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---

Fiction wars: “Wrongful Death” explodes on AIDS scene


Joins “Serious Adverse Events”, “Oncogenes” in front line attack on NIAID construct

Wave of fact/fiction may finally overwhelm HIV?AIDS sci-fi

Hot, hot, hot. No, not the US megaheatwave but the latest books attacking HIV?AIDS, now a trio with the arrival of Stephen Davis’s “Wrongful Death”.

Harvey Bialy’s “Oncogenes, Aneupolidy and AIDS: A Scientific Life and Times of Peter H. Duesberg” is enjoying a burst of sales in the wake of unconvincing attacks on Amazon by John Moore and his clique (amounting to only three friends/employees so far, sad to say). This only resulted in a wave of positive reviews from authorities as eminent as Lynn Margulis, so it could be said to have backfired as a way of undermining this rather unassailable book.

Actually today we like best of all this review, which makes the key point of all this debate: why is it necessary for defenders of the faith to tell us not to read its critics? (That’s right, Dr. Fauci, why is that? Why have you spent twenty years publicly squashing media review of HIV?AIDS scientific shakiness?)

Always read the book you are told not to read, July 6, 2006

Reviewer: Patrick T. Moore “free thinker” (Switzerland)

Rule of thumb for the laymen out there of which I am one: always read the book you are told not to read. The first part of the book is indeed difficult to read as it is very technical and for the rest, well, I had to interrupt my reading several times in order to collect my eye balls from the floor; the world of science will never look as mythical to me again. It is a world, exactly as the world I inhabit, within which a few censored uncorruptibles endlessly battle the very human politics of deceit, greed and fame. Thanks for the tip!

Then we had Celia Farber’s “Serious Adverse Events” getting a boost from Chicago Time Out’s pitch perfect review by Rachel Shindelman. Marcus Cohen, columnist for the Townsend Letter for doctor’s and patients, has also written a long and admiring review of “Serious Adverse Events” for his column next month (October issue):

Over the past year, familiarization with AIDS research and treatment has convinced me that efforts to quell dissent within this field are the most stifling in the medical world. Such a situation requires exposure – as often as possible…Ignore the HIV extremists who tag Farber a “denialist,” detest her AIDS reporting, and regard her as incapable of perceiving truth however near it approaches her. Forget the writers for mainstream media who’ve interviewed her, listened to her reminisce about her formative years in Sweden, where the government frequently lied about conditions and events, and drawn shallow pictures of her as temperamentally disposed to distrust authority. Farber knows that the truth shows a number of faces, some of them disguises, that it’s no cinch discerning which face is authentic…..If it were in my power, I’d award her a commendation for public service – and several purple hearts for wounds to her psyche and reputation suffered in performance.”

Cohen’s review includes many extremely powerful quotes from the book:

(show)

Long or short, there’s not a slow read among the 12 chapters.

Chapter Eight, titled “The Rebel Genius,” portrays Kary Mullis, who earned a Nobel Prize in 1993 for figuring out a method of rapidly mass-producing DNA segments, called the Polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Like Duesberg, Mullis doesn’t think HIV causes AIDS, and public airing of his disbelief has ticked off many of his scientific peers.

“A lot of people studying this disease are looking for the clever little pathways that will show how this works. Like, ‘What if this molecule was produced by this one and then this one by this one, and then what if this one and that one induce this one’ – that stuff becomes, after two molecules, conjecture of the rankest kind. People who sit there and talk about it don’t realize that molecules themselves are somewhat hypothetical, and that their interactions

are even more so. You don’t need to look that far. You don’t discover the cause of something like AIDS by dealing with incredibly obscure things.”

Mullis is also quoted as saying, frustrated, and irate:

“Do we care about these people that are HIV-positive whose lives have been ruined? Those are the people I’m most concerned about. Every night I think about this…The horror of it is every goddamn thing you look at…seems pretty scary to me…God, I hate this kind of crap…It just drives me to – I’m making tears thinking about it. I don’t see how to deal with it. I can’t possibly write a book that will describe it to somebody. You can’t do a damn 22.8-minute TV thing that is going to have any effect…”

“Science Fiction,” Farber’s tenth chapter, exposes the shoddy research and hype that led to mass adoption of drug cocktails – combinations of recently-developed protease inhibitors and AZT – to prevent replication of HIV and drop viral load below detectable levels. Dr. David Ho, newly-chosen director of the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center in NY and his colleague Dr. Markowitz had conducted the pioneering research on the combination therapy, giving cocktails to 9 AIDS patients.

Ho reported his findings at the International AIDS Conference in Vancouver in the summer of 1996; after cocktail therapy for between 90 and 300 days, the nine patients showed no evidence of HIV in the bloodstream. Hit early and hard, Ho concluded, and it was possible to eradicate HIV permanently.

Farber quotes Dr. Steven Miles, professor of medicine, University of Minnesota Medical School, on the impact of Ho’s findings and conclusion: “It was almost like an instantaneous religion, or a cult, right after Vancouver. You were either a part of that hit-hard-hit-early religion or you were not. It split the HIV community.” She sums up the broader effects of Ho’s research: “The ‘breakthrough’ provided hope to two main players: HIV-positive people could hope for a new lease on life, and the drug companies could sell drugs like never before. They could even keep their customers convinced, through the AIDS-care network itself, that total compliance with the draconian discipline of the cocktail was the only path to heroic survival. Miss one pill, the new wisdom held, and HIV, enigmatically, will ‘mutate.’”

Cohen writes that “Farber devotes the rest of this chapter to demolishing Ho’s mathematical model… She accomplishes this chiefly through quotes from experts critical of Ho and the cocktails. I should add that more than half of these experts subscribe to the theory that HIV causes AIDS.”

“Ho’s equations predict that over the course of ten years, an HIV-positive person will produce more particles of HIV than there are atoms in the universe. There is no way you could make that much virus.” (Mark Craddock, mathematician, University of Technology – Sidney)

“Of course it’s wrong…Everyone knows that…The notion of ‘eradication’ is just total science fiction. Every retrovirologist knows this. The RNA of retroviruses turns into DNA and becomes part of us. It’s part of our being. You can’t ever get rid of it.” (Dr. Joseph Sonnabend, AIDS clinical researcher)

On measuring viral load: “When they look for HIV in breast milk, they do forty-five cycles of PCR, which is a 35-trillion-fold amplification, in order to find enough genetic material. We are at the level of nuclear physics now with this PCR stuff. And David Ho talks about making HIV ‘undetectable.’ It starts out undetectable. That’s the whole point. HIV has always been more or less undetectable.

“So they’ve taken a number that is next to nothing, and mass multiplied it. But it’s still next to nothing. Just a bunch of numbers that are used to scare people and make

people go on these drugs…All this stuff about wanting to get to zero, or to undetectable, is absurd because it implies that a single particle of HIV is lethal, but it’s not.

“This is the biological equivalent of counting bumpers in a junkyard and saying they represent functional cars.” (Dr. David Rasnick, definitely not an HIV subscriber; once employed by Abbott in diagnostics)

On side effects: “The meaning of the side effects suffered by patients who have been prescribed Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy (HAART) – the multi-drug regimen that includes protease inhibitors and is now the standard of care for AIDS patients, including adults, children, and pregnant women – is fiercely contested. There are facts and figures, studies and counter-studies, a virtual blizzard of data that could be arranged to show any number of things. The new AIDS drugs have saved people’s lives: That’s one piece of truth. But the new AIDS drugs have killed people: This is another piece of truth. The drugs have damaged and deformed some people so badly that although they are alive, they wish they were dead. In the end, everybody who is taking protease inhibitors is contributing to one big medical experiment and no one knows what the outcome will be. “’There is absolutely no question whatsoever that protease inhibitors have helped people,’ notes Joseph Sonnabend. ‘But they’ve probably hurt more people than they’ve helped. That’s why it’s complicated. The people for whom benefit has been proven beyond a doubt are really sick people who would have died without them three years ago. But the target population for the drug companies are the healthy people, and these people will almost certainly have their lives shortened by these drugs.’” (Farber)

“One of the unexpected effects of protease inhibitors seen in recent years was a disruption of the body’s fat-distribution mechanisms. This in turn has caused strokes and heart attacks in many patients at the very moment when the drugs were theoretically ‘working,’ meaning so-called surrogate markers (CD4 cells and viral load) were going the right way. The other significant danger of HAART proved to be liver and kidney failure, which, according to a study done at the University of Colorado Health Science Center ‘surpassed deaths due to advanced HIV’ in 2002. In 2005 the Wall Street Journal reported that, according to a Danish study, AIDS drug cocktails ‘may double the risk of heart attacks.’ “‘The vast majority – about 75 percent – of people who go on these drugs are completely healthy,’ says Dr. Steven Miles. ‘Large numbers of people are being inappropriately treated with drugs they don’t need. And their lives are probably being shortened, yes.’” (Farber)

On compliance: “An entire surveillance system has been put in place to ensure that people stick to the new drugs despite their side effects. There are computer chips embedded in bottle caps that record the date and time of each opening. There are beepers, support groups, buddy systems, observation centers where patients take the drugs while being watched, and even groups of AIDS professionals who infiltrate people’s social networks to enlist them to help promote and dispense the drugs. They call it ‘treatment compliance,’ and it has largely replaced safe-sex as the core social imperative of the AIDS industry. The goal is to get as many HIV-positive people on the drugs as possible, whether they are sick or healthy, and to keep them on them, through debilitating ill effects, which are dismissed as a small price to pay for the benefit of lowering the amount of virus in the blood.” (Farber)

On the media’s role: “Anybody is capable of having stupid ideas, but what’s unusual is getting them onto the front page of The New York Times and Time. The real villains are…the journalists. We have traditionally depended on the press to protect us from nonsense like this – not anymore. Now people who have feet of clay become oracles thanks to their publicists and the cooperation of journalists. And the real tragedy is that years have been wasted on this David Ho eradication hype. What he did was unspeakable. To dangle a cure in front of such desperate people is the cruelest thing

imaginable.” (Dr. Joseph Sonnabend)

Cohen comments that “I’ve quoted extensively from Farber’s chapter on protease inhibitors because I believe it’s the most widely relevant and disturbing in the book. According to a physician she cites, three out of four people currently on these drugs are asymptomatic. As she puts it, that’s “one big medical experiment,” the outcome of which is uncertain. Add another uncertainty, the long-term side effects, and that’s a huge amount of potential risk riding on a gamble – that protease inhibitors will prove more beneficial than harmful at the end.”

Now “Wrongful Death” has arrived, and is already making a splash with author Stephen Davis doing radio interviews all over and getting reviews online including a friendly backscratch from Harvey Bialy:

Congratulations Mr. Davis, you actually pulled it off and created a legitimate page-turner from the debacle of HIV/AIDS. I am delighted, and a bit surprised as well :). I even learned new dirt about Gallo, in addition to discovering the exact number of annual AIDS deaths post AZT (Harry Barrow indeed!).

Not having seen a copy yet we can’t judge but reading all the reviews garnered in a few days they all seem to agree, even if they are all friends of Davis, that the book is absorbing fiction.

We did ask Davis how it had all come about, and he replied with this exclusive:

While a German high court decision in 2001 ruled that HIV had never been isolated [This may be a misunderstanding – see Comments. – Ed.], there has never been a public trial in the U.S. challenging the HIV∫AIDS hypothesis. In my original paper called “AIDSgate,” published on the Internet in 1997, I called for a class-action suit against Dr. Robert Gallo, the Department of Health and Human Services, the FDA, and Burroughs Wellcome/GlaxoSmithKline for the wrongful death of 300,000 HIV-Positive Americans who died as a result of taking AZT between 1987 and 1997. Unfortunately, I couldn’t participate in that court case myself, because I had no standing: i.e., since I am not gay, nor HIV-Positive, nor lost a loved one to AIDS, I was not personally damaged by this issue.

Although there were a number of suits filed, especially against GlaxoSmithKline, they were all settled out of court with the stipulation that nothing be made public. So the truth about HIV∫AIDS has never been expressed through sworn testimony in a U.S. court of law. I had high hopes that if it were, things could be different and many lives could be saved. So in 2003 I decided to write a movie, then a novel, as if such a trial had taken place. The result, “Wrongful Death: The AIDS Trial,” is a fictitious class-action lawsuit that reads like a John Grisham courtroom drama, but every word of testimony and every statement concerning HIV and AIDS and AZT is based on more than 900 medical and scientific references that I list both in the book and on my website at www.theAIDStrial.com. However, rather than being a highly technical approach to the issue, it is written in simple three-letter words so that all of us can easily understand the basic issues involved in this tragedy. While “we” in the “dissident movement” might know it all already, the book makes a perfect gift for those we might know who are HIV-Positive and need to hear the truth, or those who are skeptical that we are trying to convince of the truth.

It’s too late to file this particular wrongful death lawsuit. However, my next book due out in a few months, called A Death Sentence?, will focus on the arbitrary and capricious HIV blood tests, and the emotional and psychological trauma, the family stress, the social rejection, and the financial hardship (also caused by the drugs) of being diagnosed HIV-Positive. That continues to this day, and it’s literally a crime. So we may yet get our chance in court to set the record straight and save future generations from the genocide of the very faulty HIV∫AIDS hypothesis.

Too late to file a suit for Wrongful Deaths? Surely not Stephen. They continue, as well as the hideous effects of HAART drugs, also without validated medical and scientific justification.

But, the problem, as always, is that it is very hard to prove what goes on inside people’s minds. “Well that’s what the scientists told us from the NIAID, so who are we to know better?”

Fiction will be defeated by fiction

We detect a trend, which is that, with Harvey Bialy covering the precise reality of the back stage dealings of HIV?AIDS – the threatening accuracy of which was beautifully pointed up by the highly subjective counterattacks of the Moore and his three friends on Amazon – we now have Celia Farber’s extraordinary personal account of her time on the front lines of HIV?AIDS reporting, which as Shindelman noticed, has all the emotional drama of blockbuster fiction – “death, disease, conspiracies, heroes, villains and martyrs.” And now on Farber’s heels, fiction, which Davis wrote with a screenplay in mind, which he may sell shortly.

Precise fact, then fact with all the flavor and appeal of soul searching fiction, and finally fact based, movie-making fiction. This looks like the recipe for the spreading the message as widely as possible, far from the boundaries of science into the supermarkets and homes of America.

Especially when the spreading invasion is taking place from the beachhead that is allowing all this to happen, courtesy of the courage and intelligence of the editors of America’s oldest and most liberal yet worldly magazine, Harper’s, in publishing Farber’s myth shattering expose in its March issue this year, “Out of Control: AIDS and the Corruption of Medical Science”.

Has the message got through to Berlin yet? We doubt it, given the thickly insulated walls of NIAID. But just in case someone is reading this blog, we advise all to pack their suitcases for a quick exit sometime in the next year or or three. However long it takes for Hollywood to get the movie in the can.

80 Responses to “Fiction wars: “Wrongful Death” explodes on AIDS scene”

  1. HankBarnes Says:

    Truthseeker,You are on fire, Sir! You have a string of hard-hitting, well-written, substantive pieces. Well done.Davis’ book is good. A taut legal thriller — with a lotta fascinating science mixed in. I intend to interview this author.Hank Barnes

  2. Stephen Davis Says:

    Thanks for the kind words about Wrongful Death: The AIDS Trial . I am honored to be mentioned in the same breath with Celia Farber and Harvey Bialy.Other than correcting the mispelling of John Grisham’s name (my fault, not yours), I wanted to clarify that a wrongful death (civil) suit is no longer possible on behalf of the 300,000 Americans who died from taking AZT from 1987 to 1997. The statute of limitations has run out, I am told, and I doubt anyone is going to be charged with (criminal) murder in this case.So what options do we have left? I realize that it’s difficult for many people to relate to the thousands of deaths occurring half-way around the world in Africa, or to get enraged about 300,000 deaths that happened in the U.S. almost ten years ago. But what’s going on today, right here, right now, should make the hair stand up on anybody’s neck – from anger as well as fear. Every day in this country we tell 25 new people they are going to die by wrongly diagnosing them as HIV-Positive, using completely arbitrary and capricious HIV blood tests. Every day we intimidate more of those HIV-Positives to take antiretroviral drugs that clearly do more harm than good. And every day some new HIV-NAZI comes along with with some brilliant new scheme to take away our inalienable right to the medical treatment of our choice. Did you see where we now want to create an “HIV Jail” to forceably detain HIV-Positives who fail or refuse to take their medications? (New York Times, June 27th)I keep saying “we” rather than “they,” because unless we are all actively involved in telling every person we meet to read one of the three books you list here (depending on their level of scientific savvy), and educate themselves and others to the dangerous reality we are facing, things will never change.Fortunately, I get to see the bright side. I’m doing the radio interviews, hearing more people starting to question Fauci &Co. (formerly called the “Bob Club” after Bob Gallo). I’m getting the emails from HIV-Positives saying they refuse to take the ARV drugs. I’m listening to the stories of those who didn’t accept the death sentence inposed on them with an HIV-Positive diagnosis and are living happy and healthy lives today.I know that a lot of “dissidents” have tried over the last 20 years to bring some semblance of sanity into the HIV/AIDS arena. I simply want to say that, from where I sit, it looks like the time may finally be right to bring down the Berlin Wall of lies and set the truth free. As a friend recently said, he can’t wait to see the Light shine upon Fauci et al and watch them scatter like cockroaches.

  3. Truthseeker Says:

    Thanks, guys, praise from the masters. But we think there is as much potential in civil suits for current medication as there was for AZT. There is just the little difficulty as to who is responsible.

    But Stephen, or anyone, why is it that fiction is more powerful than fact? Because the emotions are more powerful than the intellect in politics, obviously, but also because in this case it’s an emotionally powered scam anyway, powered by its own fictions, it seems.

    The sad thing is that no one except an analyst really cares what the science says, that’s not will move the story. What we are doing here – nailing the bad science – doesn’t really help that much. For twenty years the science has been nailed by far better minds than ours. In our experience some people would rather die than work out the science!

    That’s why story teller Davis will be more powerful than any fact-based argufier such as Truthseeker, even though he is actually very fact based, it is clear. This is a battle of stories, of rival narratives, of poetry in politics. The vision needed is poetic.

    That’s why it is reassuring that all the major players in the book arena are artists as well as writers – Harvey Bialy ‘s constructs have only to be seen to be appreciated over at his site, Celia Farber’s sensibility is clearly that of a novelist and poet as much as a reporter, and now we have Stephen Davis, who thinks in terms of screenplays and fiction to move this mountain.

    All are working on other books now, Bialy’s being some kind of cooperation with Rebecca Culshaw we hear.

    Even Barnes is a fictional concoction! Well, all of you will succeed very soon, we are sure. So here is a little song to allow the other side to celebrate the brief remaining moments before truth breaks out.

    Song of NIAID

    Let us Sing our Song to AIDS,
    Before Our Reputation Fades,
    Tell the World that soon Will Hate Us,
    How Big our Labs are, and our Status.

    Please stop trying to Eliminate us,
    We have Built a Mighty Apparatus.
    We forcefeed Hope with Drugs and Pain,
    If you Survive come back Again.

    We”ll Save you All from Sex and Life,
    The threat of Girlfriend, lover, wife.
    We Feed You Lies with Careful Measure,
    To Make You Pay for Simple Pleasure.

    We are the Masters of Our Trade,
    Please Don’t Call Our Pills Kool Aid
    Though We May Kill Whoever Loves Us,
    Answering to No One Above Us.

    We Scorn our Critics as Insane,
    They just don’t know to Play The Game.
    Maybe we’re wrong but that’s no Shame,
    For what is Truth but Mental Frame?

    Let’s Celebrate Our Love So Tender,
    Paradise is What we Render,
    World where Illness Every Day,
    Is Happiness, with HIV at bay.

    Sing how We Save the Lives of Healthy
    People Who Can Make Us Wealthy,
    If They’ll Only Take Our Pills,
    Solutions Sure for All Their Ills.

    Truthseeker, Aug 4, 2006.

  4. Chris Noble Says:

    Other than the German high court decision in 2001 which ruled that HIV had never been isolated, there has never been a public trial in the U.S. challenging the HIV∫AIDS hypothesis.

    You could have warned readers not to drink coffee while reading this.There has never been a German high court decision that ruled that HIV had never been isolated.This is a myth initiated by Stefan Lanka (who also claims that no human disease causing virus has ever been isolated).Despite the complete lack of substance the same myth is nevertheless regurgitated by credulous “rethinkers”.http://www.whatisaids.com/wwwboard/messages/223.htmlThe truth about the court case can be found by going tohttp://www.justiz.nrw.de/ses/nrwesearch.phpand entering 14 (XVII) K 11/00 in the Aktenzeichen field.The reality is that a HIV “rethinker” made repeated threats involving physical harm and implied death to health workers. The “rethinker” was sentenced to 8 months imprisonment.Some typical quotes from the “rethinker” are:

    “sehe ich mich veranlasst, Blut fließen zu lassen”

    and

    “ein schlimmes medienspektakuläres Blutbad anrichte”

    Why are people that claim to be skeptics so credulous?

  5. Truthseeker Says:

    “There has never been a German high court decision that ruled that HIV had never been isolated.This is a myth initiated by Stefan Lanka (who also claims that no human disease causing virus has ever been isolated)”

    Chris, thanks for the correction, assuming it holds up. Would have given you a green border for fact checking except hard to accept that Stefan Lanka denies any human disease causing virus has ever been isolated. Do you have the quote? Why are people that claim to be skeptics so credulous? Because they don’t speak German? 🙂

    By the way, you have apparently been assiduously trying to stick spanners in the works of HIV critics on the Web for some time, so we assume you are one of the faithful believers in HIV causing immune deficiency, etc. Is that correct?

    If so, do you have a sound bite explaining why you believe that, when so many do not, and when the defenders have such a hard time explaining why this should be believed?To us it is the credulity of an HIV proponent such as yourself which is very high, given the thirty or more improbabilities inherent in the paradigm.

    Yet you are such an assiduous fact checker. With respect, how do you reconcile your love of facts with your love of the paradigm, which has been so repeatedly been shown to be anything but factual, in that it has no proof, no point where possible even changed to probable, no explanation of mechanism after twenty years, no predictive power, and so many unanswered questions ie so very little about it which accords with common sense let alone common science?

    Is it simply that the awful possibility that Gallo pulled a fast one is too embarrassing or painful for you to acknowledge, at long last? Or, no offense, do you have a financial or career stake in it? We ask merely for information, since your performance is so outstanding on the Web.

  6. Truthseeker Says:

    THIS IS CELIA (A POST BLOCKED BY SOFTWARE ACCESS DENIED):

    You are all so generous and far more perceptive, presently, to what is happening, than I am. I read you to find out. Let me just say, without anything heavy intended, that although my feet are indeed big, I never walked anywhere where others were not in front of me, and next to me.

    I feel, and have always felt, that the story literally confronted me like an elephant in the road, so many years ago. There it was.

    Simple as that: There it was.

    There were many of us, and we all helped each other, and that was the best part. I started writing down all their names in the acknowledgements page of my book. Because I was not able to list all these names, and under acute time pressure, in the end, I removed them all. (Some say, apparently, that sources are not to be thanked. It’s not kosher.)

    I am troubled by this and am going to create a webpage specially to compensate for it.

    I believe that if the world only knew how many people were part of it, what they did, what they lived through—the mystery of the Missing Story would be resolved.

    I am thinking about how to get each and every person to somehow tell their story, their shard of history.
    I feel about them the way some people seem to feel about me, but all I can say is…I wish you could have met them — seen them in action. Joan Shenton, Michael Verney Elliot, Alex Russell, Huw Christie, Anthony Brink, Neville Hodgkinson, Anthony Liversidge, Bob Guccione Jr. and many many others.

    We took turns (since 1987) standing up and falling down and fighting and quitting.

    There is so much I would have wanted to say, that for various reasons, I was not able to. And to do it here is perhaps whiskey-ish, overly sentimental. But I am very concerned with everybody’s efforts being recorded before history is swept clean with the Big Broom, for real.
    In the meantime, thank you for honoring my work and studying all this so carefully. Maybe NAR is the home of the truly Uncensored History?

    PLEASE keep going!

    CELIA

  7. Claus Says:

    “hard to accept that Stefan Lanka denies any human disease causing virus has ever been isolated. Do you have the quote?” (Truthseeker)I blush to confess I’m one of those who initially thought it worthwhile to study what Lanka says.Lanka does indeed say in several places that no disease causing human retro viruses exist (have been isolated in a satisfactory manner), and he seems to extend that claim to most or all ‘ordinary’ human viruses. F.ex. the Zengers interview 1998:”So for a long time I studied virology, from the end to the beginning, from the beginning to the end, to be absolutely sure that there was no such thing as HIV. And it was easy for me to be sure about this because I realized that the whole group of viruses to which HIV is said to belong, the retroviruses — as well as other viruses which are claimed to be very dangerous — in fact do not exist at all.” (http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/mcinterviewsl.htm) But, alas, it may not be that straightforward, since Lanka will also frequently say someting like this:D. What can you say about the flu virus?R. This virus exists. It was isolated. It seems to help disperse damaged tissues.(http://digilander.libero.it/controinfoaids/Update%2004-06/Interview%20to%20Stefan%20Lanka.htm) I suppose there’s talk about a human flu virus.Then there’s the question of the definition of a (proper, exogenous)'(retro)virus’. Zengers again:”other alternative AIDS researchers and activists are coming to the conclusion that the virus doesn’t exist. The main proponents of this view are Australian researcher Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and her colleagues, who argue that HIV has never been isolated according to the Pasteur Institute criteria of 1973, and therefore it’s probably what’s called an “endogenous retrovirus” — a creation of the body’s own genetic material that looks and functions partly like a virus, but is not an infection because it comes from the body’s own cells.” Thus, it may not always be a question of existense, but of what is deserving of the appelation ‘virus’.However, Lanka, as usual, has to state it even more ambiguously: “However, in this case we are not talking about a virus, but about cellular particles that the cell itself produces, which grow inside the cell itself and that leave and turn to other cells to enter them afterwards. They are not steady particles, they are only useful for intracellular transport, they are not produced outside the body. They use the glicoproteins contained in its surface to combine with other cells. These processes are called exocitosis and endocitosis” It may be a bad translation, but what is meant by ‘produced outside the body’ I’don’t know. Lanka says there is another class of viruses, the only true ones, that are stable enough to exist outside the protective environment of cells, and now apparently outside the body in some defining sense. (capable of body to body infecton? But surely they must still be produced inside some kind of body or other sustaining medium to begin with?) HIV and other purportedly disease causing purported viruses do NOT belong to them. I have it on the very highest and most indisputable authority that this whole endogenous/exogenous virus business is largely a question of semantics which can be cleared up by familiarizing oneself with texts such as Belshaw et al. (PNAS, 101:4894, 2004). It does indeed seem that way to me, although I don’t pretend to understand all the technical details of the paper mentioned. What remains is Lanka’s seemingly flat denial that any in-or-outside-the-body-produced virus ever caused a disease in a human being, since its function is helpful and not pathological. It would be illuminating to be told how Lanka explains diseases like Rabies. Perhaps some higher authority could clear this up, even if he considers Lanka a waste of space otherwise. The claim by our Noble friend that Lanka is less than honest in his claims about the court ruling in question in all probability also boils down to a matter of interpretation.The dispute was apparently about Montagnier’s and Gallo’s publications including certain HIV photos. Here it is claimed that the court ruled that these photos do not constitute proof of the existence of the virus. As far as I’m aware, Montagnier himself has all but admittted he didn’t isolate the virus, so I’m not sure why Chris Noble considers this a proof of extraordinary credulity on behalf of ‘rethinkers’. Anyway, Lanka and Kremer put it thus:”The trial was based on actions of the defendant which were caused by the misleading statement made by the RKI (Dr. Marcus) on the 9th March 1995, that there were photographs of the isolated HI-virus inside the publications of Montagnier (1983) and Gallo (1984). The judge proved the untruthfulness of this statement using Dr. Marcus‘ statement itself.” (http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/06/66369.php)Of course the ‘rethinker’ received a mild punishment for his threats of violence; that is indeed the established rules civil disobedience and other forms of activism are played by. According to this truly noble tradition, the ‘rethinker’ admitted to all the charges. But that is completely irrelevant to the question of proof of HIV isolation etc. The character of the ‘rethinker’s’ threats, his exact words, are also completely irrelevant. To quote them as any kind of proof of anything remotely relevant can only be interepreted as attempts at diversion and smear by the not so Noble Chris.The relevant passage is this, which as far as I can see (I’m not an expert on legal documents) is found in the court’s deliberations: “Es sei gar nicht erwiesen, das es ein AID-virus gebe und es sich bei AIDS um eine Infektionskrankheit handele. Den Quellen, die die Schulmedizin als Nachweis fuer den AIDS-Virus anfuehre(Ueblicherweise Montagnier und Gallo), koenne die Existenz des Virus gerade nicht ernommen werden. Denn sie enthielten kein Bildmaterial von dem isolierten Virus, das als Nachweis desselben unentbehrlich sei. Ein einsprechender Nachweis sei bis heute nicht gefuehrt worden. Solange dieser Nachweis nicht gefuehrt sei, haetten auch die sog. AIDS-Tests keine Aussagekraft.” I’m no expert in German either, but it goes something like this:”It has not been shown that there is an AIDS-virus, and that AIDS is an infectious disease. The sources academic Medicine refers to as proof of the AIDS-virus (Usually Montagnier and Gallo) cannot meet the existence of the virus because they contain no photographic material of the isolated virus, which is indispensable as proof of same. An unequivocal proof has to this day not been brought forth. As long as this proof has not been brought forth, the so-called AIDS-tests have no validity.”I don’t know if this amounts to a ‘high-court decision’, there were apparently several petitions surrounding this whole case, but I do know it’s a far cry from Chris Noble’s meaningless quotations.

  8. Henry H. Bauer Says:

    Claus’s German quote:The verb form “sei” (and others) indicates that here the Court is repeating a claim made by someone, not rendering a judgment”It is claimed not to have been proven..” etc.But my german facility is not up to reading or translating the whole 23 pp of that docoument

  9. Revolver Says:

    You can add a fourth volume to the list — in December, North Atlantic Books will be publishing “Science Sold Out”, by Rebecca Culshaw, which expands on her two Rockwell pieces. It combines her own experiences in HIV research with several chapters exploring the HIV tests, epidemiology, and ARVs in engaging prose. It is a unique combination of personal testimony, social and political commentary, and scientificanalysis. And at US$10, it’s a bargain!darin

  10. Claus Says:

    Henry Bauer,

    Neither is mine, but thanks for the clarification. It was also my impression that the court was summarizing a claim. I don’t know if it expresses approval or not, or if it’s even its place to express approval since the case is about something else (threats and attempted coercion).
    What is clear though, is that the court recognizes this was a form of activism with no serious intent at carrying out the threats. It is also clear that they view the case with some ‘sympathy’, and therefore impose a relatively mild sentence.
    There is no indication that the ‘rethinker’ acted as an incoherent madman during the court case itself, to the contrary.
    In the statements released by Lanka and Krafeld (not Kremer) their claim regarding the proceedings of this particular case amounts to this no more no less:

    Course of Events on January 15th 2001 at the District Court (Landgericht) of Dortmund:
    Judge Hackmann announced the statement of the “Bundesgesundheitsbehörde”, the Federal German Health Authorities, which says that in connection with AIDS there has never been isolated a virus (Dr. Marcus, Robert-Koch-Institute (RKI) Berlin). The judge figured out that the German Bundestag had been backing the lie of the Federal Health Authorities (RKI, Dr. Marcus, 9.3.95) about a successful isolation of a virus in connection with AIDS in the course of a petition (Art. 17, Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany, Pet. 5-13-15-2002 010526).
    http://www.campaignfortruth.com/latestnews/
    krafeldandlanka.htm

    The latter half seems to refer to a follow-up petition. As mentioned earlier, the whole case involves several petitions and references to documents which I cannot find in the text referred to by Chris Noble. It is probably misleading to say that the german high court has ruled that HIV has never been isolated. Lanka himself does not seem to be making this large claim here. Having said that, it’s very probable that such an admission WAS made during the case in question.

    But enough of this guesswork. My aim was to show Chris Noble for what he is, not Lanka for what he isn’t.

    One correction needs to be made in the German text and therefore in the translation: ‘entsprechender’ for ‘einsprechender’, ‘correlative’, for ‘unequivocal’.

  11. Truthseeker Says:

    A fifth volume of enlightenment is in the works, we happen to know – by Henry Bauer!

  12. Claus Says:

    Ok the very last word on this, since it’s of general interest to this blog. From reading the answer to the petition, it looks like the German court DOES admit that HIV was never isolated directly from a patient’s serum or plasma.However, the court, together with the German Ministry of Health, finds that irrelevant to proving the in vivo existence and disease causing properties of a virus. . . The document, which can be auto-translated, is found here: http://www.pilhar.com/Hamer/Korrespo/2001/20010517_Pet_an_Lanka.htmTry it! It’s short and well worth the read.

  13. SA Says:

    Truthseeker wrote:”For twenty years the science has been nailed by far better minds than ours. In our experience some people would rather die than work out the science!”I don’t think that “people would rather die,” Truthseeker. What I do think, and what I’ve shared in other places, is that what has been done, and is still done, to those testing HIV+ is akin to both U.S. and U.N. definitions of torture and terrorism. And those would be two charges I would gladly stand as the plaintiff for. There is a large difference between “people would rather die” and “people have been terrorized and tortured into complete fear and immobility.” The psychological torture alone makes it almost impossible for those being “treated” to even begin to question the scientific basis of their predicament. Just like we often reflect on why battered women don’t leave abusive relationships, we can transfer that line of thinking to why those currently treated for HIV don’t leave that relationship. It is fear, and that fear is constantly reinforced — the virus is mutating, the virus is “hiding,” the latency period is just that — and when it’s over, you will die, etc., etc. There is no end to the terrorism and torture applied to those who test positive, so it should not be hard to understand why so many fail to question the paradigm which treats them so poorly. If they did throw off the chains of this terroristic campaign — they would still be left with the fear, that has been so thoroughly ingrained in their minds. A more generous understanding of these dynamics would be appreciated.

  14. Stephen Davis Says:

    Since there seems to be some question at least in the minds of Chris Noble and Henry Bauer, let me give you the translation of the German high court document itself, provided to me by a professional translator who lives in Germany and translates German into English for a living…

    “It has by no means been proven that there is an AIDS virus and that AIDS is an infectious disease. The existence of the virus can specifically not be inferred from the sources that orthodox medicine cites as proof of the AIDS virus (usually Montagnier and Gallo), for they do not contain images of an isolated virus, which is indispensable as proof of the same. Up to today, the corresponding evidence has not been provided. As long as this evidence has not been provided, the so-called AIDS tests also do not have any validity.”

  15. Stephen Davis Says:

    (continued)

    The translator’s only question was the last word, “Aussagekraft”, which he translated as “validity.” He said it could also be translated as “significance”….”The so-called AIDS tests also do not have any significance.”

  16. Truthseeker Says:

    Extraordinary. The legal eagles are hard to fool, after all.

    Lawyers, judges, insurance analysts, worldly businessmen, these are the groups which should see through essentially unjustified and invalid science if only they would look closely.

    Astonishing that they haven’t yet done so to any extent in this field, which contains one assumes many such people who are gay and have become patients.

    It can be nothing but the strange increase in trust that overcomes patients when faced with a dire diagnosis.

  17. SA Says:

    A strange increase in trust? I don’t think so, no. An expectable increase in fear and desperation, that’s more like it. But trust? No. I don’t think trust is required when terrorism and torture are in play.

  18. Chris Noble Says:

    The citation

    “Es sei gar nicht erwiesen, das es ein AID-virus gebe und es sich bei AIDS um eine Infektionskrankheit handele. Den Quellen, die die Schulmedizin als Nachweis fuer den AIDS-Virus anfuehre (Ueblicherweise Montagnier und Gallo), koenne die Existenz des Virus gerade nicht ernommen werden. Denn sie enthielten kein Bildmaterial von dem isolierten Virus, das als Nachweis desselben unentbehrlich sei. Ein einsprechender Nachweis sei bis heute nicht gefuehrt worden. Solange dieser Nachweis nicht gefuehrt sei, haetten auch die sog. AIDS-Tests keine Aussagekraft.”

    Is the claims of Stefan Lanka and not a judgement of the court. It is dishonest to claim otherwise.Don’t any of you have the faintest glimmer of skepticism. There are thousands of scientists in Germany studying HIV. There have been a number of court cases where people have been found guilty of knowingly infecting others with HIV in Germany. Do you really think that a German court has ruled that HIV has not been isolated.Stefan Lanka is so crazy that even the Perth Group have distanced themselves from him.Stefan claims that amongst others, measles virus, smallpox virus, adenovirus, influenza virus, herpes virus, ebola virus and poliovirus have never been isolated and do not cause disease.http://www.neue-medizin.com/lanka2.htmTogether with Karl Krafeld he is currently active fighting against the evils of vaccination which he claims are ineffective and that the viruses have never been isolated.http://www.klein-klein-aktion.de/It is the action of people like Lanka that has lead to the reemergence of completely preventable diseases like measles in Germanyhttp://tinyurl.com/elo5tOnce again. You should be skeptical of everything you read even the things that appear to support your opinions. I follow this as closely as possible. You should too. I would not go around claiming that a German court made a ruling that is quite incredible without checking.

  19. Truthseeker Says:

    Once again. You should be skeptical of everything you read even the things that appear to support your opinions. I follow this as closely as possible. You should too. I would not go around claiming that a German court made a ruling that is quite incredible without checking.

    Very true. But in this case we are at the mercy of those that speak/read German. We need a quote from the court and a reliable translation. Is this available?

    Heartily agree that the likelihood seems extremely low. The post will be corrected until otherwise advised.

    Now Chris, after such an exquisitely enlightened post, which meets the very highest aspirations of NAR in every respect, can we look forward to an answer to our $140 billion question earlier, which is the level of your commitment to the current paradigm and if serious, the source of your conviction?

  20. Claus Says:

    CHRIS NOBLE,”Once again. You should be skeptical of everything you read even the things that appear to support your opinions. I follow this as closely as possible. You should too. I would not go around claiming that a German court made a ruling that is quite incredible without checking.”(Chris Noble)Ok once again, since whatever else we may be we, we ‘rethinkers’ are a patient lot, used to people who don’t get it first time: (1) The citation (…) is the claims of Stefan Lanka and not a judgement of the court. It is dishonest to claim otherwise. (Chris Noble)Stephen Davis can merely refer to his translator, but those of us who know enough German to find and check the quote you didn’t bother to pull out had this to say:”The verb form “sei” (and others) indicates that here the Court is repeating a claim made by someone, not rendering a judgment . . .” (Bauer) “It was also my impression that the court was summarizing a claim. I don’t know if it expresses approval or not. . .” (Claus) If you’re still worried about dishonesty, credulity or misrepresentation, why don’t YOU provide a full translation of the entire document?(2)’There have been a number of court cases where people have been found guilty of knowingly infecting others with HIV in Germany. Do you really think that a German court has ruled that HIV has not been isolated.’ (Chris Noble)In the answer to Lanka’s petition to the German Parliament it says: “Nach Auskunft des Bundesministeriums für Gesundheit (BMG) ist der direkte elektronenmikroskopische Nachweis von HIV in Plasma oder Serum von Patienten nicht erfolgt.”(Deutcher Bundestag)Translation:”According to information from the Parliamentary Ministry of Health, (BMG), the direct electronmicrosopic proof of HIV in plasma or other serum from patients has not taken place.” (German Paliament)Therefore rhethorical questions, only serving to show YOUR credulity, are neither relevant nor intelligent contributions to what’s already been presented.The advantage of being a ‘rethinker’, it seems, is that one doesn’t have to form any opinions based on prima facie assumptions about the consistency of court rulings. Lanka’s whole point is that, following the cases and petitions in question, the German authorities know, or have no longer any excuse for claiming ignorance, about these matters, yet they do not act.The information you need to work out the answer to your own question has already been provided in a previous post:The same scientists who admitted to the court that a disease causing HI-virus has not been isolated according to Koch’s postulates (i.e. directly from patients) also said that it DOESN’T MATTER!. But Lanka thinks Koch DOES matter, and so he can claim that the authorities stand knowingly by while the ‘genocide’ continues. Gee Chris, if we all followed this as closely as you, we’d be in a right mess don’t you think? But now that the crux of the matter been spelled out to you, everybody would love to hear a relevant comment, for instance that the documents I refer to are faked by Lanka, or perhaps an explanation of why we don’t have to take Koch seriously.

  21. Chris Noble Says:

    Claus, unless you know something I don’t electron microscopy was invented sometime after Robert Koch died. Nor did he know anything about viruses. Stefan Lanka invents his own criteria for the isolation of viruses that are not supported by any other scientist in the world. They are not Koch’s Postulates. They are Lanka’s own invention.Lanka uses his criteria to “prove” that poliovirus, influenzavirus etc have not been isolated and do not cause disease. Shouldn’t this provide a few clues that Lanka might be leading you down the garden path? Are you willing to go all the way and “rethink” influenza, measles, ebola, polio etc.?Lanka also uses the word Völkermord/genocide to describe vaccinations for measles, mumps, rubella, polio etc.. He appears to spend most of his time writing petitions to government health departments and letters to the Robert Koch Institute etc. demanding that someone prove to him personally that these viruses exist and cause disease. It is all totally bizarre.You can read all about it here.http://www.klein-klein-aktion.de/Truthseeker, you can ask Duesberg to translate the court documents if you want. Ask him what he thinks of Stefan Lanka’s claims.If you really must know, I have no financial relationship to pharmaceutical companies nor is my work related to HIV research. The only source for my conviction that HIV “rethinkers” are wrong is the poor arguments that they make compared to the overwhelming evidence that supports the causal connection bewteen HIV and AIDS.And before you start I have no intention of trying to convince you that HIV causes AIDS. I stand as much chance of convincing Stefan Lanka that poliovirus causes poliomyelitus or adenoviruses cause common colds etc.My only point was that HIV “rethinkers” are incredibly credulous about claims they read on the internet. Most people would be skeptical of claims that a German Court ruled that HIV had never been isolated but not HIV “rethinkers”.

  22. Chris Noble Says:

    Here are another couple of references that might convince people that there has been no such court ruling in Germany.http://www.gnpplus.net/criminalisation/germany.shtmlhttp://tinyurl.com/lvzadThere is actually a history of “rethinkers” making false claims about “German High Court rulings”.See the article “HIV” DOCTOR FREED in this issue of Continuum.http://www.altheal.org/continuum/Vol4no5.pdf The accused was set free on the 24th February 1997 after it was proved that the country’s Minister of Justice and the German Government knew there are no data to sustain claims on “HIV” and “AIDS” and no “AIDS” scientist willing to testify under oath on a causative relationship. Now compare this with reality.http://amcat.org/news/ads/1997/AD971205.html German doctor Guenter Eckert was sentenced to six-and-a-half years in prison on Monday for the death of a woman to whom he had administered a HIV-tainted blood transfusion. The court found that Eckert failed to screen thousands of blood samples in the 1980s, but so far, this is the only AIDS death resulting from the neglect. The Eckert case is one in a string of prosecutions against the German blood business. Three executives in Koblenz were convicted in 1995 for improperly testing blood samples, leading to the death of at least two people. Apparently Stefan Lanka is responsible for this false claim of a German High Court ruling.Stefan Lanka and Karl Krafeld are useful as a cautionary tale of how to become obsessed pseudoscientific crackpots.According to another Continuum article Karl Krafeld sent a death threat to Rita Suessmuth.http://www.altheal.org/continuum/Vol4no4.pdfhttp://www.rita-suessmuth.de/

  23. Michael Says:

    Hey Chris. I just looked at your links about the Eckert case, and you have convinced me of a mystery that needs a solution. It looks as if someone, and probably Lanka, did indeed jump the gun on the article in continuum before Eckert actually even got found guilty or not guilty and sentenced almost 4 months later. What can I say, hope springs eternal. Chances are good that he was overly sure that the testimony over the non-isolation of HIV, would get the good doctor off. He probably rushed out to share his optimism a bit too soon only to be broadsided by the final outcome.But the case itself brings up a lot of questions for me.It says this woman died from AIDS, but it is not telling us anything about the actual cause of death. If we know what she actually died from, and what the co-factors about her were, we could form some intelligent opinions. Too little information at this point. What exactly did she die from, as AIDS, as you well know, is a category, not an illness? AIDS could mean absolutely anything including factor VIII which was common in transfusions back then. The information really doesn’t give us anything to go on, as practically any illness she died from, would be attributed to her having tested HIV positive. Her death could have even been from AZT. It looks to me like Eckert could very possibly have been railroaded after all. Is she another case of needless death? Has the good doctor Eckert been falsely imprisoned? Is this another case of more devastation of a false paradigm. By the way Chris, I, and Lincoln, and Hank, and Dan, and Liam, and a lot of others would love to come and play HIVBLOGS and MINDF***K with you and Richie Jefferys on Momma Tara’s Aetiology blogsite, but your momma has banned us all and will not allow any posts from any of us, and who knows who else she has banned from posting. Perhaps she thinks that you and Richie Jefferys are really too young and immature and impressionable to play blogwars with us? Perhaps she thinks we are just a bad influence on you and that she needs to protect you? Probably just her motherly instincts kicking in. I am sure she thinks it is for your own good. So you and Richie should probably be good boys and only play blogs with kids that Momma Tara approves of, if you don’t want to get into trouble with her. OK? And don’t worry, if you do come over here to play with us, we won’t tell her that you were here. We will all keep it hush hush. Everybody Shhhhh. Don’t tell Tara that Chris was here. She might even give him a spanking.

  24. Claus Says:

    Ok sorry to keep everybody waiting. It took a little time but I finally got through to Duesberg and had him translate all 20 odd pages from the ‘Rude Rethinker’ court case. He asked me to tell everybody that he felt both privileged and honoured at being given this opportunity to take a break from his cancer research.Inspired by Chris Noble, I also put it to him that Robert Koch never owned a electronmicroscopic photographic contraption, and didn’t know anything about viruses. This piece of news definitely seemed to take Prof. Duesberg aback. Then I asked him if he’d ever heard of Chris Noble, and if he thought he knew something about these things that Chris doesn’t. While the professor was still reeling from this vicious one-two combination, I took the opportunity to ask him what he thought of a degreed idiot like Lanka, who makes these outrageous claims that Koch is in any way relevant to virus isolation – nay even worse, who claims it’s arguably part of Koch’s postulates that the disease causing agent, to be proven as such, must be isolated directly from the patient’s tissue. Sadly, Duesberg was no longer in a state to argue the case himself, so he passed the question on to a third party, who obviously hasn’t understood either that viruses, like electronmicroscopy, were not yet invented in Koch’s time:”Introduced by Robert Koch in the past century, the classical criteria for showing whether a disease is infectious and caused by a particular microbe are called Koch’s Postulates. But as the Harvard molecular biologist Walter Gilbert, a Nobel laureate, points out, these criteria have not been met for HIV: Postulate 1: “The germ must be found in the affected tissues in all cases of the disease.” However, no HIV at all can be isolated from at least 10 to 20 percent of AIDS patients; until the recent advent of highly sensitive methods, no direct trace of HIV could be found in the majority of AIDS cases. Further, HIV cannot be isolated from the cells in the lesions of Kaposi’s sarcoma, nor from the nerve cells of patients with AIDs dementia. Postulate 2: “The germ must be isolated from other germs and from the host’s body.” The amounts of HIV in AIDS patients are typically so low that the virus must be isolated indirectly from a patient, only after first isolating huge numbers of cells from the patient and then reactivating the virus. In classical diseases, enough active virus is present to be isolable directly from the blood or affected tissue; anywhere from one million to one billion units of virus per milliliter of body fluid can be found during the time most viruses cause (disease), and viruses of the same class as HIV are found at levels between 100,000 and 10 million units per milliliter.”(Is The AIDS Virus A Science Fiction? Immunosuppressive Behavior, Not HIV, May Be the Cause of AIDS By Peter H. Duesberg &Bryan J. Ellison Policy Review Summer 1990)For those who’d like to compare this with the German Parliament’s answer to Lanka’s petition here is the auto- translation of the relevant part with a few corrections for clarity”According to information from the Federal Ministry for health (BMG), a direct electron microscopic proof of HIV has not taken place in plasma or serum from patients. This has technical reasons, since relatively high particle concentrations are necessary for the representation of viruses in the electron microscope. In the plasma or serum of patients, such high concentrations are reached at the most in the so-called Burst phase of the primary infection or in the advanced AIDS stage. Such a proof would presuppose therefore a close co-operation of attentive hospitals and Virologists. Since the question (direct proof in plasma or serum) does not have a scientific relevance except for the petitioner, no intensive efforts in this direction are made.The dominant opinion in medical science assumes it concerns an infection.”(German Parliament)I don’t think I need elaborate on the ridiculousness of the evasive maneouvers here, like it’s too difficult a task to co-ordinate between hospitals and virologists to arrange for a serum sample from a patient with full blown AIDS!! Still Chris, it’s not a bad result. The ‘Bundestag’ obviously agrees with you, and you’ve managed to mightily impress the always credulous rethinker known as ‘Truthseeker’ with your arguments; and you’ve very definitely managed to exhaust my angel’s patience (as the Germans say).

  25. Chris Noble Says:

    Is there anyone left that is still claiming that a German court ruled that HIV has not been isolated?I’m just wondering if this myth will die or whether in a few months or a few years the same false claim will pop up in “rethinker” circles.

  26. Michael Says:

    [This concession subsequently withdrawn by the distinguished commentator.- Ed.]

    Well obviously, the only ones who will still claim it are the ones that have not yet read this post. I do appreciate that you brought it to my attention, as I do not want to communicate anything falsely as regards the issues at hand, and I do appreciate your bringing this to my attention. By the way Chris, any idea what the woman actually died from so we can find out if the doctor was framed by AIDS Inc. for a death he perhaps did not actually even cause???

  27. Truthseeker Says:

    Still Chris, it’s not a bad result. The ‘Bundestag’ obviously agrees with you, and you’ve managed to mightily impress the always credulous rethinker known as ‘Truthseeker’ with your arguments; and you’ve very definitely managed to exhaust my angel’s patience (as the Germans say)

    We wonder why being impressed with intelligently argued points is “credulous” and what in fact is wrong with credulity in such a case? Chris made a perfectly good point, which is that to accept too easily that a judge in a German court stated such an enlightened judgement was credulous, and we agree. We should have asked for the text and a translation earlier. It was an unlikely though not impossible event. Now he appears to have won his point. We agree with him that paradigm challengers should be skeptical of all information whether it agrees with them or not. That’s what we are urging on others, after all.

    Now we are happy to have nailed down a fact, with Chris Noble’s help, replacing a fond imagining. For we would like to think that Serge Lang’s spirit is watching over us, and we wouldn’t want to offend him by being unable to tell the difference.

    If you really must know, I have no financial relationship to pharmaceutical companies nor is my work related to HIV research. The only source for my conviction that HIV “rethinkers” are wrong is the poor arguments that they make compared to the overwhelming evidence that supports the causal connection between HIV and AIDS.

    And before you start I have no intention of trying to convince you that HIV causes AIDS.

    We ask merely for information, not for you to try and convince us of anything. We ask merely what your intelligently analytical and not so credulous self has in the way of reasons to believe in the paradigm “HIV is the cause of AIDS’. Presumably you have some good specific reason, beyond the rote, empty generality that overwhelming evidence for it exists. Name one reason or more, if you have more, after all these years. It is important that distinguished contributors to the debate such as yourself name your best reasons, in case they are overlooked by the critics.

    Don’t tell us that you are merely amusing yourself for a decade with the trivial pursuit of teasing the critics? If so, then why not join the critics and find holes in the paradigm? You might have more success on the analytical level you like to operate on.

  28. Dan Says:

    Michael,do you honestly know that the people you mentioned above have been banned at Tara’s blog?The latest thread is still going relatively strong. It’s incredibly disproportionate, as there’s only one rethinker left posting.It’s unfortunate if that’s Tara’s game. If the AIDS promoters are confident and their arguments are solid, then having “denialists” around trying to poke holes in the paradigm would actually end up reinforcing the correctness of the paradigm.

  29. Chris Noble Says:

    The arguments put forward by “rethinkers” are actually the main reason why I grew to accept that the evidence that HIV causes AIDS was overwhelming.

    I have read most of the material written by the Perth Group, Duesberg and others. They make bizarre claims such as HIV has not been isolated or that HIV cannot cause AIDS that are completely unconvincing. There are numerous cases where I went to the trouble of reading the cited refernences only to find that the “rethinker” interpretation was just as deceptive as Lanka’s bizarre claims of German Court cases ruling that HIV has never been isolated.

    I look up the reference that Duesberg gives for his claim that HIV has not spread in the US and find a paper describing a seroprevalence rising from 4% to 68% in 6 years in the SFCCC.

    In doing this reading I also find a lot of these errors have been repeatedly pointed out to “rethinkers” in the past but the same myths keep on resurfacing again and again.

    I also find that all of the arguments put forward by Duesberg have already been refuted in the scientific literature.

    Duesberg has had his ideas published in Science, Nature etc. The scientific community has seen that these arguments are without merit. At some stage you have to accept this.

    Inevitably bizarre conspiracy theories pop-up. Bialy has crazy ideas about Mandela being a paid puppet of the apartheid/pharmacartels. Rasnick thinks SARS was invented by the US government to weaken the Chinese economy. Others state openly that AIDS is all about the genocide of Africans and gays. Duesberg is relatively polite but his argument eventually boils down to – everybody that disagrees with him is either stupid or corrupt.

    In doing all this reading I also see the thousands of papers that provide such strong evidence for the connection between HIV and AIDS.

    And, no, I don’t do this for amusement. In general the whole thing is as pleasurable as hitting my head against a brick wall. You will forgive me if I occasionally ridicule fools that “rethink” Newton’s laws of gravity or the “germ theory of disease” or those that credulously regurgitate what they read on virusmyth without checking the facts.

  30. Michael Says:

    Hello Chris, and welcome back! Please promise us that you will keep hitting your head against that brick wall. I very much enjoyed the visual.

  31. Dan Says:

    The arguments put forward by “rethinkers” are actually the main reason why I grew to accept that the evidence that HIV causes AIDS was overwhelming. Are you saying that you couldn’t look at the evidence itself to see if it was “overwhelming”?

  32. Claus Says:

    TS.

    I know, we all like easy clear cut answers, especially if we operate on the elevated analytical level of Chris Noble, so let me try this a different way. You have a post called, “How Gallo proved that HIV is not the cause of AIDS”.

    Now does that mean Gallo accepts that’s what he proved, or that HIV/AIDS policies have changed radically? No. And why? Because in this and many other papers the official conclusion doesn’t always follow the results of the research. But have you stopped referring to Gallo’s paper as the one where he proves that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS? No.

    Now substitute if you will Lanka for TS, German court or parliament for Gallo, and petition or court case for research paper. Then you have at least one sense in which Lanka can continue to claim it’s been ‘ruled’ that HIV has never been directly isolated.

    Look again (or for the first time?) at the example I supplied from Lanka’s petition. In essence: ”Yes, HIV has not been isolated directly from patients. However, scientific consensus agrees that HIV is infectious and the cause of AIDS. Case CLOSED!”

    This is just ONE of many documents and ‘rulings’. In a strict sense, it may, I repeat MAY – perhaps Hank Barnes could tell us if he had all the relevant documents in front of him – not have been ‘ruled’ that HIV has never been isolated.

    But that is exactly the heart of Lanka’s complaint!! The authorities have failed to act on their. . . let’s call it ‘admission’ then, by following it to its logical extent in practice. This is something which should be very familiar to you, TS.

    The argument which impressed you so much is merely Lanka’s point in reverse logic.

    Lanka’s says that the judicio-political system, because of its failure to act on its own admissions, is guilty of logical inconsistency amounting to criminal dishonesty, whereas Chris Noble, from the ASSUMPTION that the judicio-political system is always consistent, concludes that it’s Lanka who’s illogical and dishonest.

    The technical term for the latter kind of reasoning is not ‘intelligent’, but ‘begging the question’.

    By allowing Chris Noble to trade on this off-center question of what constitutes a ‘real’ court ruling, backed up by a circular argument (circular of course being the characteristic of all HIV=AIDS arguments) about the consistency of German court practice, you’ve opened the door for a steady stream of irrelevant, diversionary smear-(nonsense).

    What’s more, by extending your hand to Herrn Mediocre Personified, you gave him the perfect opportunity to get at his real target, obvious from the beginning, namely you, Duesberg and everybody else here.

    As my Duesberg-on-Koch quotation showed, whatever differences they may have regarding the question of virus existence, Lanka’s and Duesberg’s points regarding proof of disease-causing agency are similar. In other words, whatever shoots down Lanka, shoots down Duesberg. . . .

    And quite frankly, you have no defence, against the boomerang which so decidely hit your own camp in Tara boy’s last mail, because you’re the one who’ve all along been praising the ‘intelligent arguments’ of your new friend.

    In short,

    Target: Duesberg

    Gambit: Lanka

    Result: Outmaneuvered by an ******

    And I take no more **** from anybody who’s not THOROUGHLY familiarized him/herself with all of the above.

    Have a NICE day.

  33. Truthseeker Says:

    Well, Claus, that gets a green border for effort, though not for clarity. So we do not think we can expect many here to follow your convolutions to reach what seems to be a simple point, which is that by patting the friendly fellow on his noggin we got a kick in the shins.

    In fact, by being kind to people and appreciating them you will eventually find them opening up and freely dispensing their innermost thoughts, which is surely the objective of anyone who wishes to sort out this debate, since then their points can be dealt with.

    Insulting them however appropriate merely leaves you powerless to enlighten them and others. That is why we encourage politesse on this site, rather than gross obscenities of the kind we have had to remove from your Parthian shot, though we salute the passion for truth and beauty that motivated them.

    We are rather surprised that you and other distinguished posters here have simply let Chris’s statement of reasons for faith in HIV stand without much comment. Perhaps you like us are simply savoring the public exposure we achieved through politesse. Or do you feel that the reasons are too feeble to take seriously?

    They certainly are a unique example of scientific reasoning.

  34. Michael Says:

    Hello Claus. Thank YOU very much for the brilliant and honest interpretation and for pointing out the obvious. The German court very well indeed DID admit that HIV has not actually been proven to be isolated at all! Chris Noble said: Is there anyone left that is still claiming that a German court ruled that HIV has not been isolated? Answer: A gleeful yes!, as the court did indeed state such on record. Chris Noble said: I’m just wondering if this myth will die or whether in a few months or a few years the same false claim will pop up in “rethinker” circles. Answer:Now that we have all seen it in black and white, and investigated it with Chris Noble’s and Claus’ assistance, and have shown that it is indeed the words of the German High Court, and an absolutely true claim by Dr. Lanka, we will all be proclaiming it from the mountain tops!And one more sad day for science, as we all now realize that a good and honest doctor was wrongly framed for the death of his patient, while the patient’s AZT pushing quack got away with killing her off with AZT! Thank you Chris, for driving home once again, the importance of the rethinker’s global and united mission.And Chris, make sure you go back to momma Tara’s, and everyone else that you have lied to about this issue, and tell the truth about your now proven bulls**t that Lanka made all of this up!

  35. Claus Says:

    TS, I apologize for my language and my convoluted style, although no more convoluted than Kierkegaard I trust(don’t flatter me by disagreeing now!).Michael, thanks! After 4 posts or thereabouts, I now know that not all has fallen on deaf ears (except may bad language, which deserved no better) I really do struggle to express myself in a universally interpretable manner.

  36. Michael Says:

    Hey Chris, just to make sure you remember the direct translation:German Parliament’s answer to Lanka:“According to information from the Federal Ministry for health (BMG), a direct electron microscopic proof of HIV has not taken place in plasma or serum from patients”.

  37. Michael Says:

    TS, could you please strike out and remove the now mistakenly posted thank you note of appreciation to chris of 8.7.2006 11:19pm, that I had posted the other day, which is outlined in green? Well obviously, the only ones who will still claim it are the ones that have not yet read this post. I do appreciate that you brought it to my attention, as I do not want to communicate anything falsely as regards the issues at hand, and I do appreciate your bringing this to my attention. He gets no kudos from me for having proven Lanka wrong, but a mouthful of his own foot for dinner.

  38. Chris Noble Says:

    What can I say?Are people here claiming that if someone knowingly infects somebody else with HIV in Germany at the present time that they won’t end up going to prison?There have been several convictions in Germany on precisely this charge. There are people sitting in prison.Good luck with your delusions.

  39. Truthseeker Says:

    TS, could you please strike out and remove the now mistakenly posted thank you note of appreciation to chris of 8.7.2006 11:19pm, that I had posted the other day, which is outlined in green?

    A note has been added to the post that it was a concession subsequently withdrawn. More than that we cannot do – the thread has slipped beyond our grasp now. In fact, at this stage, with all due respect to our outstanding posters, we have to say that this tussle over a triviality is a pretty good example of how useless the style and substance of debate on blog comment threads can be and often is. We regret spending time on it instead of spanking Larry Altman paragraph by paragraph as we planned today.

    Chris Noble said the judge said X, you said he said Y, why the fifteen posts? He said dissenters were credulous, and proved it – no one had checked this unlikely story against the facts. Now you want to retract your concession that it was X, and say it was Y after all. By this time, we are not entirely sure what the result is. Seems that the judge said that the German Ministry of Health advised him that HIV hadn’t been isolated from an AIDS patient’s tissue, which is standard knowledge, isn’t it? Never has, never will.

    But even so, even if Lanka was correct, it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans, does it? It wasn’t a ruling by the judge, a statement of his conclusion. As Noble says, they are going to railroad innocent people into jail on the basis of the fairy tale anyway, in this modern witchhunt. Moreover, Lanka is indeed some kind of crackpot if he is really going around saying that no virus causes illness. Maybe this is misreporting too, but it seems to us one of the crosses Duesberg has to bear is the motley crew of crazies of one kind or another he has had to put up with as fellow soldiers in his fight. Many of them are clearly only half right, and sometimes one doesn’t know which half. He is hardly responsible for their ideas.

    At least they have the right idea in the place where it matters, we suppose, which is that there are overwhelming objections to HIV and all the evidence supports the objections, and all the counter claims of the paradigm don’t add up to a hill of beans when they are compared with its own literature. A paradigm which is contradicted by the scientific literature it generates is a paradigm well past its due date. It continues only because of vested emotional, financial and social interests, plus the lack of thought applied to it, especially by its lay supporters, of which Chris has aapparently just given us an example, in that his justification for being an HIV enthusiast is that he cannot see that the arguments against it from Duesberg on downwards are good ones, which is obviously a poor judgement on several grounds including the fact that the NIAID and top scientists concerned see the need for strong media censorship of rival notions, which really wouldn’t be the case if they didn’t feel vulnerable.

    All this thread about the German court shows how far from the point dissenters can be led by the nose. We know nothing of the German situation specifically but as Stephen Davis implies with his book the crux is whether this mythic paradigm is able to be questioned in ways that can be recognized by the courts anywhere. In his book it happens pretty convincingly, and we are sure anyone here will enjoy it and learn much.

    But it seems pretty clear that the judge in Germany was not terribly impressed with the point he got from the Ministry of Health, since he continued in the vein of consensus science and the court eventually sent someone to jail for six years for something which is impossible according to the scientific literature.

    Are people here claiming that if someone knowingly infects somebody else with HIV in Germany at the present time that they won’t end up going to prison?

    But what is silly is to treat this apparent dissenter naivete as some kind of vindication, Chris. The fact is that the courts like everyone else are led by scientists, and if they mislead then we are all in the same boat, you and us together. Instead of enjoying yourself proving how mistaken through error or ignorance or misled by their preferences the dissenters are, problems you will find in every human mind everywhere, why not ask yourself if you have ever looked at the issue carefully enough yourself?

    We say this, since not much of what you said in your earlier post stating your justification for assuming the critics are wrong seems particularly scientific or specific, and it certainly doesn’t explain why this dispute still endures at the top of the literature despite fierce censorship, nor why it is so easy to find mainstream literature that contradicts or undermines it, nor why so many not very political people are energized by it, nor why very good books by very sound thinkers continue to pour out of the printing presses after the scientists have, according to you, knocked Peter Duesberg into a cocked hat, his arguments revealed as so poor that even you can see they reduce to nothing but everyone else is wrong and he is right.

    Would you like us to help? For example, we could do a post of all the unlikely things you believe in, if you believe in HIV as the cause of AIDS. We can count about forty incredible beliefs inherent in this faith of yours both inside science and out, from a virus that causes death without being present, to a global pandemic without infectiousness.

    One of the nonscientific beliefs involved is that minds like Tara Smith are right rather than Peter Duesberg on a topic in which the latter has sacrificed a very privileged leadership position to his desire to be scientifically honest about his conclusions, a conviction which has been tested in the white hot crucible of professional ostracism and antagonism, and financial and social difficulties, penalties which have been exacted from a man whose qualities in no way deserve such calumny, since he is one of the most friendly, good humored, decent people in the leadership ranks of the US.

    He is also a very fine logician and if you don’t recognise that it has to be because you have not read his papers without bias. A good mind like yours cannot fail to see this if you allow yourself to be objective. It is impossible to miss it. There is more subtle finesse in any sentence of Duesberg’s than in pages of clod hopping wrestling with basic reasoning that characterizes the papers of his opponents. Anyone read his papers here and disagree?

  40. Chris Noble Says:

    Seems that the judge said that the German Ministry of Health advised him that HIV hadn’t been isolated from an AIDS patient’s tissue, which is standard knowledge, isn’t it? Never has, never will.

    You are getting confused. The supposed German High Court rulings (actually two rulings from the district courts of Dortmund and Goettingen) are completely separate from the determination of the petitions commision of the German government.The determination of the petitions committee does not say that HIV has not been isolated. It says that electronmiscroscopy of HIV directly from serum or tissue has not been done. Instead just like Robert Koch the HIV is cultured in cell lines or donor PBMCs. Gallo and others have isolated HIV. Virtually 100% of scientists are convinced by this evidence. Even Duesberg agrees. why don’t you ask Duesberg what he thinks about Lanka?Lanka sets up his own criteria for the isolation of viruses that all other human viruses also fail. Surely that must awaken a minute amount of skepticism? No – because his heart is in the right place! It doesn’t matter that his reasons for doubting the existence of HIV also lead to the inevitable conclusion that no human disease causing viruses exist.

  41. Truthseeker Says:

    Even Duesberg agrees

    So do we. As we said, Duesberg has to put up with a lot of flawed characters riding on his wagon. In general, the paradigm bandwagon is better behaved, as you would expect from an orthodoxy. Some prominent dissenters are emotionally disturbed, as their colleagues acknowledge. On the other hand, all the liars and hypocrites seem to be in the other camp, and isn’t that a more relevant indication in a politically charged debate?

    Re whether the virus has been properly isolated and proven to exist as a separate entity, it seems clear that the dissenters in HIV?AIDS do not have an open and shut case for questioning the separate existence of a consistent entity, but neither do Duesberg and the rest of the scientists who all poo poo the Perth group objections seem to have a clinching, black and white case for it, as far as we know. Otherwise the issue would have been settled and Duesberg would have collected the Perth prize, since the Perth group are evidently an honest bunch, contrary to the silly calumny of Moore and Geffen. Of course they may just be too dim to see the point, but they have been on the case long enough to know what they are dealing with, we would have thought.

    However, we admit we have never got to the bottom of this and no one else has as far as we know. Bialy’s book doesn’t mention it as far as we know, and nor does Duesberg’s (we could be wrong). If you know of a good, clear analysis we would like the url or reference. Any light you can throw on this vexed issue, as to the remaining question, where or how there is still room for maneuver for the Perth group, might be useful. What is there that allows them to continue the debate? Why isn’t it cut and dried? Where is there room for argument? If you understand this issue better than we do, perhaps you would like to explain it.

  42. German Guest Says:

    first sorry for my bad english, I’ll try my best:I had a look at the courts decision (Landgericht Dortmund, 14 (XVII) K 11/00) mentioned by Chris Noble. Like all german court decisions the first parts (I, II) only repeat what really happened and furthermore provide details about the claims of the accused person/defendant. Therefore these parts should not be regarded as a verdict made by the court. In part III the court tells the reader, which claims have actually been proved and where is enough or not enough evidence. In this paragraph it is important to notice, that the court does NOT raise the question, whether HIV has been isolated or not. This is the first indication that the court regards this question as irrelevant for its decision. In german law it is a fundamental rule only to validate those questions that are crucial for the courts decision.In paragraph IV the courts finally makes its decision and tells us, that the defendant is guilty of coercion/duress (Nötigung). He (and everybody else) is allowed to hold the opinion that AIDS is not caused by HIV and that HIV has never been isolated. But it was a crime to convince the authorities by threatening them with personal injuries and murder. The court further says: „He might only achieve a turn in official AIDS-policy by scientific facts and scientific debate with doctors and authorities […] Noone is obliged to get conventional treatment. Therefore the defendant has the opportunity to convince patients and doctors by legal/lawful propagation of his arguments and opinions.“Result: The court gives no answer to the questions, whether HIV has been isolated, because it was not important for this case. Hope this helps.

  43. Chris Noble Says:

    Truthseeker writes:

    Why isn’t it cut and dried?

    You are assumming that both parties are a) accurately interpretting the data and b) prepared to change their minds.Neither assumption is safe.I predict that neither will be able to convince the other that he or she is right. This doesn’t mean that the evidence isn’t cut and dried. It is. They and in particular the Perth Group just won’t admit it. I don’t think it is a concious choice. They decieve themselves as much as anybody else.A telling quote from the Perth Group can be found in this document.http://www.theperthgroup.com/LATEST/PerthGroupRebuttalCF.pdfItem 40, Does HIV Fulfil Koch’s Postulates for AIDS? If one accepts that “HIV” and “HIV” antibodies exist, then one has no choice but to also accept that Koch’s postulates have been fulfilled which means that HIV is the cause of AIDS.The Perth Group’s arguments against the existence of HIV can also be applied to other viruses. It is inconsistent to just apply these criteria to HIV. Stefan Lanka is at least more consistent. He denies the existence of all viruses that cause disease in humans. He is also a crackpot.

    On the other hand, all the liars and hypocrites seem to be in the other camp, and isn’t that a more relevant indication in a politically charged debate?

    Only if you define lying as expressing a viewpoint different from your own.If are really interested in court cases then look at this paper.http://tinyurl.com/lvzad Remember to convict these people (in courts in France, Germany, Switzerland and Japan) it was necessary to demonstrate not just the HIV causes AIDS but that this was established at the time when these people did not take adequate precautions to keep HIV out of blood products.

  44. Truthseeker Says:

    Hope this helps.

    To German Guest: Yes it does help. Thanks very much.

    So it is wrong after all to say that a German court ruled that the Virus had never been isolated, photographed, made to dance a Scottish reel, or anything else. Chris Noble was right, Lanka was wrong, dissenters here were too credulous, we were not, and this exemplary thread has now reached a result which all can accept, we hope.

    Congratulations to all those who helped advance the state of knowledge in a way which only the Web enables.

    Re the incredible Virus, Chris, despite your triumph here on the issue of credulity we take it you don’t think there is any danger that you have been too credulous yourself about the powers of the Virus? You haven’t responded to our comment above, after all. OK, but if you don’t mind we will do the HIV credulity list as a post anyway, just for the instruction of those less decided than yourself. After all, with the Toronto Biennial Celebration of HIV/AIDS Funding and Employment – sorry, Toronto Biennial HIV/AIDS Conference coming up, this blog needs to nail down precisely the complete Catechism of the 25,000 attendees.

  45. Truthseeker Says:

    PS Chris sorry, you did just respond.

    However, with all respect we are disheartened. We cannot see much sense or evidence in what you say. Of course court cases are determined on what the court believes the science has demonstrated, but this does not mean it was in fact demonstrated.

    You are assuming that both parties are a) accurately interpreting the data and b) prepared to change their minds.
    Neither assumption is safe.

    We are not assuming a), otherwise they would inevitably agree and we are assuming b) – why not? You give no reason to suppose either side is dishonest, and there is clearly every reason to suppose they are both honest, since they sacrifice much to state their non-conformist opinions.

    The issue is why one side is misinterpreting the data and why the other side cannot nail them on it.

  46. Chris Noble Says:

    However, with all respect we are disheartened. We cannot see any good sense or evidence in any of what you say. Of course court cases are determined on what the court believes the science has demonstrated, but this does not mean it was in fact demonstrated.

    I would agree with you at least partially. Science is not done in courts. The fact is that several courts have ruled on this issue and have taken the consensus scientific opinion. I don’t think that HIV causes AIDS because of these court cases. I don’t think that HIV causes AIDS because this is the consensus scientific opinion. I think that HIV causes AIDS because I have looked at the evidence that shaped the scientific consensus. I think that HIV causes AIDS because I have looked at the arguments put forward by “rethinkers” and found them to be completely unconvincing.What I don’t understand is why anybody would think another court case would give a different result.Davis’ books appears to be more wishful thinking and fantasy than anything else.

  47. Truthseeker Says:

    The fact is that several courts have ruled on this issue and have taken the consensus scientific opinion.

    As one would expect, on the whole. Though we wonder if you have stated this correctly. They have accepted it as a premise of their judgements, you mean. They didn’t rule on its validity in their own independent judgement, which would be more interesting. Any court that argued the case for and against the essential paradigm (HIV is the cause of AIDS) and made a decision would be an extreme departure from the norm. That would be international news, whatever the venue. However, what is happening in real life now is that lawyers fighting cases do not even consider attacking the paradigm, since it would prejudice their case a priori in the minds of the judge. They know better. They stick to more limited challenges to the test accuracy, etc. Consensus science rules in court, and is not going to be challenged there.

    I think that HIV causes AIDS because I have looked at the evidence that shaped the scientific consensus. I think that HIV causes AIDS because I have looked at the arguments put forward by “rethinkers” and found them to be completely unconvincing.

    Thank you for the clarification. But are you referring to arguments on blogs and in the media, or to the top, most tested scientific literature, specifically the papers of Duesberg and the few replies from peers, none of which have been in the same journal save the truncated, non peer reviewed exchange in Science. If you haven’t properly read the Duesberg material, you haven’t read the critique, Chris (a more enjoyable prospect for someone as thoughtful as you are, Chris, than you might believe, we predict, since Duesberg has a fine subtlety and grace about his literary work, and the word is used advisedly).

    You cannot validly say you have reviewed the arguments and evidence unless you have read every line of the 2003 Biosciences paper. You cannot validly say you have reviewed the scientific politics of the affair, which throws more light of the debate, unless you have read Bialy’s book. Please advise if you have done both these things properly. We have to say that someone who participates in the debate on line to the extent you do has no excuse for not reading both these sources properly. You judge the debate by the quality of the dissenting arguments, and there you will find the quality you seek. You will not find that quality in the opponents’ arguments, and the difference is visible, especially to a connoisseur of good arguments such as yourself. The quality of the argument is indeed lower elsewhere, often much lower, since the non-scientific nature of the audience has to be taken into account, and the authors are not experts, as both these are.

    What I don’t understand is why anybody would think another court case would give a different result. Davis’ books appears to be more wishful thinking and fantasy than anything else.

    In the sense you mean this otherwise rather misplaced criticism, it is very true that the issue will not be decided in a court trial, though it would be very advantageous if fine legal minds did battle it out, with scientific witnesses such as Duesberg and Gallo ( then you would see who has the quality arguments that would please you, Chris).

    The difficulty of bringing disinterested but qualified minds to bear on this issue from outside the field and its vested interests is the biggest obstacle to its resolution, but it is conceivable that Congressional Committee hearings could resolve it, in our opinion, since the arguments are not really very complex once the technicalities with which defenders often confound lay critics are stripped away.

    The problem is always that any such outcome depends on the first step, which is someone in a position of power and responsibility has to be willing to say: “It is possible that this is wrong.” Very few people are going to be powerful, intelligent, responsible, diplomatic and respected enough to get away with that, or even to want to do it. There are one or two highly placed scientists who meet all these qualifications and in our opinion have a very good idea what is going on, but count it as far too big a mountain to try to move without a sea change in the politics.

    Mbeki tried it, and see what happened to him.

  48. Chris Noble Says:

    It is patronising to tell me to just read Duesberg’s articles and then I’ll see the light.I’ve read the 2003 Biosciences paper and wonder how it passed peer-review. It is full of misinterpretation, empty rhetoric and downright errors. It’s appearance in a journal with an extremely low impact factor is hardly coincidental.The table of “predictions” and “facts” is laughable. Most of the “predictions” are simply straw men that Duesberg sets up so he can knock them down. Many of the “facts” are not at all factual.Take this “prediction”:Viral AIDS like all viral/microbial epidemics in the past – should spread randomly in a population.Have you checked the stats for gonorrhea and syphilis in the US lately? Has Duesberg? I don’t think so. He just makes up predictions that suit his agenda.The whole paper is more rhetoric than substance.I’ve already mentioned this “fact”:But, contrary to the spread of AIDS, there is no “spread” of HIV in the US . In the US HIV infections have remained constant at 1 million from 1985 (29) until now (30). 29. Curran, J. W., Morgan, M. W., Hardy, A. M., Jaffe, H. W., Darrow, W. W., and Dowdle, W. R. 1985. The epidemiology of AIDS: current status and future prospects. Science 229:1352–1357.Unlike most followers of Duesberg I actually read the references. For a start the reference actually gives an estimate of 0.5 to 1.0 million. Duesberg casually rounds this up to 1 million and hopes nobody looks. Even worse the estimates are based on data from the San Francisco City Clinic Cohort where the prevalence of HIV rose from 4% to 68% in 6 years. Hardly static!I could keep going and going.Most of it is written in a style that appears to be directed at lay-audiences rather than scientists that have any knowledge of the field.

  49. Chris Noble Says:

    You give no reason to suppose either side is dishonest, and there is clearly every reason to suppose they are both honest, since they sacrifice much to state their non-conformist opinions.

    Both Duesberg and the Perth Group have sacrificed large parts of their lifes, reputations and careers in pursuit of their quixotic dreams. It is precisely for these reasons that it is unlikely that either Duesberg or the Perth Group will ever admit they are wrong.The Perth Group make it quite clear that if they admit that HIV does exist then they are also forced to admit that HIV causes AIDS. They aren’t going to admit that HIV causes AIDS so they have to cling to their delusion that HIV does not exist.Can you imagine? Whoops, sorry I was wrong all along. HIV does cause AIDS. Sorry Mbeki, I hope you didn’t really take us that seriously. Those children that were born with HIV because their mothers listened to me – sorry – ahh – shit happens. Face it they have invested so much into this that they are never going to be able to admit they are wrong. They’ll take their “rethinking” with them to the grave. It is ironical that “rethinkers” use exactly the same argument for why the “orthodoxy” won’t admit to the “greatest scientific blunder of history”. Somehow its possible for hundreds of thousands of scientists to be vulnerable to this problem but not a handful of “rethinker” scientists.One “rethinker” even provided me with an appropriate link to wikipedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitmentThe ability of intelligent people to delude themselves is well established in history.

  50. pat Says:

    Chris says:Take this “prediction”:Viral AIDS like all viral/microbial epidemics in the past – should spread randomly in a population. Have you checked the stats for gonorrhea and syphilis in the US lately? Has Duesberg? I don’t think so. He just makes up predictions that suit his agenda.”Duesberg is not only talking about the US population Chris. He says this epidemic is NON-viral/microbial because it chooses to behave differently from continent to continent. How can this virus only affect fringe “risk groups” in the western world but somehow decide that all of africa was one big risk group?”Perhaps it is a biggoted virus. And while we’re on the subject of syphillis and gonorrhea; how do you explain the success of the safe-sex campaigns in limiting HIV infection in light of the explosion of these two deseases in the last decade?”The ability of intelligent people to delude themselves is well established in history”.Right back atchya you blogguer for hire! This could just as well be you. Meaningless platitudes do nothing to further a discussion.

  51. pat Says:

    “HIV rose from 4% to 68% in 6 years”What does this mean in absolute numbers?Has the estimate of 0.5 to 1.0 million that Duesberg casually rounds up to one 1’000’000 changed since? Is the estimate of .5 to 1.0 million still the same today as it was back then?

  52. Truthseeker Says:

    It is patronising to tell me to just read Duesberg’s articles and then I’ll see the light.

    Like almost all your statements, this is inaccurate. We said that you were unqualified to comment unless you had read this and other key material with attention.

    I’ve read the 2003 Biosciences paper and wonder how it passed peer-review. It is full of misinterpretation, empty rhetoric and downright errors.

    With respect, this is the opinion of a man who cannot spell and who is unaware of basic grammar (“It’s” in the sentence below), and that is all it is. You give not one good example of what you claim (the one example you give, see below, is incorrect).

    It’s appearance in a journal with an extremely low impact factor is hardly coincidental.

    The impact factor of the journal is no guide in this case to the value of the text, as you know well, since the prejudice of the editors of high impact journals against the Duesberg material is well demonstrated, but not justified in the literature, and therefore can be taken to be political, illfounded and against the fundamental principle of science, free criticism.

    The table of “predictions” and “facts” is laughable. Most of the “predictions” are simply straw men that Duesberg sets up so he can knock them down. Many of the “facts” are not at all factual.

    Dear me, the Indian Academy should make sure you are a reviewer next time, you notice their mistakes so readily. Why not write to the Journal editors and point out these egregious errors? There is not a moment to be lost.

    Take this “prediction”:Viral AIDS like all viral/microbial epidemics in the past – should spread randomly in a population…Have you checked the stats for gonorrhea and syphilis in the US lately? Has Duesberg? I don’t think so. He just makes up predictions that suit his agenda.

    Wait. You don’t realize that the statement is ceteris parabus, and that of course behavior and other factors modify the pattern of spread? Maybe you shouldn’t write too hastily to the journal.

    The whole paper is more rhetoric than substance. I’ve already mentioned this “fact”: But, contrary to the spread of AIDS, there is no “spread” of HIV in the US . In the US HIV infections have remained constant at 1 million from 1985 (29) until now (30). (29. Curran, J. W., Morgan, M. W., Hardy, A. M., Jaffe, H. W., Darrow, W. W., and Dowdle, W. R. 1985. The epidemiology of AIDS: current status and future prospects. Science 229:1352–1357.) Unlike most followers of Duesberg I actually read the references. For a start the reference actually gives an estimate of 0.5 to 1.0 million. Duesberg casually rounds this up to 1 million and hopes nobody looks. Even worse the estimates are based on data from the San Francisco City Clinic Cohort where the prevalence of HIV rose from 4% to 68% in 6 years. Hardly static!

    You are not aware that HIV prevalence in the general population of the US has remained very roughly level at around a million, give or take 200,000, according to the very rough estimates of the CDC, for the duration of the supposed ‘epidemic’? You are not aware that this horizontal line, however roughly estimated, in no way matches in fact or in principle the curved rise and fall of ‘AIDS’ in America?

    I could keep going and going.

    Since your points involve misunderstanding the material, we have no doubt that this is the case.

    Both Duesberg and the Perth Group have sacrificed large parts of their lifes, reputations and careers in pursuit of their quixotic dreams. It is precisely for these reasons that it is unlikely that either Duesberg or the Perth Group will ever admit they are wrong.

    The cost of capitulating would be far less than the cost of continuing. Welcome back, congratulations on seeing the light, would you like to speak and write on it at the next AIDS Conference, etc.

    The Perth Group make it quite clear that if they admit that HIV does exist then they are also forced to admit that HIV causes AIDS. They aren’t going to admit that HIV causes AIDS so they have to cling to their delusion that HIV does not exist.

    Since the one doesn’t follow from the other, they probably didn’t say this in these terms. Do you have a reference?

    It is ironical that “rethinkers” use exactly the same argument for why the “orthodoxy” won’t admit to the “greatest scientific blunder of history”.

    You are right, of course both sides invest in their position over time. Doiesn’t affect the issue of who is right. You consistently confuse politics and sociology with science, when these factors must be separated from science. The thing is to decide who is right based on reason and evidence, and not deal in the kind of social and political factors that you constantly exhibit in this thread as filling your mind.

    The ability of intelligent people to delude themselves is well established in history.

    Only if they ignore reason and evidence, which is why the scientific literature exists and is peer reviewed. Duesberg has contributed at the top level, and his peers have been forced to stand aside for lack of effective counter arguments, which they have been unable to produce before publication or afterwards. They have only succeeded in defeating his case by using force – blocking him from platforms and from publication, refusing to support his funding, the life blood of any professional scientist, and generally smearing his reputation and his achievement in establishing an unanswerable case by misinforming and censoring media reporters.

    You are apparently unaware of this process, as you are unaware of the force of the arguments and evidence in his papers. That is why we tell you, with great respect for your functioning mind, that you are unqualified to comment. You continually demonstrate that you are unaware of the arguments that have been made and you wish to dismiss, by inaccurately reprensenting them. If the material was as weak as you think it is, there would be no debate at all. No Duesberg papers on the topic would have been published.

    Please don’t waste the time of this blog by posting contradictory material until you have read the Biosciences paper sufficiently well to show you understand it, and also the Bialy book. The indication that you have done that will be the respect that replaces your contempt, whether you ultimately agree with them or not.

  53. Stephen Davis Says:

    I have tried numerous times in private emails with TS to get my remarks correct on his original post on this website concerning me and my book, Wrongful Death: The AIDS Trial. The first line (italicized) is supposed to read: “Despite the German high court decision in 2001 which ruled that HIV has not been properly isolated, there has never been a public trial in the U.S. challenging the HIV∫AIDS hypothesis.”

    I realize that there is controversary concerning this statement. On August 5th, I provided a translation by an objective professional translator in Germany that I hired to translate the paragraph in question, and it is my interpretation that the translation I provided in my post of that day confirms my original statement.

    After Chris and “A German Guest” offered a different opinion, Truthseeker unilaterally decided that the verdict was in and I was totally wrong, and wanted to change my original post to some wishy-washy “some people say that a German court….” I refused.

    To me, a blog is an opportunity to exchange information and ideas. Not all the information or ideas that are originally posted are going to be 100% accurate, and certainly not agreed upon by everyone. That’s what the comments are for, as I understand it.

    If I were to conclude, by reading other people’s comments and doing further research, that I had made a mistake in my original post, I would clearly say so in a subsequent comment. TS’s solution, on the other hand, is to go back and erase it from the original post as if it had never been said.

    That, to me, is not “truthseeking.”

    I think there have been legitimate questions raised about the German court decision, but I don’t consider anything that has been said thus far to be definitive. Nothing said yet by anyone on any comment has convinced me that I am wrong. If that happens, you will hear about it here, but my original comments will remain intact.

    If that is not acceptable to TS, I have asked him to remove any reference to my book on his website, because I don’t play those kinds of games and don’t want to be associated with someone who does.

  54. Truthseeker Says:

    This is an important issue, because whether facts are accurate on NAR is central to its purpose. Whether Mr Davis is an accurate reporter in Wrongful Trial is also important.

    I have tried numerous times in private emails with TS to get my remarks correct on his original post on this website concerning me and my book, Wrongful Death: The AIDS Trial. The first line (italicized) is supposed to read: “Despite the German high court decision in 2001 which ruled that HIV has not been properly isolated, there has never been a public trial in the U.S. challenging the HIV∫AIDS hypothesis.”

    Let’s check the post. “While a German high court decision in 2001 ruled that HIV had never been isolated, there has never been a public trial in the U.S. challenging the HIV∫AIDS hypothesis.” That is how the post reads! Is there some significant difference, Stephen?

    I realize that there is controversy concerning this statement. On August 5th, I provided a translation by an objective professional translator in Germany that I hired to translate the paragraph in question, and it is my interpretation that the translation I provided in my post of that day confirms my original statement. After Chris and “A German Guest” offered a different opinion, Truthseeker unilaterally decided that the verdict was in and I was totally wrong, and wanted to change my original post to some wishy-washy “some people say that a German court….” I refused.

    Not in fact. The wording was changed to “it is said that”. This was done with Mr Davis’s agreement (initially, “Sure it can say “despite an apparent German high court decision”, then when it was changed to “It is said that”, “Okay. Thanks.”)) Later he wanted it changed back. Then in a later email, he wrote (this is the entire message) “Screw it, leave it alone, I’m tired of this bullshit”. So we did.

    Then he demanded the qualifier be removed again, in a very lengthy email, while acknowledging “there are still legitimate questions concern what the court actually said. I repeat. I still think there are questions about it, with some interesting comments on both sides. I certainly haven’t reached a final conclusion whether my original statement was right or not, but I still stand by it until proven wrong, which I certainly have not been.”

    So it was changed back, since it was his quote. Evidently Mr Davis did not check his facts before writing the above complaints in Comments, and believed that it was not once again changed in accordance to his wishes. Why all the other explanatory statements were sent to us and not simply made in Comments we have no idea.

    If I were to conclude, by reading other people’s comments and doing further research, that I had made a mistake in my original post, I would clearly say so in a subsequent comment. TS’s solution, on the other hand, is to go back and erase it from the original post as if it had never been said. That, to me, is not “truthseeking.”

    To us, it is. This is not a chat board, but a reference site where all statements are as accurate as we can make them, unless irony is intended. In general NAR policy is to correct all NAR posts in which factual errors have been found. This is not a blog to prove that TS is always right the first time. All corrections welcome, and will be made.

    The aim is to correct the science of HIV/AIDS and rescue patients and health workers from acting on false claims and incorrect interpretations of the literature. Accuracy is paramount. All factual corrections will be made in posts, not just in Comments, which as we have just seen can see-saw from one conclusion to another.

    We would prefer that Mr Davis be quoted as saying only what he knows to be true, rather than making claims which he believes may still be disproved. We worry that he is willing to risk bringing the accuracy of dissenters in HIV?AIDS into question, and possibly misleading readers, by allowing people to read a “fact” which is later contradicted, apparently successfully, in Comments.

    All this is important because it raises the question, How many “facts” are correct in Wrongful Death? We like Dr Bialy have assumed that all the facts we were unaware of that we read in Wrongful Death were truth not fiction, but now we wonder. Can readers trust the facts in the testimony that they read in this book’s fictional court case, or are some of them fiction?

    We hope that Mr Davis will confirm that they are all accurate facts.

  55. Chris Noble Says:

    “Has the estimate of 0.5 to 1.0 million that Duesberg casually rounds up to one 1’000’000 changed since? Is the estimate of .5 to 1.0 million still the same today as it was back then?”

    No. And Duesberg knows this.In his Genetica paper http://tinyurl.com/qvhru Duesberg cites this CDC report http://tinyurl.com/ps284The figure for HIV prevalence in 1992 of (650,000-900,000) that Duesberg again does some magic mathematics on is taken from this paper JAMA 1996;276:126-31Prevalence of HIV Infection in the United States, 1984 to 1992http://tinyurl.com/ncu7rThe data from this paper is.1984 400,000-450,0001986 550,00-650,0001992 650,000-900,000Clearly the CDC do not think now that 1 million people were infected with HIV in the US in 1984 and 1985 or 1986 and Duesberg knows it.Note that the estimates of HIV for the years 1984,1986 and 1992 in this paper were in part derived from back-calculation. In other words the the incidence of AIDS was used to estimate the incidence of HIV in the preceding years. Thus to claim that the CDC figures for the incidence of HIV are incompatible with the CDC figures for the incidence of AIDS is just plain stupid.It is widely acknowledged that early estimates of HIV prevalence in the US before 1990 were overestimates. Sufficient data from seroprevalence studies were just not available fro any precision. Most of the seroprevalence data was restricted to data from small cohorts of high risk individuals such as those attending STD clinics. Extrapolating this data to the total population obviously gave huge uncerntainties.Implying once again that I have not read the Biosciences paper in sufficient detail is extremely patronising and insulting. In contrast to you I have read the paper and I have checked the citations that Duesberg uses.

    You consistently confuse politics and sociology with science, when these factors must be separated from science.

    Pot, Kettle, Black.I have consistently presented data. It is the “rethinkers” that consistently resort to confusing science and sociology.

  56. Chris Noble Says:

    For the benefit of Stephen Davis I will make it clearer.The translation of the paragraph in question is not under dispute. The question is whether it is a judgment of the court (actually a district court not the high court) or the claims of the defendant. Anyone that can read German will see from the entirety of the document that it is the latter.If, for example, an individual attempts to assasinate the president of the US and when caught claims that he did this because George Bush is in reality a shape shifting alien and the court document prints this claim it does not make it a judgement of the court. It remains a delusion of the defendant.Stefan Lanka is a crackpot. He has managed to convince a small group of people in Germany that no virus causes disease in humans and that vaccinations are equivalent to genocide. He and his group are in a campaign against the “orthodox” medical sciences that involves sending hundreds of petitions to courts and the parlament and even making death threats or threats of violence against public officials.The legal case referred to involved one of Lanka’s victims being sentenced to several months imprisonment. In my opinion it should have been Lanka that was locked up.

  57. Truthseeker Says:

    Implying once again that I have not read the Biosciences paper in sufficient detail is extremely patronising and insulting. In contrast to you I have read the paper and I have checked the citations that Duesberg uses.

    No offence intended. The statement was that you could not be counted sufficiently informed if you hadn’t read the Biosciences paper (and the Bialy book), however sharp the points you made. Now you state that you have read the paper and checked the citations.

    But your analysis is still inadequate, it seems to us. The estimates of the CDC for the early years might well have been revised downwards to make them more sensible, and of course they were guesswork as long as they didn’t sample the general population well enough.

    But the fact remains that early big gains to 1992 as now reguessed (whopping spread, have you noticed?) contradict even more the decline in AIDS that soon followed in the mid ninties, especially when HAART is now acknowledged in the Lancet as not having improved the death rate. The brief improvement before HAART was implemented was due to giving up high doses of AZT.

    AIDS in the US went up and down, but HIV prevalence did not. Do you have an explanation for this?

    And by the way, the 0.02% rate for Army recruits was way below this earlier guesswork. If true for the general population, it implied about 50,000 total positives in the US general population of 260 million in the early years.

    How this was expanded to 1 million is unexplained, unless they are all special groups ie gays and IV drug users and the now forgotten Haitians. Perhaps you know the answer.

    Chris, Lanka may be a crackpot but he could be right on this. The evidence that your favored HIV peddlers are even greater quacks and charlatans litters the landscape. Why do you put your good mind at their service?

    We appreciate your posts, though.

  58. Chris Noble Says:

    AIDS in the US went up and down, but HIV prevalence did not. Do you have an explanation for this?

    The best current estimates from sources including the CDC show HIV prevalence in the US rapidly increasing during the 1980s. The highest incidence of HIV was during these years. The highest incidence of AIDS was approximately 10 years later. There is no contradiction.Read the JAMA article I cited (with data cited by Duesberg).

    And by the way, the 0.02% rate for Army recruits was way below this earlier guesswork. If true for the general population, it implied about 50,000 total positives in the US general population of 260 million in the early years.

    It is quite clearly stated in any detailed estimate of HIV prevalence that the majority of people infected with HIV in the US have been in certain high risk groups (although these have been declining over time). This directly contradicts Duesberg’s dual claims that a) the prevalence of HIV in the US has been a constant 1 million as far back as 200 years in the past and b) “HIV is a long-established perinatally transmitted retrovirus”.If the majority of people infected with HIV are in high risk groups then they were not infected perinatally (unless you can provide some explanation as to why only mothers of homosexual men and intravenous drug users have HIV). Duesberg can either claim that HIV is spread predominantly through perinatal transmission or that there are approxiamtely 1 million people infected with HIV according to CDC statistics but not both.Duesberg has not presented a complete and coherent model.

    But the fact remains that early big gains to 1992 as now reguessed (whopping spread, have you noticed?) contradict even more the decline in AIDS that soon followed in the mid ninties, especially when HAART is now acknowledged in the Lancet as not having improved the death rate. The brief improvement before HAART was implemented was due to giving up high doses of AZT.

    Now, you are playing loose with the facts. The article that you refer to (I have read it) quite clearly states that HAART has reduced mortality. What the article also says is that there have not been further reductions of mortality during the last 10 years. The article also provides some possible explanations for this disappointing observation including the changing demographics of people infected with HIV in the US and changes in the spectrum of opportunistic infections (in particular TB). Your claims about AZT are not, as could be interpretted from the sequence of the two sentences, made by the Lancet article.

  59. Chris Noble Says:

    The impact factor of the journal is no guide in this case to the value of the text, as you know well, since the prejudice of the editors of high impact journals against the Duesberg material is well demonstrated, but not justified in the literature, and therefore can be taken to be political, illfounded and against the fundamental principle of science, free criticism.

    You then write:

    You consistently confuse politics and sociology with science, when these factors must be separated from science.

    This is exactly what you are doing. You are invoking political explanations for why Duesberg’s papers are rejected by high impact journals. Stick to the science. Duesberg’s papers are rejected because of the poor science contained in them. Sometimes reviewers do indeed check the citations in papers.Do you have a list of the journals that rejected the Journal of Biosciences paper? Do you have copies of reviewer’s grounds for rejection? Do they make some of the same comments that I have made? Did they find the same misrepresentations and inaccuracies that I did?

  60. Truthseeker Says:

    The best current estimates from sources including the CDC show HIV prevalence in the US rapidly increasing during the 1980s. The highest incidence of HIV was during these years. The highest incidence of AIDS was approximately 10 years later. There is no contradiction. Check your own post above, which shows giant jumps to 1992. This directly contradicts Duesberg’s dual claims that a) the prevalence of HIV in the US has been a constant 1 million as far back as 200 years in the past and b) “HIV is a long-established perinatally transmitted retrovirus”. Duesberg found no evidence that there had been any expansion in the past had been provided. Naturally b) is the simple answer. If the majority of people infected with HIV are in high risk groups then they were not infected perinatally (unless you can provide some explanation as to why only mothers of homosexual men and intravenous drug users have HIV). Duesberg can either claim that HIV is spread predominantly through perinatal transmission or that there are approxiamtely 1 million people infected with HIV according to CDC statistics but not both. Congratulations on your logic. If you believe it is valid, we won’t trouble you. HIV is spread perinatally in the normal population. In high risk groups it is artificially spread. The first is steady, the second varies with behavior. If the behavior ceases, the total will recede to the norm, whatever that is. The one million figure is the CDCs. Whether correct or not, it is the sum of both. The norm without high risk behavior could be as low as 0.02%, as Army figures indicate. Now, you are playing loose with the facts. The article that you refer to (I have read it) quite clearly states that HAART has reduced mortality. What the article also says is that there have not been further reductions of mortality during the last 10 years. The article also provides some possible explanations for this disappointing observation including the changing demographics of people infected with HIV in the US and changes in the spectrum of opportunistic infections (in particular TB). Your claims about AZT are not, as could be interpreted from the sequence of the two sentences, made by the Lancet article. The reduced mortality stated is due to the easing off of AZT doses. HAART subsequently failed to show an decrease after that. The explanations are invalid excuses. The essential claim is that people are sicker when they start the regime. In fact, the general trend has been towards starting people on HAART earlier, before they have symptoms. Soon they will give it to patients as soon as they are infected with HIV. They are looking everywhere for more candidates, Chris. Some like Andrew Sullivan have suggested giving HAART to those who are HIV- but in high risk groups. It does not seem impossible that someone will suggest giving it to everyone in America. If so, Chris, will you accept the offer? You are invoking political explanations for why Duesberg’s papers are rejected by high impact journals. Stick to the science. Duesberg’s papers are rejected because of the poor science contained in them. Sometimes reviewers do indeed check the citations in papers. Chris, if you wish to believe this, there is no reason to disturb you.

  61. Chris Noble Says:

    Check your own post above, which shows giant jumps to 1992.

    No, the JAMA paper did not demonstrate this. The figure of (650,000-900,000) for 1992 was an estimate range. The greatest increase in HIV prevalence was in the mid 1980s. By 1990 the prevalence was levelling off. “National serosurveillance studies generally show stable HIV prevalence rates from 1990 through 1993. [22-24]”

    Duesberg found no evidence that there had been any expansion in the past had been provided.

    Duesberg most certainly has found evidence he just ignores it. Duesberg also says this The infectious diseases have one thing in common: Without one single exception, all infectious diseases are always equally distributed between the sexes. Zero exceptions. From measles to mumps, syphilis, gonorrhea hepatitis, tuberculosis, all infectious diseases follow soon after contact. Has he looked at the sex ratio of syphilis and gonorrhea in the US recently? Duesberg’s problems in finding evidence that contradicts his theories appears to be psychological.

    Naturally b) is the simple answer.

    The problem is that Duesberg uses the magic 1 million to argue that HIV prevalence has been constant for the last 200 years and that it is spread predominantly through perinatal transmission. Quite obviously the 1 million were not infected by perinatal transmission hence HIV is not predominantly spread by perinatal transmission. On account of these tests, one million Americans were found to be HIV-positive in 1985 and one million Americans were found to be HIV-positive in 1992 and again in 1993. HIV is a totally long-established virus and on the grounds of this type of epidemio logy, you can extrapolate this curve back 200 years. It’s as solid as that. You can say the virus came with the immigrants 200 years ago to this country. It’s an old, long – established virus, but AIDS is a new disease. It’s not a good candidate for a new disease.

    In fact, the general trend has been towards starting people on HAART earlier, before they have symptoms.

    You do not appear to have read the Lancet paper that you refer to. The median CD4 cell count when starting HAART increased from 170 cells per uL in 1995 96 to 269 cells per uL in 1998 but then decreased to around 200 cells per uL. Table 1. shows that CD4 cell counts when starting HAART have decreased in recent years and the number with an AIDS diagnosis are increasing. People are waiting longer to start HAART.If Andrew Sullivan (whoever he is) is really suggesting what you say (forgive me for being skeptical) then he appears to be underestimating the toxic effects of these drugs.

  62. Truthseeker Says:

    Has he looked at the sex ratio of syphilis and gonorrhea in the US recently? Duesberg’s problems in finding evidence that contradicts his theories appears to be psychological. Chris you are repeating yourself with points we have answered.Glad you recognize the toxic effects of the drugs. Sullivan is identified in our earlier post on him, ex editor New Republic, gay, Brit expat, busy blog, uncritically HIV faithful,. currently on HAART because he like you thinks CD4 counts are exact measures of health. The early prevalence estimates are rough guesses. That is why we have those wide spreads. You gave three early ones to 1992, jumping substantially. Therefore the rise should have led to an AIDS curve peaking at least ten years later. After that prevalence has stayed more or less flat (different guesses, swinging around a million). That doesn’t match the subsequent fall in AIDS cases. Try as hard as you like, Chris, the two curves don’t match. Didn’t you read the exhaustive thread on Dean Esmay that Dr Bialy sparked as the first real debate on the Web? It is now available at the AIDS Wiki, we believe. The HAART regime actually changed somewhat over the years, the Lancet article indicates, so one would actually expect some improvement in death rates, even if HIV was not the threat, but that didn’t happen. And more gay men die of drug toxicities now than of AIDS symptoms. That’s all you need to know. HAART is poison. If you walk into a house with a flamethrower, you will chase the mice out. But the house will burn down soon enough. Now the Lancet study shows what is happening.

  63. Chris Noble Says:

    Therefore the rise should have led to an AIDS curve peaking at least ten years later. After that prevalence has stayed more or less flat (different guesses, swinging around a million). That doesn’t match the subsequent fall in AIDS cases. Try as hard as you like, Chris, the two curves don’t match. Didn’t you read the exhaustive thread on Dean Esmay that Dr Bialy sparked as the first real debate on the Web? It is now available at the AIDS Wiki, we believe.

    At the risk of repeating myself once more – the estimates of prevalence of HIV in that JAMA paper were derived from back calculation from AIDS incidence data. If they are derived from the AIDS incidence data then they obviously cannot be incompatible with the data. Arguing that they are is just stupid.You seem not to understand the terms prevalence and incidence.The highest incidence of HIV appears to be in the mid 1980s. This lead to a rapid rise in prevalence. The HIV incidence then decreased and the HIV prevalence appears to have levelled off in the 1990s even decreasing somewhat before beginning to rise again in more recent years. The important factor is not the HIV prevalence but the HIV incidence for a given year. The highest HIV incidence rates were in the mid 1980s. The peak in AIDS cases was in the mid 1990s. If you had read the “exhaustive” thread on Dean Esmay’s blog you would have seen that I asked Bialy to demonstrate his ability to do the mathematical modelling. He then sent an email with the subject heading “Help” to his mathematician friend. They never got back to me. The only thing that Bialy did was to insult people and babble nonsense about Eccles. Only a true Duesberg believer could see this as a victory for Bialy.You also appear not to have checked Duesberg’s data for the magical “flat graph”. You have just accepted Duesberg’s verison of reality on faith.

  64. Truthseeker Says:

    You seem not to understand the terms prevalence and incidence. Tell us, what do you think is the difference between these two concepts that matters, in this context?Chris, the rise and fall of AIDS in this society does not match the statements of the CDC for the prevalence of HIV over the years, years that we lived through, so we know how the estimates went, and how bad they were and are anyway.You naively accept all these numbers however and still cannot see they do not match? Then we can do nothing for you. We will just salute your genius, and leave it at that.

  65. Chris Noble Says:

    Tell us, what do you think is the difference between these two concepts that matters, in this context?

    Prevalence is the number of people infected with HIV at a given time. Incidence is the number of new infections during a period. They are two different concepts and should not be confused with each other. Duesberg confuses the terms in his Biosciences paper which is an indication of the quality of the peer-review.The highest incidence of HIV infection was in the mid 1980s. Even if the prevalence from 1990 onwards remained level at 1 million by new incidences being balance by deaths then the incidence of HIV would be lower than in the mid 1980s. So even if the prevalence remained perfectly flat and even if HAART had no effect of mortality then you would still expect a peak in AIDS deaths 10 years after the peak in HIV incidence.

    You naively accept all these numbers however and still cannot see they do not match? Then we can do nothing for you. We will just salute your genius, and leave it at that.

    You are the one that is naively believing the myths put forward by Duesberg. I have looked at the data. You haven’t.It is extreme arrogance on your part to constantly tell me to read the “rethinker” tracts when a) I have read them and b) you are profoundly ignorant of the actual science.

  66. Truthseeker Says:

    Chris, we have saluted your genius, and we do so again, even though you didn’t answer the question, what do you think is the difference between these two concepts that matters, in this context?You are clearly a very smart fellow, much smarter that we would ever aspire to be. We feel it is of the utmost importance that you contact the editor of the Journal of Biosciences immediately, and let him know what you have discovered re Duesberg’s lack of understanding, undetected by the peer reviewers, and the inclusion of myths in the paper.You deserve full credit for your careful research, and the penetrating brilliance with which you have examined the rethinker tracts to discover their flaws, demonstrating a grasp which is entirely beyond our poor faculties. To accuse us of not appreciating your abilities and the research you have put into your conclusions is quite misplaced. The aim of this blog is to improve the accuracy of the arguments that are advanced pro and con the paradigm that HIV is “the virus that causes AIDS”.Obviously you can make a huge contribution on this front and we are glad to have your comments, although we respectfully beg you not to repeat them once you have demonstrated your position, if you don’t mind.

  67. Chris Noble Says:

    Chris, we have saluted your genius, and we do so again, even though you didn’t answer the question, what do you think is the difference between these two concepts that matters, in this context?

    The two concepts are fundamentally different in any context. Confusing the two is like confusing velocity with acceleration while claiming to have found a flaw in modern physics.You make a claim that HIV statistics are not consistent with AIDS statistics yet you cannot explain in any mathematical sense why they are inconsistent.The best available estimates of HIV prevalence are based in part on back calculation from AIDS incidence data. To claim that they are inconsistent is ludicrous.Your implied assertion that because Duesberg managed to get his latest pseudocience published in a journal with a very low impact factor (after being rejected by other high rated journals) that it must be correct is laughable when you also claim that thousands of other articles published in more prestigious journals are all false. The fact that Duesberg managed to find a journal that would publish his article does not make it science. Pseudoscience in a peer-reviewed journal is pseudoscience. Thankfully it is also blatant pseudoscience and will not convince any scientists. The style of rhetoric may convince a lay-audience. I actually suspect that he was targetting a lay-audience all along. Duesberg gave up trying to demonstrate his ideas to a scientific audience long ago.

  68. Truthseeker Says:

    Thank you for that, Chris. It would be nice if you could get your facts on what is going on here accurate at least – we didn’t say there was no difference between the two concepts, incidence and prevalence, we asked what difference the difference made in this context to what we were discussing?The intent was to point out that you have a habit of introducing irrelevant points, but you seem to have missed it. You also seem to have missed the point of the previous comment, which was to wrap the exchange. Please bear in mind that we are totally bowled over by your extraordinary acute analysis, which proves to your satisfaction that Duesberg is peddling pseudoscience, and that the peer reviewers and the editors of the Journal of Biosciences have overlooked it. You need say no more to us, but we urge you to contact them with your findings, not for your personal glory of course, but simply to serve science. Go to the Web site of the Indian Academy of Sciences, where you will find the name and email address of the person to contact with your important contribution.When you get your answer we would like to hear about it.

  69. mark Says:

    AIDS and HIV statistics baffle everyone, as is evidenced by last week’s reporting of HIV infections in India:” The National AIDS Control Organization announced 28,000 new cases of HIV infections in 2004 compared with 520,000 in 2003. “http://www.outinamerica.com/Home/News.asp?articleId=8807 Quite a difference! In fact, it borders on unbelievable. If their estimates based on antenal surveys are so off the orthodox should admit defeat on estimates and rely on their so-called diagnosis!

  70. German Guest Says:

    As the discussion in this thread continues, I’d like to add something to my post about the decision of the german court “Landgericht Dortmund”.

    I am not convinced by the theory that HIV is the cause of AIDS. There were so many studies published during the last two years that question the benefits of HAART and that challenge the HIV/AIDS-model. Links to those studies can be found via Pubmed or aidsmythexposed. I already could mention enough of those studies to let the whole Toronto AIDS conference go up in smoke.

    Most dissenters are not scientists but ordinary people who feel there’s something wrong with the mainstream in media and science. They do not take part in the discussion here but keep an eye on blogs and forums to inform themselves.

    However, dissenters should prove any of their arguments back and forth in order to be and stay credible. In this context the German court’s decision should not be quoted, because it did not rule, that HIV has not been isolated.

  71. Truthseeker Says:

    We have added a note to the post: [This may be a misunderstanding – see Comments. Ed.] We agree that misinformation should not be repeated by this site, since there is quite enough of that on the pro paradigm sites, in particular the highly misleading AIDSTruth.org site of John P. Moore of Cornell, and friends. Unfortunately, as noted above, author Stephen Davis insisted that his statement remain, even though he realized it might be incorrect, until it was specifically disproved.

  72. Chris Noble Says:

    May be a misunderstanding?I go to the trouble of providing the court document in question and it still isn’t specifically disproved?Stephen Davis still clings to his fantastical idea that a German High Court ruled that HIV had not been isolated. Bizarre! I go to the trouble of actually reading the citations that Duesberg gives for his magic 1 million figure and somehow “truthseeker” still believes that Duesberg is somehow correct.All I can say is that I hope your “rethinking” brings you the solace that you desire.

  73. Truthseeker Says:

    Stephen Davis still clings to his fantastical idea that a German High Court ruled that HIV had not been isolated. Bizarre! We agree, but it is surely polite to call it a misunderstanding. As to Duesberg, we urged you to contact the editors of the Journal of Biosciences and let them know your finding. We hope that you will let us know their response.

  74. Chris Noble Says:

    As to Duesberg, we urged you to contact the editors of the Journal of Biosciences and let them know your finding. We hope that you will let us know their response.

    I urge you to contact the editors of Nature, Science etc and inform them of your acute analysis of the papers contained in them. I suspect they will rapidly get the impression that you are a) ignorant of the science and b) credulous of Duesberg’s dogma.99.999999…% of scientists recognise Duesberg’s articles for what it is. The people that take it seriously are on the whole lay-people. If the Journal of Biosciences added corrections to the article or even retracted the article then Duesberg acolytes would probably see this as censorship and a sign that the “orthodoxy” was scared about the “truth” getting out. I am interested in whether you as a Duesberg supporter would bother to a) look at the data that Duesberg cites and b) recognise that it doesn’t say what he says.This is just the same as my curiosity as to whether Stephen Davis would admit to being wrong.In both cases the outcome was both predictable and depressing.

  75. German Guest Says:

    @ Chris Noble:”99.999999…% of scientists recognise Duesberg’s articles for what it is.”Where did you find this? Any references? Is there any scientific evidence for this number?In regard to the remaining 0.0000001 % I’d like to mention the following articles:_______________________2006:”In our institution, mortality from severe PCP requiring admission to the ICU fell, from 71% before mid-1996 to 34% subsequently, despite the fact that no patient received HAART prior to or during admission to the ICU. These survival figures are similar to those reported by Morris et al [28]. In our study the observed improvedsurvival cannot be ascribed to HAART.”pubmed arcticle_______________________2006:”Increasing incidence of Pneumocystis pneumonia (AIDS-defining) in patients without HIV”pubmed article_______________________2002:Analyses of diseases and factors associated with PCP in HIV-negative patients:cytotoxic drugs, longterm corticotherapy, inflammatory diseases, hematologic malignanciespubmed article_______________________2006:”We report that methamphetamine (meth) may act as cofactor in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1 pathogenesis by increasing dendritic cell (DC)-specific intercellular adhesion molecule-3 (ICAM-3) grabbing non-integrin (DC-SIGN) expression on DCs”Journal of NeuroImmune Pharmacology_______________________2006:”The documented evidence that illicit drugs alter antimicrobial activity in vivo and in vitro, indicates that their use presents a potential risk of decreased resistance to infections in humans. The studies […] suggest that illicit drugs act, at least, as cofactors that can increase the severity of infection by microbial agents by altering host resistance.Because epidemiological data suggest that HIV-positivedrug abusers progress to symptomatic AIDS more rapidlythan those who do not use drugs, additional longitudinalstudies addressing the enhancement of disease in immunocompromised individuals are warranted.”Journal of NeuroImmune Pharmacology_______________________I suppose this issue is a little bit more complex and contentious than it appears to be from Chris Nobles point of view. Of course, Duesberg is the mastermind on this topic. But an increasing amount of evidence from a number of new scientific studies supports his theory.

  76. Schwartz Says:

    It’s not Pseudoscience, Peter, but your interpretation of the data is idiotic and self serving.

  77. German Guest Says:

    I’m not Peter! I belong to the lay-audience that’s trying to make sense. Of course, I didn’t expect any useful comments from HIV=AIDS proponents.

  78. Truthseeker Says:

    If the Journal of Biosciences added corrections to the article or even retracted the article then Duesberg acolytes would probably see this as censorship and a sign that the “orthodoxy” was scared about the “truth” getting out. Well, let’s see. Write to the editors, and let them know what you have found. Would you like our help? Just post your draft here, and we will make sure that it is intelligible, and spelled correctly. It will be interesting to see if these gatekeepers of science have any excuse to offer for their oversight, and whether they are prepared to correct it.

  79. pat Says:

    About Aetiology blog. Nobody has been “banned” but it seems that at least my posts get filtered. At least half never make it through the spam filter and I am certain that Tara is quite happy to leave things the way they are:

    Hi Patrick,

    I’m not sure why they’re getting caught. We’ve been having problems with an overzealous spam filter, but it seems to be singling you out. It may be your IP address, if it’s shared by someone who’s previously been designated as a spammer; that’s the only reason I can come up with. I’ve been
    approving them as I see them but I’m rarely online over the weekend (I schedule posts to appear, but I try not to set foot in the office). I’ve approved the new ones.

    Tara

    On 7/29/06, you wrote:
    >
    > I have been attempting to make a few replies, some of them to you. I have repeatedly sent them but few of my posts seem to get through. Could you see what is causing the hold up. I hope it has nothing to do with hard feelings 😉
    > Sincerely,
    > Patrick Moore

    We’re not banned, only conveniently forgotten.

  80. Chris Noble Says:

    Thank you for your kind offer of help, Truthseeker.I might indeed prepare something to refute the mythical flat graph nonsense. I have after all gone to the trouble of looking up the citations that Duesberg gives for it – something that you have not done.I find your implied assertion that peer-review works perfectly for Duesberg but in the case of every other scientist it fails quite bizarre.If you really think that Gallo’s 1984 paper proves that HIV does not cause AIDS then why don’t you write to Science and correct them?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Bad Behavior has blocked 1333 access attempts in the last 7 days.