Science Guardian

Truth, beauty and paradigm power in science and society

I am Nicolaus Copernicus, and I approve of this blog

I am Richard Feynman 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, 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, 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 /vd, 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, 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, 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

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

No problem can withstand the assault of sustained thinking. – Voltaire

Might the simple maxim, that honesty is the best policy be laid to heart! Might a sense of the true aims of life elevate the tone of politics and trade, till public and private honor become identical! – Margaret Fuller Ossoli

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

(Click for more Unusual Quotations on Science and Belief)

IMPORTANT: THIS SITE IS BEST VIEWED ONLY IN VERY LARGE FONT
All posts guaranteed fact checked according to reference level cited, typically the original journal studies. Further guide to site purpose, layout and how to print posts out is in the lower blue section at the bottom of the home page.

House of Numbers attacked, but gains respectful coverage

Heated argument at panel after showing in Boston, Harvard scientist attempts put down

Long piece in Bay Windows, and Red Dirt, Tennessean reviews, suggest film impresses

John Moore and other paradigm promoters fulminate they were caught out

The inevitable counter attack on House of Numbers, the new film which exposes and explores the debate about whether HIV/AIDS policy is founded on incorrect science, began this week, erupting in loud altercation after the screening Tuesday (April 21) at the Boston International Film Festival.

A long and detailed report on the event, Crazy ’House’ by associate editor Ethan Jacobs appeared yesterday (April 22 Wed) in Bay WIndows, a gay and lesbian newspaper. It is worth reading to the very end, for after the obligatory deprecation of the film as featuring “AIDS denialism”, and an account of the outraged behavior of “denialists” who objected to the post screening “panel” as more of a platform for paradigm promoters, it gives considerable space to Brent Leung the director, and presents the film in a fairly favorable light.

In fact, the trickle of coverage of the film so far seems quite respectful, despite the best efforts of John Moore and other scientists who appear in the film to disparage it. They now feel they were misled into revealing the weakness and unsettled nature of HIV/AIDS theory, which as this blog has pointed out for the last three years is an established fact revealed by the scientific literature and by expert critiques in the media, including many books. In other words, the misleaders now complain of being misled.

Unbiased readers will probably get the right message from this long report, which makes it clear that the emotionalism in Boston was caused by yet another example of the political and social repression of “denialism” ie of free speech about the gross flaws and improbabilities, indeed the impossiblility, of HIV=AIDS, repression enthusiastically endorsed by the Harvard faculty and John Moore, and that there is an ongoing debate nonetheless, well presented by the filmmaker.

A panel discussion about a controversial AIDS documentary, House of Numbers, descended into a screaming match April 21 at the Boston International Film Festival, with both the film’s director, Brent Leung, and other members of the audience shouting down and attempting to drown out the remarks of Dr. Daniel Kuritzkes, an HIV expert and Harvard Medical School professor who was interviewed in the film.

Many of the audience members who attempted to silence Kuritzkes were supporters of a fringe movement known as AIDS denialism, which consists of people who argue that the HIV virus either is not the cause or not the sole cause of AIDS. While AIDS denialism has been roundly rejected as bogus science by the mainstream scientific and medical community, House of Numbers suggests that there is still a robust debate about the cause of AIDS, the existence of HIV, and the validity of HIV testing. Kuritzkes used his remarks to try to debunk the denialist movement, and he is one of more than a dozen scientists interviewed in the film who have signed onto a statement rejecting AIDS denialism and claiming that they were misled about Leung’s intentions in making the film.

Leung and the denialists in the audience at the AMC Loews Boston Common theater vocally objected to the format of the panel discussion even before it got underway. The panel, organized by Amit Dixit — a board member of Massachusetts Area South Asian Lambda Association (MASALA) — in conjunction with Fenway Community Health and the festival organizers, included Kuritzkes and Fenway president and CEO Dr. Stephen Boswell. Kevin Cranston, head of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health’s Bureau of Infectious Disease, served as moderator, and Cranston invited Leung to participate as a panelist, although Leung elected to remain in the audience.

As Kuritzkes began reading from a prepared statement two members of the audience who appeared in the film walked down to the front of the theater, sat beside Boswell and Kuritzkes at the panelists’ table and refused to leave. Those audience members, Christian Fiala, an Austrian gynecologist, and Liam Scheff, identified in the film as a freelance journalist, both claimed that they were forcibly joining the panel to provide balance. In the middle of Kuritzkes’s speech Leung and several other audience members shouted over him, “This is not a panel!” and, “Where’s the panel?” The shouting reached a fever pitch when Kuritzkes began reading a list of names of AIDS denialists who allegedly died of complications from AIDS.

“This is an exercise in free speech,” said Cranston, attempting to quiet the crowd. “Dr. Kuritzkes is speaking. After he has completed speaking we will open up for free dialogue. We can only do this if one person speaks at a time. Shouting people down is not dialogue.”

Several audience members continued shouting over Kuritzkes’s remarks despite Cranston’s admonition. Cranston warned audience members that anyone who continued to interrupt the program would be asked to leave. A police officer was present inside the theater, but he did not directly intervene, and Fiala and Scheff remained seated at the panelists’ table for the rest of the program.

Fair and balanced?

Leung’s film followed his personal journey to London, Germany, South Africa and the United States (Leung is Canadian) talking to a mix of scientists and health officials as well as AIDS denialist activists like Fiala, Scheff, and freelance journalist Celia Farber, who wrote a controversial 2006 article in Harper’s Magazine that was widely accused of promoting the denialist cause. The film included an interview with Peter Duesberg, a University of California-Berkeley molecular biology professor and arguably the most famous AIDS denialist. Leung also interviewed Christine Maggiore, founder of the denialist group Alive and Well. Maggiore was HIV-positive but denied the link between HIV and AIDS; she died last December. Maggiore’s supporters claim that her death was unrelated to AIDS, but a copy of her death certificate posted on AIDStruth.org, a site aimed at opposing the AIDS denialist movement, lists the cause of death as disseminated herpes viral infection and bilateral bronchial pneumonia, AIDS-related opportunistic infections. An L.A. Times obituary of Maggiore reports that her three-year-old daughter died in 2005 of AIDS-related pneumonia.

The film also included interviews with luminaries in the field of HIV/AIDS research, including Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier, credited as co-discoverers of the HIV virus, Peter Piot, former executive director of UNAIDS, and Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

In his narration of the film Leung claims that his goal is to present an unbiased view of the state of HIV research, but his film suggests that certain key facts about HIV/AIDS that have been long settled in mainstream scientific circles are still in dispute. During a segment about the beginnings of the AIDS crisis among gay men in the United States Kary Mullis, a leading AIDS denialist and a Nobel Prize-winning chemist, blamed many early AIDS cases on poppers, saying, “What exactly caused Kaposi’s sarcoma? We know that now. It was amyl nitrite.”

Former Sunday Times health reporter Neville Hodgkinson, who wrote several articles questioning the link between HIV and AIDS, says in the film, “The lifestyle explanation proved politically unacceptable, but the virus explanation proved very, very acceptable to many different parties.”

In another section Duesberg claims that many of the symptoms of AIDS were in fact caused by the drugs used to treat the syndrome. Several people interviewed in the film question the effectiveness of HIV tests. Ostensibly to provide balance the film also includes interviews with people rebutting the AIDS denialists’ arguments, but there is minimal discussion of the reasons why mainstream scientists have largely written off the denialists’ claims as junk science. During one interview Duesberg says, “They’re all prostitutes, most of them, my colleagues.”

At the film’s end Leung suggests that the cause of the global AIDS epidemic is poverty, not the HIV virus.

“At journey’s end I find myself perplexed, bewildered at times with an overall feeling of dismay and sadness. I found a research community in disarray over the most fundamental understanding of HIV, all the while presenting a monolithic public posture of authority and certainty. Bluntly stated, we have tests that prove nothing, remedies that kill, and statistics manipulated to the point of absurdity,” Leung says. “Ninety percent of global HIV corresponds to areas of great poverty and squalor. Ironically, while we may have been pursuing a phantom killer, a shape-shifting assassin, perhaps the real enemy has been hiding in plain view, clear as day and as old as time.”

During a post-film question-and-answer session held before the panel Leung claimed that his film took a neutral stance on the question of what causes AIDS. He declined to say which side he represents.

“The purpose of the film is to present a broad range of ideas, and those ideas are for you, the audience, and for scientists to take and to create a catalyst for more discussion,” said Leung.

One audience member asked Leung who funded the film, noting that Leung seemed to have a large budget for travel. Leung declined to name the sources but described them as a group of “funders from all over the world.” When Bay Windows later asked him if most of his funders supported the viewpoint of AIDS denialists, Leung claimed that they did not.

Filmmaker versus subject

Once the panel discussion got underway and Cranston succeeded in getting the audience under control, Elizabeth Ely, an audience member affiliated with the denialist group Rethinking AIDS, asked Kuritzkes what remarks in the film had been taken out of context. Kuritzkes said his own remarks in the film had been presented in a misleading light. During the film there is a brief clip of Kuritzkes saying that in the early days of the epidemic the standard dosage of the AIDS drug AZT was likely too high. The clip follows comments by Duesberg blaming AZT for many of the symptoms of AIDS.

“I can give you an example of my own quotation where I was quoted very briefly in talking about how early doses of AZT were toxic and that was the end of the statement, but in a broader discussion about anti-retroviral therapy, as I recall, the issue is really that the drugs have improved over time, the drugs have become less toxic, and the treatments today are highly effective, which is why we’ve seen an 80 percent reduction in mortality from HIV,” said Kuritzkes.

Leung jumped in and told the crowd, “I would like to add that was not taken out of context. Antiretrovirals are a separate part of the film. AZT is one part of the film.”

Kuritzkes replied, “AZT is an antiretroviral, unfortunately.”

Kuritzkes is one of several scientists featured in the film who have since come forward and argued that they were interviewed for the film under false pretenses and that they believe House of Numbers promotes an AIDS denialist agenda. John Moore, a professor at Weill Medical College of Cornell University, drafted a statement signed by himself and 15 others interviewed for the film, including Kuritzkes, Gallo and Piot, alleging that the film “presents the AIDS denialist agenda as being a legitimate scientific perspective on HIV/AIDS, when it is no such thing. [Leung’s] film perpetuates pseudo-science and myths.”

Moore, who was not present at the screening, told Bay Windows he and several other scientists interviewed for the film first came in contact with Leung through Martin Delany, the pioneering AIDS activist and executive director of Project Inform who passed away in January. Delany was interviewed for the film, and Moore said Delany vouched for Leung as a legitimate filmmaker. Moore said Leung interviewed him on two successive occasions, once in 2006 and again a year later, and said Leung told him the goal of his film was to document the history of AIDS research and to expose the lies behind the denialist movement. Several weeks ago Moore said Leung e-mailed him and other film participants a link to the film trailer, and Moore was shocked to find that the film seemed to present a sympathetic portrait of denialists.

“I didn’t know he lied until I saw the trailer,” said Moore, who said watching the trailer prompted him to draft his statement and contact the other film participants to ask them to sign it. He has not seen the film, which debuted at the Nashville Film Festival April 19 and has only screened in Nashville and Boston, but he said based on the trailer and conversations he has had with people who have attended the screenings he believes the film falls squarely in the denialist camp.

Leung told Bay Windows that he was up front with Moore about the subject of his film. He said he told Moore that the film was a documentary on public awareness about HIV and AIDS, about AIDS education and testing and other issues relating to the epidemic. He also said that since Moore had authored a 2006 New York Times op-ed opposing the denialist movement entitled “Deadly Quackery,” he wanted “to address whether HIV is the cause of immune deficiency. And that was the extent that I told him it was about.” He said he believes some of the scientists who signed Moore’s statement were upset because the film allegedly shows them making contradictory statements about the nature of HIV and AIDS.

What’s at stake

During the panel discussion Boswell told the denialists in the crowd, “It’s important to know there’s a lot at stake. If you’re wrong and HIV does cause [AIDS] you’re doing a profound disservice to our race.”

Ely responded from the audience, saying, “And if you’re wrong you’re doing a profound disservice. That’s our point.”

Boswell replied, “Science has a way, a system for testing new ideas, and if you have an idea that’s different then you can present those ideas, you can test them in a scientific way, present your findings in a peer-reviewed journal, have another laboratory verify what you say happened. I haven’t seen any of that happen in any of this work. All I know is that we test for HIV in the blood supply and over a period of three years transfusion-transmissible AIDS virtually disappeared in the United States. We start testing women for the HIV virus who are pregnant, and we virtually eliminate AIDS in children. In 1995 I give a cocktail of medications to patients who are within weeks of dying, and those patients a few weeks later have gained 10, 20 pounds, and some of them are alive today.”

Following the panel Leung told Bay Windows that he nearly pulled the film from the festival 15 minutes before the screening. He said festival organizers had promised him that there would be a “two-sided” panel discussion, and he objected to the selection of Cranston as moderator, calling him “obviously biased to one side” because of his work on HIV/AIDS in the public health sector.

Asked if his film was designed to spread the message of the AIDS denialist movement Leung said, “I don’t feel strongly about getting their message out. I feel strongly about freedom of speech. As I’ve gone around the world interviewing these world scientists who set the foundation for everything we know about HIV and AIDS and continue to set the foundation in policies, I found that there’s a lot of disconnect between what they say, there’s a lot of contradiction, there’s a lot of confusion, and people are dying. So it doesn’t matter who says what, what arguments come from each side. We have to have an open dialogue. We need to know why people are dying.”

The film festival released a statement saying that the goal of the post-film panel was to create a venue for members of the community to respond to the film.

“The Boston International Film Festival never intended to host a formal debate about the film; we intended to provide a forum in which members of the community could engage with, and respond to, the film. It was a difficult decision to screen ’House of Numbers,’ and we are very pleased that the director, Brent Leung, attended the screening and answered questions about his film,” read the statement in part.

The statement goes on to say that there was some miscommunication between festival organizers and the filmmaker about the format of the panel discussion but that the festival decided to go forward with the panel “to create an opportunity for healthy social discourse.”

The statement also says the festival requested the presence of a police officer at the screening in response to concerns about security.

“In anticipation of the event, we were concerned about security and we believed it was very important to have a visible police presence at the screening; Security issues were also considered in how the situations were handled. …We are issuing this statement so that other festivals can be aware of the potential for escalated actions, and that the other festivals can be extremely diligent in their planning so that future screenings can be executed in a safe and constructive manner.”

Chloe McFeters, public relations manager for the festival, declined to elaborate on what prompted concerns about security. Dixit, who worked with the festival organizers to organize the panel discussion, said the festival requested a police officer because an AIDS denialist with a past history of violent actions and run-ins with the law had posted on the Internet that he would attend the Nashville screening, and the Boston festival organizers were concerned he would attend the Boston screening as well.

Dixit said that he believes the film presents a biased perspective in favor of the AIDS denialists, and the goal in selecting Boswell and Kuritzkes as the panelists was to bring in respected members of the local scientific community to present their response to the claims laid out in the film.

“I said [to the filmmakers during the planning process] you have 87 minutes, and then the director Q&A, but for me to put these people on the same panel [the night of the screening] who barged up, who have no credentials, it’s an absolute insult to the people we know, it’s an insult to Boswell and Dan who have been doing this for years. … Fenway, myself, we were about creating a scientific dialogue, that was what the whole premise was,” said Dixit.

He said he was frustrated that the denialists in the audience seemed intent on drowning out the panelists.

“For me I was very disappointed in not being able to hear the experts. Dan spoke eloquently and he answered the questions right on. I was very proud to have our heroes onstage,” said Dixit. “But I was very disappointed. What we tried to do was create a scientific dialogue. It was interrupted by denialists in the audience who were very aggressive, and they couldn’t engage in a civil manner to our experts.”

Ethan Jacobs can be reached at ejacobs@baywindows.com

We reproduce the entire thing for the record and to make our point, but urge readers to go to the linked page and review the comments, and make one.

The review in the Tennessean, House of Numbers: What is AIDS? Are you sure?, and the one in Red Dirt Report suggest that critical viewers are getting the urgent message that John Moore wishes to sweep under the carpet.

That message is that HIV/AIDS policy and theory are a mess which needs to be resolved, and that this film needs to be screened in the White House at Barack Obama’s earliest convenience, ie as soon as the President has time away from the global financial and economic crisis, the threat of a nuclear Taliban, the threat of a nuclear Iran, the threat of a nuclear North Korea, &c.

Here’s the photo caption:

Dr. Daniel Kuritzkes (second from left), a professor at Harvard Medical School, told the audience at the screening that Leung’s film gave unwarranted credibility to the AIDS denialist movement, and he accused Leung of taking his own comments out of context in the film. Kuritzkes was joined by fellow panelist and Fenway Health President and CEO John Boswell (left), as well as (right to left) Liam Scheff and Christopher Fiala, two audience members who sat at the table uninvited and claimed that they were providing balance to the panel. (Source:Marilyn Humphries)

10 Responses to “House of Numbers attacked, but gains respectful coverage”

  1. Truthseeker Says:

    From Liam Scheff:

    Please find the following press release from “RTB,” a new website dedicated to broadening and making transparent AIDS research.

    ReduceTheBurden

    The AIDS industry has become deeply corrupted by bad, old, racist/eugenic scientific notions. The AIDS industry is never investigated in the broader media, because this industry is protected, not by the transparency and ethical discussion of science, but by the vicious and amoral attacks of dangerous, radical activism who seek to suppress and destroy inquiry into their industry.

    The AIDS industry is recreating a worldwide Apartheid on Black Africans and Gay men, by targeting them with an overly-severe, over-applied diagnosis based on non-specific testing, followed by social isolation, stigmatization, massive attack by propaganda, interference and destruction of normal social and sexual lives, and toxic, wearying and often fatal drugging.

    I hope you who follow this issue will support a public outing of the racist, Apartheid pseudoscience that lives in the AIDS industry, and bring its leaders – John P. Moore, Mark Wainberg, Zachie Achmat, and others, to public attention for their massive abuse of the public trust.

  2. Truthseeker Says:

    From the front page of ReduceTheBurden.org, a statement which may seem strident to newcomers but is a fair description of the state of play of science and politics in the HIV/AIDS field:

    For General Release:

    House of Numbers is a new film which does good investigative journalism in researching the nature of the AIDS industry. The film reveals deep-seated corruption within an industry that now has total control of the lives of tens of millions worldwide.

    Have you ever heard of an investigation of the AIDS industry?

    No, because the AIDS industry uses the fear-based and hate-fueled tactics of dangerous activists, not the open dialog of science, to force its agenda down the throats of millions worldwide. The individuals in charge of this massive propaganda attack are the AIDS Apartheidists.
    What is an AIDS Apartheidist? It is a pharmaceutical activist intent on suppressing the Black population of Africa, the Gay population of the West, with a sex-death diagnosis based on over-applied and faulty tests, called “HIV tests,” which react with almost every recorded illness that occurs in people of poverty.

    The AIDS Apartheidists are a group, led by John P. Moore, Mark Wainberg, Peter Piot, Jeanne Bergman and others, which claim to have the only allowable and non-disputable point of view about AIDS, a view which ignores all major studies on sex and immune deficiency, such as the 10 year study by Nancy Padian, among others, which points unequivocally to the fact that AIDS is not primarily a sex problem, but is in fact a problem relating to poverty, major drug and pharmaceutical abuse and environmental factors.

    The AIDS Apartheidists live in the inherited shadow of history; they consciously or unconsciously recreate the racist, eugenic, population-controlling ’science’ of the first half of the 20th Century, by attacking the Homosexual and Black African populations of the world with propaganda, forcing them to be tested with non-specific tests, and branding them with an irrevocable death sentence, which is enforced by non-stop social and media control and immensely toxic drugs. Tens of millions of people are given no option to challenge or refuse the AIDS Apartheid’s dogma; their non-specific test result is made into a scarlet letter, a badge of sexual leprosy interfering with, damaging or preventing their ability to procreate, have normal social and sexual lives, and forcing them onto a shortened lifetime of body damaging, altering and eventually or quickly life-ending drugs.

    The AIDS Apartheidists are now gathering to hide their shame by attacking the new film, “House of Numbers,” which takes a fair and balanced investigative look at the processes by which HIV tests fail to conform to a single standard, but are applied to historically suppressed, isolated and abused populations, which either live in extreme poverty, or in the sequestered ‘Gay Communities’ in the US and Europe, where individuals are by and large, still forbidden from participating as equal citizens in their own countries.

    The AIDS Apartheidists are creating a new worldwide Apartheid – the programmatic isolation and destruction of historically targeted and abused populations.

    The AIDS Apartheidists want to interfere and intervene in the sex lives of all Africans, circumcising African men, pushing drugs into African women, all based on the over-applied weak science of HIV testing, which is not specific to any one condition, but does diagnose hundreds of ailments of poverty, and even conditions like pregnancy.

    The AIDS Apartheid must be publicly opposed and its leaders forced to face those they malign and seek to suppress and destroy.

    John P. Moore is the leader of the AIDS Apartheidists, and must be brought to face, in a series of public conversations, all those he debases and promises that “This IS a war, there ARE no rules, and we WILL crush you, one at a time, completely and utterly.” (These are Dr. Moore’s actual words regarding all those who challenge his monolithic, unquestionable Apartheid platform of non-stop drugging of Africans and Gay men).

    Be aware, the AIDS industry is now deeply corrupted, and does not allow any public scrutiny or transparency. The AIDS industry must be opened and allow criticism and change, where it is violating human rights and conducting pseudo-science and racist science. The AIDS industry can only be righted when the AIDS Apartheidists within it are exposed and their misdeeds brought to public attention.

  3. cervantes Says:

    Hi, Everybody – Since Swine Flu hysteria has taken hold, I thought some perspective would be useful.

    Here’s an abbreviated list of our U.S. CDC heroically proclaiming and combating killer epidemics:

    1) Legionnaire’s Disease; A bacterial pneumonia that accounts for about 3% of all pneumonias in the U.S. Nothing new – just a big gathering of elderly Legionnaires in several hotels having yucky A/C systems with lots of the bacteria.

    2) Hantavirus: Supposed to sweep the country, spread by mouse feces. I guess having 50 cent mouse traps and pet cats have warded off this disaster.

    3) Mad Cow; Supposedly in meat, and passed to humans from diseased cattle having abnormal “prions” (don’t ask, it’s not worth it). Most certainly all created by organophosphate neuro-toxic chemicals topically applied to cattle to ward off parasites.

    4) AIDS; Currently the U.S. has 50+ times AIDS cases and deaths than all other western
    countries, a little secret the nation’s press won’t publish. Deaths due to lethal antivirals and antiretroviral drugs given those having tests yielding “hiv” antibodies – even though the antibodies are not specific — . Abundant studies showing those not taking the antiretrovirals live to normal life expectancy (assuming they stop shooting up heroin, whiffing amyl nitrites, etc.). Current annual U.S. AIDS deaths 15,000; Canada 28; Germany 73, on and on. Do your own math, it’s worth it.

    5) Hepatitis C; Currently about 8 thousand Americans die each year from this. How could they not die?- as they are given toxic medicines that are kissing cousins (ribavirin, for instance) of the antiretroviral AZT. (AZT is now almost totally dropped, but it killed 550,000 Americans having “hiv” antibodies. Look it up).

    6) Human Papilloma Virus = cervical cancer; Drug company trials biased beyond control, FDA in on the fix; Gardasil vaccine rammed through; school systems bullied into required vaccinations. Result from vaccinations: 25+ dead; tens of thousands serious and paralytic reactions to the Gardasil – ongoing every day.

    7) Autism or Asbergers/Austism Syndrome: A perfect timeline of autistic and similar syndrome cases rising catastrophically and exponentially along with the exponential increase of vaccinations, now up to 17 “diseases” and with shots totaling over 50 (many in combination). Little wonder with all the toxic elements in all vaccines, and being injected via bloodstream at fragile infant ages – as opposed to normal immune protections developed via respiratory/gastrointestinal routes (allowing extremely competent success in lifelong immunity). The CDC blesses all vaccinations, want even more! And now, Swine flu redux! Vaccinate!

    8) SARS: Virtually all who died in 2003 (the grand total of 775 around the world: comprising Canada with 43, All of Europe with 1, the USA with zero, Southeast Asia – Hong Kong, Singapore, etc. with 730), died from the drug ribavirin given in huge doses, and well known to immediately destroy red blood cells – called hemolytic anemia – “Ooops! the patient died!” Never an actual virus identified, but a corona virus was prime suspect, have to blame some virus, after all. Once ribavirin was dropped from treatment protocols, mortality dropped toward zero. Surprise! U.S. zero mortality perfectly aligned with decision of U.S. Health authorities to NOT use ribavirin.

    9) Ebola: Still and always used to stir Fear. Realistically, it’s Hollywood bullshit.

    10) Bird Flu Pandemic Hysteria Promotion: More accurately, should be called science fiction. Majority of U.S. and Europe 1918-1919 deaths directly brought by 3-4 new vaccines (smallpox, dyphtheria, typhoid, measles) newly brewed, and mandated to all the military, with millions of civilians joining in. Result: fierce, deadly septicemias and toxic reactions to these vaccines. Death tolls in China and India exaggerated 10-fold. Nothing like propaganda, even more so today. Real science available – ignored by the hysteria mongers, particularly CDC.

    11) Tah – Daahhh! It’s 2009. And, now Swine Flu! Let’s see, a 2 year-old from Mexico, comes to Brownsville Texas, gets sick, taken to Houston Hospital April 13, dies 2 weeks later, blamed on Swine Flu. I can imagine the different, lethal antiviral drugs she was given. If anybody is interested, just google “tamiflu toxicity”. This absurd, deadly drug is an “antiviral” that the insane authorities are sending by the tens of millions doses around the country.

    Let’s review: In 1976, a single soldier died at Ft. Dix allegedly from Swine Flu, with maybe up to 500 others “infected” but all healthy thereafter. Since 25,000 soldiers and civilians made up Ft. Dix, and only 500 became infected from the reallllllllly infectious swine flu virus, why didn’t the other 24,500 get infected? One death from pneumonia. Really deadly, this Swine Flu. And, by the way, there were no “antiviral” or “antiretroviral” drugs at that time – thus no soldiers were poisoned to death, yet blamed on a virus.

    CDC should stand for “Centers for Disease Concoction” — or maybe more accurately, “Concocting Disease Clowns,” or most accurately, “Concocting Disease Criminals.”

    have a good day!, your medical reporter, located in the shadow of Dr. Anthony Fauci’s NIAID, Cervantes

  4. Baby Pong Says:

    Cervantes, do you have any links that make the case that the 1918 flu was caused by vaccinations? I had heard that before, but haven’t read in depth about it. Of course, how do today’s authorities know with any certainty what caused the 1918 flu? Isn’t the “fact” that it was caused by some virus really just a theory? Of course we know that if a theory benefits the ruling class it will quickly be promoted to a fact. Which the media have already done, of course. Google “deadly virus” when you have a moment and see how many hits you get. then google “deadly chemical” and note the same. Since the ruling class own Big Pharma and the chemical firms, and the media, viruses will always be promoted as disease agents and chemicals will be downplayed in disease-inducing importance. Viruses can’t be sued, as Janine Roberts noted.

    http://www.whale.to/a/mcbean2.html
    I haven’t actually read this link, but it’s on a site that I respect. It talks about how President Ford caused many people to die from the swine flu vaccinations in 1976. He was photographed getting a vaccination himself, as was Geo. W. Bush supposedly given an anthrax vaccination. Baloney. Those were placebo vaccinations for the purpose of photo op PR. They would never dare give deadly vaccinations to the president.

    Actually, I think maybe I did read this page, but it was a few years ago.

  5. Baby Pong Says:

    Perhaps the webmaster can move the preceding comment to his newer, more relevant story

  6. Truthseeker Says:

    Dear Pong,

    Could you simply repeat it there, if you don’t mind? If we move it according to current technical expertise here at the SG Site it will appear under our moniker. If you kindly move it, it will still be yours, and then I can erase it here if you so desire.

  7. MartinDKessler Says:

    Last week, Boston’s Daily Gay paper, Bay Windows, (April 29, 2009) titled “Crazy House” called Leung’s film denialist. This week, Liam Scheff replied to their screed – actually I’m surprised they printed his response being that he’s a “denialist” journalist. Maybe the Gay media is starting to take a more skeptical look at the “gift horse” of AIDS gifts from the pharmaceutical companies. Who knows. You can get the articles from the site PositivelyFalse

    (Martin, do you have a more precise url for the pieces you refer to? We wish to check if the Liam Scheff text as puiblished is different from the one quoted above in the first Comment – Ed.)

  8. Truthseeker Says:

    Of interest to those who view advances in HIV/AIDS science with a certain amount of skepticism, or are trying to make up their minds about the Perth Group claim that HIV does not actually exist in its own right as a viable viral entity without a little help from its friends at NIAID, this from the Perth Group site:

    COMMENTARY ON PAPER BY HUBNER ET AL
    The Perth Group
    23rd April 2009
    On 27th March 2009 Hubner et al published a paper in Science1 in which it was claimed “With use of an infectious, fluorescent clone of HIV, we tracked the movement of Gag in live CD4 T cells and captured the direct translocation of HIV across the virological synapse”.
    By “infectious, fluorescent clone of HIV” the authors meant a length of DNA claimed to code for proteins said to be “HIV”, including one known as “Gag” (group specific antigen). The adjective “fluorescent” refers to the insertion into the Gag region of an extraneous DNA, one which codes for a protein that fluoresces green when exposed to blue light. The experiments involved manipulation of this combination of “viral” and non-viral DNA which the authors referred to as “This virus”. They claimed “This virus faithfully reveals Gag localization, allowing infected cells and viral particles to be tracked with high sensitivity (12)”. Reference 12 is another paper2 from the same group using the same technique.
    The Hubner paper does not provide any data on the laboratory methods used to “infect” the cells or to prove the DNA in which they inserted the DNA of the GFP is the genome of a unique retrovirus particle. All their data show is movement of the green protein either inside the cell or its transfer from one cell, allegedly “infected” with “This virus”, to another cell. Because for “infection” they used “HIV Gag-iGFP”, they assumed but without proof that (a) the addition of several hundred nucleotides to the “HIV DNA” had no effect on the transcription, translation and processing/packaging of the “HIV” proteins; (b) the HIV Gag protein is attached to the green fluorescent protein and moves in concert with it. Most importantly, nowhere in this paper, or in their reference 12, is there any evidence for the existence of virus particles. All they have is an accumulation of green protein in some buds at the cell surface and transfer to another cell. Such buds will appear in any cell, especially malignant cells such as the Jurkat cells used for the experiments*. These buds are the result of actin polymerisation and contraction of the actin/myosin system, namely, proteins present throughout all cells.3-5 Significantly, the authors reported that “Synapse-mediated viral transfer is potently inhibited by actin inhibitors such as cytochalasin D”. Also note, there are no controls in this experiment. If the authors had used proper controls and the experiments had been done blindly, their conclusions may have been totally different. In our view, the claim by AIDSTruth, “In what is surely a serious blow to AIDS denialists, researchers have published video microscopy of HIV transferring between T-cells”, is not supported by the evidence.
    *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurkat_cells
    Please note:
    The Gag green fluorescent protein (GFP) has been used in other experiments involving “HIV”. Below are two questions we asked Dr. Sandord Simon, from the Laboratory of Cellular Biophysics, The Rockefeller University, New York, who co-authored such a paper6 published in Nature in 2008. He did not reply.
    1. Your data show discrete fluorescent puncta (points) of closely packed gag/GFP and other proteins “that apparently localise at the plasma membrane” and in the extracellular space. Yet you claim evidence for virus-like particles, virions, budding virions and as the title shows “…biogenesis of individual HIV-1 virions in live cells”. On what do you base your claims? [In other words, since viruses are submicroscopic particles, without electron micrographic proof it is impossible to claim there are “virus-like particles, virions, budding virions” or “…biogenesis of individual HIV-1 virions in live cells”].
    2. You used HeLa cells, a malignant cell line. Malignant cells exhibit buds even when uninfected with any virus.7 As far back as 1974 Hans Gelderblom reported VLPs in HeLa cells.8 Assuming you have data demonstrating VLPs, buds, free particles, virions, how can you interpret your images as representing HIV and not cellular phenomena given the fact you did not report controls? [VLPs = virus-like particles].
    References
    1. Hubner W, McNerney GP, Chen P, Dale BM, Gordon RE, Chuang FY, et al. Quantitative 3D video microscopy of HIV transfer across T cell virological synapses. Science 2009;323:1743-7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=19325119
    2. Chen P, Hubner W, Spinelli MA, Chen BK. Predominant mode of human immunodeficiency virus transfer between T cells is mediated by sustained Env-dependent neutralization-resistant virological synapses. J Virol 2007;81:12582-95. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=17728240
    3. Jackobson K, O’Dell D, Holifield B, Murphy TL, August JT. Redistribution of a major cell surface glycoprotein during cell movement. J Cell Biol 1984;99:1613-1623.
    4. Carpen O, Pallai P, Staunton DE, Springer TA. Association of intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1) with actin-containing cytoskeleton and ? -actinin. J Cell Biol 1992;118:1223-1234.
    5. Herman IM, Crisona NJ, Pollard TD. Relation between cell activity and the distribution of cytoplasmic actin and myosin. J Cell Biol 1981;90:84-91.
    6. Jouvenet N, Bieniasz PD, Simon SM. Imaging the biogenesis of individual HIV-1 virions in live cells. Nature 2008;454:236-40. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=18500329
    7. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Page BA, Causer D, Turner VF, Papadimitriou JM. Cancer and epigenetic reversion–the fundamental role of redox. Am J Pathol 2007;171:1726-7; author reply 1727. http://theperthgroup.com/EPE/AMJLetterNov07.pdf
    8. Gelderblom H, Bauer H, Ogura H, Wigand R, Fischer AB. Detection of oncornavirus-like particles in HeLa cells. I. Fine structure and comparative morphological classification. Internat J Cancer 1974;13:246-53. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=4817575

  9. MartinDKessler Says:

    I’m not as computer savvy as some of your other bloggers, but I compared the text in the above site with what was written in Bay Windows (which also has a website) and they are the same. It does not appear that Bay Windows altered any of Liam Scheff’s text (like adding after HIV, the words: the virus that causes AIDS). John Lauritsen had a letter published in the New York Times years ago – the editors of the NYT actually did that in his letter. He referred to it in his book The AIDS War.

  10. MacDonald Says:

    The Perth Group has of course never claimed that HIV doesn’t exist. They have claimed that is has not been purified and isolated to a satisfactory scientific standard, hence it has not been proven to exist as a unique exogenous virus.

    The Truthseeker is asked not to muddy the waters. Leave that to Seth Kalichman and other mediocre practitioners of pseudo-scientific disciplines.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Bad Behavior has blocked 2615 access attempts in the last 7 days.