Science Guardian

Wainberg and Moore spark Web catfight with call for Inquisition

Is Moore dishonest, if he denies own paper?

The Globe and Mail is Canada’s equivalent of the New York Times or the London Times, and the editors there still like to keep its pages free of the kind of ill considered impolitesse that litters the Internet nowadays even in the pages of science blogs like Aetiology and paradigm dispute sites like John Moore’s AIDSTruth, where people who are probably fairly collegial in person are demons of rash certitude in Web comments and email.

Just after midnight last night it seems that a particularly offensive literary stink bomb along these lines was let off by Mark Wainberg and John Moore in those hallowed Toronto environs, but luckily they were barred from the printed editorial pages they aimed for and their unpleasantness was confined to the Globe and Mail Web pages, where it ignited some good replies from the AIDS dissenters who were its targets.

The basic theme of their diatribe was what anyone familiar with these two lieutenants of the HIV∫AIDS defense team would have expected. The weapons they use in defense of their livelihood enhancing belief tend to be the kind that belong to “all out war “, as Cornell macaque microbicide researcher Moore has described his strategy to the HEAL San Diego activist Michael Geiger in a frank email. Montreal University’s Wainberg is famous for advocating that HIV∫AIDS paradigm skeptics be hanged as soon as possible.

Science Sold Out is hard to deflect

The failed attempt at getting an Op Ed piece into the newspaper proper followed the rejection of a similar initiative aimed at Rebecca Culshaw, recently author of Science Sold Out (North Atlantic 2007), a slim book which contains enough damning exposure of the irrational science of HIV∫AIDS and its papers to sink the entire operation, if more than a few Congressional staff members read it.

Culshaw is a mathematician who spent some years modeling HIV’s supposed behavior, until she threw up her hands in disgust at the falsities that poked through every seam of her efforts, and revised her opinion of the validity of the HIV∫AIDS paradigm accordingly. After two bombshell essays on LewRockwell.com, she then wrote a very sharp book, containing all one needs to know about the paucity of reason and evidence under the HIV paradigm.

Moore is evidently concerned at the threat posed by Science Sold Out, since he has mounted an embarrassingly inadequate answer to it at AIDSTruth.org. Characteristically, it is not one written not by him. He is somehow too busy to address it himself, in the familiar manner of prominent paradigm defenders of HIV. Instead, he has employed a naive graduate student he brought into his paradigm goon squad recently, which leaves him safely out of the line of fire as critics demolish its puerile contentions.

How to win against science

Since this response to Science Sold Out on his tiny, 150 a day site was so flimsy and transparently questionable Moore has followed up with his notorious technique of calling the employer of a dissenter. He and presumably his cohorts called Culshaw’s university and tried to get her fired from the faculty, but as befits any decent academic institution it sent him away with his perfidy unrewarded. His unabashed mention of this is in his piece.

Attempts to shut down these sites or to prevent the dissemination of denialist literature are routinely dismissed on the grounds that dissenters have a right to express their views and that the public interest is better served by the defence of freedom of expression.

The latter sentiment appears in a letter to us — researchers on the front lines of the global AIDS crisis — from the provost and vice-president of a well-known U.S. university, after we complained that one of his faculty members had written a book based on an HIV-AIDS denialist position. The university should have shown leadership on the issue and dismissed the faculty member from her position, rather than hiding under the cloak of academic freedom.

As an indication of how far from scientific debate Moore and Wainberg’s antisocial and medically irresponsible mentality is, their call for censorship is worth quoting in full, if sensitive readers can stomach it :

EXCLUSIVE COMMENT
AIDS and the dangers of denial
MARK WAINBERG AND JOHN MOORE
Special to Globe and Mail Update
July 4, 2007 at 12:46 AM EDT
Imagine the scenario: The cafeteria at your child’s high school is frequented by a few individuals telling your children that it’s fine to smoke. They make passionate exhortations that statistics linking cigarettes to cancer, stroke and heart disease are flawed, because many people have smoked regularly without ever suffering ill effects. They say lung cancer is twice as common in women as it was two generations ago because of other causes, such as exposure to jet fuel fumes, a super-poison unleashed by rogue former KGB agents or a shadowy oil-driven cabal. They tell your child that the link between cigarette smoking and cancer is a hoax perpetrated by personal injury lawyers.

What would you do? Would you contact the school board or the police department and ask that these crackpots be removed from the premises? Or would you defend freedom of speech as an important right that must be preserved under all circumstances, even if it might provoke reckless behaviour and even death?

We live in an time when information is available and disseminated to society, including our children, in myriad ways. In the absence of an effective filter to protect the vulnerable, disinformation can kill. And while we spend billions of dollars worldwide in public service announcements educating our children about the perils of drug use and unsafe sex, we do little or nothing to counter the bewildering chorus of voices arguing that HIV, a virus that has killed more than 25 million people around the world in the course of a single generation, is utterly harmless.

People who argue that HIV does not cause AIDS have formed clubs, published newsletters and freely disseminated terribly harmful information on this subject through the Internet and other widely available channels. Attempts to shut down these sites or to prevent the dissemination of denialist literature are routinely dismissed on the grounds that dissenters have a right to express their views and that the public interest is better served by the defence of freedom of expression.

The latter sentiment appears in a letter to us — researchers on the front lines of the global AIDS crisis — from the provost and vice-president of a well-known U.S. university, after we complained that one of his faculty members had written a book based on an HIV-AIDS denialist position. The university should have shown leadership on the issue and dismissed the faculty member from her position, rather than hiding under the cloak of academic freedom.

We submit that the same standards of public health enforcement should apply to HIV-AIDS as to cigarette smoking and to other organisms, such as tuberculosis, that cause epidemic infectious disease.

We have long accepted that free societies do have an obligation to impose restrictions on freedom of speech in the interest of public safety. Among other jurisprudence, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously opined in Schenck v. United States (1919) that the right to free speech does not permit one to falsely yell “fire” in a crowded movie theatre because of the injuries and deaths that would ensue as people stampeded toward the exits.

HIV denialism is lethal. It is responsible for the infections of at least several hundreds of thousands more people around the world than would have otherwise been infected and died. South African President Thabo Mbeki and his health minister, HIV denialists until last year, were among those in Africa whose refusal to be content with mere ostrich-like obliviousness, whose insistence on propagating flagrant disinformation about the disease, amounted to an arguably criminal abrogation of leadership.

Last sumíer, when political pressure generated by the International AIDS Conference in Toronto caused them to finally reverse their position, a scientific presentation there estimated that the number of HIV-infected people in South Africa was approximately 25 per cent higher than otherwise because of that country’s policies.

The reasons for AIDS denial are probably as varied as the deniers themselves, but they’re clearly not all motivated by political expediency. In the United States, the daughter of an HIV-infected woman named Christine Maggiore died of AIDS two years ago because she was not treated with anti-HIV drugs. The mother’s reasoning was that the drugs could not possibly have done any good, since they act against a virus that has nothing to do with AIDS. In Canada, a similar case resulted in the custody of two HIV-infected children being transferred to foster parents who ensured that proper care was received. Those children have thrived.

In a recent case in Australia, a man was charged with transmitting HIV to several sexual contacts. He had been fully aware of his HIV-positive status, but argued that it had not been conclusively proven that HIV was the cause of AIDS. The defence based its case in part on information found on the websites of members of HIV denialist movements. The man was convicted, but is now appealing, and a spate of similar cases are pending in North America and elsewhere.

Our lawmakers need to enact legislation to put appropriate limits on such irresponsible expression and to counter the ongoing damage perpetrated by denialists. The scientific evidence that HIV causes AIDS is no less incontrovertible than the evidence that cigarette smoking causes cancer and heart disease. At a time when progress in HIV-AIDS drug treatments and life expectancy is informing an alarming new complacency in our children, policy-makers should defer to proven scientific fact and stop the transmission of deadly lies.

Dr. Mark Wainberg is director of the McGill University AIDS Centre at the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal. He was co-chairman of the International AIDS Conference in Toronto in August, 2006. Dr. John Moore is a professor of microbiology and immunology at Cornell University’s Weill Medical College in New York.

This reversal of reality - whose “deadly lies” are we talking about, gentlemen? If the cap fits, wear it, as they say - triggered a discussion which was closed tonight, for what reason we do not know. Letters to the Editor are still allowed, however, and David Crowe has written one which is worth quoting straight away, as a most effective riposte to the unscientific behavior of the HIV paradigm’s increasingly notorious odd couple, whose giveaway behavior speaks volumes about their inner conflict and doubts about the security of their scientific position.

Crowe wrote this, in our opinion hitting the bullseye of an easy target with every shot:

It is unfortunate that the Globe & Mail published a hateful screed by John Moore and Mark Wainberg, albeit only in the online edition.

It is truly amazing that these AIDS researchers would be calling for the censorship of people, including experienced doctors and scientists, who ask why, if HIV is sexually transmitted, that African women are more likely to be HIV positive than men, in many African countries. And why clean needle exchange users are more likely to become HIV-positive than drug users who never use clean needle exchanges. And why an antibody test is used to claim that a virus is present and pronounce a death sentence. And why HIV has never once been purified. And how, without purification, HIV tests can possibly be validated.

Wainberg and Moore ignore the simple evidence that many so-called denialists are alive and healthy without AIDS drugs years after being given a death sentence. It has been 15 years for Christine Maggiore, for example. It is clear that her young daughter died of an allergic reaction to amoxicillin, a penicillin-like antibiotic, not AIDS. Their claim that Eliza Jane Scovill died of AIDS is the most hateful part of their letter, followed by their proud attempt to get a scientist fired for having the courage to go against the mainstream and write a questioning book.

If these men are scientists, science is now a religion.

- David Crowe

Moore fighting inner demons

A hard one for Moore and Wainberg to deal with honestly, clearly, but no doubt they will smear it as quickly as they can to prevent people taking its point if it finds publication.

With Moore as we have pointed out having written papers which show very clearly that he has agreed with the key points in the HIV dissent in the past, we have to wonder if he is in a state of psychological tension, a schizophrenia between lambasting dissenters for the benefit of his colleagues and others in public but quietly granting their points in private. This especially since we discovered another example of one of these papers the other day, which we will add here tomorrow when we have a moment.

**************************************************
ADDENDUM: Pussycat not a tiger: The 1992 paper is Factors Underlying Spontaneous Inactivation and Susceptibility to Neutralization of Human Immunodeficiency Virus, Scott P. Layne et al. including John P. Moore and a bunch of authors from Los Alamos Biology and Biophysics Group, Theoretical Division - that is Layne’s affiliation, with UCLA as the reprint address - NCI, Aaron Diamond Center in NY, which was John P. Moore’s affiliation at the time, courtesy of David Ho, American Bio-technologies Inc in Cambridge, and Robert Koch Institute in Berlin, Virology 189, 695-714 (1992).

The conclusions of this seminal admission by ten stalwart generals of the HIV propaganda campaign were essentially that the Virus was effectively non infectious, and that even when safely away from human antibodies (which otherwise neutralize it faster than Chuck Norris could defeat a little old lady) it disintegrates all by itself, ie does a better job of getting rid of itself than Anti Retroviral drugs. The infectivity of HIV-1 was so low - ranging down to 1 in 10 million particles infectious in the batch they were studying - that the group were in effect scotching the paradigm, agreeing with Peter Duesberg that the terrorizing particle is a kitten not a tiger, biologically speaking.

Some money quotes:

For freshly harvested stocks, the ratio of infectious to noninfectious viral particles ranged from 10_(-4) to 10_(-7) in viral stocks containing 10_(9) to 10_(10) physical particles per millilietr.

The spontaneous shedding of gp120 envelope proteins from virions was exponential, and a half life of approx. 30 hr. The loss of RNA polymerase activity in virions wa also exponential, with a half life of approx. 40 hr. The physical breakup of virions and the dissolution of p24 core proteins were slow (half life less than 100hr) compared to the gp120 shedding and polymerase loss rates.

At short preincubation times, the loss of infectivity correlated with a spontaneous shedding of gp120 from virions. At longer times, an accelerating decay rate indicated that HIV requires a minimal number of gp120 molecules for efficient infection of CD4+ cells

Gee, the virus is virtually benign, according to Moore et al in 1992, decaying all by itself in a matter of days as it sets its vital components adrift. No wonder transmission is so rare as to be virtually non existent even among Africans 80% of whom are not using condoms. Why has Moore been so shy in the interim, hardly mentioning these reassuring results? One can only speculate. Sheer modesty, perhaps?

A Nobel for Moore?

Non infectious with a half life of hours! Nice electron micrographs of the Virus, too, for Perthians.

Though we have to take into account John’s mysterious burying of this reassuring news in the years since, once again we see that when it comes to digging up very good reasons not to take the Virus seriously as a health threat, there are few so competent as John Moore, and the world should show its gratitude by including him with Anthony Fauci, Robert Gallo and Peter Duesberg in the roll call of pioneers in research who would have nipped the paradigm in the bud, if only the world had listened.

In other words, while we haven’t ourselves heard of it we have no doubt that John Moore has been as assiduous behind the scenes spreading word of the harmlessness of the Virus as Peter Dueberg has been in public, and this fine Cornell researcher, despite his difficulties with microbicides turning out to enhance the spread of the Virus, deserves to be considered for the AIDS Nobel along with the aforementioned paradigm busters, even if they are at the moment senior to him.

NAR once again nominates John Moore for the Nobel for his paradigm busting advance of truth and security in science and health. Congratulations, John!
*********************************************************

Shouting “Fire!” at a crowded trough

We are not of course calling Moore a liar, or indeed the dark Mark Wainberg a conscious murderer either, because there are many more complicated and subtle reasons for intelligent human beings to take up arms against themselves in this way and attack others especially vehemently when they are really upset at themselves and their own doubts.

But we have to say that, given the enormous and overwhelming weight of scientific literature now in the balance against the HIV-causes-AIDS notion, and the complete absence of any evidence for it which withstands examination, if we were the Moore type we would probably be calling HIV claims by no other name than “deadly lies”.

After all, the only piece of evidence that promoters of this paradigm have left is that “the drugs work”, a statement that is so full of holes as a piece of logic let along evidence that it seems to us they cannot both claim to intelligent scientists and also that this is enough to support their belief when so much is against it, and so many lives are at stake in whether or not admittedly otherwise deadly drugs should be delivered to millions based on this rationale.

Below are the Comments which descended like barracuda on this piece of rotten meat thrown into the otherwise clear stream of public discourse at the Globe and Mail, still a banner for reasonable Canadian debate and so far immune to the viral Moore-Wainberg meme of “summary execution of dissenters guarantees unanimity in science.” Here are a handful of the best:

Michael Ellner from New York, United States writes: One need not be a virologist, medical doctor or a rocket scientist to notice that some thing is very wrong with the official line concerning “infectious” AIDS. The AIDS Establishment tells us that HIV/AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease –The Evidence says - Zero Transmission! (Padian, et al., American Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 146, no. 4, p. 350 , 1997) The AIDS Establishment tells us that HIV/AIDS is transmitted via needle use — The Evidence says - “HIV infection remains rare in injecting drug users” — (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/?newsid=14954) The AIDS Establishment tells us that testing HIV-positive is proof of infection - A comprehensive review concludes, “All positive results are false positives in lieu of viral isolation (Is a Positive Western Blot Proof of Infection, Bio/Technology, 11, 6/93.) The AIDS Establishment tells us that anti-HIV treatments are extending life — The claim that early treatments extend life has been discredited by the St. Mary’s Study, (BMJ 7/96). The AIDS Establishment tells us that AIDS in Africa is caused by sexually transmitted HIV — HIV infections in sub-Saharan Africa not explained by sexual or vertical transmission, (International Journal of STD & AIDS 2002; 13: 657±666) The AIDS Establishment tells us that “Every one is at risk for AIDS” — Public Health Officials, gay AIDS activists and the media misled us! (The Wall Street Journal, Pg 1 and A6, 5/1/96. “AIDS FIGHT IS SKEWED BY FEDERAL CAMPAIGN EXAGGERATING RISKS”, Bennett and Sharpe.)

David Crowe from Calgary, Canada writes: It is certainly true that most Canadian children are taught that HIV causes AIDS in school. It is probably true that most would consider this belief that they have learned by rote to be scientific. But how can a belief be scientific when the holder has never examined the primary literature?
The fact is that HIV has never been purified, and I challenge any reader to provide a scientific reference showing that this is not true. Purification is necessary not only to prove the existence of HIV but also to validate HIV tests, which are clearly not tests for HIV, but for antibodies or genetic material that has never been proven to be directly associated with HIV.
I don’t understand how people who clearly have never read a single scientific paper regarding the matter of HIV/AIDS causation can support the censorship of research into this area. To me this is the height of ignorance. At least we don’t burn people at the stake any more or I’d be going out and buying an asbestos suit.

Dee Nicholson from Canada writes: As a health freedom activist, I, along with my thousands of colleagues in dozens of countries, am horrified at the idea of legislation of “truth”, especially when it comes to AIDS. All of you who comment that the HIV/AIDS connection is “undeniable” are merely parroting the mainstream line, and have not done the research on both sides of that argument to learn the following FACTS: 1. Robert Gallo, who was the individual pinning the HIV retrovirus to AIDS, and sex as a means of transmission, NEVER OFFERED HIS RESEARCH FOR PEER REVIEW. Amongst the top researchers in the world, the debate still rages, because the mainstream belief that HIV causes AIDS HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN SCIENTIFICALLY. 2. Retroviruses typically do NOTHING within the human body. 3. Immune crashes, regardless of cause, are REVERSIBLE with proper supplementation of nutrients, especially Vitamin C; in fact, Double Nobel Laureate Dr. Linus Pauling stated clearly (and has never been rebutted) that “you can trace every disease, every condition in the body to a mineral DEFICIENCY”. As for treatment by pharma drugs, a huge, swelling pile of bodies attests to their FAILURE and TOXICITY. 4. BOTH the Ellisa and Western Blot test packages carry box warnings about their poor accuracy and both are notorious for false positives, especially with pregnant women. 5. AZT, one of the major drugs used in AIDS treatment, is a FAILED CHEMO DRUG which was shelved in 1961 by the FDA because it was considered far too toxic and dangerous even for short, spaced administration for cancer, but now it’s okay to give daily to AIDS patients?????!!!!! These are but a few of the FACTS that the authors have failed to mention. Follow the MONEY, people! AIDS is a multi-billion dollar BUSINESS (check out “AIDS, Inc.” by Pulitzer nominee Jon Rappoport)… and a patient cured is a customer lost. Do not be so blind as to believe that the Pharma companies which benefit from this fraud are in it for your health!

Charles Geshekter from Baltimore, United States writes: First of all, everyone should carefully read the thoughtful remarks by Michael Ellner on thgis comments board.
Second, they should wonder why a so-called AIDS case in Africa is so decisively different than one in Canada. If a Zulu, Xhosa, Somali, Kikuyu, or Fulani has a persistent cough, high fever, diarrhea for 14 days, and has lost 10% of their body weight in 8 weeks they have “AIDS.” This is absurd, racist nonsense. Why is that so obviously NOT a case of AIDS in Alberta, Quebec or the Yukon?
Third, the trembling, edgy censorship of Moore and Wainberg - neither of whom are physicians - is evidence of the truly shaky grounds upon which the entire viral theory of AIDS rests.
I have watched those two at public forums and could not stop laughing at their nervousness whenever serious questions about sexual behavior came up.
The key reason why Moore, Wainberg and their fellow true believers will never agree to meet their critics at an open public forum - but prefer to villify and demonize from their “safe houses” - is because their critics are so easily able to destabilize and discredit their horrific pseudo-science and to point out the flaws, inconsistencies, erroneous predictions, and sheer waste of billions of dollars on their fruitless and barren theories.
If everyone is at risk for “AIDS” via hetersexual contacts, then why has the total cumulative number of “AIDS” cases among heterosexual women in San Francisco amounted to less than ten - 10 - per year for over 25 years?

John Bleau from Quebec, Canada writes: As a believer that HIV causes AIDS, I was invited some years ago to look into AIDS dissidence (denialism is an invented term to discredit the dissidents). The first thing I looked for was the studies that established that HIV causes AIDS, and I immediately hit a stumbling block: I could find no such study. Now, when questioning Einstein’s Relativity, I can find a whole rash of studies: measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury, time dilation in cosmic rays, the bending of light by the sun and, of course, the study that started it all, Michelson-Morley. There is no witch hunt against people who would question Relativity which, with so many studies supporting it, is rock solid. People still do question it, though: for example, the Pioneer anomaly may have ramifications on the theory. Now, if theoretical physics were to adopt the mindset Wainberg and Moore are advocating, then today’s string theorists, currently occupying a huge proportion of the important seats in physics departments, could lobby for censorship of their detractors, even though their theory so far has no evidentiary support and is not falsifiable. Rather than produce the following studies: - study establishing HIV as the probable cause of AIDS (as announced by Gallo and Heckler in 1984) - study establishing HIV as THE cause of AIDS (as announced by the CDC shortly after) - study(-ies) establishing that HIV is sexually transmissible, the AIDS establishment calls for the censorship of those who insist on these studies before adopting the HIV/AIDS quasi-religion. (end of part one)
John Bleau from Quebec, Canada writes: (part two) Here’s a quote by one of the authors (Moore, recipient of AIDS drug manufacturer Bristol-Myers Squibb’s $500,000 “Freedom To Discover” grant) from the Toronto conference (I invite the reader to Google John P. Moore to gauge the vitriol/sapience ratio in his writings): “Some AIDS denialists [sic] work in bona fide universities. Some even teach students. If this happens in your neighborhood ask the university authorities why they allow this and then write about it. There’s a case in Chicago I know about. Science and health journalists should talk to the editorial desk and letters editors and vice versa to ensure that AIDS denialist [sic] letters are spotted on arrival and spiked, not published.” Now why does AIDS dissidence attract such virulent calls for censorship? Clearly not because HIV/AIDS is well-established. After all, they cannot produce the most fundamental studies, and Relativity is sufficiently well-established to withstand any challenge without calls for censorship. How about to save lives? Here is where the dissidents really touch a nerve. When AZT was prescribed in 1.25 gm daily doses, most patients died within a year or two and all died within three years. AIDS deaths in the USA hovered between 50 and 60 thousand a year. These decreased as a result of reductions in dosage and the advent of combination therapy. However, the former is more responsible for this reduction, since nowadays deaths are under 20 thousand (re: CDC) – a 60-70% drop, though now fewer than ¼ of all patients are taking the medicines (re: Johns Hopkins), which could not, therefore, account for more than a 25% drop in deaths. The ramifications go way beyond this: currently, funds are grossly misappropriated in Africa for a syndrome that, over there, has the crudest of diagnoses. (end of part two)
John Bleau from Quebec, Canada writes: (third and last part)
In other words, while accepting grants and throwing themselves laurels for saving lives, these individuals are staunchly defending a paradigm that, while granting one of them half a million dollars, has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands and seeks to cause more without ever having to look over its shoulder. Talk about casting the first stone.

SPECIAL ADDENDUM - PHOTO OF HIV PARTICLES IN THE ABOVE PAPER. Since Comments to this post have erupted in an unexpectedly combative series of posts from some who are convinced that the Perth Group are right to say that no particles have ever been proved to be HIV, since the HIV test doesn’t do that, we hereby display the two electron micrographs included in the paper for their inspection and comment. The file size is large (1.6MB) so do not open unless you can deal with that in your browser - Click next Show tab. The arrows in the second photo point out the knobs on the surface envelope gp120, and one can also detect the outline of the core in these slices:

Click this line for two HIV particles images

Here are the Comments:

MARK WAINBERG AND JOHN MOORE
Special to Globe and Mail Update
Latest comment posted at 3:26 AM EDT 04/07/07
We need laws to counter those who deny the link …Read the full article

THIS CONVERSATION IS CLOSED

Skip to the latest comment

Rae Vandenberg from Canada writes: Mark Wainberg and John Moore have not differentiated what the role of the state is in disseminating information from what individuals have the right to express. An individual in school (a student, for example) might tell students that AIDS does not kill, but the school board and teachers should not be doing so. We don’t need to silence people who are clueless. We need to make sure there are good public health programs which teach kids and the public about what is known to be true about HIV and AIDS from an objective, scientific opinion.
Posted 04/07/07 at 6:48 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Stephen Bond from Toronto, Canada writes: Denny Shizzle from Bev Hills, United States, your post can be described as nothing less than ignorant in all regaurds saving one, that being that according to a strict definition of a disease AIDS does not qualify. AIDS or acquired immune deficiency syndrome is simply a description of a symptom, that being an extremely week immune system. This statement is rather irrelevant however when you consider that the vast majority of cases in which the symptom known as AIDS occurs (although it is theoreticly possible to achieve this symptom in some other fashion) are directly attributable to human immune deficiency virus or HIV. This makes the assertion that AIDS is primarily caused by HIV highly a highly valid one. Your other comments regarding what people in Africa die from are also true to a degree but rather irrelevant to the main issue. Yes, the leading cause of death in Africa is more than likely mal nutrition or parasitic infection due to unclean water (though I don’t actually know for certain). That does not mean that there are not deaths in Africa directly attributable to AIDS and HIV nor does it mean the number of deaths caused by AIDS as developed from HIV is insignificant. All this said I agree with p m and Mr. Vandenberg in that legislation on this issue seems a little bit of a stretch.
Posted 04/07/07 at 8:48 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Arzie Chant from Canada writes: HIV of course causes AIDS. This is undeniable. That said, Drs. Wahlberg and Moore do need to recognize, particularly as univerity professors, that academic freedom and freedom of speech must only ever be limited with the greatest of care. While we can all think of cases in which we think it should be limited (and Moore and Wahlberg to a great job presenting two more such cases), there is a real danger in doing so.
A far better route would be to educate our children and all people not only on specific facts, eg: the undeniable link between HIV and AIDS, but also on how to effectively research a position and reach a conclusion. The link between HIV and AIDS is clear-cut, but many other questions out there are less evident. To that end, we do our society a favour not when we try to silence dissenting voices (even the most ridiculous), but when we educate others to recognize when an argument is valid and when it is garbage.
Posted 04/07/07 at 9:07 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Emmanuel M from Canada writes: We need a law that protects Truth. Not only truth about the Holocaust or AIDS, not only against the libel of individual, but the whole Truth.
Isn’t it surprising that, of the non-religious of the ten commandments, the only one not legislated in the Western world is ‘though shalt no lie’? Now, who would vote for such a law? Politicians? Ya, right.
… Did you hear about Paris Hilton?
Posted 04/07/07 at 9:16 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Robert Paradis from Boucherville, Canada writes: I don’t think we can expect much from an ideological government such as the one we have. Do we realize that Christian believers (including the Pope) are against the use of preservatives (condoms) as a mean to prevent HIV transmission. Instead, they promote abstinence!?! If this is not disinformation then it is total blindness and or stupidity. Most of peoples are believers. They read daily astrology report in papers, on the Internet. They believe in chance and act for promoting it, they think. They are stubborn, once they adopt an habit, they don’t review their reasoning and keep the same habit. The worst of all is that in fact they don’t know how to reason per say, their brains are locked on beliefs. What modern times brought us is that reality is what makes the world click. Science, knowledge’s of all kinds is what we need for making our world better. The proofs that HIV causes AIDS are numerous, obvious, outstanding but we still have believers of the contrary. It is an endless fight against believers … So Sorry! We must not be shy of speaking about HIV-AIDS. WE must repeat over and over the same things. Use condom and new needle. HIV is about getting VERY SICK for the rest of your life and dying of AIDS. Oh Lord! Be creative, speed up evolution and so, deliver us from BELIEVERS!
Posted 04/07/07 at 9:29 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Mike Dolson from Toronto, Canada writes: Denny, I sure hope that was an attempt at satire.
I’m pretty sure I trust the opinions on infectious disease of doctors employed by MUHN and Cornell more than I trust yours.
That said, I think legislating speech can be problematic. However, I think there is a legal argument which can be made in this case (remember, s. 2 of the Charter is subject to reasonable limits), as the Crown could attempt to argue a restriction on a public health ground. I don’t think the odds of success are great, but it might be worth a shot.
However, I think Drs. Wainberg & Moore do bring up a more disturbing point in regards to South Africa: namely, that one cannot force people to accept the truth, and all the laws in Canada will do little to help where the problems really are.
Posted 04/07/07 at 9:31 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Lyndon Akiwenzie from Toronto, Canada writes: This article, for almost half its length, is about something completely different than the topic. You don’t have to waste 3 paragraphs setting up the story.
I think its topical, but there’s good education out there and people for the most part are aware that HIV causes AIDS. If you want to avoid the topic, become chaste. Then you won’t have to worry about STD’s and AIDS.
Posted 04/07/07 at 9:32 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Robert Paradis from Boucherville, Canada writes: I don’t think we can expect much from an ideological government such as the one we have. Do we realize that Christian believers (including the Pope) are against the use of preservatives (condoms) as a mean to prevent HIV transmission. Instead, they promote abstinence!?! If this is not disinformation then it is total blindness and or stupidity. Most of peoples are believers. They read daily astrology report in papers, on the Internet. They believe in chance and act for promoting it, they think. They are stubborn, once they adopt an habit, they don’t review their reasoning and keep the same habit. The worst of all is that in fact they don’t know how to reason per say, their brains are locked on beliefs. What modern times brought us is that reality is what makes the world click. Science, knowledge’s of all kinds is what we need for making our world better. The proofs that HIV causes AIDS are numerous, obvious, outstanding but we still have believers of the contrary. It is an endless fight against believers … So Sorry! We must not be shy of speaking about HIV-AIDS. WE must repeat over and over the same things. Use condom and new needle. HIV is about getting VERY SICK for the rest of your life and dying of AIDS. Oh Lord! Be creative, speed up evolution and so, deliver us from BELIEVERS!
Posted 04/07/07 at 9:46 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Robert Paradis from Boucherville, Canada writes: I don’t think we can expect much from an ideological government such as the one we have. Do we realize that Christian believers (including the Pope) are against the use of preservatives (condoms) as a mean to prevent HIV transmission. Instead, they promote abstinence!?! If this is not disinformation then it is total blindness and or stupidity. Most of peoples are believers. They read daily astrology report in papers, on the Internet. They believe in chance and act for promoting it, they think. They are stubborn, once they adopt an habit, they don’t review their reasoning and keep the same habit. The worst of all is that in fact they don’t know how to reason per say, their brains are locked on beliefs. What modern times brought us is that reality is what makes the world click. Science, knowledge’s of all kinds is what we need for making our world better. The proofs that HIV causes AIDS are numerous, obvious, outstanding but we still have believers of the contrary. It is an endless fight against believers … So Sorry! We must not be shy of speaking about HIV-AIDS. WE must repeat over and over the same things. Use condom and new needle. HIV is about getting VERY SICK for the rest of your life and dying of AIDS. Oh Lord! Be creative, speed up evolution and so, deliver us from BELIEVERS!
Posted 04/07/07 at 9:46 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Paul C from Toronto, Canada writes: …. and the attacks on science and reason continue.
Posted 04/07/07 at 9:49 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Paul Kruger from Vernon, Canada writes: The South African President was ‘forced’ (shamed really) to back-down from his government’s official stance on the HIV link with AIDS, but privately he (they) still hold that view - which is a pity since AIDS in South Africa is an epidemic. It’s only because of Nelson Mandella still being around that they do not make even bigger idiots out of themselves on this (and probably other) issues. However, what really upset me about this article, is the author starts to decide what ‘official views” to ‘force’ upon people. Whenever Governments decide that only they know best and ‘force’ people to ‘toe only their official line’, we will have a much bigger problem than HIV-AIDS! We really have to tolerate ‘those idiots with opposing views to us’ … heck, I meet them all the time right here on the G&M - who, by the way, does a quite bit of it’s own ‘vetting’ of ideas to ensure that the biases of their editors are supported and any detractors are silenced, case in point, their recent interview with the Anglican Bishop in Toronto who supports blessing same-sex marriages, but refused to allow any of the Bishops who opposed him at the recent Anglican synod, equal time or any opportunity to state or explain their beliefs.
Posted 04/07/07 at 10:20 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Michael Ellner from New York, United States writes: One need not be a virologist, medical doctor or a rocket scientist to notice that some thing is very wrong with the official line concerning “infectious” AIDS. The AIDS Establishment tells us that HIV/AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease –The Evidence says - Zero Transmission! (Padian, et al., American Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 146, no. 4, p. 350 , 1997) The AIDS Establishment tells us that HIV/AIDS is transmitted via needle use — The Evidence says - “HIV infection remains rare in injecting drug users” — (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/?newsid=14954) The AIDS Establishment tells us that testing HIV-positive is proof of infection - A comprehensive review concludes, “All positive results are false positives in lieu of viral isolation (Is a Positive Western Blot Proof of Infection, Bio/Technology, 11, 6/93.) The AIDS Establishment tells us that anti-HIV treatments are extending life — The claim that early treatments extend life has been discredited by the St. Mary’s Study, (BMJ 7/96). The AIDS Establishment tells us that AIDS in Africa is caused by sexually transmitted HIV — HIV infections in sub-Saharan Africa not explained by sexual or vertical transmission, (International Journal of STD & AIDS 2002; 13: 657±666) The AIDS Establishment tells us that “Every one is at risk for AIDS” — Public Health Officials, gay AIDS activists and the media misled us! (The Wall Street Journal, Pg 1 and A6, 5/1/96. “AIDS FIGHT IS SKEWED BY FEDERAL CAMPAIGN EXAGGERATING RISKS”, Bennett and Sharpe.)
Posted 04/07/07 at 12:03 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Walter Bruno from Calgary, writes: I’ve been a close observer of this question for a couple of decades. Here are my thoughts: a) I’m against banning any theorist of any kind on any college campus; however, in science, everyone is subject to peer review for quality of work. Also, campuses have the right to polemicize against fraudulent claims. b) In the 1980s, the “denialists,” led by a false prophet who was not an epidemiologist, took hold. Basically, they were centred among visible minories and gay males who were the chief victims of AIDS. c) It’s always hard to talk about motivation; however, we do have the right to speculate. Among gays, the denialists wanted to destigmatize themselves, but also to facilitate and promote sexual activity in an age of fear. I have no doubt that they had little worry for public health. There’s also little doubt that this helped spread AIDS among gay men. Among visible minorities, it was always a PR campaign. African nationalists wanted to destigmatize sexual practices in their own countries. On a more general level, this was seen in North America. Recall Tony Brown’s program on national US television, mid-80s, where he attacked the head of the NYC Health Department. The latter’s crime had been to “target AIDS education to poor Blacks in New York City.” In a revolting display of PC, thin-skinned reaction, Brown called that campaign “racist,” even though population profiling is an established and essential epidemiological technique (e.g., it alone helped defeat cholera in the 19th century). The politization of AIDS on the Right is a thing to deplore. However, the fig-leaf constructed by denialists, gay and other, for the past long while, must be exposed as a conspiracy against public health.
Posted 04/07/07 at 12:09 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
scott thomas from Canada writes: There is no question that Aids is a disease, and that it is sexually transmitted, and that wearing a condom protects. However, the causal link between HIV and Aids has not been proven, and to jump to that conclusion - to even insist on that argument with legal enforcement - cuts off openminded research that still needs to be done.
Posted 04/07/07 at 10:40 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Stringer’s Smarter Cousin from London, Canada writes: scott thomas: “However, the causal link between HIV and Aids has not been proven, and to jump to that conclusion..”
That is just nonsense. There is a tone of evidence that correlates the presence of the HIV virus with AIDS symptoms. People without the virus do not get AIDS. You are being deceptive at the least to suggest otherwise.
Posted 04/07/07 at 12:20 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment

Robert Tomas from Toronto, Canada writes: The whole dispute re: HIV/AIDS connection, parallels the other two disputes, namely the global warming and evolution vs. intelligent design, heliocentric vs. geocentric solar system, flat earth etc. Ignorance and at times, plain stupidity dresses in the clock of free speech and plausible alternate explanation, in face of mountains of facts. This is nothing new - the only difference is that Copernicus did not have to put up with the defenders of the heliocentric system posting their “thoughts” and “research” on the Internet. Back to HIV/AIDS - am I the only one noticing, that all the research quoted by the HIV deniers dates from mid 1990’s????
Get with the program, people. As for legal sanction, I’ll be the first one to vote for a government that legislates jail terms for stupidity.
Posted 04/07/07 at 12:32 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
scott thomas from Canada writes: Hi Stringer. It’s true that there is a correlation between HIV and Aids, but there is no causation, yet. And I am not being deceptive, I am being open minded. No need for name calling.
People do have Aids while testing negative for HIV. Because Aids is just a bunch of symptoms. And the definition of what and how many symptoms varies from place to place. So that, by definition, you could cure yourself of Aids just by crossing political boundaries where the definition changes.
It is very strange to me the vehemence with which the medical science is debated, and I wonder why that is. However, I am more interested in research moving forward, rather than positions being held stubbornly behind lines drawn in the sand.
The place where we can agree, I think, is that aids is sexually transmitted, and that wearing a condom protects. Where we disagree is also perhaps where a cure might be found.
Posted 04/07/07 at 12:57 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Just another Brick In the wall from Northern Ontario, Canada writes: Don’t chalk me up with the crazies (flat earth society) but silly me, i did not even know that there was possibiity the HIV DIDN”T cause AIDS. I must be crazy. I thought it was always a given. Thats what i was taught in school anyway.
Posted 04/07/07 at 1:40 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
John Pepper from Toronto, Canada writes: Dear Brick: I don’t suppose you’re crazy, but I assume that you’re very young, and you do have a funny idea of how knowledge works. I’m 61, and when I was already middle-aged (early 1980s) most people had never heard of AIDS and those who knew about it had no idea what caused it. Knowledge isn’t written in stone from eternity to eternity; it’s a continual process of development, including among other things lots of trial and lots of error. Until some centuries ago, it was generally believed that the tomato was poisonous. Imagine a time when Italians avoided eating tomatoes!
Posted 04/07/07 at 2:10 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
John Pepper from Toronto, Canada writes: Scott Thomas: ‘deceptive’ isn’t a ‘name’, it’s an attributive referring to an alleged action. The Cousin didn’t accuse you of habitual mendacity, but of speaking deceptively on a point intrinsic to the argument at hand. True or false, such an accusation is not an ad hominem tactic: handsome is as handsome does; if the shoe fits, wear it. Whereas, if one’s opponent, as you have done, had called himself ‘open-minded’, it would be a descent to the level of the schoolyard slanging-match to attribute the openness of his mind to the holes in his head. (I for one would never make such a suggestion!)
Posted 04/07/07 at 2:27 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Kathleen Degelder from Ottawa, Canada writes: Montreal hospital–c-difficuli infections {sp?]—Mistaken breast cancer treatments elsewhere—-Tainted blood supply years back—I”m beginning to wonder about the accredation certificates. How long did we have Mohammed or Jihadist in Canada anyways.
Posted 04/07/07 at 2:28 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
scott thomas from Canada writes: John, I have no idea what you’re talking about, but I will point out that in Africa, for example, a diagnosis of Aids does not require an HIV test at all. And in any case, the HIV test doesn’t actually test for HIV, but rather for antibodies to it. To jump from correlation to causation -and then threaten prison for those who want to look deeper- is dangerous politics and lazy science. And really John, what we need is less obfuscation on this issue (scientific and, to use your example, written) not more.
I will repeat, what we all agree on is that Aids is sexually transmitted and that a condom protects.
Posted 04/07/07 at 2:43 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment

Jennifer Rollison from Canada writes: The HIV-AIDS link denial is a very dangerous tactic. In fact, one may call it a hate crime. Does anyone remember Jim Keegstra? Do you want anyone telling your children lies such as he told. I just don’t understand the motivation behind saying HIV doesn’t cause AIDS. Go to a hospice in Vancouver. Go to the downtown eastside of Vancouver (particularily for the moron Michael Ellner) and ask those people about the link. Go to any urban needle exchange and STD clinic and find out for yourself whether HIV becomes AIDS. It is there, out in the open, for all to see. I believe denying the link between HIV-AIDS is a criminal act.
Posted 04/07/07 at 4:38 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
J.C. Davies from Canada writes: “Imagine the scenario: The cafeteria at your child’s high school is frequented by a few individuals telling your children that it’s fine to smoke. They make passionate exhortations that statistics linking cigarettes to cancer, stroke and heart disease are flawed, because many people have smoked regularly without ever suffering ill effects. They say lung cancer is twice as common in women as it was two generations ago because of other causes, such as exposure to jet fuel fumes, a super-poison unleashed by rogue former KGB agents or a shadowy oil-driven cabal. They tell your child that the link between cigarette smoking and cancer is a hoax perpetrated by personal injury lawyers.”
Actually I ‘ve heard people say something like this about marijuana smoke countless times, even in the G&M.
Posted 04/07/07 at 5:38 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
David Crowe from Calgary, Canada writes: It is certainly true that most Canadian children are taught that HIV causes AIDS in school. It is probably true that most would consider this belief that they have learned by rote to be scientific. But how can a belief be scientific when the holder has never examined the primary literature?
The fact is that HIV has never been purified, and I challenge any reader to provide a scientific reference showing that this is not true. Purification is necessary not only to prove the existence of HIV but also to validate HIV tests, which are clearly not tests for HIV, but for antibodies or genetic material that has never been proven to be directly associated with HIV.
I don’t understand how people who clearly have never read a single scientific paper regarding the matter of HIV/AIDS causation can support the censorship of research into this area. To me this is the height of ignorance. At least we don’t burn people at the stake any more or I’d be going out and buying an asbestos suit.
Posted 04/07/07 at 5:44 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Dee Nicholson from Canada writes: As a health freedom activist, I, along with my thousands of colleagues in dozens of countries, am horrified at the idea of legislation of “truth”, especially when it comes to AIDS. All of you who comment that the HIV/AIDS connection is “undeniable” are merely parroting the mainstream line, and have not done the research on both sides of that argument to learn the following FACTS: 1. Robert Gallo, who was the individual pinning the HIV retrovirus to AIDS, and sex as a means of transmission, NEVER OFFERED HIS RESEARCH FOR PEER REVIEW. Amongst the top researchers in the world, the debate still rages, because the mainstream belief that HIV causes AIDS HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN SCIENTIFICALLY. 2. Retroviruses typically do NOTHING within the human body. 3. Immune crashes, regardless of cause, are REVERSIBLE with proper supplementation of nutrients, especially Vitamin C; in fact, Double Nobel Laureate Dr. Linus Pauling stated clearly (and has never been rebutted) that “you can trace every disease, every condition in the body to a mineral DEFICIENCY”. As for treatment by pharma drugs, a huge, swelling pile of bodies attests to their FAILURE and TOXICITY. 4. BOTH the Ellisa and Western Blot test packages carry box warnings about their poor accuracy and both are notorious for false positives, especially with pregnant women. 5. AZT, one of the major drugs used in AIDS treatment, is a FAILED CHEMO DRUG which was shelved in 1961 by the FDA because it was considered far too toxic and dangerous even for short, spaced administration for cancer, but now it’s okay to give daily to AIDS patients?????!!!!! These are but a few of the FACTS that the authors have failed to mention. Follow the MONEY, people! AIDS is a multi-billion dollar BUSINESS (check out “AIDS, Inc.” by Pulitzer nominee Jon Rappoport)… and a patient cured is a customer lost. Do not be so blind as to believe that the Pharma companies which benefit from this fraud are in it for your health!
Posted 04/07/07 at 5:56 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment

Diane Schweik from EDMONTON, Canada writes: Of course all the evidence shows that infection with HIV leads to AIDS.However,our kids have been taught a load of nonsense for years at public expense.Let’s look at religion based schools for starters.
Posted 04/07/07 at 5:59 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
richard kearns from los angeles, United States writes: to the editors: censorship hasn’t worked before. why should it work now? will denialism go away if censored? no. we need a cure. we need a vaccine. those would be excellent responses to denialist “arguments,” if any other need required identifying. why don’t we have a vaccine (which would also be a cure)? frank greeve wrote in the may 22, 2005 charlotte, nc observer: “the basic problem is that vaccines, which typically offer long-term immunity from one battery of shots, aren’t nearly as profitable as drugs that are taken daily. pfizer’s cholesterol-lowering lipitor, for example, with $10 billion in global sales, grosses more than all the world’s vaccines combined.” our lack of a cure is not caused by denialism. nor will or are or were the millions of deaths worldwide excused by greed. caused by it? yes. picking denialism as a major issue is a waste of resources. namaste richard kearns rk@aids-write.org http://aids-write.org los angeles, ca
Posted 04/07/07 at 6:05 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment

Jennifer Rollison from Canada writes: So, David and Dee, how long will it be before you begin advocating sex without condoms. You two cannot be serious. While the science may be somewhat flawed, which of you is willing to take the risk? I most certainly am not and I do not expect children to be willing to take that risk either.
Posted 04/07/07 at 6:06 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Simon Leigh from Canada writes: But even those who believe that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS must know that infecting someone else with a virus is illegal! If they believe that unprotected intercourse does not spread disease or, for that matter, pregnancy, they should be laughed out of bed. Penetrative sex IS dangerous, and schoolkids should be taught this until they’re clear about what it means. Sex with a condom may not be quite as much fun, but it’s less nerve-wracking.
Posted 04/07/07 at 6:12 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Charles Geshekter from Baltimore, United States writes: First of all, everyone should carefully read the thoughtful remarks by Michael Ellner on thgis comments board.
Second, they should wonder why a so-called AIDS case in Africa is so decisively different than one in Canada. If a Zulu, Xhosa, Somali, Kikuyu, or Fulani has a persistent cough, high fever, diarrhea for 14 days, and has lost 10% of their body weight in 8 weeks they have “AIDS.” This is absurd, racist nonsense. Why is that so obviously NOT a case of AIDS in Alberta, Quebec or the Yukon?
Third, the trembling, edgy censorship of Moore and Wainberg - neither of whom are physicians - is evidence of the truly shakey grounds upon which the entire viral theory of AIDS rests.
I have watched those two at public forums and could not stop laughing at their nervousness whenever serious questions about sexual behavior came up.
The key reason why Moore, Wainberg and their fellow true believers will never agree to íeet their critics at an open public forum - but prefer to villify and demonize from their “safe houses” - is because their critics are so easily able to destabilize and discredit their horrific pseudo-science and to point out the flaws, inconsistencies, erroneous predictions, and sheer waste of billions of dollars on their fruitless and barren theories.
If everyone is at risk for “AIDS” via hetersexual contacts, then why has the total cumulative number of “AIDS” cases among heterosexual women in San Francisco amounted to less than ten - 10 - per year for over 25 years?
Posted 04/07/07 at 6:14 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
gord winters from Canada writes: people appear to be debatinghte nature of truth without any training.
good luck hicks!
Dee Nicholson from Canada writes: As a health freedom activist,
oh god that’s funny……
Posted 04/07/07 at 6:21 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment

Jennifer Rollison from Canada writes: Charles, what does this mean actually? “…If everyone is at risk for “AIDS” via heterosexual contacts, then why has the total cumulative number of “AIDS” cases among heterosexual women in San Francisco amounted to less than ten - 10 - per year for over 25 years?” What about AIDS in 1st Nations communities or with women who have husbands on the ‘down low’. To hold San Francisco up to scrutiny without taking anywhere else or any other factors into consideration is, simply, ignorance. I couldn’t really care less about the two authors of this article. What I do care about are the people I love who have died from or are living a limited life because of HIV-AIDS. For many of us this is not an esoteric argument but a fact of life. How do you account for us and, more specifically, people who have or have died from HIV-AIDS?
Posted 04/07/07 at 6:22 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
GlynnMhor of Skywall, Azeroth from Canada writes: Realistically HIV (whatever its role in AIDS) is almost impossible to catch without considerable effort. The issue is, however, useful as a catspaw to promote condom use during sex that protects against far more communicable diseases like syphillis, gonorrhea or chlamydia.
Posted 04/07/07 at 6:27 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
West Coast Guy from Canada writes: Many of you folks miss an important point. In fact the moderated discussion here proves that the premise of the editorial is wrong. Discussion must be allowed and people who propagate wrong, hateful, heinous information must be called out by the rest of us who know better. But to limit what someone can say, just because it’s wrong, even if it potentially could cause harm (”potential” being the important distinction between this and yelling “fire” in a theatre), starts us down a horrible slippery slope. Who gets to decide what is OK to say and what should be chargeable? Some moral, or scientific majority? Yikes. I dislike Canada’s anti-hate laws for the same reason. I will stand, vote, write and fight with my Jewish, gay, etc., brothers and sisters to fight the propaganda, to expose the spreaders of it for what they are, but I will never back any law that prevents them from saying what they think.
So, when the authors ask:
“Or would you defend freedom of speech as an important right that must be preserved under all circumstances, even if it might provoke reckless behaviour and even death?”
The answer has to be: “yes, at any cost”.
Posted 04/07/07 at 7:35 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
udo schuklenk from Kingston, Canada writes: Quite bemused about Michael Ellner (no medical qualifications, evidence quoted that AIDS is not an infectious disease is only 10 years old, doesn’t even know how to properly cite medical journal articles) and Charles Geshketer, long-suffering HIV dissident and also without any relevant biomedical background, going on about HIV science that by definition they’re not trained to understand. Unlike Mr Geshekter who enjoys travels to Africa every now and then I have lived in southern Africa for 5 years and returned only recently. Anyway, there’s nothing racist about Africans dying in huge numbers of AIDS defining illnesses. Nothing racist about the definition either. Any decent racist would continue denying that there is a massive problem and see the pandemic continue unabated among young Africans.
Posted 04/07/07 at 7:43 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
udo schuklenk from Kingston, Canada writes: ps, when I say that there is nothing racist about Africans dying in huge numbers on AIDS defining illnesses I am, of course replying to Mr Geshekter’s claim (made in his posting above) that the disease definition as it is applied to African people was somehow racist.
Posted 04/07/07 at 7:48 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
GlynnMhor of Skywall, Azeroth from Canada writes: udo schuklenk from Kingston, Canada writes: “Any decent racist would continue denying that there is a massive problem and see the pandemic continue unabated among young Africans.”
Those who point to promiscuous behaviour typical to many black african cultures as a problematic contributing factor in the spread of HIV-AIDS are, however, routinely castigated as if they were racists.
Posted 04/07/07 at 8:17 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
John Bleau from Quebec, Canada writes: As a believer that HIV causes AIDS, I was invited some years ago to look into AIDS dissidence (denialism is an invented term to discredit the dissidents). The first thing I looked for was the studies that established that HIV causes AIDS, and I immediately hit a stumbling block: I could find no such study. Now, when questioning Einstein’s Relativity, I can find a whole rash of studies: measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury, time dilation in cosmic rays, the bending of light by the sun and, of course, the study that started it all, Michelson-Morley. There is no witch hunt against people who would question Relativity which, with so many studies supporting it, is rock solid. People still do question it, though: for example, the Pioneer anomaly may have ramifications on the theory. Now, if theoretical physics were to adopt the mindset Wainberg and Moore are advocating, then today’s string theorists, currently occupying a huge proportion of the important seats in physics departments, could lobby for censorship of their detractors, even though their theory so far has no evidentiary support and is not falsifiable. Rather than produce the following studies: - study establishing HIV as the probable cause of AIDS (as announced by Gallo and Heckler in 1984) - study establishing HIV as THE cause of AIDS (as announced by the CDC shortly after) - study(-ies) establishing that HIV is sexually transmissible, the AIDS establishment calls for the censorship of those who insist on these studies before adopting the HIV/AIDS quasi-religion. (end of part one)
Posted 04/07/07 at 9:36 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
John Bleau from Quebec, Canada writes: (part two) Here’s a quote by one of the authors (Moore, recipient of AIDS drug manufacturer Bristol-Myers Squibb’s $500,000 “Freedom To Discover” grant) from the Toronto conference (I invite the reader to Google John P. Moore to gauge the vitriol/sapience ratio in his writings): “Some AIDS denialists [sic] work in bona fide universities. Some even teach students. If this happens in your neighborhood ask the university authorities why they allow this and then write about it. There’s a case in Chicago I know about. Science and health journalists should talk to the editorial desk and letters editors and vice versa to ensure that AIDS denialist [sic] letters are spotted on arrival and spiked, not published.” Now why does AIDS dissidence attract such virulent calls for censorship? Clearly not because HIV/AIDS is well-established. After all, they cannot produce the most fundamental studies, and Relativity is sufficiently well-established to withstand any challenge without calls for censorship. How about to save lives? Here is where the dissidents really touch a nerve. When AZT was prescribed in 1.25 gm daily doses, most patients died within a year or two and all died within three years. AIDS deaths in the USA hovered between 50 and 60 thousand a year. These decreased as a result of reductions in dosage and the advent of combination therapy. However, the former is more responsible for this reduction, since nowadays deaths are under 20 thousand (re: CDC) – a 60-70% drop, though now fewer than ¼ of all patients are taking the medicines (re: Johns Hopkins), which could not, therefore, account for more than a 25% drop in deaths. The ramifications go way beyond this: currently, funds are grossly misappropriated in Africa for a syndrome that, over there, has the crudest of diagnoses. (end of part two)
Posted 04/07/07 at 9:39 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
John Bleau from Quebec, Canada writes: (third and last part)
In other words, while accepting grants and throwing themselves laurels for saving lives, these individuals are staunchly defending a paradigm that, while granting one of them half a million dollars, has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands and seeks to cause more without ever having to look over its shoulder. Talk about casting the first stone.
Posted 04/07/07 at 9:40 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
CD W from coldwater, Canada writes: So when will they arrest all of the left intelligencia who got ddt banned and then caused the deaths of 30 million Africans from malaria, and now only reticently agree that nets with ddt might be a good thing? In regards to aids in north america, the specific number ratios of the infected have not really changed significantly since 1986. You can say you wish to educate, but those who are to receive the education always say, “you cant change human nature” , well I suppose then we cannot change human outcomes of human nature. Be sure to wear you gloves and masks and stay celibate.
Posted 04/07/07 at 11:05 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.
Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 4th, 2007 at 11:11 pm and is filed under Science Guardian. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.