Comments on: Duesberg smartly interviewed http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/duesberg-smartly-interviewed.htm Reviewing scientific paradigms and other general beliefs in the light of the scientific amd professional literature Tue, 02 Mar 2010 14:19:00 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Wilyretrovirus http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/duesberg-smartly-interviewed.htm/comment-page-1#comment-4360 Wilyretrovirus Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:00:11 +0000 http://www.paradigmoverthrow.com/blog/duesberg-smartly-interviewed.htm#comment-4360 <i>Dr. Duesberg: Take for example Candace—™s —œtidbit—? of the —œelegant science—? of AIDS, that —œa small percentage of Caucasian Europeans don't have that receptor—? for HIV and —œno matter what risky behavior they indulge in, they do not get HIV disease—?</i> <br /> <br />Why isn't the CCR5 gene deletion common knowledge? I've been involved with "AIDS" since the beginning, but the only people that are aware of this great way some of us blessed caucasians are genetically "immune" to AIDS are researchers, scientists, some doctors, and the laypeople (like myself) that have sought to educate myself. <br /> <br />Since Dr. Pert is so damned certain that a person with the gene deletion can't become HIV-infected, therefore can't get "AIDS", then the ethical thing to do would be to test the good white people of the US for the gene deletion...that way they never have ANY reason to be concerned about getting "AIDS". Strange how this possibility is NEVER mentioned when you subject yourself to an "HIV" test. Dr. Duesberg: Take for example Candace—™s —œtidbit—? of the —œelegant science—? of AIDS, that —œa small percentage of Caucasian Europeans don’t have that receptor—? for HIV and —œno matter what risky behavior they indulge in, they do not get HIV disease—?

Why isn’t the CCR5 gene deletion common knowledge? I’ve been involved with “AIDS” since the beginning, but the only people that are aware of this great way some of us blessed caucasians are genetically “immune” to AIDS are researchers, scientists, some doctors, and the laypeople (like myself) that have sought to educate myself.

Since Dr. Pert is so damned certain that a person with the gene deletion can’t become HIV-infected, therefore can’t get “AIDS”, then the ethical thing to do would be to test the good white people of the US for the gene deletion…that way they never have ANY reason to be concerned about getting “AIDS”. Strange how this possibility is NEVER mentioned when you subject yourself to an “HIV” test.

]]> By: Glider http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/duesberg-smartly-interviewed.htm/comment-page-1#comment-4359 Glider Sun, 25 Feb 2007 18:43:55 +0000 http://www.paradigmoverthrow.com/blog/duesberg-smartly-interviewed.htm#comment-4359 I assume that the Candace Pert mentioned in this interview is the same woman who appeared in that pseudo-scientific, JZ Knight/Ramtha film "What the Bleep Do We Know?" And SHE'S calling scientists who question HIV/AIDS dogma nuts? I assume that the Candace Pert mentioned in this interview is the same woman who appeared in that pseudo-scientific, JZ Knight/Ramtha film “What the Bleep Do We Know?” And SHE’S calling scientists who question HIV/AIDS dogma nuts?

]]> By: Wilyretrovirus http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/duesberg-smartly-interviewed.htm/comment-page-1#comment-4358 Wilyretrovirus Sat, 24 Feb 2007 17:04:40 +0000 http://www.paradigmoverthrow.com/blog/duesberg-smartly-interviewed.htm#comment-4358 Back to Duesberg, and the best quote from the interview, in my opinion. <br /> <br />Q: What are some of the new medical breakthroughs that you foresee coming along in the near future? <br /> <br />Dr. Duesberg: I am very skeptical—"indeed I am scared—"of a —œnew medical breakthrough—? from the very same medical establishment, which prescribes inevitably cytocidal DNA chain-terminators to hundreds of thousands of healthy people solely because they have made antibodies against the non-cytocidal retrovirus HIV! <br /> <br />This sums up absolutely every grave error by the medical establishment concerning HIV/AIDS in one sentence. Back to Duesberg, and the best quote from the interview, in my opinion.

Q: What are some of the new medical breakthroughs that you foresee coming along in the near future?

Dr. Duesberg: I am very skeptical—”indeed I am scared—”of a —œnew medical breakthrough—? from the very same medical establishment, which prescribes inevitably cytocidal DNA chain-terminators to hundreds of thousands of healthy people solely because they have made antibodies against the non-cytocidal retrovirus HIV!

This sums up absolutely every grave error by the medical establishment concerning HIV/AIDS in one sentence.

]]> By: Mark Biernbaum http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/duesberg-smartly-interviewed.htm/comment-page-1#comment-4357 Mark Biernbaum Sat, 24 Feb 2007 11:44:41 +0000 http://www.paradigmoverthrow.com/blog/duesberg-smartly-interviewed.htm#comment-4357 Okay, so let's say that Tara, due to diurnal rhythms and perhaps some random cold virus, returned a CD4 count of 194, which research in your beloved PubMed says can indeed happen, AND had invasive cervical cancer, and also developed systemic candida -- voila! It's ICL! Unless of course she also tested HIV+. Then it's AIDS. How does that make sense exactly? Can someone explain? <br /> <br />Can anyone (i.e., how about it Tara) defend the addition of invasive cervical cancer to the diagnosis of AIDS? Again, isn't invasive cervical cancer related to a different virus? <br /> <br />Posted by: Mark | February 24, 2007 06:27 AM <br />And no more AdHoms in response please. If you can't answer the question, just admit it, how about? Besides, all the AdHoms in the world aren't going to bother me -- so I suppose if you folks need to make them, go ahead. <br /> <br />There was never any justification for adding invasive cervical cancer to the list of AIDS-defining illnesses -- at least, no scientific justification. But hey -- if you think you've got one, let's hear it. Otherwise -- it looks like your favorite diagnosis is broken and there's nothing to be done to fix it. <br /> <br />Oh and Dale -- couldn't one believe that HIV is indeed infectious, but also harmless? After all, it hasn't harmed me one bit, so why would I believe it was harmful? After 10 years, no AIDS. What's a guy to do? <br /> <br />Posted by: Mark | February 24, 2007 06:32 AM <br />And one more thing on tenure files -- they are always open to letters from outside commentators, except for that short period when the file is actively under review. So unless Tara is currently actively under review, any letters received by the Dean of her college are placed automatically in her file -- she does have the right to rebut such letters if they displease her, but she can't keep them out. That's just how tenure works. Kinda sucks, huh? <br /> <br />Posted by: Mark | February 24, 2007 06:36 AM Okay, so let’s say that Tara, due to diurnal rhythms and perhaps some random cold virus, returned a CD4 count of 194, which research in your beloved PubMed says can indeed happen, AND had invasive cervical cancer, and also developed systemic candida — voila! It’s ICL! Unless of course she also tested HIV+. Then it’s AIDS. How does that make sense exactly? Can someone explain?

Can anyone (i.e., how about it Tara) defend the addition of invasive cervical cancer to the diagnosis of AIDS? Again, isn’t invasive cervical cancer related to a different virus?

Posted by: Mark | February 24, 2007 06:27 AM

And no more AdHoms in response please. If you can’t answer the question, just admit it, how about? Besides, all the AdHoms in the world aren’t going to bother me — so I suppose if you folks need to make them, go ahead.

There was never any justification for adding invasive cervical cancer to the list of AIDS-defining illnesses — at least, no scientific justification. But hey — if you think you’ve got one, let’s hear it. Otherwise — it looks like your favorite diagnosis is broken and there’s nothing to be done to fix it.

Oh and Dale — couldn’t one believe that HIV is indeed infectious, but also harmless? After all, it hasn’t harmed me one bit, so why would I believe it was harmful? After 10 years, no AIDS. What’s a guy to do?

Posted by: Mark | February 24, 2007 06:32 AM

And one more thing on tenure files — they are always open to letters from outside commentators, except for that short period when the file is actively under review. So unless Tara is currently actively under review, any letters received by the Dean of her college are placed automatically in her file — she does have the right to rebut such letters if they displease her, but she can’t keep them out. That’s just how tenure works. Kinda sucks, huh?

Posted by: Mark | February 24, 2007 06:36 AM

]]>