    Chang HK, Shin MS, Yang HY, Lee JW, Kim YS, Lee MH, Kim J, Kim KH, Kim CJ.Amygdalin induces apoptosis through regulation of Bax and Bcl-2 expressions in human DU145 and LNCaP prostate cancer cells.Biol Pharm Bull. 2006 Aug;29(8):1597-602. PMID: 16880611

    Park HJ, Yoon SH, Han LS, Zheng LT, Jung KH, Uhm YK, Lee JH, Jeong JS, Joo WS, Yim SV, Chung JH, Hong SP.Amygdalin inhibits genes related to cell cycle in SNU-C4 human colon cancer cells.World J Gastroenterol. 2005 Sep 7;11(33):5156-61. PMID: 16127745 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

    Fukuda T, Ito H, Mukainaka T, Tokuda H, Nishino H, Yoshida T.Anti-tumor promoting effect of glycosides from Prunus persica seeds.Biol Pharm Bull. 2003 Feb;26(2):271-3. PMID: 12576693 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

    The Prunus genus includes apricot, prunes, plums, peaches and cherrys. Apples are also related.

    Syrigos KN, Rowlinson-Busza G, Epenetos AA.In vitro cytotoxicity following specific activation of amygdalin by beta-glucosidase conjugated to a bladder cancer-associated monoclonal antibody.Int J Cancer. 1998 Dec 9;78(6):712-9. PMID: 9833764 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

    I think that HIV=AIDS problem has some parallels with the cancer problem. The parallel being the pharma companies making big bucks with expensive and sometimes toxic drugs, and the medical estabilishment offering little choice to patients other than chemotherapy, radiation therapy or surgery. The other parallel being the multiple and still somewhat elusive causes of cancer. Normally doctors don’t tell HIV-positives or AIDS patients to eat their veggies or to resort to alternative therapies. The same happens in cancer.

    TS, I know this is not part of the topic, but I think that there are some parallels in both issues.
    We know about the disease for decades.
    No one knows for sure what causes it ( to this day it could be anything).
    After billions of dollars spent on research, all we got is damaging chemo drugs, cancer generating radiotherapy and surgery.
    There is some effort from the medical estabilishment to suppress alternative therapies that can yield results.
    But in case of the cancer issue, the industry has a far greater momentum than the HIV=AIDS industry.
    Maybe I’m just over-curious.
    Well, apple seeds don’t hurt me and I love chick peas and lentils.

  115. Rezaf Says:

    Btw, Patrick, try searching for alliin and allicin, being allicin the antibiotic factor of garlic and alliin the cysteine derivative also present in garlic.

  116. Truthseeker Says:

    Cancer and AIDS: political and moral twins

    Rezaf, the situation in cancer is markedly similar, since it is the second greatest paradigm caper in biology. Parallel not least because Peter Duesberg was the giant whistleblower in that field too, as the excellent and scientifically accurate biography of Duesberg Oncogenes, Aneuploidy, and AIDS: A Scientific Life and Times of Peter H. Duesberg by his colleague in arms ex Nature Biotechnology science editor Harvey Bialy makes clear.

    In fact, the original Cancer Research article Duesberg wrote in 1988 – Duesberg, P.H. (1987) Retroviruses as Carcinogens and Pathogens: Expectations and Reality (Cancer Research 47: 1199-1220) – was aimed at debunking his own achievement in discovering the retroviral oncogene which can be made to produce Raus sarcoma in chickens, if you try really hard.

    This discovery was the trigger for the War on Cancer which opened the funding spigot wide for retrovirologists since it suggested that human cancer was in some way triggered by retroviral elements in the human genome. Duesberg’s paper reasoned conclusively this was not true and a dead end for cancer research, and added as a full addendum that a retrovirus was not the cause of AIDS either. It was written at the invitation of the editor of Cancer Research. No one ever dared contradict it in the same journal or directly at the same peer reviewed level anywhere else.

    The result was that the surefire Nobel in his future vanished in a puff of smoke and everybody in either field viewed him as the chief threat to their funding and rainmaker on their parade, and his hitherto automatic huge NIH funding support from his peer group plunged to zero and has been there ever since.

    With him taken out, both oncogenes and HIV=AIDS paradigms have sailed on regardless of the fact that he had disproved both, and became exceedingly well funded, a waste of public money and lives unprecedented in science, as the literature of both tells us.

    All this has been mentioned in posts in this blog, and the titles referred to are linked in the master source list down the right hand margin of the front page. Email me at anthony@scienceguardian.com if you wish to have a copy of Bialy’s brilliant book. You deserve it for your thoughtfulness, since the explanations of the humble blog host probably insult the expertise of the knowledgeable.

    The latest development has been that Duesberg’s own research into cancer, which is his specialty, has prompted a line of investigation into why cancer cells has such huge disruption of their chromosomes, having up to double the usual number. This is referred to as aneuploidy, as in the title of Bialy’s book, and the aneuploidy theory is now the latest promising path into the origins of cancer, as evidenced by the number of top researchers who have switched to it, and the strenuous efforts they are making to wrest credit away from Duesberg.

    Reward for speaking out with his best scientific analysis in public, regardless of political consequences, for Duesberg? Goodbye to funding – making it extremely difficult for him to progress in what everybody recognizes as the second fertile field of research he has initiated – and possibly goodbye to credit in the media for his achievement.

    You can see why known causes of cancer – radiation, chemicals – might go along with the grotesque chromosomal disruption of the aneuploidy seen in all cancers. You can also see why some people think that the political disruption of Duesberg’s work in response to his scientific integrity is equally grotesque, morally and socially speaking.

    That is why critics urgently seek some alternative to centralized NIH science funding overseen by bureaucrats and steered by peer group reviewers heavily invested in the status quo, at least for the best scientists who might well make original discoveries and pursue lines of investigation which threaten to topple ruling paradigms, especially when those paradigms never had a logical leg to stand on in the first place.

  117. Robert Houston Says:

    I posted the following tonight at Aetiology in response to Chris Noble’s claim that Truthseeker was “lying” about a statement by Prof. Karpas that HIV antibodies are protective:

    The tempest in a teacup today between Truthseeker of New Aids Review and Dr. Chris Noble could be easily resolved by calling in Prof. Abraham Karpas of Cambridge University to act as judge and tell us what he actually believes. Indeed, Dr. Noble has suggested that we do just that.

    Let’s recall that Truthseeker had referred to “the paper of Abraham Karpas of Cambridge agreeing that ordinary levels of antibodies seen in any healthy person exposed to HIV are sufficient to defeat it…”

    Chris Noble responded, “This is a perfect example where you are either blatantly lying or you are completely incapable of understanding the paper that you purport to critique. The paper most definitely does not say that the human immune response is sufficient to defeat HIV.”

    Are these learned disputants talking about the same paper? What does it actually say? In his review, “Human retroviruses in leukaemia and AIDS,” in Biology Reviews 79:911-933, 2004, Dr. Abraham Karpas states the following, which I believe was the basis for Truthseeker’s remark:

    “The immune response to HIV can be compared to that of a live viral vaccine. It explains why most HIV-infected individuals remain well for many years.”

    Karpas further notes that this response to HIV occurs “in nearly every infected individual” and describes it as “a vigorous immune response that is protective for many years.”

    Any fair reader can see that Truthseeker’s interpretation was a reasonable reflection of what Karpas actually wrote. The conclusion by Karpas was based on the average 10-15 years sans AIDS after HIV infection.

    Posted by: Robert Houston | November 27, 2007 11:45 PM

  118. Truthseeker Says:

    Caesar fiddles while Rome burns:

    —————————————————————————————
    “To offer you the Kruger-Dunning prize for 2007 is juvenile humor if you like, but it arises from a genuine and very clear perception that you do not understand the lay of the land in HIV=AIDS, cannot see the overall shape of it, because you resolutely refuse to question the basic premise.”

    OK, you are not lying, you are just a scientifically illiterate and self-deluded idiot.

    Here’s an idea for you. You could contact Karpas and ask him whether he agrees with your “interpretation” of his paper.

    What do you think he would say? If he disagrees with you will you simply stick to your misinterpretation and claim that Karpas is a closet Denialist?

    Posted by: Chris Noble | November 27, 2007 7:38 PM

    just keep asking these boneheads for the first 5 scientific papers that prove hiv causes aids, moore is such a retard, he talks about proving a microbes pathenogencity its like a rocket ship, sorry idiot, koch had original experiments that proved casuation, so did shyh ching lo.

    Pretty simple, find a correlation, and inoculate animals, if they dont get sick, better have some long term studies that control for confounding factors such as azt mycoplasmas, drug use, etc especially when youve exteneded your window period from 1 year to 10 years.

    I guess aids inc bypassed all these steps because heckler got desperate, needed a quick political answer, and had the power to create a self perpetuating industry that had no scientific standards whatsover, when of hundereds chimps inoculated didnt die, they just extended the goalposts and made hiv species specific, when the amount of tcell infection was discovered to be so low, 1/1000 or so they blamed the immune system, or they imagined it wth the pcr, get confused which one they beleive now, got any electron microscopy pics from a patient confirmimg these high plasma loads?………….of course not, the corrupt industry just carries on.

    All the meanwhile Lo’s mycoplasma incognitus/penetrans that killed and sickened every animal inoculated is causing all kinds of chronic multi organic illnesses, people that are healthy are told they are going to die, people that are sick and misdiagnosed with Depression etc and really suffering from mycoplasma infection are told to take a Prozac. You guys are murderers, plain and simple. All rethinkers wantis patients to have informed consent and to proceed accordingly.

    Like the former world champion boxer Tommy morrison, he read duesbergs book when he tested positive, and also was seeing world renoun hiv specialist Dr. ho, he found Duesbergs argument more compelling, dumped Ho and is still alive and totally healthy more than ten years later. Informed consent, stop denying us of it and destroying peoples lives.

    Posted by: cooler | November 27, 2007 8:19 PM
    …………….

    OK, you are not lying, you are just a scientifically illiterate and self-deluded idiot.

    Here’s an idea for you. You could contact Karpas and ask him whether he agrees with your “interpretation” of his paper.

    What do you think he would say? If he disagrees with you will you simply stick to your misinterpretation and claim that Karpas is a closet Denialist?

    Posted by: Chris Noble | November 27, 2007 7:38 PM

    Ask Karpas, indeed… even you can imagine what he will say. Look what happened when we asked Nancy Padian what she meanst with her study showing that HIV positivity is not transmitted by heterosexuals. She retreated on AIDStruth to saying it happened 1 in 1000-10,000 ‘close encounters’.

    Gee, that must have gone down well with John Moore. But we don’t think he has noticed, yet. It’s still there:

    HIV is unquestionably transmitted through heterosexual intercourse. Indeed, heterosexual intercourse is now responsible for 70-80% of all HIV transmissions worldwide (2). The current likelihood of male to female infection after a single exposure to HIV is 0.01-0.32% (2, 3), and the current likelihood of female to male infection after a single exposure is 0.01-0.1% (2).

    Check it out at http://aidstruth.org/nancy-padian.php. (Oh but it’s more in the developing world… 20%, even… Why we haven’t really worked out yet, though we have offered gruesome possibilities based on our reasonable assumption that black Africans as very different human beings from us…).

    OK Chris, it is becoming clear that your insults reflect the frustration you have with catching up with what is really going on, and your dim and resentful awareness that perhaps you are not as scientifically and politically sophisticated as you need to be.

    Look, we sympathize – it must be quite a prospect to face to realize that the axe you have ground so simplemindedly for so many years is liable to cut you instead of the your intended targets because you have it back to front and have been sharpening the wrong end. And all this in public, recorded for all time on the Web which never forgets, either through Google cache or Wayback Machine.

    We want to help. First, we suggest a reading list. After all, if you don’t understand what is going on, why not just give up, and buy a good book on the topic? Have you ever read Bialy’s book? If you haven’t, that would certainly account for your resolute naivete in this discussion.

    There really is no point in any discussion with you until you read it, twice. This is a field where politics has distorted what people say and what they write. That is why John has had to be subtle and quietly record his awareness of the problems that defeat HIV=AIDS in journals where nosy journalists (if there are any left in science) never go.

    We were about to explain all this on New AIDS Review by examining his five unpublicised papers on the topic but you keep interrupting.

    Apparently you are not aware of the political factor, and think papers can be read straight. So when you are told of the correct interpretation, you grow resentful and hurl insults such as “scientifically illiterate and self-deluded idiot”, without realizing that these apply to yourself, as host to the HIV-AIDS meme and Kraft-Dunning syndrome both.

    The title of the book is Oncogenes, Aneuploidy, and AIDS: A Scientific Life and Times of Peter H. Duesberg, by Harvey Bialy, you can order it on Amazon for very little.

    Perhaps it will be too subtle for you, though. Bialky does have a wicked sense of humor, one of the litmus tests of intelligence in this arena, we have noticed (floreat ‘cooler’!)

    If so, we suggest Serge Lang’s Challenges. A bit more expensive, but well worth it as the finest and most revealing exposure of the egregious bending of information by academic and press poobahs in print today.

    You need to get up to speed, Chris. Combining the HIV meme and the credulity of a down under ingenue won’t do it. This is the table where the big boys play for very high stakes.

    That’s why Nancy Padian writes this for the Moore HIV defense site::

    Finally, it is a complete fallacy to allege or insinuate that this work has been “suppressed” or “ignored” by the AIDS community or unsupported by UCSF or any other institution with which I have worked. To the contrary, these findings have been seen as central and seminal to the problem of heterosexual transmission rates and the development of interventions to lower the rate of transmission and infection worldwide, many of which are being conducted by my research group. The success of my working group has been fueled, not hindered, by our research on the heterosexual transmission of HIV, attested to by our long record of peer-reviewed publications.

    You don’t admit the meaning of your paper in public if it challenges HIV, you add boiler plate every other paragraph saying it doesn’t.

    You don’t realize this, Chris? You have us concerned. This is not subtle. This is science politics 101.

    Posted by: Truthseeker | November 27, 2007 10:27 PM

    Speaking of dazzling footwork, you’ve gotta admire Nancy’s combined escape clause and conflation of prevalent scientific belief and objective truth in the phrase,

    The current likelihood. . .

    Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 27, 2007 11:30 PM

    The tempest in a teacup today between Truthseeker of New Aids Review and Dr. Chris Noble could be easily resolved by calling in Prof. Abraham Karpas of Cambridge University to act as judge and tell us what he actually believes. Indeed, Dr. Noble has suggested that we do just that.

    Let’s recall that Truthseeker had referred to “the paper of Abraham Karpas of Cambridge agreeing that ordinary levels of antibodies seen in any healthy person exposed to HIV are sufficient to defeat it…”

    Chris Noble responded, “This is a perfect example where you are either blatantly lying or you are completely incapable of understanding the paper that you purport to critique. The paper most definitely does not say that the human immune response is sufficient to defeat HIV.”

    Are these learned disputants talking about the same paper? What does it actually say? In his review, “Human retroviruses in leukaemia and AIDS,” in Biology Reviews 79:911-933, 2004, Dr. Abraham Karpas states the following, which I believe was the basis for Truthseeker’s remark:

    “The immune response to HIV can be compared to that of a live viral vaccine. It explains why most HIV-infected individuals remain well for many years.”

    Karpas further notes that this response to HIV occurs “in nearly every infected individual” and describes it as “a vigorous immune response that is protective for many years.”

    Any fair reader can see that Truthseeker’s interpretation was a reasonable reflection of what Karpas actually wrote. The conclusion by Karpas was based on the average 10-15 years sans AIDS after HIV infection.

    Posted by: Robert Houston | November 27, 2007 11:45 PM

    Dale,

    A great new blog by Dr. Henry Bauer. Much better than this rat-hole of moronic, ass-kissing conformist AZT idealogues.

    Posted by: Mountain Main | November 27, 2007 11:55 PM

    A great new blog by Dr. Henry Bauer. Much better than this rat-hole of moronic, ass-kissing conformist AZT idealogues.

    Posted by: Mountain Man | November 27, 2007 11:55 PM

    Please, MM, do not put people off from reading this exciting thread carefully. How otherwise would they know the qualities and style of those infested with the HIV meme, which make it clear how seriously they should be taken (not).

    Thank you Robert Houston for producing chapter and verse to show that we are right in being concerned for the mental health of Chris, who for so many years has been plagued with the HIV meme and the Kraft-Dunning syndrome, not to mention the Turett-like phenomenon of spouting powerful insults under the impression they are scientific arguments.

    Apparently this powerful combination of mental handicaps has prevented him from actually reading the papers that he says we misinterpret, although this may be the path to a cure..

    Since Moore also exhibits the latter habit of freely insulting HIV critics without actually debating any science with them (dissidents are “denialists” etc) perhaps it should be recognized as the third component of Mr Noble’s mental ailment, hereby named the Moore-Noble Syndrome.

    Of course, this overwhelming combination of mental challenges is what leads to poor Chris’s habit of denouncing our interpretation of papers he has apparently not actually read, such as the Abraham Karpas acknowledgement of the suppression of HIV by the antibodies of any normally healthy person’s immune system.

    Dare we predict that the reply to our rubbing in the total defeat he has just endured will result in another fireworks display of the Moore-Noble syndrome? Let’s hope not.

    After all, if he takes our prescription of reading Bialy, Lang and the papers under discussion he can free himself of all these problems at once.

    We love ya, Chris, you familiar mule, you – get better soon.

    Here’s a definition of ‘obstinacy’ from Ambrose Bierce’s Devil’s Dictionary to solace you in yourr travail:

    Obstinate: adj. Inaccessible to the truth as it is manifest in the splendor and stress of our advocacy. The popular type and exponent of obstinacy is the mule, a most intelligent animal.

    See? He’s on your side.

    Posted by: Truthseeker | November 28, 2007 12:35 AM
    ———————————————————————————-

    Don’t know where MEC got that phrase, it isn’t among the words quoted, is it?

    Cooler is more than a kid, I believe. He knows too much about what went on.

  119. Truthseeker Says:

    After this, Goodbye.

    —————————————————————————

    Robert Houston has commented on the divergent interpretations of Karpas (2004) offered by Truthseeker and by Chris Noble.

    Let’s recall that Truthseeker had referred to “the paper of Abraham Karpas of Cambridge agreeing that ordinary levels of antibodies seen in any healthy person exposed to HIV are sufficient to defeat it…”

    Chris Noble responded, “This is a perfect example where you are either blatantly lying or you are completely incapable of understanding the paper that you purport to critique. The paper most definitely does not say that the human immune response is sufficient to defeat HIV.”

    Houston tries to resolve this dispute by quoting from the Karpas paper:

    Are these learned disputants talking about the same paper? What does it actually say? In his review, “Human retroviruses in leukaemia and AIDS,” in Biology Reviews 79:911-933, 2004, Dr. Abraham Karpas states the following, which I believe was the basis for Truthseeker’s remark:

    “The immune response to HIV can be compared to that of a live viral vaccine. It explains why most HIV-infected individuals remain well for many years.”

    Karpas further notes that this response to HIV occurs

    “in nearly every infected individual” and describes it as “a vigorous immune response that is protective for many years.”

    Any fair reader can see that Truthseeker’s interpretation was a reasonable reflection of what Karpas actually wrote. The conclusion by Karpas was based on the average 10-15 years sans AIDS after HIV infection.

    But what does Karpas really say?

    (1) in nearly every infected individual, despite a vigorous immune response that is protective for many years, eventually one or more mutants emerge that manage to evade the immune response and lead to disease progression and death

    What happened Houston? Was your head buried too deeply in the sand to notice the last half of that sentence from which you quoted?

    Did you miss the part of the sentence where Karpas stated that in nearly every infected individual HIV manages to evade the immune response and lead to death?

    Or did you feel that “any fair reader” would simply ignore this part of the sentence?

    Hmmmm. Let’s see. What were our choices to explain the Denialist interpretation of Karpas?

    Oh yeah: “either blatantly lying” or “completely incapable of understanding the paper”.

    Hmmmm. Which one????

    Posted by: franklin | November 28, 2007 12:46 AM

    “Any fair reader can see that Truthseeker’s interpretation was a reasonable reflection of what Karpas actually wrote. The conclusion by Karpas was based on the average 10-15 years sans AIDS after HIV infection.”

    Any “fair” reader?
    HIV is not “defeated” by the human immune response.
    The amount of viral replication declines after the initial infection period. However, HIV continues to replicate at all stages.

    The “setpoint” which is attained after the initial acute infection is one factor that determines the time to progression to AIDS.

    Liversidge, agrees above that Karpas would not agree with his characterisation. Go ahead and contact him if you want. Just try not to sound like a lunatic crank when you do so.

    You could also try reading some of his other papers for clarification.

    Molecular Medicine Today
    Volume 4, Issue 6, 1 June 1998, Pages 244-249

    This paper has a section titled 2.Why does the immune response to HIV eventually fail?

    It details the main mechanisms whereby HIV evades the immune sytem.

    The human immune response does not defeat HIV as the ironically selfnamed “truthseeker” claims.

    Before anybody starts waffling about HIV breaking the laws of virology or any such nonsense you should do some research on other lentiviruses such as EIAV that also give rise to persistent infections.

    Posted by: Chris Noble | November 28, 2007 12:51 AM

    But what does Karpas really say?

    (1) in nearly every infected individual, despite a vigorous immune response that is protective for many years, eventually one or more mutants emerge that manage to evade the immune response and lead to disease progression and death

    Sorry, franklin, you are hung by your own yard arm. The “one or two mutants emerge” notion is pure imagination, just the usual conciliatory “We salute HIV=AIDS” behavior that keeps Weiss, Fauci et al out of your hair when you make a true observation that will upset them royally. You don’t see this?

    Certainly sorry to hear it, then you have the HIV meme and the Kraft-Dunning glitch in situ as well, please look out for the Moore-Noble syndrome kicking in if you get too frustrated.

    We speak with the utmost personal respect, of course.

    Posted by: Truthseeker | November 28, 2007 1:03 AM

    Liversidge, agrees above that Karpas would not agree with his characterisation. Go ahead and contact him if you want. Just try not to sound like a lunatic crank when you do so.

    I do not. He would not agree publicly. But what he thinks, is in the paper. Read it. Or is the HIV meme interfering with your ratiocination?

    This paper has a section titled 2.Why does the immune response to HIV eventually fail?

    It details the main mechanisms whereby HIV evades the immune sytem.

    Not “it details…”. “It speculates as to…”.

    The Kraft-Dunning syndrome is running riot here, while the meme cracks the whip.

    The immune system defeats HIV. All intelligent and honest scientists have seen this from the start, which is why they are not surprised by the utter shambles of the hopeless vaccine effort.

    Hey, but it needs more funds, right?

    This is written for the benefit of the 80 out of 100 who read but do not post, so they can see how the 20 have no objective view of the politics, let alone the science.

    Anyone who doesn’t have an objective understanding of the politics and how it affects the literature is disqualified from a proper assessment of the paradigm.

    This is Kuhnian paradigm politics par excellence, the greatest example in all the world of science.

    But invisible to the Kraft-Dunning sufferers, unfortunately.

    So excuse, but have to pick up my marbles and go off to New AIDS Review to deal with Moore, who is refreshingly aware of the politics, as his every move shows.

    Posted by: Truthseeker | November 28, 2007 1:16 AM
    ——————————————————————

    Back to the refuge of this site, where the Lord be praised the Kraft-Dunning effect is unknown, since all posters here think for themselves, and not just to preach the catechism.

  120. yello Says:

    Some of us just heap lards of compliments Truthseeker Sir. (oink)

    Seriously though, that was a very interesting thread towards the end.I noticed how many of the usual Denialist players began to drop out once some of the bigger guys began to show up.

    Shit, I think I’ve finally broken the HIV/AIDS meme.The sheer idiocy of the Denialists and their musteline attempts to evade the hard questions with the top weasel being “Professor” John Moore was _painful_ to watch.The total lack of clear responses and selective amnesia from the apologists on that thread has sealed off any lingering doubts I had that this whole thing really was a farce.It smells like the alarm sprays of ferrets when they’re around.Distracting and woozing you if you haven’t already put on a filtered mask by reading the literature yourself.

    To Mr. Bauer My thanks, I enjoy your new blog.
    To Mr. Houston, Ditto.Your last post defending Mr. Truthseeker was sprayed, but the bear is still there, (and I’m guessing he’s mighty pissed off).

    Keep swatting those weasels gentlefolks, eventually the whole world will realize their stink can no longer discombobulate them.

  121. yello Says:

    *As an aside….

    Did you noticed not a single person answered Rezaf?Not Tara, who the question was directed to.Not John Moore, not _anybody_!Did I skip over a post that did?

  122. yello Says:

    **Gah! yet one more thing,

    Tara’s “Mbeki” thread is no longer considered the top five most active at Scienceblogs, yet I counted at least +50 posts over the last two days.Far more than virtually all the other bloggers get per _month_

  123. Truthseeker Says:

    Noble, it seems, is in a state.
    ———————————————————————————–
    I do not. He would not agree publicly. But what he thinks, is in the paper. Read it. Or is the HIV meme interfering with your ratiocination?

    I have read it. It does not support your preposterous misinterpretation. You expect everybody to believe that Karpas is a closet Denialist and that nothing that he says to the contrary will convince you otherwise.

    The immune system defeats HIV. All intelligent and honest scientists have seen this from the start, which is why they are not surprised by the utter shambles of the hopeless vaccine effort.

    “All intelligent and honest scientists”. For a scientifically illiterate idiot you do have a lot of arrogance. But anyway you have captured the essence of HIV Denialism. You are arguing that the vast majority of scientists are stupid or dishonest and that you somehow have a magical gift to see the truth despite your total lack of any scientific understanding.

    Get a text book on virology. Read the section on persistent viral infections.

    Here’s something available online.

    Medical Microbiology Section 2. Virology 46. Persistent Viral Infections

    Posted by: Chris Noble | November 28, 2007 2:51 AM

    Sorry Chris, as we have repeated more than once, the HIV meme, the Kruger-Dunning effect and the Moore-Noble syndrome do not add up to any scientific or even political argument.

    Good luck, though. Maybe some ARVs would help?

    Posted by: Truth | November 28, 2007 3:19 AM
    —————————————————————-
    The change in moniker was inadvertent, but heck….

  124. Truthseeker Says:

    Is lard a compliment? if so thank you kindly. Hard to be sure, though.

    —————————————————————-
    Sorry Chris, as we have repeated more than once, the HIV meme, the Kruger-Dunning effect and the Moore-Noble syndrome do not add up to any scientific or even political argument.

    So, you will just keep on insisting that your bizarre misinterpretation is correct despite the text in the article, despite many other papers by Karpas on HIV.

    Not even a public disavowal by Karpas himself would convince you otherwise.

    What an insular fanatsy world you live in.

    If you want to know what Karpas’ actual beliefs are you could read this letter.

    AIDS plagued by journalists. A. Karpas. Nature 368, 387 (1994).

    Posted by: Chris Noble | November 28, 2007 4:18 AM

    (1) in nearly every infected individual, despite a vigorous immune response that is protective for many years, eventually one or more mutants emerge that manage to evade the immune response and lead to disease progression and death

    Franklin, yes, that seems to me to be precisely what I was pointing out – that Karpas was confirming that natural antibodies to HIV-1 work very well for many years. The point is that this is what HIV vaccine researchers are always anxious not to have to admit. It makes the whole vaccine effort look idiotic, as Duesberg has long pointed out.

    Why do you think that Gallo and Ho have been emphasizing for years that we cant be sure it won’t take many years to find a vaccine and may never happen? Because people vaccinate themsleves. They are already vaccinated. With HIV.

    Of course if you are infested with the HIV meme this concept cannot find its way into your brain. But we are objective truthseekers, right? We are open minded, because we know that science can always be wrong, as Bill Clinton has remarked to me.

    The global antibody epidemic

    Lookit, Chris, lovable duffer. The immune system defeats HIV quickly and for many years, so that it is hard to find any at all and you have to “AIDS test” for antibodies, which are a trifle hard to pass on to someone else, wouldn’t you say?

    Hey folks, you believe in an antibody epidemic! Maybe you would like to hit that Internet textbook, Chris, and tell us how that works.

    Sure, Karpas tried to rescue the situation with the notion that HIV mutates successfully away from the immune system, but that imagined solution to the predicament of HIV=AIDS enthusiasts was defeated you will find by a large study on HIV mutation in vivo which noted that the vigorous immune response to HIV caused the mutation, of course, kept up with it, and had no trouble keeping HIV down. The mutated virus doesn’t survive antibodies any better than the original.

    Someone else showed me the paper but cannot recall the title, sorry. Anyway Karpas himself in his review notes that mutation is an insufficient explanation for the virus suddenly becoming harmful in humans, when this doesn’t happen in monkeys. By definition there has to be some other factor involved.

    You may also find that Moore himself has published a paper recently confirming that antibodies neutralize HIV for a long time.

    Stop reading Internet textbooks Chris and catch up with what is happening.

    Posted by: Truthseeker | November 28, 2007 5:17 AM
    ———————————————————————————-

  125. MacDonald Says:

    I agree with Yello that after an uneven start we’re now seeing Truthseeker at his brillant best. on Karpas and the mysteriously mutating antibodies.

    One caveat Mr. Yello: I see no basis for your remark that lesser denialists stand down when the “big names” stand up. Everybody is still in the fray. But perhaps by “denialists” you mean the hapless fellows sporting Team Tara’s colours?

    In that case I would agree; most of them are by their very nature easily intimidated.

    TS, I am amazed you didn’t recognize MEC’s quoted phrase, “the current likelihood”. It is used twice by Nancy Padian in the paragraph quoted by you:

    HIV is unquestionably transmitted through heterosexual intercourse. Indeed, heterosexual intercourse is now responsible for 70-80% of all HIV transmissions worldwide (2). The current likelihood of male to female infection after a single exposure to HIV is 0.01-0.32% (2, 3), and the current likelihood of female to male infection after a single exposure is 0.01-0.1% (2).

    The intresting part is Padian’s perceived need to insert the word “current”.

  126. Truthseeker Says:

    the mysteriously mutating antibodies. – I think this should be “the mysteriously infectious antibodies”, surely, McD?

    the current likelihood couldn’t see this for some reason. Why is “current” such a telling word? Because it incorporates the idea “this will be adjusted in the future if it proves problematic”? Please remember, MacD, you are dealing with an untutored science illiterate here, as Chris Noble keeps emphasizing. We need things to be spelled out. So does the gallery. Always remember the Web fraction is 80/20 – four onlookers for every person that actually enters the fray.

    Anyhow thanks for the compliments, very encouraging, but I must move on as I have vowed six times already before I expose myself to ridicule on the platform. The madness has method to it, though. It is very useful to have the obstinate Chris and the other Denialists – capitalized Denialist now always refers to Moore et al, on this site – serve up the objections to “denialism” they will be providing to any VIP that is impressed by it.

    The trouble as always of course is that it is like the funfair booth where you try and knock down grinning clown targets by throwing balls but every times you succeed they pop up again, and you never get to win the Teddy bear.

    But what “uneven start”? As far as I recall, we shot off to a fine start. But as always, I see things through an optimist’s rosy glass. And you recall what Ambrose Bierce’s Devil’s Dictionary says about that:

    Optimist, n.:A pronent of the doctrine that black is white.

    Optimism, n. The doctrine or belief that everything is beautiful, including what is ugly, everything is good, especially the bad, and everything right that is wrong. It is held with the greatest tenacity by those most accustomed to the mischance of of falling into adversity, and is most acceptably expounded with a grin that apes a smile. Being a blind faith, it is inaccessible to the light of disproof–an intellectualmdisorder, yielding to no treatment but death. It is hereditary, but fortunately not contagious.

    Those who search for the HIV vaccine are among the finest specimens of this breed.

  127. MacDonald Says:

    Ha TS, right. Of course I meant the mysteriously mutating virus.

    Yes “current” means infectivity could change at any point in space or time. You and Moore are talking about “deconstruction”, the word “current” in this context is in the precise technical sense deconstructing the absolute scientific authority Padian(‘s text) is trying to convey.

    Here “current” I think means “according to latest available study results”. But that study result (Padian’s own) is simply one point in space and time, not a reflection of objective immutable “AIDS truth”.

    So where does the text’s self-deconstruction become apparent? It becomes apparent in the tension between the binary opposites “absolute” and “relative”, reborn in the words “unquestionably transmitted ” and “current likelihood”. Read again:

    HIV is unquestionably transmitted through heterosexual intercourse. Indeed, heterosexual intercourse is now responsible for 70-80% of all HIV transmissions worldwide (2). The current likelihood of male to female infection after a single exposure to HIV is 0.01-0.32% (2, 3), and the current likelihood of female to male infection after a single exposure is 0.01-0.1% (2).

    Could we switch and say, “HIV is currently transmitted through heterosexual contact” Or “likelihood of male to female infection after a single exposure to HIV is
    unquestionably 0.01-0.32%”?

    We should be able to because both are referring to the same basic assumption, that heterosexual contact transmission of HIV can be shown and measured. But we don’t because this would undermine too openly the scientific authority sought conveyed. This example of a text deconstructing its own meaning/author’s intention is particularly beautiful because in between the extremes “unquestionable heterosexual intercourse” and “current likelihood”, we find the statement, “heterosexual intercourse is now responsible for 70-80% of all HIV transmissions worldwide”

    What does this mean? Is heterosexual intercourse NOW responsible, as in according to current research/guesswork? Or is it an unquestionable fact that at this point in time and space heterosexual transmission IS responsible for 70-80% of all transmissions?

    The meaning of the middle statement about 70-80% heterosexual contact transmission is suspended uneasily between the warring binary opposites, “absolute” and “relative”, in the text.

  128. MacDonald Says:

    “But what “uneven start”? As far as I recall, we shot off to a fine start.!

    The start was fine, but then unfortunately you got sidetracked for awhile according to the opinions of some. . .

  129. Rezaf Says:

    TS et al, great posting on Aetology! It is curious indeed how the HIV=AIDS apologists try to dodge hard questions with condescending and dismissive comments.

    So one one could say that the cancer paradigm is the older, quieter, yet shorter brother of the AIDS paradigm? Both children of Mrs. Corporate Greed and Mr. Scientific Corruption.

    Since I have an interest in alternative views, I’ve been doing a small research on the subject of cancer.
    In the case of cancer, and correct me if I’m wrong, I find much more difficult to find the dissenting publications. Has the heretic data been successfully hidden away from public reach? For example, in the case of the nitrilosides, I still haven’t been able to find the actual publications of Dean Burk, once the Director of the Cytochemistry Section of the National Cancer Institute. Or the publications of Kanematsu Sigiura, of Sloan-Kettering. From Sugiura all I have is this :A Summary of the Effect of Amygdalin Upon Spontaneous Mammary Tumors in Mice, Sloan-Kettering report, June 13, 1973.
    But in the case Sugiura, Sloan-Kettering seems to have denied his findings to the media.

    And there are a few others too:
    Hans Nieper, of West Germany, former Director of the Department of Medicine at the Silbersee Hospital in Hanover.
    N.R. Bouziane, M.D., former Director of Research Laboratories at St. Jeanne d’Arc Hospital in Montreal
    Etore Guidetti, M.D., of the University of Turin Medical School

    I cannot find any publication related to the issue made by any of the persons above.

    I also find curious the FDA ban on amygdalin supplements. The FDA claims the Amygdalin/laetrile contains cyanide and thus is highly toxic (wrong, nitriles are not cyanides, not even close). However, vitamin B12 supplements don’t have that same warning, and the B12 that we take daily either in food or in supplements is cyanide form of B12, cyanocobalamine. That contains actual cyanide that has to go somewhere once the vitamin is metabolised in the body.
    It is just one of those small inconsistencies that makes me think.

    It would seem that in order to topple one paradigm brother, one must eliminate the other as well.
    But that doesn’t stop Mrs. Corporate Greed and Mr. Scientific Corruption from making more babies.

  130. Truthseeker Says:

    More of this stuff, sorry, just had to give the paper that confirms Karpas’ point.

    —————————————————————————————————-

    just keep asking these boneheads for the first 5 scientific papers that prove hiv causes aids, moore is such a retard, he talks about proving a microbes pathenogencity its like a rocket ship, sorry idiot, koch had original experiments that proved casuation, so did shyh ching lo.

    Pretty simple, find a correlation, and inoculate animals, if they dont get sick, better have some long term studies that control for confounding factors such as azt mycoplasmas, drug use, etc especially when youve exteneded your window period from 1 year to 10 years.

    I guess aids inc bypassed all these steps because heckler got desperate, needed a quick political answer, and had the power to create a self perpetuating industry that had no scientific standards whatsover, when of hundereds chimps inoculated didnt die, they just extended the goalposts and made hiv species specific, when the amount of tcell infection was discovered to be so low, 1/1000 or so they blamed the immune system, or they imagined it wth the pcr, get confused which one they beleive now, got any electron microscopy pics from a patient confirmimg these high plasma loads?………….of course not, the corrupt industry just carries on.

    All the meanwhile Lo’s mycoplasma incognitus/penetrans that killed and sickened every animal inoculated is causing all kinds of chronic multi organic illnesses, people that are healthy are told they are going to die, people that are sick and misdiagnosed with Depression etc and really suffering from mycoplasma infection are told to take a Prozac. You guys are murderers, plain and simple. All rethinkers wantis patients to have informed consent and to proceed accordingly.

    Like the former world champion boxer Tommy morrison, he read duesbergs book when he tested positive, and also was seeing world renoun hiv specialist Dr. ho, he found Duesbergs argument more compelling, dumped Ho and is still alive and totally healthy more than ten years later. Informed consent, stop denying us of it and destroying peoples lives.

    Posted by: cooler | November 28, 2007 1:31 PM

    So lets say your ye elderly English deniosaur. What to do, start a blog of course. Only three people read it Claus Heinrich and Gene. So you can’t show enough people how youre ignorant. So you come to Tara’s blog and annoy every body there to!! And then your three readers come here!! Yay for you tony tyger but please bring some one next time we can argue about science with.

    Posted by: Adele | November 28, 2007 1:36 PM

    AL: That Karpas letter? here it is (we are not at the library)::

    AIDS Plagued by Journalists

    Nature (03/31/94) Vol. 368, No. 6470, P. 387 Karpas, A.

    A. Karpas of the Hematology Department at the University of Cambridge finds it bewildering that journalist Simon Jenkins, in a Dec. 18 article in The Times, would challenge HIV as the cause of AIDS. Karpas is especially surprised that Jenkins would issue such a challenge when it is a known fact that AIDS develops in all recipients of contaminated blood or blood products who are not categorized as members of the “lifestyle high-risk group.” Scientists know that 90 percent of those in the high-risk group will, in fact, develop the disease within a decade of infection; however, Karpas says Jenkins fails to appreciate that more than 90 percent of the men and women around the world are not in this group because they contracted the virus via normal heterosexual activity. It is incomprehensible, says Karpas, that Jenkins can write that “no causal chain has been proved” between HIV and AIDS when it has been established for more than 10 years. Scientific and medical progress is based on earlier knowledge, and any claim to discovery must always be reproduced by others in the same field before it is accepted. Therefore, Karpas contends, it is absurd for Jenkins to assume that all AIDS researchers and scientists are wrong. Jenkins’ implications about the lack of a cure after a decade of intensive research is equally absurd, charges Karpas. Considerable progress, but no cure after many years of research is also true in the case of the common cold, various herpes infections, and some major cancers. The Times and Sunday Times, through irresponsible, misinformed journalism, could mislead readers about AIDS and encourage them to ignore risks. With no cure, prevention is the most effective tool against AIDS. Informed, responsible journalists can be crucial to reducing the spread of the disease, Karpas concludes.

    Karpas is “bewildered” that anyone would question the meme, which took root in his brain the very instant he became the first Briton to isolate HIV. However, being at a premier university, the alma mater of no less a scientist than John “I am not a macaque, I am a very hard working microbicide researcher” Moore, Karpas retains some critical faculties. He was very unkind to Dr. Gallo, for instance, castigating the hero of AIDS science for his fraudulent lab work, which must have seemed exceedingly uncollegial in spirit for a man in the Club.

    Now he is caught red handed saying that the immune system puts down HIV very well for 10-15 years, exactly what Duesberg has always said. Luckily he caught himself saying this before Fauci did, so he was able to speculate about how this desirable state of affairs somehow falls apart after a decade or more. This is in obeisance to the one overriding principle of HIV=AIDS, that no matter what, one cannot conceive of questioning the unproven hypothesis, that HIV is the sole cause. But right there he is saying that something else causes AIDS, since HIV by itself is not enough.

    What could it be? How can we rescue the blind faith of Chris Noble, and prevent him as well as Karpas being humiliated by the collapse of this paradigm to which they have been married to for so many years? Must be a co factor! Yes! That’s what Montagnier has always said, and he discovered the little bug, as Dr Gallo finally was forced to admit only after official investigation and legal row including lawyers for two nations, the US and France. Karpas deals with all this exciting stuff about how shady Gallo is in his great review paper, the one we are talking about, which is enjoyably frank in that regard too.

    Getting back to science. It’s a co-factor! But you won’t get any kudos from Bob Gallo for saying this. He has always known what is obvious, which is that if you need a co factor, it raises a question, do you need HIV, if the co factor can be shown to work all by itself? This is dangerous stuff, even if one co factor he liked to suggest was HTLV-I, his other pet non working retrovirus.

    HIV is the sine qua non of the whole funding rationale off which everyone has been living for the last twenty years. It’s also the sole claim to fame of poor Chris Noble, who otherwise would be completely absent from public affairs of any kind as far as we know, though he has managed one or two papers on using computers to analyze chemistry, or somesuch. Maybe he will start a blog. We hope so. It is just that he seems to have such difficulty in discerning the politics of the science. You would think that he would somehow dimly perceive them. After all, John Moore now leads the Denialist movement, the one that Denies there is anything wrong about HIV=AIDS, even though taxi drivers can see it makes no sense at all, and John deals in nothing but the politics of his own Denialism.

    This he perpetrates like Anthony Fauci at NIAID via the simple strategy of Denying the deniers a public voice, and trying to give the false impression that they include no scientists in their ranks, when the finest scientist in virology, Peter Duesberg, sacrificed his Club status in insisting on the truth of the matter, only to be beset by a horde of activists and paradigm defenders who say he is incorrect, but somehow never publish anything at the peer reviewed level to demonstrate why.

    Till they do, one can only say to Mr Moore and Chris Noble both, Mr Moore, Mr Noble, you are no Peter Duesberg. And your claim to be defending good science and the health of AIDS patients is contradicted by the HIV=AIDS literature including the papers which you, Mr Moore, Fauci, and Karpas have written for your colleagues.

    Let’s sum up and say quite it straightforwardly in honor of World AIDS Day, December 1. The entire HIV=AIDS facade is built on a literature which contradicts it, as Peter Duesberg has never stopped pointing out. But the answer to him has always been the same answer as the response to all critics of HIV=AIDS, the true crackpot paradigm absurdity built on the intellectual equivalent of quicksand.

    It is “Stop that man! He is crying Fire! in a crowded theater!”

    A theater filled with Moores all lining up to get their funding from NIAID and the drug companies who make expensive, useless and harmful drugs. But don’t mistake us. We approve of Moore, who is a hero of leaky dissent, like Karpas, even higher in our book, since he doesn’t bother to argue the science, knowing very well that he would have to talk nonsense to do so.

    So yes we think that Moore is a closet dissident and we can show you why we think so, in the very papers he has written criticizing HIV research in core areas as worthless.

    The other paper saying antibodies stop HIV

    Here is the paper we referred to last night:

    Rapid evolution of a neutralizing antibody response to HIV type 1 infection.

    It is by Douglas Richman et al of the University of California at San Diego, in PNAS 100:4144-9 April 1 2003.

    Here’s a quote:

    “In most patients, potent neutralizing antibody responses are generated early after infection, at first to the autologous infecting HIV variant and then to subsequent variants.”

    The reason this is not well known to Chris Noble and his colleagues in purblind paradigm defense is that technical means needed to prepare stocks of HIV and variants from specific individuals were missing, which prevented us from estimating the effectiveness of a specific individual’s antibodies to particular HIV variants.

    Nowadays, as the paper says, we know there is a

    “rapidly evolving neutralizing antibody response”

    which adapts to new mutations.

    Let’s repeat the key word, Chris.

    POTENT.

    Posted by: Truthseeker | November 28, 2007 3:33 PM

    So lets say your ye elderly English deniosaur. What to do, start a blog of course. Only three people read it Claus Heinrich and Gene. So you can’t show enough people how youre ignorant. So you come to Tara’s blog and annoy every body there to!! And then your three readers come here!! Yay for you tony tyger but please bring some one next time we can argue about science with.

    Posted by: Adele | November 28, 2007 1:36 PM

    This is so cute! This is the reason why this thread is so entertaining. It is often sweetened by this kind of self revealing squeak from one of the field mice trying to avoid getting trod on by the deniosaurs.

    We love field mice and will be more careful in the future, Adele, we promise. We are just sorry that we have to leave you, like Mr Moore did, to your own devices, because the real world calls.

    Sometimes the Web redeems itself.

    Posted by: Truthseeker | November 28, 2007 4:11 PM
    ———————————————————————

    Looks like Tara Smith has removed her photo – the one we called “scrumptious” – and is leaving the space empty while she tries to upload one less scrumptious. If so that’s a pity. Science needs all the cuteness it can get.

  131. Truthseeker Says:

    I also find curious the FDA ban on amygdalin supplements. The FDA claims the Amygdalin/laetrile contains cyanide and thus is highly toxic (wrong, nitriles are not cyanides, not even close). However, vitamin B12 supplements don’t have that same warning, and the B12 that we take daily either in food or in supplements is cyanide form of B12, cyanocobalamine. That contains actual cyanide that has to go somewhere once the vitamin is metabolised in the body.

    Nice one, Rezak. Nutrition is the key issue in AIDS, it seems clear now, not just as a general factor boosting the immune system, but one which governs the proper supply of trace elements essential to its proper working. Why is that concept not central to everyone’s understanding? Of course the immune system is dependent on tiny amounts of certain substances – vitamin C, A, B6, B12, E, selenium and zinc especially – , and is easily disrupted via that route. Sometimes it seems one should talk about the diet/immune system problem to the layman as often as the diet/weight problem.

    Robert Houston found papers which pointed us last year or even earlier (see the post) to the fact that Vitamin A and zinc would combat the cytokine storm featuring TNF in the lungs which kills the patients in bird flu so rapidly. A business has now tried to market some combination of that kind.

  132. yello Says:

    -Mr. MacDonald sir….

    “But perhaps by “denialists” you mean the hapless fellows sporting Team Tara’s colours?”

    Indeed I do, and like Truthseeker sir stated, we capitalize “Denialists” to refer to the stubborn idiots who still hold to the mainstream paradigm on this site.Come to think of it, we ought to start using it elsewhere as well.

    Mr. Truthseeker sir, I was only referring to the editorial you did on a previous post I did.
    Perhaps you meant “lauded”?I got a great kick out of that!

  133. Truthseeker Says:

    Um, Yello sir, do you mean “that site” has Denialists? “This site” has denialists, Moore-labeled denialists. Glad you like the Denialist usage.

    No I meant larded, because I think that is a standard phrase. Don’t they say “larded with compliments”? I think so. Anyhow I will take whatever compliments I can get, since I mostly get insults or the flight reaction.

    People misunderstand tremendously on the Web. Would it surprise you to know some strong supporter of this site is sure you meant to put me down with “Brava”?

    Not sure I understand exactly what you got a kick out of, though, even now. That is why I always encourage everybody, but especially MacDonald, to express things fully for the gallery. Then I can catch up myself! 🙂

  134. Truthseeker Says:

    Mr Noble is exposing himself in public, seems to me:
    ——————————————————————————————
    HIV continues to replicate despite the generation of antibodies. HIV is not defeated.

    Not only is HIV notoriously defeated, but if you haven’t noticed this fundamental problem of the paradigm in twenty years of discussion God help you, Chris, because only God can.

    You are the 21st century equivalent of the Pisa professor who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope.

    Posted by: Truthseeker | November 28, 2007 10:18 PM

    “You are the 21st century equivalent of the Pisa professor who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope.

    The irony is killing me.

    The very papers that you cite as evidence for your claim that “HV is defeated” show that HIV continues to replicate despite the production of neutralizing antibodies.

    It is the Denialists who refuse to look through Galileo’s telescope.

    They refuse to look at evidence that HIV exists.
    They refuse to look at the evidence that it causes AIDS.
    They refuse to look at the evidence that ARVs are effective in reducing mortality and morbidity caused by HIV disease.

    Posted by: Chris Noble | November 29, 2007 1:06 AM

    The very papers that you cite as evidence for your claim that “HV is defeated” show that HIV continues to replicate despite the production of neutralizing antibodies.

    Good heavens, Chris, did God tell you that we have overlooked this point for twenty years, and you are right all along?

    OK we can’t argue with God and your faith in God, even if that God looks suspiciously like the HIV meme.

    We sit at your feet, Show us, O scientific Moses, the parts in the paper which say that for 10-15 years HIV replication carries on without being slowed and stalled and in effect reduced to a replication rate slower than your neurons take to understand anything the “denialists” say.

    So this doesn’t happen in three to six weeks and last for years? Abraham Karpas is quite wrong then? Maybe you woud like to write to HIM and tell him so. He would be mightily pleased to know your view on this. There could even be a correction credited to Chris Noble. That would be a fine thing, would it not, to cap your avocational career of standing up for HIV against the heinous denialists who threaten the superbug’s virtue?

    We sit at your feet, Noble, to be instructed. Please proceed as we respectfully listen. The question is, is Karpas wrong, are we wrong, is everybody but you wrong, in claiming that HIV is put out of action by antibodies in three or four weeks maximum and becomes extremely hard to find in the body so that you have to find it with needle-in-the-haystack PCR, if you can at all?

    What an excellent researcher you are. This is a headline finding, if you can back it up. Kindly wash your feet and put on clean socks since we will want to kiss your feet.

    Wait! maybe that is going too far. But we will at least bow in admiration of your brilliance and dedication to sorting out the truth in this mess.

    Please proceed.

    Posted by: Truthseeker | November 29, 2007 2:25 AM
    —————————————————————
    What drives Noble? Is he sane? Is he paid? Is he celebrated for these efforts somewhere? Where does it win him credit? Or is he just happy to be well known as a pest?

  135. Truthseeker Says:

    I think Chris has finally buried himself with this one, trying to maintain that the immune system doesn’t stop HIV dead for years. MacD hit him with a very nice passage from Duesberg this morning, and made the key point that textbooks are compromised as well now by the same bad thinking. He is now in the position of arguing with Karpas and Richman, his mainstream gurus. It is hard for him to keep on saying they are being misinterpreted:

    ——————————————————————————–
    So this doesn’t happen in three to six weeks and last for years? Abraham Karpas is quite wrong then? Maybe you woud like to write to HIM and tell him so. He would be mightily pleased to know your view on this. There could even be a correction credited to Chris Noble. That would be a fine thing, would it not, to cap your avocational career of standing up for HIV against the heinous denialists who threaten the superbug’s virtue?

    This is a typical Denialist trick. You falsely claim that Karpas states that HIV is defeated and then pretend that I am disagreeing with Karpas. I am not disagreeing with Karpas. I am disagreeing with your blatant misinterpretation. Before you put words into somebodies mouth do the honourable thing and ask them whether they agree with your statements. Go ahead write to Karpas. Just don’t be surprised if he calls you a raving lunatic.

    The rate of HIV replication falls after the initial acute infection stage but in the vast majority of people it does not fall to zero. It continues to replicate at all times. The “setpoint” that is reached plays a significant role in determining the time till progression to AIDS. On average, the higher the setpoint the faster the progression to AIDS.

    Posted by: Chris Noble | November 29, 2007 3:12 AM

    Chris, when a >100,000 viral load does not progress to full-blown AIDS and CD4’s in the 80’s for going on two years now, how in the world do you stick to the claim that it is replicating and doing great harm. You folks have missed the true cause of AIDS years ago and continue down your dead end path. In the end, you will lose because more and more HIV+s are speaking out and learning the truth. You will have to find another cause to beat up on as this one has just about runs it course along with your gloom and doom scenario.

    Posted by: noreeen – Still Standing | November 29, 2007 3:23 AM

    Richman lists three other viruses that survive as persistent infections despite the generation of antibodies. All three totally destroy Duesberg’s dogmatic assertion that viruses cannot cause disease after an immune response has been mounted.

    Dr. N. Relax get some new sucking stones,chill and take it step by step. I the end I’m sure you’ll understand. First of all, would it be this dogmatic statement, where Duesberg fully explains his position so even the biggest boneheads can understand it, that is being destroyed by Richman?

    For a virus to be reactivated, the. immune system first must be destroyed by something else – the real cause of a disease. A reactivated virus would just contribute an opportunistic infection. Thus, there are no slow viruses, only slow virologists.
    A conventional virus could, however, be slow acting in a defective immune system. Indeed, some exceptional victims suffer pre-existing health problems that prevent their immune systems from reacting decisively against the virus, allowing it to continue growing and damaging the host for a long period of time. This can happen with virtually any type of virus, but it is extremely rare. When such a chronic infection does occur, as with a small percentage of hepatitis cases whose immune system is damaged by alcoholism or intravenous drug addiction, the virus keeps growing abundantly in the body and can easily be found by experimental tests.
    Other germs, like herpes viruses, can hide out in some recess of the body, breaking out periodically to strike again when the immune system passes a seasonal low. In both examples, only the weakened immune system of the host allows the infection to smolder or occasionally reappear from hibernation. By contrast, a slow virus is an invention credited with the natural ability to cause disease only years after infection – termed the latent period – in previously healthy persons, regardless of the state of their immunity. Such a concept allows scientists to blame a long-neutralized virus for any disease that appears decades after infection. The slow virus is the original sin against the laws of virology.

    Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 29, 2007 4:06 AM

    Dr. N. Relax get some new sucking stones,chill and take it step by step. I the end I’m sure you’ll understand. First of all, would it be this dogmatic statement, where Duesberg fully explains his position so even the biggest boneheads can understand it, that is being destroyed by Richman?

    Duesberg is simply wrong as the examples given by Richman show. EIAV, Visna-maedi and SIV all cause disease after the initial acute infection despite the generation of antibodies. These are all persistent chronic infections and are not latent.

    Simply open a virology book. Read the section on persistent viral infections. Contrast this with the Duesbergian dogma that you regurgitate.

    Posted by: Chris Noble | November 29, 2007 4:16 AM

    Duesberg is simply wrong as the examples given by Richman show.

    Dr. N,

    You were supposed to read what I posted, not just reassert dogmatically. That’s not the way to go about showing Truthseeker is unscientific and you’re not.

    You’re absolutely right, I can open any virology book, or google “lentivirus”, or what have you, and see that there’s a general belief in those things almost as feverishly fanatical as your own. But again Dr N, you don’t refute Duesberg’s critique of the textbook stuff by asserting that the stuff he criticizes is found in the textbooks. To the contrary.

    Now steady your trembling hands, grab a beer and a sucking stone, contemplate the grandeur of the universe and your own insignificance for a while, then attempt to compose a real argument. This is not a race, it won’t lose you any points if you take a day or so to get back to us. Quality over haste is the rethinker motto.

    Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 29, 2007 5:29 AM

    This is a typical Denialist trick. You falsely claim that Karpas states that HIV is defeated and then pretend that I am disagreeing with Karpas. I am not disagreeing with Karpas. I am disagreeing with your blatant misinterpretation. Before you put words into somebody’s mouth do the honourable thing and ask them whether they agree with your statements. Go ahead write to Karpas. Just don’t be surprised if he calls you a raving lunatic. -Chris Noble

    Please don’t capitalize Denialist when referring to those who deny that the paradigm makes scientific, logical or common sense. Denialist with a capital D refers to people who refuse to discuss the irrationality of the paradigm with its critics and who support the paradigm either through stupidity or venality and prolong its attack on the health of those who are mismedicated under its regime.

    You at least have turned yourself into a professional apologist for HIV=AIDS and are willing to make a show of discussing it, even though you show no sign whatsoever of understanding any problem with the paradigm, let alone granting it, except for your one remarkable admission at Science Guardian/New AIDS Review that you would not take ARVs yourself.

    Even so, in your case it is becoming hard to avoid the conclusion that you simply cannot hack it intellectually, Chris. Anyone who had the brains to understand that what he was saying was logically incompetent and only produced by the refusal ever to reexamine his constant and confounding premise would be too embarrassed to continue, surely. That is what Moore shows, after all. He doesn’t embarrass himself by arguing the science. He knows he would only look foolish.

    Like Moore clever people would surely find some other way to peddle what in your case amounts to forty different ways to salute HIV=AIDS without the capacity to take both sides of the argument into account and compare them without prejudice. You are, mentally speaking, pure HIV meme. You have, in fact, become the meme, Chris. You are the HIV meme, embodied.

    In a Kafka-esque transformation, you have turned into the intellectual equivalent of a giant insect, that is to say, a rationalizing machine which devours and digests and reinterprets every single facet of the AIDS data you contemplate as a support for HIV=AIDS. This is only what happens to everybody involved in this grand social illusion, of course, they rationalize and even reverse every mental input so they can put it all into the same box, labeled HIV=AIDS.

    Now, HIV=AIDS critics do the same thing to a great extent, consistently viewing the data in their own frame and always proving to their own satisfaction they are always right. So how is an outsider to choose? They have to evaluate the style as much as the substance, I would say, unless they can follow every point. One telling indication however is how well each side shows that they read and understand the other. This is where you fail.

    Here we have Karpas telling you one thing, and you claiming another, and by God you have made a sausage which contains both of them! Well, you may have to fry it and eat it yourself, Chris, because let’s face it, there really is very little point in anyone trying to enlighten you if you simply cannot ever examine your own premise.

    Whether it is genuine stupidity, bad faith, blind faith, or even actual insanity only you know for sure. But with this current point under review I fear you are now revealed as a lost cause, incapable of having a productive discussion that can teach you anything. The point is just too clear, two top mainstream people are making it for us, yet you cannot see it.

    However, I believe you can teach me and others something. There is not in all of HIV=AIDS a better example of the HIV meme in action than you. In this respect, you reign supreme.

    If that is wrong, and you do have the power to examine your own premise, ever, then prove it now. Show us that you can do anything more than peddle your premise, and always refuse to acknowledge a better alternative.

    Take the above statement by you, for example. There is no misinterpretation, is there? Come on. Karpas and Richman both have acknowledged that HIV is kept down for years by a potent counter attack from the immune system. Do you know even what they mean in ABC terms? The virus is prevented from entering cells by the action of antibodies and therefore cannot replicate, which it needs to be in a cell to do. After an initial burst almost all of it is inactivated in this manner and cleared from the system. You cannot find it very easily or at all for that reason. This becomes the steady state of the system, for years. It is entirely the normal process carried on by the body in such instances of encountering foreign elements. They are stopped at the border, and their passports taken away from them, and they are sent back whereever they came from, or killed.

    Chris, it is hard to know what level of baby talk you can absorb. But here you are simply putting yourself in the position of arguing that because one or two spies or terrorists might evade the immigration inspectors, they can enter the US and blow up Congress and the White House. Retroviruses do not work that way. Viruses do not work that way. Yoiu need an army of them. If you keep almost all of them out, or kill them, they cannot do anything to Washington, New York and Los Angeles.

    Having had to acknowledge this state of affairs, Karpas and Richman have to speculate with a sort of fairy tale that maybe after years the few terrorists who get into the US have married and had babies and somehow after generations they are numerous enough to wreak some serious havoc in some mysterious way we don’t yet understand because they all seem to be unarmed.

    What Duesberg is saying is that this is a fairy tale and the only way you can get an army of foreign soldiers into the US is by weakening the INS so it can’t do its job at the borders. It is damage to the immune system which is the only means by which the simple process of effectively barring HIV in the first place can get compromised.

    Since you cannot seem to understand this utterly simple concept, one can only conclude that you argue from your wish to your data, and not vice versa. Nothing new can enter your head. And that is the problem with the entire field, and always has been. As MEC points out the fact that this backwards thinking is now enshrined in textbooks is simply a consequence of this, not a proof that it is correct.

    That you don’t and won’t understand this even after twenty years suggests the Kraft-Dunning effect where someone is not aware of their own inability to comprehend what they need to comprehend.

    What possible point is there is engaging you then, other than to demonstrate this?

    Posted by: Truthseeker | November 29, 2007 11:56 AM
    —————————————————————————–

  136. Rezaf Says:

    Here’s my small contribution to the debate with Mr. Noble:

    ————————————————————————

    I don’t have the time to read the entire thread, so…

    Mr. Noble, could you please answer me this:

    You say that after the initial acute infection the remnants of the virus still cause disease because of their ability to mutate, evade and debilitate the immune system. If that is so, why are the serum samples tested with the same constant set of viral proteins, that are recognizable by the immune system?
    Why is the immune system able to recognize these proteins in the first place?
    Shouldn’t the inability to respond to these viral proteins be the basis for HIV evasion?
    Why does the virus only attack T helper cells and cause inevitable and irreversible immune dysfunction?
    Isn’t the bone marrow the heart and soul of the immune system and the birthplace of most white cells, including T helper lymphocites?
    Where’s the damaged bone marrow in HIV positives and AIDS patients that explains the inevitable immune failure?

    I have more questions that I wish to be answered. But these will suffice.

    I thank you in advance.

    ————————————————————————————————————
    I hope again that it doesn’t get barred.
    More of the same, yes. But no one from the apologists answered me back then when I first posted there. And I would really would like to know what Noble has to say.

  137. MacDonald Says:

    TS, LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!

    Rezaf, if you ever get an answer, it wil probably be along the lines I explained above about the distinction between core and envelope proteins.

    Now I’ll go and look.

  138. Truthseeker Says:

    A few zingers there, Rezaf, to greet Noble when he emerges from his additional nightly stupor. What’s the betting that he does not treat your enquiry with the respect it deserves? Unfortunately Chris Noble stands as the very mule of dedicated belief that the hypothesis is true, immune to all enquiries of this kind. All these kinds of threads seem to degenerate into the mule being tongue lashed for its refusal to move ahead with any productive discussion, since his claims and quotes are selective, evasive and uncooperative, and if cornered, he will revert to disrespect and insult the qualifications of his questioners, and change the subject or disappear. It’s a strange combination of willingness to study the science and refusal to admit it is unproven, unpersuasive and riddled with the inconsistencies that normally tell you a premise needs revision.

    Anyhow, he serves as living proof that the HIV meme can stop the process of science dead in its tracks, blocking any ability to examine it or remove it from the skull of the sufferer. Science advances by checking assumptions and testing claims and generally giving free rein to free speech, constructive debate and original proposals, which are then always subject to revision and replacement even after they get adopted. It is strange for someone in the field not to see this when it becomes the subject of discussion, but it seems pretty clear that Chris is a type that thinks very well along the lines sanctioned by accepted wisdom but cannot think outside the box, and does not want to.

    It is probably dangerous to speak with him too long, for you can lose faith in the value of independent thought, if not your faith in humanity in general, if you do too much of it. He forces you to to remember that the number of people that respond to independent ideas is rather small, and if you wish to influence the conformists you have to start on common ground and bond first on that basis before introducing any disagreement you have with conventional wisdom. Precisely what the common ground is one would start with with Chris Noble is hard to see, since he doesn’t do anything else in public than operate this little mechanical device where you put dissenters doubts and objections to into the feed slot and out comes a ticket to John Moore’s Christmas party.

  139. Truthseeker Says:

    Rezaf got a reply:

    ————————————————————————–
    Rezaf,

    I am happy to see that you are interested in understanding the mechanisms by which HIV can evade the immune response as well as the mechanisms by which HIV infection leads to immune dysfuction.

    I can also appreciate that your time is too short to be able to read this entire thread.

    In fact, if you desire the answers to those questions, I would strongly recommend that you leave this thread and read an immunology textbook.

    Such a textbook is freely available on the web through PubMed, and this link will take you to the chapter on AIDS:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?highlight=Acquired%20immune%20deficiency%20syndrome&rid=imm.section.1518

    Many of your questions are addressed in this chapter, which is less than 7,000 words long. Please feel free to use the search function to fiind answers to your other questions.

    I hope that you find reading this chapter to be an efficient use of your time.

    Posted by: franklin | November 29, 2007 5:43 PM

    On a positive note, perhaps those who wonder if the textbooks have it right, even though franklin appears to think they have biblical authority in an area (HIV=AIDS) where they are disputed by the finest scientific mind in the field, Peter Duesberg, might like to look again at this story from way back when the unproven hypothesis could still be called into question by upbeat stories like this:

    BABIES GIVE LIE TO AFRICAN AIDS

    Of course, they all probably died later, when they were taught the real effect of HIV from American health workers.

    So franklin, since you cannot answer Rezaf’s questions yourself, perhaps you could tell us why such a report exists. What was the scientific mistake here? Were the HIV tests wrong? Is the reporter being misled?

    He wrote a book too. Did you ever read that? Did you ever read any book challenging the orthodoxy? Did you ever read Bialy?

    Posted by: Truthseeker | November 29, 2007 6:54 PM
    ———————————————————————–

  140. Truthseeker Says:

    Noble is somewhat chastened as Bob Houston landed a direct hit on his command center. But he still won’t concede.

    ———————————————————————————-
    Here we have Karpas telling you one thing, and you claiming another, and by God you have made a sausage which contains both of them! Well, you may have to fry it and eat it yourself, Chris, because let’s face it, there really is very little point in anyone trying to enlighten you if you simply cannot ever examine your own premise.

    Please do not use real scientists such as Karpas and Richman as hand-puppets. There is a major difference between a persistent chronic infection and “defeating HIV”. Neither Karpas nor Richman have stated that HIV is “defeated”. Both clearly state that although HIV is kept at bay for a variable anount of time that eventually HIV “wins”.

    Posted by: Chris Noble | November 29, 2007 8:32 PM

    You say that after the initial acute infection the remnants of the virus still cause disease because of their ability to mutate, evade and debilitate the immune system. If that is so, why are the serum samples tested with the same constant set of viral proteins, that are recognizable by the immune system?

    Proteins such as p24 are on the inside of the virus particle. Antibodies to HIV p24 are therfore not protective because the virus particle has to be already destroyed before the immune system can “see” the protein. There are many conserved epitopes in various HIV proteins but none of these are exposed on the outside of the virus particle. The greatest rate of evolution is seen on the regions of the surface proteins that are exposed. This demonstrates the selective pressure from the immune response that drives this evolution.

    Why does the virus only attack T helper cells and cause inevitable and irreversible immune dysfunction?

    Viruses such as influenza and HIV bind to particular receptor sites on specific host cells. If cells do not have these receptors then the virus cannot infect them.

    Isn’t the bone marrow the heart and soul of the immune system and the birthplace of most white cells, including T helper lymphocites? Where’s the damaged bone marrow in HIV positives and AIDS patients that explains the inevitable immune failure?

    You are mixing up B-cells and T-cells. The B stands for bone and the T stands for thymus.

    There are characteristic changes that can be seen in lymph nodes. Seriously all you have to do is open a textbook and you would be able to find all of this by yourself.

    Why do you come and demand that people answer your questions before you have done any research of your own.

    You could have even just read this thread where many of your questions are already answered.

    Posted by: Chris Noble | November 29, 2007 8:49 PM

    Open a textbook yourself, Chris Noble. You’ll find that Rezaf whom you criticized was correct: T cells as well as B cells have their “birthplace” in the bone marrow. The T cells are subsequently processed in the thymus. Moreover, lack of active thymic hormone (thymulin) due to deficiencies of vital trace nutrients, particularly zinc and selenium, has been shown to produce a decline of helper T cells and reversal of the helper/suppressor ratio, such as is seen in AIDS. By an odd coincidence, there have been repeated findings of zinc and selenium deficiencies in AIDS patients. Look it up.

    Also, look up the definition of “defeat,” the word that has caused such outrage here since Truthseeker mentioned “the paper of Abraham Karpas of Cambridge agreeing that ordinary levels of antibodies seen in any healthy person exposed to HIV are sufficient to defeat it.”

    According to the American Heritage dictionary (at Answers.com), the verb “defeat” means: “1. to win victory over; best. 2. To prevent the success of; thwart.” It does not necessarily mean to triumph over permanently. When a native army is said to defeat an invading army in a battle, not all the enemy soldiers are necessarily killed – their efforts to conquer have simply been thwarted in that battle but they may come back to conquer later. In this sense, Truthseeker’s use of “defeat” is applicable to the decade on average for which Prof. Karpas asserts that the “immune response…is protective.”

    In the same review paper in Biology Reviews. 79:911-33, 2004, Dr. Karpas, who is professor of virology at Cambridge University, further asserts that such natural immune control is preferable to HAART:

    “In most HIV-infected individuals, the immune system manages to limit the damage caused by the virus for many years – far longer (on average nine years) than any drug cocktails available that have the added disadvantage of being toxic.”

    No one has claimed that Karpas is an AIDS dissident. In fact he’s a believer that HIV causes AIDS and a pillar of AIDS research in Britain. On several issues, however his views have been remarkably similar to those of AIDS dissidents: Gallo’s research perfidy, AZT’s increase in death rates, and the effectiveness of the immune response in the prolonged control of HIV. Read his review!

    Posted by: Robert Houston | November 30, 2007 12:15 AM

    Robert is completely correct about the origin of T-cells. My mistake again.

    Here is a book chapter on the
    Immunopathogenesis of HIV Infection

    It describes the reservoirs of HIV infection in lymphoid tissue and the inflammation and damage seen in these organs.

    Also, look up the definition of “defeat,” the word that has caused such outrage here since Truthseeker mentioned “the paper of Abraham Karpas of Cambridge agreeing that ordinary levels of antibodies seen in any healthy person exposed to HIV are sufficient to defeat it.”

    These silly word games are getting tiring. I know very well what “truthseeker” and Duesberg mean by “defeat”. They mean that HIV has been banished and cannot cause any disease. This is most definitely not the position of either Karpas or Richman.

    Posted by: Chris Noble | November 30, 2007 12:51 AM

    Well, I trust everyone had a good Thanksgiving holiday… As it seems the good ol’ Franklin/Noble pair are still up to the task of defending the prevailing yet failing paradigm.

    But Chris, please – come on now, explain what “Duesbergian dogma” is. Or is that just another AIDS speak tactic devised to intimidate?

    So now since this tread is supposedly about Mbeki and the African phenomenon – I’d like to get your guys take on the latest story of how UNAIDS revised downward the infection rates in Africa, you know, that little 7 million decrease in its estimate of the number of HIV-infected people? Go a head say what you will, I’m interested to hear, however deplorable they might be, what your explanations might be.

    I’d say this new report just goes to show how stupid and retarded the whole idea that there’s such thing as the so called “AIDS Pandemic.” What Pandemic? There isn’t any! If there’s truly any pandemic in Africa, its the one instantiated by a series of re-labeling poverty to suite the needs of mainstream AIDS business as usual programs to push toxic money making therapies on to unknowing, uneducated and impoverished populations that are known best to test reactive on bogus HIV tests.

    Posted by: Carter | November 30, 2007 1:14 AM

    ” Here we have Karpas telling you one thing, and you claiming another, and by God you have made a sausage which contains both of them! Well, you may have to fry it and eat it yourself, Chris, because let’s face it, there really is very little point in anyone trying to enlighten you if you simply cannot ever examine your own premise.”

    Please do not use real scientists such as Karpas and Richman as hand-puppets. There is a major difference between a persistent chronic infection and “defeating HIV”. Neither Karpas nor Richman have stated that HIV is “defeated”. Both clearly state that although HIV is kept at bay for a variable anount of time that eventually HIV “wins”.

    Posted by: Chris Noble | November 29, 2007 8:32 PM

    Nice phrasing, Noble. Like the Bone cells and the Thymus cells idea. So the thymus makes cells? Wow, we live and learn.

    But Karpas and Richman are not puppets of mine, they are fully paid up members of the HIV=AIDS elite, who have made a concession of fact followed by a claim attended by speculation.

    The concession is precisely what Duesberg, Bialy, Brown, Culshaw, Bauer, Maggiore and everyone down to your local taxi driver have quickly found out when they first smell a rat in the palace of HIV=AIDS.

    The concession they have made to reality is that the healthy immune system gets rid of HIV in a few weeks so effectively that only the barest trace of it remains, so little that you have as much trouble finding it as finding a needle with a magnifying glass in a hayfield. Only Mullis’s great invention PCR can magnify into a significant amount what is a negligible amount to start with. No one has a test sensitive enough for it apart from PCR, which is why all the tests are for antibodies to it, antibodies which signal the body’s victory over the harmless little crittur, who has never bothered anybody, just like any other retrovirus to this day.

    This near eradication of HIV to a negligible level where most of it is inert anyway – 9,999/10,000 – continues for years until the unfortunate patient falls ill from SOME OTHER CAUSE, and the weakened immune system is beset with opportunistic infections of which the residual HIV is one.

    If you believe it causes the conditions for its own resurgence you are speaking with the voice of the HIV meme, and brazenly contradicting the blindingly obvious, for which you have no evidence other than the speculation of your valiant apologists Karpas and Richman, who have the scientific honor not to contradict the data but when given a chance to speculate will create castles in the air on the foundation of HIV=AIDS, because that is the motto of their elite club which has cornered all the funding for dealing with AIDS for 23 years and counting.

    You have become a dedicated supporter of this imaginative and baseless claim, and so you hold some responsible for its consequences, wouldn’t you say? Yet your support of it is so uncritical that you dismiss the success of the immune system in dealing with HIV with a desperate sidestep to the speculation of Karpas and Richman as THEY try desperately to make sense out of what you and they are forced to claim, that somehow HIV comes back from nowhere to defeat a healthy body that has kicked its ass to the max and kept it on the ground with a foot on its neck for as long as twenty years.

    You could explain this to a child of ten and it would laugh at you. Try it in the local schoolyard sometime. You’ll soon find them skipping round you chanting “Hello Mister Noble, Living in a bubble, Always causing trouble! Silly Mister Noble!”

    It’s interesting how you quote textbooks as if they were gospel. When reassessing your silliness, if you ever do, why don’t you consider where the text in text books comes from?

    Keep the salt cellar handy when reading texts where the sources are those championing the status quo, when there is an unsuccessful paradigm being explained. A pinch of salt is necessary.

    Or maybe we should say in the case of HIV=AIDS, a pinch of smelling salts.

    Posted by: Truthseeker | November 30, 2007 1:36 AM
    ——————————————————————————————–
    Surely this wrangle has made things clear to all onlookers, hasn’t it? Hope so. This is the great Achilles heel of HIV=AIDS in that it can be explained to almost anybody.

  141. Rezaf Says:

    Noble didn’t quite answer my questions, did he?

    I did read textbooks on this. That’s what also got me questioning too. But maybe I’m just too thick.

    “Proteins such as p24 are on the inside of the virus particle. Antibodies to HIV p24 are therfore not protective because the virus particle has to be already destroyed before the immune system can “see” the protein. There are many conserved epitopes in various HIV proteins but none of these are exposed on the outside of the virus particle. The greatest rate of evolution is seen on the regions of the surface proteins that are exposed. This demonstrates the selective pressure from the immune response that drives this evolution.”

    So what he says is that the outer proteins are never constant? Hmmm… But if people are tested with only inner proteins, and for these to be exposed, the immune system must be able to recognize and destroy the virus anyway, regardless of the strain, mutation, whatever. That still means that mutation after mutation, infection after infection, every person’s immune system is still able to see the virus. The failure to produce antibodies for the inner proteins would be a sign of evasion (body does not see the virus?). Or does it mean that only the original virus ( the one that Gallo “isolated”, right?) is transmissible? I’ll have to ask him this.

    “Viruses such as influenza and HIV bind to particular receptor sites on specific host cells. If cells do not have these receptors then the virus cannot infect them.”

    That I already know. But how does infecting T cells alone destroys the immune system, if the main facility of production (bone marrow) is not infected and destroyed also? He didn’t answer this.

    “You are mixing up B-cells and T-cells. The B stands for bone and the T stands for thymus.

    There are characteristic changes that can be seen in lymph nodes. Seriously all you have to do is open a textbook and you would be able to find all of this by yourself.

    Why do you come and demand that people answer your questions before you have done any research of your own.”

    Little does he know that I did some research. And the bone marrow question was a trick question.
    Just to see how was his knowledge of the immune system. He fell for it. And then dismissed me. He could at least tell me how does the virus damage the thymus. If a damaged thymus and/or bone marrow is a characteristic of AIDS patients that never had ARV therapy. Curiously, in the layman’s quick source of knowledge, Wikipedia, when I looked up for thymus (before I posted at Aetology), the topic does not contain a single explanation on how the thymus is altered by HIV. Curiously, not even the topic on HIV infection mentions that. Neither the destruction of the thymus or bone marrow or even any other lympoid tissue.

    Don’t any of these people think, for a moment even, that the textbooks they so love and adore can only give so much information? The textbooks are mostly derived from the same sources that inject our heads with the “HIV destroys immune system by killing off expendable and quickly renewable T cells. The immune system can counter the virus, but it still succeeds in causing AIDS in the end” theories. For all intents and purposes, these textbooks are useless when one can read between the lines and have a spark of independent thought. Has it never occurred to them that curious ignorants like myself need to hear it from the more wise and experienced how things REALLY work? It’s the ancient oral tradition of passing down knowledge.

    But it worked. For a moment there I was able to expose some of Franklin&Noble ‘s foundations, so TS & al could launch some more rockets. And I hope that any other newcomers can see some of that. I almost feel temped to go there again.

    Btw, speaking of bone marrow, I just remembered that in bone marrow transplants, the patient’s bone marrow is first killed off with either chemo or radiation. The chemo drugs commonly used to suppress the immune system are cyclophosphamide and busulfan. However, other drugs are also used. It would be interesting to know what other classes of chemo drugs are used in the preparative chemo before the transplant, and if any of them are part of, or related to, any of the ARV classes.

    Again, TS, MacD, Houston, great posts there!

  142. Rezaf Says:

    Adele has replied…
    This is the best I can do, so…
    ——————————————————————————————

    Adele,

    Thanks for answering me. Even though it’s the nth time you do answer this kind of questions. But then again, did you answer me at all?

    Let me see…

    “What? remnants of the virus? Its not remnants its real viruses!! You must be reading to much from lil becky. She knows less about viruses then I know about real estate market!! Ask kevin i dont know much about that!! I admit it!! Also you are confused on tests. ELISA and WEstern blot look for antibodies to virus proteins. Not virus proteins. So it detects antibody for virus. Oh and it doesn’t say the antibody works to stop a virus just it recognizes. May be it got made for a free protein from a virus but on a real virus its all sugarcoated and the antibody cant see it. It sees it in the test because its not all glycosilated like that. But a second thing theres regions of protein that are conserved or preserved like claus says if they mutate the virus is dead so that stuff is almost the same in viruses. And a third thing the tests don’t measure virus ability to evade immune system they just say if antibody is there. And a fourth thing there are tests for proteins, their getting common now and the protein is there not just antibody.”

    When I meant remnants, I meant remaining viruses, not fragments. And yes, I know that ELISAS and WB just detect anti-HIV antibodies. BUT, these in order to react need the antigen, aka, the viral protein or glycoprotein (hence the constant set of recognizable viral (glyco)proteins).

    “Oh and it doesn’t say the antibody works to stop a virus just it recognizes. May be it got made for a free protein from a virus but on a real virus its all sugarcoated and the antibody cant see it.”

    “Maybe”? “free protein from a virus”? Which virus? Does it have to be just HIV? “sugarcoated and the antibody cant see it”? My point exactly. If the antibody can’t see it, then it cannot bind to it. So why is a positive HIV test bad? Oh, it’s because anti-HIV antibodies can see free proteins from A virus (any virus?) and not glycoproteins from REAL viruses. So a positive ELISA is not a proof of infection by a REAL virus, is it? Maybe? I don’t pay my doctor to give me “Maybes” and that kind of uncertainties, lady.

    ” It sees it in the test because its not all glycosilated like that”
    What is the point of testing people with something that is not EXACTLY like the original? Shouldn’t the antigen set used in tests be exactly like the ones found in a REAL HIV virus?

    “Why’s that buddy? Go to a virology class some time. Every virus has ways it gets around immune systems. Your body recognizes herpes or varicella but they evade it right? Same thing on HIV.”

    But Herpes and varicella are caused by DNA viruses, not by retroviruses. and in case of Herpes, outbreaks only occur when the immune system is weakened by other factors. And by that, just because it is latent, does not mean it is invisible to the immune system and it is not being fought. It is reactivated when the immune system is weakened by other conditions. “Same thing in HIV”? How “same” is that? Oh, you mean, it remains in a latent state until the immune system is weakened by other factors, other than HIV. Weakened enough to be reactivated and do what it is supposed to do in the first place: destroy the immune system. So HIV needs a push. How big is that push?

    “Wow. So people die, does that mean hospitals are all damaged. BC people are born in hospitals, so how do they die unless hospitals are damaged. Wow thats funny logic even in denialism.”

    Actually, mothers give birth to people. If mothers are damaged, in the right way, they may not give birth to more babies. Dead mothers don’t give birth to also. Did a hospital give birth to you, Adele? Is a hospital a prerequesite to give birth? I know people that were born on the way to a hospital. Others, in other place that were not hospitals. But were all give birth to by a mother, which is an important prerequesite. Why did you think of an hospital, which neither gives birth or produces, and it is only a place that provides the conditions needed for proper care of the newborn and mother, during and after the labor? Hospitals don’t give birth or produce. They are ridden with doctors and nurses that take care of you and me when we get seriouly ill.

    Which makes me return to my initial question, altough rephrased:
    Isn’t the bone marrow the heart and soul of the immune system and the birthplace of most white cells, including T helper lymphocites? Where’s the damaged/altered bone marrow and/or thymus in HIV positives and AIDS patients that explains the inevitable immune failure?

    I hope now you can properly enlighten me? I’m only asking…not demanding. With that kind of answers you give, no wonder people just keep asking.

    I do know that ARVs kill mothers, though.

    That could be your (n+1)th time you answer this. But don’t be afraid to get technical with me.
    Oh, and your attitude doesn’t earn sympathies from innocent bystanders such as myself, who are just concerned and curious. It’s easy being tough behind a keyboard. Try behaving like that in front of a real and curious person or patient and see what happens.
    Textbooks can only do so much. I prefer to hear it from the people in the field.

    Don’t think I’m the only average Joe out there posing these kind of questions just because I want to know what the hell have people like you been doing in the past 23 years.

    —————————————————————————————————

    These people are mean!

  143. MacDonald Says:

    Rezaf,

    if you think you’re on top get in there and lay it on them. I’ve already predicted twice for you this particular response:

    So what he says is that the outer proteins are never constant? Hmmm… But if people are tested with only inner proteins, and for these to be exposed, the immune system must be able to recognize and destroy the virus anyway

    No, the immune system need not destroy anything to get at the so called “core proteins”. Only a minute fraction of the hypothetical HI virions are supposedly replication competent, and neither the supposedly replication competent nor the defect ones remain intact for long as chief closet denialist JP Moore has pointed out on various occasions.

    However, the antibodies stiil manage to recognize and keep the virus down, for a decade or more according to mainstream, in spite of gp120’s sugarcoating of the viral medicine and inward turning of conserved regions (disguising HIV as “self” as it were), so the CD4 cells can munch it with relish.

    However, as I’ve related earlier in this thread, one of the questions our AIDStruth friends didn’t feel like answering was whether the Western Blot tests only for designated core proteins. My guess is that this is why they don’t feel like answering that question:

    Western blot analysis measures for the presence of antibodies to several HIV proteins. Specifically the HIV proteins being analyzed are p24, p31,gp41, and gp120/gp160. The presence of antibodies to these four viral proteins is considered proof of HIV infection.

    http://faculty.samford.edu/~gekeller/burnette.html

    gp41 and gp, 120/160 are envelope proteins as can be seen on the drawing here:

    http://www.biotrends.org/science_society/science_society_Science_Basics_HIVAIDS.htm

    p31 was dropped in 1993 as a requirement for a postive diagnosis. We’ re left with p24. and p17/18 as core proteins.

    Franklin’s answer to MEC’s latest questions is especially instructive in its own non-instructive way, so I’ll make an exception and post the exchange here:

    Dr. N, let me return if I may, to this statement, from Karpas I believe, valuable for its neat simplicity:

    in nearly every infected individual, despite a vigorous immune response that is protective for many years, eventually one or more mutants emerge that manage to evade the immune response and lead to disease progression and death.

    It seems to imply a stalemate between HIV and antibodies, until… until what exactly, Dr. N? What is it about these “one or more mutants” that so utterly confounds the rapidly developing antibody
    reponses,often after more than a decade of protective reponses?

    The concept of naturally occurring “broadly neutralizing antibodies” is well known in the vaccine efforts. Why do these kinds of antibody responses start to fail all of a sudden?

    We were told just above that the cunning virus, when presenting itself in the form of the hypothetical intact virion, hides all the conserved regions from the antibodies (but somehow not from the CD4 receptors). However, I was also under the impression that it’s been argued here recently that shedded proteins from defective viruses is one of the many cell killing mechanisms employed by HIV.

    As the illustrious closet Denialist Prof. John P. Moore of Weill Cornell, has demonstrated, these are very effectively neutralized by antibodies – perhaps because they cannot, as you just suggested, turn their conserved parts away into the not present virion? Regardless, they are effectively neutralized.

    Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 30, 2007 4:48 AM

    MEC,

    Just give it up. Read the immunology textbook. Learn something, before trying to spout off scientific-sounding phrases.

    Posted by: franklin | November 30, 2007 10:01 AM

    LOL! Franklin,

    Were my last questions too scientific sounding for you? Better not answer then, or JP might have you thrown out of the club.

    But I must say your threshold is very low; that didn’t even look very scientific to me, and I thought you were an expert.

    In fact Frankie darling, that was everyday prose right out of the virology textbook you gave me to read, with an absolute minimum of technical terminology, no convoluted arguments, and only two trick questions – and still you’re afraid to go down that road.

    That speaks volumes.

    Adele honey bun, please, it’s Noble and I, ok? Noble and I, not “Noble and me”. Move outta the sticks girl.

    Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 30, 2007 2:07 PM

  144. MacDonald Says:

    “Maybe”? “free protein from a virus”? Which virus? Does it have to be just HIV? “sugarcoated and the antibody cant see it”? My point exactly. If the antibody can’t see it, then it cannot bind to it. So why is a positive HIV test bad? Oh, it’s because anti-HIV antibodies can see free proteins from A virus (any virus?) and not glycoproteins from REAL viruses. So a positive ELISA is not a proof of infection by a REAL virus, is it? Maybe? I don’t pay my doctor to give me “Maybes” and that kind of uncertainties, lady. (Rezaf)

    Pardon my first quib Rezaf. I see you’ve got it nailed now.

  145. Truthseeker Says:

    Landed this one on Chris Noble who is now asleep in Aussie land, one assumes.
    ———————————————————————————-
    “But Karpas and Richman are not puppets of mine, they are fully paid up members of the HIV=AIDS elite, who have made a concession of fact followed by a claim attended by speculation.”

    Well don’t try to use them as such. When you say “The paper of Abraham Karpas of Cambridge agreeing that ordinary levels of antibodies seen in any healthy person exposed to HIV are sufficient to defeat it” you are putting words in his mouth that he would not agree with.

    Posted by: Chris Noble | November 30, 2007 2:31 AM
    —–

    MEC, Just give it up. Read the immunology textbook. Learn something, before trying to spout off scientific-sounding phrases.
    Posted by: franklin | November 30, 2007 10:01 AM

    So cute. Love these displays of illiteracy. So revealing. There must be a new name for these little field mice. How about weebies?

    Here’s another weebie:

    Truthtwister says
    He wrote a book too. Did you ever read that? Did you ever read any book challenging the orthodoxy? Did you ever read Bialy?
    Umm, Noble and me read Duesberg his book and his other crap. We read bialy to. That stuffs real impressive for people who don’t know about biology like you and Rezaf and Robert Houston. You wanna believe and you find some nutjob who tells you stuff you like. For Noble and me its not so much impressive. Posted by: Adele | November 30, 2007 12:02 PM

    So CUTE. Like icing on this otherwise not always sweet cake. Of course, who’s to say this is a real female know-nothing, and not just some gay activist who likes to get a kick out of a female name? My bet would be 20/80 on that one.

    Poor John Moore, he must be embarrassed by the devotees he has attracted. No wonder he fled. Well, he might like to put his ear plugs in for the bunkerbuster about to be dropped on him at http://www.Science Guardian.com.

    Needless poison

    Oops, maybe we shouldn’t be so easily amused when people health and lives are at stake. Read that Karpas’ review for the really gruesome truth about AZT. This stuff not only gave them AIDS, it gave them superAIDS, since it knocks out the production of blood cells from the marrow.

    Top virologist – one of two leading in England, one of most respected in world – Karpas’ admissions are a revelation of how vicious the result of eg Chris Noble’s misleading support of HIV=AIDS can really be.

    And by the way, Chris, he notes that live HIV is entirely eradicated from the system. Your viral load is all dead HIV in healthy asymptomatic patients – not a trace of infectious HIV in the blood even though substantial PCR readings of viral rna load. Complete immune control.

    VIRUS DEFEATED, as I said.

    PCR cannot distinguish between live and dead virus. H E L L O…? PCR cannot distinguish between live and dead virus. All that latent virus in the serum is dead. The viral load is thus meaningless as any indication whatsoever in asymptomatic patients of any threat to their welfare. Even John claims only 1 in 10,000/10 million in the lab stock of cloned virus he used was infectious.

    The active virus inside cells can’t do any permanent damage – only 1 in 1000 to 10,000 helper T cells harbor virus, Fauci tells us – because the immune system can replenish much faster – 500x – than the infection rate, and any new virus generated will be zapped by the immune system and is mostly defective, as Moore has shown.

    If you drug healthy patients you are using your chemical flamethrowers on dead mice and burning the barn down.

    REPEAT

    If you drug healthy patients you are using your chemical flamethrowers on dead mice and burning the barn down.

    Well done, Chris, quite a few lives, not to mention buffalo humps and shot livers, on your account balance. Try a little MRI on yourself, and see if your conscience shows any sign of activity at all, why don’t you? It may be a dead zone, like your heart and brain.

    Read Karpas through if you don’t know what I am talking about.

    Bad science in this arena is not morally free of blame, don’t you know? You are ruining people’s lives, people’s health, and killing them, whether out of stupidity or unwillingness to doublecheck what you think.

    Impossible to read Karpas and not make that point against you.

    His prescription was to use somebody else’s antibodies against live virus in vivo. Works very well. But oh no, drug companies cant package it into a drug. Sorry, folks, have to take your AZT cocktails.

    Courtesy of Chris Noble, for one.

    Posted by: Truthseeker | November 30, 2007 4:15 PM
    ——————————————-
    Right on, all.

  146. MacDonald Says:

    Love your new Aggrrrresssive style.

  147. Rezaf Says:

    MacDonald, it’s ok. I’ve read your explanations earlier and I know what TS and you have to say about this, but my questions are directed to those who advocate the meme. So I can hear it from them and compare answers. I want to hear an answer from them that equals yours in quality and clarity. So I can show them later what a layman can do after being exposed to both sides of the story. I want to show them what any person with a minimal critical thought can do after being exposed to the information you provided and to their inability to provide any.

  148. Truthseeker Says:

    Dear me, has franklin caughtt us being inattentive?

    ————————————————————————–
    Truthseeker (sic) attempts to “summarize” Karpas’s position:

    And by the way, Chris, he notes that live HIV is entirely eradicated from the system. Your viral load is all dead HIV in healthy asymptomatic patients – not a trace of infectious HIV in the blood even though substantial PCR readings of viral rna load. Complete immune control.

    VIRUS DEFEATED, as I said. [Truthseeker’s (sic) emphasis]

    Here is what the Karpas review paper actually says:

    In man infection with HIV is probably never latent, because the virus appears to mutate continuously in every infected individual due to its highly error-prone reverse transcriptase (RT) which lacks the proofreading capabilities of other DNA polymerases. This has two consequences: (1) in nearly every infected individual, despite a vigorous immune response that is protective for many years, eventually one or more mutants emerge that manage to evade the immune response and lead to disease progression and death;

    So he not only fails to claim that HIV is defeated by the immune response, he says that HIV is probably never even latent!

    He says HIV just keeps replicating along, evading the immune response, until it eventually leads to death!

    Somehow Truthseeker (sic) fails to see that Karpas’s words directly contradict Truthseeker’s (sic) interpretation.

    But what about the PCR results? Viral load vs. infectious virus? Do these establish the immune control of the HIV that Truthseeker (sic) claims?

    Truthseeker’s (sic) remarks on viral load vs. infectious virus appear to reflect statements Karpas makes not about “defeat” of HIV by the immune system but about the effect of anti-retroviral therapy on the level of infectious virus isolated from plasma:

    After varied periods of HAART treatment in many patients there is a significant increase in the PCR plasma viral load without a decrease in the CD4+T-cell count and without clinical deterioration. We assayed for infectious HIV-1 in the plasma from such patients but failed to detect any infectious virus. In order to try to explain this observation we undertook the molecular characterisation of the plasma HIV-1 genes of such patients. Our molecular studies revealed signficiant deletions in several of the viral genes which could explain why the plasma HIV-1 is not infectious (Saurya, Lichtenstein & Karpas, 2002a, b, 2003a, b).

    So Karpas is discussing the effectiveness of HAART in reducing production of infectious virus, and Truthseeker (sic) pretends that Karpas is referring to the effect of the immune system on HIV!

    I guess there still might be two possibilities to explain Truthseeker’s (sic) inaccurate description of Karpas’s essay, although one of them seems much more likely:

    “either blatantly lying” or “completely incapable of understanding the paper”

    Posted by: franklin | November 30, 2007 5:44 PM

    Webbie attack! Webbie attack! Incoming from franklin!

    Here is what the Karpas review paper actually says:….I guess there still might be two possibilities to explain Truthseeker’s (sic) inaccurate description of Karpas’s essay, although one of them seems much more likely:

    “either blatantly lying” or “completely incapable of understanding the paper”

    Posted by: franklin | November 30, 2007 5:44 PM

    Hey franklin, thanks for lobbing back the grenade we flung into your bunker. But what’s with the “lying”? Where’s the dignified confidence of those who know that they are right? Why “lying” anyway? Do you mean we purposely misstated a fact and misled the audience? Where would you get such ideas from? Surely not from your own example?

    We wouldn’t know, of course. We cannot see inside you. But where else do you get such ideas from? We ask merely for information, as Oscar Wilde wrote. Such calumny wouldn’t occur to us. We respect your honor.

    Nor do we think it is the second factor you mentioned that handicaps you. We just think you read everything with the HIV meme sitting on top of your head like some monkey. Any contradiction of the meme and when you start reading it the monkey puts it hands over your eyes.

    Anyhow, the first point has already been worked over, and we stand with Karpas:

    (1) in nearly every infected individual, despite a vigorous immune response that is protective for many years, eventually one or more mutants emerge that manage to evade the immune response and lead to disease progression and death;

    As to the second quote

    2) After varied periods of HAART treatment in many patients there is a significant increase in the PCR plasma viral load without a decrease in the CD4+T-cell count and without clinical deterioration. We assayed for infectious HIV-1 in the plasma from such patients but failed to detect any infectious virus. In order to try to explain this observation we undertook the molecular characterisation of the plasma HIV-1 genes of such patients. Our molecular studies revealed signficiant deletions in several of the viral genes which could explain why the plasma HIV-1 is not infectious (Saurya, Lichtenstein & Karpas, 2002a, b, 2003a, b).

    we suggest that perhaps you should go back and check the Karpas review we are referring to, Human retroviruses in leukaemia and AIDS: reflections on their discovery, biology and epidemiology in Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2004 Nov;79(4):911-33. We will give you the answer quote when we get to the library tomorrow, the full paper is not with us.

    If we can’t, and we screwed up, we will admit it as handsomely as Chris Noble admitted his error just now. We hope you will do the same.

    It really makes no difference to the analysis anyway – there is negligible HIV in the system of healthy HIV+s however you look at it. Since this lasts for up to twenty years, the likelihood of any sudden decline in health being triggered by the teeny 9 kilobase HIV in the face of a healthy immune system that has kept it down to vanishing point for two decades is nil.

    Which gene would you say harbors the incubating breakout and its timing whereby the teeny virus suddenly gains the power to overcome its suppressor, the immune system that has knocked it to the ground and kept its foot on its neck for up to two decades?

    Any change is OBVIOUSLY due to other factors.

    No healthy person has any real reason for concern if he is HIV+ unless he is trapped in this group iatrogenic fantasy and succumbs to the huge pressure on him/her from the propaganda, social attitudes and insistence from the misinformed medical community that it proves he/she will die from HIV’s sudden attack on the immune system up to 20 years after he was exposed to it, and therefore taking dangerous and certainly heavily damaging drugs early is wise.

    No proof of this from any angle has yet been produced in the scientific literature, despite the imaginative statements of Karpas who is as we have agreed is a beribboned, meme controlled general of this global attack on the well being of all patients labeled as suffering from “AIDS”.

    The UN cures AIDS

    Here to celebrate World AIDS Day tomorrow is a quote you will like from the abstract of Karpas’s paper:

    Sexual intercourse has now spread the virus around the World; and there are probably some 70 million infected. 90% of those infected with HIV develop the deadly disease of AIDS within ten years of infection: the death toll from the disease has been enormous.

    70 million infected. Now the UN says sorry, everybody, only 33 million infected.

    Gee, seems that 37 million have been cured since 2004 November, the date of publication of Human retroviruses in leukaemia and AIDS: reflections on their discovery, biology and epidemiology in Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2004 Nov;79(4):911-33.

    That’s pretty good! By 2010 we will have have cured them all! Well done, the UN.

    Of course, that means a nice chunk of the $30 billion Bush is trying to hand out now will go straight into the pockets of the likes of you and Chris Noble, is that right, now that it is no longer needed to combat the dread fairy tale Virus?

    Don’t tell us that Moore will forget your deserving pockets in the excitement of this triumph.

    Posted by: Truthseeker | December 1, 2007 12:12 AM
    ————————————————————————————–
    Anyone got a copy of the paper handy?

  149. MacDonald Says:

    Rezaf,

    Well “quib” was perhaps too strong a word to use about my own Comment above. The fact is you have better qualifications for getting your head around the molecular biology and biochemistry – maybe also the genomics of this than TS and I. I guess I am just impatient and selfish: I want to bring you up to speed as quickly as possible so I can start learning from your analyses.

    The thing about the mutating HIV and the constant tests is a biggie, and a very good way for lay people to get an idea of the stakes here .

    TS,

    Franklin has in no wise caught you inattentive. Or… well, maybe he has since he has pointed you once again to the central piece of bewildered ad hoc reasoning of the illustrious HIV researchers. Something you have hitherto neglected to focus sharply enough on.

    In man infection with HIV is probably never latent, because the virus appears to mutate continuously in every infected individual due to its highly error-prone reverse transcriptase (RT) which lacks the proofreading capabilities of other DNA polymerases.

    Karpas can only explain how HIV could show such incredible diversity, by positing a continuous high rate of mutation, which in turn requires the virus to be continually active without any latent periods.

    The language of these studies is always careful, but here the words “probably” and “appears” are noteworthy. He is speculating and obviously conscious of the other paradox created by his speculations, namely how a continually active virus could take decades to cause disease. It is to get around this problem he (and others) comes up with the rather lame idea that “eventually one or more mutants emerge that manage to evade the immune response and lead to disease progression and death.”

    There is no explanation for why such a super mutant is bound to eventually arise in a healthy person, so the just as lame sounding idea of a “threshold”, at which point an “escape mutant is selected”, or a loosing game of attrition between HIV and antibodies- sounding very similar to the conventional idea of an opportunistic infection taking advantage – is brought into play

    What we see is that the continuously mutating non-latent virus explains two central problems: the astounding diversity of HIV strains, fuelling both Duesberg’s and Peth’s doubts about the self-identity of that which is sequenced, as well as HIV’s disease causing potential. In both cases a furious rate of mutation “appears” to Karpas, David Ho and the rest to be the only explanation. The HIV/AIDS theory in other words demands that HIV remains active, hence, lo and behold, active virus is suddenly found in all kinds of bodily recesses such as the gut and the lymph nodes. Ad hoc.

    The next paradox is well known, from Ho and onwards: How to model mathematically the progress of a furiously mutating, never latent virus. In spite of the most impressive acrobatics involving all kinds of hypothetical HIV leak and CD4 turnover rates combined with the “best” of the lentivirus and quasispecies concepts this has not been possible. But surely they’ll come up with something. The HIV/AIDS hypothesis demands it.

  150. Truthseeker Says:

    Thanks Robert for the post, so that I dont have to traipse to the library. I forgot it was over 100 healthy patients that Karpas couldn’t find a live virus in. Well done.

    Probably thinking one had driven a stake through the heart of these walking dead is too optimistic, but it is a key point which seems to serve as a stake through the heart of the paradigm for all thoughtful people.

    ———————————————————————————–
    If Karpas’s essay means “VIRUS DEFEATED” (as you said), why does he say that the virus eventually kills most infected individuals?

    Somewhere in that contradiction is either a blatant lie or a complete inability to understand the essay.

    Posted by: franklin | December 1, 2007 12:23 AM

    Franklin, the passage you quoted from Prof. Karpas regarding PCR in HAART was not the one relevant to Truthseeker’s remarks. You’ll find such on the preceding page of the Abraham Karpas review in Biology Reviews 79:911-33, 2004:

    “We have assayed for the presence of neutralising antibodies in over 100 healthy HIV-1 infected individuals and without exception found that the sera contained significant levles of such antibodies… Our sudies have demonstrated that healthy HIV-1 infected individuals who were not viraemic had high levels of neutralising antibodies against the virus…

    “Studies from the USA of long-term survivors have also found high levels of neutralising antibodies… Although PCR assays for the presence of HIV-1 RNA in the plasma revealed significant levels of RNA in some individuals, the biological assay for viral infectivity failed to reveal the presence of infectious virus, suggesting that the HIV-1 in the bloodstream had been inactivated by the neutralising antibodies. In addition, this indicates that PCR does not distinguish between infectious (live) and neutralised (killed) virus.”

    Posted by: Robert Houston | December 1, 2007 12:37 AM

    Somewhere in that contradiction is either a blatant lie or a complete inability to understand the essay.

    Posted by: franklin | December 1, 2007 12:23 AM

    Exactly, franklin, you have as usual hit the nail straight on the head. We now have a choice. Is Dr Karpas’ statement a self-contradiction? Yes. It is. Is it a lie? Well, franklin, you used that word, not us. We don’t think so. Not quite.

    Oh, we see that you look as baffled as usual, so I suppose we have to explain.

    First, Karpas and all of us all except you and the monkey meme on your head and Chris and his monkey meme agree with the first part of his statement, that the healthy immune system knocks the virus out of the ring, flat, unconscious, inert for as long as twenty years. For some reason you don’t want us to use the word “defeated” for this setback for your much loved, billion dollar virus, reduced to total inactivity, so use whatever word you like. Karpas was unable to find any virus in a healthy HIV+ that wasn’t dead, ie inactivated. Your supervirus turned out to be a dead mouse. Dead mice everywhere he looked in more than a 100 patients, as Robert Houston posts above.

    VIRUS DEFEATED. That’s part 1.

    How about part 2? Virus resurges and kills the host:

    If Karpas’s essay means “VIRUS DEFEATED” (as you said), why does he say that the virus eventually kills most infected individuals?

    Why indeed. Yes, the virus rises up from the dead and smites the immune system with some mysterious power as yet not ascertained, according to Karpas’s imagination, and yours. Is this a contradiction of his finding that the immune system effectively stops every virus dead? Yes.

    So, yes, you have a contradiction.

    Now franklin, you used the word “lie” again. Please, franklin, have some respect. We must respect Abraham Karpas as one of the most distinguished scientists in the world of HIV=AIDS, a fully beribboned general of the movement to which you and Noble subscribe with such enthusiasm.

    It is not right for you to intoduce the word “lie” anywhere near Dr Karpas. This is not the kind of civility and manners we are used to at the top of the HIV club, especially in Cambridge.

    Poor Dr Karpas is merely feeling a sense of collegial responsibility and anxious to fit in with their scheme, once he has had his say as a decent scientist and acknowledged that the MOST LETHAL VIRUS IN HISTORY (according to the Council of Foreign Relations expert Laurie “The Coming Plague” Garrett) gets its ass kicked by any healthy immune system so badly that he could not find any still active in any patient he sampled..

    Therefore he imagines that something or other in the dead virus gives it new life, and it rises up and beats the immune system that inactivated every last one he inspected.

    Of course, he and everybody else knows perfectly well that it is the decline in the immune system from some other cause of sickness that allows the virus to finally make only the feeblest sort of reappearance in sick and dying people, which forms no parallel whatsoever with a resurgence powerful enough to defeat an immune system that already proved it could easily overcome the virus.

    Is Karpas a liar?

    So is Karpas lying when he embarks on this approach to the phenomenon of people with HIV falling sick after years and years of harboring nothing but dead virus that he could find? Saying that it is the virus turning from a lamb into a lion, and not feebly resurging with help from some other factor which radically weakens and finally kills (with the help of the doctors you peddle this stuff to, franklin) its host? Like drugs, say, of the recreational kind, or multiple infections, or nutritional deficits of a key kind?

    No, sir, he is not lying, per se. He is merely a man with a monkey on his shoulder, the HIV meme, like the monkey on your head, franklin.

    Apologize to the man.

    Posted by: Truthseeker | December 1, 2007 2:23 AM
    ————————————————————————————————–
    As MacD points out this whole scheme of resurgence doesn’t model mathetmatically as Rebecca Culshaw found so the rapid mutation doesn’t really do it for them, they are just left with their usual Ptolemic ellipses stretching to the stars well beyond the reach of common sense.

    Now it is World AIDS Day, with Bush promising $30 billion and tieing a 12 foot red ribbon to the White House. My advice to all is never mention this topic to anyone you dont know very well except lawyers, insurance actuaries and the few born questioners you may run into, otherwise you will get the flight reaction. Told an otherwise comely and sensible art gallery owner the other day on the phone and she said doubtfully as she looked up the url “Should I be afraid of you? You seem to be on a mission.”

    After that, I hastily cut down the logo of the blog and moved the dictionary of pusillanimity to the bottom of the front page.

  151. Rezaf Says:

    Hey, it seems that I made Adele agree with me that HIV only rises from the afterlife after the immune system is weakened by other unrelated factors. Am I exposing their own disbelief in the theory they love and adore? Or are their exposing themselves? I’d like to think so….

    MEC pointed that one out, too.

    ——————————————————————————————————

    Right actually varicella is a herpes, but why’s it so important if it’s a RNA or DNA virus? HIV, herpes they’re all kind of parasites, they all hide out in the body try to get to new hosts. They evade immune system. Immune system declines*, they go crazy. HIV herpes what ever. (Adele)

    Three BIG KISSES to Adele X-X-X.

    She has just agreed wih Rezaf that HIV logically must be an opportunistic infection. No need for the metaphysical concept of lentiviruses

    Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 30, 2007 3:49 PM

    ——————————————————————————————————

    * She still doesn’t answer what else causes the immune collapse so HIV can rise and cause THE immune collapse. But if the immune system has already collapsed, the reactivated HIV has nothing to cause collapse(?).

  152. Rezaf Says:

    Now that I think of it, the (failing) mechanism of HIV infection could be explained to anyone by making this: What is the point of taking on an army if one can’t kill soldiers faster than the enemy can train and equip them? That’s why God gave humanity the stealth bombers, so we can destroy the training camps ammo/fuel depots and cut the enemy off from their precious supplies. Once those are destroyed, the enemy army cannot train and equip soldier faster than one can kill them.
    That is the one thing that the HIV=AIDS advocates insist. HIV mainly targets T cells. But they never mention if the production and training facilities (bone marrow/thymus) are also destroyed. They may even report that same destruction, but is it present in immune deficient people that never took ARVs?
    In bone marrow transplants, to annihilate the immune system before the transplant, the defective bone marrow is destroyed with chemotherapy or radiation.
    This is one among other points.

  153. Douglas Says:

    TS,

    I took a second look at your blog today and I am left with only a sigh. You have completely capitulated to the “Reformers” who call us “denialist”.

    I warned you that it wasn’t healthy to spend so much time in their den, that you would track back the sh*t to NAR.

    Our adversaries are probably celebrating now at their victory which you in effect gave them. They don’t understand satire, if that is what it was. It certainly could be nothing but depressing for the dissidents. And you nailed it.

    I do not really see anything so different lately in this horrible deception. We have to just keep on swinging. We have the truth on our side, a major advantage. All they have is a charade. I thought that headline last week in London Daily Mail was a major break-through. Most people I talk with seem to understand that something is terribly wrong and do not accept the BS coming from the medical establishment. How can they? It is perfectly stupid to believe it. This is why I was happy today with the completion of my story, “The Emperor’s New Clothes” and was able to post it in opposition to the AIDS lie. Maybe I’m just too myopic about it, but I felt that is was a good antidote for what the establishment has dished out.

    I take heart when I see Hilary being trashed by her peers in her unconvincing fight against the poison of corporate fascism and Kucinich making all the right calls. Even Edwards and Richardson were looking good today.

    I’m sure with a little more time, we will win. The main thing is to end AIDS and end the wars. If Bush is not stopped, AIDS is a moot point.

    Sorry to be the one to criticize you, I’m not anywhere near your literary equal. I respect your wit and cunning, your tenacity, and especially your good disposition. I do hope you count me, a friend.

    All the best,

    Douglas

    Please see my story “The Emperor’s New Clothes” Retold. Simply click on my name at the top and make a book mark on

    http://forum1.aimoo.com/rethinkers_worldwide_forum

    (Please copy and paste in URL if necessary.) This is my newly reopened forum. Your visits and posts are welcome.

  154. Truthseeker Says:

    Aetiology apologists haven’t given up yet. But they provide innumerable opportunities to emphasize the basic flaw in HIV=AIDS, which is that, as Duesberg has never tired of pointing out, HIV is a pussy chased up a tree by the immune system and doesn’t have a chance to cause any trouble until the antibody army is decimated by some other attack.

    The body vaccinates itself. Period.
    ————————————————————————————————–

    It is not right for you to intoduce the word “lie” anywhere near Dr Karpas. This is not the kind of civility and manners we are used to at the top of the HIV club, especially in Cambridge.

    Are you still prolonging this stupid charade. Nobody is accusing Karpas of being a liar. I am saying that you are either deliberately misinterpretting Karpa’s paper or you are so completely incapable opf understanding it that you do not realise you are misinterpretting it.

    Do not try to enlist Karpas as a Denialist. You know that he does not support your claims. No amount of obfuscation will change this.

    Posted by: Chris Noble | December 1, 2007 10:01 PM

    So, if these are the studies to which Truthseeker (sic) is referring to, he must either (1) be lying or (2) have no scientific understanding of these papers.

    Posted by: franklin | December 1, 2007 2:11 PM

    So what happened to our deal, franklin, that if you were wrong, you would offer a handsome apology to me, and vice versa?

    You were shown exactly what I claimed was asserted by Abraham Karpas in the paper under discussion.

    Instead of apologizing like a man, you simply show you are suffering from the Moore-Noble syndrome, which results in an effusion of insults instead of the gentlemanly concession which is normal between respectable members of the civil community.

    This is disappointing. In fact, it is very disappointing. There is in fact very little which will excuse it. Does your mother know?

    On the other hand, I suppose you like Noble cannot afford to be detected in such a fatuous error, one that indicates you never read the paper we were talking about.

    Then you have the effrontery to try and weasel out of your fix by quoting from other papers that back up precisely what we said.

    HIV+ people are healthy for years, until SOMETHING ELSE HAPPENS OTHER THAN A MIRACULOUS RESURGENCE OF HIV, according to all reports, studies, and discussion except that which goes on in your brain, the one with the monkey sitting on top of it and pulling your hair out when it isn’t clapping its paws over your eyes whenever enlightenment is offered by your betters.

    John Moore is proud of you and grateful, I am sure. After all, he has received our heartiest congratulations over at http://www.Science Guardian.com today for fooling the entire world with his absurd meme. You and other foolish people who seem unable to understand plain English are a pillar of his accomplishment, so you are to be congratulated too.

    However, since your nature and upbringing precludes you from offering the handsome apology due to all here for your error, we will restrain ourselves from giving you the acknowledgement you deserve until you rise to the occasion, and behave properly.

    Otherwise we shall tell your mother, if we ever meet her.

    Meanwhile your privileges are revoked and we will not be able to respond to your need for enlightenment on the science of HIV?AIDS until you snap to, shape up, and get rid of the monkey on the top of your skull.

    Sorry, but some standards have to be maintained here in honor of the blog owner, the delectable Tara, who for some reason has removed her lovely photo from the blog.

    Posted by: Truthseeker | December 1, 2007 10:19 PM

    Do not try to enlist Karpas as a Denialist. You know that he does not support your claims. No amount of obfuscation will change this.

    Posted by: Chris Noble | December 1, 2007 10:01 PM

    So you still argue with Karpas himself, or cannot bear to read what he writes?

    Chris, there is a monkey sitting on top of your head, the spit image of the monkey sitting on top of franklin’s nut.

    Can you explain? It seems to prevent you from understanding any point that undermines the HIV meme.

    Your demonstration that you, supposedly a reasoning being with some training in science, or at least computers, cannot see what Karpas is saying, and only accuse others of misinterpretation when it is brought to your attention, leaves us with one sad conclusion only: you identify with the HIV meme.

    You and the monkey are brothers, it seems. No wonder it likes sitting on your head.

    Unfortunately, we agree with Karpas, a good enough scientist to know when there is a flaw to be explained away in the HIV meme, instead of thinking it has none.

    Sorry you are not a good enough scientist, or even logician, to deal with the point he tries to explain away, or even see it.

    However, please curb your tendency to burst out in insults to our intelligence when you are exposing yourself in this manner.

    Take a tip from Karpas and cover up. It is rather embarrassing to see a grown man naked of all camouflage in mixed company, and stand revealed to all the world as incapable of understanding what is going on in a paper under discussion, even when it is quoted to him.

    Perhaps you could go over the posts and the paper speaking the words out loud one by one and using your finger to keep your place?

    This is what we do, and we find it helps a lot, especially if we keep a dictionary handy for all the long words.

    Try it, Chris, you might yet catch up with the rest of the world in understanding that HIV=AIDS needs to be explained if people with HIV do not fall ill unless some other attack on their immune system takes place.

    You weren’t aware that this is the fundamental difficulty?

    Karpas does, and that is why he speculates in his paper.

    But you can’t see that, right?

    Posted by: Truthseeker | December 1, 2007 10:41 PM

    Truthseeker (sic):

    So what happened to our deal, franklin, that if you were wrong, you would offer a handsome apology to me, and vice versa?

    You were shown exactly what I claimed was asserted by Abraham Karpas in the paper under discussion.

    I missed that. Exactly what did you claim was asserted by Abraham Karpas in the paper under discussion?

    Posted by: franklin | December 1, 2007 10:46 PM

    Truthseeker (sic),

    My understanding is that you asserted the following:

    PCR cannot distinguish between live and dead virus. H E L L O…? PCR cannot distinguish between live and dead virus. All that latent virus in the serum is dead. The viral load is thus meaningless as any indication whatsoever in asymptomatic patients of any threat to their welfare.

    Robert Houston suggested that you based this assertion on the following quote:

    Studies from the USA of long-term survivors have also found high levels of neutralising antibodies (Cao et al., 1995; Pantaleo et al., 1995). Although PCR assays for the presence of HIV-1 RNA in the plasma revealed significant levels of RNA in some individuals, the biological assay for viral infectivity failed to reveal the presence of infectious virus, suggesting that the HIV-1 in the bloodstream had been inactivated by the neutralising antibodies. In addition, this indicates that PCR does not distinguish between infectious (live) and neutralised (killed) virus.

    As I already pointed out, for you to extrapolate from these statements about long-term non-progressors to all asymptomatic patients can only be explained by (1) you telling a blatant lie, (2) your inability to understand the essay, or (3) both.

    Posted by: franklin | December 1, 2007 10:59 PM

    Franklin,

    I’m intrigued once more. Are you saying that in some HIV+ persons, notably LTNPs, viral load testing is admittedly meaningless, whereas in others it is a correct measure of infectious virus and predictor of progression to AIDS and death? I’ll be darned if they didn’t forget to mention that on the kit inserts I’ve seen.

    So if the person has not yet progressed to AIDS or death, and since the viral load – CD4 decline correlation is not ermm… nearly as reliable as we would all like it to be, how can you tell in each case if the viral load is meaningful? – and how meaningful it is exactly?

    Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | December 1, 2007 11:22 PM

    So you still argue with Karpas himself, or cannot bear to read what he writes?

    This silly game only demonstrates your dishoensty. Karpas does not say that the human immune system defeats HIV. HIV continues to replicate after the initial acute infection. After a period of time HIV causes CD4+ cell depletion, immune suppression, and AIDS.

    There is nothing in Karpas’ writings that suggests otherwise. If you really think that Karpas believes that HIV is defeated then please write to him and ask him this question. Until then stop putting words into his mouth.

    I suspect that you know very well that you are wrong and that you are just afraid to admit it.

    Posted by: Chris Noble | December 2, 2007 12:12 AM

    As I already pointed out, for you to extrapolate from these statements about long-term non-progressors to all asymptomatic patients can only be explained by (1) you telling a blatant lie, (2) your inability to understand the essay, or (3) both.

    Posted by: franklin | December 1, 2007 10:59 PM

    Franklin, I am not your mother, fortunately, so I have no personal stake in your ineffectual disrespect. Not that I wouldn’t applaud if she spanked your tiny botty for your behavior, and that of the monkey jumping on your scalp.

    The point which you miss, just as you miss the scientific point we are discussing, is that people who accuse others of “lying” when they make counter assertions in a scientific discussion suggest that they occupy a lower plane.

    It makes you seem unsuitable to partner in any friendly intellectual effort to work things out, for the following reasons:

    a) It suggests you don’t really aim at working things out

    b) It suggests you have no sensitivity to language.

    c) It suggests – in fact pretty much proves – that you learned your science at an inferior college, if any college at all. Was it a correspondence course?

    All this makes one realize that probably nothing can be accomplished, however hard one tries.

    But this is not the fundamental reason why one gives up. It is simply that “lying” is a stupid accusation which doesn’t make any sense.

    Posted by: Truthseeker | December 2, 2007 1:08 AM

    It is simply that “lying” is a stupid accusation which doesn’t make any sense.

    While you continue to claim against all evidence that Karpas states that HIV is defeated there is no other way to explain your behaviour.

    Posted by: Chris Noble | December 2, 2007 1:38 AM

    This silly game only demonstrates your dishonesty. Karpas does not say that the human immune system defeats HIV. HIV continues to replicate after the initial acute infection. After a period of time HIV causes CD4+ cell depletion, immune suppression, and AIDS.

    Well, Chris, it seems that you share with franklin not only a pet monkey but also your self-condemning habit of charging dishonesty in a context in which it makes no sense whatsoever.

    Thank you for repeating the HIV meme once again as some kind of incantation, which you seem to find a pacifier, but there is nothing in your attempt to evade the meaning of the simple words that Karpas writes.

    You have exposed yourself Chris in your usual attempt to claim that others have misinterpreted whatever you think contradicts the meme.

    When will you wake up, throw off the monkey and understand that everything contradicts the meme? – except the evasive claims of those who cling to the paradigm as if it was their lifeboat.

    Which it is. There ain’t nothing else for them to cling to, since AIDS decline has zip to do with retroviruses of any kind as a cause, as the literature constantly confirms.

    HIV just a harmless passenger, dummy. Wake up and smell the coffee. Muttering mantra won’t change anything. The party line that antibodies don’t neutralise is bunk. Fauci agrees – read his textbook chapter in Fundamental Immunology edited by Willam Paul.

    Stop supporting dangerous and useless drugs which you would refuse yourself.

    That’s known as hypocrisy.

    Posted by: Truthseeker | December 2, 2007 1:58 AM

    “There ain’t nothing else for them to cling to, since AIDS decline has zip to do with retroviruses of any kind as a cause, as the literature constantly confirms.”

    What literature are you reading?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17494085&ordinalpos=11&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

    Care to tell me how this show HIV is a passenger virus?

    Posted by: Jim | December 2, 2007 2:04 AM

    It is simply that “lying” is a stupid accusation which doesn’t make any sense.

    While you continue to claim against all evidence that Karpas states that HIV is defeated there is no other way to explain your behaviour.

    Posted by: Chris Noble | December 2, 2007 1:38 AM

    “Defeated” “kept at bay” “vanquished” “kicked its little ass” you choose.

    It doesn’t make a comeback of its own accord with a healthy system.

    Antibodies neutralize.

    Drugs damage uselessly.

    Drugs kill.

    You wouldn’t take them.

    Hypocrite.

    By the way, Fauci says HIV makes T cells proliferate.

    Stick that in your monkey and smack it.

    Low enough style for you, Chris.

    Posted by: Truthseeker | December 2, 2007 2:13 AM

    Stick that in your monkey and smack it.

    I spent yesterday with a three-year-old. His use of the rhetorical “Nyaaaahh” surpassed yours, but only marginally.

    No matter how much you spin Karpas’ review it does not mean what you claim it means. HIV is not defeated. It is not conquered. It is not vanquished. It continues to replicate. It is not latent. It is a chronic infection.

    Fauci agrees – read his textbook chapter in Fundamental Immunology edited by Willam Paul.

    He does not. You are simply incapable of understanding the text.

    I have read the chapter and it most definitely does not support your bizarre interpretations. It describes several of the mechanisms by which HIV can cause immune suppression.

    etc. (Fauci quotes)….
    Truthseeker (sic),

    You continue to defend your claim that Karpas’s paper can be accurately described as:

    the paper of Abraham Karpas of Cambridge agreeing that ordinary levels of antibodies seen in any healthy person exposed to HIV are sufficient to defeat it…”

    However, in his paper, Karpas flatly states that HIV infection leads to disease progression and death in nearly every infected person.

    A scientific discussion does not require politeness, but it does require honesty.

    There is no scientific discussion taking place between us, because you continue to misrepresent Karpas’s paper–even though anyone can obtain the paper and see for himself that your characterization in no way reflects Karpas’ views on the lethality of HIV infection.

    Your continued misrepresentation of Karpas prevents you from engaging in any meaningful intellectual discussion, scientific or otherwise.

    Your need to misrepresent the views of other people in an attempt to support your own flawed positions only serves to emphasize the irony of your Blog Handle.

    Posted by: franklin | December 2, 2007 3:23 AM
    ….

    Truthtwister,

    You might consider that some people consider lying to be rude. Whether its lying about the paper directly or whether its lying about having read and understood the paper.

    Beyond that, it is also considered rude, by many, to put your lies in the mouth of the author of the paper. That you are doing this is clear to anyone who has bothered to read your needlessly verbose comments.

    “90%…deadly…10 years” Who is stupid enough to consider a virus that ends the lives of 90% of those infected within 10 years defeated?

    You’re worse than the tobacco company execs Truthtwister. You are the Public Relations Officer for death. And you are a fool if you believe anyone should take you seriously.

    Posted by: Roy Hinkley | December 2, 2007 9:41 AM

    No matter how much you spin Karpas’ review it does not mean what you claim it means. HIV is not defeated. It is not conquered. It is not vanquished. It continues to replicate. It is not latent. It is a chronic infection.

    ” Fauci agrees – read his textbook chapter in Fundamental Immunology edited by Willam Paul.”

    He does not. You are simply incapable of understanding the text.
    Posted by: Chris Noble | December 2, 2007 3:02 AM

    Chris, there is no point in continuing to trade counter assertions, which is your only style of argument. Let the intelligent reader decide what is going on, on and between the lines, even if it is too subtle for you to appreciate. The text is there for all to see.

    It is disappointing however to try and meet you on your own three year old level and find that you disown it, Isn’t that what you enjoy? If not, why do you do it?

    Surely there is only one reason why those who are challenged reply with noxious crudities. Their intellectual position is too weak.

    Your continued misrepresentation of Karpas prevents you from engaging in any meaningful intellectual discussion, scientific or otherwise.
    Posted by: franklin | December 2, 2007 3:23 AM

    The readers can easily decide who is right, Franklin. All your claim repetition adds up to is your own certainty that you know what is going on. That is what is known as the Kraft-Dunning effect.

    “90%…deadly…10 years” Who is stupid enough to consider a virus that ends the lives of 90% of those infected within 10 years defeated?

    You’re worse than the tobacco company execs Truthtwister. You are the Public Relations Officer for death. And you are a fool if you believe anyone should take you seriously.
    Posted by: Roy Hinkley | December 2, 2007 9:41 AM

    The Kraft-Dunning effect in glorious technicolor, Roy, thanks for the demo. Maybe you should ask yourself if you understand why the texts we have in hand are being written, not just what they claim..

    Thanks again to Tara for hosting three supposedly competent people who when disturbed in their complacency emit such incivilities that decent people cannot abide being in the same room.

    Probably the only thing that keeps most good people here is a sense of public responsibility that impels them to contradict supposely intelligent people who distort science and condemn so many to lethal medications.

    Of course, the misleading claims and self-contradictory assertions are worth teasing out so that they can be exposed for what they are: management of data and logic to fit a monkey meme. Forewarned is forearmed, and the list of false counters to the debunking of HIV=AIDS is always useful.

    Shame on you three for the insulting tone of your posts, though, which don’t even deserve humorous tolerance, let alone satire. But the posts are now on the record for all to see and judge.

    1016 comments and what have you learned? Absolutely nothing, it seems. And that’s your most effective argument, isn’t it?

    Exactly like the professor in Pisa, who refused to look through the telescope, because he thought it was a trick.

    Posted by: Truthseeker | December 2, 2007 12:21 PM

    Precisely Truthseeker, these staunch defenders of failed science, refuse to learn anything let alone have any semblance of logical thought. Sad but true.

    Posted by: carter | December 2, 2007 12:36 PM

    Truthseeker (sic),

    If my posts seem repetitive to you, it is because you have yet to respond to the criticisms of your position.

    I explained my understanding of your assertions about Karpas’s essay, why they are wrong, how your continued defense of these assertions can only be explained by lying or a lack of comprehension, and your response has been merely to fantasize about my mommy spanking my tiny botty.

    Your incompetence even extends to your insults.

    You have accused Chris, Roy, and myself of demonstrating the “Kraft-Dunning Effect.”

    I believe you mean the Kruger-Dunning Effect, the phenomenon wherein “ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge” (as Charles Darwin put it).”

    That you are ignorant of the scientific context of the Kruger-Dunning Effect, yet continue to confidently assert it in your rhetorical arguments, provides an ironically satisfying illustration of your ignorance, incmompetence, and intellectual puffery.

    Posted by: franklin | December 2, 2007 1:01 PM

    I believe you mean the Kruger-Dunning Effect, the phenomenon wherein “ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge” (as Charles Darwin put it).”

    That you are ignorant of the fact that Chris mentioned this paper here first in this thread, and that I have mentioned it since many times, provides an ironically not very satisfying example of how silly you are, franklin.

    It doesn’t let you off the hook for misleading readers by claiming that an inert virus causes the immune system catastrophe which you want to medicate with DNA chain terminators, though.

    It doesn’t let you off the hook for supporting this monstrous iatrogenic evil when you claim to be able to understand the science, and read the criticism of it carefully.

    It doesn’t let you off the hook when people sicken and die, half of them in this country from the drugs you support, and which may support you, is that right?

    Posted by: Truthseeker | December 2, 2007 3:49 PM

    The irony arises from repeatedly referring to it as the Kraft-Dunning Effect, illustrating the overconfidence fueled by ignorance that lies at the heart of the effect.
    Posted by: franklin | December 2, 2007 6:02 PM

    In a classic example of the Kruger-Dunning effect, the better irony arises, franklin, from your inability to appreciate wordplay. Perhaps one should call it the Kruger-Ebbing effect, to make it clearer through the fog that obscures your brain, the one that the monkey meme sits on, invisible to you but visible to all who read what you write. But then you would complain that I spelled it wrong…sheez.

    Anyhow the corpus of Krafft-Ebing is what one keeps thinking of in observing your behavior, and that of your fellow trio members, here. In fact, there seem to be five influences at work at once: 1) Kruger-Dunning 2) Krafft-Ebing 3) Moore-Noble 4) HIV meme 5) The Duesberg-Bialy litmus test for scientific intelligence, or its absence.

    In case you didn’t know the Duesberg-Bialy effect (discovered at New AIDS Review, as it happens by the humble blogger) is the following:

    The absence of a sense of humor correlates very highly – 99.9999% – with the inability to percieve the Grand Canyon sized flaws in the HIV=AIDS hypothesis.

    It is not yet known why this is, but the favored theory is that those brilliant fellows such as yourself who lack the wit and mastery of the topic that allows one to see what is really going on are distracted by the monkey meme jumping up and down on their head.

    HIV blocked from T cells

    By the way, franklin, if you guys are so familiar with the literature that you know our interpretation is wrong when we see Fauci, Karpas and other commentators of irreproachable mainstream authority acknowledge that HIV is a pussy which the immune system chases up a tree and keeps it there, how about this quote (you recognize it, I hope, and who wrote it):

    “However, quantitative studies of the frequency of HIV-infected cells in vivo suggest that single cell killing by direct infection with HIV may not be the predominant mechanism of CD4+ T-cell depletion. In this regard, the proportion of HIV-infected, peripheral blood CD4+ T cells in individuals in the early asymptomatic stage of HIV infection is typically in the range of 1 in 1000 to 1 in 10,10,000 (Pantaleo et al) Although this frequency increases with disease progression,the proportion of HIV infected peripheral blood CD4+ T cells rarely exceeds 1 in 100 even in patients with advanced HIV disease….the data illustrate the difficulty in accounting for CD4+ T-cell depletion solely by direct mechanisms.”

    Gee. No direct cell killing by HIV. Parade past us all the excuses and imaginative claims offered to fill this Grand Canyon of contradiction of the first mechanism assumed by the HIV brigade, then read Zvi Grossman on how none of them have the slightest data to back them up and how exactly how HIV kills T cells remains a “conundrum”.

    Neutralizing antibodies

    Meanwhile try contradicting my description of the overcoming of HIV by the healthy immune system as “DEFEAT” again, when Rochman’s paper is NAMED Rapid evolution of the neutralizing response to HIV type 1 infection. What do you think neutralizing means?

    “We report here that in most patients, potent neutralizing antibody responses are generated early after infection, at first to the autologous infecting HIV variant and then to subsequent variants.

    “During the natural course of early HIV infection, fully functional envelope variants continuously emerge and compete for outgrowth in a RAPIDLY EVOLVING NEUTRALIZING ANTIBODY RESPONSE.”

    Gallo himself saluted neutralizing antibodies to HIV in 1985 in Nature (Jul 4-10;316 (6023):72-4,

    “Natural antibodies capable of neutralizing HTLV-III infection of H9 cells were detected in most adults AIDS and ARC patients but in no normal heterosexual controls.”

    The only way HIV escapes these antibodies is to retreat to some hiding place protected from the antibodies in the bloodstream, folks. It doesn’t make any kind of comeback until the antibodies army is weakened by some other sickness, which HIV doesn’t have a chance to cause.

    Karpas explains

    Why the established paradigm exploiters insist on maintaining that the defeated HIV is the threat is a scientific mystery, but it may have something to do with money After all, even Abraham Karpas, professor of virology at Cambridge and one of the generals of the campaign to support HIV to the tune of $30 billion even though it doesn’t do anything, has this to say about the credentials of his colleagues:

    “The history of AIDS research involves huge rewards, unscrupulous ambition, disregard for common principles of scientific conduct, battles over priority leaving injustice uncorrected, and terrible consequences in the wider world.”

    Written about Gallo’s record in the early stage of HIV research, from which the asinine theory emerged, but also applicable to the whole crowd of scientific deceivers and their hangers on such as the trio here in the years since.

    A sad reflection on human motivations to peddle murder rather than medicine.
    ————————————————————————————————-

  155. Truthseeker Says:

    This guy is like some darned jack in the box:

    ——————————————————————————————————-

    This does not mean that an antibody response is without benefit.

    Nobody is saying otherwise. There is, however, a large gap between that and HIV being “defeated”. You appear to be going to a great deal of effort to confuse the issue. The evidence shows that HIV viral titres rise to a high during the acute infection stage and then fall to a non-zero “set-point”. At no stage is HIV “defeated”. It is never latent.

    HIV continues to replicate after the acute infection period and continues to cause CD4+ cell depletion.

    A large proportion of the damage is done in the initial acute infection stage.

    HIV pathogenesis: the first cut is the deepest

    Posted by: Chris Noble | December 3, 2007 1:25 AM

    Karpas wrote it, I quoted it, your posts have confirmed it, your friends also confirm it, so I bid you Goodbye, since the case is proved.

    Karpas most definitely did not write: “ordinary levels of antibodies seen in any healthy person exposed to HIV are sufficient to defeat it” and he most definitely did not write “because antibody neutralization is completely effective”

    You know perfectly well that Karpas does not agree with you and yet you continue to claim that he does.

    The only things that you have proven are your powers of self-delusion and your inability to admit to a mistake.

    Posted by: Chris Noble | December 3, 2007 1:36 AM

    At no stage is HIV “defeated”. It is never latent.

    It is “never latent”? A mistyping, Chris?

    You still are missing the fundamental distinction between the factual concession Karpas makes (HIV is neutralized by antibodies) and the imaginary claim he tries to make (it makes a comeback against a healthy immune system and defeats it after all):

    Factual concession:

    “This does not mean that an antibody response is without benefit.” Nobody is saying otherwise. There is, however, a large gap between that and HIV being “defeated”. You appear to be going to a great deal of effort to confuse the issue. The evidence shows that HIV viral titres rise to a high during the acute infection stage and then fall to a non-zero “set-point”. – Posted by: Chris Noble | December 3, 2007 1:25 AM

    Imaginary claim:

    At no stage is HIV “defeated”. It is never latent. HIV continues to replicate after the acute infection period and continues to cause CD4+ cell depletion. A large proportion of the damage is done in the initial acute infection stage.- Posted by: Chris Noble | December 3, 2007 1:25 AM

    Inadvertent factual concession:

    HIV pathogenesis: the first cut is the deepest. -Posted by: Chris Noble | December 3, 2007 1:25 AM

    Yes. After the initial multiplication of HIV before the immune system gears up, HIV is quickly put down.and there is no further revival. But there is no “cut” before, during or after.

    HIV does nothing except vaccinate you against HIV.

    You are vaccinated by harmless HIV. Period.

    Chris, you seem to be unaware that the vaccine project is planning to spend billions, and here you are being told that the best vaccination against HIV is HIV itself.

    Why don’t you just believe what Karpas tells you, claim some of the money for yourself, take a holiday, and stop annoying everybody with misleading objections to good science?

    Just a suggestion.

  156. Truthseeker Says:

    Is it possible to tease the humorless, especially with the truth?

    ———————————————————
    Truthseeker (sic):

    You still are missing the fundamental distinction between the factual concession Karpas makes (HIV is neutralized by antibodies) and the imaginary claim he tries to make (it makes a comeback against a healthy immune system and defeats it after all)

    Why do you maintain that the continued replication of HIV in the face of the neutralizing immune response is imaginary, given that Richman has provided experimental verification of the virus eluding even the most potent immune responses that they observed?

    Richman demonstrates a neutralizing antibody response and the evolution of the virus to escape the response. Neither is imaginary. Both have been empirically demonstrated.

    You simply choose to bury your head in the sand and ignore the data that you so helpfully brought to our attention.

    Posted by: franklin | December 3, 2007 2:15 AM

    “It is “never latent”? A mistyping, Chris?

    Unlike you I write what I mean and I mean what I type.

    At no stage is HIV latent. It seems that at this stage of the conversation you are still not aware of the distinction between latent and chronic infection.

    Natural history of acute and persistent human infections

    Inadvertent factual concession:

    It was neither inadvertent nor a concession. Why do you play these silly word games?

    Why don’t you just believe what Karpas tells you, claim some of the money for yourself, take a holiday, and stop annoying everybody with misleading objections to good science?

    I am not objecting to anything Karpas has written but rather your persistent misinterpretations.

    Your rhetorical attempt to pit me against Karpas is simply pathetic. You know perfectly well that Karpas does not agree with you.

    Posted by: Chris Noble | December 3, 2007 2:52 AM

    Why do you maintain that the continued replication of HIV in the face of the neutralizing immune response is imaginary, given that Richman has provided experimental verification of the virus eluding even the most potent immune responses that they observed?

    Because my wits have not been frightened out of me by the story of the nightmare Virus, which allows me to see that whatever life the virus might still manage to have coaxed out of it by Richman matters not a jot, because the Virus is so effectively neutralized by antibodies that it couldn’t overcome the healthy immune system which imprisoned it safely away from the bloodstream and which keeps it locked up safely for the duration.

    In biology quantity rules. As Moore points out in one of his sadly neglected masterpieces, they chuck 40-500 times as much Virus at cells to prove it is toxic as occurs in vivo. Naturally it proves toxic.

    Franklin you underestimate the level of rationalizing BS going on even though you do it yourself!

    Franklin, a word in your ear. Here’s a plan. Forget about Chris and John Moore, and repeat five times after me:

    Harmless HIV does nothing but vaccinate you against harmless HIV.

    See if it fits the scientific literature, which it will, without exception, except that part of the literature which consists of data management, paradigm imposed misinterpretation and so forth.

    Then have lunch at Nello’s with Anthony Fauci and David Ho, and tell them that you have a short cut to the HIV vaccine. HIV itself.

    Show them Karpas’ paper as evidence you know what you are talking about.

    Anthony Fauci will say something like, “Franklin, who have you told about this? Anybody else?” He will look at David Ho meaningfully.

    You should reply, “I have put it in a sealed bank box to be opened at my death.”

    Fauci will suddenly become very friendly, swear you to secrecy, and give you a check for $500 million.

    If you don’t bother to mention this to Chris Noble, no one will blame you. However, it might be as well to give him and Hinckley $100 million just in case they start investigating why Fauci didn’t respond to THEIR phone calls on the same topic.

    My commission is merely $10 million, since it is your status as family that will get you the lunch with Fauci and Ho. They probably wouldn’t see me at all.

    Good luck!

    Posted by: Truthseeker | December 3, 2007 2:58 AM


    ” Because my wits have not been frightened out of me by the story of the nightmare Virus, which allows me to see that whatever life the virus might still manage to have coaxed out of it by Richman matters not a jot, because the Virus is so effectively neutralized by antibodies that it couldn’t overcome the healthy immune system which imprisoned it safely away from the bloodstream and which keeps it locked up safely for the duration.

    This is a classic Duesbergian misdirection. The vast majority of CD4+ cells are in lymphoid tissue and not in circulating blood. Not coincidentally this lymphoid tissue is the major reservoir for HIV and it is where it is doing its damage. Far from being locked up safely HIV is continuously replicating in lymphoid tissue at all stages of infection.

    Posted by: Chris Noble | December 3, 2007 3:19 AM

    At no stage is HIV latent. It seems that at this stage of the conversation you are still not aware of the distinction between latent and chronic infection.- Posted by: Chris Noble | December 3, 2007 2:52 AM

    Neither statement is true.

    “You still are missing the fundamental distinction between the factual concession Karpas makes (HIV is neutralized by antibodies) and the imaginary claim he tries to make (it makes a comeback against a healthy immune system and defeats it after all):”

    This sentence highlights the fundamental dishonesty of Denialists. They cherry pick isolated bits of papers that they falsely believe support their position and ignore the rest that refutes that position.
    Posted by: Chris Noble | December 3, 2007 2:59 AM

    The above statement reflects the foolishness of those who cannot see what part of a paper is based on data and what part based on imaginative argument, which doesn’t refute anything, especially the data in the other part of the paper.

    The foolishness arises from the HIV meme which monkeys about with the already strained reasoning powers of those whose only scientific role is teacher’s pet.

    Sorry Chris but you are trying to manoever your next roadblock into our path when we are already gone.

    There is a limit to which one can carry on dancing with a monkey with a wooden leg, even if it is a meme.

    Adieu!

    ————————————————————–
    Posted by: Truthseeker | December 3, 2007 3:19 AM

  157. Truthseeker Says:

    Oh dear beguiled again.

    ———————————————————————-
    The above statement reflects the foolishness of those who cannot see what part of a paper is based on data and what part based on imaginative argument, which doesn’t refute anything, especially the data in the other part of the paper.

    No, it demonstrates that the sole criterion you use to decide which part of a paper to cite is whether you can spin it to support your position. You are quite happy to cite Karpas as an authority when a sentence can be twisted to mean something that appears to support your claim but you have no trouble dismissing every thing else he says that clearly refutes your position.

    You can’t have your cake and eat it too. This schizophrenic attitude to the literature is characteristic fro Denialists.

    The paper by Richman et al that you cited is a classic example. It details direct experimental evidence that HIV continues to replicate despite the antibody response.

    Even the title should give you a few clues: Rapid evolution of the neutralizing antibody response to HIV type 1 infection.

    Why would the antibody response continue to evolve over a period of 39 months if HIV has been put out of action?

    Posted by: Chris Noble | December 3, 2007 3:34 AM

    At no stage is HIV latent. It seems that at this stage of the conversation you are still not aware of the distinction between latent and chronic infection.- Posted by: Chris Noble | December 3, 2007 2:52 AM,

    Neither statement is true.

    I can only conclude once again that you are either knowingly lying or are too stupid to have a clue what you are talking about.

    The very paper by Richman et al that you yourself cited demonstrates that HIV is never latent.

    Posted by: Chris Noble | December 3, 2007 3:55 AM

    Baghdad Bob (AKA Truthtwister) said:

    “Karpas wrote it, I quoted it, your posts have confirmed it, your friends also confirm it, so I bid you Goodbye, since the case is proved.”

    Now TS, if only you would read it:

    “90%…deadly…10 years” – A. Karpas

    Posted by: Roy Hinkley | December 3, 2007 7:44 AM

    “Truthseeker” or, more aptly, truthtwister (with props to Hinkley),

    Your insistence on calling yourself a seeker of truth is irking me out of my silence of several weeks. You and your fellow “journalist,” Robert Houston, pretend to objectivity. Yet you both keep yourselves as far from facts as you can, and the extent of your “objectivity” is revealed in most of what you write, including Robert Houston’s reference to scientists as “HIV enthusiasts.” Anyone who can call a Joseph Sonnabend or any prominent AIDS doc or researcher an “HIV enthusiast” has never spent enough time with such people to learn of their passion and compassion and hatred of the virus.

    Until you have some basic knowledge of biology, chemistry, mathematics, etc., it is pointless to argue with you about science. Nothing lost there, since science is clearly not the sticking point with you. Your objection is to facts or authority in general, it seems.

    Is that perhaps why you try to provoke others with your self-consciously un-PC remarks?

    Such as calling Tara “delectable” above (i.e. delicious, for cooler’s benefit)?

    Or writing that jen is just another “female know-nothing”?

    Or questioning Adele’s gender, deciding she must be a (male) “gay activist,” a term you use with the utmost of disgust?

    Your apparent problems with society’s acceptance (relatively speaking, of course) of women as more than vacuous eye candy for British “gentlemen” who use the royal “we” and of gay people as worthy of something more than dismissal as “activists” would be a good place for you to start in assessing your unwillingness to be objective re science.

    Posted by: ElkMountainMan | December 3, 2007 11:51 AM

    Now TS, if only you would read it:
    “90%…deadly…10 years” – A. Karpas
    Posted by: Roy Hinkley | December 3, 2007 7:44 AM

    Why do you truncate this quote till it its absurdity is unrecognisable, Roy? It reads in full:

    Sexual intercourse has now spread the virus around the World; and there are probably some 70 million infected. 90% of those infected with HIV develop the deadly disease of AIDS within ten years of infection: the death toll from the disease has been enormous.

    You do know the date this was written, and examined, and revised, till Karpas and the peer reviewers and editors of Bio. Rev. were satisfied it was accurate? 2004, in case you overlooked it.

    So we have them all agreeing that 90% of those infected with HIV develop AIDS within ten years.

    How does this jibe with the current claim that the mean latent period of HIV is ten years or more? That would indicate that 50% or fewer would be showing AIDS symptoms by the ten year mark, wouldn’t it? Indeed that is the case – fewer, in fact, as the predictions fail and fail, kept up only by the medications being applied earlier.

    Now the UN has corrected the 70 million guess, which was pessimistic to say the least in 2004, to 33 million today.

    Don’t you recognise what is happening? These guys go overboard in pushing the view of AIDS towards the doomsday scenario of maximum sick and dead people, as they make as many claims as they can in that direction to keep the disbursements from the public purse flowing in an era where you have to compete for every penny, especially when you already have more than your fair share.

    It is almost childishly transparent in this case.

    Yes, Karpas is an honest man when contemplating facts. When trying to keep his fellow Fauci Club members happy, however, having burst their balloon with his observations of how HIV gets stopped and rolled back to a negligible set point by any healthy person’s antibodies (pace the three HIV meme monkeys sharing silently in this thread), he rushes to prove he is a fully paid up loyal member of the HIV=AIDS Maximum Funding Regardless of Absurd Hypothesis Killing Gays and Blacks Club, and talks nonsense about 90% being ill in ten years, and 70 million infected.

    Roy, as the only bright and creative and somewhat careful and thoughtful person here defending the absurd paradigm, at least unleash your sophisticated reading of journal review texts and in this case see the blindingly apparent.

    Harmless HIV vaccinates against harmless HIV.

    That is the only conclusion for which we have any data for this exceptionally rewarding but otherwise overwhelmingly inert retrovirus.

    Perhaps you are a physicist who doesn’t understand what is going on in biology as far as funding pressures warping common sense goes, but just as an example from another field, why not skim that Kruger-Dunning paper just for laughs?

    Its brilliant topic of study which it proves several different ways is that dim people do not realize how dim they are. The funding is from the NIMH. Yes, the review committee sat around one day contemplating this proposal and funded it. In other words, public money was spent proving that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West.

    This is the pretty pass we have reached in the semi-sciences of psychology and disease study. You may be shocked to hear me label disease study a semi science, and claim that disease is an active arena for such collegial boondoggles. But that is what appears to be the case, from SARS to bird flu. The outstanding example of jobs-for-the-boys peer review is HIV=AIDS, and it has encouraged all kinds of imitation, it appears.

    Of course, I am writing this in the fond belief that you are not a player in this sphere who is well aware of what I say, but an unwitting fellow traveler from a cleaner arena such as physics.

    Your friend,

    Baghdad Bob II

    Posted by: Truthseeker | December 3, 2007 12:06 PM

    I must say that this amusing (and quite tedious) thread has showed a few glimmers of solid reasoning. I salute Truthseeker for actually engaging some of these AIDS knuckleheads, who really don’t think about these issues (let alone falsify them), but merely close ranks with their better paid brethren of the orthodoxy to recapitulate standard, scientific-sounding garbage.

    HIV develops its own vaccine!

    SARS is bullshit, so is avian bird flu, so is west nile, so is the dreaded swine flu of the 70’s, .. the list endless, and in a few years we may just have to add HIV to it.

    Posted by: Barney | December 3, 2007 1:27 PM

    Barney,
    The fact of the matter is HIV is on the list of dead virus campaigns, except that the great protectors and purveyors of the paradigm wish to keep the status quo because God forbid they should loose their funding. Want to stop HIV AIDS? – drop the funding.

    Posted by: Carter | December 3, 2007 2:22 PM

    “Truthseeker” or, more aptly, truthtwister (with props to Hinkley),…etc etc etc. Posted by: ElkMountainMan | December 3, 2007 11:51 AM

    By the mighty Virus you cannot even read the posts properly, Mr Elk, so you really don’t deserve a reply to this series of rank misstatements and misreadings, almost one per sentence. We would sympathie with you if any were true, but none of them are.

    One might observe, however, that you fit neatly into the Duesberg-Bialy litmus test of intelligence in this affair, being somewhat humorless in your perceptions of what we wrote. That’s one cause of what “irks” you, it is clear, in this very inaccurate reading of posts you have skimmed on return from your holiday.

    The absence of a sense of humor correlates very highly – 99.9999% – with the inability to perceive the Grand Canyon sized flaws in the HIV=AIDS hypothesis.

    But just for the record, who said Joseph Sonnabend lacked compassion? The problem is that he loves the Virus nearly as much as all its other scientific husbands, who we observe married to it for its money. He may not be thinking straight because he is a doctor in the midst of dealing with the tortures visited upon the HIV congregation by its priests, but he knew enough to resist until he was threatened with being cut off by the powers that be, when he compromised.

    We cannot see into his soul and cannot say why it happened, but it looks suspect to us, since nothing had changed in the data to make HIV any more likely a candidate for causing the effects of drugs, conventional illness and nutritional deficit, which are obviously the real causes of AIDS illness and deaths to anyone who reads the literature with any objectivity.

    Oh sorry, are we talking to someone with the HIV meme sitting in his brain? Then you believe that he just grew more enlightened, right, as “overwhelming evidence” accumulated?

    OK we’ll have to leave it at that, though referring you to the recent posts recording the rout of Christopher Noble et al trying to maintain that HIV is not powerfully neutralized by the immune system of any healthy person in a manner equivalent to any good vaccine.

    But kindly do not babble about how we don’t credit data and good scientific reasoning, that we scorn authority, etc when we don’t. We recognize the authority of good scientists who are not politically influenced to skew their judgement away from what good data and precise reasoning indicate.

    Nor accuse us of scorning gays when we only scorn the ignorance and prejudice of gay activists who profit from the monetary disbursement of drug companies into their organisations and then by some remarkable coincidence reliably agitate on behalf of the HIV paradigm and the drugs sold on that rationale which injure and eventually kill them and their friends.

    Sorry, but that is the height of non-science to us, since the reasoning and objective data of good science as found in the literature is our touchstone in viewing events in this catastrophically misunderstood plague. You imply this measure is yours also. Then what a pity you don’t feel responsible enough to get yourself together and get a proper grasp on events and what we are saying, instead of firing off objections to statements we didn’t make and attitudes we don’t have. So typical of the masochistic self injury of the gay activists in this field to be so righteous when wrongly informed. Do you really want to mimic them?

    And by the way we don’t have any problem whatsoever with society’s acceptance of women as more than eye candy, we support it totally, in fact unlike you we accept it as going without saying. In any circles we have anything to do with there is no mention of color or sex as affecting credentials in any public role, polticial or academic.

    Sorry that you still seem to feel this is an issue, so when we delight in Tara’s superattractive image as posted by herself proudly on her site you start worrying about whether we take her mind seriously or not, when it has nothing to do with that. We would take her mind more seriously if it showed a more critical and independent scrutiny of HIV=AIDS, but that has nothing to do with her appearance.

    Are you suggesting that attractive people are dumber than plain people? Why would that be? Is that what you think, since it occurs to you and not to us? If anything we imagine that they would be brighter, since they would get more attention and support in life.

    While we are repeating quotes, let’s just repeat this one from Houston for the third time:

    “The immune response to HIV can be compared to that of a live viral vaccine. It explains why most HIV-infected patients remain well for many years.” – Abraham Karpas

    Let’s see how Chris Noble’s hand cranked autoresponse you liar/you misinterpret/you liar/you misinterpret/you liar Krafft-Dunning-Kruger-Ebing-Moore-Noble-HIV meme machine deals with that one.

    Guess it lacks a reverse gear, so we can’t expect much except the same old same old, a pattern which suggests to us he is not even there half the time, he has just set the meme machine to respond automatically to certain posters while he is off somewhere else entirely doing something useful in his life down under..

    Posted by: Truthseeker | December 3, 2007 2:47 PM

    Meanwhile back at the ranch…

    “Investigators found that Brodie [Scott J. Brodie] falsified data in 15 instances — in published and unpublished journal articles, and grant proposals. The research in question included cellular responses to the HIV virus.”

    Kinda make one think what kind of science Tara et al. are really supporting, doesnt it?

    Click on my name for Seattle Times article by Nick Perry and Carol M. Ostrom

    Posted by: carter | December 3, 2007 3:05 PM

    Thanks Carter. From that news story at UW: Researcher faked AIDS data, altered images:

    “It was a very traumatic investigation to be involved with,” Liggitt said. “We got to look at the underbelly of science.”….

    He said medical research and HIV research in particular is highly competitive, with the National Institutes of Health making cutbacks and many researchers competing for limited funding. Getting published can help bolster a researcher’s push to land the next grant, he added.

    “It’s ugly out there,” Liggitt said. “There are a lot more desperate people because of the cutbacks.”

    Oh dear, it seems that Fauci didn’t manage to keep funding up as high as he promised his faithful at last year’s HIVNET meeting after all.

    I dont have any sympathy for these guys working on a false and murderous premise which takes a disproportionate amount of funding anyway, so much of it wasted on examining an innocent retrovirus.

    They shouldn’t go into science unless they have something to offer science in genuine passion and talent. Find something else which suits you, for God’s Sake, instead of trying to live off deceit in an area which professes truthseeking.

    Once in though, I can see they become trapped, what with wives and children and all.

    This HIV=AIDS scam that Gallo launched without knowing it would grow so big can be viewed as a trap for all the people involved, with no one able to come clean now without being ruined. How Science, Nature, the Academy of Sciences, the NIH, the NSF, the New York Times, Harvard, etc etc etc can survive any correction is problematical, to say the least. That is why I posted on Saturday that the dissenters may as well give up.

    Posted by: Truthseeker | December 3, 2007 3:45 PM

  158. Truthseeker Says:

    Well, you’re right Douglas, this should be a post here, and it will be, but no time at present:

    ————————————————————————————–
    By the mighty Virus you cannot even read the posts properly, Mr Elk, so you really don’t deserve a reply to this series of rank misstatements and misreadings, almost one per sentence. We would sympathize with you if any were true, but none of them are.

    Tuthseeker, ElkMountainMan is on old friend, who, like the paper tyger virus, should have remained in the aloof scientific recesses where he is no doubt germinating. However, since by his own words he has been coaxed out of his 6 foot deep chromatin slumber as a reincarnated authority on Political Correctness, moral philosophy, and the satiric genre, maybe he would now like to elaborate, in his own name, on his comments about Christine Maggiore, Al-Bayati and the baby killer connection?

    How about it Mr. PC Elk, were your statements concerning those matters just for fun? There’s a free trip to LA and instant fame for you if you can explain to Al-Bayati face to face in a public, non-anonymous venue why you find his work distasteful and his conclusions strange.

    Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | December 3, 2007 4:19 PM

    “There are a lot more desperate people because of the cutbacks.”

    Um, well Truthseeker, you know as well as I do it ain’ just cutbacks. The whole freakin ordeal with HIV is just plain desperate!

    Each and every post by the apologists here has a very strong and distinct smell of desperation!

    Posted by: Carter | December 3, 2007 5:01 PM

    MEC,

    Did you perhaps mean “ruminating,” not “germinating?” Your would-be linguistic master, the twister of truth, would not be pleased. But no matter; whatever I am doing in my “scientific recesses” is of little importance alongside the situation I read about this morning on the blog of Mark and Chris Hoofnagle.

    http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/12/hivaids_denialism_is_deadly_th.php#more

    It seems that the Liversidge-emulating “gatekeepers” at the MSN Aids Myth Exposed board are encouraging an HIV-positive mother to avoid any medical care for herself and her infant. Chiming in is one “rebecca veronica,” whom several denialists in the past have identified as Rebecca Veronica Culshaw. (Truthtwister, you may not be familiar with this minor denialist but cooler has vouched for her “hotness,” so you can safely listen to her. To use your words, Culshaw is a real female know-nothing, and not just some gay activist who likes to get a kick out of a female name.)

    Culshaw and sidekick former academic Darin Brown tell the young mother to continue breastfeeding her baby, since there is nothing healthier and the “orthodoxy” doubt that mother to child transmission ever happens.

    Lies, stupidity, and ignorance conspiring against an innocent mother and her child: a sad and lamentable state of affairs. How do these denialists sleep at night?

    Posted by: ElkMountainMan | December 3, 2007 7:30 PM

    HIV Is Not the Cause of AIDS
    By Peter H. Duesberg

    Science, Vol. 241, pp. 514-517, July 29, 1988.

    Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is not the cause of AIDS because it fails to meet the postulates of Koch and Henle, as well as six cardinal rules of virology.
    1) HIV is in violation of Koch’s first postulate because it is not possible to detect free virus (1, 2), provirus (3-5), or viral RNA (4, 6, 7) in all cases of AIDS. Indeed, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has established guidelines to diagnose AIDS when all laboratory evidence for HIV is negative (8).
    2) In violation of Koch’s second postulate, HIV cannot be isolated from 20 to 50% of AIDS cases (1, 9-11). Moreover, “isolation” is very indirect. It depends on activating dormant provirus in millions of susceptible cells propagated in vitro away from the suppressive immune system of the host.
    3) In violation of Koch’s third postulate, pure HIV does not reproduce AIDS when inoculated into chimpanzees or accidentally into healthy humans (9, 12, 13).
    4) In contrast to all pathogenic viruses that cause degenerative diseases, HIV is not biochemically active in the disease syndrome it is named for (14). It actively infects only 1 in 104 to > 105 T cells (4, 6, 7, 15). Under these conditions, HIV cannot account for the loss of T cells, the hallmark of AIDS, even if all infected cells died. This is because during the 2 days it takes HIV to replicate, the body regenerates about 5% of its T cells (16), more than enough to compensate for losses due to HIV.
    5) It is paradoxical that HIV is said to cause AIDS only after the onset of antiviral immunity, detected by a positive “AIDS test,” because all other viruses are most pathogenic before immunity. The immunity against HIV is so effective that free virus is undetectable (see point 1), which is why HIV is so hard to transmit (9, 12, 13). The virus would be a plausible cause of AIDS if it were reactivated after an asymptomatic latency, like herpes viruses. However, HIV remains inactive during AIDS. Thus the “AIDS test” identifies effective natural vaccination, the ultimate protection against viral disease.
    6) The long and highly variable intervals between the onset of antiviral immunity and AIDS, averaging 8 years, are bizarre for a virus that replicates within 1 to 2 days in tissue culture and induces antiviral immunity within 1 to 2 months after an acute infection (9, 17). Since all genes of HIV are active during replication, AIDS should occur early when HIV is active, not later when it is dormant. Indeed, HIV can cause a mononucleosis-like disease during the acute infection, perhaps its only pathogenic potential (9, 17).
    7) Retroviruses are typically not cytocidal. On the contrary, they often promote cell growth. Therefore, they were long considered the most plausible viral carcinogens (9). Yet HIV, a retrovirus, is said to behave like a cytocidal virus, causing degenerative disease killing billions of T cells (15, 18). This is said even though T cells grown in culture, which produce much more virus than has ever been observed in AIDS patients, continue to divide (9, 10, 18).
    8) It is paradoxical for a virus to have a country-specific host range and a risk group-specific pathology. In the United States, 92% of AIDS patients are male (19), but in Africa AIDS is equally distributed between the sexes, although the virus is thought to have existed in Africa not much longer than in the United States (20). In the United States, the virus is said to cause Kaposi’s sarcoma only in homosexuals, mostly Pneumocystis pneumonia in hemophiliacs, and frequently cytomegalovirus disease in children (21). In Africa the same virus is thought to cause slim disease, fever, and diarrhea almost exclusively (22, 23).
    9) It is now claimed that at least two viruses, HIV-1 and HIV-2, are capable of causing AIDS, which allegedly first appeared on this planet only a few years ago (20). HIV-1 and HIV-2 differ about 60% in their nucleic acid sequences (24). Since viruses are products of gradual evolution, the proposition that within a few years two viruses capable of causing AIDS could have evolved is highly improbable (25).

    References and Notes:

    J. Albert et al., J. Med. Virol. 23, 67 (1987).
    L.A. Falk, D. Paul, A. Landay, H. Kessler, N. Engl. J. Med. 316, 1547 (1987).
    G.M. Shaw et al., Science 226, 1165 (1984).
    D. Richman, J. McCutchan, S. Spector, J. Infect Dis. 156, 823 (1987).
    C.-Y. Ou et al., Science 239, 295 (1988).
    M.E. Harper, L.M. Marselle, R.C. Gallo, F. Wong-Staal, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 83, 772 (1986).
    A. Ranki et al., Lancet ii, 589 (1987).
    Centers for Disease Control, J. Am. Med. Assoc. 258, 1143 (1987).
    P.H. Duesberg, Cancer Res. 47, 1199 (1987).
    H. von Briesen et al., J. Med. Virol. 23, 51 (1987).
    D. Gallo, J. Kimpton, P. Dailey, J. Clin. Microbiol. 25, 1291 (1987).
    J.W. Curran et al., Science 239, 610 (1988).
    G.H. Friedland and R.S. Klein, N. Engl. J. Med. 317, 1125 (1987).
    J. Coffin et al., Science 232, 697 (1986).
    A. Fauci, ibid. 239, 617 (1988).
    J. Sprent, in B and T Cells in Immune Recognition, F. Loor and G.E. Roelants, Eds. (Wiley, New York, 1977), pp. 59-82.
    H.A. Kessler, J. Am. Med. Assoc. 258, 1196 (1987).
    R.C. Gallo, Sci. Am. 256 (No. 1), 47 (1987).
    Centers for Disease Control, AIDS Weekly Surveill. Rep., 18 April 1988.
    R. Baum, “AIDS: The molecular biology,” Chem. Eng. News (23 November 1987), pp. 14-26.
    R.M. Selik, E.T. Starcher, J.W. Curran, AIDS 1, 175 (1987).
    R. Colebunders et al., Lancet i, 492 (1987).
    K.J. Pallangyo et al., ibid. ii, 972 (1987).
    F. Clavel et al., Nature 324, 691 (1986).
    J. Sonnabend, in New York Native (9 May 1988), p. 19.

    Posted by: cooler | December 3, 2007 7:35 PM

    ———————————————————–

    TS: What did Karpas really say?

    The entire quote should be put up at once, before the handcranked Noble meme machine is launched. I believe it is worth going through with an index finger, mumbling the words out loud, to get the full impact of what it reveals:

    “The immune response to HIV can be compared to that of a live viral vaccine. It explains why most HIV-infected patients remain well for years. Other viruses that establish lifelong infection, such as herpes viruses, tend to remain latent in the body and the only other exogenous retrovirus known to be capable of infecting humans, the adult T-cell leukaemia HTLV-1, causes disease in less than one in a thousand of infected individuals. In man infection with HIV is probably never latent, because the virus appears to mutate continuously in every infected individual due to its highly error prone reverse transcriptase (RT) which lacks the proof reading capabilities of other RNA polymerases. This has two consequences: 1) In nearly every infected individual, despite a vigorous immune response that is protective for many years, eventually one or more mutants emerge that manage to evade the immune response and lead to disease progression and death; (2) in drug-treated individuals, a drug resistant virus emrges and treatment fails to halt disease progression. The continuous mutations of the replicating virus cannot be the only reason for the very high mortality of HIV infection in man, because the viruses HIV-1 and HIV-2 do not cause disease in their natural hosts, the chimpanzee and the sooty mangabey monkey, respectively. Disease occurs only when the viruses cross species.

    In addition to its high mutation rate, HIV can also evade the immune response by direct cell-cell contact through fusion between infected and non-infected cells: the virus can be transferred without being exposed to agents of the immune response, such as neutralising antibodies. This is facilitated by the affinity of viral glycoproteins expressed on the surface of infected cells for CD4 molecules on neighboring uninfected cells. Probably this process is particularly important in the lymph nodes, where presentation of foreign antigen to lymphocytes by cell-cell contact is an essential step in initiating immune responses.

    Early after infection with HIV, cell-mediated immune responses can be detected in infected individuals… It is possible that when cytotoxic T-cells are lost a high level of neutralising antibodies can by itself delay disease progress….

    Most HIV infection in the world is not confirmed by tests:

    Most test methods can give false positive readings, so it is important to check any positive reading by a screening assay with a confirmatory test…..many third world countries are not in a position reuglarly to confirm positive readings obtained by the routine screening methods such as an ELISA. Since nearly 90% of the HIV infected live in third-world countries, this means that the majority of positive reactions are unchecked.

    (Karpas developed his own alternative test method in 1985 which “contains its own controlled confirmatory test”):

    The cell test showed that most of the healthy HIV-infected individuals have a very high level of anti-HIV antibodies whereas, in contrast, patients who progressed to AIDS had a low level of antibodies that decreased further with disease progression. Studies of such sera with Western Blot correlate with the cell test titration studies… The sera from the AIDS patients are missing numerous antibodies and even the antibodies which are present are at low concentrations…. We have assayed for the presence of neutralising antibodies in over 100 healthy HIV-1 infected individuals and without exception found that the sera contained significant levels of such antibodies….(We carried out) one of the earliest studies trying to explore and explain the differences in the immunological state between healthy HIV-infected individuals and AIDS patients (in 1985). Our studies have demonstrated that healthy HIV-1 infected individuals who were not viraemic had high levels of neutralising antibodies against the virus and a CD4+ T-cell count within the normal range while AIDS patients with very low numbers of CD4+ T-cells and high levels of HIV-1 were devoid of neutralising antibodies and had low levels of other antiviral antibodies (Karpas et al 1988).

    Studies from the USA of long-term survivors have also found high levels of neutralising antibodies (Cao et al 1995, Pantaleo et al, 1995). Although polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays for the presence of HIV-1 RNA in the plasma revealed significant levels of RNA in some individuals, the biological assay for viral infectivity failed to reveal the presence of infectious virus, suggesting that the HIV-1 in the bloodstream had beeen inactivated by the neutralising antibodies. In addition, this indicates that PCR does not distinguish between infectious (live) and neutralised (killed) virus.

    Yes, sir, neutralise= kill.

    Also helpful are someone else’s antibodies:

    We have recorded similar observations with AIDS patients who were treated with passive immunotherapy (PIT). AIDS patients before the infusion of hyperimmune plasma were HIV-1 viraemic as monitored by the isolation of infectious virus from the plasma. After the infusion of hyperimmune plasma, infectious virus could not be isolated but many remained PCR positive.

    Translation: Neutralising antibodies reduce HIV to vanishing set point. The pussy is treed by the dogs of the immune system.

    Ultimate conclusion, as we said before:

    HIV vaccinates you against HIV.

    Here’s a bonus. How about AZT? Nasty stuff. Killed thousands, right?

    Confirming this, Karpas continues, showing what a mistake AZT, and how beneficial IN AND OF ITSELF it must have been to stop using high doses of the poison – a proven useless poison which reportedly they are still mixing in small amounts into the cocktails:

    The first drug that was approved for use in people with HIV disease was azidothymidine (AZT), a chemical developed years earlier as an anti-cancer drug but abandoned because of its high level of toxicity…. Not surprisingly, an early study of bone marrow in patients who had been receiving AZT revealed that all developed anaemia with a varying degree of other white blood cell deficiencies. AZT inhibits HIV replication by blockingg the viral RT and there is no doubt that initially the effect is very dramatic. In the early short-terms trials, AZT appeared to be beneficial. However, within a few weeks to a few months of AZT treatment, replication-competent, AZT resistant HIV strains emerge followed by disease progression, A placebo-controlled trial, lasting two years, revealed that AZT did not imptove survival and was associated with more side-effects. In the British/French Concorde trial which involved 1700 patients and lasted three years, follow-up revealed a statistically significant increase of deaths in the AZT treatment arm as compared to those in the placebo (J. Derbyshire, personal communciation, 1994). The other nucleotide analagues that have been approved for use, such as ddC and ddI, are also highly toxic and of short term benefit….

    (With regard to protease inhibitors and HAART) Protease inhibitors are less toxic than AZT but when used alone , the virus quickly develops drug-resistant mutants. However, when a protease inhibitor was used together with two RT inhibitors it marked the first significant progress in anti-HIV treatment, The combination of drugs has been named highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). Following the initiation of HAART treatment approximately 80% of AIDS patients improved clinically; and coincidentally their CD4+ T-cell counts increased and the plasma viral load dropped significantly or completely disappeared. (Hogg et al 1997). The length of the beneficial effects of HAART differs between the individual patients and ranges from a few months to several years. For some the toxic side effects are more pronounced than for others. In most individuals who can tolerate the drug combination over prolonged periods, a wide range of pathological conditions develops due to toxicity, many of them, such as lipodystrophy, have never been seen before in AIDS while liver damage and vascular conditions are common. As a result the HAART treatment of AIDS patients has changed from combating opportunistic infections to reducing toxic side effects…

    Meanwhile HAART fails to eradicate replication competent HIV-1:

    A recent study of a group of patients who have been treated successfully for up to 30 months with triple therapy, replication-competent HIV-1 was routinely isolated despite the fact that even the plasma assay for HIV-1 PCR was negative (Finzi et al, 199; Wong et al 1997).

    Some AIDS researchers suggested that drug treatment should be initiated early in the course of HIV infection (Ho, 1995) but so long as the available drugs have only a limited period of effectiveness, and are toxic, that may be misguided. In most HIV-infected individuals, the immune system manages to limit the damage caused by the virus for many years – far longer (on average nine years) than any drug cocktails available that have the added disadvantage of being toxic.

    Hey, why not try borrowing antibodies from healthy patients? It worked!

    After our early study demonstrated that healthy HIV-infedcted individuals had high levels of neutralising anitbodies, while AIDS patients had none, we investigated the possibilitiy of using passive immunotherapy as a form of treatment in AIDS. This began in 1985, transfusing blood plasma from healthy HIV-1 infected individuals to AIDS patients (Karpas et al, 1985)….(There was ) some evidence of benefit when the patients were treated for two years…(Other studies suggested that PIT is beneficial but) Unfortunately, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials have not been able to muster financial support in the UK….

    (Meanwhile they have found) an increasing number of plasma donors who have been donating continuously for 3-7 years without a decline in numbers of CD4+ T-cells or antibody level or other signs of disease progression (Abelian et al, 2001). The mechanism of these effects is not understood. Defining it might help us to understand why HIV overcomes the immune system, and could open up new avenues for the development of therapeutic strategies against this deadly virus.

    After you read enough of this stuff, you realise that Karpas is a reviewer who is severely handicapped by the HIV meme, which here, for example, prevents him from seeing the obvious – that the simplest explanation of “the effects” is that HIV is not deadly or even harmful at all.

    Following all this you can read Richman’s paper, which Karpas didn’t see before going to press, and see that mutation is no answer to the question: How come the virus makes any kind of comeback with antibodies around to neutralise it?

    Because Richman showed that the antibodies keep up very well with viral mutation, leading the dogs of the immune system to chase all the new variants of pussy cat virus up a tree just as fast as before, sometimes faster.

    What a mess. All any thinking gay has to do is read this paper, I would think, and he wouldn’t cooperate with this latter day pellagra. But Alas! they all will doubtless read it like ElkMan with the monkey meme in their noggin, just like Karpas, and not see where the dividing line comes between evidence and misinterpretation.

    Maybe one should borrow that meme machine from Noble and turn it on Karpas: “you liar/you misinterpret/you liar/you misinterpret/you liar/you misinterpet”.
    —————————————————————–

  159. Natashayi Says:

    Natashayi…

    Man i love reading your blog, interesting posts !…

    ((We’ll leave this one up, to brighten the landscape here. – Ed.))

    ((From Natasha’s web site: Natasha Yi’s slight, well-distributed body has a natural grace, and Natasha Yi’s unmistakable radiance is undoubtedly what drew the talent scout’s attention at the fast-food joint where Natasha Yi was discovered.

    It’s somewhat hard to comment on Natasha Yi’s style since in most available pictures of Natasha Yi, Natasha Yi is doing her job — that is, posing. Natasha Yi does, however, look great in casual sportswear, and judging by Natasha Yi’s leisure preferences (watching boxing on TV, hanging out with her friends), Natasha Yi hasn’t caught the high-class bug yet. So don’t expect Natasha Yi in any haute couture; do expect Natasha Yi, though, to impress you in whatever Natasha Yi’s wearing. – Ed.))

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


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