Science Guardian

Truth, beauty and paradigm power in science and society

I am Nicolaus Copernicus, and I approve of this blog

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

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



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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am Richard Feynman and I approve of this blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Illusion is the first of all pleasures. – Voltaire

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

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

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

Luc Montagnier punctures World AIDS Day balloon

Global cult celebrates, unaware of AIDS leader busting main assumption

Nobelist to Brent Leung: HIV no threat to healthy people, no need for vaccine, microbicides

UK Independent demonstrates how media trash HIV/AIDS dissidents with gross bias

HIV/AIDS celebrations took place all over the world today though the media were more preoccupied with other topics such as Obama's speech on sending more troops to Afghanistan, and the New York Times didn't trouble to do an editorial or even publish an Op Ed pieceToday’s world wide celebration of non science in the form of HIV/AIDS propaganda and associated charity events will delight do gooders all over the earth, but it will profoundly irritate a lot of people familiar with the journal literature of the field.

Such scientifically literate observers are, after all, keenly aware that Peter Duesberg’s adamant refutation of HIV=AIDS, the basic rationale for delivering damaging drugs to AIDS sufferers here and abroad, stands unanswered in the same elite journals in which they were published.

Not we hope one of the rosy cheeked 11 year olds married off by Warren Jeffs to one of his henchmen in the days when his church was a dictatorship in which cult worship of Jeffs was inculcated into the women of his community who were thus made defenseless against gross sexual exploitation of them and their children, in a manner remarkably parallel to the fashion in which the strikingly anti-scientific, pseudo-scientific cult of HIV=AIDS has victimized men women and children world wide with inappropriate drugs justified by a scientific claim which remains unproven and debunked at the highest level in reviews which have never been refuted in the same journals.In other words, the basic theory which drives the enormous amounts of money devoted to “stopping AIDS” is not only unproven, but without any good evidence, scientifically absurd and maintained sacrosanct only by the politics of a church, a church very comparable to the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter Day Saints run by Warren Jeffs before his arrest for turning his community into a gang run dictatorship of polygamous child abuse.

So in the view of some we have a global party to celebrate a broken paradigm, busted every year by more and more evidence of its error, which never should have been adopted in the first place, and one which causes immeasurable suffering, in other words, the festivities are a misguided toast to corrupt scientific leadership and scientific illiteracy even within science, let alone among the educated public, and a belief system that, like that Mormon cult, is the flip side of what it purports to be.

But today, however, these sensitive observers will find some solace for this global insult to intelligence and scientific literacy in a video released today on YouTube by Brent Leung, in what amounts to him firing an Exocet missile at the gunboat of HIV defenders that have been harassing him with false accusations of bias and worse, an explosive that stands a good chance of tearing a very large hole in the mothership of HIV/AIDS itself.

Brent Leung is the director of House of Numbers, the current movie that brilliantly exposes the embarrassing fact that the generals of HIV/AIDS science agree more with the critics of the paradigm than with each other, and come up empty when asked to explain how HIV/AIDS makes any sense at all.

The film has had the HIV paradigm defense squad run by John Moore of Cornell-Weill in a state of hysteria, and mounting a desperate counter move in the form of an attack website ( to trash the entertaining and enlightening movie, a well executed enquiry that merely faithfully records the words of the leadership they support (see previous posts).

HIV discoverer Luc Montagnier says HIV no threat to healthy people

Luc Montagnier, who won the Nobel last year for discovering HIV but did not have to share it with Robert Gallo, cannot tell a lie.  He told Brent Lueng that anyone with a healthy immune system could get rid of HIV in three weeks, and if poor Africans were given decent food and clean water, they too could defeat HIV in thje same time.  He smiled as he told Leung this facsinating fact, and said "Not what Dr Fauci told you, eh?" Undoubtedly the most striking comment in House of Numbers was made by none other than Luc Montagnier, the Pasteur scientist who first discovered evidence of a retrovirus in AIDS patients, a dubious discovery for which he received the Nobel last year. Montagnier informed Leung and his audience that anyone with a healthy immune system could shrug off HIV in two or three weeks, and that even poor black Africans could do the same if they were given decent food and clean water.

This of course was precisely what Peter Duesberg and his thousands of fellow critics of the scientifically hollow paradigm of HIV-is-the-cause-of-AIDS have been saying all along ie for the last 23 years, earning the calumny of “denialist” and other labels for what is really nothing but common sense science which can be explained to a twelve year old.

More than any of the other conflicting and scientifically illiterate or questionable comments made by John Moore and others during the film, this remark of Montagnier’s threatened to bring down the whole house of cards that is the theory of AIDS that every scientist involved in this Enron of science is milking, especially since the film contrasted the belief they all proclaim with a portrait of reality in Africa that made it clear there was a much more sensible interpretation of HIV/AIDS, and it was in line with what Montagnier was saying.

Poverty and malnutrition, and the associated diseases especially TB, are almost certainly the real causes of supposed HIV/AIDS symptoms in Africa, and to give ARVs as a palliative, especially to pregnant women, is not a cure but a cause of worse health, since the TB goes untreated, and the all important good food and clean water is not emphasized as it should be.

This truth is so obvious that when they heard Montagnier expressed it in the film John Moore et al must have felt especially threatened, and they have evidently had a hard time handling it since, claiming that Montagnier was taken out of context or didn’t mean what he said, while canvassing accusations from participants that Brent Leung misled them in saying that his film was a study of how HIV/AIDS research had progressed.

In fact, the irony is that his stealth bomber of a film is exactly that – a study of how HIV/AIDS research has made no progress in making scientific sense in 25 years, and a clear suggestion why – all of this enlightenment out of the mouths of the top experts in the field.

Brent Leung’s HIV/AIDS depth charge – Montagnier on YouTube

As it turns out, the attacks of the paradigm death squad have now had the result they deserve. Today Brent Leung released the full segment of the interview where Montagnier makes his remarks on this theme, and it is up on YouTube today. Now that John Moore et al can no longer claim that the statement was taken out of context, it will be amusing to see how they try to wriggle out of this one.

Here’s what Montagnier said in full:

Brent Leung: You talked about oxidative stress earlier. Is treating oxidative stress one of the best ways to deal with the African AIDS epidemic?

Luc Montagnier: I think it is one way to approach. To decrease the rate of transmission because I believe HIV, we can be exposed to HIV many times without being chronically infected. Our immune system will get rid of the virus within a few weeks, if you have a good immune system; and this is the problem also of Africa, of African people. Their nutrition is not very equilibrated, they are in oxidative stress, even if they are not infected with HIV. So their immune system doesn’t work well, already. So it’s prone, you know, it can allow HIV to get in and persist.

So there are many ways which are not the vaccine, – the magic name, the vaccine! – there are many ways to decrease the transmission just by simple measures of nutrition, giving antioxidants, proper antioxidants, hygiene measures, fighting the other infections. So they are not spectacular, but they could, you know, decrease very well the epidemic to the level they are in occidental countries, Western countries.

Brent Leung: So if you have a good immune system, then your body can naturally get rid of HIV?!

Luc Montagnier: Yes.

Brent Leung: Oh, interesting. Do you think we should have more of a push for antioxidants and things of that nature in Africa than antiretrovirals?

Montagnier: We should push for more you know a combination of measures, you know, antioxidants, nutrition advice, nutrition, fighting other infections, malaria, tuberculosis, parasites, worms, education of course, genital hygiene for women and men also, very simple measures, which are not very expensive but which could do a lot.

And this is actually my worry about the many spectacular action for the global funds to buy drugs and so on. and Bill gates and so on, for the vaccine. But you know those kind of measures are not very well funded, they’re not funded at all, or they are, you know, it really depends on the local government to take choice of this. But the local government they take advice of the scientific advisors from the (international?) XXXX institutions and they don’t get this kind of advice very often.
((Any reader who can fathom the incomprehensible word use by Montagnier at 2.48 min please advise – Ed.))

Brent Leung: There’s no money in nutrition, right? There’s no profit.

Luc Montagnier: There’s no profit, yes! Water is important, water is key.

Brent Leung: Now I think you said you were talking about if you have a built immune systemthat it is possible to get rid of HIV naturally. If you take a poor African who has been infected and you build up their immune system is it possible for them to also naturally get rid of it?

Luc Montagnier: I would think so.

Brent Leugn: OK. That’s an important, that’s an important point.

Luc Montagnier: It’s important knowledge which is completely neglected. You know, people always think of drugs and vaccine.

(grinning broadly) So this is a message which may be different from the other what you heard before, no?

Brent Leung: The closing?

Luc Montagnier (smiling): No, no, yes, my message is different from what you heard from Fauci or er..!

Brent Leung: Yes. It’s a little different.

Luc Montagnier (beaming and grinning widely): Little different!

Like Samson, Montagnier brings down the main pillar of the temple of AIDS

Inside this World AIDS Day balloon is a person wearing a T shirt reading "Prejudice is one of the worst side effects".   A better motto would be, "Thank you Luc Montagnier for bursting my balloon."All in all, a stunning shift in AIDS lore from the Nobel prize winning discover of HIV, the European leader now of world opinion in the science of AIDS, ever since Robert Gallo was sidelined by departure from the NIH after embarrassing investigations into the validity of his original lab work with the virus, and his humiliating omission from the Nobel prize award for the discovery of the virus which he, Gallo, had originally claimed for himself.

Why is this so stunning? Because Montagnier freely admits, indeed even emphasizes, that anyone with a healthy immune system has nothing to fear from the so called AIDS virus, which will be quickly defeated by the immune system.

No need for John Moore’s fruitless microbicides being further tested in drug company financed research on his hapless bonobos at Cornell-Weill Medical Center in Manhattan, nor for the billions being spent on the fruitless and irrational search for a vaccine for a virus which already easily vaccinates you against itself, nor for the cheap drugs for Africa which Bill Clinton hopes will redeem his moral reputation, an unlikely outcome in the long run if this kind of truth in AIDS finally finds its way into the reports of the uniformly bewildered media correspondents on AIDS at the New York Times and elsewhere, who have for so long acted as Xerox machines for the press releases of Dr Anthony Fauci at the NIAID, who it may impolitely but fairly be said is the chief drug pusher in the realm of HIV/AIDS.

The power of House of Numbers

Small wonder John Moore and the HIV defense league are excited about House of Numbers, and striving to ban its showing and the discussion panels which might follow (the Spectator of London tried to mount a showing and a panel a month ago, but retreated in the face of attacks from activists).

The fact remains, bottom line, the film makes a mockery of all that HIV scientists claim in their analysis of AIDS symptoms and their origin, simply by quoting their own words back to them. And no quotation is as powerful as Montagnier’s in damning the enormous effort they have provoked to bring dangerous drugs to Africans instead of good food and clean water.

No wonder Montagnier has a little mischievous smile which broadens into a massive grin at the end of the segment, when he volunteers to Leung that he is sure what he says is not the same as Dr Anthony Fauci of NIAID told him.

Trashy Independent article trashes dissidents too obviously

This statement from Montagnier immediately outdates scurrilous press items trashing AIDS realists (”denialists”) such as today’s World AIDS Day propaganda from the Independent newspaper of London. We refer to the insult to truthseekers in science in the form of this not-so-independent article, Killer syndrome: The Aids denialists – Why does a small band of scientists and campaigners persist in denying the link between HIV and Aids, when the evidence that they are wrong is overwhelming? Rob Sharp reports”> wherein their correspondent Rob appears totally ignorant of the fact that it is late in the day to trash HIV/AIDS dissidents as “denialists”, not to mention that such prejudice is unprofessional, especially in science, where the reporter has no expertise to judge which side of a high level scientific dispute is likely to be right, nor any business coloring his report with his own opinion.

In the comment thread that follows, however, these and other points against what is written are made quite effectively by Michael Geiger and other AIDS realists – and significantly, John Moore himself was drawn into posting. Evidently the original and quite effective policy of avoiding all debate with his scientific critics trumpeted by Moore a few years ago is now null and void.

The HIVirus finally revealed, courtesy of the brushwork of one Sebastian Kaulitzski for the Independent, but which will serve to enhance the mental framework in which all readers of that not-so-independent minded rag will in future contemplate the scene in HIV=AIDS, more certain than ever before that their understanding is well served by the reports of Rob SharpThe scene in HIV/AIDS is heating up, with HIV defenders finally goaded into action by the serious challenge posed by House of Numbers which borrows its authority from the leaders of HIV ideology, and presents its results with a clarity that a child could understand. Its featured interviews and quotes from established HIV/AIDS authorities show that what we might suppose to be AIDS science is a self-contradictory mess, and what the real answer is once official outside review is not stifled as it has been for over two decades.

Meanwhile, in its coverage of how the WHO changes HIV treatment advice the Independent has see fit to inform us all how the Human Immunodeficiency Virus would look if microscopes were able to enlarge it to a decent size that we could all appreciate, courtesy of the hand of Sebastian Kaulitzki.

(Photo Left) The HIVirus finally revealed, courtesy of the brushwork of one Sebastian Kaulitzski for the Independent, art which will serve to enhance the mental framework in which all readers of that really not-so-independent minded rag will in future contemplate the scene in HIV=AIDS, more certain than ever before that their understanding is well served by the reports of Rob Sharp.

103 Responses to “Luc Montagnier punctures World AIDS Day balloon”

  1. Truthseeker Says:

    Relevant to the uphill battle critics of the reigning HIV=AIDS paradigm have had in gaining a hearing is the following list of rules which Jim Lehrer, captain of the McNeil/Lehrer News Hour on PBS, relaunched today (Dec 7 Monday 2009) as the PBS Newshour, announced on Friday as “the journalistic mindset that drives the program”:

    ‘I Am Not in the Entertainment Business’ and Other Rules of MacNeil/Lehrer Journalism
    Signing off of Friday’s broadcast, Jim Lehrer outlined the journalistic mindset that has driven the program for 34 years and will continue to guide it when its fifth iteration relaunches Monday as the PBS NewsHour:
    JIM LEHRER: People often ask me if there are guidelines in our practice of what I like to call MacNeil/Lehrer journalism. Well, yes, there are. And here they are:
    * Do nothing I cannot defend.
    * Cover, write and present every story with the care I would want if the story were about me.
    * Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story.
    * Assume the viewer is as smart and as caring and as good a person as I am.
    * Assume the same about all people on whom I report.
    * Assume personal lives are a private matter, until a legitimate turn in the story absolutely mandates otherwise.
    * Carefully separate opinion and analysis from straight news stories, and clearly label everything.
    * Do not use anonymous sources or blind quotes, except on rare and monumental occasions.
    * No one should ever be allowed to attack another anonymously.
    * And, finally, I am not in the entertainment business.
    Here is how I closed a speech about our changes to our PBS stations family last spring:
    “We really are the fortunate ones in the current tumultuous world of journalism right now. When we wake up in the morning, we only have to decide what the news is and how we are going to cover it. We never have to decide who we are and why we are there.”
    That is the way it has been for these nearly 35 years. And that’s the way it will be forever. And for the NewsHour, there will always be a forever.

    Perhaps we ought to write to Jim and ask him, re his third principle, “Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story”, when this has ever been applied to their reporting of HIV/AIDS?

    We cannot recollect there ever being one instance where any of the reporting on this unpleasant subject has included the “other version” of the events being reported, even though the version the Newshour so faithfully reproduces from the press releases and assertions of the established order makes no sense whatsoever when set against science or common sense.

    The equanimity and self congratulation of this statement by the renowned Jim, the self admitted “good person” in charge, would be profoundly comic if it wasn’t so tragic in this particular realm of news reporting.

  2. Baby Pong Says:

    This is all very interesting, but you’re missing the bigger story: Tiger Woods didn’t wear a condom with his mistresses!

    This is incredibly irresponsible behavior from this supposed role model. Remember, everybody, ALWAYS WEAR A CONDOM!!!

  3. Truthseeker Says:

    Well, we were aware of this heinous behavior but too busy studying today’s Oprah segment on an unfortunate Lothario, one Phillippe Padieu, who managed to keep some nine women happy at the same time, all of whom were sitting around on the Winfrey studio couch now cursing his memory and glad that he is in jail for 45 years (audience applause) for having infected them with the “AIDS virus”:

    Sex As a Deadly Weapon: 5 Victims Speak Out
    (OAD 10/20/2009) (PG)
    Sentenced to 45 years behind bars. His deadly weapon? Sex. Now, five victims speak out. Why they never thought this could happen to them.

    New Faces of HIV/AIDS
    They unknowingly slept with the same man. Today they’re facing potentially deadly consequences.

    When women end long marriages and rejoin the dating world, there’s a lot to worry about. Will it be hard to meet someone? Will dating be the same as it was years ago? When should I introduce a partner to my children? But the one factor many middle-aged women don’t necessarily think about is the one that can be the most life-altering: sexually transmitted diseases.

    These five women sharing the Oprah Show stage have a lot in common. They live in suburban America. They are mothers with successful careers. They also, unknowingly, shared a partner. Each woman, some of whom are in disguise, dated and slept with Philippe Padieu, a man they describe as handsome and charismatic. Unfortunately, he turned out to be very different from the man he claimed to be.

    Diane, a 58-year-old martial arts teacher, was the first to meet Philippe. She had been married for 18 years and says when she reentered the dating world, it had changed dramatically. “It was very difficult to meet people, and I really don’t do bars. My friends suggested that I use an online dating service,” she says. “When I first started dating Philippe, I was head over heels. He was very charming. He made me feel like the only woman on the face of the earth.”

    Diane and Philippe quickly became serious and decided to move in together. When Philippe lost his job, Diane hired him as an instructor at her martial arts studio and started paying for most of his bills, including his cell phone and medical bills.

    Diane says Philippe’s money problems put a strain on their relationship. Eventually, he started pulling away so much that Diane suspected him of cheating. As it turned out, she was right. “I stopped by the [martial arts] school and I noticed that the private lesson room door was closed. He opened the door and he blocked the doorway, and that’s when I slammed the door open and she was behind the door,” Diane says. The last straw, she says, was catching him in a lie about being staying home sick. “Because I was paying for his cell phone, I checked his voice mail messages. There were not one but two voice mail messages from two different women, and I knew.”

    Diane broke up with Philippe when she discovered he was cheating. A few days later, she went to the gynecologist for a routine exam. Her doctor called within days to say that her pap smear showed precancerous cells due to a sexually transmitted disease. Knowing that he had cheated, Diane decided to let the other women know that they too might have an STD. As she went back through his phone records, Diane realized the cheating had been worse than she thought. “He was dating nine other women at the time he was dating me,” she says.

    One of the women Diane called was Susan. “We compared notes, and some of the time that she’d been seeing him, I had been seeing him,” Susan says. “Then she said, ‘I have an STD, and I am certain that Philippe gave this to me.'”

    After talking to Diane, Susan went to her doctor and got news even worse than she had feared. “I received a phone call after my testing from my doctor and she said, ‘You have HIV,'” Susan says.

    The next time Diane and Susan spoke, Susan broke the news. “I got a test two days later,” Diane says. “My ob-gyn called me and said, ‘You’re HIV positive.'”

    Given the severity of the news, Susan and Diane decided they had to get ahold of the women Philippe had dated and stop him from infecting others. They filed a police report and launched their own full-scale investigation, starting with Philippe’s cell phone records. “We contacted somewhere between 23 and 26 women,” Diane says.

    One of the women Diane found was Megan, who lived across the street from Philippe and dated him for more than two years. She says she had already suspected him of cheating and broken up with him by the time she got the phone call.

    Megan learned she was also infected with HIV and joined the crusade to stop Philippe. “I mainly used the window to watch cars coming in and out and to watch what was going on at Philippe’s house or which women were coming in and out,” she says. Megan says she stopped women who were leaving Philippe’s house to warn them that their lives could be at risk.

    Together, the three women took down license plates and followed Philippe for at least six months.

    After Susan and Diane filed the police report, the health department served Philippe with a cease and desist order demanding that he stop having unprotected sex. Shortly afterward, Diane remembered a day in 2005 that would serve as the key piece of evidence against her ex-boyfriend.

    Diane had driven Philippe to the doctor because he hadn’t been feeling well, she says. After he left the doctor’s office, he told her all the tests he took—including one for HIV/AIDS—were negative. Once the report was filed against Philippe, his medical records confirmed that he knew he was HIV positive at that 2005 appointment, at the same time as he was having unprotected sex with unsuspecting women. That key piece of evidence led to his arrest.

    Police charged Philippe with six counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The weapon was his bodily fluid. Ten women, all HIV positive, were willing to testify against Philippe in open court. For the first time in Texas history, prosecutors hired a DNA expert to conduct genetic testing to determine the source of the common strain of HIV. It became clear that one sample was the source of most if not all of the women’s diseases. On May 29, 2009, Philippe was sentenced to 45 years in prison. He will be eligible for parole in 22 years, when he is 76 years old.

    It’s hard to imagine how one man could trick nine women at once, but Sofia, one of the women Philippe infected, says she never imagined he was cheating. Like Diane, Sofia had just gotten out of a long marriage and was new to the dating scene. “He was so handsome, so gentlemanly. He always opened the doors for you. He wrote notes to me always in Spanish and said, ‘Te quiero mi amor,'” she says.

    “He was very slippery, though,” Susan says.”I didn’t suspect him because he worked so hard. That’s the impression that I got. He was always busy working.”

    Diane says Philippe was able to juggle so many women because he had a very strategic plan for fooling each of them. “He had us all lined out,” she says. “[One woman got] Monday, Wednesday and Saturday. Then he had his Tuesday, Thursday. And then he had somebody on Friday night,” she says. He even called everybody sweetie so as not to get any names mixed up.

    The women say Philippe was also strategic in the women he chose to date. They all agree he manipulated women who were fairly new to dating and just out of long relationships. “He preyed on the vulnerability,” Diane says. “I think everybody kind of felt missing a relationship. We wanted to get back into that solidarity of having a significant other.”

    That desire to have a partner may have played into their desire to trust him, they say. Both Diane and Tricia, another victim, say they discussed using condoms, but Philippe convinced them it wasn’t necessary. “He said: ‘No, I’m very wholesome. I’m clean. I’m a martial arts instructor. I live my life so right, and we’re adults. This is not necessary,'” Tricia says. “I had not been in the dating scene for many years and made some poor choices there that I wish I could turn around.”

    Diane says she confronted Philippe about using protection early in the relationship. “I said: ‘I’m not seeing anybody else. Are you seeing anybody else?’ And he kind of mumbled something. And I said, ‘If you’re seeing somebody else, that’s okay, but we’re going to start using condoms.’ And then that’s when he said, ‘No, no, I’m not seeing anybody else.'”

    Today, Diane says she should have done her own legwork to confirm what Philippe was saying. “Today my motto is: ‘Trust but verify.'”

    The women Philippe infected say they weren’t especially worried about HIV/AIDS because they didn’t fit the profile of someone at risk and they believed Philippe to be the picture of health. According to Dr. Kimberly Smith, an infectious disease specialist at Chicago’s Rush Medical Center, this is a common misperception. “You can’t look at someone and tell that they have HIV,” she says.

    Dr. Smith says she is seeing increasing numbers of women in their midlife and senior citizens contracting HIV/AIDS. “We’re talking about older men and women who are still healthy and who are sexually active but who don’t see themselves as potentially at risk for HIV, so they’re engaging in unprotected sex,” she says. “The message really should be that it’s not who you are, because unfortunately I think from the beginning of the epidemic people were made to believe that you have to be a drug user or promiscuous or a gay man. You don’t have to be anything. What you have to do is have unprotected sex and be unlucky enough to come in contact with the wrong person.”

    To this day, the women don’t know for sure when Philippe found out he was HIV positive or how he contracted it. They do know that he infected someone in 1997 and suspect he was infected during time he spent in jail.

    One of the hardest parts of the women’s journeys has been telling their family that they are infected, they say. “My children found out in a very sad way. One of their friends called them on the phone to say that they had seen Philippe’s photograph on the news and he had been arrested for spreading AIDS or HIV. My children knew that I had dated this person for a long time,” Megan says. “I felt like I had shorted them because of my misjudgment of some idiot that I was dating, [and] now they might lose their mother.”

    Tricia says telling her parents was especially hard. “I come from a little bitty country town, raised on a farm. My parents are over 80,” she says. “I went home and I just grabbed them by the hand and I said, ‘Your daughter made a big mistake.’ My daddy just shook his head and he said, ‘Oh no, not my little girl.’ It broke my heart to see them so sad.”

    Only Diane says she’s talked to Philippe since the charges were filed. “He called me the day after he was arrested, from jail,” she says. “He said, ‘You’re behind this, aren’t you?’ And I said, ‘Yeah, pretty much.’ And he said, ‘You know you’re never going be able to live with yourself if you do this to me.’ And I said: ‘Let me tell you something, Philippe. I’ll never be able to live with myself if I don’t.'”

    Since their initial diagnosis, all the women are learning to go on with their lives. “We can’t look back. We can’t change the past,” Diane says. “We only have to look forward, and that’s why we’re trying to change the future for other women.”

    The women all believe that Philippe had other victims, and they say they are speaking out in order to help those women and their families. “There may even have been people who have family members who died and have not known why,” Tricia says. “Perhaps in bringing this public they will see and recognize [Philippe] and know some closure for their pain.”

    Dating Philippe ended unexpectedly for all five women, but they say they haven’t given up on love. “There’s a website on which several of us have found the gentleman in our life now. It is just for people who have been infected with HIV/AIDS,” Tricia says. “I found a wonderful man who is a 21-year survivor of HIV. … He possibly is the love of my life, and had I not gone down this journey of pain and making the wrong decisions, I would have never found him.”

    Since ending her relationship with Philippe, Susan has remarried. “I thought it was over for me too,” she says. “I went out and I needed someone to talk to. I found this website where they have people that can be your mentors and can talk to you if you’re newly diagnosed. I found this wonderful man who has AIDS, and he has dealt with this for over 15 years. We talked and talked online and then decided to get together, and we got married almost a year ago.”

    Diane says she is dating someone who does not have HIV. “He’s very kind, caring, compassionate,” she says. “I disclosed on the second date. That was a difficult moment. But, you know, he’s wonderful.”

    These five of Philippe Padieu’s victims have a common goal: to make all women realize they need to be tested for HIV/AIDS. “One thing that really bothers me, which I hear repeated a lot, and Philippe said this to me, is: ‘You’re going to be okay. This is not a death sentence,'” Susan says. “The message is let’s not be complacent. It is a death sentence if you don’t know that you have the virus. You will die. You will get sick and you will die and you may not know what it was because doctors are not catching it a lot of times. They don’t see a lot of the unrelated symptoms come together. So it’s really important that you get tested and you know what your status is.”

    Don’t assume that because you’re married or don’t fit a specific profile you are safe, says Diane. “Every single time you visit the doctor’s office, get a test,” she says. “You don’t know what your partner’s doing. Marriage is no guarantee.”

    Related Resources
    Get the basic facts about HIV/AIDS

    Dr. Kimberly Smith, an infectious disease specialist at Chicago’s Rush Medical Center, answers common questions about HIV and AIDS.
    Q: What is the difference between HIV and AIDS?
    A: HIV means you’ve been infected and the virus is in your system. AIDS stands for Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome. AIDS means that you have a compromised immune system as a result of the HIV virus. The disease qualifies as AIDS based on your T-cell count. When a T-cell count goes below 200, that automatically means a person is pretty significantly immunodeficient. The other way that a person’s disease can qualify as AIDS is if they have one of the AIDS-defining opportunistic diseases. There’s a list of those, and they are primarily infections that one typically would not acquire unless they have a compromised immune system. The most common one that people might recognize is pneumocystis pneumonia. In the early days of the epidemic, the majority of people who died of AIDS died due to pneumocystis pneumonia.

    Q: Who is at risk for HIV/AIDS today?
    A: Everyone is at risk of HIV/AIDS, based upon their behaviors. It is important for people to understand that there is no particular group that is more at risk than another group, unless they engage in more risky behaviors. Anyone from a teenager to a grandma is at risk if they engage in the behaviors that put them at risk. The main behavior is unprotected sex, in the broadest definition: penile-vaginal sex, oral sex or anal sex. All of those things will put a person at risk. Kissing, hugging or other contact where you don’t share bodily fluids (semen, vaginal secretions and blood) doesn’t put a person at risk. Saliva, tears, and urine are not a risk unless they are contaminated with blood.

    Q: What demographics have the highest prevalence of HIV/AIDS?
    A: The groups that have the highest prevalence are men who have sex with men and some racial groups, specifically African-Americans. This is true of men who have sex with men because the efficiency of transmission is greatest with anal sex, particularly if there is some trauma, or tearing, associated with it. Another reason, and this is true for both men who have sex with men and the African-American community, is that once you introduce an infection into a fairly closed community, and there are a lot of relationships within that community, it sort of self-perpetuates.

    Q: What does it mean if you are diagnosed with HIV/AIDS today versus in the late 1980s and the 1990s?
    A: In what we now refer to as the bad old days, which is really the late ’80s through the the late ’90s, when you had HIV it was pretty much uniformly fatal. Once a person had moved on to AIDS, the likelihood of them surviving more than a year or two was low. Now, if they get treatment, we can suppress their virus and we have every reason to believe that someone with HIV/AIDS can live a lifespan pretty close to what they would experience if they didn’t have HIV. It’s dramatic, there’s no question about it. But there are some caveats to that. The earlier someone gets diagnosed, the better their long-term prognosis. If I find someone with HIV who’s at an early stage and I put them on treatment, they will do a lot better than someone who’s found when they have AIDS already. Those folks have more side effects from the medication, they’re more likely to have complications related to the medication, they may already have opportunistic infections or malignancies. In that group, their prognosis is not quite as good. But even in that group, we still can significantly prolong people’s lives. As long as they consistently take their medicines, get their virus suppressed and stay under a doctor’s care, they’re still going to live a long life.

    Q: So the message here is ignorance is not bliss?
    A: Absolutely. People must get tested. Back in the early days, people could say, “I’d rather not know because there’s nothing you can do anyway.” That certainly is not true now. There’s a whole lot that you can do. And getting tested is not just important for the individual, it’s important for society because once we suppress a person’s virus, the likelihood of them transmitting the virus to another person goes down dramatically. We still obviously encourage people to have safe sex, always use condoms, but in the case that there are situations where the condom breaks, transmission is still very unlikely to occur from a person who has a suppressed virus.

    Q: If you go to the doctor for a routine physical and they do routine blood work, will they test it for HIV/AIDs?
    A: They will not. People have the misperception that when I say, “Doc, test me for everything,” that means they are going to get an HIV test. That’s not the case. Until recently, there was a lot of paperwork that went into having an HIV test. A lot of that has changed since the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] changed their recommendations in 2006. Now you can do it with a verbal agreement, but the doctor needs to say to a patient “I’m going to test you for HIV unless you tell me not to.” If you haven’t had a conversation with your doctor about getting tested for HIV/AIDS specifically, you can assume you haven’t been tested. If you’re donating blood, part of the form you sign says that you’re permitting them to test your blood for HIV and a variety of other things. If you test positive, they will definitely contact you and inform you that your blood tested positive and they recommend a doctor’s care.

    Q: If you have sex with someone who is HIV infected, how likely are you to get the disease?
    A: The typical statistic that gets quoted is that with every heterosexual contact with an HIV-infected person, the risk is 1 in 1,000. But that is only an estimate and recent data suggests that that it is inaccurate and is probably the lower bound. Today we think your chance of contracting HIV with a heterosexual contact could be as much as 1 in 3. There are many things that affect your chances. If a person has very advanced HIV disease and a high virus level in their system, there’s a greater likelihood that they will transmit. If the partner who is HIV-negative has an STD, like herpes or gonorrhea, that makes her more vulnerable to acquiring HIV. All of those factors play into the risk of transmission. I would say the range is anywhere from 1 in 3 to 1 in 1,000.

    Q: Do all condoms work in the prevention of HIV/AIDS?
    A: You need to use a latex condom and need to have spermicide. It can’t be one of those lambskin condoms or other biologic ones which are supposed to improve sensation but don’t protect against HIV. The female condom is another way that women can protect themselves. It is more under a woman’s control and less dependent on a man, although it certainly requires that he be a participant. There are other ways to protect yourself that are being investigated, things like microbicides (a gel that you insert in the vagina that would prevent HIV) or a diaphragm that has anti-HIV drugs in it. A lot of new methods are being studied. Our hope is that in the near future women will have many more options than just a condom to protect themselves.

    Q: There is a perception that it is difficult for a woman to transmit HIV to a man. Is that true?
    A: That is clearly a misperception. The reality is that it is easier for a man to transmit to a woman, just based on anatomy and the biology of penile-vaginal sex. It’s a little less easy for a man to contract it from a woman due to the same anatomical issues. But I think what’s important for people to recognize is that around the world, the man-to-woman ratio of HIV infection is basically one to one. So about half of the people in the world that are HIV infected are men and half are women, and the majority of the transmission that takes place outside the United States is through heterosexual transmission. That means men are getting it from women.

    Q: What’s new about the 2006 CDC recommendations?
    A: The recommendation used to be that you test people who you suspect has some risk factors for HIV—so if a person has multiple partners, a history of IV drug use or got a blood transfusion prior to 1985. Also, if they have any signs or symptoms suggestive of HIV or if they’re a pregnant, those were the sorts of recommendations present before 2006. In 2006, the CDC made the important decision to recommend that everybody be tested, based upon realizing that pretty much everybody at some point in her life has had unprotected sex and you can’t wait to identify individuals based on “risk factors.” The specific recommendation from the CDC is that anybody from age 13 to 67 should be tested at least once, and if they have unprotected sex or other risk factors, they should be tested on a yearly basis.

    Q: What is your message to women in their midlife who might be recently divorced or new to the dating scene?
    A: I recommend that people always assume that someone you are going to be intimate with may have HIV or some other infectious disease, because there’s nothing that you can tell by looking at a person that says whether or not they have HIV or any other sexually transmitted disease. I have some extremely healthy, beautiful people in my clinic who are HIV infected and doing well, but that doesn’t mean they can’t pass this disease on to someone else. If you assume that everyone could be infected, then you will always use protection. If you’re going to have monogamous relationship with someone, then go down to your doctor’s office or to the health department and have an HIV test together and share your results. Then you can feel confident that not only are you not infected but they’re not infected.

    If you want more information about HIV or AIDS, go to

    See New Faces of HIV/AIDS for more of this kind of drivel, which argues that Oprah’s retirement from the talk circuit in two years might be a very good thing.

    What civilian is going to question anything about HIV=AIDS, either the cause or the infectiousness, after this tripe? Anyone who goes to the Oprah site is now being told that the chances of infection through heterosexual romantic engagement is 1 in 3.

    Even the HIV=AIDS paradigm protection leaders don’t claim more than 1 in 1000, which is what Nancy Padian has settled for in her desperate attempt to counter her own research study which showed it was nil, as in zero, nada, nothing.

    Someone should start a Save Phillippe Padieau movement, but presumably the army of Oprah excited middle aged women would soon put a roadblock up.

  4. MartinDKessler Says:

    Hi Truthseeker, Phillippe Padieau and Andre Parenzee are our modern day witches to be burned at the stake of the AIDS Paradigm. For a judge to question the paradigm would only lead to that judge’s placement on the AIDS pyre as well.

  5. Baby Pong Says:

    This sounds so completely fake to us. The likelihood of one man successfully infecting 9 women by sleeping with them a few times strikes us as similar to the likelihood that a black hole would gobble all the Rodgers and Hart sheet music stored in many locations throughout the world consecutively in alphabetical order and then immediately eat 417 bottles of Kama Sutra Pleasure Potion with no other meal separating the two feasts.

    Oprah is not who people think she is. She is likely a CIA creation. One of the things that the elite and their supporting institutions like to do is to put their agendas into the personas of discriminated-against minority groups in order to dupe liberals. So they groom selected minority members in their agenda, then help them achieve fame and power by shining the media spotlight on them. A perfect example of this is Obama, who clearly is not pursuing the interests of blacks, is not the least bit antiwar as he promised he would be, and is instead pushing the agenda of the globalists who created him.

    Another example might be Jesse Jackson, who some have suspected was the FBI’s informer in Martin Luther King’s entourage.

    Another example is Gloria Steinem, who had a documented background with CIA and was promoted as Leader of the women’s movement in order to harmonize it with globalist goals.

    Another example may well be Cheetah Woods himself. What better way to deflect criticism of the elitist white sport golf and discrimination against blacks than by assisting a black to become a great wealthy highly publicized golfer?

    Jacob Zuma? Perhaps.

    Oprah = Black + Woman. A perfect puppet for an elite that uses multiculturalism to further its globalist dictatorship agenda. Oprah’s appeal is based on the psychological strategy of helping white women feel all warm and fuzzy by allowing them to love and make famous a poor, discriminated-against black woman. Women want a world of love, not war, so they love the opportunity to show their love for a black woman. They are dupes — completely unaware that Oprah functions as a promoter of the globalist agenda, including that of a key component of the elite — Pharma.

    The globalist agenda is made to appear to be the same as LOVE. Yes, we must get those Aids drugs into the mouths of poor people in africa, etc.

    So we are suggesting that this whole story may be fake. The women are actresses. They don’t have Hiv.

    See Multiculturalism and the Ruling Elite

  6. Baby Pong Says:

    Let us clarify. We suspect that this whole story of the bad man and the 9 women is a covert op. Just like we suspect that Christine’s death was a covert op. One of the cia’s responsibilities is to protect hiv/aids from its critics. This is unquestionably true, because H/A was named a national security issue by Clinton, which automatically brings in cia. Though cia would be working on this even if that had not happened, because protecting the elite is job 1 there.

    Exposure of the H/A fraud is a tremendous danger to the elite, as an enraged world population chasing down the aids and govt elites with stones and nooses is not the stuff of pleasant elitist weekends at their country manors being served tea and truffles by their servants and screwing their beautiful mistresses, without condoms we have no doubt. Thus stories like this one about the 9 women need to be manufactured, and dangerous people like Christine need to be “neutralized.” And they call on their puppet Oprah to publicize it, because they own her just like they own the rest of the media.

  7. Baby Pong Says:

    But remember, ALWAYS WEAR A CONDOM!!! Even when you’re not having sex. Wearing a condom all the time will protect you from airborne H1N1 viruses that might fly into your penile opening.

  8. yello Says:

    Baby Pong, you are a riot and not alone. As this Age rapidly comes to a close, the PTBs ((PTBs or PBTs are what? Poor Terrified Blacks? Kindly clarify. – Ed.)) will more and more expose their own masks. The Masters of the PBTs plan on total control. The PTBs lately intuitively sense this, even though they themselves usually have no real individual “soul” to speak of. Conscious, “souled” members of their lower echelons will continue “spilling the beans” as it were (even a few “unsouled” members as well for their own perceived purposes). What the “soul-less” PTBs are slowly realizing (and wishfully Denying) to their dawning horror is that their Masters will do everything possible to destroy them first. After all, “souled” but consciously choosing “Evil” (i.e. total control) Masters don’t need psychopathological lackeys mucking everything up. Having the “soul-less” lackeys screw everything up, the Masters can then present themselves as “saviors” to the whole world by getting rid of the “evil” lackeys.

    Wheels within wheels, there is a “plan” and it _does_ have a chronological and temporal limit. It will fail, whether in this Age or the next or the next, it will fail, since it is based on total control, on “evil” as it were. Such a plan cannot be flexible enough to account for all the variation of Creation. As such, it will fail eventually.

    The Dark eschews the Light because it is “weak”. The Light embraces the Dark for the lessons offered…..who do you think will “win”?

    Of course, this is just an opinionated, subjective, observation.

  9. Truthseeker Says:

    Not sure that a second fantasy is any answer to a ruling one, but carry on, perhaps the irony will be more apparent. But what exactly is wrong with “pleasant elitist weekends at their country manors being served tea and truffles by their servants and screwing their beautiful mistresses, without condoms”? This seems a very excellent goal for the elite, certainly more justified than acting like Romans in a world that has become Greek.

    Christine Maggiore’s Death Not Due To AIDS but to Kidney Failure – Pathology Report

    AIDSTruth Confounded

    Re: Baby Pong writes: “ Just like we suspect that Christine’s death was a covert op.

    The latest news on this front is that Christine Maggiore’s death had absolutely nothing to do with “AIDS” or “HIV=AIDS.” According to an email from Celia Farber yesterday, headed Christine Maggiore’s Pathology Report (for unhindered publication/linking/dissemination)

    “According to this report: Christine died of acute renal failure from 4 medications, had an intact immune system, and did not have herpes.

    The (fabricated/politicized) death certificate is something that must be investigated, journalistically, by those who still have the capacity to do so.

    It is a breathtaking scandal.”

    Attached is an email she received from Al-Bayati:

    From: Mohammed Al-Bayati
    Sent: Wed, Dec 9, 2009 10:41 pm
    Subject: Link to the report/Christine’s case

    Hello Celia:

    Below is the link to my report on Christine’s case. Please feel free to share it with others.

    Christine Maggiore – Report – AlBayati

    Thank you very much for your help.

    Best regards,


    Mohammed Ali Al-Bayati
    Ph.D., D.A.B.T., D.A.B.V.T.
    Toxicologist and Pathologist
    Toxi-Health International
    150 Bloom Dr.
    Dixon, CA 95620

    Tel: (707) 678-4484
    Fax: (707) 678-8505


    Christine Maggiore was diagnosed with pneumonia on December 18, 2008 and was
    treated with antibiotics (Gentamicin, Rocephin, Azithromycin), Acyclovir, Fluconazole
    and corticosteroids. She also received Meyer’s cocktail, vitamin C, and calcium IV. She
    died on December 27,2008. She was 52 years of age.

    Christine suffered fatal renal failure caused by antibiotics, antiviral, and calcium received
    during the 9 days prior to her death. The microscopic examination of the H & E stained
    sections of her kidneys revealed the presence of changes consistent with acute tubular
    necrosis. There were also changes consistent with mild nephrosclerosis.

    Christine’s acute renal failure led to development of acute left ventricular heart failure,
    pulmonary congestion, and pulmonary edema. Christine’s pericardial sac and left chest
    cavity contained 100 mL and 200 mL of clear light brown serious fluid, respectively.
    Christine’s right and left lungs weighted 1319 and 1307 g, respectively. Her total lung
    weight was 2626 g, which is 750% of the average normal lung weight.

    The autopsy, pathology, and the clinical data and observation described in this report
    show clearly that Christine did not suffer from any AIDS indicator illness during the 2
    years prior to her death or at the time of her death. The gross and microscopic
    examination of Christine lymphoid organs and bone marrow appeared normal. The
    growth of P. jiroveci observed in Christine’s lungs and other tissues resulted from her
    treatment with corticosteroids during the 9 days prior to her death. ‘


    Celia posts on Dean Esmay’s Dean’s World:

    Celia then called our attention to a post she has put up today on Dean Esmay’s site:


    Christine Maggiore’s Cause of Death

    Almost one year after her death, a complete pathology and toxicology report is released for the public to examine. Dr. Mohammed Al-Bayati, a Toxicologist and Pathologist with 20 years of experience, conducted the report.

    He concludes that Christine died from acute renal failure, not from “AIDS,” as was widely reported.

    Those of us who knew Christine were struck by a detail that emerges right up front: She weighed 145 pounds at death. That is a full 25 pounds above her normal weight, which hovered around 120 pounds, and was recorded as such during medical examinations during the last two years of her life. She gained the extra 25 pounds in the last 7-9 days of her life. Why?

    The answer is unambiguous: Fluid retention, also known as edema.

    Al-Bayati writes:

    “Christine suffered fatal renal failure caused by antibiotics, antiviral, and calcium received during the 9 days prior to her death.” Her body weight at death, he reports, “…indicates that she suffered from fluid retention due to oliguria/anuria caused by renal failure.”

    Al-Bayati concludes that “acute renal failure led to development of acute ventricular heart failure, pulmonary congestion, and pulmonary edema.” Her lungs, he reports, weighed “750% of the average lung weight.”

    Al-Bayati details how the doses and combinations of drugs Maggiore was on, intravenously, were fatal, and would have been so in 70% of all people, male of female. (From interview conducted with me in early November 2009.)
    The combinations she was given, particularly the combination of Rocephin (ceftriaxone) and calcium solution, were contra-indicated in the medical literature as causing renal failure, and many deaths had been recorded as a result.

    He cites one study in which 41 individuals suffered acute renal failure after only five days on intravenous acyclovir (which Maggiore was taking.)

    Supporters of the HIV/AIDS causation model quite predictably “danced” on Maggiore’s grave when she died, and wasted no time shooting out to the world’s media that the world’s leading AIDS “denialist” had died of AIDS. On her death certificate, curiously, “disseminated herpes,” was listed as the primary cause of death, and it was claimed she had had this condition for “two weeks.” The malevolent site published her death certificate, and rang every gong in their arsenal, despite the curious fact that no complete autopsy or pathology report had been completed then. Defenders of the paradigm also claimed that the family had cremated Christine and there would be no autopsy. On one thread I was accused of knowing this perfectly well and “lying” when I said we were awaiting results. Being venal and utterly wrong is a luxury accorded only to the powers that be. I can only describe these people as ruthless and fanatic. Their hate blinds them, time and again.

    We are post-paradigm now, meaning when an HIV doubter dies, it is AIDS, and this “AIDS,” is symbolically bestowed as a punishment for the sin of doubting HIV, of being a “denialist.”

    In Maggiore’s case, a record existed of her immune system in the two years before her death. Al-Bayati writes:

    “The autopsy, patholgy, and the clinical data and observation described in this report show clearly that Christine did not suffer from any AIDS indicator illness during the 2 years prior to her death or at the time of her death. The gross and microscopic examination of Christine’s lymphoid organs and bone marrow appeared normal.” (Itals mine.)

    Al-Bayati reports that Maggiore no longer had pneumonia at the time of her death, and states that the finding of Pneumocystis jiroveci (cariini) in her organs was likely caused by her treatment with corticosteroids, as well as the amount of time that lapsed between her death and her autopsy, (16 days.)

    He also writes: “Blood analyses performed during the 2 years prior to Christine’s death revealed that her hematology values, white blood cells, and differential counts were within the normal range,” and, “It has been reported that Christine’s serum was tested positive for HIV with subsequent testing indeterminate in the 1990s. The clinical findings in Christine’s case clearly challenge the clinical and scientific validity of the HIV test, if it is intended as a certain marker of gradual immune demise, which she did not manifest.”

    In a telephone interview with Dr. Al-Bayati, I asked him if Christine had herpes, as her cause of death was listed as “disseminated herpes,” on the death certificate. “She did not have herpes,” he said. “At all?” I asked. “None.”

    This begs an enormous question: How did “disseminated herpes” wind up on Christine Maggiore’s death certificate?

    How did the entire world’s media conclude she had died of “AIDS?”

    If we were to find out that there were political pressures exerted upon the MD who signed her death certificate, what would that imply about the solidity of the HIV/AIDS paradigm, or the ethics of the people who govern its reign?

    She contrasts this with the false claims on AIDSTruth:

    From, bastion of accurate and objective reporting:

    “Unfortunately, no autopsy was performed on Maggiore’s body, and she was cremated. Presumably, her family made these decisions. AIDS denialists often claim that they are victims of conspiracies and cover-ups. But they have been anything but transparent in the way they have handled the horrible and unnecessary death from HIV/AIDS of Christine Maggiore.”

    Asked in a Comment tonight (Mc Kiernan December 10, 2009 at 9:06 pm)
    Do you have the link to the official autopsy report performed by the actual autopsy medical examiner ?

    Do his conclusions concur with Dr. Mohammed Al-Bayati’s unofficial opinion piece ?

    she replied (Celia Farber December 11, 2009 at 1:03 am)
    He was sent the report two weeks ago and offered a chance to voice objections. He didn’t.

    Check out the post and the Comment thread, which we hope will continue, since the misleading and false statements carried on AIDSTruth in this regard, Christine Maggiore’s cause of death, are fully exposed.

    The bottom line is simply that Christine Maggiore did not die of any symptom associated with AIDS, but of kidney failure, and AIDSTruth is revealed as not only a paradigm propaganda site with little regard for the truth but one that is happy to manufacture claims with no basis in fact, and possibly even a false death certificate, if that is possible.

  10. yello Says:

    Of course, Al-Bayati….. don’t get me wrong, this dude is far, far better than any of the other quacks seen in either Ms. Maggiore or Eliza Jane’s cases. Kudos to him! He ripped apart all dissenting “opinions” with his well backed up precedent cases. Hell, the EJ scovill case got two men off!

    TruthSeeker sir, I am limiting my above response to Baby Pong. Pay no attention to the scenery beyond the man beyond the curtain.

    Mr. TruthSeeker sir, if you cannot seen anything beyond Chronological and Material aspects; that is _okay_! A significant minority of other truthseekers also see a metaphysical, inter/intra-dimensional/density world. We cannot “prove” it; it is a subjective experience. Like Kary Mullis, we understand the World as a combination of all three. Like Mr. Mullis, we understand that this present Realm limits itself primarily to Chronological and Material explanations. We will _never_ ask you and others not perceiving to take our word for it.

    I am sorry If I have confused you, by PTBs I mean Powers That Be. The ClimateGate scandal is one aspect of “leaking”; Montagnier is yet another example. All around us, we are seeing the PTBs stuttering and flailing. It will only get worst as time goes on. People are waking up world-wide to the fact that the MSM(Main Stream Media) is abjectly failing them. They will cluster to alternative sites (Like this one) and depend on reliable word of mouth more and more.

    Think of it this way, the Montagnier subbed section of “House of Numbers” with an introductory summary of how critical Montagnier is to “HIV?AIDS”; would be unbelievable to most people! Those people who wanted to wake up would take it to heart along with the rest of Brett Leung’s documentary. I understand you do not subscribe to other interpretations of other events. That is _okay_, I will not force it on you. Things _are_ “falling” apart as the psychopathologicals scramble to maintain the status quo. Take heart, the World is undergoing a Great Time Of Changes.

  11. whereistheproof Says:

    ((This eloquent post is worthy of boldface throughout, and we have added it. – Ed.))

    all this raises complicated ethical issues.

    What if that some one is convinced that HIV is bogus and not a danger at all? There must be thousands of people in the US alone aware of their status and not disclosing it. Especially those who are convinced that HIV is a huge fraud. Are they all criminals? Should they all be locked up 45+ years?

    For a while i was working as an advocate for HIV+ people in London. Most gay, but quite a few heterosexual. That was back in 1993. I am still in touch with some of them. And they are desperate. Some disclosed to their HIV- partners to go yet through another ordeal – partners fearing they would get infected. Then those partners often expected their HIV+ partners to drop dead any minute. Needless to say these relationships did not work.

    I have seen many of these people grow old. They were told in their early 30-ties they would be dead in a few years. And they are alive today in their 50-ties and 60-ties. But believing the mainstream and all the stigma attached to being HIV+ prevented them from having a family. many of them are isolated, alone and deeply depressed. they sacrificed their lives for the hiv=aids fraud.

    Some of them so dearly wanted to have children. One of them committed suicide in 1997. For him it was too much. And I know of another case where the women did not disclose, got married, had two children since, both negative. I am the only one who knows her secret. The depression she is going through is terrible and i am the only one she can confide in. Neither her husband nor his family would understand her dilemma. ironically the only thing that keeps her alive are her two children. which she would never have had, if she had ever disclosed her status.

    Are all of these people criminals? Do they not have the right to a family – outside the AIDS trap? especially when it is becoming increasingly obvious that HIV does not cause aids as montagnier already admits: a healthy immune system can fight off hiv?

    What about this scenario:

    a few years back you acquired syphillis. it was treated with antibiotics. then you have a relationship with some one who is HIV+. you test HIV+ afterwards.

    Based on the latest revelations, who do you sue? the person passing on syphillis? the person who passed on hiv? which of the two is more deadly? or do you need both to develop AIDS? who should go to prison? the HIV+ person? the syphillis person?

    and if we do this, what about some one passing on the ordinary flu to some one elderly who dies from it? remember three times ((actually twice or almost twice, 36-39,000 against 17-24,000. – Ed.)) as many people die of the ordinary flu every year than of AIDS in the US alone. should that person also be sent to prison?

    what about chlamydia? chlamydia is on the rise especially among younger people. it can lead to infertility. are we going to lock up any one who knowingly passes on chlamydia? or any other STD? why are we doing this with HIV if we do not do this with other diseases that are just as deadly? especially when it is so uncertain what role HIV exactly has -if any- in the development of AIDS.

    by supporting imprisonment for padieu and parenzee you unwillingly support the stigma of AIDS as well as help the HIV=AIDs pharma propagande obtain their goals. if you are hiv+ yourself but have any doubt about hiv being the cause of aids, then you should oppose imprisonment. if you allow imprisonment for HIV+ people, what will be next?

    the tragedy that is taking place in your country, my country, worldwide is of immense proportions. millions are subjected to this sort of psycho terror originating from fraudulent science, played out in the media that is no longer asking any questions. a 50% suicide rate in korea after hiv diagnosis! for most HIV+ people in the western world follows isolation and depression especially for those that remain inside the aids trap. they are also bombarded with the message that they will die if they do not take ARV’s. and those that dare leave end up living with a secret.

    and here i directly blame gallo, fauci and their foot soldiers such as moore and bennett. as well as the media for not reporting truthfully, unbiased both sides of this story. they are the real culprits here, the eichmanns of today, the himmlers and goebbels of the hiv=aids cult, terrorising millions, murdering hundreds of thousands with ARV’s.

    my advice to any one is: do not disclose. ever. you have a right not to. it is a human right. it is your right to be excluded from the aids trap. especially if you are convinced that HIV is bogus. the aids trap kills. hiv does not. if you however believe that HIV does cause aids you are morally obliged to disclose. but even if you do not, it does not warrant a life sentence of 45+ years.

    those who are locked up because of their HIV+ to me are ‘political prisoners’. nothing more – nothing less.

  12. Truthseeker Says:

    Woah, yello, sounds like Nostradamus has come back after all. Well, have to say once again it always amazes us when those outside the Club start predicting the revolutionary downfall of the powers that be. Guess it is comforting to imagine that somehow justice is visited upon the rascals and they are ejected from their driving seats, though it is never explained what the new direction might be that will bring us all to Paradise on Earth (PoE), nor who exactly is so much better and more reliably socially enlightened to replace them.

    If you really think there is a metaphysical world beyond time and space which somehow inhabits the same time and space we are conscious of, and in this other world there is some kind of movement discernible to the psychically better endowed such as your splendid self, kindly inform us of any evidence of this other than your own vague claims, and inform us better as to what will now happen in the future to advance truth and bring justice and security to all the vast rest of less endowed humanity such as ourselves.

    Is this what by any other name might be called Luck?

    Meanwhile, if you think Al-Bayati is an unreliable professional in regard to his practice of autopsies kindly state specifically why you think so, on the basis of what evidence? This is a science site where all opinion is based on evidence and reason, both of which must be produced on request if claims are to be taken seriously.

    As far as we can tell in our preliminary skimming of the document linked to above, which we assume you have not carefully read yet either, judging from the alacrity of your quick comment, it makes sense throughout and gives both adequate reason and evidence for its conclusions.

    But perhaps your practiced universal skepticism which is your leading claim to fame and respect and which so often bears fruit has unearthed some major problem which AIDSTruth can now exploit?

  13. yello Says:

    TruthSeeker Sir,

    I respect you, so I will slap the arrogant pseudo-counterargument you have made right out of the ballpark.

    Did I say the “meta-psychical” aspect was anything other than personal and subjective? Again, I made the above response primarily to Pong. I apologize for the lengthy justification of myself to you. Perhaps that unnecessarily triggered you into a mode that was not needed.

  14. Baby Pong Says:

    We’re embarrassed to admit, yello, that we are as befuddled by your discussion about the PTB as Truthseeker is.

    We’re afraid that we’re not attuned to extra-psychic intercosmic realities as you are. This saddens us, as we would really like to have another dimension to our analytical ability.

    Perhaps you can explain better, without invoking David Icke, please.

    But we thank you for supporting our wild conspiracy theorizing. Okay, it’s not that, it’s really penetrating analysis.

  15. Baby Pong Says:

    Wethinks it don’t matter what Mohammed Al-Bayati says. Mention his name to the people in Oprah’s audience and they’ll say “Wasn’t he one of the 9-11 hijackers?”

    This won’t be on the TV news, it won’t be in The Times, it won’t be reported anywhere except on blogs on the internet, so it can be easily snorted at in derision by the Elite as something you only hear on the internet, home of Kwazy Konspiwacy Theowies.

    Montagnier’s embrace of dissident ideas didn’t make the news, did it? Neither will this.

    Let me point out that I have huge respect and admiration for Al-Bayati. But his report can simply be dismissed by John Peemore and his colleagues as being the ravings of a known denialist.

    Whatever happened to MacDonald?

  16. Truthseeker Says:

    Well, we apologize, yello, if you meant “meta-psychical” and not “meta-physical”, since it seems a very plausible conjecture that there may be a kind of invisible social web connecting humanity via its accepted senses or perhaps even another one we are not universally aware of which doesn’t show up on conventional physical instruments in use today. We speak from extensive experience in common with other men such as Tiger Woods of the abilities of the better sex to divine social realities more perceptively than men without apparently having any more information on the level of the known senses.

    Seems to us that you should give us the benefit of your research into this area if you have any interesting findings.

    Meanwhile, we offer this as the current intelligence conveyed on the psychic airwaves of mass social intelligence, as revealed on the site, on which students can apparently buy their essays instead of writing them:


    Student Essay on A Leader of Death

    About 2 pages (444 words)
    AIDS Summary

    Know this topic well? Help others and get FREE products!
    A Leader of Death

    Summary: Essay provides a description regarding the AIDS virus.

    Since 1981 this monster has plagued our streets ruining life after life, destroying everything in its path. This haunting disease comes in the form of a virus that has killed 21.8 million people thus far, of which almost 20 percent were children under the age of fifteen. Yet there are still millions of individuals who still don’t believe they can be affected by Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, the AIDS virus. For this reason and many more the number of infected HIV/AIDS persons have grown to approximately 40 million. Ignorance and denial is also a big helper when is comes to promoting HIV. Other behaviors that encourage the spread of this virus are intravenous drug users sharing needles, homosexual male intimacy, unprotected sex of any kind, and by any means of body fluid exchange contact.
    AIDS is…..

    This is a free excerpt of 135 words. There are 444 words (approx. 1 page at 300 words per page) in the full essay.

    Read the rest of this Essay with our A Leader of Death Access Pass.


    This is extremely encouraging. There are not several thousand individuals in the world who are more enlightened about the real threat of the dreaded “AIDS virus” being precisely nil, but millions.

    Millions of individuals still don’t believe they can be affected by AIDS, the AIDS virus, which are one and the same thing, a monster that has plagued our streets ruining life after life destroying everything in its path.

    Fairly accurate, as it happens. Even as fantasy, the Leader of Death is indeed accomplishing great destruction.

    But there are millions who don’t swallow this fantasy. So the 9000 monthly non bot readers of this blog (according to Awstats) are not alone after all.

  17. Truthseeker Says:

    Criticnyc has struck again on New York magazine’s Why a Number of HIV Patients Are Aging Faster – Comment thread:


    Since Netsurfer adds a link, perhaps we could refer readers to “Montagnier punctures World AIDS Day balloon”, the latest post on, which describes how the scientist who won the Nobel for discovering HIV has assured us now that healthy people are in no danger from HIV, since they will get rid of it in two or three weeks, and there is no need for vaccines, dangerous drugs or microbicides.

    “Our immune system will get rid of the virus within a few weeks, if you have a good immune system”

    Sad to say, the mental health of those on drugs may preclude them from taking advantage of this kind of new information, as David France’s piece shows.

    “What is the suspension of consciousness which drugs or disease may bring about? Could either welfare or happiness be present under such conditions? And this is to say nothing of misery and disgrace, which will certainly be urged against us… ” – Plotinus, First Ennead.

    By criticnyc on 12/12/2009 at 12:07pm

    Read more: Why a Number of HIV Patients Are Aging Faster — New York Magazine


    The point that those who take HIV?AIDS antiretrovirals are probably too mentally discombobulated to take in proper information is often sadly accurate, as this site has shown.

  18. cervantes Says:

    Baby Pong — A “covert op” (you’ve used the term several times) to kill Christine would usually seem far-fetched, but as the world turns this covert op seems a reasonable probability considering the humongous $30 Billion of U.S. dollars per year (not to mention the other $billions per year that are non-Federal).

    As in the Tiger Woods debacle now playing out, what really happens in human affairs most always exceeds fiction, The Bard excepted.

  19. cervantes Says:

    ps: The $30 Billion I refer to is now what is annually appropriated by U.S. Congress for AIDS, including for anti-Hiv bullshit domestically and around the world.

    At the forefront the maniacally focused Anthony Fauci views pharmaceutical product/poisons as beneficial tonics – God forbid nutrition, a topic that never touches his lips.

    Likewise nutrition (ahem, Vitamin D) is never mentioned by the CDC, Center for Disease Clowns in their likewise maniacal quest to inject everybody in the U.S. with their toxic H1N1 vaccine.

    Christine’s death has many suspects.

  20. Baby Pong Says:

    Well, Cervantes, as we mentioned on this blog shortly after her death, we had warned Christine that she was taking a big risk by getting so much publicity on TV and in magazines, talking about how healthy she was, and that it might be very tempting for the elite to do her in and say it was aids. She indicated that she was aware of the possibility already.

    But if Al-Bayati is correct, and it was all that antibiotic crap that killed her, we might have to rethink our suspicions. Our original suspicion was that there was some very toxic stuff given to her during her cleanse that would dehydrate her and make her get something that could be passed off as aids-defining.

    And who was the doctor that gave her all these awful drugs? Her personal doctor, or someone at a hospital? There is always the possibility that the doctor could have been in on it, and deliberately tried to kill her.

    EJ’s death is attributed to an amoxicillin reaction, but what made EJ get persistently sick in the first place? That’s where a black op might come into the picture.

    I hate to say cia all the time, as it sounds so corny and paranoid. cia is not the only organization that could have done these black ops. There are others, including nsa. Pharma itself might have a black op capability.

  21. Truthseeker Says:

    Conspiracy schmiracy – please, gentlemen, are you not aware that the CIA and Dr Fauci etc all believe that established science says that HIV causes AIDS? Why would they think Christine Maggiore was a threat?

    That the “ragtag” (in the New York Observer’s phrase) rabble who deny HIV=AIDS fancy themselves as some kind of threat to the status quo currently is laughable self aggrandisement. A bunch of crackpot and silly people who have got their knickers in a twist, and converted a couple of thousand sorehead armchair iconoclasts to their cause, is more or less how they are viewed, if they are viewed at all by the powers that be in this field or in Washington, unless and until Obama cares to take an interest.

    Even the lemminglike gay crowd have nothing but scorn for the efforts of “denialists”. See the New York Times Style piece today Lost to AIDS, but Still Friended, by Guy Trebay celebrating the memorials on the Web for those dead from AIDS early on, and the fact that some brave souls would go down to Mexico to get AZT when it wasn’t yet available here. This is the proud history of the AIDS dead, as in brain dead:

    “I was shocked when I came to Harvard to discover that no one remembered Act Up,” said Helen Molesworth, the show’s curator. “The defining political movement of my generation was not known at all by people 15 years younger than myself, and that absence of knowledge seemed quite horrible to me.”

    The ignorance is a result in part of the success of antiretroviral drugs in rendering AIDS a manageable disease…..

    “Everyone knows AIDS is a big issue, but for people 25 and under, it’s not really a topic of discussion,” said Evan Urbania, a 29-year-old marketer who regularly visits the Gay History Wiki. “I’m a social media guy, and the importance of involving the stories of people who have passed on, particularly as a gay man whose development was influenced by people who are 20 or 30 years older, is very powerful to me.”

    Online stories told by men of an earlier generation motivated Mr. Urbania to take up volunteer work in the AIDS-care community. “One guy told stories of smuggling AZT from Mexico to the U.S., when it was unavailable,” he said, referring to an early AIDS drug. “He was going over the border to bring it back. It becomes a huge problem for us as a generation if we forget these experiences that shaped and guided what it is to be gay today”

    “Denialists” in AIDS (the ones who justifiably deny that HIV causes AIDS, not the scientists who deny that there is no good reason on God’s earth to believe it does) have no high level political traction of any kind, as was shown by the fact that no mainstream media accepted the invitation to learn something at the excellent 200 plus strong conference in Oakland recently.

    In other words, they don’t matter to the CIA or anybody else. Maggiore was not important in their calculations despite her excellent advocacy of truth in person, in her book and in the film she and her husband made. Nor is there the least scrap of evidence – or need for it – that someone got to her doctors and fed her poison.

    The path forward for HIV deniers is via the grassroots influence of the Internet and YouTube and now Brent Leung’s movie House of Numbers. Only when that is translated into the consciousness of the major media will things move forward at the higher level where the CIA or any other federal or state body will take it under advisement.

    Meanwhile Chevron’s “12 Reasons to celebrate World AIDS Day” ad appears opposite the editorial in the New Yorker Dec 14 issue. Chevron are probably spending more on that one campaign than the denialists have spent in all twenty years.

    Even the excellent anti HIV videos such as the latest impressive Greek video of Maria Papagiannidou, who managed to escape the HIV trap by going on the Web and researching for herself, TV interview with Maria Papagiannidou, former AIDS patient, December 1 2009, is drowning amid the other YouTube videos from scientifically uninformed conspiracy theorists.

    But at least she has got on some Greek TV station.

  22. cervantes Says:

    TS, Nobody said it was a conspiracy. Not I, nor Baby P. Human nature is the culprit we might concur?

    This site is an Outpost. Reminds me of Dancing With Wolves with Kevin Costner futilely awaiting relief, as are the scattered sites of Duesberg, TIG/Brink, Perth Group, Rethinking AIDS, and many others (r.i.p. Barnesworld/Youbetyourlife aka Harvey Bialy).

    Perhaps 2% (pick your own figure) of the Public cares enough to enlighten themselves enough on the bullshit of Gallo and Fauci et al. — even after reading Harpers/Celia’s article of 2+ years ago.

    “Science” as regards medicine is the province of power (ala Fauci), greed (ala drug companies), fame and fortune (ala Gallo & Fauci), posturing and politics (ala U.S. Congress, Fauci, and Prezs Clinton, Bush, Obama).

    Sorry to be so trite, as all this is nothing new regards medical history; but I just wanted to name some names.

    Hell, all we can do is sway/enlighten a few friends and relatives – and some actually take heed.

  23. Truthseeker Says:

    Cervantes, we meant conspiracy as in black op, mentioned by the esteemed Pong as a possibility in the wake of his warning to Maggiore that the bad guys might see her off the planet. Didn’t mean to imply that HIV=AIDS was a secret conspiracy, other than the secret conspiracy of the Gay PR Mafia to support HIV as the cause, except that HIV=AIDS is a very public Conspiracy of Dunces, led from the beginning by Gallo and then Fauci, whose only capacity for organizing great works appears to be the bureaucratic one of furthering his own career by coopting the gay muttonheads clamoring to take his and pharma’s Kool Aid and presenting a united front to press for ever more NIAID funding.

    What you say is not trite, it is news to most of the planet, and bears repeating, since the list of sites is worth completing. We would have forgotten to mention TIG/Brink and you overlooked Henry Bauer’s. which we haven’t been to often enough, and which has probably taken up much of the attention of MacDonald, since it is more sympathetic to the Perth pair, it appears. He once showed signs of taking over YouBetYourLife, but didn’t proceed.

    If the Indians are fighting an army funded with $30 billion from Congress and God knows how much private money a la Chevron et al, added to the pharmas, it is not surprising they can’t make headway, even with Kevin Costner standing up for them.

    The only prospect of success we see before everyone dies and a new generation reassesses the situation at long last is a combination of gigantic grass roots buildup through YouTube and the Internet triggered by some watershed event and successful intervention at the top of the power pyramid, which we are willing to undertake but the opportunity has not yet presented itself.

    Of course it is always possible that Fauci might make a grand error of some kind and go down in flames but he doesn’t strike us as having the charisma or the energy to do a Tiger Woods.

  24. Baby Pong Says:

    If they don’t view us as a threat, why the need for Why the need for the Durban Declaration? Why the need for CDC to have webpages that rebut the dissidents? Why the need to create a new vocabulary of battle with words like “denialist”? Why the need for all the censorship?

    We think Fauci probably deludes himself that h causes a, but have no doubt that in the top echelons of the cia and nsa, they are fully aware that it doesn’t.

    Let’s see now…maybe they might have viewed Christine as a threat because if, with the help of her continued good health, she managed to convince enough people that she was right, and all these people convinced other people, to the point that dissident knowledge became widespread, there would be a very angry world populace who would need to vent that anger on someone or some group of persons, perhaps aidsters who enjoy their truffles and tea and mistresses and think a high fence will be enough to protect them against surging mobs of tens of thousands of furious people who lost friends and relatives and denied themselves pleasurable barebacking for decades, all for fraudulent science.

    Christine was also a threat because she was so moderate, likable and reasonable-sounding. That’s the kind of dissenter that the black ops crews go after, because they know that they can’t just dismiss them to the public as lunatics. They don’t bother with extremists, because extremists discredit themselves in the public eye by their extremism. Someone like Christine needed to be discredited by different methods. Unfortunately, today there are still a few dissidents who are seeking out media attention and writing books and articles about how healthy they are. They must learn the lesson of Christine and drop out of the public spotlight.

  25. MartinDKessler Says:

    Baby Pong, you just got me to thinking about Maggiore’s death. My hypothesis is that her death was not a concidence. Your analysis made sense to me. It would seem logical that making Maggiore “go away” may well have been a goal of the CIA assasins – treating her with the “right” combinations of drugs to induce renal failure. The combination of drugs given to her prior to her death looks more like a plan for murder that was just subtle enough to fool the public.

  26. Spider Says:


    Your password software is absolutely Python-esque, but I finally got past it using a new nick-name. (Celia Farber etc was impossible)

    Baby Pong: I do think it is chilling that Dr. Ribe’s deposition was to take place two days after Christine wound up dying at home. However, one struggles so much with this ultimate taboo that one winds up twisting it and twisting it.

    I have always felt that something, in a sense everything, about EJ’s death was aberrant.

    Christine’s death too.

    However, how to account for the fact that she herself chose the doctors in both cases (for herself and for EJ.) How would these alleged assassins get her to choose this or that doctor? How would they get their potions into the medications? At the pharmacy? That means complicity from the pharmacist, as well as all the physicians involved.

    That does strain credulity. And yet one can’t shake the sense that these events were somehow unnatural.

    Do you really think it should be spoken of so blithely? How are we all to feel? Can’t you instead try to prove something first or else perhaps not say anything?

    Can’t you use your real names?

    Anthony didn’t even thik Al Bayati’s report was worth its own post and sounded grumpy and condescending when I rang him to say I was emailing it to him. Then it descends into conspiracy talk of CIA black ops.



    I would greatly value your perspectives on this report.

  27. jtdeshong Says:

    How about that Al~Bayatti report?
    Why not ask why the ORIGINAL autopsy report was not released a year ago when the autopsy was performed? Why release a “report of the report” instead of the ACTUAL report?
    Does that not seem strange?
    What is being covered up from the original report?
    This site claims to be skeptical. Then why not ask this tough question instead of just swallowing what’s being fed to you on this issue?
    Come on, seriously!

  28. Baby Pong Says:

    Thanks, Martin. The agreement of someone as sober and serious as you is important. As we posted here earlier, why on earth would a TV show like 20-20, a fake expose show in the mold of 60 Minutes, heavily funded by pharma advertising, repeatedly invite an aids dissident like christine to be profiled on the show?

    We all know that aids dissidence is censored by the media. So what reason could there have been for them to make an exception in the exceptionally powerful dissident case of Christine?

    Our belief is that she was being set up by 20-20, in collusion with the black ops folks.

    Shine tremendous light on her, so that the masses could hear the Aids dissidence case, perhaps for the first time. Then when she became sufficiently famous, do in first her child, then the dissident herself. And do a “follow-up” each time, about the deaths. Dissidence is kayoed.

    Very very effective strategy. The black ops folks no doubt won a Machiavelli statuette for best Damage Control op of the decade, at their secret annual awards dinner.

  29. Baby Pong Says:


    The black ops people can get to anyone. Whether Christine chose her doctors herself, or was influenced by someone to choose them, is irrelevant. The doctors can be gotten to. The doctors can be used, knowingly or unknowingly. Their medicines can be tampered with covertly. Same goes for pharmacists. Dese black ops guys are very skillful and have limitless resources behind them.

    The essence of blackopery is that people pose as what they are not, in order to win the confidence of the victim.

  30. Truthseeker Says:

    Cmon, seriously, Todd, at least spell Al Bayati correctly. What kind of reliance can we have on your research if you can’t even spell the name?

    Pong, your fantasies are of very low interest unless you provide evidence of any kind, which is lacking in this case. Evidence as to why it makes any sense at all to veer from the obvious, which is Christine was done in by rather too adventurous treatment alternatives which Al Bayati shows were not too sensible, no?

    The kid died from allergy, you didn’t discern that yet? What does it take to tie your feet down to the ground?

    All you conspiracy speculators do is provide fodder for those who view you and by extension all HIV deniers as outliers of the flaky kind. We pity poor Duesberg with all the Web red herrings attached to his coat tails. No wonder he gave up trying to brief everybody under the sun, and got on with some science of his own, which is what he was put on this earth by the Gods to do.

    The facts about HIV and AIDS are simple, and in no way exceptional as far as human nature are concerned, and there is no need for criminal fantasies. Robert C. Gallo flew a kite which was kept up by the winds of politics for 25 years and counting despite the accurate potshots of Duesberg and helped by all the insanity which attaches itself to iconoclasm on the Web, which does nothing but shore up whatever flag of false belief the ones on top of the hill are flying, since everyone can see that they have all the credentials and reasonable behavior and the Webheads have so little.

    Even the clever Perth group have fallen into this trap, which is how and why they were scorned in Adelaide and the unhappy Parenzee locked away for years when he should have been sprung, and the whole HIV paradigm reassessed.

    As Jim Hansen said today on NPR, referring to those who point out that nothing is quite proven in global warming, “skepticism of course is what drives science, so there is everything right about it and nothing wrong with it.” But at the same time the fact that skepticism needs no education expertise or evidence means it is all too often just the easy way for armchair critics to gain cheap attention, so there is too much of it.

    Celia you could easily check in as CFarber or whatever if you forget your password for Celia Farber.
    If you want people to use their real names, why choose Spider, which implies all the wrong things for anyone familiar with computers and anyone who finds Spiders somewhat creepy?

    Why not LoveBox? That would raise a cacophony from the Gremlins at AIDSTruth and Dumbees which would at least be amusing, and also discredit them for their lack of humor, plus imply all the goodwill that motivates your unending pro bono public service.

    Al Bayati’s report is important enough for a post sure, but it deserves hanging a few more things on it – a good account of the perfidious politics and nasty below the belt moves of the HIV goon squad, which are the disgrace of science. It is on the front burner.

  31. cervantes Says:

    Celia aka Spider, TS, et al. — Participating with an alias is a must for many, for economic survival reasons.

    Celia, you are a champion (and well known per your documenting The Fraud of Hiv and the lethal effects of the anti-Hiv drugs). Many, if not most, of your allies, are treated as deranged when espousing this. Yet, we persist as we can.

    The week (2 years or so ago) when you/Peter/Elizabeth came to Wash, DC, for the Semmelweis Awards, I regret ya’ll (a Southern phrase, say it softly) not having time to escape for a picnic at the Great Falls of the Potomac with me as your escort – it would have been a true break from the helter-skelter you were enduring. Elizabeth via phone eventually declined the outing. Nevertheless, the Semmelweis people now have you documented, actually much better than a Nobel if truth be known.

    Quite a few of us spend immense time/effort on supporting (even actively) the destruction of the HIV paradigm, most on a one-to-one basis. Of course you know the typical response – unbelief!

    So, it’s a bit like a Berliner (back in 1940-1944) secretly keeping safe from extermination a jewish child, yet at the same time this Berliner could, perhaps, one-on-one voice some truth to others.

    I have spent most weeks for many years professionally in the patent world (aka intellectual property), most on medical issues and inventions. Unfortunately I have found the same dereliction of honest inquiry and intellect on all medical issues, particularly Hiv and AIDS.

    The United States Patent Office, aka USPTO, 24 years ago gave all Patent Applications a top priority if they were associated with “AIDS” or “HIV.” Thus, we now have hundreds of thousands of patents now granted that address “AIDS” and “HIV.”

    And, this has been why many thousands of patents have been granted to the Drug Companies with their profit-driven synthesized drugs such as the protease inhibitors, etc. (all paid for by taxpayers the bottom line). Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of patents for “safe sex” based on “Hiv.” It’s friggin’ hilarious (pardon the pun) to read many of these patents that have been granted!

    So, we have the United States Patent Office endorsing the false premise of “Hiv.” And, granting Robert Gallo many patents for ridiculous antibody tests, enriching him with royalties, and also giving his lies the facade of science.

    For many reasons, some of us cannot use real names.

  32. Spider Says:

    TS, I am so glad you brought up my choice of “spider,” and on the face of it, you are right, but let me explain my affection for the word. About a year ago, I saw the truly amazing documentary film “The Spider, the Mistress and the Tangerine,” about the artist Louise Bourgois. As you may know, the spider is her most famous image–she made a gigantic metal spider sculpture that has been exhibited around the world. In the film, Bourgois explains why she admires the spider and seeks to have its image improved. She bases it on her mother, who she admired greatly, and the quality she speaks of is the quiet, fastidious weaving, the holding together of all things by way of this weaving. Not at all “cunning,” but rather, life-giving and good. This is how she saw her mother–as juxtaposed against her philandering, destructive, loud father, who she deplores. Thisresonates precisely with E.B. White’s Charlotte, of course–a famous literary heroine.

    So maybe you need to chill out a little and think through your notions of good and evil. “Lovebox?” I hope you’re kidding.

    I might have called myself “ball of love,” as per my latest epiphany about abstaining from any and all forms of attack upon others, because the vibration returns and attacks the self, every time. (

    Oh by the way: Hell’s Bells! There is a post at invoking the possibility that Jim Cramer’s removal of Terry Michael’s article at The Street was possibly censorship, question mark, etc.

    Thank you Cervantes and Baby Pong for your clarifications, and for your support of my work, which I myself am very distanced from these days. I am just trying to do one single thing which is to remain sentient, feeling, and productive–to write about the world outside this terror-soaked slum of HIV/AIDS.

    One can’t look at ugliness for too long without becoming ugly. I don’t want to record depravity anymore. I want to write about the miraculous, which is just as real. So I am working on new stories that have nothing to do with this.

    I do understand why many can’t use their real names. I really do.

    The blights are seemingly unending. Yet I remain convinced that there is a realm inside that is between people that can’t be destroyed by this Satanic fungus.

  33. Spider Says:

    Have you gentlemen (Cervantes, whereistheproof, Baby Pong, Bob Houston, TS, et al) the stamina to answer the question posed in this thread about… what were the co-factors for gay men in the 80s or hemophiliacs?

    Very important to remain calm and factual. But I’m too busy ascending to a higher plane..

  34. Baby Pong Says:

    Celia, we know you said here and on Dean’s World that you are getting out of the hiv biz, but we hope you will not disappear completely. The loss of your reporting and commentary would be as damaging to us as the loss of Christine. We really need you, toots.

  35. Baby Pong Says:

    TS, in response to your criticism of us for theorizing instead of presenting evidence:

    We have sent a letter to cia asking them to release to us any and all top-secret files that they have on the death of Maggiore.

    So I’m sure in a few weeks we’ll have the evidence that you demand.

  36. Spider Says:

    Baby Pong–that last comment was perfectly dryly hilarious, if one may use such a word in this context.

    I must make levity from any discussions about black ops. It’s more than I can handle, if you don’t mind. You may be right, you may not be, I do not have a clue.

    Who do you think, if you think this way, they will eliminate next? One gay man I know who has been positive and healthy for 24 years said the targets are HIV positive long term survivors who are outspoken dissidents. He sat in my living room weeping, saying he hoped when they came for him it would be quick. I felt this was hysteria, setting in. I told him never to think these thoughts and to imagine freedom and safety for himself and others.

    All I can do is report, observe, and try to calm myself and others. Gay men I have spoken to feel they are marked for death whichever way they turn. And from the dissident elites all they get is esoteric cold wind.

    I THINK…the key is to assume, en masse, that freedom has already come. To make continued persecution futile. And to essentially let the perpetrators off the hook, in exchange for them letting people be free again.

    TS, regarding EJ dying of “an allergy…” I don’t want to start this whole thing up again, but here’s the bottom line: EJ was very sick BEFORE she got the amoxycillin. Christine was VERY sick BEFORE she went on all those medications.

    In both cases, their cellular subsets do not suggest immune deficiency. I do accept there is such a thing as AIDS for heaven’s sake, but I am surprised that the orthodoxy would latch onto these two deaths as AIDS because to do so is to fundamentally change the the whole notion of what AIDS is. Now (with EJ and Christine, according to aids truthers) it is a virulent flu like condition that sweeps in and kills in a few weeks. With these deaths and their grave-stomping they have tacitly admitted they don’t know what AIDS is or isn’t and it can be anything, and a person can have (like EJ) a high total lymphocyte count and still die of AIDS. In a matter of hours. From all the organs filling with fluid and the heart stopping. In Christine’s case, a similar cascade, in the form of renal failure leading to heart failure.

    If EJ was “allergic,” to amoxycillin, I don’t understand why she didn’t manifest swelling of the tongue etc. Peter Duesberg noted this when I asked him for his observations.

    It seems to me more likely that the amoxycillin triggered a “septic shower,” that is caused by a flooding of microbes, viruses, toxins, etc into the blood when an antibiotic is working, a bit too well. The blood gets effectively overloaded, poisoned, and the organs start to shut down. An ER pediatrician I cornered at a party explained this to me as a fairly common cause of death in toddlers are babies who are relatively small, and pure, and have never taken antibiotics.

    Pong, my departure from the “hiv biz” is necessary on every level. I am no longer useful or productive. My work was predicated upon being able to travel, interview, transcribe, and compose articles. It was also predicated on the same information NOT being freely available to all, which it now is.

    In addition, this identity was predicated on the myth that all such things would help illuminate the truth. I didn’t count on the immensity of the Fog Machine, nor the cowardice of the press, nor the sudden outbreak of tribal loathing between dissident factions–leading to boring internet tribunals at which one is repeatedly hung but at the same time too bored to care.

    I like this place because you guys are smart and also really good writers. I am entertained.

    Pong, the dissident “bolshiviki” as I call them, set loose upon many of us with bottle-bombs of annihilating castigation. Like a woman who wakes up with two black eyes and broken bones, I felt pain yet knew I had been set free, and smiled.

    I have worked very hard trying to understand the new hatred.

    It’s power. Hunger for power.

    I have recently declared the dissident “movement” to be “dead,” but by that I only mean the entire notion of leaders, leadership, camps, heroes, victors, etc, concentrated in the few rather than the many. I believe, thanks to the Internet, and thanks to House of Numbers, and the third generation kids (like Brent) the “truth” quest is now in the hands of the HIV positive people themselves; The “movement” can and must die in order to allow this to live and flourish. You have to know when to get the hell out of the way. I suppose this is a quasi-Marxist fantasy of mine, much as I am an anti-socialist, the notion of the state dissolving when power has been transferred to the people. In my early youth (12-14) when I was indoctrinated as a communist in Sweden (now it can be told)…that bit always gave me pause. The anarchists tried to reason with Marx, to no avail. Tried to tap him on the shoulder and say ‘good fellow, that part about the state dissolving at the end? That needs work.’

    In any case, raw lust for power has now seized all camps: Orthodoxy (old news) as well as dissident bolshi separatist radicals.

    Yet there are still many really good, clean, healthy souls in the fight. NEW voices among scientists rising all over Europe for instance, like Marco Ruggiero and others. He reports that being an HIV dissenter in Italy is about as controversial as being in favor of protecting the environment. ZERO stigma. That’s major.

    I think the in-fighting is a sign of success. Dissidentia has exploded all over the world, as people piece their EXPERIENCES together with THIS set of information on the one hand and THIS on the other. One feels strangulating, one feels free.

    But some of the dissident elite refuse to recognize the importance of there being no elite. They think the world needs THEM to tell them exactly how to think about every last shadow of every last “HIV protein.” They want power and they believe in authoritarian rule, which I do not. To this end, I wish to eliminate myself, and turn in my costume and bell.

    I want the opposite of power. I want to go back to being a happy fly on the wall, observing what I want.

    Uh oh. Fly? Spider?…

  37. Truthseeker Says:

    Celia, just trump the whole gang by signing in as LoveBox, which would have a good effect here too, since clearly there are some who would benefit from having their fears comforted. It is time for you to rise above the mess, and fly above the mountain tops to the Shangri La of disdain for the horde of gremlins, dwarves and dumbees who agitate in vain below. How after 22 years you can still take these nitwits seriously is baffling. The whole point of the Web was to give them a platform to demonstrate how informationally bereft, politically cowardly, scientifically illiterate and morally repugnant they are, and they did it beautifully. They are not people to associate with or even to communicate with on the ether, with the exception of course of the lovable DeShong and his fellow comedian Snout.

    Let’s make distinctions between those who are worth dealing with, and those who are not. Some will kill the messenger, for sure, so it is best not to put yourself in harms way. On the other hand, many will benefit from your attention, and you will feel better if you give it, we believe. Some will say that the Jews that stayed in Berlin after their shops were Swastika’d were fools and they are right, but we are not there yet in this field. You just have to consider the recipient of your words of wisdom, that is the key. There are amazing numbers of people who have open minds, especially these days for second guessing the motives of leaders in science and medicine. The roll back of health reform has raised awareness of this kind, and so has ClimateGate.

    If Italy is now a place where rejection of the HIV boondoggle is not controversial, this is important news along these lines. Major, as you say. But again it probably varies a lot surely. Is Marco Ruggiero freely invited on mainstream tv?

  38. Truthseeker Says:

    The defenders of HIV are fighting a rearguard action these days, rushing to censor any sense about HIV=AIDS that pops up on establishment sites. The disgraceful take down of Duesberg’s piece on South African deaths at Medical Hypotheses as clearly being due to the paradigm’s drugs and not to Mbeki’s enlightened policy of dragging his feet in allowing them free rein has been followed by censorship of an Opinion piece by a regular contributor at thestreet, which Celia mentioned above.

    Here is the piece that was taken down at

    Nobel Curse for AIDS, Big Pharma: Opinion

    Terry Michael
    12/07/09 – 11:53 AM EST
    Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is a former chairman of Gilead Sciences. His role with the company was incorrect in an earlier version of this opinion column. Former Secretary of State George Shultz’s name also was misspelled.
    Who knows what those inscrutable Scandinavians had in mind awarding a Nobel to President Barack Obama, who is about to pick up his Peace Prize in Oslo just a week after making more war in Afghanistan.

    President “Obomba” will jet later in December to the greenhouse gas gathering in Copenhagen, where former Vice President Al Gore’s Nobel gold, for a prize-winning Power Point on global warming, may get tarnished by the convenient lies of Climategate (emailed over the Internet Gore invented.)

    More bad news may be on its way for the Nobel — an inconvenient truth that could damage some big brands of Big Pharma, not just a couple of American politicians. I speak of last year’s Nobel in medicine, given to France’s Dr. Luc Montagnier.

    Montagnier got his gold for discovering “HIV” — the increasingly mysterious retrovirus announced by the U.S. government 25 years ago this past April as “the probable cause of AIDS,” a finding that spawned a multi-billion dollar, anti-retroviral profit center in the pharmaceutical industry.

    Problem is, Montagnier is now saying in a new documentary film: “We can be exposed to HIV many times without being chronically infected. Our immune system will get rid of the virus within a few weeks, if you have a good immune system.”

    That’s a direct quote from an interview with Montagnier in “House of Numbers,” an award-winning full-length production by director Brent Leung that has been playing the film festival circuit around the world for the past eight months. The film is about to hit theaters and cable early in 2010.

    Montagnier’s assertion is antithetical to the American scientific consensus (like the global warming consensus?) that nothing can rid the body of HIV, that only drugs-for-life chemotherapy profitably peddled by Big Pharma can keep the HIV monster under control.

    Actually, Montagnier has been arguing for two decades against the single pathogen theory of acquired immune deficiency syndrome. As reported in the New York Times on June 22, 1990, “Dr. Luc Montagnier…says increasing evidence is leading him to conclude that AIDS is caused not by a virus alone, but by a microbe and a virus working together.”

    Montagnier argues that malnutrition and lack of clean drinking water are the real culprits causing “AIDS” in Africa, to which the HIV-AIDS epidemic has been off-shored, along with the profitable “life saving treatments” that will be financed from $50 billion in “PEPFAR” funds appropriated in 2008 under George W. Bush. That would be the same president who appointed as his defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former chairman of one of the biggest purveyors of HIV chemotherapy, Gilead Sciences (GILD Quote) of Foster City, Calif. — one of the most politically connected pharmaceutical companies on the planet — which includes on its Board former Reagan Secretary of State George Shultz and former Special Trade Representative under George H.W. Bush, Carla Hills.

    I’m no expert on stock (I don’t own any) but if I held any pharmaceutical securities I’d be worried about their value as the public sees deeper down this rabbit hole. However, I have studied the mysteries of HIV-AIDS for the past three years and recently published an 8,000-word special report on HIV-AIDS: End to AIDS Nearer Than We Think? Re-appraising HIV in its 25th Anniversary Year.

    Gilead and other AIDS drug sellers may be one big class action lawsuit away from those whose health has been damaged by the “Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapies.”

    The benign-sounding HAART has been prescribed for the last dozen years for hundreds of thousands of people with no presenting AIDS-defining illnesses only “positive” results from a so-called “HIV test” — an assay for blood proteins believed to be associated with antibodies, which are the natural immunity defenses that Montagnier says can handle the virus on its own, with no drugs or vaccines. Those emerging health disasters are documented in a recent excellent piece in New York Magazine, “Another Kind of AIDS Crisis.”

    Such a class-action suit was foreshadowed in December 2007 by a $2.5 million jury award to a Massachusetts woman, who received HIV treatments for nine years before discovering her HIV antibody test was a “false positive.”

    Lawsuit or not, it’s time on this 25th anniversary of “HIV” to re-open discussion of a flawed AIDS theory, which has psychologically terrorized and inflicted drug harm and added another burden to Africa.

    Here is Jim Cramer’s response, as perceptively prognostic as his efforts over the last two years (how come this guy has any credibility left? hard to see, except that Wall Street advice on tv is the silliest concept ever dreamed up to pull the suckers in):

    Terry Michael’s further thoughts are at, specifically at

    Most recent thoughts….

    Nobel Curse for AIDS, Big Pharma

    by Terry Michael | December 7, 2009

    Editor’s Very Special Note

    How CNBC’s Jim Cramer
    Kremlin-ized my article
    on AIDS and Gilead Big Pharma

    The above piece by me was taken down from The Street.Com, a site founded by CNBC’s Mad Money Jim Cramer, after it was up for only about 4 hours on Monday, December 7, from 11:53 a.m. EST to about 4 p.m. The Big Pharma company mentioned in the piece, Gilead (GILD) Sciences, Inc. of Foster City, CA, seems to have gotten to Cramer, who himself posted a comment to my piece–a highly unusual act by such a busy guy.

    In his Comment–the very first of what were eventually 16 comments–Mr. Cramer immediately went to work for Gilead, little more than 90 minutes after my piece went up on Gilead’s p.r. operation and Mr. Cramer (whose journalistic practices, along with CNBC’s, were questionned by The Daily Show last March, see below) worked very fast. Cramer’s comment was posted at 1:31 p.m.

    This was Soviet-style disappearing of history. The column, to which you can go by clicking on the headline for the piece above and here, is a PDF file, made from a cached file of the original.

    This is a lesson in the power of The HIV-AIDS Industrial Complex, heavy handedly shutting down debate about the highly toxic chemotherapies it purveys to gay men and black Africans. It certainly is a lesson in journalistic ethics and practices, recalling a story Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart did about Mr. Cramer and CNBC several months ago.

    In a JPG image of my biography (as a special contributor to the Opinion section of TheStreet.Com) you can see the now broken link to the piece I wrote. [As of 1 a.m. December 10, the biography with the broken link was still at site, on this page.]

    See my 8,000 word Special Report on HIV-AIDS, from which my TheStreet.Com piece was drawn, if you’d like to learn more about The HIV-AIDS Industrial Complex. And see another important recent article that informed my censored opinion column, at New York Magazine: Another Kind of AIDS Crisis, published November 9, 2009 (the magazine’s video on that story includes, near the beginning, a victim of Gilead’s “Truvada.”)

    Finally, this incident has a larger message. In the old days, a publisher bowing to corporate or political pressure could not send his minions out to confiscate all the ink-stained dead trees thrown on your porch by the paperboy. Today, the digital deliveryboy–the web master–can be ordered to erase content when an unscrupulous publisher decides to withdraw some inconvenient truth.

    –Terry Michael

    Correction: In my TheStreet.Com piece, I cited Donald Rumsfeld as former “CEO” of Gilead Sciences, Inc. That should read former “Chairman of the Board.” And I added a “c” into the name of Gilead Board member, former Sec. of State George Shultz. We all make mistakes–some a little bigger than others.


    Here is his biography at thestreet with the link neutralized by the web guys under orders from Jim “I wouldn’t know what was going on if you hit me over the head with it” Cramer:

    (It’s an image, not html). Unfortunately, there were 15 more Comments which we are still trying to track down. Nor are comments available on Michael’s complaint, A Very Special Note, at his own site (the item above) for some reason.

    Now we have comment by Nick Gillespie of Reason, as follows. per Spider’s link above:

    Editorial Discretion or Censorship at The And is it Harder or Easier to Kill Stories Now Than in The Days of Yore?
    Nick Gillespie | December 16, 2009

    A journalistic kerfuffle unfolded last week at, the website spearheaded by CNBC’s Mad Money host Jim Cramer. Reason contributor and Washington Center for Politics & Journalism head Terry Michael authored a piece that questioned the link between HIV and AIDS that ran at the site’s opinion section for about four hours before being taken down and scrubbed from the site.

    The piece used various statements from French medical researcher Luc Montagnier, who won a Nobel Prize for his role in connecting the retrovirus HIV with AIDS, to argue that the iconic HIV=AIDS equation is mistaken. In a recent documentary on the same theme, Montagnier says that individuals with healthy immune systems can be exposed to HIV repeatedly without becoming infected. Michael says that Montagnier believes the number of AIDS deaths in Africa is heavily inflated and is more likely attributable to lack of clean water and other issues. And Michael says that the drug cocktails increasingly prescribed to HIV-positive individuals who are not presenting other AIDS symptoms are dangerous in and of themselves (he singles out drugmaker Gilead Sciences as a major culprit). In the brief time that Michael’s article was live, the first comment came from Jim Cramer himself, who wrote, “This article makes it sound like [Gilead] is a fraud. That’s ridiculous. The franchise is important and helpful. I don’t think there is support for this position.. None.”

    Shortly after that, the piece was taken down. Curious about the speed with which the story was redacted, I contacted’s editor about why it was removed and received the reply, “There were factual errors in the piece, so we ran a correction and then took it down.” He did not elaborate on the errors, but Michael cops to some minor errors at his website. Michael has posted the original piece as a screen grab at this site, along with Cramer’s comment and his own take on the issue. He says his article was “Kremlin-ized” and that its removal demonstrates the reach of corporate power, which strikes me as a stretch absent any sort of clear evidence. In any case, you can read all that here.

    I bring all of this up not because of the issue Michael discussed—I think the connection between HIV and AIDS is established (as does Montagnier) and a major reason for the decline in full-blown AIDS cases in the past 20 years or so are precisely the therapies that Michael rejects—but because of a point he makes at the end of his post on the matter:

    In the old days, a publisher bowing to corporate or political pressure could not send his minions out to confiscate all the ink-stained dead trees thrown on your porch by the paperboy. Today, the digital deliveryboy—the web master—can be ordered to erase content when an unscrupulous publisher decides to withdraw some inconvenient truth.

    Let’s leave aside any specifics about this particular case. Does that argument ring true? It seems to me that, if anything, it’s far harder to squelch stories than ever before. Not because publishers, whether scrupulous or un, won’t try, but for the very reasons that Michael was able to save cached versions and repost them at his own site. There never has been and never will be a guarantee that anyone will care about your version of the truth (or of the past, or of the present or future, either), but it seems undeniable to me that individuals and small-time actors have more tools by which to tell their stories. Which is a good thing, regardless of the stories they choose to tell.

    Notice the gratuitous offering by Mr Gillespie, the editor of Reason who has alway had difficulty mastering the case against HIV=AIDS, even though it was laboriously explained to him by none other than Spider, as well as this writer, that “I( think the connection between HIV and AIDS is established (as does Montagnier) and a major reason for the decline in full-blown AIDS cases in the past 20 years or so are (sic) precisely the therapies that Michael rejects”.

    What reflex is it that prompts almost any commentator on even the tiniest leak in the universal armor plate of paradigm assertion in the scientifically ignorant mainstream media to immediately shoehorn in the piece his own uninformed bewilderment as to how anyone could question the belief that HIV=AIDS, which is the equivalent of gravity?

    Some amusing comments follow this somewhat reason challenged statement by Gillespie, which we record here just in case he is rewarded by Gilead with ads for its popular drug to combat HIV, the retrovirus for which there is as yet no evidence after 25 years that it causes anything, let alone devastation to the immune system of the unfortunate human beings caught in this catastrophic but remarkably well funded belief system:

    n P.|12.16.09 @ 7:59PM|#
    This argument was also proposed in ‘Inventing the AIDS Virus’, by Dr. Peter Duesberg. A lot of people had fun tearing it apart, and I often get funny looks for admitting that I’ve read it and taken away a lot from it. But I figure, hey, this is Hit & Run — what’s the worst that could happen?

    reply to this
    Bergholt Stuttley Johnson|12.16.09 @ 9:40PM|#
    Why, even now Nick Gillespie is on the phone with your employer, engineering your dismissal.

    reply to this
    The Art-P.O.G.|12.17.09 @ 5:03AM|#
    Guffaw! Good one, BSJ.

    reply to this
    Ben P.|12.17.09 @ 7:16AM|#
    My CEO would have no idea who Nick Gillespie is, and would tell him to ditch the leather jacket and get a real job.

    Which is why, I think, my employment there will not last more than another year, regardless.

    reply to this
    Paul|12.16.09 @ 8:00PM|#
    Let’s leave aside any specifics about this particular case. Does that argument ring true?
    Not even.

    In a limited way, his argument has a point. Sure, if the New York Times runs a story, prints the papers and delivers them, it can’t un-run it.

    But in this day and age, if your story pops up on a webpage that anyone cares about, it’s been copied and archived before you can scream “censorship!”

    It will limit who views it, because there are people who don’t care and never saw it in the first place. But your ideas don’t “die” because the webmaster took it down.

    reply to this
    .|12.16.09 @ 8:01PM|#
    Correction: In my TheStreet.Com piece, I cited Donald Rumsfeld as former “CEO” of Gilead Sciences, Inc. That should read former “Chairman of the Board.” And I added a “c” into the name of Gilead Board member, former Sec. of State George Shultz. We all make mistakes–some a little bigger than others.

    I blame Cheney and Halliburton.

    reply to this
    Chrispy|12.16.09 @ 8:02PM|#
    It sounds like a private website took down a story it didn’t agree with, and I see no problem with that.

    As far as whether it’s easier or harder to hide stories now than in the past, I’d say it’s harder now. Not only can cached versions be retrieved, but there are so many virtual ‘publishers’ these days that it’s always easy to find a place to post any story. It won’t always be on a huge mainstream site, but at least it’s out there somewhere.

    reply to this
    brotherben|12.16.09 @ 8:03PM|#
    For a Soviet style disappearance of history the article is sure readily available over a week later.

    Today’s reading of the single payer ammendment is a goos example of news availability today vs. decades ago. Decades ago, we might have read about it in tomorrow’s paper. Tonight’s if we lived in a big city with an evening edition. Compare that with senate clerks reading the ammendment today. We were commenting on it here as it was happening.
    If a story is juicy enough 9Tiger woods comes to mind) and goes viral, it could be on millions of websites within a few hours. A publishor might be able to get all his newspapers back but you can’t erase every posting of a story on the web.

    reply to this
    brotherben|12.16.09 @ 8:06PM|#
    crap. please ignore my missspelllings in the above commant.

    reply to this
    The Art-P.O.G.|12.17.09 @ 5:05AM|#
    “9tiger”? Very sci-fi.

    reply to this
    .|12.16.09 @ 8:10PM|#
    As long as the “libertarian democrat” keeps his AIDs conspiracy story as a PDF nobody is going to read it.

    It sucks too.Pretty much claims BUSH forced HIV-infected healthy individuals in Africa to take AIDs drugs to make $$$ for his friends at Gilead.

    reply to this
    Episiarch|12.16.09 @ 8:21PM|#
    Let’s leave aside any specifics about this particular case. Does that argument ring true?

    Nope. Write some unusual phrase in the comments here at H&R, wait 4 hours, and search for it on Google. Google will probably have it indexed and cached already.

    Terry’s argument is just like a “libertarian democrat”. You know…imaginary.

    reply to this
    Captain Awesome|12.16.09 @ 9:49PM|#
    I once did this to find my old comment on here about the moon making Earth officially an Islamic planet (a Christian group wanted to launch a cross satelite to declare it a Christian world) and was delighted that it appeared. Alas, it seems to have moved off the Google servers at this time, being indexed is fleeting.

    reply to this
    Johnny Longtorso|12.16.09 @ 8:31PM|#
    Write some unusual phrase in the comments here at H&R, wait 4 hours, and search for it on Google. Google will probably have it indexed and cached already.

    Google “unstoppable rape machine” sometime.

    reply to this
    Episiarch|12.16.09 @ 8:39PM|#
    Dude, I do that every day already.

    reply to this
    Johnny Longtorso|12.16.09 @ 9:23PM|#

    reply to this
    brotherben|12.16.09 @ 9:53PM|#
    Epi is hip as grits. He? can ego surf if he? wants.

    reply to this
    Episiarch|12.16.09 @ 10:33PM|#

    reply to this
    The Art-P.O.G.|12.17.09 @ 5:13AM|#
    Point Break starring Steve Smith.

    reply to this
    ed|12.17.09 @ 7:18AM|#
    “individuals and small-time actors have more tools by which to tell their stories”

    And retrieve them. We are immortal!

    reply to this
    Solanum|12.16.09 @ 8:34PM|#
    “Well that’s just great! Of all the times to get AIDS, I get it right when everyone stops giving a crap.”

    reply to this
    A Payne|12.16.09 @ 8:55PM|#
    Good article Nick,But you failed to mention the film that was the source of the content of thestreet article.

    reply to this
    Terry Michael|12.16.09 @ 9:17PM|#
    I don’t usually comment on pieces that cite my writing, but–as someone who taught “Journalism 100: Theory and Practice” (at The George Washington Univ. for about five years)–I have some reasonable understanding of journalistic ethical standards. Erasing a piece from a web site which purports to offer news should at least have warranted an explanation to readers, which did not happen at The editor of the site had the courage to use my controversial opinion piece about Big Pharma and AIDS; the publishers of the site clearly bowed to pressure from Gilead Sciences, Inc., [GILD is their stock symbol] and ordered it down. As for my views on HIV and AIDS, informed by three years of reading, research and interviewing, you can read them at my web site: “Special Report on HIV-AIDS.”
    […..eport.html ]
    And be sure to see the trailer for the new documentary on HIV-AIDS, “House of Numbers,” by Brent Leung, which you can find by searching Montagnier and Leung at YouTube.
    [ ]
    You might be amazed at what you see and hear.

    reply to this
    BakedPenguin|12.16.09 @ 9:35PM|#
    Hmmm. Interesting. Does anyone who knows the skeptic’s argument know what the “co-factors” were for the gay community in the 1980’s, or for hemophiliacs?

    reply to this
    BakedPenguin|12.16.09 @ 10:06PM|#
    Never mind, I finished the Michael article.

    reply to this
    Episiarch|12.16.09 @ 10:42PM|#
    It seems that Anonymity Bot needs to be rebooted.

    reply to this
    Episiarch|12.17.09 @ 2:00AM|#
    Whoa, what the hell happened here?

    reply to this
    Liam Scheff|12.16.09 @ 10:01PM|#
    Quoting Nick Gillespie:

    “I think the connection between HIV and AIDS is established (as does Montagnier) and a major reason for the decline in full-blown AIDS cases in the past 20 years or so are precisely the therapies that Michael rejects…”


    This is just one of the quotes from Nobel Laureate Lucky Luc Montagnier that caused Terry Michael’s piece to be excised:

    “I believe HIV, we can be exposed to HIV many times without being chronically infected. Our immune system will get rid of the virus within a few weeks, if you have a good immune system; and this is the problem also of Africa, of African people.

    Their nutrition is not very equilibrated, they are in oxidative stress, even if they are not infected with HIV. So their immune system doesn’t work well, already. So it’s prone, you know, it can allow HIV to get in and persist.”

    You want another?

    Now, tell me again that this piece wasn’t squelched because the pharmaceutical companies are dropping bricks from their hind quarters? And tell me again what Montagnier actually thinks?

    And this from the Associated Press last month:

    Whether previous U.N. initiatives are responsible for the epidemic’s downturn is uncertain. Some experts said the drop in HIV may simply be a result of the virus burning itself out, rather than the result of any health interventions.”

    Say what?

    most sincerely…


    PS – What the hell is HIV? I mean, which one of the ever-changing frankenstein molecules stitched together from cellular detritus, never matching, never reproducible is the magic entity?

    I’m given to thinking that we’re looking at cellular ‘phenomena’ and not singularity, after all this time…

    And then, what the hell is an HIV test? Which one of the 20 plus tests, all of which state that they come up positive for everything from flu to worms to nothing in particular, is the test that tells somebody that they’re cursed for life, because they had sex, once, a long time ago, and it was ‘bad sex?’

    Oh.. and why the bleeping bleep is Nancy Padian’s study censored from the Wikipedia page?

    PPS. If you ever want an honest to goodness piece on the absolutely hidden and buried standard medical literature that describes AIDS as a multi-factorial, highly treatable, mostly toxicological syndrome, written for your very respectable journal, dites-moi, naturellement, mon frere, and I shall answer your request, with journal references in hand.

    With much due respect for your good work over the years in keeping some journalism at least semi-liberty loving.

    Liam Scheff

    reply to this
    Hacha Cha|12.16.09 @ 11:17PM|#
    an HIV test tries to detect the presence of HIV antibodies, which should only be present if you’ve been infected with HIV. that is just one form of testing there is the Western Blot and ELISA, some check for the virus itself.

    reply to this
    stubby|12.16.09 @ 10:04PM|#
    Now THAN in the days of yore, Nick. THAN, not then.

    sorry. Nothing sets off my grammar twitch like than/then. cept for its/it’s.

    reply to this
    Dagny T.|12.16.09 @ 10:21PM|#
    Now than, stubby, its a common mistake.

    reply to this
    ed|12.17.09 @ 7:21AM|#
    They’re/their offends as well.

    reply to this
    BakedPenguin|12.16.09 @ 10:18PM|#
    stubby, thats to bad. Maybe if your a little more lose about these things, you could except them better. You know, affect a change in you’re life.

    reply to this
    Dagny T.|12.16.09 @ 10:26PM|#
    One must learn too except these things.

    reply to this
    BakedPenguin|12.16.09 @ 10:51PM|#
    Thats what I could of told her. I can’t help but think its not to hard. I mean, unless you want too deal with all the amount of mistakes people make, and administrate their writing, hoping their gonna make less mistakes irregardless of what they know, and get all aggravated when people write bad, cause they had ought to have written better.

    reply to this
    Dagny T.|12.16.09 @ 11:42PM|#
    Ooh, “irregardless” is a personal favorite. Well played.

    reply to this
    BakedPenguin|12.17.09 @ 11:49AM|#
    Thank you. My only regret is that I didn’t work in “egregious” as an synonym for “terrible”.

    reply to this
    David Crowe|12.16.09 @ 10:32PM|#
    One would think that a bigger story than the removal of Terry Michael’s piece would be the frequent recanting of the main HIV=AIDS dogmas by Luc Montagnier. You know, the guy who got the Nobel for discovering HIV back in the 1980s. This was referred to in Terry Michael’s piece, which is one reason his story is important (and it’s abrupt removal). The mainstream media hasn’t disappeared their coverage of the recent amazing video of Montagnier, parts of which appeared in the documentary “House of Numbers”, there never was any coverage. How can society’s view of AIDS grow and strengthen if we are protected from information that doesn’t fit within the little square box that our thoughts are allowed to exist in? How can people be so sure that the mainstream story is correct when every criticism of it is aborted, stillborn or quickly buried without so much as a funeral?

    reply to this
    Hacha Cha|12.16.09 @ 11:09PM|#
    my ex had HIV and at one point AIDS. AIDS is when your CD4 count drops below a certain level, that level has been changed before and currently you are considered as having AIDS if your CD4 count is below 200 cells per µL of blood. the AIDS denialist zine Continuum ceased publication after the entire staff DIED OF AIDS. I know that it is possible for CERTAIN people to be exposed to HIV and not catch it but that depends on how much you were exposed to and if they have one or two copies of a mutation in the CCR5 gene. at one point in my life I made some really stupid choices and had lots of unprotected sex and shared straws and rolled up bills with a girl who had HIV and AIDS but luckily I never caught it at least 2 tests 6 months apart seem to confirm that. I agree that it is much harder to keep something off the net once it has been published. but I also think that if I were running a web site I wouldn’t want a piece of shit article that says HIV infection doesn’t progress to AIDS because that is bullshit, if your CD4 drops too low you have AIDS and in many people with AIDS your CD4 count will drop without medication.

    reply to this
    Hacha Cha|12.16.09 @ 11:10PM|#
    that last sentence should read: if your CD4 drops too low you have AIDS and in many people with AIDS HIV your CD4 count will drop without medication.

    reply to this
    John|12.17.09 @ 9:01AM|#
    I read a book a few years ago on the history of the black plague. In it, it said that a small percentage of the people infected with the plague surived due to some genetic mutation. It also said that it is thought that the decendents of these people are also immune to HIV.

    That to me seems to be the most compelling explination for the facts we know. There is no doubt that some people seem to be unaffected by HIV. And there is also no doubt that it kills plenty of others. If a small percentage of the population has a mutation that makes them immune to the stuff, it would explain the cases the denialists point to.

    reply to this
    Mike Laursen|12.16.09 @ 11:53PM|#
    You can disappear an online story, if you take it down really quickly or your news site that reuses URL parameters in a way that confuses Google.

    Still the world is much better off than when it all stories gradually disappeared into the possession of some microfilm reading room-shushing librarian, and it was virtually impossible to check what the President said in that campaign speech he gave to the Teamsters last year against what he said last night at the trade talks in Abu Dhabi.

    reply to this
    ed|12.17.09 @ 7:25AM|#
    Unless the stories mutate into manipulated propaganda, false quotes, outright lies, quoted thereafter and forever as factual. But that never happens.

    reply to this
    Mike Laursen|12.17.09 @ 10:00AM|#
    Isn’t that a problem that has remained unchanged since the first time a bunch of cavemen described their hunting trip?

    reply to this
    Karri|12.17.09 @ 10:12AM|#
    All’s I know are my facts:

    I tested “positive” in 1996 (not in a risk group)
    Told I’d “be lucky if I had 6 months to live
    Started the “cocktail” and took the drugs faithfully for 11 yrs.
    Quit all the HIV drugs in April 2007
    All side effects (that they told me were from “AIDS”) have disappeared.
    Healthy today!

    By the way, I was “supposedly infected” in the late ’80’s and had a t-cell count of 29 upon diagnosis.

    Please see my story and pictures here:

    reply to this
    Hacha Cha|12.17.09 @ 11:34AM|#
    did it ever cross your mind that it could be the 11 years of medications and/or your immune system got the virus level to an undetectable point and you recovered. there is still the chance it could come back some time in the future.

    reply to this
    Gabe|12.17.09 @ 10:31AM|#
    If Donald Rumsfeld had something to do with the company then it was a crooked company. I don’t even need to waste my resources looking in to it.

    reply to this

    Note the post by Terry Michaels in the middle of all that, stating:

    Terry Michael|12.16.09 @ 9:17PM|#
    I don’t usually comment on pieces that cite my writing, but–as someone who taught “Journalism 100: Theory and Practice” (at The George Washington Univ. for about five years)–I have some reasonable understanding of journalistic ethical standards. Erasing a piece from a web site which purports to offer news should at least have warranted an explanation to readers, which did not happen at The editor of the site had the courage to use my controversial opinion piece about Big Pharma and AIDS; the publishers of the site clearly bowed to pressure from Gilead Sciences, Inc., [GILD is their stock symbol] and ordered it down. As for my views on HIV and AIDS, informed by three years of reading, research and interviewing, you can read them at my web site: “Special Report on HIV-AIDS.”
    […..eport.html ]
    And be sure to see the trailer for the new documentary on HIV-AIDS, “House of Numbers,” by Brent Leung, which you can find by searching Montagnier and Leung at YouTube.
    [ ]
    You might be amazed at what you see and hear.


    In other words, the HIV=AIDS Mafia tend to scotch questions about their unjustified and (after 25 years) unjustifiable paradigm by contacting publishers and getting them to run scared and take down the helpful and enlightening piece which they find offensive and threatening to their financial interests because it exposes the hollow foundation of what is now billions and billions of spending annually.

    And what is that mention of Wikipedia erasing Nancy Padian’s study that showed nil transmissions of HIV among heterosexuals over six years? We don’t have an earlier copy of the Nancy Padian Wiki entry, but it seems clear that the study has indeed been removed from her entry, and the mention is reduced to a one line which directs all readers to the Wiki entry on “AIDS Denialism”, which comforts all doubters by informing them that

    “The evidence that H.I.V. causes AIDS is considered scientifically conclusive.[2][3] The scientific community rejects and ignores AIDS-denialist claims as based on faulty reasoning, cherry picking, and misrepresentation of mainly outdated scientific data.[4] With the rejection of these arguments by the scientific community, AIDS-denialist material is now spread mainly through the Internet.[5][6]”.

    The ability of the Wikipedia to be taken over by a mainstream faction is here made loud and clear. The entry repeats the canard that the Harvard HIV paradigm exploiters floated last year laying up to 340,000 AIDS deaths at the door of the “denialists”, the position that Peter Duesberg skilfully rejected and countered with unrefuted arguments in the Medical Hypotheses article this summer, which was censored in the same way by publisher Elsevier and at PubMed.

    All this should be in a post, rather than here, and it will be moved to one shortly. But the important point is that counter arguments against the HIV=AIDS paradigm are being censored rather than answered, as has been the case now for twenty years, and the meaning of such censorship is obvious.

    The paradigm defenders in HIV=AIDS have no good answers to the legion of scientific objections to their profitable claim, and have nothing scientifically valid to offer in its support.

  39. Baby Pong Says:

    We hate to say it again, but we really feel that we have a state-controlled media. This doesn’t just apply to the newspapers and TV networks, it also is true of many websites, particularly Wikipedia, and also smaller websites that target pseudo-intellectuals, such as Reason and the many “quackwatch” type sites that specialize in promoting pharma and disparaging the vastly superior naturopathic remedies.

    It’s hard to shake the belief that you’ve been indoctrinated with since childhood, that the difference between the commies and us is that we have a “free and vibrant” media. But in fact our media is totally controlled just as the red media is.

    We live in a dictatorship that has a great PR campaign to convince the people it’s a democracy.

    Spider, as to predicting who will be next, we are very worried about certain H+ dissidents who are writing books and giving TV interviews about how healthy they are without the meds. You can perhaps figure out who we mean.

    We hesitate to dwell on this subject but hope that our outing of this hidden activity (and note that a huge portion of the US’s intel budget goes toward “Clandestine Services”) will make the black ops folks think twice before doing it again. Probably not, because only a few dozen people will ever read this, but it will make it a bit more difficult to do if they know that we are on to them.

    One should never shout to the world about how healthy one is, or how happy one is, or how financially successful one is, because in doing so, one is tempting fate to reverse one’s pleasant condition, and also perhaps tempting the black ops folks who are threatened by one’s success to off one’s ass permanently.

  40. Truthseeker Says:

    “Scienceguardian” is posting on twitter!:

    Average $$ spent on Congressional lobbying per day by US health care companies in 2009: $1,500,000 Harpers Index
    less than a minute ago from web

    Number of registered drug company lobbyists in Washington DC for every member of Conress: 2 Harpers Index
    3 minutes ago from web

    Date when fifty millionth man-made chemical was registered: September 7 2009 Harpers Index
    4 minutes ago from web

    # of times current global species extinction rate exceeds what ecologists say is “natural” rate:100 Harpers Index
    6 minutes ago from web

    Factor by which the carbon footprint of a German shepherd exceeds that of an SUV: 3 see Harpers Index
    8 minutes ago from web

    Date when Obama tied Bush for number of rounds of golf played while in office: October 25 2009. Harpers Index
    10 minutes ago from web

    Number of party fundraisers attended by November by Obama: 26 Number attended by George W in his first year: 6
    12 minutes ago from web

    Amount of stimulus dollars spent for every job created/saved by Obama Administration: $250,000 – Harpers Index
    15 minutes ago from web

    Nightline:Sharks slaughtered for fin soup 100 million annually, soon extinct & ecosystem wrecked if not stopped –
    11:00 AM Dec 17th from web

    Copenhagen scrum – conference center capacity 15,000, UN let 45,000 people register – Eliz Rosenthal NYTimes
    10:59 AM Dec 17th from web

    Muslim notes: Amnesty Int asks Saudis to cancel 40 lashes for lady aged 75 caught with two men not relatives.
    10:59 AM Dec 17th from web

    Hard to forget NYT on Andes glaciers disappearing and 100 million losing water, some giving up having children
    10:59 AM Dec 17th from web

    Stewart Brand smart on 4 varieties climate opinion yet omits key point – lets hope we caused warrming or no cure
    10:58 AM Dec 17th from web

    Extraordinary bombshell in AIDS – Nobel HIV discoverer Montagnier reveals HIV is no threat to healthy people –
    5:20 PM Dec 2nd from web

    #worldaidsday See how unbalanced media coverage is of HIVAIDS read UK Independent piece today – misleading us all
    1:02 AM Dec 2nd from web

    #worldaidsday HIV/AIDS is not scam feeding off world’s poor and ignorant? Nobel prize winner M tells truth in
    3:48 PM Dec 1st from web

    World AIDS Day celebrates world’s biggest cult engendered by scientists who mislead the public. Read the journals & challenge HIV/AIDS dogma
    1:25 PM Dec 1st from web

    @onscrn competents conCERNed incl Adrian Kent, Grigory Vilkovisky, Tony Rothman, if not Rossler Wagner – & Plaga showed GM reply incorrect.
    2:55 PM Nov 22nd from web

    @onscrn cosmic ray argument 1 is incorrect as cern safety report states. If you wish to object to Plaga you have to catch up, 2 is unproven.
    2:43 PM Nov 22nd from web

    @Prof_S_Hawking With respect, have you read Rainer Plaga’s 3rd edition re CERN risks & detected a flaw in his case re poss megacatastrophe?
    6:09 AM Nov 22nd from web

    Reviewing CERN shows critics theory stronger than safety reports, & currently ignored. Is megacatastrophe worth tiny risk? Reason shd rule.
    11:20 PM Nov 21st from web

    Laughable at first glance and the media make fun of 2012 prophecies, but that’s when CERN goes full blast and risks peak. Should UN move?
    11:15 PM Nov 21st from web

    The credible critic of CERN is Rainer Plaga, and we found top NYU profs and Brian Greene of Columbia admit they have not read his latest!
    11:08 PM Nov 21st from web

    OK here we go – CERN cranks up its $10b toy, critics appeal to UN to force outside review, credible top physicist says maybe Goodbye planet!
    11:02 PM Nov 21st from web

  41. Carter Says:

    Allow me to open this Montagnier saga once again after a whole month, with something found of interest; Djamel Tahi, who’s posted this:

    Speak out, Monsieur le Professeur Montagnier!

    I thought I could comment that isn’t this back peddling on Monagnier’s part., meaning his answer in Nexus? But , I don’t find that. Only a cut and paste “taken out of context” answer so he can distance himself from House of Numbers. The rest of it seems to substantiate his film interview.

  42. Truthseeker Says:

    Naturally Montagnier is officially backpeddling as fast as he can, having been awarded the Nobel in the interim. No doubt he was contacted by the HIV defense squad and brought to heel, if they are still on speaking terms. The plain fact is that his disavowal is goobledegook, precisely as Nancy Padian’s strenuous attempt to deny the results of her own huge study which failed to find a single case of transmission of HIV among discordant couples also found her floundering in conceptual dishonesty (see for this amusing demonstration of how HIV defenders are forced into pretzel like contortions when trying to claim their research justifies their absurd but inviolable premise that HIV causes AIDS, the sine qua non of their funding, prestige, and ability to publish in this profoundly distorted field.)

    Montagnier can say what he likes but he cannot retract a plain statement of fact which is in line with all research in the field for 25 years – exposure to HIV in a healthy human results in its swift rejection by the immune system, and after a few weeks there is effectively no trace of it in the body, but only antibodies as evidence that it was ever there. After that it is very hard to find any trace of it until the patient is suffering from a complete collapse of the immune system from some other cause (drugs or malnutrition or lethal TB) when the indications of its presence may rise somewhat, at least according to the graphs presented at NIAID conferences, which are probably more imagination than reality, we judge from our attendance at the one we recorded here a couple of years ago.

    It is all as Duesberg has long pointed out. HIV is a harmless retrovirus and quickly defeated by anybody with a healthy immune system. All good research data is in line with this statement, and claims to the contrary are specious. Montagnier has always known this and been the one to try and find some other “cofactor” to alter this conclusion, much to the alarm of those at the top of HIV=AIDS paradigm promotion, who know that would mean that HIV was irrelevant to AIDS.

    This is why they kicked Montagnier out of San Francisco when he came up with his mycoplasm co factor theory. Now that he has got the Nobel for HIV he has his hands tied and cannot even allow himself the usual degree of schizophrenia on the topic, which was the purpose of giving him the Nobel, presumably (why he was supported for it).

    Watching a fundamentally decent man ride on a bandwagon he clearly knows is heading in the wrong direction is one of the tragicomedies of HIV=AIDS theater.

  43. cervantes Says:

    Deja vu all over again. The catastrophic order(s) of magnitude increase in autism (and Asbergers Syndrome), likewise autoimmune disastrous ailments (such as lupus), life-threatening allergies (such as peanuts!), deadly ten-fold increases in asthma, etc., the last 25 years of vaccinations mimics the NIH’s and CDC’s attitude toward AIDS.

    (In case most contributors to SG/NewAidsReview don’t know, there are now 14 vaccines, comprising 41 vaccination doses, injected into infants by age 18 months, including the flu vaccines, and I’m talking beginning with the day of birth with Hepatitis B vaccine). See the web address (it is horror incarnate):

    In both cases, there is the astounding rationale that the scores of $Billions spent for studies CANNOT include a placebo cohort that takes no anti-Hiv drugs in the case of AIDS, or, takes no vaccines in the case of autism (etc.), BECAUSE “it is not ethical” to have a recognized group of infants/people not be treated with all the wonders of the Age of Pharmaceuticals (this includes vaccines) when most certainly all MUST need these wondrous drugs/vaccines.

    Yet, there are numerous – nay, countless – defacto groups of kids and adults in both cases being the healthiest people on the planet despite being left out of (or rejecting) today’s pharma’s promises of salvation promised by such as Dr. Anthony Fauci of NIAID.

    To paraphrase Peter Duesberg of 20 years ago speaking of Dr. Sam Broder of the National Cancer Institute, who championed AZT beginning 1984, today’s leaders at NIH and CDC lead the nominations of the Annual Josef Mengele Award.

    Duesberg has always had it right – just have the two cohorts consisting those not taking treatment drugs, and those who do take treatment drugs. This is just like autism, an incomparable disaster for the individual and his/her family, and a monumental catastrophe for society. Not funding non-vaccinated, non-drugged studies effectively shrouds the lies.

  44. Truthseeker Says:

    Cervantes, we have made the typo corrections you asked for in the above comment, and apologize for the delay in doing so, caused by various distractions including trying to set the record straight at the Times Higher Education site on the two news reports on Peter Duesberg’s experience in being censored at Medical Hypotheses, which should be a post shortly. see and
    Please expand on what you say about autism studies lacking control groups, if that is what you mean.

  45. jtdeshong Says:

    Truthseeker, thank you for reinforcing why I no longer waste my time here. I bring up an extremely relevant fact regarding the Maggiore autopsy. The fact that the ORIGINAL report was not released is extremely telling and should be addressed. However, you state that because I put an extra letter “t” in Al~Bayati’s name you will just ignore this fact. WOW! That alone proves that even you do not have an adequate reason to release a Reader’s Digest version of the actual autopsy!

  46. Truthseeker Says:

    Poor Todd, did we neglect you? Our sincerest apologies. The topic of Maggiore’s untimely death is not one which this site need pursue except insofar as it is claimed by the HIV enthusiasts such as yourself that it resulted from HIV. Since she was HIV negative, and died suddenly ie from symptoms that she did not have more than a few days, and was previously not suffering from any of the long list of AIDS symptoms as far as we recall, we see no reason why the end of her courageous existence need be investigated in this vein of battling over whether she died of AIDS, instead of recognizing her as a valiant fighter for free speech and proper science in this twisted field, where the fantasy of the invisible but deadly virus is killing millions because it leads them, or they are misled, into taking noxious drugs. That such a witty commentator as yourself should be endangering his own health by subscribing to this global myth, when the big picture is so obviously unsound in every major aspect, is a personal tragedy, and we have every hope that by reading Science Guardian carefully you will be rescued from it. This is the very purpose of our humble blog, and we are always glad when you give it attention for that reason.

  47. jtdeshong Says:

    Truthseeker you little scamp!! Perhaps you forgot your own comment here on Dec 11. Your comment posted the Al~Bayati (one “t”) report with the giant heading that the death certificate is all a big fat conspiracy!! And the very topic of this entire thread is about HoN and Maggiore’s labs which PROVE she was indeed HIV pos (eventhough the labs were presented out of order, probably intentionally to further obfuscate the facts)!
    Yet now you do not even want to admit that releasing a report OF THE orginal autopsy report INSTEAD OF the original is kinda shady at the very least. Please just admit that if the original autopsy report would put the orthodox in their place, then the original should have been released. And the fact that tool/shill Al~Bayati (one “t”) and to re~write history is proof indeed that you “dissidents” can not act like grown ups in any way, shape or form!
    Come on, just one little admission that there is a cover up going on here!! I’ll have a little respect for you then. And I know you crave my respect!
    P.S. Baby Pong wrote and you re~pasted regarding the fake report: “for unhindered
    publication/linking/dissemination” And yet the whole thing went over like a lead balloon and was over in a week! WHY? It was such obvious B.S.!!

  48. Truthseeker Says:

    Deshong you naughty boy, please stop trying to mislead people that Christine Maggiore died of HIV/AIDS in any way shape or form, even if you don’t understand the fallacy in such silliness. Perhaps you will understand better if we say it to you in rhyme, so here goes, transported from the Times Higher Education 377 Comment 89 page thread Unclear outlook for radical journal as HIV/Aids deniers evoke outrage ( ) where more and more of the pedestrian inaccuracies of HIV defenders are being exposed.

    Ode to DeSchong the Wrong

    Thanks for the amusement
    Todd, to relieve our bemusement
    At your playful foolishness
    Your four hooved mulishness
    When faced with truthful simplicity
    To replace HIV’s obvious infelicity
    I am sorry you always prove so unteachable
    So completely unreachable
    By our constant corrections
    Albeit with patient affection
    For your humorous contribution
    To obscuring the obvious solution
    Of replacing the pusillanimous paradigm
    Which sadistically torments our time
    And consigns the scientifically illiterate
    To a fate very nasty and obliterate,
    All with your jack-in-the-box
    Assistance. Crazy like a fox
    You’d eat your own tail
    Rather than help us bail
    You out of the HIV/AIDS jail
    Where you share the sentence
    Of all the poor innocents
    That you help to condemn
    With your sparkling gems
    Of schoolboy witticism
    At the expense of good criticism.

    So let’s just say
    Using common sense, pray,
    That children don’t expire
    Of AIDS in a few hours
    When they have been healthy
    HIV ain’t that stealthy
    Twixt symptoms and death
    Just ask your friend Seth.
    And leave Christine alone
    Or you’ll have much to atone
    For, when all this explodes
    In a rain of toads
    And all those who mislead
    Will have to pay for their deeds
    Such as claiming an HIV minus
    Woman died, one of truth’s finest,
    Of HIV/AIDS, that’s quite a trick,
    Absent agent making her sick.
    Or so we were told by Jeanne Bergman,
    Before she picked up her marbles and ran.

    But if you say this is all quite wrong
    And the fair lady was + all along,
    Still her experience was nothing like AIDS,
    Her collapse was sudden, not any slow fade.
    Only a believer, in faith, not science,
    Can go on peddling all this nonsense.
    So forgive us for putting it in very bad verse,
    But if it helps you think better, we could do much worse.

  49. jtdeshong Says:

    Nice. Now how about responding to exactly why the AIDS Denialists did NOT release the ORIGINAL autopsy report by Dr. David Posey!

    The fact that you will not respond to that says exactly what the release of the fake Al~Bayati (one “t”) report of the report says.

    Thank you for proving me right once more.


  50. pat Says:


    Jeanne Bergmann argued herself that Maggiore was HIV negative:

    “False-negative HIV tests are extremely rare, while false positives are much more common, though infrequent. This fact and all the other available evidence strongly indicate that Maggiore was never infected with HIV,…”

    Maggiore’s conflicting HIV testing history proves:

    a) that she was without a doubt HIV negative

    b) that the tests are without a doubt unreliable.


    c) That Jeanne Bergmann is just another horribly opinionated c…

    (“Christine Maggiore isn’t living proof that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS; she’s just another lying AIDS profiteer”)

    Personally I think it is all of the above.

    PS: how is your “Breaking Bauer” blog going? You seem stuck on a right-wing nutter instead.

    PPS: Is it Bergamann with 1 or 2 n’s?

  51. jtdeshong Says:

    Breaking Bauer got boring real quick. However, “right wing nutter” (Baker I presume?) NEVER gets boring. The thing about Bauer is he is a true nut. What he says is utter bullshit, but he ACTUALLY BELIEVES himself! Baker on the other hand, knows he is full of shit and just tries to out do his own crazy! It does not get more fun than Baker.
    NOW, back to Maggiore. You are still evading the point. Please answer why in the world would the AIDS “Dissidents” go out of their way to publish the Al~Bayati (one “t”) version of the autopsy report and NOT THE ORIGINAL autopsy report?
    My opinion is that the original autopsy report supports Maggiore dying of AIDS complications. Plain and simple. IF it did proved otherwise, they would have published it a year ago when it was completed and shoved down the throats of all of the Maggiore Detractors. Come on. It is so obvious you do yourself a huge disservice by stating otherwise.

  52. pat Says:

    I dont know why. there is another autopsy by some women who says she died of disseminated herpes and pneumonia; both aids indicators surely.


    She was clearly hiv negative as Jeanne Bergman so convincingly argues. Her testing history proves it.


    no hiv, no aids. It follows doesn’t it? (unless of course you live in Italy)

  53. Cathy Says:

    Quoth the Maven (Bob ‘Baster’ Galliforme)

    Once upon an April dreary, while I pondered the weak theory,
    Over many a quaint and curious viral cause that had me floored,
    While I plodded, nearly snapping, suddenly there came a tapping,
    As of someone roughly rapping, rapping at my boudoir door.
    `’Tis some dissident,’ I muttered, `tapping at my boudoir door –
    Only this, and nothing more.’

    Ah, distinctly I remember it was way back in December,
    As each separate dying ember of my theory hit the floor.
    Eagerly I wished it fruitful; – as my reputation freefall’d
    From my papers I was hopeful – hopeful to my very core –
    For the rare elusive virus that my brain could not ignore –
    Named by me for evermore.

    And the virus I was certain meant that I could pull a curtain,
    To obscure my previous ranting wrong ideas that were so poor,
    So now to stop the rushing of my blood I stood much gushing,
    “‘Tis the germ that I am pushing, such a deadly evil spore.
    ‘Tis the germ that I am pushing, such a deadly evil spore.
    This is IT, and nothing more.”

    Presently my lie grew stronger; hesitating then no longer,
    And discussion never invited, no in fact it was deplored,
    But the fact is I was lying, and so quietly you came prying,
    And so quietly you came prying, prying at my boudoir door,
    That I scarce was sure I heard you – here I opened wide the door; –
    Darkness there, and nothing more.

    Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there wondering, fearing,
    Doubting, dreaming dreams of riches that I never dreamed before,
    But the silence was unbroken, and the darkness gave no token,
    And the only words there spoken were the whispered words, `you fraud!’
    This I whispered, and an echo murmured back the words, `you fraud!’
    Merely Duesberg, nothing more.

    Back into the boudoir turning, Catholic soul within me burning,
    In my bowels there was churning somewhat louder than before.
    ‘Surely’ said I “that’s not Peter? ‘cause my life would be much sweeter,
    If you weren’t such a big beater of my theory to the floor.
    Let my coffers flow with money and the truth we will ignore,
    For the truth I care no more.’

    My door I did fling open with no further word been spoken,
    In there stepped the German maven of the saintly days of yore.
    Not the least obeisance made he; and he didn’t even kiss me;
    –But with dignity of rightness stood inside my boudoir door.
    Stood upon my shagpile carpet just inside my boudoir door.
    Stood, stared, and nothing more.

    The maven he was smiling and he would have been beguiling,
    But I knew him deadly serious in the task he was ensworn.
    ‘Though you may have been the maven, prior’ said I, ‘this is no haven,
    For my fame you’re simply craving and you don’t like being ignored.
    Do you know my lordly name is now the Knights’ Malteser Whore?’
    Quoth the maven, `You’re a fraud.’

    Though the maven was unsightly, I made sure to treat him lightly
    Even though he had the nerve to stand inside my boudoir door
    I could not help but seeing to the centre of his being
    That his life had little meaning and he really was a bore
    This dreary stubborn maven standing in my boudoir door
    Quoth the maven “You’re a fraud.”

    But the maven, sitting lonely on the shagpile he spoke only,
    That one word, as if his soul in that one word he did outpour.
    Nothing further then he uttered – not an eyelash then he fluttered –
    Till I scarcely more than muttered `Other friends have lied before –
    On the morrow you will leave me, and my lies will be ignored.’
    Then the maven said, `you fraud.’

    Startled at the stillness broken by reply so aptly spoken,
    `Doubtless,’ said I, `what he utters is just sour grapes and more’,
    He’s unhappy I’m now master with his work a clear disaster,
    And I’m getting famous faster than he ever did before,
    Till the dirges of his hope that melancholy burden bore,
    Of “You’re such a fraud”‘

    Maven stepped up to the table and was suddenly quite able,
    Then to see the dirty tricks I played and those he did abhor,
    Then with stone heart a-sinking, and my eyes so quickly blinking,
    Testicles were slowly shrinking and I peed upon the floor.
    What this grim, unsmiling, ghastly, gaunt and dissident of yore
    Meant in croaking ‘You’re a fraud.’

    This I sat engaged in guessing, but no syllable expressing,
    To the man whose fiery eyes now burned into my rotten core;
    I was on the verge of crying, as he carried on defying,
    And kept saying that I’m lying, like he saw it as a flaw!
    I kept plausibly denying but he said I broke the law,
    And said again ‘you fraud’

    Then I swear the room grew colder as the bastard grew much bolder
    Shouting mean things at me as he stood upon my shagpile floor
    ‘Wretch’ I cried ‘thy God hath sent thee to insult and thus torment me
    Respite – respite and valium from my memory of before
    Quaff, oh quaff this kind valium forget I broke the law
    Quoth the maven, ‘you’re a fraud’

    “Bastard! said I, ‘thing of evil! – you’re a nasty little weevil’
    But he stood unmoved by my great wit, my charm he did ignore
    Unfunded but unworried his demeanour was unhurried
    I made haste for then I scurried heading for the nearest door
    ‘Have you shares yet in Gilead? – the money you’ll adore’
    Quoth the maven – ‘you’re a fraud.’

    And the maven never blinking, in response to my mad winking,
    On the shagpile carpet lying just below my boudoir door,
    And his eyes have all the glaring of the madly screaming staring,
    And soon he moved his bearing, then he threw me to the floor.
    No soul would leave my body if it died upon the floor.
    Quoth the maven “Nevermore!”

  54. Snout Says:

    Pat, you have left out an obvious possibility for Maggiore’s self report of a “conflicting” testing history and Bergman’s misinterpretation of it:

    (d) Maggiore’s own account was selective, garbled and frankly misleading, and reflected her own desire to convince herself and others that HIV testing is unreliable.

    Maggiore and her supporters make the extraordinary claim that she repeatedly received negative and indeterminate diagnostic HIV test results following her original confirmed diagnosis. Unfortunately, Bergman took this claim at face value, despite no even ordinary evidence ever being presented to support this extraordinary claim.

    There was an attempt to do this on House of Numbers. In fact it demonstrates the opposite. Several test result slips are shown – out of sequence, perhaps because of sloppy editing, or perhaps deliberately to try to confuse the audience.

    Sorting out the chronology, Maggiore had a series of diagnostic tests in early 1992, beginning in February. The initial tests were EIA positive and showed gag and env bands on the Western Blot, but no pol bands. This is highly suggestive of early seroconversion, but has insufficient positive predictive value to make a confident definitive diagnosis, especially in a person whose clinical risk at the time was assessed to be very low (no-one knew about her HIV-positive boyfriend in Italy at the time). According to Maggiore, repeat testing following the initial two eventually gave rise to a clear positive result, but we are not shown this particular result slip.

    Then in September 1993, Maggiore repeated her diagnostic testing with a different physician. We are not shown the EIA, but the WB shows all eight bands reactive – an unequivocally positive result, as would be expected 18 months following seroconversion. These tests are repeated a week later (to exclude handling errors) and the results yet again show an unequivocally reactive EIA at 9.9, and a positive immunoblot.

    In between we are shown a fragment of a “non-reactive” test slip of some kind. The image shown is insufficient to discern what the test was for: the image in the film has been cropped to exclude any useful information, and it also appears that some text immediately after and below the “HIV” has been incompletely erased. This may well have been an HIV-1 p24 antigen test: these were routine monitoring tests used in 1992-3 before viral load tests became available, and provided a very crude measure of viraemia. Mistaking non-reactive HIV-1 p24 antigen tests for negative diagnostic HIV tests was a common error among people unfamiliar with the significance of various tests: the late Hulda Clarke based her whole book The Cure for HIV and AIDS largely on this basic misapprehension. But as probably the closest thing we will ever get to actual evidence to support Maggiore’s extraordinary claims about her testing history, the sequence shown on HoN fails miserably.

    The “guess my status” gambit pioneered by Maggiore has been played in different variations numerous times by HIV/AIDS dissidents over the years: the idea is you put out a bait of selective, ambiguous or frankly misleading personal medical history and try to get your opponent to commit to a hopefully false interpretation of it. It’s unfortunate that Bergman fell for it, and as she has repeatedly stated, it’s a matter of some regret to her.

  55. Snout Says:

    Pat, you also say, “there is another autopsy by some women who says she died of disseminated herpes and pneumonia; both aids indicators surely”.

    I’m not sure which “other autopsy” you might be referring to: as far as I am aware there was only one autopsy performed, and that was by Dr David Posey. This has not been released by the family, and Dr Posey’s conclusions especially have never been publicly revealed. However, some of the details of his findings have been reported second-hand, including his finding of typical features of PCP – marked alveolar distention by frothy eosinophilic proteinaceous exudates, diffuse alveolar damage characterized by widening and edema of the alveolar septae, and demonstration of Pneumocystis jirovecii on the H & E stained sections of lungs, (as well as liver, pancreas, spleen, kidneys, and bone marrow) and confirmed on the Gomori methenamine silver (GMS) preparation. Assuming these findings have been accurately reported, there is no doubt Christine died with PCP.

    Perhaps the “other autopsy” you are referring to is the death certificate, which was completed by Christine’s treating physician, Dr Ilona Abraham. Dr Abraham did not perform an autopsy, and was apparently unaware that Dr Posey had when she lodged her certificate. She indeed lists disseminated herpes infection, pneumonia and oral candidiasis as causes of death. According to the publicly available second-hand report of Dr Posey’s autopsy, the first diagnosis is perhaps questionable, although it may be that Christine was treated for a localised herpes infection during her final illness. However there is no doubt that she had pneumonia: her own description in an email posted on the net by a friend back in January 2009 of insidious onset of breathlessness and exhaustion over several weeks, absent chest signs and a chest X ray demonstrating bilateral pneumonia would be sufficient for a presumptive diagnosis of PCP by any physician familiar with the disease and with Christine’s history of untreated HIV infection for more than 16 years. Dr Posey’s findings mean that the diagnosis was no longer presumptive, but confirmed.

  56. Truthseeker Says:

    Gawd, Snout, haven’t you got enough of a drubbing at the Times Higher Education threads to know better than to start teasing out tiny twigs and trying to snap them when the forest fire is at your backside?

    Anyhow I wish to carry over here my last posted comment there that I hope will cap the first thread there because I admire J. Todd DeShong too much to leave his glory to bloom unseen in a Web backwater known only to a few. Quote:

    “Truthseeker 7 February, 2010
    Truman, good comment. But can’t we simplify? HIV creates HIV antibodies in a few weeks which gets rid of HIV, as the discoverer of HIV has recently confirmed in the film House of Numbers. So HIv creates HIV antibodies, which are effective. So HIV is the best vaccine already in our hands to combat HIV/AIDS. We have made this point to Anthony Fauci for years but he doesn’t seem to cotton on. Perhaps Wall Street should be consulted to fund a company devoted to manufacturing this very effective new vaccine, HIV. It is time, and I ask even John Moore now that his microbicide research expenditures have led precisely nowhere to climb on board. We can all ride this bandwagon to a new level of financial success for all. The first use of such funds of course should be to award J Todd Deshong the Science Guardian award for Humor in HIV/AIDS. Humor is a very important influence on health, and studies have now shown that a hearty laugh a day keeps cancer away. J. Todd Deshong – Science Guardian HIV/AIDS Humorist of the Year. Please vote early.”

    All votes welcome, with the deadline March 3, when the prize will be awarded (one copy of Harvey Bialy’s brilliant book on Peter Duesberg’s science, Oncogenes, Aneuploidy and AIDS) in the fond expectation that Todd’s life will be saved if he can only get through it to the point where the visitor from Bethesda pulls the letter out of his tuxedo pocket after the opera and asks Duesberg to sign a retraction of his opinion and all will be forgiven.

  57. pat Says:

    I cannot comment on the movie since I have yet to see it but are you not committing the same mistake Bergman did in years past? Namely attributing sinister motives to Maggiore’s behavior?

    “The “guess my status” gambit pioneered by Maggiore…It’s unfortunate that Bergman fell for it, and as she has repeatedly stated, it’s a matter of some regret to her.”

    The only thing “Mountainman” fell for was her own cruel and utterly stupid emotional hysteria. She ought to be ashamed of herself.

  58. Snout Says:

    No Pat, not sinister – just foolish. By all accounts Christine was a pretty nice lady, funny, warm, (cool in the best way), and someone who genuinely loved and was loved by the people who knew her. Only burdened like we all are with ordinary human foolishness – the seed of most human tragedies. After all who among us, faced with the horrible succession of realities that Christine was up against, could honestly say they wouldn’t be tempted to try to tell himself or herself – at least for a while – “This can’t be happening. There must be some mistake.”

    Where it gets kind of “sinister” is in the number of people prepared to line up behind Christine’s understandable normal human foolishness to egg her on to publicly stake her own and her daughter’s life on nothing more substantial than “this can’t be happening”.

    And I’m not even claiming that any of these individuals are in themselves sinister. Tragedy is always a collective project.

  59. pat Says:

    I can agree with you snout but only so far. I believe you are forgetting some characters whose offensive attacks on her served only to harden her position. Tragedy is indeed always a collective project and Bergman, Moore and many others who trot out dead bodies, death certificates and legal threats are right up there with the worst of the agitators. If Aids education is to be made effective one would need to think about replacing these people with more level-headed and emotionally detached characters. The “war on denialism” as it now stands can accurately be described as a self-sustaining industry.

  60. cervantes Says:

    As Pat says, The “war on denialism” as it now stands can accurately be described as a self-sustaining industry.’

    Other Western countries have few AIDS deaths per year (from 3 to 300), compared to the U.S. total of 15,000+. The per capita rate for the U.S. is at least 20 to 60 times that of all other comparable countries – DESPITE having similar rates of so-called HIV positivity.

    This “self-sustaining industry” (to quote Pat) of deadly drugs is ongoing and fatal in the U.S. of A. – yet this consumption of drugs is fading to zero everywhere else, thus minimal mortality.

    Only the U.S. Federal Budget of $30 Billion dollars per year (heartily endorsed by the most medically ignorant, his Highness Obama) for Hiv/Aids keeps this horrific Hiv snafu* going.

    *Also could be called a ‘fubar’ – ‘fucked up beyond all recognition’

  61. Truthseeker Says:

    US AIDS deaths were estimated 14,561 deaths in 2007 according to the CDC (, fairly steady, and 25,000 for North America (20 000–31 000) according to UNAIDS/WHO ( But “UNAIDS and WHO do not warrant that the information contained in this publication is complete and correct and shall not be liable for any damages incurred as a result of its use.”

    The experience of Maggiore (and her child) was precisely what HIV critics would predict as typical – normal variation in health until interrupted by some cause of illness and fatality which does not appear on the CDC list as an AIDS symptom, even though that list is as long as your arm and may at any moment include traffic accidents, if the HIV promoters have their way. One would not be surprised if soon they included “old age”.

    The mysterious failure of other countries outside Africa to keep up with the US in this competition needs explaining. If they are taking fewer drugs, why is this? Do they know something we don’t? Could it be that they appreciate that the chances of a huge worldwide phenomenon appearing from nowhere in the 1970s and Robert Gallo having chosen retroviruses as his career base and finding that they did not after all cause cancer (except for HTLV-1 causing leukemia SAVE in the Japanese region where the little devil is rife) but then rescuing himself from scientific irrelevance by nailing a new retrovirus as the valid cause even though no signs of it appeared in two thirds of his patient blood samples is approximately 0.00000000000001 to 1.

    On the left: a new plague, soon to be worldwide in scope and attract billions in government and drug industry spending.

    On the right, a new research field whose top man is desperately in search of an example of a danger to the public of the typically (always) harmless things he now had a million dollar lab devoted to, and Bingo!

    A match! What extraordinary luck.

    The Italians seem suspicious. Why are they ahead of the game? Perhaps their gays are more willing to acknowledge the dangers of drug excesses, and less vulnerable to public opinion that makes gays here so keen on getting themselves off the hook by blaming a virus. even though it means they take drugs which make them lose their minds and their health and eventually expire.

  62. cervantes Says:

    TS, You are one of the sharpest of sharp tacks (no fooling, this is not flattery) on the fabrication of “AIDS,” so you must have forgotten that at least 95%, probably 98% of U.S. of A. “AIDS diagnoses” are based on the U.S. of A. being the ONLY country making a low white blood cell count as a condition for “AIDS” (otherwise known as a low WBC count, and with also meaningless bs about ratios of T4 and T8 cell ratios) — and that no other country uses this rogue definition created way back for the revised U.S. AIDS definitions in 1993.

    Then, on top of this rogue U.S. of A. definition, those homo sapiens of African descent in the U.S. (as in Africa, by the way) have genetic abundance of cellular conditions that bias them (about 5x – 10x) to test “positive” for the phony “Hiv antibodies” (that we know are non-specific bullshit, also).

    And, this explains why, in part, in the U.S. of A. the African-American sub-population has a 20-25 times “Hiv positivity” compared to European descent (discounting for the promiscuous Gay population that always has to be considered as a distinct cohort for the many known risks and taking to some degree the antiretroviral poisons).

    Also, the African heritage explains why in the UK that 80% of new AIDS cases are from Africa – not native Englanders (as Sub-African Continent migration accepted into the UK accounts for virtually all new AIDS cases that are not the Gay subset).

    There are studies (in other other countries) that show unless serious “AIDS conditions” are met many doctors in other countries do not push antiretroviral drugs – unlike the U.S. of A. medicos and their robotic imbecilic adherence to Herr Fauci et al.

    It all adds up to AIDS deaths continually vanishing toward zero, everywhere but the U.S. Nothing at all mysterious about this. Pardon any typos – this all pisses me off.

  63. Truthseeker Says:

    Very good points, Cervantes, easy to forget the statistics are as soft as a sea sponge, here as well as in Africa. The point was well made in House of Numbers as Brent Leung took his quick “AIDS test” in a South Africa mall. What a comedy.

  64. Snout Says:

    I’m sorry, cervantes. You can’t just make up delusional rubbish like that and post it on the internet expecting it to go unchallenged – even here.

    “This “self-sustaining industry” (to quote Pat) of deadly drugs is ongoing and fatal in the U.S. of A. – yet this consumption of drugs is fading to zero everywhere else, thus minimal mortality.”

    “There are studies (in other other countries) that show unless serious “AIDS conditions” are met many doctors in other countries do not push antiretroviral drugs – unlike the U.S. of A. medicos and their robotic imbecilic adherence to Herr Fauci et al.”

    The guidelines for treatment of HIV/AIDS in countries with the resources to do so optimally are almost identical to those of the US. The main difference between the US and every other wealthy western country is that the US is unique in denying a substantial proportion of its population the basic standards of health care that everyone in the rest of the western world takes for granted.

    Your claim that people with HIV in Australia, Canada, and the countries of Western Europe are less likely to be accessing treatment in line with the official standards is frankly bizarre.

    And no, appending “there are studies” to an outright lie does not make it in the least convincing.

  65. cervantes Says:

    Treatment guidelines in other countries (other than the U.S.) being “almost identical” has a lot of truth to it – thank you Snout. “Almost” of course can be critical.

    However, there are myriad treatment options, and discretion has long been used by medicos as to actually following guidelines; time and again doctors have been quoted that they “wait and see” if they prescribe for someone who is only “Hiv antibody positive” but with no defined “AIDS” disease/condition(s). Thus, they DO NOT follow the official guidelines.

    So, guidelines are one thing, and actual practice can be critically different. On top of this, it has also been long acknowledged, especially in the Gay Community, that the prescribed drugs are not taken but flushed down the toilet – all to remain superficially “compliant” and retain all kinds of government handouts/subsidies BECAUSE they remain on the “AIDS treatment roles” (and are falsely compliant). Of course some do actually take their ARVs and were featured in that article last Fall, and, wonder of wonders, everybody on their ARVs was disintegrating in every possible way – just taking longer to disintegrate compared to earlier ARV regimens.

    Dr. Donald Abrams, at San Francisco General Hospital at the dawn (back in 1981-1984) of The Travesty long ago admitted he and other colleagues dealt out literally dozens of different toxic drugs in large doses (by themselves lethal when kept on them, Abrams admitted) because the Gay Community and Project Inform led by Martin Delaney* demanded(!) these drugs.

    This was before AZT hit the scene officially in 1987, but in reality AZT was greatly tried starting in 1985 at the National Institute of Cancer led by Dr. Sam Broder (all his patients died, gee).

    Snout, your intransigent position is easily explained by your ignorance of the progression of The Iatrogenic Travesty (hereafter called The Travesty).

    About 13 years ago this same Donald Abrams changed his stance to a “wait and see” for anybody Hiv-antibody+ – this is public record. Soon thereafter, he left The Travesty and is part of a holistic health practice.

    As Dr. Gary Null publicly stated in early October before the NY State Assy on nurses being forced to get Swine Flu vaccinations or be fired, an old Jewish proverb: “A half-truth is a full lie.” This succinct proverb says it all about The Travesty and its leader Herr Fauci.

    *Live by the sword, die by the sword” – About a year ago Martin Delaney died from (in my estimation) antiviral drugs (ribavirin and interferon, and another experimental drug) while taking these Hepatitis treatment drugs; of course his death was said to be from liver cancer, not his treatments, despite the drug companies themselves citing their lethal “side effects” such as hemolytic anemia, and, liver destruction. Oh, that’s right, it WAS CANCER that killed Delaney, not his drug treatments.

    So, keep taking your drugs Snout, or, Hey! – have you considered excellent nutrition and even appropriate nutritional supplements. Maybe even strenuous exercise? Even red wine? What’s to stop you from taking an ARV Holiday?

  66. Snout Says:

    So let me get this straight, cervantes.

    You have decided that Americans with HIV suffer much greater mortality than their counterparts in comparable western countries such as Australia, Canada, Denmark, etc. For example, you tried to claim that US mortality per person with HIV is 30 times that of Canadians.

    You have based this on comparing CDC estimates of deaths among people diagnosed with AIDS (by the CDC definition) with what you take to be comparable statistics from other countries without noticing that non-US tallies are counting something completely different from what is being estimated by the CDC, and using completely different methodologies.

    Anyway, you claim that the reason US HIV positives supposedly have such relatively high death rates is because they are more likely to be taking antiretroviral treatment than their non-US counterparts.

    Initially you claimed this was because US doctors start treatment at the CDC AIDS epidemiological definition (200 T cells) while in other western countries doctors wait until the onset of AIDS defining opportunistic disease. This is utter nonsense, if you compare the treatment guidelines for different countries. For example here are the current Australian, British and US guidelines:

    So then you tried to claim that US doctors stick closely to their treatment guidelines, while by comparison doctors in other countries ignore theirs. WTF?

    Perhaps realising what a ridiculous claim this is, you then try to make out that non-US HIV positives do get their prescriptions filled at much the same rates as their US counterparts, but then they tip the meds down the toilet. The reason they do this is to access various benefits that are contingent on them getting their scripts filled. Are you serious?

  67. Snout Says:

    PS Congratulations on removing from your article the ridiculous paragraph:

    “Springing from the unique U.S. category of AIDS, the treatment drugs inevitably bring side effects, unavoidably linked to the U.S. death toll. Corroborating these drug risks, a recent study by Danish health authorities was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine and reviewed all those HIV+ in Denmark. This study found that 25% refused the offered anti–HIV regimens but nevertheless had the lowest mortality rates, with projected life expectancies close to the average Dane, despite being HIV+.”

    At least it’s gone from the RA version, but it’s still there on David Crowe’s site, and others on the web that posted the original essay.

    Unfortunately, removing the oblique reference to Lohse et al that completely misrepresents their findings does little to improve the argument, which is based not only on a succession of bizarrely imaginative claims, but stems from an irreparably faulty premise.

  68. Snout Says:

    Oops. Scrub the last comment – the offending paragraph is still there on the RA site. Must read more carefully.

  69. Truthseeker Says:

    Read More Carefully is not a bad New Year’s Resolution, Snout, particularly when you mix such combative expression into your otherwise delightfully provocative posts. Since this site is dedicated to accurate and free discussion among the intelligent observers of incredible paradigms, such as yourself, would you mind toning it down? It is easy to suspect that your intention is to bully those who see through your “nonsense” – borrowing your word – into not daring to challenge it in case they expose themselves to ad hominem calumny, implying they are fools for thinking as they do, with the added advantage to you that then your counterclaims won’t be examined closely, but please remember this. Knowledgeable people will also be disinclined to engage you out of a kind fear of embarrassing you after you have have gone out on such an extreme limb, in terms of polite discussion. No one wants your distinguished self to lose face by being shown up after expressing yourself with such scorn for contrary information. No one wants to see you be pie faced, a la Bill “I know the internet will be important but darned if I can see how” Gates` Also, side swipes at the impeccable stature of this site as about the only place where civil, scientifically informed lay-intelligible debate goes on about how HIV could possibly cause AIDS are not acceptable to the editor. Especially when carried in a post questioning a very well informed poster`

    So please be civil. Your relentless efforts to sustain the unsustainable would be sorely missed if you were forced to retire in confusion and embarrassment, like your hero John “I like macaques but Alas it is necessary to abuse them with microbicides which for some reason never work” Moore of Cornell Medical Center, who accuses those who wish to open the files on the rationale of his non-achievement as “deadly quackery”`

  70. Truthseeker Says:

    Lohse et al papers:

    (Full, free at this url)
    Annals of Internal Medicine January 16, 2007 vol. 146 no. 2 87-95
    Survival of Persons with and without HIV Infection in Denmark, 1995–2005 Summaries for Patients
    Comparison of Survival among HIV-Infected and Noninfected People in Denmark, 1995–2005

    Survival of Persons with and without HIV Infection in Denmark, 1995–2005
    Nicolai Lohse, MD, PhD; Ann-Brit Eg Hansen, MD; Gitte Pedersen, MD, PhD; Gitte Kronborg, MD, DMSc; Jan Gerstoft, MD, DMSc; Henrik Toft Sørensen, MD, PhD, DMSc; Michael Væth, PhD; and Niels Obel, MD, DrSci, DMSc
    + Author Affiliations

    From Odense University Hospital and University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark; Århus University Hospital and Århus University, Århus, Denmark; Hvidovre University Hospital, Hvidovre, Denmark; Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark; and Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts.

    Background: The expected survival of HIV-infected patients is of major public health interest.

    Objective: To estimate survival time and age-specific mortality rates of an HIV-infected population compared with that of the general population.

    Design: Population-based cohort study.

    Setting: All HIV-infected persons receiving care in Denmark from 1995 to 2005.

    Patients: Each member of the nationwide Danish HIV Cohort Study was matched with as many as 99 persons from the general population according to sex, date of birth, and municipality of residence.

    Measurements: The authors computed Kaplan–Meier life tables with age as the time scale to estimate survival from age 25 years. Patients with HIV infection and corresponding persons from the general population were observed from the date of the patient’s HIV diagnosis until death, emigration, or 1 May 2005.

    Results: 3990 HIV-infected patients and 379 872 persons from the general population were included in the study, yielding 22 744 (median, 5.8 y/person) and 2 689 287 (median, 8.4 years/person) person-years of observation. Three percent of participants were lost to follow-up. From age 25 years, the median survival was 19.9 years (95% CI, 18.5 to 21.3) among patients with HIV infection and 51.1 years (CI, 50.9 to 51.5) among the general population. For HIV-infected patients, survival increased to 32.5 years (CI, 29.4 to 34.7) during the 2000 to 2005 period. In the subgroup that excluded persons with known hepatitis C coinfection (16%), median survival was 38.9 years (CI, 35.4 to 40.1) during this same period. The relative mortality rates for patients with HIV infection compared with those for the general population decreased with increasing age, whereas the excess mortality rate increased with increasing age.

    Limitations: The observed mortality rates are assumed to apply beyond the current maximum observation time of 10 years.

    Conclusions: The estimated median survival is more than 35 years for a young person diagnosed with HIV infection in the late highly active antiretroviral therapy era. However, an ongoing effort is still needed to further reduce mortality rates for these persons compared with the general population.
    ========================================================== (Abstract)
    Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy doi:10.1093/jac/dkm241

    Improved survival in HIV-infected persons: consequences and perspectives

    Nicolai Lohse1,2,*, Ann-Brit Eg Hansen3,4, Jan Gerstoft4 and Niels Obel4
    1 Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Århus University Hospital, DK-8000 Århus C, Denmark 2 The Danish HIV Cohort Study, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark 3 Department of Infectious Diseases, Odense University Hospital and Clinical Institute, University of Southern Denmark, DK-5000 Odense, Denmark 4 Department of Infectious Diseases, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark

    * Corresponding author. Tel: +45-894-24800; Fax: +45-894-24801; E-mail:

    A human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) patient in 2007 has the option to commence an antiretroviral regimen that is extremely efficacious in suppressing the virus and has few side effects. In a recent study, we estimated the median remaining lifetime of a newly diagnosed 25-year-old HIV-infected individual to be 39 years. The prospect of a near-normal life expectancy has implications for the HIV-infected persons as well as for the handling of the disease in the healthcare system. The patients can now on a long-term perspective plan their professional career, join a pension plan and start a family. Further, they may expect to be treated equally with other members of society with respect to access to mortgage, health insurance and life insurance. As the infected population ages, more patients will contract age-related diseases, and the disease burden on some individuals may even come to be dominated by non-HIV-related conditions that may have a worse prognosis and therefore become more important than HIV-related conditions. Despite the improvements in antiretroviral therapy, there is still an excess mortality among HIV patients, which appears to be only partially attributable to immunodeficiency, with lifestyle factors potentially playing a pronounced role. Consequently, an effort to further increase survival must target risk factors for both HIV-related and -unrelated mortality. The continuation of the positive trend may be achieved by increased HIV testing, earlier initiation of antiretroviral therapy, improved drug adherence, prevention and treatment of HIV-unrelated co-morbidity and collaboration with other medical specialists to treat an ageing co-morbidity-acquiring HIV population.


    The effectiveness of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) against the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) has been a medical success story. For those fortunate enough to have access to HAART, an inevitably deadly disease has turned into a chronic condition. In the 1980s, simply finding a drug or drug combination that could delay AIDS or death was the main clinical goal. In the mid-1990s, triple-combination therapy was introduced, leading to substantially prolonged survival. Simultaneously, it was shown that the substrate for the clinical effectiveness was suppression of HIV replication.1 Many patients experienced the comfort of a rising CD4 cell count and reversal of their AIDS-defining conditions. However, short-term and long-term side effects of the drugs became increasingly concerning, whereas episodes of virological failure led to the development of drug resistance, forcing patients to resort to often less efficacious second- or third-line regimens. Pharmaceutical companies began competing to develop new drugs with fewer side effects, lower pill burden and a better tolerance to non-compliance. Patients and physicians speculated whether controlled treatment interruptions could bring about a clinical success by delaying the potential exhaustion of available drug combinations and reducing the harm due to side effects. The intensive drug development and the massive research into mechanisms of resistance and side effects have paid off. An HIV patient in 2007 has the option to commence a drug combination that is both efficacious in suppressing the virus and has few side effects. Despite HIV’s ability to escape antiviral pressure, the rate of resistance to the antiviral drugs—a major problem in the early years when the regimens were suboptimal—is declining in a number of settings and may be <1% annually. Thus, there is growing optimism among HIV experts that a large proportion of their patients will be able to remain on their initial regimens and survive for many years. The big question has been, though, how long?

    Survival of HIV-infected persons

    Our group has addressed this question in the Danish HIV Cohort Study, using data from a population-based cohort of all HIV-infected persons in Denmark, a country with free tax-supported medical care, including universal, income-independent access to HAART.2 The high quality of the Danish Civil Registration System3 enabled us to compare, with little attrition, the survival of HIV patients with that of a matched cohort from the general population. Life-table methods were used to estimate survival of a 25-year-old HIV-infected person, regardless of whether the person had started HAART. The estimated median remaining lifetime has increased from 8 years in 1995–96 to 23 years in 1997–99 to 33 years in 2000–05. Among persons not co-infected with the hepatitis C virus (HCV), the median remaining lifetime in 2000–05 was 39 years (95% CI: 35–40 years), similar to that of a young person with diabetes.4 In comparison, the median remaining lifetime for a 25-year-old HIV-uninfected person was 51 years. Furthermore, we found that neither time since diagnosis nor duration of HAART was associated with an increased mortality. Importantly, the highest mortality was observed in the first year after the initiation of treatment.

    Immediate implications of the improved prognosis

    As clinicians know, the prognosis for individual HIV patients depends on many determinants, including immune status at the time of diagnosis, harbouring of a drug-resistant virus strain, adherence to treatment and concomitant infection with HCV. Nevertheless, the overall improved prognosis, with the prospect of a near-normal life, has implications for the HIV-infected persons as well as for their physicians. The patients may now plan their professional career, join a pension plan, start a family—things that just a few years ago seemed to be irrelevant luxuries. They may expect to be treated equally with other members of society and to have easy access to mortgage, health insurance and life insurance. They also expect to receive high-quality healthcare for non-HIV-related conditions, including fertility treatment. As the patients now get older, they will contract age-related diseases, and the disease burden on some individuals may even come to be dominated by non-HIV-related conditions. Some of these diseases may have a worse prognosis and therefore become more important than HIV for some patients. It would be important to know when an HIV-infected person needs a hip replacement, a bypass operation or even a cardiac transplantation.5 Elements of healthy lifestyle—smoking cessation, weight loss and regular physical exercise—that take 10 years or more to yield full benefits are becoming increasingly relevant for HIV patients. Furthermore, they should be offered prophylactic treatments, such as cholesterol-lowering therapy and antihypertensive treatment, just as their non-HIV-infected counterparts do.

    Why do HIV patients still have a higher risk of death?

    Even though survival has increased markedly, HIV-infected persons still die at rates that are 3–15 times higher than the general population.2 Cause-specific rates have decreased for both HIV-related and non-HIV-related mortality, but the decreased risk of AIDS has led to a change in patterns of co-morbidity and causes of death, and most deaths (50% to 70% of all deaths) are now non-HIV-related.2,6–8

    Common causes of non-HIV-related death are non-AIDS-defining cancers (10% of all deaths), cardiovascular diseases (7%), substance abuse-related death (7%), liver-related death (up to 15% reported) and bacterial infections (6%).7–9 The Data Collection on Adverse Events of Anti-HIV Drugs (DAD) study found mortality rates of non-AIDS-defining cancers to be related to the degree of immunodeficiency. Some cancers are known to be associated with lifestyle-related viral infections, such as hepatitis B virus (hepatocellular carcinoma), HCV (hepatocellular carcinoma and lymphoma) or human papilloma virus (anal, mouth and throat cancer),9 whereas others may be associated with smoking (cancer of lung, mouth and throat).10 Liver-related deaths are mainly seen in hepatitis C or B co-infected patients and the actual risk varies with the prevalence of these co-infections.11 We have found that a large part of the increased mortality seen in HIV/HCV co-infected individuals is associated with family-related risk behaviours—mainly drug abuse—and to a lesser extent, with the HCV infection itself.12 Behavioural risk factors for disease and death, such as cigarette smoking and excessive alcohol consumption, are common in many HIV-infected populations.13,14 Thus, the excess mortality among HIV patients appears to be only partially attributable to immunodeficiency, with lifestyle factors potentially playing a pronounced role. Consequently, an effort to further reduce mortality and increase survival must target risk factors for both HIV-related and HIV-unrelated mortality.

    Potential Financial Conflicts of Interest: Consultancies: J. Gerstoft (Roche, Glaxo, Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Swedish-Orphan Drugs); Honoraria: J. Gerstoft (Roche, Glaxo, Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Swedish-Orphan Drugs); Grants received: N. Obel (Roche, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, GlaxoSmithKline, Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen-Cilag, Swedish-Orphan Drugs).

    (Summary for Patients)
    “What are the implications of the study?
    The life expectancy of a young person diagnosed with HIV infection is much longer now
    than it was before HAART became standard treatment. However, people with HIV
    infection still have a shorter life expectancy than do people in the general population, so
    we need more effective treatments.”

    Read this and weep – for the ability of drug funded, HIV infatuated researchers to ignore the elephant in the room.

  71. cervantes Says:

    TS, Thanks for posting significant parts of the Lohse Study – I had not wanted to burden everybody with it.

    Here is an excerpt from your above posting:

    “In a recent study, we estimated the median remaining lifetime of a newly diagnosed 25-year-old HIV-infected individual to be 39 years. The prospect of a near-normal life expectancy has implications for the HIV-infected persons as well as for the handling of the disease in the healthcare system.”

    I shall briefly expand on it.

    What cannot be readily transcribed are the Lohse Tables that show the No HAART groups (meaning those Hiv+ that declined any HAART drugs) of men and women, and that their Mortality Rates were shown compared to the Mortality Rates of those taking HAART, and the most recent No HAART Mortality Rates were distinctly lower for men, and dramatically lower for women.

    Thus, it easily deduced these No HAART men and women (25% of the Study Group) are expected to have a much longer life expectancy than the 39 years projected overall by Lohse, basically a normal life expectancy*. But this dramatic revelation is not discussed (the dog didn’t bark) by Lohse. In my opinion Lohse probably well knows the consequences/defunding when differing with the Hiv+ = Death Paradigm.

    *Having adjusted for Hepatitis C that strongly lowers life expectancy (as stated by Lohse). In my exhaustive review the Hep C drugs ribavirin and interferon strongly dosed to Hep C patients are a principle cause of iatrogenic death. As exemplified by Martin Delaney’s death, the non-HIV+ Project Inform founder and advocate of all the HAART drugs.

    For instance, a close relative of mine (being “Hep C” positive from earlier heroin addiction when she was in her early 20’s.) was perfectly healthy – had been for 20 years – when she naively submitted to another Hep C RNA test (having the same critical non-specific/PCR flaws as the Hiv RNA tests).

    For a month thereafter she was strongly treated with ribavirin and interferon (just to “lower her numbers”, sound familiar Snout?) and her condition (from the drugs, she was the picture of health BEFORE taking them) was so dire everybody thought she would die. However, she did luckily survive the drugs when they were stopped, but many don’t.

    One more important note: Lohse (as does most everybody) goes to the International Classification of Disease, Tenth Revision (ICD-10), when his Study analyzes “Hiv related” afflictions, and thus nominally deaths becomes noted as “hiv-related.” BUT, this is utter hogwash, because the ICD-10 cites so many vague cancers, infections, etc., having nothing to do with immune disfunction – yet if a person is Hiv+ their death becomes an Hiv-related statistic.

    Nobody can make this up — except a medical world gone mad, fueled by the $30 Billion** U.S. Federal dollars a year I keep harping on. As Casey Stengel said, you can check it out.

    **Much of this to enrich the drug companies for the drugs that Snout et al. do quaff down, or flush down, and badly pollute our ecosystem with. Talk about a lose, lose, lose.

  72. Truthseeker Says:

    Surely, Cervantes, you cannot be suggesting that our heroic health professionals would give drugs needlessly to the trusting humans in their care, and that those drugs would make them ill, and not any other agent? And that they recover their health when they swear off the drugs (how could they flout their doctor’s advice? This is not clear. Is it not clearly emblazoned on every printed health item and in every relevant broadcast that people are told to consult their doctor on every move related to drugs and health?) And that you were unable to protect a close relative from this effect? Do your relatives not bow to your superior research and knowledge? Or are you prevented from giving them “medical advice” because you are not an MD?

    Also, are you sure that you have taken into account, in relation to what you wrote above, that the non drug taking HIV positives were healthier than the rest, and that is why they weren’t given HAART? Then they would live longer, so it wasn’t necessarily lack of HAART that relieved them of earlier mortality.

    I am saving Snout the trouble of bringing up this obvious explanation for their happy experience.

    Also I notice that this study seems to include a control group, those in the general population, for the HIV+ without drugs experience. I was under the impression that drug studies in HIV/AIDS never included any control group after the early AZT trials resulted in such embarrassment, proving that AZT was worsening the subject’s condition. Now we have what appears to be a control group after all. Does this not prove that HIV+ is a danger, if they did worse than the general population, but did not take ARVs?

    Do I have to retract my claim that HIV is entirely harmless? Or is that a correlation rather than causation, with HIV a marker for an unhealthy group?

    Inquiring minds need to know. Snout for one.

  73. cervantes Says:

    TS, Preempting Snout is fine, thank you. It shall be wondrous whatever logic is forthcoming.

    As to being “HIV-antibody positive” and whether this is ‘entirely harmless?’ (as your phrase goes):

    Since the HIV antibody tests were fabricated (by Robert Gallo) to detect Hiv positvity”: Yes, for some, this correlates to certain health conditions, even serious conditions. Gallo fabricated the tests based on his small group of really sick Gay Guys – so yes, testing similar to them may indicate poor health, or may not.

    Since the tests are profoundly non-specific with even Flu-shots** bringing Hiv “positivity” (as does the extreme bias toward African-heritage cellular-debris markers), the whole boatload of bullshit created by Gallo is just that.

    Sure, bottom line, a positive Hiv antibody test may indicate a potential health problem, but probably not. Identify it, deal with it, eat well, cut back on drugs and booze, get lots of sunlight. Fire your doctor who believes in it.

    This has been to bring others up to speed (no doubt already known by Truthseeker).

    **Yet another lose-lose-lose-lose insanity promoted by Fauci, CDC, etc.

  74. Snout Says:

    I suspect it’s pointless my trying to explain yet again that there was no “No HAART” group in Lohse’s study, comprising 25% of the 3990 study subjects (the entire HIV positive population of Denmark who accessed medical care during the years 1995-2005). Let alone a group comprising 25% of the study population who “refused offered treatment”.

    To refresh, see:

    Table 3 breaks down the 22,744 person years of observation into 1st year HAART, 2nd/3rd year, 4th/5th year and 6th+ year of HAART, as well as person years in which the patient was not taking HAART. Each of the 3990 patients contributed a median of 5.8 years of observation to the 22,744 total. The table analyses the risk of death not for separate individuals in different groups, but according to the stage of HAART treatment each was in during a given year. Overall, the risk of death was highest (65/1000 PYR) in patients before starting HAART (or perhaps in some cases who had ceased HAART). By the second half of the decade this risk had fallen to 22/1000 person years in those not taking HAART (this category of person-years becoming a diminishing proportion of the total person years observed) – the obvious inference being that over time, more and more people who were at risk of death moved into the HAART taking categories.

    There are four obvious errors in cervantes’ “analysis”.

    1. Failing to note that table 3 doesn’t break down the study group of 3990 into different categories according to each individual’s treatment , but takes 22,744 person years of observation as a whole: each individual contributed a median of 5.8 person-years and moved from category to category (No HAART, 1st year, 2nd/3rd year etc) over the course of the study.

    2. While the study analysed the risk of death per person-year for each category these do not refer to distinct populations over the course of the study, and it is not possible to calculate life expectancy for individuals from this. That should be obvious – a single individual will not be in the “first year of HAART” category for more than one year, for example.

    3. Thus, the study did not attempt to compare life expectancy for HAART vs No-HAART. It is not possible to do this from the data.

    4. A principal (but necessarily the only) reason why an HIV+ person might not be taking HAART during a given year is that it is not medically indicated yet. Cervantes seems to be under the misapprehension that HAART is offered to all HIV+s. It isn’t. It is only offered once there is evidence of significant progression of disease (CD4 counts falling to consistently below 350 being one of the important benchmarks). In any given year there will be a significant proportion of the population who have yet to ever reach this point, and will not be offered ARV treatment.

  75. cervantes Says:

    Snout, Points well made. OK, there are too many confounding variables, and not enough equations, to definitively come to a mathematically precise, proven conclusion. No problem.

    Fuzzy bottom line, Lohse concludes (with his seven other investigators) that non-infected Hep C, Hiv-antibody positive Danes on the latest, lowest-toxicity ARVs can expect 39 years life expectancy after becoming “positive” at age 25, and he includes HAART decliners who have the lowest mortality rates.

    Lohse cites those taking ARVs rose to 75% in 2002. But, he did not publish details of ‘compliance’ and exact drug regimens/doses. I would guess Danes who had been declining treatment regimens did so with very good reason: They had seen all their friends die on AZT-HAART (while they themselves remained healthy), so why join their friends in the morgue?

    But, with AZT and massive doses of protease inhibitors totally tossed out, and milder and milder ARVs switched in and at lower doses, and seeing friends on new concoctions not quickly gacking, then new takers have swelled enrollment to the 75% cited, yes, advertising and free drugs always works to some degree. I repeat, however, that it is well known many prescriptions do indeed get flushed – pick a number.

    As I have predicted elsewhere, ARVs will eventually morph into two Anti-Hiv Aspirin a day. This will be dubbed the Aha! regimen, patented of course, raking in tens of $Billions a year funded by American taxpayers, Fauci will take credit for saving the planet after blowing a $Trillion dollars of taxpayer money, after killing about one million Americans with his toxic ARVs, and the HIV+ generations after Snout on their Aha! will live to 80. I actually predict those HIV+ in the coming Aha! era will be in much better health than everybody else because they have been scared witless into good diets and exercise.

  76. Snout Says:

    *sigh* No, cervantes, there is no group of of “HAART decliners” in Lohse et al. I am obviously wasting my time here.

  77. Truthseeker Says:

    “no group of of “HAART decliners” in Lohse et al. ”

    Well, Snout, that is incorrect, if you are implying that there is no “no HAART” group, and in general you seem to have overlooked what this study, which is somewhat lacking in its definitions, actually says.

    For in fact there was a “No HAART” group in the study, see Table 3, in the first place because it started in 1995 – ie includes those treated before HAART was instituted. People who were “no HAART” then presumably included those who got AZT, in 1995 and later. Death rates for these periods are given in Table 3 in person years, rates per thousand, or divide by ten to get %. Repeat: “No HAART” = AZT before 1996, and presumably some thereafter – but still counted as “No HAART”.

    So what do we have for the period 2000-2005, when there was no AZT in initial treatment, apparently, thus none in the “no HAART” group in table 3. This group is ignored in the text, and perhaps you overlooked them. But those patients free of AZT or any ARV had a death rate of only 22/1000, or 2% per year.

    So what happened with HAART treated patients, by comparison? We have 43/1000 dead in their first year of HAART, or 4%, a statistically significant DOUBLING (the 95% confidence intervals do not overlap). This the authors acknowledge – a doubling of the death rate for HAART treatment of patients within the first year compared with later years, which see it drop to more or less the rate of patients when they had no treatment – ie in the table, we have 23, 24, 26/1000 compared with 22/1000, ie no statistically significant difference.

    Obviously, what must have happened is that initially the weakest patients succumbed to the onslaught of ARVs, and either gave them up or died. The rest then do better, and so the death rate declines by half, approaching those with no treatment.

    Snout, you are living in some kind of dreamland, where the HIV=AIDS meme has taken over your thinking entirely. Look at this objectively. Tell the world, why would you expect a HIGHER death rate – higher than those who survived later, and higher than no-HAART – in the first year if this poisonous stuff did any good? Especially since the no-HAART groups included some taking AZT, at least in 1995 and even later years until it was banished by 2000. After all, HAART is a pretty effective antibiotic in several respects in the short run, as we reminded you on the humonguous Times Higher Education threads, where Fraser has now retreated in confusion and disarray. (For those threads, see and .)

    Can you tell us? And also, admit that at least you should remember your New Year’s Resolution, and Read More Carefully, shouldn’t you?

    Let’s repeat the Easy Guide conclusions just in case anyone doesn’t understand the obvious:

    Using the Danish National Death Registry, the researchers collected information on date of death (if death occurred) through May 2005 for HIV-infected patients and population controls. Using this information, they estimated the average number of years that a person lived beyond age 25 years. They compared survival for HIV-infected patients and controls in 3 periods of different HAART availability: before HAART (1995 to 1996), early HAART (1997 to 1999), and standard HAART (2000 to 2005).

    What did the researchers find?

    Overall, during 1995 to 2005, HIV-infected patients lived about 20 years beyond age 25 compared with about 51 years for the general population. However, during 2000 to 2005 when HAART had become standard treatment, patients with HIV lived about 33 years beyond age 25 years. (see below)

    What were the limitations of the study?

    The results might not apply to countries that do not make HAART widely available to any citizen with HIV infection. Because HAART has only been available for about 10 years, the study was unable to determine whether the benefits would be similar for people who used HAART for longer than 10 years.

    What are the implications of the study?

    The life expectancy of a young person diagnosed with HIV infection is much longer now than it was before HAART became standard treatment. However, people with HIV infection still have a shorter life expectancy than do people in the general population, so we need more effective treatments.


    Shorter life expectancy, with every indication that without drugs, it would be normal.

  78. Snout Says:

    “Apparently, the HIV meme so infects the minds of these enthusiasts for HAART that they are telling us that HAART will make you live longer with HIV than the general population without it!! (58 years against 51).”

    Have you finalised your New Year’s resolutions yet, TS?

    “Overall, during 1995 to 2005, HIV-infected patients lived about 20 years beyond age 25

    [that is, a 25 year old with HIV could expect to live to 45]

    compared with about 51 years for the general population

    [that is, the average 25 year old Dane without HIV could expect to live to 76].

    However, during 2000 to 2005 when HAART had become standard treatment, patients with HIV
    lived about 33 years beyond age 25 years.

    [With HAART as standard treatment, a 25 year old with HIV can now expect to live to 58]

    Oops – the 58 figure is expected age of death for HAART treated 25 year old HIV positives, while the 51 figure is number of additional years left to live for a 25 year old without HIV.

    What is it about the denialist echo chamber that destroys the capacity to read a simple set of figures?

  79. cervantes Says:

    Snout, Do you know in your realm of friends (first hand or second hand) of those who are Hiv+ who decline ARVs? Tell us, how are they doing? Thanks! Cervantes

  80. Snout Says:

    No, cervantes. I have never in real life met anyone with HIV who has refused ARVs when they are clearly medically indicated. I have heard of one Australian (Huw Christie) who did, but I never met him personally.

    Of course, people vary in the which stage at which they decide to start using ARVs – that is a difficult personal decision involving weighing up risks and benefits with the current clinical situation and life circumstances, in consultation with good evidenced-based medical advice, and no two people make the decision in exactly the same way. But in my experience, most people seem to get the decision pretty much right for their circumstances.

    I have never met anyone in real life (rather than on the net) who thinks refusing good, well-evidenced medical treatment for serious conditions is a sensible thing to do. I know plenty of people who are into “complementary” health treatments, including some practitioners, but no one who sees these as a substitute for proper medical care of serious conditions. That’s one of the reasons I find the AIDS denialism phenomenon on the internet so bizarre and fascinating – it is so different from real life in so many ways. And with a few notable exceptions like Christine Maggiore it seems to be driven by individuals who are not putting their own health at risk, but instead are trying to stake the lives of others on their irrational, ill-informed and fixated belief systems.

    I actually think that is rather creepy.

  81. Truthseeker Says:

    Sorry, Snout, your point is entirely taken, but as you notice, you must have been writing your correction while I noticed my inattention and erased my dumb mistake! I reverted as you notice to my simple if querulous objection to the plain and simple fact that HAART treated people die faster than the general population, and the fact that there is no reason at all not to ascribe this to the effect of HAART, IF HIV does not harm them, and to date I know of no evidence that it does which withstands the smallest inspection. In other words, everything you see in all this matches precisely that possibility, whereas if you hold that HIV does do something harmful, then you have to go through contortions to explain things like HAART treated patients still die faster than the general population, and that they die faster in the first year than later.

    Sorry about the inattention, though, my excuse is that I was actually preoccupied with studying some other much bigger problem caused by logic challenged scientists, of which there are more than one ever suspected both in HIV/AIDS and in other hugely important fields. But meanwhile why anyone as attentive as you thinks that HAART can possibly block the deadly effects of the feared Virus when even what HAART is meant to do, which is reduce virus level, has no effect whatsoever, it appears from studies, on CD4 level, after all, I cannot imagine. You do agree with that finding, don’t you? If so, how is HAART related to any health benefit you imagine it has? And by the way, if you so firmly believe in the blessings of HAART, how about a simple placebo controlled clinical trial? Just one? And if not, why not, pray? Could it be we all know what the result would be?

    And by the way, “I have never met anyone in real life (rather than on the net) who thinks refusing good, well-evidenced medical treatment for serious conditions is a sensible thing to do.” is a silly statement. The point made by all who look at the evidence for HIV=AIDS is that there is none. You may claim there is, but so far in 25 years none of its promoters have produced a shred of well argued proof of same. That is why the issue continues unabated despite the zealous efforts of John Moore et al to snuff it out with insults, threats and attacks on publications. Obviously anyone who retains the capacity to think for themselves and who reads the material on this blog would not accept mainstream treatment, unless they thought it was entirely misreported here. They only have to read how your own defense is consistently rebutted to confirm their refusal.

  82. cervantes Says:

    I gotta say, Snout – it is dumbfounding to hear everybody of your acquaintance, no exceptions, has allegiance to ARV drugs. But, since that is your experience I certainly accept it, and it explains your belief.

    Particularly since so many NIAID funded studies over the years recount “long term non-progressors” who have never taken any ARV concoction. And, the almost countless anecdotes of such as Greg Louganis and Magic Johnson doing just great 22 years/19 years after “Hiv positivity” after at first briefly trying AZT (Magic actually endorses ARVs but he is paid to do so, and there is no proof he actually takes them himself).

    Of course, such as Dr. Candace Pert (very attractive, what a name, you can’t make this up) at Georgetown University Hospital recites the establishment belief that certain lucky people have a genetic variation that prohibits the wicked HIV from attaching to cellular receptors. With $500 Billion now spent (and another $500 Billion coming fast) there’s no turning back, or let any deviant thought flicker.

  83. Snout Says:

    Cervantes, “long term nonprogressors” don’t take ARVs because they (a) don’t need them and (b) are not eligible to have them prescribed – see the treatment guidelines I linked above. No one uses continuing ARV therapy until after there is evidence of substantial disease progression. In addition, the usual definition of a “long term non progressor” excludes anyone who has taken ARVs.

    You seem to be making the elementary logical error of reversing cause and effect. HIV/AIDS denialists do this all the time.

    Perhaps the most notorious example of this is when Peter Duesberg claimed that Kimberley Bergalis’ serious disease followed on from her treatment with AZT:

    “That December, in 1987, [Florida dentist David Acer] pulled two molars from a nineteen-year-old college student, Kimberly Bergalis. At the time he had no idea the business major would one day be touted as his hapless victim.

    “The story picks up again in May 1989, when Bergalis developed a transient oral yeast infection. Later that year, during the emotional stress of preparing for an actuarial exam for the state of Florida, she felt some ongoing nausea, and she became dizzy during the test itself. Afterward, the symptoms disappeared. But a brief pneumonia that December sent her to the hospital, where the doctor decided out of the blue to test her for HIV. As chance would have it, she had antibodies against the virus.

    “Up to this point, none of her occasional diseases differed from the common health problems many HIV-negative people encounter. But the positive HIV test changed her whole attitude, as well as her medical treatment…”

    It is Duesberg’s habit of blantantly lying like this that has destroyed his reputation, not any conspiracy against him. In fact Bergalis was hospitalised in December with the serious AIDS defining illness PCP. Her CD4 count was less than a tenth of the lower limit of normal. It was only after she presented with illness characteristic of AIDS that she was tested for HIV.

    Duesberg deliberately lied because it suited his own purposes to reverse the sequence of events from serious illness -> treatment, to treatment -> serious illness. He has never corrected this lie, or any of the other multiple falsehoods, misrepresentations and half-truths that constitute his “body of work” on AIDS. His own god daughter died at the age of three as a direct result of medical advice he gave (and which he is unqualified to offer). Her mother followed her to the grave three years later, another death that could have almost certainly been prevented by competent medical treatment of her AIDS-defining PCP and her underlying immune system disease. Duesberg has never expressed remorse. He is a charlatan and a textbook sociopath – glib, charming, incapable of remorse, narcissistic, slightly paranoid, insightless into his own failings and utterly, utterly dishonest, And like many sociopaths he has collected a fan club who have been impressed by his charm and are too stupid to see reality.

    Cervantes, your post above exhibits the typical structure of denialist argument – vague assertions concealing completely false underlying assumptions, combined with childish dismissal of facts that are inconvenient to your worldview. Untreated HIV infection results in AIDS over a range of latency periods with a median at around a decade. Even after two decades there is a small number of people with untreated HIV who show no signs of immune system disease (unfortunately this is less than 1 or 2% of the HIV population). However, neither Magic Johnson’s nor Greg Louganis’ histories place them in the category of “long term no progressors”.

  84. Truthseeker Says:

    Snout, there is something distinctly creepy about your view of Peter Duesberg as “deliberately lying”, plus all the other egregious insults you managed to work into your worked up, rather frothing flight of fancy above. Let’s have no more of this, please, even though it stands as an excellent example of how illiterate you are in defending the paradigm you so fervently believe in, for some reason – could it be that you suffer, as New York Magazine recently noted is too often the case, from AIDS dementia brought on by ARVs? If so, kindly remember that if this is the case you are not qualified to discuss these topics accurately, though by definition it is probably hopeless to bring this to your attention, since humans are notoriously incapable of acknowledging to themselves that they are suffering from a mental handicap.

    The idea of Peter Duesberg not being an accurate reporter is obviously incorrect and transparently so to anyone familiar with his writings, both in Cancer Research and the Proceedings of the National Academy, and later in his book Inventing the Virus and other publications such as Science. Even if he wanted to he would not be allowed to make false statement by the hostile peer reviewers of those publications, who have been famously unable to dent his armor plated scientific accuracy. If you discover any incorrect statement in his writings it is either your own lack of grasp which is at fault or that his co-authors who have slipped in some error unbeknownst to him, believe me. He is a busy and productive researcher who leads the way in cancer handicapped by the disgraceful lack of support for his NIH funding from those threatened by his debunking not only of HIV=AIDS but the equally spurious oncogene approach. He has always been exceptionally willing to be corrected on any point, and has welcomed all genuine efforts to do so, though they are usually misguided.

    I would have offered to send you a copy of Harvey Bialy’s expert account of all this in Oncogenes, Aneuploidy and AIDS to set you straight, but your revolting diatribe above makes it clear you are not up to reading it with any profit. What it does make clear is that you are not qualified to discuss the science here in objective fashion, as your posts have already suggested very strongly. We will leave it up as Exhibit #1 in that regard.

    All onlookers who are unaware of the facts of the case of Maggiore and her daughter and their deaths, which visibly had nothing to do with HIV, should refer to previous posts here to counter the poisonous venom of your remarks above, which quite wrongly and outrageously lay the responsibility for their deaths at Peter Duesberg’s door for advising them correctly that the scientific literature does not support fear of HIV and in fact consistently argues against it.

    I have known Peter Duesberg as a scientist and as a person for 22 years, and Snout, you are no Duesberg. Your posts show you are unable to grasp the overriding thematic problems with HIV=AIDS, and that you have a tendency to shift to dishonorable personal insult. Thus you lack not only the intellect but also the integrity which has been on display in Peter Duesberg’s performance in science and in society for 22 years, in the service of the public interest, which you yourself have only endangered with your endless, unprofessionally extreme propagandizing in the service of a scientifically lost cause.

    If you cannot explain the inconsistencies in your overall position pointed out above, kindly refrain from shifting to venomous personal calumny in regard to your betters.

  85. cervantes Says:

    Well, TS —

    Admirably, your site does give a forum to a contributor such as Snout. And also lets Snout become deranged (thereby, the downside).

    What comes to mind is The Caine Mutiny with Humphrey Bogart as Captain Queeg on the witness stand, though this is mild compared to Snout.

    It’s tough to be an editor allowing what’s to be printed — how does one draw the line?

    Snout’s cruel smearing (there are stronger words for it) of Peter Duesberg and the godawful tragedies of Christine Maggiore and her daughter I do not forgive.

    Snout has perfectly absorbed the mindset of Anthony Fauci – there you have it.

  86. Snout Says:

    TS and cervantes,

    Do you deny that Kim Bergalis developed candidiasis, Pneumocystis pneumonia and a CD4 count less than a tenth of the lower limit of normal before she was diagnosed with HIV infection and subsquently commenced on AZT?

    If not, how can you say that the passage I quoted above from Duesberg’s Inventing the AIDS Virus is an “accurate” report?

    Is Pneumocystis pneumonia a “common health problem many HIV-negative people encounter”?

    Do you deny that Dr David Posey found PCP in Christine Maggiore’s lungs at autopsy following her death nine days after being diagnosed on Xray with bilateral pneumonia with the typical clinical features of PCP?

    Do you deny that Maggiore died with PCP after having untreated HIV infection for more than sixteen years?

    Do you deny that Duesberg’s god-daughter Eliza Jane Scovill was found by the Los Angeles Coroner to have died from PCP, and with many other common features of paediatric AIDS?

    These are unpleasant facts, but the truth is never in itself “revolting”, and honesty is not a “smear”.

    Your response to the truth is telling, and highlights the irony of your chosen moniker, TS.

  87. Carter Says:

    For a person who needs to place the word deny that many times in one post might tell something about that person. Ah, but you needn’t me to point that one out. It’s unpleasant facts reverse this character needs to look at.

  88. Snout Says:

    Hey Brian, congratulations on your recent shafting of Rod Knoll in the recent AIDS Myth Exposed coup-de-turd and its aftermath. He had it coming.

    “It’s unpleasant facts reverse this character needs to look at.”

    I’m relieved to see your brief sojourn in the AIDS Denialist Wilderness hasn’t affected the clarity of your English expression.

  89. cervantes Says:

    1) From several medical sources, on PCP:

    “The fungus called Pneumocystic jiroveci causes Pneumocystic jiroveci pneumonia (formerly called Pneumocystis carinii or PCP). The organism is widespread in the environment. Serologic evidence suggests that most healthy children have been exposed to the fungus by age three or four. However, it does not cause PCP in healthy individuals because their bodies are able to fend off the infectious organism.”

    2) And from Dr. Joel Gallant of Johns Hopkins University. Gallant also was Gilead Science’s and Bristol-Myers-Squib’s Lead Investigator that recommended the Atripla formula, the one-a-day pill that replaced the first 10 years of HAART given from 1996 to 2006 (the original HAART was a daily 600 mgs AZT, 300 mgs lamivudine, 2,400 mgs of protease inhibitor called indivavir sulfate – small wonder U.S. AIDS deaths were a consistent 16,000 -17,000 a year on this regimen! This was called Early HAART in Lohse’s Denmark study, with Early HAART takers dying in droves). From Joel Gallant:

    “The normal range (of CD4 cells) is going to depend to some degree on the lab and the test they’re using. Also, remember that a normal range is determined by statistics, not by science. For example, a normal range for a lab test is often defined as two standard deviations above and below the average in a group of healthy individuals. If someone is outside of that range it doesn’t necessarily mean there’s something wrong, since using that definition, 5% of healthy people will be outside that range. That’s why you shouldn’t get too hung up on the variability in what you’re reading. For most labs, the average CD4 count is between 800 and 1050. If you define the range as two standard deviations above and below the average, you come up with a normal range of 500-1400. But that’s not the “right” answer because there’s no such thing as a “right” answer for something like this.”

    Of course, there was the vaunted Concorde Study from 1993 that stated having low CD4 cell counts was no more predictive than flipping a coin as to a person’s clinical health.

    At any rate, there will always be healthy people with perpetual very “low” CD4 counts, and most healthy people will have detectable “PCP” fungus IF it is looked for.

    With at least a hundred million+ people in the U.S. (also in Europe) tested over time using the abysmally non-specific “HIV antibody test”, and with always a proportion of healthy people having “low” CD4 cell counts, the trap has been laid. And, such as Kimberly Bergalis becomes a certain victim after her being put on 1,500 mgs a day of AZT – I actually remember the national TV news showing her being carried on a stretcher into the U.S. Congress.

    The great preponderance of evidence and testimony on Christine and her daughter’s deaths point to fatal allergic reaction to antibiotics and a diminished basic health brought about by unremitting grief. How such as John Moore and his devotees such as Snout pile on their naked hate shows how low humans can go.

  90. Snout Says:

    Cervantes, you seem to be trying to evade my straightforward questions with nonsense. Did Kim Bergalis have thrush, hair loss, grossly suppressed CD4+ cellular immunity and Pneumocystis pneumonia before she started antiretroviral therapy?

    Was PCP listed as cause of death by the qualified pathologists who performed the autopsies on both Christine Maggiore and EJ Scovill? Is Pneumocystis pneumonia really seen at autopsy of people with normal immune systems “if it is looked for”?

    Does Pneumocystis pneumonia really occur in healthy people, or is it pathognomonic of the catastrophically low cell-mediated immune function characteristic of advanced AIDS?

    Is it possible for a child to have a fatal anaphylactic to an antibiotic only two days after having antibiotics for the first time in her life?

    Do you really believe that telling the truth is equivalent to “piling on naked hate”?

  91. Truthseeker Says:

    Oh, please, Snout, stop this silly game. Whenever faced with irrefutable facts and clearly demonstrated counter-interpretations which show up your meme ridden misinterpretations of plain fact in one instance (eg the study we have been discussing which shows that ARV’s followed AZT in increasing mortality in patients medicated according to your spurious paradigm and its unsustainable claims) you always resort to this specious nonsense about the likes of Maggiore and her child, who you claim to be convinced died of HIV/AIDS, regardless of all reason and all major evidence, clinging instead to minor details which can be interpreted your way only by ignoring the preponderance of obvious major data in the opposite direction.

    If you will permit us to say so, it is obvious to some smart people, Snout, that you are trapped in a very small box, and cannot see out of it, and are the least qualified person to guide the unfortunates who are medicated by doctors who have bought into what it clearly, to some smart people, the silliest and most dangerous paradigm in medicine extant. You discuss the few unusual trees – Arboris Red Herringus – or twigs when the shape of the wood is clear for all who fly above it to see.

    It is a basic principle in life that people who are not so smart get bogged down in detail and try to bog down those they debate with in the same details, which ignoring the telling bigger points that argue conclusively in the opposite direction. It is a tiresome thing and very characteristic of the endless HIV/AIDS debate, which continues only because people like yourself force smart people who have long ago seen what is going on to play Whack a Mole, where like Chevy Chase in his movie Caddyshack one has to bang you on the nose as you surface from one burrow only to have you pop up in some other hole.

    It was your ad hominem remarks about Peter Duesberg which were totally unjustified and which were “revolting” in their impetus, and which give rise to characterizations like “naked hate”. Don’t confuse this with whether you have facts in hand, and are debating facts. All smart people know where angry insults come from when voiced by people in debate. They come from the unconscious suspicion that what you say cannot be justified with reason, and is in fact a point of view embedded somewhere lower in your skull and spinal cord. When emotion is tied to a point of view and people become self righteously indignant when challenged, we perceive that they know they do not have sufficient facts they have checked for themselves and their own reason to offer, but speak from what they imagine to be authority, or some other source of faith.

    This is a site devoted to a discussion by smart people as to whether particular paradigms in science and elsewhere are justified by the scientific and other literature, or live on only through political and emotional support. Please stop demonstrating that it is the latter case with regard to HIV/AIDS.

    And please stop demonstrating you act only as a relentless propagandist for HIV/AIDS’s unproven and incredible claim and not a genuine truthseeker in science and medicine, and not even a genuine debater.

  92. Truthseeker Says:

    Celia Farber (having difficulty signing in here for some reason which we will investigate) sends this note on Fraser/Snout’s Auto Red Herring posts on this site and at Times Higher Education thread linked above:


    Fraser wrote:

    “The only HIV-positive member of the “board” died of untreated AIDS in 2008. She had been active in encouraging HIV positive pregnant women to forgo treatment to prevent transmission to their children. Her own 3-year old daughter died of untreated AIDS a couple of years earlier.”

    Let us acknowledge that these deaths were politically and ideologically charged, due to Christine Maggiore’s high profile as an HIV positive agnostic/atheist on the question of the (negative) deity (HIV’s) powers. That does not mean either of them did NOT die of AIDS. It does mean however, that there was a very potent will afoot in the culture, spread through the media, that their deaths would be interpreted as “AIDS.” Steven Biko, to cite an arch example, did not in fact, as alleged by the powers that be at the time, die of either a hunger strike or by beating himself to death in prison. My singular point here, so far, is to admit, before proceeding, that the deaths and the facts around them must be handled with extreme caution and balance of mind.

    Now let’s thread forth those facts that are not in dispute. These include:

    –Maggiore had many HIV (WB) tests that gave conflicting results over the years. She alternately tested positive, negative, and indeterminate, at various times. Her first positive test was in 1992, and she died at the end of 2008.

    –She was HIV positive (with some interuptions) for at least 16 years.

    –She never had an opportunistic infection of manifestations of AIDS, prior to falling ill in the winter of 2008, with bi-lateral bronchial pneumonia.

    –Her husband Robin Scovill is HIV negative, despite some 11 years of unprotected sexual relations.

    –Her son Charlie is HIV negative.

    –Eliza Jane’s HIV status is, I think it is fair to say, not knowable, because the blood that was sent to Quest labs for testing was drawn after she expired. The L.A. Times article that first trumpeted the notion of Eliza Jane’s death from AIDS (“A Mother’s Denial, a Daughters Death) omitted any mention of Eliza Jane’s HIV test result. Instead, we are asked to accept an HIV protein found in her brain on autopsy as evidence that she was “infected” with HIV.

    –In the absence of blood tests, there are other acknowledged ways of ascertaining whether a person appears to be suffering from an “HIV infection” that results in lowered immunity (AIDS,) and eventually death. One of those is the Absolute Lymphocyte Count, decreed by WHO as a valid surrogate marker for AIDS in the absence of an HIV test, including in children. [Lancet. 2005 Nov 26;366 (9500): 1831-2, “Use of total lymphocyte cont for informing when to start antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected children: a meta-analysis of longitudinal data.] In this study, on 3917 children with “HIV infection” in Europe and USA, (I use quotes to because a 1993 paper in Bio/Technology by Perth Group deconstructed the assumption that HIV antibodies equals infection with HIV, a case also made by Rodney Richards, and PhD scientists, in later works.) This Lancet paper concludes: “Total lymphocyte count was a powerful predictor of the risk of disease progression despite a weak correlation with CD4 cell percentage (r=0.08-0.19 on age),” and “In this population, total lymphycte count was a strong predictor of short term disease progression, being only marginally less predictive than CD4-cell percentage.”

    –Eliza Jane’s absolute lymphocyte count when she died was 10,800, slightly higher than normal range. []

    Now, rather than argue, with futile outcome, what I think this means, perhaps you, Fraser, could answer this question:

    Q: Is it possible to die of AIDS with a normal absolute lymphocyte count? If yes, does that mean this count does NOT measure immunity?

    A young actress (Brittany Murphy) recently died suddenly at home after a bout of pneumonia, and having been placed on antibiotics. Not unlike Eliza Jane, she vomited, suddenly stopped breathing, and died. Like Eliza Jane, she was found to have been severely anemic. The news is rife with deaths that seem new, in nature, that are being caused by the promiscuous use of new potent drugs, in combinations that are sometimes lethal.

    I am not suggesting Eliza Jane was not sick, acutely sick, for the three weeks that preceded her death. I am asking pointedly HOW it can be deemed an AIDS death if HIV (presumed present) has failed to erode the lymphocyte count? Your credibility in this matter was destroyed precisely because you jack-hammered this tragic death into your ideological belief that “denialism” kills. You could have permitted the facts about EJ to fall where they may, and still maintained your position that HIV causes AIDS, ergo, EJ’s death was not necessary ballast for your paradigm. Instead, what you did was to totally free AIDS from its own parameters, to make room for this.

    –Christine was HIV positive and healthy for at least 16 years. Does HIV typically take 16 years to cause AIDS? In the 80s you all proclaimed that HIV caused AIDS very rapidly, six months, a year, two years…five years….10…is it 15 now? Can you address this extremely elastic model of pathogenesis? If HIV takes 16 years to cause AIDS, why did all those hundreds of thousands of people die so swiftly during the peak years of high dose AZT (now classified as a carcinogen.) Were they infected as adolescents? Can you be honest about anything?

    –One point only, about Christine’s death: She weighed 25 pounds more (145 pounds) at death than she ever weighed in life (120 pounds.) This weight was gained in the last days of her life. [] Do people GAIN weight when they die of AIDS, suddenly? Dr. Al Bayati’s report explains the weight gain as resulting from “acute renal failure,” leading to the development of “acute left ventricular heart failure, pulmonary congestion, and pulmonary edmea,” which he states was triggered by a combination of drugs she took to treat her pneumonia, in contraindicated combinations and doses. (Gentamicin, Rocephin, Azithrmycin, Acyclovir, Fluconazole and corticosteroids)

    He claimed: “The growth of P. jiroveci observed in Christine’s lungs and other tissues resulted from her treatment with corticosteroids during the 9 days prior to her death.”

    How do you explain the extra 25 pounds, in an AIDS death scenario?

    Can’t HIV cause AIDS even if Maggiore DID die of renal failure from all these drugs?

    –All 11 women in an early 90s support group Maggiore once belonged to, who took the recommended drugs died in the early to mid 90s. How did Maggiore’s “denialism” fail her, when she outlived all these women by abut 13 years?

    –All HIV positive children in the state of Minnesota on record n the early 90s were placed on AZT and other drugs. One (Lindsey Nagel) was taken off, on Peter Duesberg’s advice.

    Lindsey is alive and well, at 19, symptom free. All the other children are long dead.

    Where is your data demonstrating that testing and medicating (with anti-HIV drugs) HIV positive children has actually resulted in survivors, or the “saving” of lives?

    –Prosecutors dropped their case against Maggiore and Scovill after Eliza Jane’s death, “noting that Maggiore had sought medical advice.” (LA Times, “Suit Settled on Autopsy of HIV skeptic’s child.)

    Do you think it is sound and fair for you to continue to malign and prosecute her for a terrible crime (murder) even the Los Angeles police and DA’s office deemed her innocent of?

    Don’t you see how you have ceased to be objective, in your rage against those who exercise their constitutional right to freedom of choice in medicine?

    What can be said of all those dead children in Minnesota? Who “killed” them?

    Please refrain from invective and ad homineim in your reply.

    And no, Dr. Al-Bayati is not “a veterinarian.” He studied animal diseases and pathology early in his career as a foundation for his later work in human pathology and toxicology. He is well respected and highly sought after in criminal cases around the country, many of which have been thrown out of court due to his meticulous work. Look it up.

    – Celia Farber

  93. cervantes Says:

    I think most all of us have had notable experiences on life’s topics where a friend, relative, or colleague has taken a distinct position on a technical or humanistic topic, and will never change their minds on it. In fact, they will not spend even one second glancing at an article headline that runs counter to their entrenched belief. And, if somebody in a conversation unknowingly brings up this sacred topic, not a single word will register in their cerebrums.

    These friends do NOT have vested financial interest. What they do have is the human quality of wanting to have unshakable faith in a particular institution’s policy (or faith in an individual to whom they have become emotionally attached). And that’s it. No more thinking. Done.

    My career has been trouble-shooting others’ mistakes in many diverse technologies, and I have then innovated fixes or complete overhauls, and have a very successful track record; as the proverb goes, the proof is in the pudding. Yet, the technical problems have rarely been hard to solve; what has typically been hard to overcome is the mindset of those who created malfunctioning designs, and sticking to their ill-conceived concepts.

    Coming to the medical field late in life, the mistakes/issues so discussed here on TS’s forum, with those sticking to their beliefs no matter the counter abundant evidence, is nothing new as far as entrenched positions, and willful ignorance.

    What is new to me (starting 20 years ago) was the incredulous amount of $$money that backed such flagrant HIV nonsense, and the incessant propaganda this massive $$ generates. For my livelihood, I frequently go the National Library of Medicine on the NIH Campus in Bethesda, Maryland to delve into millions of journal articles, and there is no getting away from this omnipresent propaganda all over the Campus. It is no wonder mainstream medicos, and individual citizens “infected” (with many of these having their rent paid by staying infected) have such closed minds.

  94. Snout Says:

    Hello Celia.

    I hope you don’t mind my addressing your points, even though you directed your post toward “Fraser”. I believe that Fraser addressed some some of these questions on your Dean Esmay posts, but unfortunately you deleted them together with the relevant threads. I hope this will not happen here, as it’s rather a waste of time when that happens.

    1. Yes, I agree that the circumstances surrounding Christine’s and EJ’s deaths were politically charged, and for the reasons you have quoted me as saying.

    2. HIV is a virus, not a deity. Deities are entities like Krishna, or Allah, or Quetzalcoatl. Viruses are entities like HBV, or Epstein-Barr Virus, or HIV.

    3. Whether or not there was “a potent will afoot” their deaths were interpreted as resulting from AIDS on the basis of factual evidence – including post mortem evidence of Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia in both, together with clinical, radiological and other data.

    4. I am aware of Christine’s various claims when she was alive to have had inconsistent HIV antibody test results. However, this is an extraordinary claim without even ordinary evidence to support it. When she and her supporters took the opportunity to publicly show these supposedly inconsistent results in a recent film they do not support her story – rather they refute it. She had an initial series of tests in early 1992 showing typical EIA and Western Blot patterns of early HIV infection. She tells us this series concluded with a clear positive result. She repeated the tests in September 1993 (twice) showing clearly positive results. In between she shows a fragment of a negative result without any details to show what kind of test it was, and which appears may be a serum p24 antigen test, although without further details it is difficult to say what it is with any confidence. The evidence shown in the film is not consistent with her story.

    5. I am not familiar with any details of her medical history between 1993 and 2008, so I don’t dispute that she was clinically well during that period. Nor do I dispute that her husband and surviving son are (thankfully) uninfected. I am not sure what this is supposed to indicate about Christine’s or EJ’s health status, though.

    6. Eliza Jane’s HIV status is knowable. She tested positive to HIV antigens on tissue testing of specimens typical of HIV encephalopathy, which is sufficient for diagnosis of HIV infection. She also had several typical post mortem features of late stage HIV disease in children, and a contact history which made such a diagnosis not improbable.

    7. I’m not a paediatric infectious diseases specialist, but yes, I do believe that it is possible for a child to have a normal or even high total lymphocyte count in the hours before dying of an AIDS-related infection. While declining total lymphocyte counts might be an indicator of the risk of HIV disease progression under some circumstances, a TL count taken at the time of an acute illness is not a good guide as to overall immune health. If you have evidence that it is, please present it.

    8. The median duration from untreated HIV infection to onset of AIDS is around a decade, but clinical latency varies widely around that median. 16 years is better than the median for an adult, but not unusual.

    9. I’m not sure who “proclaimed” to you that the median latency was “six months, a year, two years” following infection in the 1980s. You have made this claim repeatedly, and I note that you have been frequently challenged to provide a source for this. You never have, to my knowledge. Median latency was established at around a decade by the late 1980s, once there were cohorts with known date of seroconversion in whom 50% had progressed to AIDS.

    10. People died swiftly from AIDS during the 1980s because there were no treatments for the underlying cause until 1987, and AZT monotherapy was only very moderately effective in extending life. They did not develop AIDS as a result of using AZT, however. Until 1990 AZT was not used until after a diagnosis of AIDS/ARC. As has been explained to you repeatedly.

    11. You seem to have trouble understanding the concept of a median latency of ten years. This doesn’t mean that everyone is fine for a decade and then they all get sick together at year ten. What it means is that by year ten the cumulative total who have progressed has reached 50%. By definition, half have a latency less than ten years and half more than ten years. Some get sick in one or two years, some at seven, some at 15 or 16 some at 20 or more. A few (less than 1 or 2%) maybe never. Obviously, those who got sick early in the course of the epidemic were the unlucky faster progressors. By definition.

    12. People can indeed put on significant amounts fluid when seriously ill from any number of underlying diseases. However, 11 kg sounds rather a lot in just a few days, and if true suggests a serious lack of attention to fluid balance.

    13. I’m not sure the combination of drugs is “contraindicated”, although I don’t know why Christine’s doctor did not attempt to treat the most obvious likely cause of pneumonia in someone with her history and clinical presentation. Strictly speaking, she shouldn’t have been administered ceftriaxone and calcium together as at the time there had been warnings current about interactions in neonates which the FDA had extended to adults as a precaution. However those warnings for adults were lifted a couple of months later.

    14. Mohammed Al-Bayati’s claim that Christine developed PCP as a result of the normal doses of corticosteroids used to treat her pre-existing pneumonia is a not-very-credible post hoc rationalisation to try to explain away the obvious. I haven’t seen Dr Posey’s actual report, but I would be extremely surprised if he shared Al-Bayati’s opinion, or that any competent medical examiner would countenance it.

    15. Maggiore, by her own account, was not offered antiretrovirals in the early 1990s because they were not yet indicated for her. I’m not sure how you can usefully compare her outcome with 11 women who supposedly were sick enough to be on treatment at that time. But given we have no reliable data about these women, their state of health or their treatments, the question is moot.

    16. Untreated paediatric HIV/AIDS generally has a rotten prognosis, but as with adults there is a range of progression rates and even some “elite controllers”. I hope Lindsey Nagel is one of the latter, or if she is not, that she has to opportunity to access appropriate treatment when it becomes necessary. What I would hate to see is her ending up in the same trap Christine found herself in – in desperate need of competent specialist care, but unable to access it for psycho-social reasons. So I’ll leave any public discussion of her case there, as should you.

    17. Evidence for the efficacy of antiretroviral treatment for children can be derived from comparing treatment outcomes with natural history studies of the disease in children before treatment was available. No sane parent would contemplate having their child in a randomised placebo controlled trial of a treatment for a serious disease when such evidence is available.

    18. I don’t “malign and prosecute” Christine, nor do I accuse her of murder. I think her story is very sad and also very complex, but one that deserves to be told truthfully.

    19. I have no rage against people who choose or refuse medical treatments for themselves that I would not choose or refuse for myself. I do, however, get extremely annoyed at people who take it upon themselves to provide lethally stupid medical “advice” and disinformation to sick people, or people at risk of a serious illness. Particularly when such people claim medical or scientific credentials or other “special” knowledge or influence. That actually makes me quite livid, sometimes.

    20. You will note, however, that I have refrained from insulting you (which is different from making an ad hominem argument), despite such provocations from you as “Can you be honest about anything?”

  95. Truthseeker Says:

    Says the irrepressible Snout: “I hope you don’t mind my addressing your points, even though you directed your post toward “Fraser”. I believe that Fraser addressed some some of these questions on your Dean Esmay posts, but unfortunately you deleted them together with the relevant threads. I hope this will not happen here, as it’s rather a waste of time when that happens.”

    We aver that no comments will be deleted here, however misleading and misguided, as are the above almost without exception, Snout/Fraser, and even though unlike Cervantes your performance here and elsewhere gives the distinct impression that you are not simply a closed minded axegrinder out of obdurate and premature personal conviction as Cervantes would have it, but a paid shill for the reigning wisdom in HIV/AIDS.

    Sorry if this is ad hominem but what other interpretation is there for your unrelenting and impenetrable argumentation which takes into account exclusively only the points you see which fit your premise that HIV ideology is correct, and interprets them only in this fashion, and your unremitting assiduity, week in and week out, on the Web, pushing this view without for one moment ever admitting the fundamental, and as yet unrefuted or even with any rebuttal attempted in the same journals, problems with every major aspect of HIV ideology enumerated 22 years ago in Cancer Research and the Proceedings of the National Academy by Peter Duesberg, who as we noted above is a scientist whose intelligence and ability is clearly far ahead of your own otherwise admirable, but noticeably more pedestrian accomplishment.

    Your parade of questionable points above is a fine example of how you avoid seeing the main outline of the issue and the way Christine Maggiore’s death does not fit the major themes of the scientifically unjustified ideology of HIV=AIDS that you pursue in your constant struggle to produce Ptolemaic justification for your fond belief, always in vain.

    Just as you cannot produce any answer to the long list of major ways in which HIV ideology does not fit the evidence advanced to support it, never has for 22 years, and in fact increasingly is shown to support its critics, you narrow the examination of the deaths of Maggiore and her child to whatever points you imagine support your interpretation, and remain blind to the overall problems with your view.

    The plain fact (plain to all unblinkered observers) is that Maggiore’s health record as far as we know it showed NO reason to believe she was under the baleful influence of HIV as T cell terminator when HIV supposedly after many years – your fond median of ten years, that is, without any evidence of mechanism for the delay or mechanism for the effect when it finally arrives – went into effect and suddenly killed her, as it did, you surmise, her child.

    You don’t die suddenly from AIDS symptoms, Snout, the decline and fall takes a little time. Sudden death is prima facie evidence of some other cause at work, even if you believe that HIV can cause severe immune deficit of the kind that is caused by noxious drugs, and you don’t believe with any sanely objective person that the symptoms are in fact caused by drugs, known by conventional medicine to cause precisely that symptom, immune deficit and collapse.

    Both Maggiore and her child died too rapidly for anyone to pin the label HIV/AIDS on them, Snout/Fraser, even an HIV=AIDS fanatic, as you are, and the alternative explanations are readily at hand in both cases, so there is really no difficulty, despite your attempts to make some, like someone sticking twigs into the operating mechanism of a steam roller.


    1. Yes, as you say, the circumstances surrounding Christine’s and EJ’s deaths were politically charged.

    2. Yes, “HIV is a virus, not a deity. Deities are entities like Krishna, or Allah, or Quetzalcoatl. Viruses are entities like HBV, or Epstein-Barr Virus, or HIV.” In that case, kindly treat the discussion of their effect in this case, HIV, as something to be deduced from evidence, not from faith.

    3. Yes, “their deaths were interpreted as resulting from AIDS on the basis of factual evidence – including post mortem evidence of Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia in both, together with clinical, radiological and other data” – which even if accepted as valid ignored the preponderance of evidence and plain (to smart people) logic in the opposite direction.

    4. Yes, Christine’s claim to have had inconsistent HIV antibody test results was disputed on the basis of the results shown in a recent film which you and others suggest are questionable evidence for inconsistency even though in one instance “it is difficult to say what it is with any confidence” what they show and yet you still cannot say that they are inconsistent results. But what does it matter? Even if she was HIV positive the significance in terms of the symptoms of her death is effectively nil, since there was no correlation.

    5. Yes, her generally healthy life, and the “uninfected” status of her husband and son, do not preclude in themselves your fantasy that her death and that of her child were due to HIV causing AIDS but then there may be Martians among us, Snout, possibly including you, and there is nothing to preclude that either, which indicates the fatuity of your reasoning in this respect, if you would kindly allow that everything we know suggests it is unlikely, even though your thinking is certainly alien.

    6. Yes, you can claim that Eliza Jane’s HIV status is knowable based on the blatantly flimsy basis that she tested “positive to HIV antigens on tissue testing of specimens typical of HIV encephalopathy and that that is sufficient for diagnosis of HIV infection, and that she also had several typical post mortem features of late stage HIV disease in children, and a contact history which made such a diagnosis not improbable,” but stripped of your assiduous HIV paranoia we have no indication that even if any of this stuff is valid it is relevant to her shockingly rapid decline from happy healthiness to sudden death, whereas allergic reaction accounts for it completely.

    7. Yes, you can believe that “it is possible for a child to have a normal or even high total lymphocyte count in the hours before dying of an AIDS-related infection, and a TL count taken at the time of an acute illness is not a good guide as to overall immune health,” but you are the one that has to fit that result into your fantastical claim, not its critics.

    8. Yes, you can state that the “median duration from untreated HIV infection to onset of AIDS is around a decade, and that clinical latency varies widely around that median, and that 16 years is better than the median for an adult, but not unusual,” but it remains the unjustified, unproven, counter intuitive, illogical and unexplained fantasy of your meme ridden brain, Snout, and contrary to simpler, intuitive, logical, obvious and evidence-based explanation in line with conventional science and experience to date, which is that there is no latency at all, of any kind, since HIV shows no signs whatsoever of doing anything at all to any body at any time, and that all illness and suffering under the aegis of standard HIV/AIDS ideology is due to other, conventional factors, including the depressing effect of being advised by HIV priests such as yourself, Snout.

    9. Yes, even though you are not sure who “proclaimed” to Farber that the median latency was “six months, a year, two years” following infection in the 1980s, and say that though she has made this claim repeatedly, she has not provided a source for it despite repeated challenge, the fact is that the initial speculation as to latency period was one or two years, and it slowly expanded for five and ten years, as the numbers failed to accord with predictions. Anyone alive and compos mentis at that time remembers that. Your repeated quoting of how they worked out that it was ten years (contrary to indications it was longer and longer) does not erase the simple embarrassment that HIV entirely fails to produce any illness or fatality in the absence of some other cause, and this its true latency is in fact a lifetime. Unfortunately this is abbreviated by the swift application of noxious drugs as soon as any HIV antibody positive person falls ill for any other reason during that lifetime, as is the common human experience.

    10. Yes, you may once again recite your faithful litany that “people died swiftly from AIDS during the 1980s because there were no treatments for the underlying cause until 1987, and AZT monotherapy was only very moderately effective in extending life, and that they did not develop AIDS as a result of using AZT, because before 1990 AZT was not used until after a diagnosis of AIDS/ARC,” but the fact is, dear truffle hunting Snout, the alternative explanation that the most enthusiastic drug users in gay clubs died more rapidly initially that those who took fewer, who survived longer, that AZT kept the numbers up from what have been zero if patients had never taken any drugs and been put on a regime of no drugs and proper diet early enough, is more persuasive by 100x to any person aware of the effects of AZT, especially those aware that the only placebo controlled clinical trials of AZT showed that it made people worse, contrary to your misinformation above that it was only “moderately effective in extending life”.

    11. Yes, we all understand “the concept of a median latency of ten years, which doesn’t mean that everyone is fine for a decade and then they all get sick together at year ten, but means is that by year ten the cumulative total who have progressed has reached 50%, and that by definition, half have a latency less than ten years and half more than ten years, and that some get sick in one or two years, some at seven, some at 15 or 16 some at 20 or more.” But Gee, how about those who die of old age, Snout, can we count them too? How about instead of saying “a few (less than 1 or 2%) maybe never”, we say 100% never, if free of drugs of any kind, and free of your leaders’ baleful influence advising them to go get an HIV antibody test, and believe those antibodies to be fatal. Obviously, “those who got sick early in the course of the epidemic were the unlucky faster progressors, by definition,” you say – yes, Snout, sick from the drugs they took in their hog wild night life, or the drugs you and/or your colleagues gave them. It is an extraordinary sight, Snout, otherwise sane and smart people such as yourself trying to sell patients and the public a bill of goods for fish that has stunk for 22 years, and box yourself in a corner with it, and still unable to smell the coffee, though perhaps that is the effect of the stinking fish.

    12. Yes, “people can indeed put on significant amounts fluid when seriously ill from any number of underlying diseases, and 11 kg sounds rather a lot in just a few days, and if true suggests a serious lack of attention to fluid balance,” but let’s notice that it has nothing to do with the list of AIDS symptoms maintained by the CDC.

    13. Yes, your statement here that “I’m not sure the combination of drugs is “contraindicated”, although I don’t know why Christine’s doctor did not attempt to treat the most obvious likely cause of pneumonia in someone with her history and clinical presentation. Strictly speaking, she shouldn’t have been administered ceftriaxone and calcium together as at the time there had been warnings current about interactions in neonates which the FDA had extended to adults as a precaution. However those warnings for adults were lifted a couple of months later.” gives all readers a fairly strong clue as to what underlying mentality warps your diagnosis and treatment of patients of any kind in this drug happy era, and how HIV-meme ridden your brain is, happily unlike Christine’s doctor, in that respect, at least.

    14. Yes, your statement that “Mohammed Al-Bayati’s claim that Christine developed PCP as a result of the normal doses of corticosteroids used to treat her pre-existing pneumonia is a not-very-credible post hoc rationalisation to try to explain away the obvious. I haven’t seen Dr Posey’s actual report, but I would be extremely surprised if he shared Al-Bayati’s opinion, or that any competent medical examiner would countenance it.” is amusingly ‘physician heal thyself’ when it comes to not very credible post hoc rationalization to try and explain away the obvious, which is that her death had zero to do with HIV antibodies.

    15. Yes, you may say that “Maggiore, by her own account, was not offered antiretrovirals in the early 1990s because they were not yet indicated for her. I’m not sure how you can usefully compare her outcome with 11 women who supposedly were sick enough to be on treatment at that time. But given we have no reliable data about these women, their state of health or their treatments, the question is moot,” but the fact is that antiretrovirals do not have a record of rip roaring success in treating the horror of HIV antibody positivity, in case you hadn’t noticed. Why is that, Snout?

    16. Yes, you may say “Untreated paediatric HIV/AIDS generally has a rotten prognosis, but as with adults there is a range of progression rates and even some “elite controllers”. I hope Lindsey Nagel is one of the latter, or if she is not, that she has to opportunity to access appropriate treatment when it becomes necessary. What I would hate to see is her ending up in the same trap Christine found herself in – in desperate need of competent specialist care, but unable to access it for psycho-social reasons. So I’ll leave any public discussion of her case there, as should you.” but allow the reader to assess this as the stream of pro-HIV bias extrapolation that it is.

    17. Yes, you may say that “Evidence for the efficacy of antiretroviral treatment for children can be derived from comparing treatment outcomes with natural history studies of the disease in children before treatment was available. No sane parent would contemplate having their child in a randomised placebo controlled trial of a treatment for a serious disease when such evidence is available.” but allow any sane reader to note that this twisted logic is based on the false premise that HIV is a deadly threat even in the form of antibodies and that it is better to give noxious drugs to children than allow them to live on with untreated HIV antibodies, and that with your brain infesting HIV=AIDS meme removed, yes, no sane parent would indeed wish to have their child involved in testing noxious drugs for a useless purpose.

    18. Yes, you may say you “don’t “malign and prosecute” Christine, nor do I accuse her of murder. I think her story is very sad and also very complex, but one that deserves to be told truthfully.” but this is just your heart fellow traveling with your meme ridden brain and unaware of the emotional force of your wrongly based antagonism to Christine Maggiore’s wise rejection of your unjustifiable faith in HIV ideology, a remarkably enlightened rejection from a lay person without training in medicine or science, as far as we know, though of course as you constantly demonstrate, Snout, too much expertise in the trees and shrubs of those studies actively prevents many people from seeing the shape of the forest.

    19. Yes, you may say you “have no rage against people who choose or refuse medical treatments for themselves that I would not choose or refuse for myself. I do, however, get extremely annoyed at people who take it upon themselves to provide lethally stupid medical “advice” and disinformation to sick people, or people at risk of a serious illness. Particularly when such people claim medical or scientific credentials or other “special” knowledge or influence. That actually makes me quite livid, sometimes.”, but you should consider the fact that all science and medicine in this field fails to support your own thinking, which is entirely religious in nature, since it purports to demonstrate its beliefs from evidence that is all accumulated on the basis of one premise, which is never questioned, except rather marvelously not only by a few independent thinkers in the field, not all of whom are prepared to speak up as Duesberg has done so admirably and with such self sacrifice, but also by lay thinkers who can see from a mile away that you sit on top of a pile of anti-science, Snout,

    20. Yes, you may say that “You will note, however, that I have refrained from insulting you (which is different from making an ad hominem argument), despite such provocations from you as “Can you be honest about anything?””, but ad hominem arguments are not really relevant to the issue of whether the basic premise of all your thinking is true or not, Snout, and if any of the above seems ad hominem, we apologize for it, just as you should respect Maggiore and anyone else who questions your infinitely questionable point of view.

    And at long last, Snout/Fraser (please confirm whether you are Fraser or not) can you stop this infernal, eternal cherry picking? If you can’t sail on the open sea ie refute or explain any of the main points Duesberg and the critics make against the global meme, please stop diverting us all to the shallow pond of red herrings you like to swim in.

  96. cervantes Says:

    TS, Your last posting, thanks. If I may, I think it is worth extending topic #16 (Pediatric AIDS).

    Here is topic #16:

    16. Yes, you may say “Untreated paediatric HIV/AIDS generally has a rotten prognosis, but as with adults there is a range of progression rates and even some “elite controllers”. I hope Lindsey Nagel is one of the latter, or if she is not, that she has to opportunity to access appropriate treatment when it becomes necessary. What I would hate to see is her ending up in the same trap Christine found herself in – in desperate need of competent specialist care, but unable to access it for psycho-social reasons. So I’ll leave any public discussion of her case there, as should you.” but allow the reader to assess this as the stream of pro-HIV bias extrapolation that it is.

    My response.

    Canada’s Public Health Agency (PHAC) and the U.S. Government (CDC) publish annual Pediatric AIDS mortality, ignored by the U.S. media.

    The last 5 years of U.S. CDC Pediatric AIDS deaths, ending 2007, added to 258 deaths.

    The last 6 years of Canada Pediatric AIDS deaths, ending 2008, added to 0 (zero).

    What does this mean? It means that the U.S. media is so in the tank with Anthony Fauci’s dogma and the pharma companies paying for their $billion dollar ads and reaping their multi-billion profits from drugs taken by Snout (to the tune of $14,000 a year for the drugs alone), the U.S. media refuses to look at this iatrogenic disaster, despite the lethal fraud exposed by Canada’s Public Health Agency right next door.


    1) Surveillance Report to December 31, 2008; the Public Health Agency of Canada, Section II; Report of the Canadian Perinatal HIV Surveillance Program, 1984-2008.

    2) U.S. CDC (go to latest update, Cases of HIV infection and AIDS, Divisions of HIV/AIDS prevention, last modified February 18, 2009.

  97. Truthseeker Says:

    Celia writes: Question for Cervantes: Why does Canada have no dead children for so many years?

    No HIV? No AIDS? No HAART? What?

  98. cervantes Says:

    Celia, Please be advised to not have eaten for awhile. First, the Canada document I have already provided shows 0 (zero) pediatric deaths the last 9 years, whereas the U.S. pediatric toll for the last 9 years comes to over 600 (the exact figure is not at my fingertips).

    My source, indelibly endorsed by NIH, is titled Guidelines for the Use of Antiretroviral Agents in Pediatric HIV Infection, November 3, 2005.

    Coincidentally, the latest revision, February 23, 2009, has just become available, but it does not change the dosing of Zidovudine, except it extends dosing from 12 years to 18 years.

    Nevertheless, the Nov. 3, 2005 protocols (and its predecessor Documents also citing the AZT dosing) pertain to the pediatric death toll up to the present.

    In addition to a staggering array of ARVs recommended for U.S. babies and kids (6 months to 12-18 years old), the specific treatment* of AZT (called Zidovudine in the Guideline) given an infant starting at 6 weeks equates to an adult dose of at least 1,200 milligrams a day. And, this is given forever. Until the child dies. Blamed on HIV.

    The U.S. Guideline shows a medical world completely losing touch with reality, thoughtlessly going forward fueled by $30 Billion a year, never checking with other countries’ successes.

    *160 mgs per square meter (surface area of an infant/kid derived from its weight easily obtained by nursing calculators), every 8 hours. Go to this protocol for Zidovudine toward the end of the Guideline. Or, 240 mgs per square meter twice a day. The average 3.2 kilogram newborn has an area of about .22 square meters to .24 square meters. However, since these HIV-RNA infants are dosed with AZT for six weeks, it is hard to see how they could gain much weight. So, dosing continuing from 6 weeks becomes somewhat fuzzy, but my calculations are reasonable.

    Finally, two reasons why approximately 50 U.S. HIV-RNA babies die every year from their treatments, down substantially from earlier years. One, far fewer babies come up “positive” to all the tests. This is so, because abundant documentation shows mothers poisoned with AZT during pregnancy do in fact have less babies testing “positive” – though the tragic toll of congenital damage and spontaneous abortions is ignored. Second, “false positives” have also been lowered. So, together this gives the false impression that the medical world is successfully treating HIV, when in fact, it is the exact opposite.

  99. cervantes Says:

    ps: There is yet another terribly toxic non-ARV drug given to “HIV-RNA” newborns, starting at 4-6 weeks. It’s trade name is Bactrim, but its more accurately called trimthoprim-sulfamethoxazole (tmp/smx) and it has many other trade names.

    It’s perceived merit is to help ward off pcp pneumonia (now called jiroveci, a fungal pneumonia).

    Bactrim directly inhibits the metabolization of folic acid, supposedly more so in pathogens, not so much in human cell synthesis (guess what Drug Companies did these tests?). Yet, abundant literature cites Bactrim’s terrible/lethal “side effects” and pregnant women are urged to take folic acid supplements, etc., if they take Bactrim for such as urinary tract infections. Needless to say, proper metabolization of folic acid is crucial to an infant.

    But, in the name of saving babies who have HIV-RNA, Bactrim is dosed indefinitely – I am not making this up – the HIV doctors may as well be doubly drawing their scalpels across the infants’ throats.

  100. cervantes Says:

    correction: trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (not trimthoprim)

  101. cervantes Says:

    Clarification: Infants testing to have HIV-RNA at 6 weeks (I said 6 months one place, and 6 weeks the other – the 6 months was an incorrect typo) may then be put on the recommended Zidovudine regimen, indefinitely until they test otherwise. And, there’s the other ARVs cited all through the Document.

  102. cervantes Says:

    Reprint from an article (commenting on Bactrim) I wrote in 2004:

    Setting Records for Iatrogenic Infant Death – Obimbo et al. In Kenya, Africa, 2004

    Supported by National Institutes of Health grant HD 23412, Drs. Elizabeth Obimbo et al. administered anti-hiv and other toxic disease-prophylactic drugs from 1999 to June, 2002 to 62 infants determined to be infected with HIV at birth in Nairobi, Kenya. It is significant to note that the great majority of mothers of these infants had been administered AZT during their pregnancies and thereby also having their fetuses integrating the AZT into their fast dividing tissues as AZT is lauded (!) for its chemicals passing through the placenta with great ease to enter and destroy developing fetus tissues, in the name of possibly lowering the rate of hiv transmission from the mother to the fetus.

    Obimbo’s study titled “Predictors of Early Mortality in a Cohort of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Infected African Children” was published in The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal: Vol 23(6) June 2004 pp536-543.

    After birth, these 62 infants were determined infected with hiv by detecting hiv-fragments as determined by DNA PCR tests (this test, as cited elsewhere in this article, is condemned by its Nobel Prize Recipient Dr. Kary Mullis for testing for hiv infection). At four weeks age, an unfortunately acceptable protocol for prophylaxis thought to forestall pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) to those “infected” with hiv, was begun and given throughout the two years of the study. This prophylaxis drug was BACTRIM (trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, also called TMP-SMX, Septra, or Cotrimoxazole) and given at WHO/UNAIDS dose strengths approximately four times that is cautiously administered for briefer time spans as spelled out in Canadian pediatric guidelines for canadian infants. Journal articles have long documented that folic acid, vital for cellular construction and necessary for life, can be inadequately metabolized after the chemical attacks of the BACTRIM components. Folic acid, universally included in vitamin supplements and usually cited in conjunction with vitamin B-12, is necessary to prevent anemia and is also directly related to the synthesis of DNA and other nucleic acids. Needless to say, folic acid metabolization is essential for a growing infant. Have pro-hiv doctors ever actually reviewed the killing effects of their drugs? It appears not – Obimbo et al. just depend on directives originating from “trials” conducted by the drug companies themselves.

    What did Obimbo’s study report? By two years after birth, 32 infants had died (52%!), with the median age of death being 6.2 months. Thirty-two out of sixty-two infants died though cared for in a hospital setting of Nairobi. And guess what? Their deaths were blamed on hiv. All of this despite the mid-1990’s press releases by NIAD that hiv took 10 years (now up to 15-plus years) on average to manifest syndrome diseases – if left untreated. Have those devoted to NIAID ever thought to review why Canada has achieved zero perinatal mortality of “infected ” hiv infants? Maybe there is a clue here.

    When does it stop – how blind can hiv-believing scientists be? How many thousands more infants be sacrificed to the insanity of poisoning fetuses in the womb, and then poisoning the surviving infants after their birth as is done to the orphans documented by Liam Scheff? Regarding Obimbo and her own sacrificial HIV Altar, as the famous manager of the New York Yankees Casey Stengel said: “You can look it up.”

    March 2, 2010 update: WHO’s guidelines for “Resource Limited Settings” have since doubled its Bactrim (aka Cotrimoxazole) dosage for kids at age 6 months, to continue as long as HIV-RNA is detected. The U.S., Canada, WHO now all have the very similar initial dosages.

    BUT: Starting in 1996, Canada’s paediatric guidelines were one-fourth strength of the U.S. Slowly morphing to year 2005, Canada’s dose rose to the U.S. level. HOWEVER, Canada starts at 6 weeks after birth (compared to 4 weeks for U.S. and WHO); Also, Canada STOPS its Bactrim after 3 weeks of prophylaxis, whereas the U.S. and WHO continue indefinitely, with increasing dosages. Also, since dosing discretion is contained in the Canada/U.S. nursing guidelines, it is entirely feasible Canadian doctors/nurses have kept their Bactrim dosing at long-used low, non-lethal, dosages. The dose and duration of any strong medicine is of course the difference between benefit and disaster.

  103. fgwpt Says:

    I was surprised at Snout’s claim: “No one uses continuing ARV therapy until after there is evidence of substantial disease progression. In addition, the usual definition of a “long term non progressor” excludes anyone who has taken ARVs.”

    I would note that this does not appear to be consistent with current treatment practice. For example, if one refers to “Effect of Early versus Deferred Antiretroviral Therapy for HIV on Survival” (NEJM, Volume 360:1815-1826 April 30, 2009 Number 18) it is clear that their conclusion is exactly the opposite – that starting HAART early is preferred (which suggests treatment in the absence of substantial disease progression.)

    Further, note that Washington DC has already announced plans to initiate HAART proactively ( San Francisco indicates they will also do the same (

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Bad Behavior has blocked 4956 access attempts in the last 7 days.