Science Guardian

2009 begins with extensive on line debate comment thread at change.org on the need to Take a new look at the cause of AIDS.

At change.org, a site where causes and ideas for a better world are voted on to establish prioritiies and perhaps influence the incoming Obama administration, the end of 2008 saw the suggestion
Take a new look at the cause of AIDS voted into a list of the top three priority issues in global health.

Here is a msnapshot (below) of the page and the discussion thread as of Jan 1 2009, 10.30 am New York City time. Readers can easily judge for themselves the value of the contributions made, in what is a well informed exchange where the only souirce of contention we would suggest, is the strenuous efforts of paradigm defenders to head off review of their favored belief in which so much is now invested.

The exchange serves as one more example of how anxious proponents of HIV/AIDS (the belief that HIV is the cause of AIDS symptoms – are to stifle discussion and review.

The phenomenon of scientists and their lay supporters attempting to block objective review of this important paradigm betrays to all savvy political observers a conscious or unconscious fear that unrestricted official reexamination of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis would reveal it as scientifically baseless.

If reexamination is ever allowed, a dismissal of current belief and replacement of the paradigm, which the behavior of the defenders shows that they themselves think is likely, can be confidently expected because it would be just as Peter Duesberg of Berkeley has already demonstrated for 21 years in the peer reviewed professional literature, from 1987 (Cancer Research) on (Proceedings of the National Academy 1988 etc to the Journal of Biosciences 2003, see The Scientific Papers of Peter Duesberg on AIDS, in an ongoing peer certified review of the logic and evidence offered by HIV/AIDS proponents.

The Duesberg review has always rejected the hypothesis as inadequate and incredible, and it has never been successfully refuted on any level, and is without even attempted rebuttal in the leading journals which have carried the peer reviewed papers in the series.

At change.org the renewed efforts of the paradigm protectors to stop this review from emerging as a winning cause seem to have included recruiting votes to promote other issues, so that Take A New Look at the Cause of AIDS would fail to keep its place among the top three carried forward on New Year’s Day.

This effort seems to have only been partially successful and though by New Year’s Day the issue has dropped to third place from second, it is still a contender for at least two more weeks.

We preserve the discussion thread from possible obliteration because it serves as an excellent specimen of the intelligence and informed quality of the scientific, medical and general public criticism of HIV/AIDS and the evasive and political nature of the defense of an official scientific and medical paradigm which has long ago been rejected in the scientific literature:

——————————————-
Take a New Look at the Cause of AIDS

There is a growing group of doctors and scientists who believe the common understanding of the cause of AIDS is incorrect. It is not caused by a virus but instead by drug abuse and (in Africa) malnutrition. We need to fund research to show what is really happening with AIDS one way or the other. This is important because if the mainstream idea is wrong, patients are being given drugs with bad side effects for no reason, and at great cost. Africans are given the drugs instead of the food and clean water they need.We need an independent panel to manage fair and objective research trials. Please see the site: rethinkingaids.com

- Martin Barnes (science journalist), Davis, CA Nov 28 @ 11:17AM PST

Scientists in every part of the world, including respected scientists in Africa, are in agreement that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS. This does not diminish the need of Africans for food, clean water, and treatment for other diseases (such as malaria). The clearest evidence that HIV is the cause of AIDS is from several unfortunate cases in which medical professionals accidentally poked themselves with syringes containing blood from AIDS-infected individuals. Summaries are available at, e.g., http://www.thebody.com/content/whatis/art2654.html or http://www.avert.org/evidence.htm . –Craig Heinke, professor of physics, Edmonton, AB

Posted by Craig Heinke on 11/29/2008 @ 06:52PM PST
Report

we need to change the theory HIV/AIDS, is a Fraud. Is the TIME with the President Obama.

Posted by Luis M0scote on 12/20/2008 @ 05:07PM PST
Report

Prof. Heinke, it’s not that simple unfortunately. The problem is the scientists who do not agree were never really heard. That’s why the “agreement” you mention seems so strong. This issue should be approached objectively and discussed scientifically. This has never been done due to what’s at stake for those who invested so much into HIV/AIDS theory being really true, be it corporations, scientists or even the patients themselves. There are many problems with HIV/AIDS science and they should be addressed as soon as possible. It’s really a critical issue and actually concerns the entire scientific community. Look deeper into it.
Posted by Sadun Kal on 12/21/2008 @ 09:47AM PST
Report

President-Elect Obama is commendably aware of the need to be exposed to a range of competent views. However, that need applies in science and medicine as much — maybe even more — as in economics or politics or educational policy. It’s not widely enough appreciated that the major advances in science and in medicine have almost always come DESPITE the mainstream consensus, which always defends vigorously whatever it happens to believe at a given moment.

Posted by Henry Bauer on 12/21/2008 @ 02:59PM PST
Report

There has never been a better time to overturn a disastrous two decade run of AIDS Inc. With a Trillion in taxpayer and donated money, ask what has been gotten in return? Nothing.
www.helpforHIV.com
www.aliveandwell.org
www.rethinkingaids.com
Ask better questions – see better answers.

Posted by Brian Carter on 12/21/2008 @ 10:43PM PST
Report

Scientists do NOT agree and that is the point. The bottom line is the friends I had who were healthy and prescribed “HIV” meds, are all dead.. hundreds of them.
The ones who refused meds including myself, choosing instead to just live their life, look after their health by paying attention to nutrition, rest excursive, and curtailing some of the more excessive behaviours, are thriving today.
I know health care workers pricked by “aids” needles… they never tested poz for anything. HIV (whatever it is) is not a factor and Aids in not contagious.
Peace Health & Happiness
Kemble

Posted by Kemble Scatchard on 12/21/2008 @ 11:12PM PST
Report

The topic needs more political and most importantly, scientific attention. If the so called “dissidents” are right, then current public health and foreign aid policies on HIV/AIDS are misdirected. If they are wrong, I would be interested to see hard evidence approved by a panel of independent scientists rather than through “peers” who are all but independent. Respected scientists have raised their concerns about the causation of AIDS for years but have been demonized by the HIV/AIDS establishment. This runs against my understanding of how science in a democracy should be conducted.

Posted by Henning Dr. Stein on 12/22/2008 @ 12:49AM PST
Report

The financial conflicts in AIDS are made evident by Dr. Heinke quoting thebody.com. Go to their front page and scroll to the bottom, and you will see the name of all major AIDS pharmaceutical companies as sponsors. Is this a place for unbiased information? By contrast, scientists who have challenged the dogma have often lost many financial, research and publication opportunities, and have been vilified as mass murderers in the press.

Posted by David Crowe on 12/22/2008 @ 09:57AM PST
Report

What honorable objections could researchers or professors have to conducting research?
Much about the paradigm doesn’t make sense and never has. Definitions and explanations over the years have shifted like structures built on soft sand. There is more than sufficient evidence available to justify objective scrutiny of the earliest supporting documents, especially those (edited and) published by Robert Gallo. Those can be viewed at various sites, including rethinkingaids.com.
The cornerstone is not only sitting on soft sand, it is constructed of sand.
Signed by one of those affected who has my life only because I questioned the “known” science.

Posted by Jon Barnett on 12/22/2008 @ 11:04AM PST
Report

Prof. Heinke,

There were a total of three lab workers who were allegedly infected by needle sticks. To begin with, that hardly qualifies as scientific evidence. This is purely anecdotal evidence, and to claim that it constitutes scientific evidence is the very definition of pseudoscience.

But if you dig deeper, the plot thickens. For one thing, all three (100%) were alleged to be infected by a single needle stick, when the current consensus among mainstream AIDS researchers is that a needle stick carries a 1:50 risk of infection. Further, there have been people like Dr. Robert Wilner, who deliberately injected himself on a number of occasions with the blood of AIDS patients. Dr. Wilner never contracted HIV as a result.

Then, there’s the fact of how quickly all three lab workers died. We are told that it takes an average of about 10 years for HIV infection to progress to AIDS (much less to cause death), yet all three of these lab workers were dead in an average of less than 5 years.

It is statistically unlikely (1:150) for all three workers to have been infected by needle sticks. It is more extremely unlikely for HIV to have killed all three in such a short time. However, it is an amply-documented scientific fact that psychosomatic factors can cause symptoms of any disease, up to and including death. In those days, AIDS researchers believed that HIV could kill in as little as 6 months to 5 years. All three of these researchers held this belief, and all three died within the window predicted by that belief, rather than the 10 years or more that we now supposedly “know” that it takes for HIV to kill a healthy person.

It has also been amply demonstrated that a strong negative emotion, such as fear, can not only cause psychosomatic illness, but it’s immunosuppressive to boot. As unlikely as it is that all three were infected by needle sticks, how likely do you think it is that all three were “infected” by sheer terror the moment they realized that they’d been stuck? And in the following months and years, do you think this terror went away, or did it multiply?

Centuries ago, Voodoo priests were proving that terror, by itself, could kill, when they’d cast a death curse on a villager, who rarely survived for longer than three days after the spell was cast. As might be expected, when they tried to hex the white men, their death curses had no effect, because the whites didn’t believe in Voodoo.

You come to us with “proof” that is purely anecdotal, and which cannot be tested, (there being no control to prove that these lab workers were killed by nothing other than HIV,) and expect us to believe that this constitutes scientific evidence that HIV causes AIDS.

Surely, Professor Heinke, if the evidence (much less the truth) were on your side, you could do better than this.

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/22/2008 @ 02:57PM PST
Report

If anyone thinks that life long Chemotherapy is ACCEPTABLE for a decimated population like in Africa, really needs to RETHINK this strategy. What Africa needs is CLEAN WATER, Food (the ability to grow food) and decent living conditions. Also, AZT and its sister drugs NEED to be TAKEN off the market… Big PHARMA needs to be exposed for who/what they really are – GREEDY EXECUTIVES and LOBBYISTS who make their money off of the FEAR of the average person. If BIG PHARMA was scrutinized like the car and banking industries, I think we would be APPALLED at what we would find out!

Posted by Glenn Zuraw on 12/23/2008 @ 06:18AM PST
Report

Can you remember when lying to the President, Congress and the Public was a serious crime?
Read the Pulitzer Prize winning article | Medicine: AIDS Fight Is Skewed By Federal Campaign Exaggerating Riskshttp://www.pulitzer.org/archives/5997
It seems to me that CDC’s admitted lies about their profoundly discredited claim that “Every one is at risk!” warrents a full scale investigation – into all their claims about HIV/AIDS.

Posted by Michael Ellner on 12/23/2008 @ 07:02AM PST
Report

I find it incomprehensible that in the 21st century we still have people so entrenched in denial that they feel they need to find out the “true cause of AIDS”. There is ample evidence for HIV’s role, and none of the opposing theories can explain the phenomenon adequately. We also know that specific anti-HIV therapies can reverse the changes induced by HIV and lead to prolonged survival.Professor Heinke’s story about lab workers infected with HIV are just one example of the evidence. There are numerous examples of other health care workers who have seroconverted afetr exposure to HIV positive blood, transfusion recipients, those inseminated with HIV positive semen etc who have demonstrated a clinical seroconversion illness, demonstrated laboratory markers of infection (seroconversion, high HIV titres), progressive immunodeficiency, and ultimately clinical immunodeficiency. Those who had these exposures from blood/semen where the source was HIV negative do not experience any illness or progression to AIDS.
Reading this discussion evokes visions of someone looking up at an aeroplane in the sky, shouting “The aerodynamic properties of inverted aerofoils have been questioned by a doctor (PhD social science). The plane obviously is a lie and cannot fly!”

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/23/2008 @ 07:50AM PST
Report

I’ve watched too many friends suffer and die from inappropriate pharmaceutical treatment, while the views of qualified scientists have been squelched by Big Pharma, and govermnet and the press go along becaue Big Pharma can get whatever it pays for. It’s time to challenge the scientific community to go back to the days of scientific method, and seek Truth over profits.

Posted by Lawrence Jackson-Rosen on 12/23/2008 @ 08:42AM PST
Report

@Derek: Perhaps you should take the time to dig deeper in the whole story besides the mainstream media. The orthodox view is the one with the circular logik….especially since the exposure of Gallo’s fraud in 1984 (->”Fear of the invisible”!)

Posted by Stefan Risch on 12/23/2008 @ 09:21AM PST
Report

It seems that one of the most important things to be done in order to not perpetuate the hoax of HIV is to ditch all HIV tests, however that can be done. The way for an individual to avoid the whole insanity is to never take that fraudulent test. For those who’ve already tested positive the way back to health (mental and physical) requires a deep and extensive change of mind, a personal deprogramming of the myth that HIV equals illness and by the dissolution of relationships with HIV health practitioners who derive benefit from selling HIV to patients and friends/acquaintances who see benefit in believing that HIV equals sickness. That kind of “concern” we can all do without.
First and foremost: DON’T TAKE THE TEST!

Posted by Reg Bielamowicz on 12/23/2008 @ 10:19AM PST
Report

flu shots and the flu itself will cause one to have a false positive on the hiv test according to a 2006 New England Journal of Medicine report. the hiv test only identifies the presence of proteins, with 1, 2, or 3 proteins identified for a positive result depending on which country one tests in. many conditions will cause the body to produce those proteins including drug use, pregnancy, malaria and tuberculosis among others. i took hiv drugs for 11 years, i stopped 2 years ago, and will never take them again. please see the youtube channel i created at www.youtube.com/hivquestions that includes many healing alternatives – this has been a very painful for me personally and i have found no legal recourse to date.

Posted by Gregory Smiley on 12/23/2008 @ 10:21AM PST
Report

I consider it unacceptable, immoral and criminal to hide part of the truth when we deal with a matter of life and death.

I was found HIV-positive 23 years ago, in 1985. I learned that there is a controversy on the subject only in 2006, 21 years later. After I had taken the prescribed AIDS drugs for 12 years, thinking there was no better choice than taking them. I almost died three or four times from their side effects, it was a nightmare.

Should I not have known earlier that there is another view on the subject? And decide for myself which one I would follow?

After I saw the whole image, I stopped the medication, exams and AIDS consultation, and regained full health. I live happily now with my husband, who helped me to discover the other side of AIDS.

Maria Papagiannidou – St Pierre

Journalist, ex AIDS patient, author of the book “Good Bye AIDS! Did it ever exist?”, published in Greek in 2008. It will soon be available also in English.

Posted by Maria Papagiannidou on 12/23/2008 @ 12:39PM PST
Report

In 2003 I had full-blown AIDS. At that time, I believed what most believe to be true about AIDS, that is it is caused by sex and one who gets it will die. Both of these assumptions are false! First there isn’t any test for the HIV virus, instead it is only for “antibodies,” which has always been a good thing in medicine. Robert Gallo did not purify his work and only found HIV in 38% of samples. Also, there isn’t any gold standard for testing and over 70 things can cause a false positive.

Our own CDC misleads the public into believing that HIV is sexually transmitted. The longest study on record by
Dr. Nancy Padian shows the opposite. While there are millions of sexually-transmitted diseases in the U.S. each year, there are only approximately 40,000 cases of HIV and 16,000 true, AIDS cases, less than .004% of the population. Not a raging epidemic, sexual or otherwise.

We spend millions each year and it is now reaching the trillion mark of funds being spent on AIDS. There are many more pressing health issues that affect many more people than AIDS.

I sincerely hope that you will investigate this political hot-potato, because lives are being ruined with this diagnosis, people are placed in jail for having sex, people are placed on the most toxic drugs on the planet, especially pregnant women or else they risk losing their children. The side effects of the antiretroviral medications is what is killing AIDS patients, while all along, the illusive virus is being blamed.

Finally, three years next month, I have been off these meds and my CD4’s are 111 and my viral load is 2.8 million. The doctors state that I am just lucky. The real reason that I am doing so well, I live healthy, stay away from the meds, and because HIV doesn’t cause AIDS.

Posted by Noreen Martin on 12/23/2008 @ 02:06PM PST
Report

It’s time to re-think the theory of HIV and AIDS.

Posted by Rick Hill on 12/23/2008 @ 02:10PM PST
Report

If HIV is really still a theory only ( and debated by our best scientific minds as well as those who’ve been ‘diagonosed’ by tests that are not objective and highly open to interpretation, ), then Why do ( gay men especially ) allow our sex lives to be dictated by fear. Could there possibly be any correlation between HIV/AIDS arriving just when the Gay “movement” was at it’s most organized and most ‘threatening’ to the ‘order of the Right” and the Powers that be?The effects have deeply re-wounded the Gay community and the judgement and separation, exclusion and blackballing seem to again , set the Gay community back to where it was by 30 years. Natural sex is natural !What makes a ‘high risk’ group other than the belief that being different or queer makes it a ‘high risk’?The same sexual practices done by hetero folks are not seen as high risk necessarily! This is magical thinking- but not white/positive magic, but black magic or hypnotism on a mass level.Who do we choose to give our power away to? Who is the expert on our bodies?Women have long learned that their bodies are their own to regulate- Gay men could learn from their example… if they are willing to release SHAME/judgement about who they are ( queer) and what they like !Nature supports diversity.Why is a sexual practice high risk in one country (USA) , but not in another ? Could it be there is an agenda to keeping a group in the energy of fear? … But why would anyone hate the Gay Males?!Wake up!- Gay men ( and women in touch with their bodies) are THE biggest threat to the establishment: Gay men have no children to be concerned with and the most likely to push an envelope- especially for freedom, especially for SEXUAL freedom!Sexual Healer, CoachMark Bednar

Posted by mark Bednar on 12/23/2008 @ 05:25PM PST
Report

The goal is to cure AIDS. Not treat it. Not manage it. Not study it. Not write papers about it. Not wear red ribbons. Not hold Hollywood fundraisers. The goal is to cure it — to reduce the suffering of millions afflicted.

New ideas, such as exploring alternative theories of causation, or focusing on nutrition or focusing on nutrition or looking at a multi-factoral phenomenom are well-warranted.

Toxic drugs simply don’t work for everyone.

Posted by David S on 12/23/2008 @ 08:36PM PST
Report

Derek Neumann wrote: “I find it incomprehensible that in the 21st century we still have people so entrenched in denial that they feel they need to find out the ‘true cause of AIDS’.”

Derek,

As a recovering AIDS patient, I find it reprehensible that you would dismiss my struggle for life as “denial.” You haven’t walked that mile in my shoes, son, so take your self-righteous, judgemental attitude back to the tent revival where it belongs.

I didn’t learn the true causeS (plural) of AIDS to support some sort of denial. I learned the facts about AIDS because I was dying with AIDS and because learning more about it was the only way to survive, and the triple-drug therapy I was taking was only making matters worse, while my doctor was completely ignoring very serious health issues that I have and which were literally killing me, in favor of focusing myopically on a virus that, I’ve learned, may not even exist.

In those days, I weighed about 120 lbs sopping wet, I had constant dyspnea, night sweats, constant upper and lower respiratory infections, loss of appetite, nausea, vomiting, chronic ear infections, flu-like symptoms, and I was in and out of hospitals. Today, I weigh nearly 200 lbs and I haven’t been hospitalized in 5 years(*). So take a look at my plane soaring over your head and tell me it can’t fly.

You say that there is “ample evidence” for HIV’s role in AIDS, but I’ve examined the “evidence” of which you speak, and I can only agree that it is ample. The only way any objective observer could accept it as evidence is if that person lacked critical thinking skills. None of the so-called “evidence” holds up to critical scrutiny — not a single article, not a single paragraph, not a line, not a single word of it. Just because there are massive quantities of articles published on a subject doesn’t make it a scientific fact. For 200 years after Galileo’s death, the overwhelming published “evidence” supported the geocentric model of the universe.

Now, having said that, let me ask you something: What kind of “denial” is it for me to say, “I have AIDS and in fact I nearly died of AIDS, I merely disagree with your view of what causes it”? Honestly, does that sound like denial?

There is a form of denialism, called “scapegoating”, which all people indulge in to one extent or another. The human ego is icapable of envisioning its own demise, and so a person will take secret delight in the death of, say, a smoker, or a drug abuser, or a homosexual, or a member of another race, or whatever, because on some deep level one actually convinces himself that these people are dying in his place. Thus, one’s own aspirations towards unachievable immortality manifest in a secret wish for death upon those who are unlike oneself. It’s something we all do, it’s called scapegoating, for more info, look it up.

Now, with the concept of scapegoating in mind, I invite anyone to check out aidstruth.org’s page dedicated to “AIDS denialists who have died.” (http://www.aidstruth.org/new/denialism/dead_denialists) Could anyone who was not in denial dance on graves, and see it as anything but ghoulish?

…So who’s really in denial here?

— Gos

(*) – Incidentally, my last hospitalization was for flu during the record-breaking flu season of 2003, in which hospitals across the US were swamped with flu cases just like mine. Interestingly enough, I actually recovered a lot faster than some of the HIV-negatives I knew who caught the same flu.

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/23/2008 @ 11:55PM PST
Report

There will always be individuals with extraordinary stories. It has been suggested that I have not walked in the shoes of someone with AIDS, therefore I cannot comment. Well I think I can. I an not HIV positive, but I have lost close friends to AIDS. I work in a clinic which delivers care to around 500 people with HIV. I have seen and felt their hopes, their pain, their loss and their successes. The most remarkable thing I have witnessed has been the resounding success of the HIV therapies over the last 10 years. Yes, there have been many who had or still have bad side effects from the treatments. But particularly with the newer drugs, side effects are rare, and the benefits are overwhelming. I have seen patients who literally were at death’s door 10 years ago, with CD4 counts in single figures, who are now working and enjoying life to the full today. The meds may not be a cure, and yes I have even seen some in whom the meds have accelerated their deaths, but that price was one they and the doctors were willing to take in order to give them a last chance of life.

Gos, you are fortunate that you have done well, and are able to post on this site, I wish you well and good luck in the future. But do not let your own individual account and prejudices compromise the chance others have for life. Gos, if (or when) you become ill, what will you do? What will you do if your CD4 counts drop to say 50? Will you deny yourself the option of HIV meds? If you do, then I would say you would be in denial.

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/24/2008 @ 02:50AM PST
Report

Derek Neumann wrote: “It has been suggested that I have not walked in the shoes of someone with AIDS, therefore I cannot comment. Well I think I can. I an not HIV positive, but I have lost close friends to AIDS.”

And I haven’t? Funny thing, though — they always died of “AIDS related” liver failure or “AIDS related” heart attacks. One in particular named Matthew, who died in 2003 of “AIDS related” liver failure, left behind an HIV-negative widow who’d had unprotected sex with him throughout their years of marriage, in her belief that God had promised her that if she married him, she could have all the unprotected sex she wanted with him, and she’d never get AIDS. A miracle? More like a clue.

I myself have had three long-term relationships with women who were aware of my alleged HIV status, who of their own accord had unprotected vaginal and/or anal intercourse with me, a cumulative total of thousands of times. To this day, each of these women is HIV-negative.

…The “extraordinary stories” are starting to pile up here…

…Then there was the guy I met about 9 years ago, who’d found out he was HIV-positive at the age of 18, when he’d tried to join the military. When I met him, he’d lived in denial – never seeing doctors for any reason, not telling his family, etc., for 13 years, and today it’s more than 20. It’s been a couple of years since I talked to him last, but the man’s never had a sniffle so long as I’ve known him. (At one point, I actually tried to talk him into seeing my doctor so she could prescribe some of the “new miracle drugs” for him that she’d prescribed for me. Oh yeah, I’m in denial.)

…Then there was the “bug chaser” that I met shortly after I tested positive, who told me that he’d actively been *trying* to get HIV for 13 years, with no success.

I could list “extraordinary stories” for days, of people I’ve known personally, but I cannot list a single case of anyone I’ve ever known to get sick or die of AIDS, who didn’t die from something completely unrelated to HIV.

As for the “overwhelming” benefits of ARVs, I doubt that it’s beneficial to overwhelm the liver, nor the heart, the brain, the bone marrow, nor any of the other organs, tissues, and systems which are damaged by these drugs. I myself took a triple-drug cocktail for only a year before I began to show clinical signs of liver damage — fortunately not permanent, as my liver function tests have returned to normal since I quit taking meds. However, I’ve since read studies that show that ARVs not only double your risk of a heart attack when you begin taking them, but they also increase the risk further if you withdraw. I’ve done both, plus I smoke, so I can easily see myself dying of an “AIDS related” heart attack at some point in the future.

These drugs are truly miraculous, though — they’re so effective that they prevent AIDS deaths among those who don’t even take them. If that’s not miraculous, I don’t know what is.

According to the CDC:

* There are 1.2 million HIV-positives in America.

* 20% of them do not know it (leaving 960,000 HIV-positives who are aware of their status.)

* Of these 960,000, fewer than half are taking ARVs.

* In any given year, there are approximately 15,000 AIDS deaths in the US. This amounts to approximately 1.25% of the total number of HIV-positives in the US. If AIDS deaths continued at this rate indefinitely, it would take 80 years (a whole lifetime) for all of the HIV-positives in the US to die off.

* Among those who die, the leading causes of death include liver failure (#1,) heart attacks, and strokes — all known consequences of taking AIDS cocktail drugs.

Thus, if only a tiny fraction of HIV-positives are dying in any given year, and many of these are dying of complications from the drugs, that means that HIV is actually killing an even smaller fraction (if we assume HIV to be the cause even in those cases).

So, somehow, by killing off a few of those who take them, these drugs manage to save the lives of the majority who don’t take them. Truly, these drugs are an honest-to-God miracle of modern medicine.

…Personally, I prefer the Red Pill.

Derek Neumann wrote: “Gos, you are fortunate that you have done well, and are able to post on this site, I wish you well and good luck in the future. …, if (or when) you become ill, what will you do? What will you do if your CD4 counts drop to say 50?”

Spoken like a true quasi-religious fundamentalist: “If you don’t believe as I believe, then I’m just gonna have to pray for your soul, that God will show you the light before you burn in hell. What will you do when you hear Gabriel’s trumpet, and realize that you’re not in a state of grace and now it’s too late because you’ve been… ::ominous organ swell:: …LEFT BEHIND?”

Right now, Derek, I pray that my CD4 counts do not rise again, to the level (>1700) that they were when I was at my sickest.

That’s the problem with the assumption that HIV is the cause of AIDS. You guys have been barking up the wrong tree for so long that your expectations of AIDS are the exact opposite of the reality for the patient, but where reality conflicts with your assumptions, you call it an “extraordinary tale”, as though it were the exception and not the rule. But a few of you are starting to wake up — even Athony Fauci has begun to admit more recently that the CD4 lymphocytopenia observed in late-stage AIDS patients is merely the end result of years of having *elevated* CD4 counts, until the immune system simply exhausts itself. He maintains that it’s HIV that causes this, but wait a minute — don’t those miracle drugs of yours elevate CD4 counts? I know that they boosted my CD4 counts from >1400 to >1700. If prolonged elevation of CD4 counts causes AIDS, and ARVs elevate CD4 counts for prolonged periods of time, then … well, the dots are starting to connect, aren’t they?

Derek Neumann wrote: “…Will you deny yourself the option of HIV meds? If you do, then I would say you would be in denial.”

Now, let me see if I understand you correctly — I’m in denial of …. the benefits of HIV meds? Does that make sense?

I’m no psychologist, but my understanding of denial is that it’s defined by there being some uncomfortable fact that one wishes weren’t true, so they deny it.

If there were any benefit to HIV meds for persons like myself, do you honestly believe I would live in denial of it? Hell no — I’d be on the meds so fast that it’d make your head spin. If these drugs were truly the salvation that you claim, why would I be in denial of it?

Refusal to take medications that one thinks are ineffective, inappropriate, and/or dangerous does not constitute denial.

For that matter, it isn’t denial to look Chicken Little right in his beady little eyes and say, “That was an acorn, you idiot! Now go play with that kid who keeps crying wolf.”

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/24/2008 @ 04:52AM PST
Report

Derek, that would still have nothing to do with denial, it would be an informed decision. It would be acting on information instead of faith in an unproven claim. In fact, if a person like Gos were to start taking drugs because his CD4 counts dropped that would be denying all that he learned over the years and giving in to the pressure coming from his social environment out of fear and exhaustion.

Still today, those who defend the “HIV” hypothesis don’t know how “HIV” is killing these CD4 cells. And they have to ignore studies reporting that low CD4 cell counts precede “HIV+” test results -not vice versa- to maintain the belief that HIV is killing the cells.

If you consider that probably less than 1% of all AIDS patients know that a other side exists and even less have the courage to approach it objectively, then the number of those “individuals with extraordinary stories” should ring a bell. Only on this page you have three stories -Maria, Noreen, Gos. Imagine how extraordinary those stories would seem if the entire world was exposed to this “other side”.

And what these stories prove is that at least in some cases drugs are not necessary to treat the thing called “AIDS”. Alone that is worth shifting the focus away from the drugs to understand this phenomenon better. Normally these cases should be embraced by the whole scientific community instead of being perceived as a distraction or disturbance. But unfortunately such individuals are only labeled as “denialists”, disrespected and ingored. A change is necessary.

And I suggest you start to examine the evidence objectively yourself, because you’re in such a critical position for many patients.

Posted by Sadun Kal on 12/24/2008 @ 04:53AM PST
Report

Obviously the term “denial” is a problem for some of you. OK, let’s just say that its a personal choice on your part. But when the evidence that informs that choice has come from testimonials, anecdotes and distorted interpretation of the science, then that decision is inappropriate in my view. I respect your choice to make it, but people need a full picture of all the evidence.

Side effects from the drugs may have become one of the leading causes of death in HIV patients – do you know why? Everything is relative, you see….. It’s because 15 years ago the vast majority of patients died of diseases associated with advanced immunodeficiency. As an example of what I mean, lets say 5% died from the drugs. Today maybe 50% die from the drugs (again as an example). Hardly sounds worth it, does it? Anyone would say “WTF? I’m not taking those toxic drugs!”

But you need to understand the difference between absolute risk, and relative risk. 15 years ago, using my theoretical example figures, say 95 people died from AIDS per 100 patient years, and 5 died from drugs (then drug deaths =5%).
Today, if 5 die from AIDS, and 5 die from drugs, the drug deaths =50%. Put that way, you can actually see how effective the drugs are, rather than how dangerous they are.

You mention that ARVs can double the risk of heart attacks. True, they do increase the risk (abacavir relative risk is 1.9 from the DAD study). But you are admitting that for every one MI caused by abacavir in an HIV patient, there is another in whom they would have had an MI anyway. So your figures about deaths do not account for the background rate – you are happy to label all cardiac deaths in AIDS as drug induced, when only half of them are. In fact, generally speaking, ARVs actually reduce the overall risks of heart and liver disease – the SMART study showed this quite clearly, and it also showed how those who stopped treatment had an increased risk of developing “non-AIDS” complications like liver disease and cardiovascular problems. This is not explicable by your theories about drug toxicity. (The SMART study also showed the benefits of therapy in other ways).

One can look at personal experience, stories from the clinic, the tales told by friends – all of that is subjective and biased one way or another. It requires large trials to truly independently determine what the facts are regarding HIV and ARVs. These studies all confirm that on balance, treatment is beneficial and prolongs quality and duration of life. They also help confirm the HIV etiology of immunodeficiency and AIDS.

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/24/2008 @ 06:19AM PST
Report

Derek wrote:

“But when the evidence that informs that choice has come from testimonials, anecdotes and distorted interpretation of the science, then that decision is inappropriate in my view. I respect your choice to make it, but people need a full picture of all the evidence”.

So, Derek, your full picture is only the official view on AIDS. I suffered because I lacked the other side of AIDS. After I stopped the medication and felt healthy right away, I needed some answers. The need to find out how all this happened to me was growing by the day. I went and obtained my medical records ten months after stopping the AIDS therapy. And invited Dr. Angelos Sicilian (a real doctor with a pseudonym here) to our home to review my records.
An excerpt from my book “Good Bye AIDS! Did it ever exist?”:

So, I was diagnosed with an illness of AIDS (Pneumocystis carini), although it was only a possibility, as my own doctor T.K. had written so in his medical notes. “The lies being told about the pathogenesis of HIV are innumerable and very dangerous”, our new doctor commented now. “There is only one unsigned chapter in my Pathology Anatomy book and it is the chapter on AIDS where I found such lies that with the knowledge I have acquired these days it is now obvious to me. Two months prior I was unaware that the virus had never been found and thus I would have easily believed the part by the anonymous editor that the virus was detected in lymph nodes. It is also a mistake to explain the side-effects of the medication as part of the pathology. You were not lied to. They believed that. And it is not wise to dispute other people’s beliefs”. My medical record gives a chest-xray as the basis for the presumptive diagnosis of PCP, for which I started on Septrin (2 tablets per day) and AZT (500 mg/day). On the 15th day of treatment, I developed a fine maculapapular rash all over the body and face, an allergic reaction to Septrin, so it was discontinued. I was then given antihistamine tablets for the allergy, and Fansidar which had previously been shown to prevent re-occurence of pneumocystis carinii pneumonia infections. If I really had a PCP problem, Septrin took care of it, the AZT against HIV was not required. Angelos Sicilian was not sure at all that I had really suffered pneumonia: “In Greece pneumocystis carinii pneumonia is uncommon. It is very rare, although AIDS patients quite often exhibit it. I have not been taught diagnosis of this illness and it has not been mentioned in any of the labs I have worked in. A research from the Evangelismos and Syngrou Hospitals does not refer to a discovery or even one case of pneumocystis carinii pneumonia while the topic of research is its prevention. In other words, not one case has been diagnosed. And in another research one case is mentioned Pneumocystis carini Pneumonia in an Immunocompetent Host. Thus according to this research, pneumocystis carinii pneumonia was found one time in a patient with a competent immune system. It is very difficult for someone to have made such a diagnosis for various reasons. No one has the expertise to make this diagnosis. If perhaps one of those proposed experts of parasites, despite efforts to fill in the voids made by others, was unable to identify the microbe, then in my opinion he will simply play the role of God. He must maintain his reputation. It is not allowed to say “I don’t know.” Moreover, there are not many who can dispute his claim. He is on his own. Certainly he will score and win since he has no opponent” “I am aware of this logic as far as identification of bacteria goes in microbiology. Usually they produce hypothetical diagnoses. This is how we learn from the experts. My professor at the Hospital NIMTS was a military doctor and did not work like that. He struggled until the end to make an accurate identification. I avoid hypothetical diagnoses. I will refer to it as Gram Positive Grain, a general morphological term instead of a specific microbe. I have been scolded by everyone for this. I cannot teach my students to be exact because that is a poor teaching technique. This is how I have learned and have been criticized for paying attention to such detail. I do not know what can be done. If you were sick for months due to the antiretroviral treatment then it is possible you got not only pneumocystis but a host of other illnesses. However if the first diagnosis was pneumocystis and you had not taken until then the antiretroviral drugs, as happened when you were first diagnosed, it is my understanding from your bio that they most likely made up your diagnosis”. That is why they could not detect it at the Athens Medical Center. You must be an AIDS specialist to diagnose it! They try to be correct with the wording. Dr. K. had written about me “30/12/1995 – 16/01/1996, prolonged fever, possibly PCR, anaemia.” Possible pneumocystis carini, unsure; how much influence this ambivalence had on the rest of the situation is unknown. There also were cytomegalovirus and tuberculosis meningitis diagnosed for me later. Could these diagnoses also be as tentative? “CMV retinitis, would means a retinal infection from cytomegalovirus (CMV) and it was a false diagnosis because it was not based on a diagnosis of antibodies but simply an ophthalmoscopy which is improper”, Dr Sicilian stated. “This evidence, an ophthalmoscopy is insufficient to document viral causation. We can thus assume that the threatening loss of eyesight in you and others is a result of the therapy with the drugs you were taking. Here I give you evidential work where the writers accept that retinitis from cytomegalovirus is caused by the medication as a side-effect. They refer to it elegantly as “the restoration of immune competence.” There is no evidence you had such an illness. Now as far as the tuberculous meningitis is concerned I need more evidence. I do not believe it was tuberculosis. To find 5-7 acid resistant microbes, to see red coloured specks instead of blue after a specific process called the Ziehl-Nielsen colouring does not indicate tuberculosis, when the culture is barren. Thus it was a ‘possible’ tuberculous meningitis”. [...]
With kind regards
Maria Papagiannidou
an ex AIDS patient

Posted by Maria Papagiannidou on 12/24/2008 @ 06:47AM PST
Report

Derek Neumann wrote: “Obviously the term ‘denial’ is a problem for some of you. OK, let’s just say that its a personal choice on your part.”

I did not choose to become a dissident — in fact, I fought it tooth and nail.

When I first stumbled across dissident information, my first thought was that these people were full of s*** — of course HIV caused AIDS, and of course ARVs save lives — the evidence was overwhelming (or so I thought).

And I had a great number of reasons for believing this — for one thing, I’d seen how my viral load went down and my CD4 count went up when I’d taken ARVs, and I interpreted this to mean that there was a virus that was killing my CD4 cells and that the ARVs were fighting that virus.

I set out to disprove the dissident claims, only to find that their arguments were for the most part solid, and that my own reasons for continuing to believe that HIV causes AIDS were specious. I began to realize that my skepticism would be meaningless unless I applied equal skepticism to both sides of the argument, and it was when I began to critically examine the published mainstream articles about AIDS that I began to realize that it wasn’t the dissidents who were wrong. If you actually take the time to critically examine HIV studies, you’ll find that most of them are purely unscientific, because no controls are used in >90%, and on the rare occasions when controls are actually done, the results tend to negate all of the other studies that were done without controls.

Here’s an example, using three studies, two done without controls and one with a control group:

Van Voorhis et al (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=2001759) – HIV detected by PCR in the blood of 23 out of 25 HIV-positive subjects, and in the semen of 1 out of 25. No control used.

Mermin et al (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1680138?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus) – HIV detected by PCR in the blood of 17 out of 23 HIV-positive subjects, and in the seminal fluids of 15 out of 23. No controls used.

Now, what happens when we do a control group?

Persico et al (http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/21/6/1525) HIV detected by PCR in 7 out of 55 (13%) blood samples obtained from HIV-positive subjects, and in two (4.2%) of whole semen samples from the same group. However, in the HIV-negative control group, HIV was detected in 40% of HIV-negative blood samples, and in 60% of HIV-negative semen samples. (Yes, you read that right — they actually found “HIV” in the blood and semen of more HIV-negatives than HIV-positives.)

Now, when the PCR test detects HIV in people who don’t have HIV, then it couldn’t possibly be HIV that it’s detecting, now could it?

However, because the vast majority of such studies are done without controls (and therefore are unscientific to begin with,) the illusion is created and sustained that the PCR tests are actually confirming the presence of HIV in the bodily fluids of HIV-positives.

I could go on and on, listing similar examples of pseudoscience being presented as “evidence” of this or that. It literally permeates the entire field of HIV research like the stench of a dead skunk on a summer day.

I did not choose to become a dissident, dissidence was forced upon me when I could no longer deny the facts.

Derek Neumann wrote: “Side effects from the drugs may have become one of the leading causes of death in HIV patients – do you know why? Everything is relative, you see….. It’s because 15 years ago the vast majority of patients died of diseases associated with advanced immunodeficiency. As an example of what I mean, lets say 5% died from the drugs. Today maybe 50% die from the drugs (again as an example)….etc.”

Care to cite some actual statistics, rather than “maybes” and “let’s says”? It would sure enhance the credibility of your argument.

According to a non-dissident friend of mine (indeed, he was the co-founder of the KS/AIDS Foundation, which later became AIDS Foundation Houston,) 15 years ago (1993) more of the AIDS patients that he knew died from AZT monotherapy than from HIV. In addition, many were being killed by overprescription of antibiotics and other experimental treatments — in those days, doctors were trying anything and everything — no matter how drastic — to try to save their patients, and many killed their patients in the attempt.

As for these new “miracle drugs”, they didn’t begin to come out until 1996, but AIDS deaths began to drop in 1993 — so apparently in addition to preventing AIDS in people who don’t take them, these drugs are also so powerful that they can prevent AIDS deaths retroactively by up to three years.

Derek Neumann wrote: “You mention that ARVs can double the risk of heart attacks. True, they do increase the risk (abacavir relative risk is 1.9 from the DAD study). But you are admitting that for every one MI caused by abacavir in an HIV patient, there is another in whom they would have had an MI anyway. So your figures about deaths do not account for the background rate – you are happy to label all cardiac deaths in AIDS as drug induced, when only half of them are.”

Where did I “admit” that for every MI caused by drugs, there’s another who would have had one anyway? For that matter, where did I or anyone but you claim that there would be a 1:1 ratio of drug-induced/non-drug-induced deaths?

Seriously, where are you getting your numbers? Can you produce some actual statistics, or are “let’s says” and “maybes” and made-up numbers the best you can do?

Derek Neumann wrote: “This is not explicable by your theories about drug toxicity.”

My “theories” are they? Let’s see what the manufacturer of abacavir has to say about my “theories”, shall we?

http://www.treathiv.com/safety/ziagen.html

Full prescribing info: http://us.gsk.com/products/assets/us_ziagen.pdf

Quoting from the manufacturer’s website:

“Patients taking abacavir may have a serious allergic reaction (hypersensitivity reaction) that can cause death.” [emphasis in original]

“ZIAGEN, like other HIV medicines, can cause a condition called lactic acidosis and severe liver problems. … In some cases, lactic acidosis can cause death.”

“The most common side effects with ZIAGEN were nausea, headache, weakness or tiredness, nausea and vomiting, allergic reaction, diarrhea, stomach pain, depression, fever/chills, muscle pain, rashes, and nervousness.”

“WARNING: HYPERSENSITIVITY REACTIONS/LACTIC ACIDOSIS AND SEVERE HEPATOMEGALY” [emphasis in original]

“Lactic acidosis and severe hepatomegaly with steatosis, including fatal cases, have been reported with the use of nucleoside analogues alone or in combination, including ZIAGEN and other antiretrovirals”

“Suspected Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) have been reported in patients receiving abacavir primarily in combination with medications”

“In a published prospective, observational, epidemiological study designed to investigate the rate of myocardial infarction in patients on combination antiretroviral therapy, the use of abacavir within the previous 6 months was correlated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction (MI).”

“Abacavir was administered orally at 3 dosage levels to separate groups of mice and rats in 2-year carcinogenicity studies. Results showed an increase in the incidence of malignant and non-malignant tumors. Malignant tumors occurred in the preputial gland of males and the clitoral gland of females of both species, and in the liver of female rats. In addition, non-malignant tumors also occurred in the liver and thyroid gland of female rats.”

“This list of side effects is not complete.”

Hmmm…yeah, my “theories” about the toxicity of these drugs are pretty wild, aren’t they?

Derek Neumann wrote: “One can look at personal experience, stories from the clinic, the tales told by friends – all of that is subjective and biased one way or another. It requires large trials to truly independently determine what the facts are regarding HIV and ARVs.”

You seem pretty intent on assuming that my opinion is based on personal experience and/or rumors I heard from friends. In reality, I have read more published scientific literature on the subject of AIDS than 90% of the medical professionals who treat AIDS patients, and if your contributions so far to this discussion are any indication, I have read far more published studies on AIDS than you have.

Do you think that this is my first time playing a game of “stump the professor” with a scientist or medical professional? I’ve won debates with people who know 10 times more than you do.

Earlier this year, I won a 5-month debate (www.nerosopeningact.com/aidsdebate) with a biologist who cited dozens of articles, and after 5 months, he wasn’t able to produce a shred of unimpeachable evidence that HIV exists — we never even got to discuss whether HIV causes AIDS, because he couldn’t establish proof of its existence. And in all fairness, this guy gave me a run for my money — he really put me to the test. Compared to him, you don’t stand a chance against me in a debate on this subject.

My opinion about AIDS (and yes, I admit that it is my *opinion*, unlike certain persons who mistake their opinions for facts,) is based on years of careful research of the scientific literature — My personal experiences and observations only serve to confirm what I’ve learned from research.

And speaking of using personal, anecdotal examples, told from a subjective and biased viewpoint, who was it only this morning who was claiming that his experience in a clinic that serves 500 patients, plus the fact that he’d personally known people who’d died from AIDS, proved his case?

Derek Neumann wrote: “It requires large trials to truly independently determine what the facts are regarding HIV and ARVs.”

I’ll agree with you, and go one better: It requires large, CONTROLLED studies which are truly independent of corrupting influence (such as funding from pharmaceutical companies), and which are conducted in accordance with recognized scientific standards, such as the use of control groups where it is not unethical or impossible to do so.

You claim that (and I quote,) “These studies ALL [emphasis mine] confirm that on balance, treatment is beneficial and prolongs quality and duration of life.”

I can cite numerous studies which disprove your contention that ALL such studies show that ARVs are beneficial and prolong quality and/or duration of life. But in order to keep your humiliation brief, we’ll return to the prescribing information for abacavir (http://us.gsk.com/products/assets/us_ziagen.pdf), since this article has already been presented as evidence. Here’s a quote: “We do not know if ZIAGEN will help you live longer or have fewer of the medical problems that people get with HIV or AIDS.”

So YOU say that ALL studies show that abacavir and other drugs ike it will help people live longer and have fewer of the medical problems associated with AIDS, but the manufacturer says otherwise. And you could name every AIDS cocktail drug in the book, and I could take you to the manufacturer’s website and show you essentially the same disclaimer in the prescribing info for every single one. ALL of them. So who am I to believe, the manufacturers of these drugs (who would surely be proclaiming it from the rooftops if there were any actual proof that these drugs do what you claim,) or some guy I met on the internet who can’t seem to cite any statistics that aren’t prefaced by “maybe” or “let’s say”?

Now, having disproven that your claim that ALL studies show the life-prolonging and health-promoting benefits of ARVs, I challenge you to produce ONE study in which proper scientific methods were used, and which was free of the financial influence of parties with a vested interest, in which it was demonstrated that patients who take ARVs live longer, healthier lives than those who don’t. If you cannot do this, I will accept the prescribing documentation of ONE medication whose accompanying literature makes the claim that this drug, alone or in combination, will actually cause the patient to live longer or experience fewer health problems.

If you cannot produce either of these proofs for your claims of the benefits of ARVs, then consider yourself duly served.

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/24/2008 @ 09:10AM PST
Report

The proper thing to do is to perform a control group of those on the antiretrovirals and on those who do not take them. After 25 years this has never been done. They don’t want the truth to come out, as we are now so much healthy without the meds. We have eliminated the side effects due to the antiretrovirals.

As an AIDS rethinker, I do see some potential for the meds when one is very sick and dying, as they are so strong that they knock out viruses that are attacking the body. But to place HIV+’s on them and to tell them that they must stay on them the rest of their lives, is a crock. We who have stopped the meds know better, that’s why we are so outspoken.

Posted by Noreen Martin on 12/24/2008 @ 09:10AM PST
Report

Gos, it was you who said the drugs “double the risk of a heart attack”. I pointed out this applied to abacavir, one of the ARVs, and also drew the inescapable conclusion that this means that for every heart attack that is due to the abacavir, there will be another heart attack that was not due to the drug (but would have happened anyway, whether the patients was or wasn’t on ARVs, or was or wasn’t even HIV infected).

Regarding your paper on PCR of semen and what it all means. It’s a very detailed paper, and nothing in it indicates that HIV does not exist or that PCR does not detect HIV. The specific PCR assay you mention (in situ PCR) is one of several that were used. These are highly sensitive techniques, and for the assay used they are geared to establishing extremely high sensitivity at the expense of low specificity (you must detect every HIV positive sperm sample before you use it for insemination, and cannot risk any false negatives). The IS-PCR was found to have some false positive reactions because of nonspecific hybridisation. The authors comment:
“These methodological limitations of IS-PCR probably explain why in recent works this technique had been abandoned. Our experimental findings add further evidence in favour of the practical dismission of IS-PCR in this area of investigation.” In other words this particular assay, which was so sensitive that it had too high an index of false positivity, is no longer used, with the other more validated PCRs being used instead.
This proves “HIV does not exist” how?? You might be looking at the science, but are drawing entirely the wrong conclusions from your cherry-picked data.
I’m so pleased for you that you are a champion debater at this, and that you are so wonderful that brave scientists go pale at the thought of debating you. Forgive me if I am not so impressed. All I see is the old denialist canards trotted out for us to see, only close inspection reveals something different each time.

So disclaimers on ARV packaging does not guarantee success/cure? …..Strike me down with a feather. These disclaimers are on every drug insert, not just for ARVs. The pharma companies know that not everyone will respond to a particular drug, and they cannot claim that patients will, or they get sued when they don’t. But in order to get FDA approval and lisensing, the studies must show the drugs do what they are meant to do.

And to end off, you demand that I provide you of proof for something (or I can consider myself “duly served”). Typical denialist debating tactic. I’ve been here before Gos, and when I have come up with the goods as asked, somehow the questions seem to have been drifted onto a different topic, or my answers are ignored, or new questions pop up in the place of the old ones. Funny that. I’ve done the “whack a mole” rounds with denialists before, and forgive me if I am not keen to waste time doing this again, particularly when there are more important things to do at this time of year (though I might look into your demands after Xmas if I have the time.)

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/24/2008 @ 09:50AM PST
Report

Letter to all from an HIV diagnosed hemophilliac
My Fight for Freedom, Equality, Justice and DignityWhen, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for a people to advance from that subordination in which they have hitherto remained, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the equal and independent station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s god entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the change. For over 20 years now, my life has been turned upside down because of lies, intimidation, fear, politics and governmental/pharma interests. It started when I was called into the doctor’s office at the hospital and was given the HIV+ label by my then doctor who had ordered a routine blood sample of mine to be tested. This happened at the Hospital Hemophilia clinic while in my late teens with my parents present. I was completely asymptomatic then, completely healthy in every way but in effect from that time onwards until today I was told that I would be very sick, would need to take drugs and was the carrier of an infectious disease. The whole HIV=AIDS=Death Dogma was in effect a self fulfilling prophecy for most hemophiliacs at that time. Most would invariably test positive for antibodies on the non specific test and were told that they would be at risk for death. Of course, hemophiliacs like myself were never told that the test itself is neither specific, standardized or approved for diagnostic purposes. I was never told that hemophilia itself and the administration (injection) of clotting proteins for my illness was one of over 70 conditions which can cross react with the test kit proteins themselves to cause a false positive reaction on the test. Moreover, I wasn’t presented with with any proof whatsoever that a purported retrovirus called HIV?! was the cause of AIDS or that my antibody response was an indication of infection. On behalf of my fellow hemophiliacs and all those harmed by the HIV=AIDS=Death Dogma I demand the full restoration of truth, reconciliation, compensation and reparations be restored back to our lives. Our stories need to be told and our voices must be heard. Now. When I think back to the mid 80s and early 90s when the fears of an epidemic were heightened, I realize that there was no examination of evidence or correction when the theory failed to fit facts and reality. All we got was fear campaigns, and more testing and treatments with toxic drugs. In fact, up to the time of the AIDS era the mortality rate of hemophiliacs that had died over the years was fairly predictable and life expectancy had dramatically improved with the higher quality of clotting treatments that had become more readily available. However, the massive sudden increase in deaths can be directly correlated with the use of AZT and other toxic drugs soon prescribed on a prophylactic basis. This is the absolute truth that has been covered up for so many years. i strongly believe that the record and documentation of the deaths of so many hemophiliacs should be exposed in a court of law that really seeks to set the record straight. In my view the drug deaths of my peers is tantamount to murder. The truth with regards to the events of those years has indeed become much clearer and can easily be verified. Virtually all hemophiliacs on heavy drug regimens were killed off quickly. Most of them were asymptomatic at the time the AIDS treatment regimens were imposed on them. A few lucky survivors regained health when the drug regimens they were on was significantly reduced or ended. The very lucky ones like me who refused the drugs from day one have remained 100% healthy to this day. Yet all this evidence has been ignored and I still see that patients are being poisoned at the hospital to this day 2008! If there is any lesson I have learned over the years is that if we don’t fully unite together to fight the oppressors of the HIV/AIDS orthodoxy and their monetary interests they will continue without conscience as their crimes become ever more heinous in scope and magnitude on human life. Consider for instance how the definition of AIDS has changed numerous times when predictions of doom and so called infectious epidemics never materialized. We have an incubation period that once started out between 2-5 years when AZT monotherapy was prescribed that now stretches up to 30 years and beyond. A myriad number of diseases have been added to the mix like cervical cancer which are not even immune related. Furthermore, the usage of wholly inaccurate methodologies like the unspecific antibody itself, T cell counting and viral load tests have been proven to be false, misleading and I would say outright criminal in their application on healthy asymptomatic people. It should be noted too that the number one cause of deaths of HIV+’s today is liver and/or kidney failure which is definitively a direct result of drug toxicity and cannot be attributed to any hypothetical virus. On a personal level, I have had to live with the constant pressure to take the highly toxic HIV medications by my doctors and nurses for many years. My decision to take charge of my situation and refuse the toxic medications from the beginning indeed saved my life. While I feel fortunate to be alive when so many HIV positives died needlessly on the meds, it has saddened me greatly that the overall arrogance of the medical community has prevented correction of the current terrible state of affairs. To be told time and time again that you are “sick” and at “grave risk for impending death” for so many years, I believe is extremely psychologically damaging. A complete never ending nightmare! I have had many suicidal thoughts over the years. A few HIV positive friends of mine have admitted to me that they have come painfully close to the act of suicide itself. Because of the intense social isolation, psychological pressure, stigmatization and sense of utter hopelessness (that comes with the diagnosis), it is not surprising that suicide is the second leading cause of death of HIV positives. It must be pointed out that being HIV positive is analogous to being the societal equivalent of being a “social leper”. The judicial system and media have portrayed us as spreaders of disease, killers, murderers, and purveyors of death, etc. The truth of the matter that there is NO scientific proof that HIV causes AIDS or is sexually transmitted is conveniently ignored. The famous Padian study meticulously documented irrefutable data showing no seroconversions occurring among hundreds of discordant couples having unprotected sex for upwards of ten years. All the predictions by the AIDS orthodoxy of mass epidemics afflicting the earth killing millions never materialized. Dr. De Cock of UN AIDS’ confirmation that the prior predictions of mass epidemics in the 80s was false was an admission of a failed theory, a sinking ship as it were struggling to stay afloat against the changing tides. Moreover, Dr. De Cock confirmed that the theory had “0″ predictive value and that statistics had been fraudulently manipulated in conjunction with propaganda “fear campaigns” to benefit mass pharma profiteering and genocidal drug campaigns worldwide. The irrational policies of the AIDS orthodoxy have led to the wrongful conviction and imprisonment of innocent people for having consensual sex. It has destroyed lives, families and relationships. I have been terrorized by the institutional violence wrought by these policy makers. I have felt much sadness and frustration to read about HIV positives being flashed in the newspapers, paraded in the courts and treated like grotesque circus freaks. The apparent failure of the judicial system to properly examine and reject the fraudulent non science of the HIV theory will in my view undoubtedly geatly stain their collective reputations for many years in the future. In my view, their approval of the status quo represents tacit complicity and support of the real criminal murderers protected in the AIDS orthodoxy. The failure of the courts to allow debate and answer basic questions only adds to the growing stench of the ongoing cover up. Why have AIDS researchers refused to debate dissident scientists for 20 years? Why have the AIDS corporate interests been able to evade the serious charges of fraud and scientific misconduct levelled at them by sincere courageous scientists bearing no conflicts of interest? Who are the real “Denialists”? Why have AIDS doctors, pharma reps, governmental officials, etc. not yet answered for the deaths, disfigurement, stigmatization and terror imposed on HIV positives for decades? It seems clear now that the impending loss of power, money, prestige and public credibility is at the root of keeping the fraud alive in the face of so much evidence and opposition continually raised against it. It is my view that the disgraceful treatment of latter day ‘lepers’ (now euphemistically called “HIV Positives”) dragged into the courts to be mocked, prodded and jailed will not be easily forgotten. History will look back very harshly on the barbarism and betrayal by trusted institutions and the government on innocents. Now in my late 30s I face the future with a great deal of hope that better days lie ahead for myself and all those oppressed by the rules imposed on us by all those profiting from the HIV=AIDS=DEATH dogma. Collectively we must seize this movement and demand our freedom and compensation for the many crimes that have been perpetrated against us all. Personally I have been stigmatized and lived with much discrimination 24/7 because of the lies and the rules that have been associated with them over the years. The emotional toll of being “branded” so to speak has been an enormous imposition to me, affecting virtually every aspect of my day to day life. Virtually all my relationships have been short lived and I could not continue with some of my career plans as I had originally envisioned back in my 20s. When I consider the billions of dollars of profits pharma and governmental interests have made criminally on the lives of innocents without any correction, re-examination or apology, etc. for all these years it makes me feel very sick inside. If justice can be found in court, then they should have to give back their profits to the victims. I call out to you all, my brothers and sisters, to fight the tyranny which has damaged our lives until our freedom is finally fully restored.

Posted by Michael Geiger on 12/24/2008 @ 10:23AM PST
Report

The HIV=AIDS theory is the most colossal medical blunder (now FRAUD) ever exacted on humanity. The 30 or more AIDS defining diseases exist independently of the so called positive diagnosis and many of the illnesses under the AIDS umbrella are neither immune or viral related…Retroviruses are naturally passed perinatally from mother to child and do not kill T-Cells. The HIV test itself is merely analogous to a “stress test marker” and carries disclaimers which admit unspecificity and further that antibody reactivity is unknown and should not be used as the basis for diagnosis…

More than 400,000 people worldwide have died from the DNA chain terminator drug AZT. The madness and lunacy of giving Black Box label chemotherapies to sick and healthy people alike (even pregnant women!) will go down in history as a horrific unthinkable crime!! Today the leading cause of AIDS deaths is liver and/or kidney failure which is a direct result of drug toxicity and not any hypothetical virus.

Posted by Adrian Panorama on 12/24/2008 @ 10:38AM PST
Report

For 25 years, NOBODY has ever succeeded in demonstrating by electron microscopy ONE SINGLE particle of retrovirus (HIV) directly in the blood of any AIDS patients tagged as presenting with a high “viral load”. Could any member of the dogmatic “HIV Church” explain to us why?Etienne de Harven, MD, past-president of Rethinking Aids group.

Posted by Etienne de Harven on 12/24/2008 @ 02:00PM PST
Report

Over the past 13 years I have been deeply engaged in researching diseases linked to viruses, with my work as a medical writer published in the Ecologist, the Independent – and now as a book called “Fear of the Invisible.” On other issues I have previously testified at US Congressional Hearings. My work as an investigative journalist has been widely seen on the PBS network in the USA and on the BBC.On this topic I have researched the laboratory documents unearthed by the Democratic Congressional and Department of Health investigations of the 1990s relating to the papers that are widely held to have established for all time that HIV causes AIDS. These inquiries reported numerous serious errors but the papers were never withdrawn and thus are still widely cited. However the evidence they unearthed goes further. The papers unearthed extraordinarily reveal that at no time during these key experiments was a virus tested to see if it caused AIDS, that the paper reporting these experiments was extensively changed at the last moment by hand to conceal this – changing it so very dramatically that three weeks later President Reagan’s administration reported that it had proved a virus caused AIDs. I reproduce these papers in full in my book. To my mind these are convincing and authenticated evidence of scientific fraud. In late 2008 this research was sent to a number of scientists for them to draw their own conclusions. The result was that this month a letter has gone to the Science journal signed by 37 scientists, legal experts and professionals requesting that the journal withdraw these key AIDS research papers on the grounds that their veracity is now seriously in question.
The related documents are on the book’s website www.fearoftheinvisible.com. Please also see that of the Semmelweis Society – a body that focusses on maintaining scientific integrity as its Board has also expressed its strong concern.
It has also been reported by the Office of Research Integrity of the Federal Department of Health that these experiments were so poorly recorded that it has proved impossible to repeat them and thus to verify them.
Tens of thousands of scientific papers cite this paper and are based on its analysis. The grave flaws that appear now to be revealed call for an immediate reassessment of this seminal and foundational research.
with respect,
Janine Roberts

I believe that

Posted by Janine Roberts on 12/24/2008 @ 03:46PM PST
Report

We can only hope now that the Journal Science and others such as Nature, Jama, etc. will finally investigate the blatant fraud of the Gallo papers and formally reject them…
The 1 Trillion dollar AID$ Industry can no longer be protected by political expedience, financial interests, and corrupt politicians. At stake is the very foundation of our democratic society and governance itself. If these genocidal crimes are allowed to continue into the future then millions of people worldwide will be poisoned by toxic drugs. Indeed future generations will study this period in human development and wonder how collectively so many trusted institutions and monied interests got away with murder for so long…

Posted by Kevin Somba on 12/24/2008 @ 08:59PM PST
Report

Derek Neumann wrote: “Gos, it was you who said the drugs ‘double the risk of a heart attack’. I … drew the inescapable conclusion that this means that for every heart attack that is due to the abacavir, there will be another heart attack that was not due to the drug…”

OK, I understand where you’re getting that from now. Score one for you. I withdraw the question.

Derek Neumann wrote: “Regarding your paper on PCR of semen and what it all means. It’s a very detailed paper, and nothing in it indicates that HIV does not exist or that PCR does not detect HIV.”

I never claimed that these papers proved anything of the sort. What I claimed was that these three papers were an example of how in the majority of HIV research, essential components of the scientific method (such as the use of controls, in this example) are omitted, often for no reason whatever, and in the exceptional case where there is even a semblance of adherence to the scientific method, (as in the third paper) the results negate all of the unscientific studies that were done before.

Now, if the PCR technique detects “HIV” in 40%-60% of HIV-negative controls, then it can’t possibly be detecting HIV in these people, since they don’t have HIV. And if it’s not detecting actual HIV in such a large percentage of the control group, then what is it detecting in the much smaller fraction of HIV-positives in which it “detects” HIV, in this study and all the other similar studies which are done without controls? According to the rules of controlled science, if what it’s detecting in the control group is not HIV, then chances are it’s not HIV that’s being detected in the study group either.

Derek Neumann wrote: “The specific PCR assay you mention (in situ PCR) is one of several that were used.”

Actually, it was one of two that were used, the other being nested PCR.

Indeed, one of the primary goals of this particular study was to compare IS-PCR against N-PCR, in order to prove that N-PCR is better than IS-PCR.

And they did indeed prove that IS-PCR is (in their own words) inadequate, since it “detected” HIV in about half of the control group who were actually HIV-negative. However, they omitted the control data from the N-PCR group, leaving us no basis for comparison upon which to judge their claim that N-PCR is superior to IS-PCR.

I read and re-read the article, looking for the N-PCR control data, but it wasn’t there. At first, I thought that maybe they hadn’t done a control group for the N-PCR, but another re-reading of the article revealed that, “negative and positive controls were included in each PCR assay.”[emphasis mine] So, they actually did a control group for nested PCR, but somehow neglected to report the results. Thus, they have provided not a shred of proof that N-PCR is one whit better than IS-PCR, they’ve only proved that IS-PCR is ridiculously inadequate.

So what about nested PCR? Here are a few studies which individually and collectively prove that neither N-PCR nor IS-PCR is in any way adequate to confirm the presence of HIV, since both PCR tests have been repeatedly and overwhelmingly shown to “detect” HIV in people who don’t have HIV.

Piatak M, Saag MS, Yang LC, et al. High levels of HIV-1 in plasma during all stages of infection determined by quantitative competitive PCR. (1993) Science: 259; 1749-1754

Mendoza C, Holguin A, & Soriano V . False positives for HIV using commercial viral load quantification assays. (1998) AIDS; 12(15); 2076-2077

Schwartz DH et al. Extensive evaluation of a seronegative participant in an HIV-1 vaccine trial as a result of a false positive PCR. (1997). Lancet: 350; 256-259

Rosenberg ES, Caliendo AM, Walker BD Acute HIV Infection among Patients Tested for Mononucleosis. (1999).New England Journal of Medicine; 340 (12):969

Gerberding JL Incidence and prevalence of HIV, hepatitis B virus, and cytomegalovirus among health care personnel at risk for blood exposure: Final report from a longitudinal study. (1994). J Infect Dis 170; 1410-1417

More info on false positive viral loads: http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/miloads.htm

…So THAT is what proves that PCR doesn’t detect HIV, because it regularly “detects” HIV in people who couldn’t possibly have HIV.

Derek Neumann wrote: “These are highly sensitive techniques,”

The sensitivity of the PCR is certainly an issue elsewhere, but it is the specificity that concerns us here.

You’re an AIDS professional — let me ask you something: Would you, as an AIDS professional, use a quantitative assay as a primary diagnostic test for HIV infection in a patient older than 18 months of age? Why not? If the PCR test actually detects and quantifies HIV, then wouldn’t my viral load be zero if I were HIV-negative? According to the studies I’ve already cited here, you can’t possibly answer that question in the affirmative with any confidence, and that, as we both know, is why quantitative assays are never used to diagnose HIV infection in any patient older than 18 months (and in infantile cases it’s only used because maternal antibodies tend to render the EIA and WB tests worse than useless).

Derek Neumann wrote: “So disclaimers on ARV packaging does not guarantee success/cure? …..Strike me down with a feather.”

Y’know, you’ve got a point there — I’ve set the goalposts too high. So let’s take the word “will” out of the sentence, and replace it with the evidence that HIV patients who take a particular drug or combination of drugs, on average, live longer, healthier lives than those who don’t take any AIDS cocktail drugs at all. No guarantee in any individual case, but just a single study that shows that, generally speaking, ARV users live longer, healthier lives than treatment-naive HIV-positives.

There are four requirements, though:

1) The study you cite must be a controlled study in which there is either a placebo group, or alternately a control group made up of patients who voluntarily abstain from taking ARVs. (We can’t compare the health or longevity of ARV users vs non-users, if non-users aren’t represented in the study.)

2) The study you cite must be a long term study, since it’s a bit difficult to sort out who will die within the next 5 or 10 years if you only do six months of follow-up.

3) The study you cite must be a large study (a requirement you yourself have already stipulated.) This also means that the control group must be large too — none of this hokum I’ve seen of comparing 8 control subjects to 469 study subjects. If the control group is small, then it might as well not be included at all, since it’s irrelevant.

4) The researchers and laboratory must not be in receipt of monies or other considerations from the manufacturers of the drugs that they are studying, or from others with vested interest in the outcome of the study.

So go on — find that study. If you cannot, then you must retract your claim that ARVs help AIDS patients to live longer and/or healthier lives.

Derek Neumann wrote: “But in order to get FDA approval and lisensing, the studies must show the drugs do what they are meant to do.”

You don’t realize it, but you’ve said a mouthful there. “The drugs do what they were meant to do.”

The problem is that none of these drugs was ever meant to help AIDS patients live longer, healthier lives. Each and every one has been approved by the FDA on the basis of their ability to alter the numbers on a piece of paper (specifically by raising CD4 counts and lowering viral load readings.)

And yet, it is widely acknowledged that neither CD4 counts nor viral load, nor any combination of the two, is a reliable predictor of who will or won’t develop AIDS symptoms and/or die. This isn’t some wild-eyed denialist conspiracy theory — it has been overwhelmingly documented that the correlations between CD4 counts, viral load, and future health are anywhere from extremely weak to nonexistent. I myself nearly died of “AIDS-related pneumonia” almost exactly 8 years ago, at a time when I had a 4-figure CD4 count and a consistently low-to-nondetectable viral load.

…And yet, as you say, the drugs do exactly what they were meant to do: Satisfy FDA approval guidelines by altering a couple of meaningless numbers on paper. ARVs were never intended to help AIDS patients live longer, healthier lives, and guess what, they dont.

…You, of course, have made claims to the contrary. We’re still waiting for you to present the evidence to back up your claims.

Derek Neumann wrote: “And to end off, you demand that I provide you of proof for something (or I can consider myself “duly served”). Typical denialist debating tactic. I’ve been here before Gos, and when I have come up with the goods as asked, somehow the questions seem to have been drifted onto a different topic, or my answers are ignored, or new questions pop up in the place of the old ones.”

Sounds like a copout to me.

Try me – see if I change the subject, or ignore your answer, or try to change the question, or do anything but do my darnedest to try and debunk whatever evidence you present. It just so happens that this has become a hobby of mine, and I enjoy it.

Now, you’ve made repeated claims that ARVs generally help AIDS patients to live longer, healthier lives, and that these benefits are so significant as to outweigh the risks that we both have acknowledged. If you cannot substantiate those claims, then you must retract them.

The time has come to put up or shut up and quit making excuses for why you won’t offer the proof. Show me the science that substantiates your claim or be pwned, it’s as simple as that.

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/25/2008 @ 03:23AM PST
Report

CHANGE HAS BEEN LONG OVERDUE ON THIS ISSUE FOR 25 YEARS!!!

Posted by Anthony Tarpin on 12/25/2008 @ 04:54AM PST
Report

I used to assume, like everyone else, that HIV was the cause of AIDS. In fact the idea is drummed into us by the media by writing HIV/AIDS as though that is one disease. Then I started to look into it.

I smelt a rat when I found out that the viral theory was announced at a press conference. The general idea of science as I was taught it is that one announces experimental results in a scientific journal with enough detail that one’s peers can not only evaluate the experiment but can replicate it.

Then I could find no evidence that a virus called HIV had gone through the standard isolation techniques including electron microscopy.

Then I found out that the so-called HIV test, patented by Gallo on the same day as the press announcement, has not undergone any reliability and validity tests. Furthermore, it reacts to at least 30 relatively common conditions, like pregnancy for example.

When I questioned all this I was sent the Durban Declaration, as though a document signed by x number of scientists saying they believed in the theory, constitutes scientific evidence. When I pointed this fact out and was met by a hail of the sort of rhetoric that is common to the “believers”, I knew for sure that “something is rotten in the state of Denmark.”

This has got to be the most outrageous fraud ever committed in medicine and I am ashamed to be a former member (a nurse). When this blows, as it surely will, it will give social science doctoral candidates a field day.

Jennifer Craig

Posted by Jennifer Craig on 12/25/2008 @ 05:17AM PST
Report

Jennifer Craig wrote: “Then I found out that the so-called HIV test, patented by Gallo on the same day as the press announcement, has not undergone any reliability and validity tests. Furthermore, it reacts to at least 30 relatively common conditions, like pregnancy for example.”

One minor correction: The HIV antibody tests react to no fewer than 60 conditions which are known to cause false positives. Some of them are quite common, others are somewhat rare.

Jennifer Craig wrote: “When I questioned all this I was sent the Durban Declaration, as though a document signed by x number of scientists saying they believed in the theory, constitutes scientific evidence.”

If a signed declaration of common belief constitutes scientific evidence, then according to the same standard, the Nicene Creed constitutes scientific evidence of the divinity of Christ.

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/25/2008 @ 05:31AM PST
Report

HIV has been isolated thousands of times, research scientists can order any one of over 400 isolates from the NIH reagent program for just the cost of shipping.
Thankfully it’s clear that Obama’s administration is capable of distinguishing science from pseudoscience, rendering this thread irrelevant. Can’t find any examples of Martin Barnes science journalism anywhere, I wonder if we’re related?

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/25/2008 @ 08:03AM PST
Report

Jennifer, this one of the first descriptions of HIV replication seen through an electron microscope:
http://www.sciencefictions.net/pdfdocs/Letter_from_M_Gonda_to_M_Popovic_12.14.83.pdf

6) HUT 68/LAV – Positive; Lentivirus – Productive lentivirus infection with all forms of virus maturation.

7) T 17.4/LAV – Positive; Lentivirus – Lentivirus, same comments as #6 above.

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/25/2008 @ 08:22AM PST
Report

The glass is fulfilled and already it’s enough. It’s time to correct the tremendous committed mistake that has generated so much human suffering, it’s time to look for the truth. Rethinking AIDS.

Posted by Rosa Haynes on 12/25/2008 @ 10:31AM PST
Report

Hank Barnes:
Please cite a publication in which virions of HIV have been isolated direct from an AIDS patient or HIV-positive person. The Popovic/Gonda documents refer to components of a culture in which several kinds of cell were incubated together with various biochemcal stimulants. That’s SYNTHESIS, not isolation.

Posted by Henry Bauer on 12/25/2008 @ 10:58AM PST
Report

Hank Barnes, the following is a quote from Professor de Harven (see earlier posts on this site)-

For 25 years NOBODY has even succeeded in demonstrating by electromicroscopy ONE SINGLE particle of retrovirus (HIV) directly in the blood of any AIDS patients tagged as presenting with a “high viral load”…

This has been the conundrum of AIDS researchers. From the very beginning they have always been INVENTING new and ever more bizarre explanations as to how this elusive retrovirus is causing such serious damage.

If the viral theory of AIDS was correct then one would expect to find copious amounts of viral particles by the millions in the blood of dying AIDS patients. In fact at any one time only 1/1000 T-Cells of sick patients would contain retrovirus material. This fact is meaningless when one considers that retroviruses don’t kill T-Cells! and we regenrate 3-4% or our T-Cells in a matter of days.

Even if a purported retrovirus were to kill every cell it infects this would only represent about 1/30 of the total regeneration rate of T-Cells. So this means that it is mathematically impossible for a retrovirus to cause any damage. Professor Duesberg has noted how ludicrous and illogical this idea is being “analogous to a bicycle trying to catch up to a jet airplane”.

Some other points to consider. Known virus has been also virtually undetectable in man’s ejaculate. Something like 1 pro virus in a million sperm cells…And also if a purported retrovirus was doing such damage to T-Cells why don’t we find swollen thymus’ in AIDS patients?

Let me remind you as well of what Dr. Matthew Gonda, acting Head of Electromicroscopy at the NIH wrote of Gallo’s submitted micrographs of culture samples (for Science publication) on March 26, 1984:

I would like to point out that the “particles” in micrograph 0905 are in debris of a degenerated cell…I do not believe any of the particles photographed are HTLV I, II or III.

It is clear that Gonda was crystal clear in his assessment that Gallo’s submission was nothing more than cellular rubbish. And it was this rubbish that Gallo submitted to Science Journal three days later for publication which to this day has still not been retracted. And then soon after this RUBBISH was announced and hailed by Press Conference April 23, 1984 as “the probable cause of AIDS”. You sir, refer to supposed proof of Isolation. Rather these series of events represent wilful fraud, ‘the Emperor’s New Clothes’ so to speak presented by Gallo, Heckler, Pharma interests, politicians, etc. for mass consumption.

If you doubt these facts you can examine the documents yourself. The Gonda letter to Gallo as well as Congressional papers indicting Gallo’s research for gross scientific misconduct can be found at Janine Roberts’ site-
http://www.fearoftheinvisible.com

Posted by Chris Manding on 12/25/2008 @ 12:03PM PST
Report

I am off the HIV meds for 54 months as of January 09.

I never needed any of the medications I took for 14 years. This fraud has killed tens of thousands of people in order to advance science’s knowledge of virology. That is geniside directed at the original target population of homosexual men. I want our government to Do The Right Thing and expose Big Pharma for the monsters that they are. The same thing is happening with Psyche Drugs now. We are becoming the population being controlled in the book 1984, and this pseudo epidemic began that year. Irony?

Posted by James Allegretti on 12/25/2008 @ 01:00PM PST
Report

Yes! Obama would do Africa a HUGE favor if he did some internal investigation(s) of the corrupt HIV/AIDS Industry,The FDA,The NIH,HIV Test Manufacturers,and HIV Drug Manufacturers.

AIDS monies from the Red Campaign?,Clinton’s so called AIDS monies? Bill Gates Monies? where is it? who’s really getting it?
certainly not Africa.

it would be wonderful for Obama to take the false label of [HIV+] away from Africans and the Gay Bi Lesbian Transgendered community forever.

RethinkingAIDS.com to Obama!

Posted by Eddie Brewster on 12/25/2008 @ 01:22PM PST
Report

What an exellent discussion! I think the major problem with the “HIV=AIDS=Death” hypothesis is that it has been treated as a monotheistic single paradigm, while ignoring other strong hypotheses and observations.

Some of these include:

1. In LA, San Francico, and New York, Dr. Michael Gottlieb found cytomegalogovirus (a herpes virus) in 100% of AIDS patients.

2. The Pasteur’s “Patient One” exhibited swollen lymph nodes, muscle weakness without fever or weight loss, cytomegalovirus, herpes viruses Type I and Type II, 2 cases of treated gonorrhea, and 1 case of treated syphilis the year before, but “Patient one” represented a perfect victim discoved by the Nobelists, Barre-Sinoussi and Luc Montagnier, and constituted the perfect isolate of “LAV” and material for their “LAV=ARC” association.

3.Syphilis and AIDS: Harris Coulter’s hidden link, and The Pasteur’s “Patient One” had many diseases but not AIDS.

4. Papovic and Gallo’s 36% causality: “HIV” causes AIDS in 36% of those who test “HIV” positive!

5. Gonda’s letter to Gallo said there was no “HIV,” HTLV-I, II, or HTLV-III in the Papovic/Gallo samples.

6. Drugging begins with suramin, hundreds of drugs are screen, and compound “S” (AZT) is pushed through by Sam Broder on the basis of In Vitro findings.

7. There are no consistent In Vitro model of “HIV” infection: some cause cell fusion, others continuous non-cytopathic production, while others show cytopathic production after most of the cells are killed.

8. “HIV” is very fragile: Hemophiliacs get AIDS anyway despite soap, dehydration, and cryopreservation.

9. Robin Weiss says “HIV” attacks brain cells through the ubiquitous T4 receptor to cause AIDS dementia.

10. Harold Varmus is pressed into service to call Montagnier’s “LAV” and Gallo’s “HTLV-III, “HIV.”

11. Peter Duesberg’s passenger cancer viruses, and claims that “HIV” actually exists.

12. Duesberg’s drugs-AIDS hypotheses.

13. Duesberg’s foreign protein-AIDS hypothesis.

14. Duesberg’s malnutrition-AIDS hypothesis.

15. Director of the NIH and Nobelist Varmus says reverse transcriptase is not specific to retroviruses but it continues to be used to identify “HIV.”

16. The success of Fischl 1987 AZT trail shows 1 died in the experimental AZT-treated group, while 19 died in the non-AZT group, but the study requires some doctoring in terms of switching of arms between control and experimental groups, and necessitates transfusions in 30 of the AZT treated group to save their lives from myelosuppression.

17. There is no “HIV” animal model, and the definition of AIDS is changed to mean “HIV-infected” well people with the molecular markers of “HIV:” “HIV” becomes a molecular disease in healthy sick people, and “SIV” becomes a better model of “HIV” than “HIV.”

18. Papadopulos-Eleopulos and PERTH: AIDS is caused by oxidation and redox imbalance and “HIV” is caused by non-specific cross-reactions.

19. Varmus and Bishop get the Nobel for oncogenes that cause cancer in cancer cells, and which sit dormant in normal cells.

20. Shyh-Ching Lo’s Mycoplasma incognitus found in 22/24 AIDS patients and in O non-AIDS patients.

21. A MacArthur Fellow speculates that anti-HLA allo-immunization causes AIDS.

22. “HIV” found in non-”HIV-infected alloimmunized mice, normal human placentas, and non-infected monkeys, chimps, humans, and after hepatitis B vaccination.

23. The Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study concludes that AZT kills more healthy patients than sick patients, and disproportionately harms blacks and hispanics and provides no benefit for white people.

24. “HIV” causes 6 cancers, except the first AIDS-defining cancer, Kaposi’s sarcoma, which is now caused by Herpes virus 8.

25. Multiple-Antigen-Mediated Autoimmunity through idiotypic-anti-idiotypic “hand and glove” molecular reactions.

26. The Concorde study calls into question the value of T-cell measurements, and David Acer is exonerated by the CDC after he kills himself for not infecting anybody.
27. Canadians urge their “HIV-positive” women to get abortions.

28. “HIV-negative” children have “HIV’s” capsid protein p24 in their kidneys.

29. Simonsen and later Klausner say that flu vaccines cause “HIV-positive” test results in about 2% of “uninfected” people, but the accuracy of test kits is blamed for the paradox.

30. Kary Mullis says there are too many viruses and no vaccine possible and proposed an experiment he published in Genetica in 1995 to determine if this hypothesis is falsifiable in mice.

31. The 1995 Office of Technology Assessment says there have been 30 failed “HIV-vaccine” trials to date: some cause malignant cancer in 10 patients in 9 trials, while others cause “original antigenic sin.”

32. Sexual transmission studies show no sexual transmission of “HIV” because of good and effective sex education and counseling.

33. “HIV” is found in 11% “low prevalence” low risk groups, and 97.1% in sinners with “risky behaviors.

34. The Division of AIDS (DAIDS) says everybody has “HIV” in their cells, but they will punish only those with more than 30pg/ml P24 protein.

35. “HIV’s” most important molecule, reverse transcriptase, is found in chicken vaccines, and is destroyed with DNAase.

36. Goat and cow proteins cause “HIV-positive” test results in children who drink their milk.

37. “Uninfected” pregnant women tend to test “HIV-positive.”

38. The success of microbicides in increasing the rate of “HIV-positive test results in those Africans who got them smeared on their genitals.

39. Haseltine’s success in sequencing and patenting 7,500 genes-but the SSR5 “HIV” receptor turns out to be wrongly sequenced, according to Christopher Broder of the NIH.

40. Liver disease cited as leading cause of death of hospitalized “HIV/AIDS” patients by the Infectious Disease Society of America-”HIV” causes liver disease.

41. Anemia is caused by “HIV” infecting “nuclei” of human red blood cells.

42. Muscle wasting and heart disease are caused by “HIV” infecting dividing cardiac and skeletal myocytes.

43. Lots of non-”HIV” transmission among serodiscordant couples and many “HIV” test kits are recalled by their makers.

44. Jane Goodall suggests that more than 100 “HIV-infected” chimps deserve 27 million dollar retirement homes.

45. The success of Donald Francis’s GP120 AIDS vaccine, and his award of 877 million to scrap “HIV” research and make anthrax vaccines for the military.

46. The Red Cross says there are only 2 or 12 false positives out of 37 million negative blood samples.

47. Edmond Tremont likes to rewrite safety reports for George W. Bush, and fire whistleblower safety officers to promote nevirapine and PEPFAR, and to save Africa because he knows about AIDS whereas his safety officers don’t.

48. Formal proposals are advanced to test everybody.
49. Brian Williams of The WHO says people on ARVS have same outcome as people not on ARVS despite high or low T-cell counts, and that between 3 and 5% of “HIV-negative” people naturally have CD4 counts below 350.
50. David Ho says “HIV” attacks the Peyers patches, and that “it’s the gut, Stupid!”

51. After 20 years, “HIV” begins to change its size by a factor of three.

52. “Viral load” cannot predict when 94% to 96% of drug-naïve people will progress to AIDS, but it can predict when 4% to 6% of those whose “viral load” is high, will progress.

53. Biblical slave-marking practice of Egyptians and Hebrews in African STD clinics filled with men with STD’s and penile ulcers and syphilis wins out over pharmaceutical technology, breast feeding dissuasion, nevirapine, AZT, abstinence counseling, or vaccines: The rare good news about circumcising every African male before it is too late is proposed.

54. Stephen Lewis wants to smear microbicide creams on African genitals, the success of the UN, and food and water are 6th in importance after microbicides.

55. “HIV” is caused by cigarettes, but cigarettes don’t cause AIDS.

56. AIDS patients can live on average 24 years if they pay $385,000 dollars-AIDS becomes a successfully manageable disease, like “cancer.”

57. After the first decade of HAART, it is reported that improvement in “viral load” measurements are obtained, but no improvement in mortality is achieved: therapy a success but the patients died.

58. Better microbicides were developed by John Moore and others to increase the rate of “HIV-positive” test results among Africans whose genitals were smeared with the irratants.

59. Pediatricians suggest to force compliance using gastrostomy tubes in infants to drug them with as many as 7 black-box-label experimental drugs.

60. Six health care workers before a firing squad for infecting 426 children in Lebanon: sub-Saharan Africans are blamed by Montagnier, and the health care workers are freed.

61. The success of nevirapine experimentation of 875,000 African Black Woman and their infants, and 33%-87% virological failure after a single dose.

62.The success of breast feeding dissuasion counseling to prevent “HIV” transmission, pogroms of formula dumping on Third World Nations, and 532 dead children.

63. All “HIV-positive” patients to be tracked by years end.

64. Eighteen to Eighty-percent have resistant “HIV” to first line treatment in China: a window of opportunity.

65. The success of mathematical modeling of “The AIDS Pandemic.”

66. 21 medics and docs found guilty of killing 10 children and infecting 198 children and infants with “HIV:” All except the Minister of Health are guilty!

67. The New England Journal of Medicine says that 99% of resident student doctors have had needle-stick injuries, and 53% of them involved “high-risk” sinners, but no AIDS resulted.

68. Modeling predicts that less deadly “HIV” is a better killer than more deadly “HIV.”

69. Publication in the NEJM says that Kaposi’s sarcoma is associated with high CD4 counts and low “viral load” measurements.

70. The success of the MERCK “HIV” vaccine and STEP trial in “infecting” more of the experimental group than control group, and how it is likened to “Challenger sized disaster” by Gallo and others, and why 63 vaccine trails have failed.

71. Doctors Without Borders needs money for plumpynut: say children need food not drugs.

72. Cross presentation of caspase-cleaved apoptotic self-antigens in “HIV-infection.”

73. “HIV” really needs 237 cellular proteins to do the job! Back to the importance of the host and cellular proteins.

74. Abacivir and didanosine increase the risk of heart attacks in ARV-treated patients by 49-90%.

75. Th1/Th2 ratio imbalance is the primary mechanism of AIDS: Juliana Sacher’s and Heinrich Kremer’s experience in the German drug rehab clinics.

76. Cochrane database indicates ARV’s don’t block mother-to-child transmission in most studies.

77. Kevin De Cock says world’s heterosexual AIDS pandemic is over, except of course in Africa.

78. NEJM says abrupt weaning of breast fed infants doesn’t improve health or survival and is harmful for “HIV-positive” infants, who will serorevert to a negative test approximately 60% of the time by 18 months anyway.

79. Despite their large population of heterosexuals, New York City ignores Kevin de Cock, and says they want to test all blacks because they are the “AIDS epicenter.”

80. Mice turn into humans (humanized mice) and catch AIDS.

81. Rapid tests revolutionize emergency room testing and are said to be a great success, despite the fact that they can’t rule out or confirm “HIV-infection.”

82. The prestigious journal Nature says that “HIV” and AIDS was definitely, unequivocally, and historically the fault of Blacks, because of their “associations with chimps” when they built cites with them, and had “high-risk behaviors” 125 years ago.

83. Circumcision doesn’t stop “HIV” transmission among homosexuals like is does African men in STD clinics.

84. Drunk monkeys get AIDS faster.

85. Pregnant women get sick to dead faster on nevirapine.

86. Drug addicts in 1971-2 test “HIV-positive,” then 18 years later, “HIV-negative,” despite lack of drugs.

87. Stopping AIDS drugs makes no difference: treatment breaks set for a come-back.

88. Criminalizing “HIV.”

89. “HIV” originated from the human genome: not from bizarre African sexual practices, African toys, dead monkeys, contaminated hepatitis B, flu, or other vaccines, or the military’s special virus program: the probable cause of “HIV” has been found…to be a retroid.Cheers,Andy

Posted by Andrew Maniotis on 12/25/2008 @ 02:46PM PST
Report

Derek ( and other orthodox HIV/AIDS proponants:
The Human mind is an extraordinary tool: If we believe something ( toxic drugs) are ‘medicine’ , we are much more likely to sustain life- or survive) on them, despite our liver’s protests.There is a limit, however- and if we find that we are not served by using the poisons ( i.e. “medicines’), then it doesn’t serve us.
“The Emperor has no clothes!” is something of the case here… we ( esp. the USA) have really been sold a bill of goods and been brainwashed.there are websites and literature, materials for those who are open beyond the mass propoganda…There ARE political agenda’s to ‘health crisis’ ” and “high risk” groups.This isn’t denial and wishful thinking , it’s being present and awake to what is really going on beneath the appearances!

Posted by mark Bednar on 12/25/2008 @ 07:09PM PST
Report

There is no scientific debate about HIV causing AIDS.The 2700 people listed at Rethinking AIDS are mostly herbalists, naturalists, and homeopaths. There are few scientists listed, none mainstream. None have published on AIDS in peer reviewed research journals. None have cared for people living with AIDS. some of the names have even been fictitious. The AIDS denialists are not dissident scientists because they are not even scientists.AIDS Denialism is a significant threat to the public health, being responsible for the deaths of over 350,000 South Africans and unknown numbers of others worldwide. For a free pdf of this important paper g to http://www.jaids.com/pt/re/jaids/pdfhandler.00126334-200812010-00010.pdf;jsessionid=JJSBnLrn8hVhTj8QSy1dk4XJRLvPlGmB42y91LxPGcLMhqtm9htJ!-2112048807!181195629!8091!-1A new book also tells the destructive story of AIDS denialism…..Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy being published by Copernicus / Springer Books. This is the first psychological analysis of the AIDS denialist movement . All of the royalties from sales of Denying AIDS are being donated to purchase HIV treatments in Africa. I have also created an Author’s blog for readers and others interested in AIDS denialism http://denyingaids.blogspot.com/

Posted by Seth Kalichman on 12/25/2008 @ 07:44PM PST
Report

There is no scientific debate about HIV causing AIDS. There are few scientists listed among the 2700 AIDS Rethinkers, none mainstream. None have published on AIDS in peer reviewed research journals. None have cared for people living with AIDS. Some of the names have even been fictitious. The AIDS denialists are not dissident scientists because they are not even scientists. Rethinkers in AIDS are actually conspiracy theorists, as clearly seen in some of the comments here. AIDS denialism shares much in common with 9/11 truthseeking and Holocaust denialism. AIDS denialism is so obviously destructive it was recently portrayed on NBC’s Law & Order SVU (Retro, aired October 24th, 2008). .AIDS Denialism is a significant threat to the public health, being responsible for the deaths of over 350,000 South Africans and unknown numbers of others worldwide. For a free pdf of this important paper g to http://www.jaids.com/pt/re/jaids/pdfhandler.00126334-200812010-00010.pdf;jsessionid=JJSBnLrn8hVhTj8QSy1dk4XJRLvPlGmB42y91LxPGcLMhqtm9htJ!-2112048807!181195629!8091!-1A new book tells the destructive story of AIDS denialism…..Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy being published by Copernicus / Springer Books. This is the first psychological analysis of the AIDS denialist movement . All of the royalties from sales of Denying AIDS are being donated to purchase HIV treatments in Africa. I have also created an Author’s blog for readers and others interested in AIDS denialism http://denyingaids.blogspot.com/

Posted by Seth Kalichman on 12/25/2008 @ 08:07PM PST
Report

Here’s an interesting observation…

Thus far, there have been a total of 6 HIV/AIDS survivors who have spoken up in this forum.

Derek Neumann et al would have us believe that long-term HIV/AIDS survivors who don’t use ARVs are the exception, not the rule, yet out of the 6 long-term survivors here, all 6 have been living examples of AIDS patients who either never took ARVs or quit them, and survived. And more thought-provoking is the fact that each and every one of them has spoken up in opposition to the HIV/AIDS dogma.

As for long-term HIV/AIDS survivors who would tell us that they owe their lives to ARVs, not a single one has graced us with his presence here today. Derek Neumann tells us that such patients are the rule, and that patients like the 6 HIV/AIDS survivors who have spoken up here are the exception — examples of what he calls “extraordinary stories”.

Derek, if we are the “extraordinary stories”, then where are the patients whose lives you guys claim to have saved? Why haven’t they spoken up? What’s the matter, are all of your long-term ARV survivors either too weak to sit up and type, too demented from the drugs to form a sentence, or too dead to have much of anything to say?

Ours are not “extraordinary stories”; ours is the common experience of any long-term AIDS survivor. We are not the exception; we are the rule.

I’ll go one further: We are the ONLY experts on AIDS. No one else — certainly not anyone in the mainstream medical community — has a clue about AIDS, and very few are actually smart enough to realize it.

But you’d be amazed at how much you can learn when your life depends on it. Each and every long-term AIDS survivor in this discussion is living proof that the only way to survive AIDS is to ditch the HIV/AIDS hypothesis altogether and learn as much as you possibly can about whatever real health issues you may have.

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/26/2008 @ 01:48AM PST
Report

Gos, as I expected, you now start piling on the preconditions before you will consider any studies that may fulfil your requirements. What next, only papers whoes authors names begin with Z?

What are your thoughts on this paper?
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7340/757
It demonstrates that monotherapy is better than placebo, that dual therapy is better than monotherapy, and that triple therapy is better than dual therapy. Funny how as people get more and more toxic antiretrovirals they live longer and longer.

As to why people posting on this site appear to subscribe to the “take a new look at the cause of AIDS” viewpoint, here’s a clue….. Look at the title at the top of the page.

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/26/2008 @ 04:05AM PST
Report

Due to the simple fact that there is much evidence that proves the causitive factor not to be demonstrated, and many brilliant scientific minds behind this debacle, it’s time for a complete and total RETHINK.

Posted by Karri Stokely on 12/26/2008 @ 05:03AM PST
Report

Derick,
You read the start of the paper but not the end or you chose to ignore the final paragraph.

The researchers were not happy with the outcome. It was all very IFFY!!! The evidence is not conclusive in favour of ARV treatments. Given the time frame over which the information was gathered, one would have to say,…time has left the outcomes behind. Long term survivors who have either not used ART or those who have stopped for obvious reasons of side effects and no long term improvement of their surrogate markers, have made the study useless.

The researchers concluded:
“Better evidence is required. The exploratory analyses of heterogeneity indicate that the design of future trials must be more rigorous and less variable (for example, in trial duration, test drugs, comparators, and clinical stage at entry) and should not rely on surrogate outcomes alone. The research community must respond. There are still important questions to be answered about the effectiveness of existing agents. This may require publicly funded trials which should be carried out within a clear well supported collaborative framework.”

Posted by Keith Styles on 12/26/2008 @ 05:17AM PST
Report

Sorry, who cares about therapies and studies about a non-existent virus?

Etienne de Harven, an electron microscopy specialist, wrote previously:

“For 25 years, NOBODY has ever succeeded in demonstrating by electron microscopy ONE SINGLE particle of retrovirus (HIV) directly in the blood of any AIDS patients tagged as presenting with a high “viral load”. Etienne de Harven, MD, past-president of Rethinking AIDS.

If I knew that back in 1995, I would never have taken the AIDS medication and suffered for 12 years from the serious side -effects. I feel good since the first moment I stopped them in April 2007.

Posted by Maria Papagiannidou on 12/26/2008 @ 05:42AM PST
Report

Enough with studies based on unreliable markers which meaning is changed and disputed. Enough with studies that only compare the efficacy of one lethal drug cocktail against a different cup of poison.

My life changed when I chose to define good health as feeling good, rather than high a cd4 count (or low viral load) at any cost.

Life-threatening weight loss, crippling diarrhea and fatigue, and disabling brain freeze are too high a price to pay for an arbitrary test result. I have overcome all of these deleterious (direct, not “side”) effects with a vigorous rethinking that includes nutrition, avoidance of toxins and other life-affirming strategies. I have taken ZERO prescription drugs for two years now and have not felt so good since I was a teenager.

Despite having consulted with more than a dozen so-called medical professionals in several specialties the past ten years (infectious disease, endocrinology, psychiatry, etc.), not one of them has asked to research or investigate why my health has improved so dramatically the past two years.

Apparently nothing short of an Act of Congress or an Executive Order from the President will lead to an investigation of why we’re being ignored and silenced.

Posted by Jon Barnett on 12/26/2008 @ 06:17AM PST
Report

Many people have noticed that the dire predictions of “the aids mainstream” have not come true. There has never been an epidemic in the U.S., certainly not among heterosexuals, nor the wealthy. Many more people die each year in the US from the flu (36,000), alcohol use (38,000) or traffic accidents (42,000) than from what is termed ‘aids’ (16,000). The populations in Africa are increasing in population rather than reducing, despite the shrill claims by aids groups. For all of hiv’s hypothetical cunning and diabolical nature—it’s ever-mutating structure, it’s infallible ability to ‘hide’, it’s devious subterfuge—the same subgroups, gays and blacks, remain the targets of the aids industry’s efforts. The disease has simply not jumped into the mainstream population. Aids meticulously avoids bathroom-cruising, prostitute-buying Republicans. Aids steers clear of straight suburbia. Aids avoids the well-to-do high schools. Even among gays and blacks, the numbers affected remain steady, though advertisements proclaim wildly dramatic new trends are just around the corner. A reliable clinical progression or map of symptoms of hiv is not defined so there no way to predict what symptoms are hiv related—or which are not. In fact there is no symptom of hiv or aids that belongs to that disease alone. If one is not “tested” one simply never knows if they have hiv or aids at all. The latency period of infection to symptom onset ranges from one year as proclaimed in the 1980’s to 20 years now. This lengthened latency comes despite warnings that millions do not know they have hiv, or maybe it comes because all those who supposedly do not know are not dying as fast as they “should”. Not to mention a whopping 66 failed vaccines; drug trials halted mid-way due to drug-effect deaths; and drug treatments that cause all the symptoms of aids from diarrhea, fat-redistribution, and susceptibility to infections.

Posted by Allen Vaught on 12/26/2008 @ 07:06AM PST
Report

Maria Papagiannidou writes: Sorry, who cares about therapies and studies about a non-existent virus? Exactly. If you analyse some of the debates with the knowledge that HIV does not even exist, most of them are nonsensical.

What evidence do we have that HIV does not exist?

Two important references may be found by following the links in:

http://www.sparks-of-light.org/LetterToScience-Public.pdf

The first important thing to know is that Papovic’s original draft of the seminal paper published in Science stated “Despite intensive research efforts, the causative agent of AIDS has not yet been identified.” Gallo, in his handwriting, altered this statement to read, ” That a retrovirus of the HTLV family might be an etiologic agent of AIDS was suggested by the findings.”

Papovic kept his original draft. It was produced when Gallo was investigated for scientific fraud in 1990.

The second important thing to know is that a letter to Papovic from Gonda dated March 26, 1984 states “I do not believe any of the particles photographed are HTLV I, II, or III.”

In other words no virus, retro or otherwise was found in the sample tested by Papovic. Nevertheless, Gallo made his announcement to the press, published a paper 2 weeks later and the media and the sheeples who believe what they read in the paper have perpetuated this massive fraud.

For some reason that defeats me, intelligent people continue to pronounce that the cause of AIDS is HIV and attack those who say otherwise. We really haven’t changed as a species since we burned witches.

Jennifer Craig

Posted by Jennifer Craig on 12/26/2008 @ 08:38AM PST
Report

Jennifer Craig wrote:
“Gallo, in his handwriting, altered this statement to read, “That a retrovirus of the HTLV family might be an etiologic agent of AIDS was suggested by the findings.”"
So Gallo argued that the virus was a member of the HTLV family and should be called HTLV-III. Any ideas why these arguments did not hold up?
Jennifer Craig also wrote:
“In other words no virus, retro or otherwise was found in the sample tested by Papovic.”
False. Matthew Gonda identified LAV as a retrovirus, I linked to the letter and quoted it above:
ttp://www.sciencefictions.net/pdfdocs/Letter_from_M_Gonda_to_M_Popovic_12.14.83.pdf

6) HUT 68/LAV – Positive; Lentivirus – Productive lentivirus infection with all forms of virus maturation.

7) T 17.4/LAV – Positive; Lentivirus – Lentivirus, same comments as #6 above.

Micrographs of this virus were included in the Science paper.
PHOTOGRAPH FANS U.S.-FRENCH DISPUTE ON AIDS
By ERIK ECKHOLMNew York Times Published: April 12, 1986

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/26/2008 @ 10:33AM PST
Report

Dear Mr. “Hank Barnes”.
First of all, we know that is not your name, as it is apparent you took the moniker from the dissident site at http://barnesworld.blogs.com/
Second of all, it seems obvious, to me at least, that your protestations of the dissident demands to investigate aids are that of a protectionist, likely someone whose finances and position rely on continued belief in the non proven hiv as the cause of aids.

Next of all, as far as Gonda and LAV, Professor Etienne de Harvens recent letter to the Nobel Committee, clearly shows why LAV as a presumed isolated virus from supposed AIDS patients is clearly nonsense, as it was only cultured in cord blood, and was NEVER cultured from the peripheral blood of any aids patients:
Dr. Etienne de Harven. Past President, Rethinking AIDS. France.23 October, 2008The Nobel Prize for Barré?Sinoussi and MontagnierThe Nobel Prize in medicine has been recently awarded to Barre-Sinoussi and Montagnier for ?The discovery of immunodeficiency virus (HIV)».This award is, to a large extent, based on a paper published by the laureates et al. in May 1983, in «Science» (vol 220, pp 868-871). The conclusions presented in this paper result, in a large part, from observations made by transmission electron microscopy. Having been responsible for research on electron microscopy of retroviruses, at the Sloan Kettering Institute of New York from 1956 until 1981, I do have scientific competence to raise the following questions related to the significance of the paper under reference.This 1983 paper is illustrated (Fig. 2) by an electron microscopy image of thin sections of virus-producing cord lymphocytes. Three day old cultures of T lymphocytes from two umbilical cords had been «infected with the cell-free supernatant of the infected coculture». This «coculture» consisted of cultured human normal T lymphocytes admixed with lymphocytes that originated from the lymph node biopsy from one patient «at risk for acquired immune deficiency (AIDS)». The author’s interpretation of Fig.2 is that it demontrates that cord blood lymphocytes had been successfully infected by retroviruses from that patient.Unquestionably, Fig 2 illustrates typical retroviruses (C-type), budding from the surface of a lymphocyte.Highly questionable, however, is the origin of these retroviruses.The authors of the report claim that they originate from the patient lymph node, via the «cell-free supernatant» of the coculture.This interpretation is not satisfactorily supported by the data presented.Indeed, if this interpretation was correct, one would have expected :1) evidence, by electron microscopy, of the multiplication of retroviruses in this «coculture», and
2) evidence, again by electron microscopy, for the presence of retroviral particles in the «cell-free supernatant of the infected coculture».Since 1) and 2) evidences are totally missing, how could the authors of this paper justify their claim for having «infected» the cord lymphocytes with the «cell-free supernatant of the coculture» ?The authors have regarded their «coculture» as «infected» only on the basis of reverse transcriptase activity in sucrose fractions from the supernatant. Sucrose fractions at density around 1.16, however, are known to contain large amounts of cell debris that can readily account for the observed transcriptase activity. In short, one is asked to believe that cord blood lymphocytes have been sucessfully infected with the supernatant of a coculture the viral infection of which has not been demonstrated.As indicated above, Fig. 2 of the paper shows typical retroviruses (C-type) budding from the surface of a lymphocyte. Where are they coming from, if it is not from the «cell-free supernatant of the coculture» ?There is another possible explanation for the viral electron microscopy evidence of Fig. 2, an explanation that did not, obviously, received the slightest attention from Barre-Sinoussi, Montagnier et al.The observed cultured lymphocytes came from cord blood, and therefore originate from the placenta. It is well known, since the late 1970’s (Sandra Panem’s work, in Current Top Pathol, 1979, 66 :175-189), that the normal human placenta contains loads of C type retroviruses (HERVs). Placental lymphocytes are, therefore, likely to contain the same HERVs that, when placed under stimulating culture conditions, may bud from cell surfaces and form complete retroviral particles (C-type) recognizable with the electron microscope (Fig. 2). Barre-Sinoussi et al. avoided to explain why their experiment apparently wouldn’t work with lymphocytes from the peripheral blood, instead of those from cord blood? The simple explanation is that human peripheral blood lymphocytes do not harbor HERVs.In my opinion, Fig. 2 illustrating the paper under consideration totally fails to convincingly demonstrate that the observed retroviruses originated in the lymph node of one patient «at risk of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome». There is no scientific reason, therefore, to refer to these particles as «LAV» nor as «HIV». Referring to these particles as «LAV» or «HIV» mislead the Nobel Committee, and resulted in a seriously questionable award of the Nobel prize.Etienne de Harven, MD, Emerit. Prof, Univ. of Toronto.

Posted by Michael Geiger on 12/26/2008 @ 10:44AM PST
Report

The bottom line is that so-called HIV tests are virtually meaningless, and it is on the basis of these tests that drugs are given which destroy the quality of life, cause physical disfigurement, and, in too many cases, result in death from organ failure.
Yet this is considered health care as usual: “Of course drugs have side effects! Of course they have to carry dislaimers so the companies don’t get sued! Silly rabbit!”
But whatever happened to “First, do no harm”?
So-called HIV meds have such broad antiviral, antimicrobial, and antioxidant properties that they may well have value in the short term. But has anyone ever bothered to study how this draconian approach compares with other treatments – say, nutritional therapy?
Here’s another idea for change in America: how about a health care system which is actually based on health, instead of drugs, drugs, drugs, and more drugs. Where holistic, life-affirming therapies are offered, instead of toxic chemicals administered with a big dose of fear.
Jennifer Craig wrote, “For some reason that defeats me, intelligent people continue to pronounce that the cause of AIDS is HIV and attack those who say otherwise.”
I think part of the answer is in what Leo Tolstoy said: “I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
But the staunch defenders of HIV/AIDS orthodoxy exhibit in addition an attitude I think of as the Wizard of Oz syndrome: “I am Oz, the great and powerful! Who are you! You dare to question my wisdom, do you, you clinking, clanking, clattering collection of caliginous junk! SILENCE!!!”
Too many people have been silenced, for too long. Dr. Neumann finds the stories of so-called HIV positives thriving without meds “extraordinary,” because such people aren’t supposed to exist. As Celia Farber has written:
“A group of long-term HIV-positive people who have remained healthy while staying off the drugs have organized monthly support meetings in New York. They call their group Living Proof. Most spoke to me of being shunned, professionally persecuted, and raged against when they revealed to friends, family, and colleagues they did not think HIV would kill them.
‘It’s like being a ghost,’ one man said, 10 years positive and healthy, as we sat in a park in Chelsea, where nobody could hear the conversation. ‘We don’t officially exist. Nobody can see us or hear us. We make [the AIDS establishment] furious. We make our own loved ones furious. In the end, you learn not to talk about it.’”

Posted by Laura Ogar on 12/26/2008 @ 10:45AM PST
Report

Barnes – focus on the statement that Gallo crossed out. What does it say? Repeat it to yourself.

You have already received an answer to your comment about Gonda’s letter on this list.

Jennifer Craig

Posted by Jennifer Craig on 12/26/2008 @ 10:45AM PST
Report

Gallo stated a retrovirus from the HTLV family caused AIDS – was he correct, Jennifer? Did the scientific community accept what he said and christen HTLV-III – a putative member of the HTLV family – as the cause of AIDS? If not, why not?
Michael Geiger, can you ask Dr. de Harven if HUT 87 and T17.4 – in which Gonda documented retroviral infection with LAV using his electron microscope – are cord blood cell lines?
Here are some more reasons why Barre-Sinoussi won the Nobel, in case people aren’t familiar with these papers.
JAMA. 1985 Mar 22-29;253(12):1737-9.

Isolation of lymphadenopathy-associated virus (LAV) and detection of LAV antibodies from US patients with AIDS.

Barré-Sinoussi F, Mathur-Wagh U, Rey F, Brun-Vezinet F, Yancovitz SR, Rouzioux C, Montagnier L, Mildvan D, Chermann JC.
A human retrovirus was isolated from the peripheral blood of three American patients newly diagnosed with the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). In each case the major core viral protein (p25) was shown to be antigenically identical to that of the prototype lymphadenopathy-associated virus (LAV). Two of the viral isolates were derived from intravenous narcotics abusers, the first demonstration of LAV isolation from this risk group. Antibody to LAV was detected by an IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in the serum samples of these and 14 additional American patients with AIDS and in none of 12 hospital worker controls. These findings provide support for the etiologic association of LAV and AIDS.

Lancet. 1984 Jun 23;1(8391):1383-5.

Isolation of human T-lymphotropic retrovirus (LAV) from Zairian married couple, one with AIDS, one with prodromes.

Ellrodt A, Barre-Sinoussi F, Le Bras P, Nugeyre MT, Palazzo L, Rey F, Brun-Vezinet F, Rouzioux C, Segond P, Caquet R, et al.
A Zairian married couple had been living in France since 1981. The man had acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and his wife had prodromes of the disorder. Infection with a human T-lymphotropic retrovirus (lymphadenopathy-associated virus) was demonstrated in both by isolation of the virus from their cultured lymphocytes and the detection of specific antibodies in serum samples. Since this virus has been isolated from patients in other AIDS risk categories, the finding of the virus in AIDS patients from the African group adds further support to the hypothesis that this human retrovirus is the AIDS aetiological agent.

Lancet. 1984 Apr 7;1(8380):753-7.

Isolation of new lymphotropic retrovirus from two siblings with haemophilia B, one with AIDS.

Vilmer E, Barre-Sinoussi F, Rouzioux C, Gazengel C, Brun FV, Dauguet C, Fischer A, Manigne P, Chermann JC, Griscelli C, et al.
A human T-lymphotropic retrovirus was isolated from cultured T lymphocytes from two siblings with haemophilia B. Patient 2 was healthy, but patient 1 had acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. The retrovirus differed from human T-cell leukaemia virus (HTLV) but it was similar to the lymphadenopathy-associated retrovirus (LAV) in its morphology and its major core protein (P25). Both patients had antibodies against LAV and patient 1’s retrovirus, detected by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay or a radioimmunoprecipitation assay. Seroepidemiological data indicated the transmission of this retrovirus by plasma products.

Princess Takamatsu Symp. 1984;15:319-31.

Lymphadenopathy associated virus and its etiological role in AIDS.

Montagnier L, Chermann JC, Barré-Sinoussi F, Klatzmann D, Wain-Hobson S, Alizon M, Clavel F, Brun-Vezinet F, Vilmer E, Rouzioux C, et al.

Lymphadenopathy associated virus (LAV) is a novel human retrovirus first reported in 1983. It was isolated from the lymph node lymphocytes of a French homosexual patient with generalized hyperplasic lymphadenopathy. Subsequently LAV was isolated from patients with frank acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) coming from all the different high-risk groups, while anti-LAV antibodies were detected equally in individuals from all “at-risk” groups. Such a profile is consistent with the virus being the major etiological agent of AIDS. Furthermore its biological properties, namely its cytopathic effect in vitro, its T4-cell tropism as well as the role of the T4 molecule in virus infection explain, at least in part, the pathophysiology of AIDS. The major core (gag) proteins are p18, p25, and p13 which are products of a Pr55 precursor. The major envelope (env) glycoprotein is unusually large (gp110) for a retrovirus and comparable to those of the lentiviruses. Recently the virus has been molecularly cloned. The genome is 9.2 kb long, longer than any other known replication competent retrovirus apart from the lentiviruses. The absence of molecular hybridization between cloned LAV and human T-cell leukemia/lymphoma virus (HTLV) genomes compounds the original and extensive differences noted between these viruses and demonstrates that LAV is a prototype of a new class of human retrovirus.

Antibiot Chemother. 1983;32:48-53.

Isolation of a new retrovirus in a patient at risk for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.

Chermann JC, Barré-Sinoussi F, Dauguet C, Brun-Vezinet F, Rouzioux C, Rozenbaum W, Montagnier L.

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/26/2008 @ 11:22AM PST
Report

And Jennifer, can you point out the “answer” to my comment about Gonda’s identification of LAV? Are you telling me that the same people who used Gonda’s statements about “cellular debris” as a basis for asking that the Science papers be retracted do not trust Gonda’s skills as an electron microscopist? If so, why are they citing his letter? it’s also worth noting that Janine Roberts nor anyone else actually knows which micrographs Gonda is referring to in his debris letter, Janine and everyone else just ASSUMES that it refers to published micrographs (which it doesn’t).

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/26/2008 @ 11:28AM PST
Report

Dear “Hankie”, I don’t need to ask de Harven if HUT 87 and T17.4 – in which Gonda documented retroviral infection with LAV using his electron microscope – are cord blood cell lines?
Why, do I not need to, Hank?

Because I am already well aware that what was found in hut 87 and t17.4 had originated from endogenous retroviruses that were ORIGINALLY cultured ONLY IN cord blood which is well known since 1979 to naturally harbor many different endogenous and harmless retroviruses.
These were NEVER found to be isolated from any aids patients peripheral blood. Why? Because they WERE NOT THERE. They were only cultivated in cord blood.

Posted by Michael Geiger on 12/26/2008 @ 11:31AM PST
Report

Dear Mr. Geiger:
Endogenous retroviruses cannot be transmitted to, and productively infect, HUT 78 and T17.4 cell lines.
Ask Dr. de Harven.

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/26/2008 @ 11:36AM PST
Report

Well, I’ve just browsed through the above posts quite quickly, but I want to add my voice to those reporting being HIV+, alive & well without the interventions of doctors. I was diagnosed in 2000, have never taken any ARV’s, & have absolutely no health problems.
I have done a lot of careful reading on the subject, & am convinced HIV is a terrible mistake – but there are too many vested interests involved now.
I would be amazed, & very, very impressed, should the Obama Administration really take a serious look at this, with fresh eyes, free of lobbyists’ arm-twisting.
www.letterstotheempire.com

Posted by Jason Hart on 12/26/2008 @ 11:39AM PST
Report

Nice try, Hank, but wrong again:

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5122468.html

HUT 78 was infected by “HTLV-III”, which was proven to have been Montagniers LAV, which was cultured ONLY IN CORD BLOOD.
HUt-78 cell lines infected with HTLV-III which secrete gp160
Document Type and Number:United States Patent 5122468

Abstract:Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) glycoprotein gp160 is produced in its native form using a clone of HUT78 cells chronically infected with HTLV-III451, known as 6D5451, and grown in serum-free medium.

Posted by Michael Geiger on 12/26/2008 @ 11:47AM PST
Report

“Hank”,
You have been a very staunch opponent of this idea and in effect you seem to be trying to initiate the debate here of the very question that Martin Barnes has proposed. It behooves you to reveal your identity and credentials to help all of us reading these posts determine your credibility.
I am not having the same trouble identifying most of those posting in support.
I’m Jon Barnett, a survivor of AIDS myths for more than two decades. Who are you?

Posted by Jon Barnett on 12/26/2008 @ 11:51AM PST
Report

Right on Jason! You said: “I have done a lot of careful reading on the subject, & am convinced HIV is a terrible mistake – but there are too many vested interests involved now”.
And the guy posting here as “Hank” is obviously one of those “vested interests”.

Posted by Michael Geiger on 12/26/2008 @ 11:52AM PST
Report

Mr Geiger, endogenous retroviruses cannot productively infect cell lines. Your argument is that Gonda saw productive infection with an endogenous retrovirus in HUT 78 and T17.4, and that that endogenous retrovirus was transmitted to those cell lines from cord blood.

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/26/2008 @ 11:57AM PST
Report

Mr Geiger, endogenous retroviruses cannot productively infect cell lines.

Why don’t you tell that to Gallo and Gonda, who seem to believe HUT 78 had been successfully infected with htlv-iii?

By the way, HUT 78 originated from someone with Sezary syndrome. Who knows what reactions you could get out of it by cultivating and stressing it in vitro?

http://www.biotech.ist.unige.it/cldb/cl1779.html

Posted by Michael Geiger on 12/26/2008 @ 12:02PM PST
Report

HUT-78 (human, peripheral blood, lymphoma, cutaneous, T cell)
Derived from peripheral blood of a 50 year old male patient with Sezary syndrome. Cells exhibit the features of a mature T cell line with inducer/helper phenotype. Biologically active IL-2 can be eluted from the cell surface.

ECACC 88041901

Morphology: Lymphoblast

Human T cell lymphoma

Depositor: Dr G Farrar, PHLS CAMR, Porton Down, Salisbury, USA

No restrictions. Patent: None Specified By Depositor

Properties: Products: Interleukin 2 (IL-2)

Available in the following LABORATORY:

CAMR Centre for Applied Microbiology & Research (ECACC, Salisbury, Wiltshire)
RPMI 1640 + 2mM Glutamine + 10% Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS). Maintain cultures between 3-9×100,000 cells/ml; 5% CO2; 37C.

Posted by Michael Geiger on 12/26/2008 @ 12:16PM PST
Report

As public relations chairperson for “Rethinking AIDS” — the only organized, worldwide scientists’ group out there urging a new look at all our assumptions about AIDS research, I vote wholeheartedly for this kind of change. A new era, and a new way of thinking. Haven’t we been living in ’80s paranoia and hysteria long enough?

None of it works scientifically. None of the data supposedly showing that AIDS drugs “extend life” are valid. None of the pivotal research on AIDS is consistent with the past 100 years of virology. See www.rethinkingaids.com to see a request that the medical journal Science withdraw the original 1984 papers “proving” that HIV causes AIDS — or that it was even isolated.

After a year when the rhetorical (”Joe Six Pack” and “Joe the Plumber”) was overtaken by the substantive (specific suggestions for change in America), it’s time we looked at the facts. Instead, I read this little bit of Alice-in-Wonderland:

“. . . people so entrenched in denial that they feel they need to find out the ‘true cause of AIDS’.”

How can a person be “entrenched in denial” while needing to “find out” something? Denial is not wanting to find out. And just which people are “entrenched”? A classic reversal of language in the age of AIDS. Orwellian, as in, Freedom is slavery, slavery is freedom. “Negative” being a positive, “Positive” being negative.

I have never once, in all 16 years of looking into this, “denied” a single fact brought to me with sufficient evidence. And I’m still looking, still listening. After losing several friends to “AIDS,” I’m personally not happy with the scripted answers. Why would anyone be satisfied?

I hope the new political order is listening — or it will show me that it’s just the old political order in new clothes. The last time I checked, during the primaries, Hillary Clinton was the recipient of the largest amount of pharmaceutical money; I wonder if Barack Obama inherited this funding when he accepted the Democratic nomination.

P.S. Thanks to the people I know who have voted and posted here, calmly and rationally. Perhaps you can even take some of these discussions with people here offline somehow. Have a beer or share a phone conversation. I’m seeing a lot of hurt on the other side, in need of healing and reassurance. People with questions can reach me personally at publicrelations@rethinkingaids.com, and if they need to speak with a scientist, doctor or other, I will be happy to connect them.

Posted by Elizabeth Ely on 12/26/2008 @ 12:21PM PST
Report

HUT 78 as a “clean T-cell line that was supposedly “infected by” and as a source of active HIV infection is a FRAUD. What part of that do YOU not understand Hank???

Posted by Michael Geiger on 12/26/2008 @ 12:22PM PST
Report

Is it now your argument is that Matthew Gonda mistakenly saw a productive retroviral infection in the HUT 78 line with LAV? It was “stressors” that didn’t show up with the other samples (also in HUT 78)? Or are you still saying he documented the first ever productive infection with an endogenous retrovirus that was somehow transmitted from cord blood? LAV has been sequenced btw, it’s not an endogenous retrovirus. Contrary to Gallo’s arguments in those Science papers, it is also not a member of the HTLV family.

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/26/2008 @ 12:29PM PST
Report

Below are the names of ten of my family and friends who cannot support this idea personally because they all took Hank’s wonder drugs and were killed by the resultant toxicity:

John Wilson
Anthony Baptist
Michael Blanc
David Sharp
Johnny Guittierez
Juan Rodriguez
Nicky Neuman
Mark Chaney
Donald Jones
Kenny Higgs

Given more time to reflect I would remember many others and I’ve no doubts they all wish they could reconsider, but Hank & Company don’t believe they deserve any benefit of doubt.

I’m still waiting for you to publicly post your creds, Hank.

Posted by Jon Barnett on 12/26/2008 @ 12:36PM PST
Report

Hank, I have no idea what Gonda saw in HUT 78 lymphoma, nor do I know if there was lab contaminations or artefacts. After all, the experiments were NEVER reproduced with sera from any other aids patients.
And furthermore, where is the evidence that whatever hut 78 is, it is the actual cause of aids? After all, not a single chimp, who by the way DO get EVERY OTHER HUMAN ILLNESS, not a single one ever came down with AIDS after injection by HUT-78.
Why has whatever is seen in HUT-78 after being “infected” by LAV, not been seen via EM from the peripheral blood of even a single deathly sick so-called hiv positive person?
And furthermore, where is the evidence, with any high degree of probability at all, of any such retrovirus actually causing aids?
If you want to claim that a retrovirus is the cause of aids, then how about coming up with some serious evidence, as all we have to rely upon is Gallo’s original “doctored” and never reproduced works.

Posted by Michael Geiger on 12/26/2008 @ 12:41PM PST
Report

By the way, Hank, can you explain to us all why Gonda was unable to see any virus in the samples from RF, a Haitian immigrant supposedly dying of aids.
As far as Gonda recalls his choice of pictures, he said, and I quote: “I selected the photographs, but I didn’t know what the samples were. The pictures were brought out and I said “Take that one and that one, and that one”. (From an interview with John Crewdson, and printed in his book “Science Fictions” Page 124.
Very scientific, Frank, Don’t you agree?

Posted by Michael Geiger on 12/26/2008 @ 01:00PM PST
Report

And it is because of all of this LACK OF CLARITY in the foundational science papers that are underlying the belief that a retrovirus is the cause of aids, that FULLY DEMANDS THAT THIS ENTIRE ISSUE BE INVESTIGATED AGAIN, which is EXACTLY what this entire Change.org plea is all about!

Posted by Michael Geiger on 12/26/2008 @ 01:04PM PST
Report

Stop the HIV-AIDS fraud so innocent people no longer have to die and famlies do not have to suffer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Michael Rivera on 12/26/2008 @ 01:53PM PST
Report

That HIV causes AIDS has not been proven.All HIV/AIDS researchers should read the statements made by many of the world’s most distinguished scientists questioning the validity of the HIV causes AIDS theory. Some of these statements can be found at: http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/controversy.htmAt the above site, Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist, 1993 Nobel Prize winner for Chemistry is quoted:“If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with high probability. There is no such document.”Also at the above site, Dr. Etienne de Harven, Emeritus Professor of Pathology, at the University of Toronto encapsulates in his quote what is often said/implied by many of the other distinguished scientists:“Dominated by the media, by special pressure groups and by the interest of several pharmaceutical companies, the AIDS establishment efforts to control the disease lost contact with open-minded, peer-reviewed medical science since the unproven HIV/AIDS hypothesis received 100% of the research funds while all other hypotheses were ignored.”With so many illustrious scientists questioning the validity of the HIV causes AIDS theory and insisting there is too much dissemination of misinformation the time has come for a revaluation of the theory and for an investigation into those whose motive for defending the theory is suspect.

Posted by clive symthe on 12/26/2008 @ 03:06PM PST
Report

Derek Neumann wrote: “Gos, as I expected, you now start piling on the preconditions before you will consider any studies that may fulfil[sic] your requirements. What next, only papers whoes[sic] authors[sic] names begin with Z?”

You yourself, Derek Neumann, in a post dated 12/24/2008, stipulated that a study must be large to be relevant. Here’s a quote: “It requires large trials to truly independently determine what the facts are…”

The scientific method requires controlled experimentation — I didn’t make that rule up.

Common sense dictates that if you want to know the long-term results of ARV therapy, you need a long-term study.

As for the issue of funding, I don’t think anyone here wants to read a self-serving, bought-and-paid-for article pfinanced by the pfabulous pfarmaceutical company with the pfunny name.

So complain about the preconditions all you want, it won’t win you any points in this argument, and it will make you appear unwilling to provide proof of your claim.

As to the paper you cite, (Jordan, et al, Systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence for increasing numbers of drugs in antiretroviral combination therapy,) that is not a study, it is a meta-study.

For the layman who might read this, what this means is that instead of a single clinical trial, this article deals with a large number of published articles which deal with the results of a large number of clinical trials. Metastudies are advantageous in that they allow us to compile large quantities of data into a single article without having to actually fund a study as large as the cumulative quantities of data would otherwise require. They are also advantageous in that, if properly done, a metastudy can help us to measure the prevailing winds of scientific research.

However, they are not without their disadvantages. For one thing, metastudies tend to magnify the effects of prevailing publication bias (The authors themselves state: “We cannot exclude publication bias”). Another weakness is that the articles and studies included must be selected by the researchers, leaving wide open the possibility of selection bias.

In the context of the clinical trial of drugs which might potentially be fatal, metastudies also tend to magnify the inherent tendency of such studies to underestimate drug-induced deaths, due to the fact that many subjects who might otherwise have died if the drugs were continued, instead opt to discontinue the drugs and drop out of the study. Thus, instead of being reported as deaths, these cases are reported as withdrawals (if at all).

Now, in the case of this particular metastudy, it does not meet the requirements necessary to substantiate your claim:

Pfunny money:

Given that this article deals with 90 published articles dealing with 54 clinical trials, it is almost an absolute certainty that some of the studies in question were funded by the manufacturers of the drugs being tested.

Given that the vast majority of drug trials are funded by pharmaceutical companies, it is probable that the majority of the articles and studies cited in Jordan et al were funded by pharmaceutical companies.

Indeed, the authors themselves say that many of the articles included in the metastudy were the result of soliciting recommendations from drug manufacturers. (See: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7340/757#SEC2)

You cannot claim that this article is uncorrupted by pharma influence, therefore it does not meet requirement #4.

Not a long-term study:

None of the included studes lasted as long as 5 years, and some lasted as little as 3 months. (See: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7340/757#SEC3)

Not a large study:

Several large studies are included, but of the 40 articles which actually compared disease progression or death (the only clinical endpoints relevant to your claim,) nearly half (19) contained fewer than 100 subjects in one or both arms of the study, and of the clinical trials cited, only a sixth had more than 300 subjects in one or both arms of the study. Given that the median study arm size was roughly 500, only five of the studies cited had 500 or more subjects in one or both arms, while the rest (which make up the vast majority) were smaller than the median.

This metastudy has been stacked with an inordinate number of small studies (in which the influence of publication bias, the statistical noise floor, selective interpretation of data, and other factors would have the maximum impact.)

While it does contain a few (very few) large studies, it is overwhelmingly weighted towards studies that are too small to be relevant. As such, it in no way qualifies as a surrogate for a large study.

Only marginally a controlled study:

There is no comparison of placebo to the triple-drug cocktail therapy which is the current standard of treatment. The only placebo comparison given is the comparison of placebo vs monotherapy.

Of the studies cited, the largest study (Concorde) shows the weakest favoritism towards monotherapy, and the strongest “evidence” in favor of monotherapy comes from one of the smallest studies (Kinloch-de-Loes).

Given the possibility of selection bias, and the fact that we’ve already demonstrated that this metastudy has been weighted with small, irrelevant studies, selection bias cannot be excluded, and is in fact suggested by the selection of the studies included.

Looking at the cumulative totals, we find that the given risk of death or disease progression is only reduced by six percentage points. Now, one might be tempted to say, “Well, at least that’s favorable,” but six percentage points is a tiny margin, and we still haven’t deducted for publication bias, selection bias, or patients who withdrew from the study due to adverse drug reactions, who would certainly have experienced disease and might even have died, and would therefore have resulted in very different study outcomes if they’d remained in the study. It is plain to see that if we deducted for these factors, that tiny six-point margin would evaporate, and it’s not at all unlikely that it would swing the balance in the other direction.

Conclusion:

This metastudy meets none of the requirements to substantiate your claim that the benefits of triple-ARV therapy outweigh the inherent risks. It is not a large study, nor is it an acceptable surrogate for a large study. It is not a long-term study, and none of the studies included lasted longer than 5 years, and most lasted only a few months. It is not a controlled study, (though it does include a few placebo-controlled studies which compare monotherapy to placebo.) There is every indication that at least some, and possibly most or all of the studies included were funded by pharmaceutical companies.

And at the end of all of this, the supposed “benefit” of monotherapy over placebo is so small as to be easily countered if we deducted for publication bias, selection bias, and the early withdrawal of patients who experienced severe adverse drug reactions.

I really should call this “strike three”, but you wasted your first two strikes refusing to swing at good pitches, and I really really want to give you every opportunity to hit this one out of the ballpark if you can, so instead I’m gonna say you “tipped” the ball this time, making it a foul instead of a strike, so that you can have one more chance.

This metastudy lists 90 articles pertaining to 54 clinical trials. Which makes it a pretty good starting point — out of the articles and studies cited, can you find even one that is free of pharma influence, which is a large, long-term study, and which gives a controlled comparison of patients not on ARVs to patients using the therapy you recommend, which supports your claim that the therapy you recommend are better than no ARV therapy at all, in terms of preventing disease and/or death?

For that matter, there’s no need to limit yourself to just the articles and studies cited in this article — can you find such a study anywhere?

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/26/2008 @ 06:57PM PST
Report

Immune Recovery Syndrome is acknowledgement by the HIV industry that the ARVs cause a whole host of detrimental effects that do not fit under the ever expanding banner of HIV-indicative diseases. There is nothing occuring in an HIV positive person that is not attributable to HIV, in journals it seems if a condition is observed in 2 (-JCAT)persons who are positive means it becomes an HIV defining illness. The lack of thorough medical diagnostics tolerated in this industry is equalled only by the single minded intesity of effort to ensure a patient is adhereing correctly to their medicine (ARVs) even as they record eloquently the fallout (IRS). Surely even one with cancer of the throat can expect a diagnosis of tonsilitis if the two should occur together? This patient should expect a prescription of antibiotics, rather than nonsense insistence that chemo will make it all go away. This is the daily life of an HIV patient and this is the cummulative neglect that causes health issues that are initially controllable to decline into very unpleasant conditions. This applies equally to Africans with TB, malaria and gastric issues or malnutrition as it does to Westerners. HIV practice and policy perpetuates illness in all victims to support the existance of a virus that exists only in a test patented by its founder and ‘discoverer’ Gallo. Some impropriety has taken place, if only a conflict of interest. Either way a major investigation is in order, and some independent rediscovery of the virus in carriers and investigation of progression in ‘treatment niave’ patients. This cant be difficult where viral load tests routinely indicate millions of viral particles in the blood of victims. To deny illness is to deny mortality but HIV cannot cause all disease and all death and evidence in the bulging population of epicentre nations defies the entire hypothesis. AIDs is death by drugs or death by original diseases- untreated though having been settled upto a 100yrs ago- where funding should be focused. This is a flaw on modern times, a primitive system amidst advancement in every endeavor. 30yrs is long enough for this injustice to persist. The fact that immune count rebounds have no correlation on the clinical condition or longevity makes one wonder if any objectivity has ever been applied to the treatment problem. All while tratment is based entirely on lab results and triage kept to a minimum. Death is still expected to the point that life conditions of the victims are not considered at all as their persistent illness gratifies the system, each is a subject in a great experiment to see what will happen next. Discomfort is par for the course, complaint ignored and reports of recovery exxagerated.

Posted by Star Zwan on 12/26/2008 @ 08:52PM PST
Report

It’s a little hard to read all that the way it appears here Bob Bolgger. Maybe if you could just cite the source and say why it’s relevant then people could decide whether or not they’ll read it.

I guess you’re trying to say that no change is needed because the evidence seems strong enough to you? What do you think about what has been said here then? Irrelevant?

Posted by Sadun Kal on 12/26/2008 @ 09:00PM PST
Report

Derek,

There is one other aspect of the study that you cited, which I considered including in my reply to that study, but decided against it, because there is not enough data included in the article for me to determine whether what I’m about to say is relevant in the case of this particular article.

However, I noticed that this article used a tactic that I’ve seen elsewhere, and where enough data is supplied to differentiate between death and progression figures, it appears that it is often used to mask the fact that there are usually more deaths in the drug arm of any controlled study.

The tactic to which I am referring is the tactic of lumping mortality and “progression” instances together in a single colum, and including in the definition of “progression” (this article refers to it as “progression of disease”, and some other articles call it “progression to AIDS”,) the use of CD4 and viral load surrogate markers to pad the number of subjects said to have “progressed” in the placebo column, in order to hide whether or not there were actually more deaths in the drug arm.

I cannot say whether the figures were lumped into a single column in order to hide larger death figures in the drug arm, so I didn’t include it in my reply to that article, but I have seen other studies in which this was exactly why the two outcomes were lumped together.

There’s really no reason why the “death or progression” column can’t be split into two columns: “Death” and “Progression”. What would it take — maybe 64/1,000ths of a percent more ink to print the article?

Derek, I don’t think you would object if I stipulate that those who take ARVs will generally tend to have higher CD4 counts and lower viral loads, will you? Is that one thing we can agree on?

So, when this surrogate endpoint is included in our definition of “progression”, you would naturally expect to see more of the subjects in the placebo arm than in the drug arm of the study, right? After all, if lower CD4 counts and/or higher viral loads (regardless of whether there’s any actual illness present,) help to determine whether one is included in the “death or progression” column, then we’d expect to see more nonusers of ARVs reported as “progression” cases, because they have lower CD4 counts and higher viral loads, on average, than ARV users.

Because the placebo column is thus inflated by the inclusion of patients who neither died nor became ill, but who merely had low CD4s or high VLs, there is that much more room in the drug arm column of “death or progression” to hide greater numbers of deaths on that side. Thus, it is possible, by combining “progression” and “death” statistics, to hide a greater number of drug-induced deaths, thus making it appear that the drugs are safer than no drugs, even if more of the patients in the drug arm actually died than in the placebo group.

Again, I cannot say whether that’s what was done in the case of this particular article, because not enough info is supplied by the authors — however, I have seen it done elsewhere, and where the reason for combining the two columns is in any way apparent, it’s typically apparently done to hide the fact that typically, more ARV users die than non-users.

This, in fact, is actually the real reason that the disclaimers are included in the drug literature, though I do agree with you that the disclaimers serve the purpose of preventing the manufacturers from being sued.

Let’s face it, if there were a single shred of unquestionable scientific proof that these drugs caused people to live healthier or longer lives, the pharmaceutical companies would be shouting it from the rooftops, and if they wanted to protect themselves from lawsuit, they’d simply cite the literature relevant to the claim.

Instead, they hide drug-induced deaths in a “death or progression” column, and cover their butts with a disclaimer in the drug literature. Thus, they maintain plausible deniability — “Honest, Your Honor, we had no idea that the drugs were killing people! Look at all the scientific research (that we paid for) that says that the drugs will prevent aidsordeath! How were we to know that by preventing aidsordeath, they’d actually cause more deaths?”

Does this mean that I can say for sure that the “aidsordeath” column hides a greater number of deaths on the monotherapy side than in the placebo arm in this particular study? No, and that’s why I didn’t include it in my reply. However, if you can think of any reasonable explanation that doesn’t involve hiding deaths, for combining “AIDS” and “death” statistics into a single figure rather than presenting them individually, I shall accept your explanation as fact on the spot, no questions asked.

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/26/2008 @ 09:46PM PST
Report

Sadun Kal wrote: “It’s a little hard to read all that the way it appears here Bob Bolgger.”

Sadun,

“Bob” has copied/pasted copious amounts of irrelevant text into this discussion in order to derail it — its a common tactic of the orthodoxy: If you’re losing the debate, turn on the hacker attacks (in this case, scrolling). This isn’t the first time I’ve seen them do things like this. You should see the denial-of-service attack they launched a couple of years ago on Yahoo. To this day I have not been able to unfreeze my website.

I’d recommend that you use the “report” links just under “Bob’s” posts.

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/26/2008 @ 09:54PM PST
Report

Will all parties interested in further discussion of this issue please use the “Report” links to report the 3 “Bob Bolger” posts as spamming the thread to shut down discussion.

Posted by Michael Geiger on 12/26/2008 @ 10:11PM PST
Report

Does this idea put forward a testable theory?

Posted by K T on 12/27/2008 @ 12:22AM PST
Report

I wonder why Hank Barnes et al. are fighting here against a proper investigation. If they where right this would silence down dissenters for ever….

Posted by Stefan Risch on 12/27/2008 @ 02:06AM PST
Report

This has to be the #1 issue by far if only people would look at it. There are so many videos at youtube now and also the films at google video for free: AIDS INC. – The Other Side of AIDS – HIV FACT OR FRAUD – this issue has truly become global with my channel – www.youtube.com/hivquestions – where i have literally contacted thousands of people all around the world including many well known celebrities. those that have declined my friend invites have been all the local news affilliate youtube channels here in america. it really is odd to me. it was important for me to include the ‘healing alternatives’ playlist at my channel because i understand what this realization is like from my first hand experience going through this less than 2 years ago. i feel that it is important to provide hope to those who feel lost and rejected on so many levels. but most importantly we must investigate this matter for future generations so that they will never have to endure what i have gone through with 11 years of hiv drugs that i never needed to take. drugs that gave me seizures, neuropathy, diahrea, rashes, night sweats, vomitting, blurred vision, headaches and always kept me homebound. it is so painful to recall and lately i noticed that i have begun to block the memories from my mind. i wrote in my journals every few days about my life for the past 15 years, so i have a good record of it all. this is so painful i cannot even explain it in words. i watched so many friends die and now i clearly see it was the hiv drugs and not a deadly virus.

Posted by Gregory Smiley on 12/27/2008 @ 02:56AM PST
Report

All of Bolgger’s posts rest on the assumption that there exists an HIV virus. As there is no proof of its existence then the posts are nonsensical.

Jennifer Craig

Posted by Jennifer Craig on 12/27/2008 @ 05:28AM PST
Report

Is Jennifer’s view the one implied by this Idea? Simply that the HIV virus does not exist?

Posted by K T on 12/27/2008 @ 09:20AM PST
Report

KT – please quote a paper that shows the isolation techniques and electron microscopy of HIV.

Jennifer Craig

Posted by Jennifer Craig on 12/27/2008 @ 09:26AM PST
Report

Jennifer, I believe KT is new to this issue and simply asking for clarification. KT, some people (most notable Dr. Peter Duesberg) believe that HIV exists, but is a harmless passenger virus; others (most notably The Perth Group) hold that it has never been proven to exist (which doesn’t automatically mean it doesn’t). “Taking a new look at AIDS” would consist, on one hand, determining if “HIV” can be isolated according to the standards of classical virology, and on the other, testing alternative theories on the causes of immune deficiency, such as drug use, malnutrition, and blood transfusions.

Posted by Laura Ogar on 12/27/2008 @ 10:18AM PST
Report

I would like to speak up as someone who has also lived with being “diagnosed” and labeled HIV positive and then “diagnosed” with AIDS and the stigma and psychological torture that comes with it.

After repeatedly testing HIV negative for several years, I was “diagnosed” as “HIV positive” in October of 1993 – 15 years ago. Before I was diagnosed as HIV positive, I was with someone who was HIV positive. We were together and had “unsafe sex” for several months before he revealed his “diagnosis” to me. After finding out about his “status” I got tested again and it came back negative. We ended up staying together and my test results always came back negative for the next 5 years though we never really made an effort to have have strictly “safe” sex. (We are no longer together but he is still alive having lived with HIV for over 20 years – I’m in the process of checking to see what has been happening with him as a couple of years ago he did have a massive heart attack and I don’t know if he was on the drugs.)

Then one day I had a case of swollen lymph nodes behind my ears and decided to get tested again. This time the test came back positive. I wasn’t feeling sick, I just had swollen lymph nodes. Though I thought I would be prepared should this happen – I certainly wasn’t. I was actually devastated by the news. I went into a deep depression for several months. But I managed to keep going somehow.

For about seven years I continued to go and have my blood work evaluated, but did not go on any medications because all of my other blood work always came back “normal”. I had a “normal tcell count” and “undetectable viral load”. I now feel very lucky that I was dealing with people at the time who did not pressure me to go an any medications. I really believe I would be dead now because of them if I had. I believe a lot of people are dead strictly due to prescribed pharmaceutical drugs.

Then several years ago, during a VERY stressful time in my life, (I was alone and practically living out of my car and suffering from severe depression), my blood work came back showing a decrease in the area of tcells and an increase in viral load. So, I decided, after some encouragement from the clinic “doctors”, to join an HIV drug study and see what would happen.

Though I had not had any significant illnesses in all this time I started experiencing constant nausea, diarrhea, fatigue, etc. Of course, I found out later that I was on the real drug and not the placebo. My blood work did “turn around” though and I stayed with drugs and the nasty side effects for nearly two years. We are always sold the idea of “trade off”… Suffer the side effects and live longer or don’t take the meds and die a horrible death much sooner. Choose.

Then my “doctor” suggested a med holiday because my “numbers” were doing so good. This was back when they were recommending regular stops in treatment – I don’t believe they do that much anymore. I did fine for some time and then it was decided that I should go back on the meds because they had decided the “med breaks” were not a good idea and the idea of hitting hard and hitting fast and nonstop came about.

I went along with what they were telling me, trusting that they knew what they were talking about (all that technical stuff was too much for me to understand so I put myself in the hands of the “experts”). This last time around was worse than the first. I was put on a different “cocktail” and I started turning yellow and started losing muscle mass and gaining fat in my stomach, chest and back. I felt nauseous and fatigued all the time so I decided to do some research that I should have been responsible for doing years before.

I had heard way back during the beginning of the HIV/AIDS thing that there were some who believed that HIV was not the cause of AIDS and I thought that was the most ridiculous thing I had ever heard. Of course HIV caused AIDS. “They” wouldn’t lie about a thing like that and cause so many people so much pain and grief. Why would they do that? It was tantamount to saying that AIDS didn’t exist and with all those people dying it was just stupid to say so. At the time I was very naive about such things and it just didn’t make sense that there were companies and doctors out there that would have no qualms of hurting people (even killing them) for profit, power and status.

Well during my research I came across this idea again and decided to hold my “beliefs” in check and look further into the ideas being presented.

I cannot begin to describe the emotional pain, the anger, the sadness, and more that I felt when I opened my mind and educated myself. I realized what I had allowed myself to be put through because I trusted the scientists and the medical profession to be doing the right thing. What I felt in response to this revelation was almost worse than what I had been through when I believed that I was dying of an incurable disease. You know, life happens and people get sick. As hard as it might be, I could accept that. But, to find out that I had put myself through years of horror because of lies, greed and some very evil psychopaths (Gallo, et al), well the emotional pain was severe. I felt like I had just found out that I was nearly the victim of a murder. It was very overwhelming.

I stopped all medications about a year and a half ago (including those nasty antidepressants and anxiety medications too) and my health is returning and I hope there has not been any permanent damage. It is very difficult to get past the “nocebo” effect of the “numbers” they love to scare you with, but I absolutely believe that I am doing the right thing. I still get my blood work done because I’ve wanted to be right in the big middle of it as I continue to do just fine without their lousy toxic drugs (poison) and I want to see if there are any changes being affected by the use of certain supplements (I’m not sure I’ll be doing this much longer as it can be way too stressful). I hate that my going to this HIV clinic actually gains them financial support and they really hate it that I am not doing the drugs, but I’m sticking to my guns. I find it very interesting that I’ve been seeing these people at this clinic for several years and as long as I did what they told me to do they didn’t really notice me much. But, now that I’ve gone off the meds and refuse even a flu shot they are soooo personally concerned about me and my health. The response I get from them now is personal… like I’m somehow taking money directly from their pockets… hmmm.

I went to get my latest test results just a few days ago. I’m sitting in the exam room waiting when the “nurse practitioner” comes in with a grim look of feigned concern and asks “Well, how are you doing?” with that confident attitude that I’m going to say that I’m feeling really lousy and I’ve been sick. Then there is the blank look that comes over her face when I say that I’m doing just fine. No problems except an allergic reaction to taking some supplement causing a rash on my skin. She again tries to convince me that I should be sick and ready for death by telling me that I only have 78 tcells. Again another blank look and the question “You’re not budging are you?” in response to my smile and simple response of “ok”. I just wanted to get a copy of my blood work for my records and leave. She wanted me to give her some arbitrary threshold at which I would “give in” and take the “meds”. I said I had no such threshold. I, at this time, have no intentions of taking any pharmaceutical drugs, prescribed or otherwise. She wants me to be on bactrim. I’ve researched bactrim. I see absolutely no reason to go on any highly toxic chemicals when I am perfectly healthy. The 3 minute visit ends with “Well, all I can do is finish with ‘my speech’ to please, please go on the medications.”

BTW, she was recovering from a cold. I haven’t had a cold or flu in over five years. I have never had any extraordinary illnesses at all during the entire 15 years of living with this “diagnosis”, though I’ve watched a lot of so-called “HIV negatives” around me routinely fighting colds and flus and such. One thing about being diagnosed as HIV positive is that it tends to make one take better care of themselves and you end up being healthier than those around you. It would seem that since I’m supposedly living with some kind of depressed immune system that I would be the one always getting sick. To believe what I had been told in the beginning… I should be dead right now not healthier than the people “treating” me. hmmmm

I think it’s all about the bottom line. MONEY. It’s also about power, control, sociopathic/psychopathic personalities, greed, and yes I do believe that somewhere at the top it’s about population control and genocide. Because there are people working in the mainstream HIV/AIDS field who know truth but continue supporting the lie anyway. The people at the top of these gargantuan industries are filthy rich, greedy, psychopaths without conscience or care for what they are doing to millions of people with their desperate grasping for ever more power, control and money.

I’m going to be adding more details and depth to my story above and submitting it to a couple of places.

http://www.livingwithouthivdrugs.com/
http://www.robertogiraldo.com/eng/book_help.html

Though it takes some time and effort, I encourage everyone who is reading this who has been stigmatized with an HIV or AIDS diagnosis and is living a healthy life without the drugs (the longer the better) to get their story down in writing and get out in front of people. We are living proof of what the dissident movement is all about. We can make it harder and harder for the HIV=AIDS apologists to keep up with their lies in the face of such obvious contradictions. Most of us have already been very “educated” on the mainstream view of HIV and AIDS (at least in a shallow surface way) and now we must become even more educated on the suppressed information that reveals a very different picture of the HIV/AIDS “construct”. We need healthy, educated, living proof to stop this madness. Everyone deserves to know the whole picture before making decisions about life an death situations. It takes research and critical thinking (for a lot of people this has been programmed and drugged out of them and takes some effort). Question everything.

I’ve found the following additional sites to be very helpful:

http://www.helpforhiv.com
http://www.aliveandwell.org
http://www.howpositiveareyou.com
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/video/
http://www.rethinkingaids.com
http://exlibhollywood.blogspot.com/2008/07/gallos-egg.html
http://www.fearoftheinvisible.com
http://www.aidsmythexposed.com

There are lots more links contained in the sites linked above. It can be overwhelming, but don’t give up.

I’m updating my site, but here’s a page at:
http://www.thereikimatrix.com/HIVAIDS/index.htm

Posted by David Collins on 12/27/2008 @ 11:05AM PST
Report

David Collins:

Sincerest best wishes for continued good health.

Re Bactrim: I’m not in a “risk group”. Never been told of HIV status, but I suspect negative because I’ve had several operations and given my “informed consent” to be tested. I was on Bactrim several times over the course of a year or two, because of prostate infection, and each time within a couple of weeks I got thrush, oral or penile.

Posted by Henry Bauer on 12/27/2008 @ 11:21AM PST
Report

Thank you Dr. Bauer!

BTW, this is another good site for some truth:
http://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/

And the book:
The Origins, Persistence, and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory
http://www.failingsofhivaidstheory.homestead.com/

: )

Posted by David Collins on 12/27/2008 @ 11:50AM PST
Report

I don’t think “population control” or “genocide” are part of the mix (too conspiracy-minded for me, thanks); rather I think Christine Maggiore put it quite well when she attributed the origins of the HIV=AIDS paradigm to “the unfortunate outcome of a desperate desire for medical answers that coincided with political concerns, research funding needs and drug company interests … influenced by widespread fear, an uncritical media and a new and powerful type of activism.”

But at the heart of the fiasco is the shocking erosion of scientific standards and critical thinking which infects all government-based, pharma-funded research, and the complete lack of ability to perceive the observational bias which stems from obvious conflicts of interest, or even acknowledge that it might exist.

I’ve often seen HIV-defenders accuse skeptics of raising the bar too high, when all that is being asked for is a return to the classical scientific method, as opposed to the shoddy, tunnel-vision “research” which has become the norm. But so widespread is the acceptance of this way of doing things that insisting on such obvious basics as controls and lack of financial interests is considered as silly as accepting only papers whose authors’ names begin with Z …

For more on the ineptness and corruption endemic to HIV research, I recommend Rebecca Culshaw’s book “Science Sold Out.”

Posted by Laura Ogar on 12/27/2008 @ 12:02PM PST
Report

Thank you Laura – I do think it is unfortunate that the term “conspiracy” and “conspiracy theory” have been mutated to mean that someone is a loony. Conspiracies do happen, have happened and will continue to happen. Making “conspiracy” a dirty word effectively keeps people from seriously looking into certain issues in this world… Even if there is a nasty conspiracy happening right in your face. For most people, saying that HIV is a scam lables them as a conspiracy theorist (nut) and shouldn’t be listened to. Very effective. Change the definition of terms and you change the whole perspective on a subject.

I find it amazing how “kind” Christine is (giving the benefit of the doubt to certain people) after what she has been through… more power to her! She obviously does not want to become labeled as a conspiracy theorist. I really don’t care myself. I call it as I see it and reserve the right to change my mind upon the introduction of further information.

Posted by David Collins on 12/27/2008 @ 12:33PM PST
Report

HIV / Aids isn’t a conspiracy; yes, there are countless individuals who in some way or another have sold their intellectual integrity for their place on the HIV food chain, but overall, it’s a headless monster, whose left hand doesn’t know what its right hand is doing…
http://letterstotheempire.com

Posted by Jason Hart on 12/27/2008 @ 01:42PM PST
Report

David: About conspiracies, I agree that flinging the “c” word at a person or idea has become a cheap-and-dirty way of discrediting them and shutting down discussion.

But, to appropriate Spinal Tap, I think that sometimes it’s a fine line between stupid and evil (although I know which half of the line I’d put Robert Gallo on). As Albert Einstein said, “Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not so sure about the universe.”

Posted by Laura Ogar on 12/27/2008 @ 02:46PM PST
Report

What is the psychology behind Bob Bolgger AKA Seth Kalichman’s pathetic spamming attempts with dreary passages from his nonentity of a book? Is it a blatant attempt to increase disappointing book sales or a disingenuous attempt to have this thread shut down, thereby avoiding any real debate in the most cowardly manner possible?
Why the anonymity Seth if you’re posting your own soporific scribblings here? What does this kind of immature, “addicted child” behaviour demonstrate about your own psychopathology?
As others have rightly pointed out, if the High Church of AIDS is set on such solid scientific foundations why the refusal, obfuscation and hysteria when it is suggested independent powers inspect said foundations? Well “Gallo Golem” Kalichman – run and hide because any day now someone’s going to wipe the “E” off the “Emet” on your ample forehead, and you like your precious, genocidal theory will crumble into dust.

Posted by Cathy Thompson on 12/27/2008 @ 02:49PM PST
Report

I’m sorry but I still “believe” (I don’t KNOW) that there are people conspiring to hide the truth about HIV/AIDS because they stand to lose a LOT of money and/or reputation and career (or risk ending up in jail on criminal charges). Most of the people who carry out the wishes of the medical cabal are simply parroting and doing what their told without questions… There are plenty of drones willing to do the bidding of their masters.

At any rate the subject is not “Conspiracy Theory” so let’s not get off track. Regardless of whether there is any organization behind the disinformation and untruths that are being told – they need to stop. We must also be careful of stating opinion as if it were fact. Some people are very good at that. Question everything and everyone no matter how confident they sound in their proclamations, what letters they put behind their names or how many people worship them.

Posted by David Collins on 12/27/2008 @ 03:03PM PST
Report

Laura,

If the idea of conspiracies is a bit much for you, I might suggest that you consider the concept of the headless conspiracy, or as I like to call them, “Carlin conspiracies”, in honor of the late George Carlin, who said, “You don’t need a formal conspiracy where interests converge.” (Carlin’s genius, in fact, was that he could make us look at this vast conspiracy that we call the modern world, and laugh our asses off at our own construct.)

Because Carlin conspiracies typically involve large groups of people who are unaware that they are co-conspirators, two factors are required for a Carlin conspiracy to occur: 1) The masses must be willing to believe a specific lie; and 2) The masses must perceive a common vested interest — usually secret but not always — which makes them willing to believe that lie.

One semi-recent example would be the Nazi Holocaust. After WWI, the German economy went to hell, and the Jews seemed to be just about the only ones able to maintain their wealth, so the German people were willing to let Hitler convince them that the Jews were evil, that they were genetically inferior, and that they’d murdered Christ (whom Hitler called “The greatest early warrior against the Jews,”) and ultimately they let Hitler convince them of these things because each had a secret wish to plunder the wealth of the Jewish community.

Likewise, when the natives of the North American continent were massacred and their continent stolen, the millions of mostly European settlers who conspired, in perfect unison, to carry out the deed, did so in the false belief that the “Indians” were syphilitic, barbaric cannibals who ate babies in their Satanic rituals, and that the only way to “save” them from their evil ways was to convert them to Christianity, and those who would not convert must be killed. As to what secret motive we might have had for believing these things, take a look around the North American continent if you’re ever in the neighborhood — it’s a pretty sweet continent, ain’t it? Know how we got it? Well, we’ll tell you that God “blessed” us with it, but…

And the thing to remember here is that in the above two examples, large groups of people acted in concert, almost as if they’d planned (conspired) the whole thing in advance.

BUT — now, we’re starting to run out of room on this continent for our strip malls, so we’re eyeing Africa and licking our chops.

You may not realize it, but Africa is the wealthiest continent on the globe — it’s got gold, oil, diamonds, vast mineral and natural resources. Not only this, but historically most of Africa’s resources have been the luxury items that the wealthy are willing to pay big bucks for — furs, ivory (the abovementioned gold and diamonds,) etc.

So if Africa’s so wealthy, why are Africans so poor? Well, for centuries now, whenever any sort of civilized infrastructure would begin to pop up, our (referring specifically to American, Arabic, and European) governments and business interests would send in mercenaries to burn entire towns, slaughter babies, burn crops, and kill or disable (usually by amputation) any able-bodied men. This kept the Africans weak and unable to defend their continent as we plundered its riches.

(This is another Carlin conspiracy, but I don’t want to get into it, because there are more relevant stories afoot.)

Pause for question: What continent is said to be hardest hit by the AIDS “pandemic”? …And what do we want to do? Roll in with a bunch of condoms and start giving drugs whose side effects include diarrhea and nausea to a bunch of chronically undernourished people. (And 500 years from now, mark my words, we’ll be saying that God gave us Africa too.)

AIDS started out as a Carlin conspiracy, which targeted gays, drug abusers, and the infirm. In the Reagan era, drug abusers were the social equivalent of terrorists in 2008. The infirm were considered a burden on the taxpayer by social conservatives of the Reagan era (especially hemophiliacs, who might well breed more hemophiliacs.) As for why gays might be targeted, why were gays targeted by the Nazis? Gays are just traditionally a target for persecution in any expanding empire — personally, I think it’s because they contribute no offspring to use as cannon fodder for the war machine, but it really doesn’t matter what I think, just that homosexuals are historically a frequent target of persecution.

As to why they might have been targeted in the 1980s, there was a large segment of the American population who were already more than willing to believe that there was something inherently unhealthy about homosexuality, and that whatever it was, it was transmissible — probably sexually transmissible.

In 1981, it had been less than a decade since the APA had removed homosexuality from its catalog of mental disorders, known as the DSM. Prior to this, it was widely believed that homosexuality was a contagious disease that was spread from grown men to young boys (because, of course, all homosexuals were pedophiles.) I actually have a copy of an old “educational” police video entitled “Boys Beware”, which warned of the dangers of befriending grown men who might be homosexual. Throughout the 1970s, Anita Bryant gave shrill speeches to anyone who would listen that all homosexuals were pedophiles, and that homosexuality was a contagious disease.

And given that it had been less than a decade since the High Priests of Science had declared that homosexuality was no longer a disease, I have to believe that there was still a contingent of the scientific community who still held on to some remnant of the old beliefs.

As dissidents, we often raise the question: Why did no one question this? The answer lies in what we were willing to believe, and at the time, we were willing to believe that homosexuality involved some sort of sexually transmitted disease unique to gays. The masses do not question what they are already willing to believe, particularly if they feel they have some vested interest in the lie.

Today, we are told by the CDC that the average black person is 10X more likely than the average white person to get HIV and die of AIDS. Though no virus in history has ever picked its victims according to race, the masses swallow it because, by and large, we’re willing to believe that blacks are sexually profligate, that they are too ignorant to practice abstinence, monogamy, or to use condoms (as if whites do anything more than pay lip service to these practices), that they abuse IV drugs (as if whites don’t), that many black men are on the “down low” (as if whites don’t have the “closet”), etc. All of these beliefs are not only obviously ridiculous, they’re racist to boot, but we’re all willing to believe these things, and so we don’t question why HIV should pick its victims by race.

(Incidentally, this was also the rationale at Tuskeegee in 1932. Another Carlin conspiracy, but I digress.)

The bottom line is this: Yes, it is a genocidal conspiracy, but don’t look for the involvement of the Skull and Bones society, because this conspiracy wasn’t hatched in some star chamber by a shadowy group of white men with cigars. Want to know who the co-conspirators are? Step out onto a crowded street anywhere in America and throw a rock.

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/27/2008 @ 03:03PM PST
Report

One of Bob Bolgger’s (Seth Kalichman’s) entries above actually begins with the words, “Chapter 2″ – this person is pasting entire chapters into this thread & is clearly trying to sabotage the discussion. Please report him.
http://letterstotheempire.com

Posted by Jason Hart on 12/27/2008 @ 05:22PM PST
Report

Seth Kalichman “I don’t know who Bob is, but that is sure some interesting stuff he posted.” – do you think you’re fooling anyone? Your MO petticoat is showing Seth. You spammily posted vast swathes of your meaningless musings and you just did it again with posts from another site. Either you are suffering Dissociative Identity Disorder and are in need of some emergency psychotherapy, or you are one of those really trolly, trolls that has to post as a sock puppet so it looks that at least one other person on this planet has any regard whatsoever for what you have to say. Not only that but so devoted is this mythical “Bob” that he spent hours and hours devotedly typing out your drivel. But then you have an electronic copy don’t you Seth. All you had to do was cut and paste.You are a fake and a charlatan Seth. Pistols at dawn you bounder!

Posted by Cathy Thompson on 12/27/2008 @ 08:29PM PST
Report

I missed another point. “Bob” had nothing to say, nothing original, just posted swathes of stuff from your underselling book – and you say “that sure is interesting stuff”. Hmm, I am altering my diagnosis Seth – you now get “Malignant Narcissistic Personality Disorder” a la the late, great Scott Peck. You might want to read him sometime Seth. Scott Peck actually wrote “real” interesting stuff and he had qualities you could only dream of – humanity, humility, keen intelligence and empathy. I bet he didn’t have to resort to dishonest sock puppetry to try and push his publications.

Posted by Cathy Thompson on 12/27/2008 @ 08:43PM PST
Report

HIV, AIDS & Gallo’sEgg by Clark Baker – July 21, 2008 “I began this investigation in May and have since farmed ALL of my other investigations to other investigators. I intend to remain engaged in this until the courts and/or legislature has ended this criminal enterprise..”

“After having investigated thousands of crimes and arrested hundreds of criminal gang members and other assorted predators, I know a criminal enterprise when I see one.”

“HIV/AIDS makes Enron look like a neighborhood poker game.”

“I have never written about anything more important. This story changed my life, and if you have the time and patience to understand what I have written, it may change yours as well.

If Americans, our courts, and our legislature permit the continued corruption of science and medicine by our pharmaceutical industry, I fear that the 232-year experiment we call “The United States of America” will have failed.”

- Clark Baker Source: http://www.californiaconservative.org/academia/hiv-aids-gallos-egg/

Posted by David Collins on 12/27/2008 @ 09:21PM PST
Report

Cathy,Seth Kalichman is one of the good old boys who’s got a lot at stake. As you know, he’s eager to promote his new anti-denialist book, which happens to be another charity case giving additional toxic AIDS drugs to Africa instead of nutritious food and clean water. He actually thinks AME is my website, but AIDSMythExposed.com is owned by it’s major contributors.

Posted by Brian Carter on 12/27/2008 @ 11:15PM PST
Report

Hi Brian
Yes the famille Kalichman have a huge stake in HIV = AIDS because both hubby and wifey’s income feeds off it. He says proceeds from his book help with poisoning innocents in Africa but we only have his word for that, and he has already demonstrated that he is a complete sock puppet liar.

Posted by Cathy Thompson on 12/28/2008 @ 12:11AM PST
Report

People, I strongly suggest keeping our eyes on the ball. Seth Kalichman has now played his little gambit, & spammed as Bob, then, very transparently “come out” as himself; but until the moderators read everyone’s complaints, we can’t let the discussion revolve around him. As Laura said a little way up, this specimen is really rather innocuous… “sometimes it’s a fine line between stupid and evil”… while for Granpa Gallo it’s the latter, for this chappie it’s clearly the former. We have a true zealot here… let’s keep the distraction to a minimum.
P.S. Seth, if all that stuff really is from your book, erm…. zzzzzz!

Posted by Jason Hart on 12/28/2008 @ 12:49AM PST
Report

Jason, you and Laura are completely right, except as a person who has worked in healthcare more years than I care to remember, these people are not just innocuous nonentities on various blogs. They are real people with real power over people’s lives. They destroy people and families with their “oh so learned” BS. The fact that Kalichman can be caught out so easily with his blatant blog disinformation spam campaign (hint: lies) and solipsistic self-promotion only proves that the foxes are well and truly guarding the henhouses.

Posted by Cathy Thompson on 12/28/2008 @ 01:41AM PST
Report

Seth, it is well known that individuals protecting their livelihood and careers made by promoting hiv, such as yourself, your fellow “aids’truthers”, the gang of the pharma supported sites at The Body and at TAG and TAC, quite regularly plant false and misleading posts at the AME site. Of course, when pressed for any information or evidence of the truth such as meeting up with any of the dissidents, they always seem to quickly and simply disappear.As such, I would have no doubt whatsoever that you yourself are one of the prime posters of the deception that you just posted here .By the way, Seth. Don’t you have something constructive to do? Such as to go begging again for your next NIH grant to “study the psychology of those who you continue to project your own disowned denialism upon?

Posted by Michael Geiger on 12/28/2008 @ 02:00AM PST
Report

I would like to respond about anemia and antiretrovirals and about the people who was unsure if to take the meds or not. There wasn’t too much that I didn’t have when I got on them. I am one of the few cases, that they did actually help. I was too far gone and had the “Lazareth” effect, literally came back from the dead. First, I would try normal means to stop whatever is attacking the body, as the 30 AIDS defining diseases are not new. However, if many things are attacking you and at the same time, you may need something more powerful. After three months of eating healthy, taking supplements and herbs,and the antiretrovirals and Dapsone, I was as good as new. However, here is where the problem lies, the doctors will not want you to stop these meds, once on them. But be strong, if you take them because it is your life, not theirs.

In answer to the anemia, the meds do cause this. My blood work was never normal while on them. Being anemic is not a good thing either, which causes you more problems.

Lastly, I higly recommend low dose naltrexone or LDN for short. I stopped my med on 1 Mar 2006 and I never regretted it. LDN is a wonderful immune inhancer, which is helping over 50 diseases. It is truly a miracle drug, which the public needs to know about. I think that I will start a separate thread about it and invite you folks to it.

Posted by Noreen Martin on 12/28/2008 @ 04:19AM PST
Report

Noreen,

I was just looking at your profile and I can’t help but notice that you haven’t voted on this idea.

If there’s anyone else here who hasn’t voted to take a new look at the cause of AIDS, do so now — we need every vote we can get.

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/28/2008 @ 05:18AM PST
Report

KT – sorry I was brusque.

I do not think there is such a virus called HIV because Papovic’s paper claiming that AIDS is caused by a virus was demonstrably fruadulent. Papovic, the first author, had written, “Despite intensive research effort, the causative agent of AIDS has not yet been identified. ” Gallo altered this to read, “That a retrovirus of the HTLV family might be an etiologic agent of AIDS was suggested by the findings.”

Apparently Papovic was so appalled by what his boss had done, he sent his draft to his sister in Austria for safe keeping. When Gallo was investigated for scientific fraud in 1990, the paper was produced.

Along with that wa a letter from Gonda a the National Caner Institute dated March 26, 1984 saying, “Dr. Gallo wanted these micrographs for publication because they contained HTLV particles, ” and “I do not believe any of the particles photographed are HTLV I, II, or III.”

Gallo had been working on his HTLV particles but in actual fact, admitted openly in Papovic’s draft paper, it was Montagnier’s LAV virus. The name changed eventually to HIV but whatever it was called, it was not there! Gonds says so.

That the cause of AIDS was PROBABLY a virus was announced at a press conference on April 23, 1984. The press promptly dropped the word ‘probably’ and the media took off. That same day Gallo patented his billion dollar-making HIV test.

What I want to know, is why, when the Office of Research Integrity of the US Department of Health and Human Services saw these and other documents they were not made public. For 19 more years, and it’s not finished yet, people are being treated for a non-existent virus

Jennifer Craig

Posted by Jennifer Craig on 12/28/2008 @ 06:53AM PST
Report

Jennifer Craig wrote: “I do not think there is such a virus called HIV…”

Jennifer,

Good way to put it.

For those who may be unfamiliar with this subject, we dissidents (or “denialists”, as our detractors like to call us, as if calling us names proved us wrong,) are an argumentative bunch who can’t even seem to agree amongst ourselves on some key issues, including whether or not HIV even exists. There are some of us who aren’t convinced that HIV exists at all (except possibly as noninfectious cellular debris,) and then there are those of us who are convinced that HIV exists as a harmless passenger virus. Then there’s a whole spectrum of thought in between.

But the way Jennifer has phrased it, “I don’t think there is such a virus [that we can call] HIV,” is a true statement regardless of one’s stance on the HIV existence issue. There is no virus that we can call “Human Immunodeficiency Virus”, because even if it were proven that HIV unquestionably exists (and it’s not,) it still remains to be proven that it plays any causal role in immunodeficiency in humans. Therefore, even if what’s being called “HIV” really correlates to an actual retrovirus that exists in humans, we still cannot call that virus “Human Immunodeficiency Virus”, because a causal link to immondeficiency in humans has not been established. How do we know, for example, that HIV is not merely another of the opportunistic infections which might infect an AIDS patient, as opposed to being the cause of his susceptibility to opportunistic infection?

Most people aren’t aware of it, but there have been literally dozens of hypotheses put forward to explain how HIV causes AIDS, each a replacement for a failed predecessor.

Today, it is common among AIDS experts to acknowledge that to this day, they don’t understand how HIV causes AIDS, and that there are currently about a half-dozen or so different hypotheses floating around the AIDS research community, none of which have been proven to be the mechanism whereby HIV causes AIDS. To excuse this, they’ll say, “It’s true that we don’t understand how HIV causes AIDS, but this doesn’t mean that it doesn’t — it just means that HIV is a lot more complex and mysterious than we could have ever imagined back in the mid-80s when it was discovered.”

(Hmmm…last time I heard an answer that relied on incomprehensible mystery, I was in a Pentecostal pastor’s office.)

Anywho, Jennifer, that was a good way to put it — I think even Duesberg would have to agree with your statement, as phrased.

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/28/2008 @ 07:25AM PST
Report

hi all,

I just wanted to say that HIV = AIDS paradigm needs to be review again. For those who firmly believe that HIV is the real cause of AIDS, if that statement is really true, what do you guys have to lose ? But if that statement is WRONG, millions of lives have been mislead by those HIV testings, Drugs not to mention those Ban of entry for those who are infected…this is insane !

Obama, as a new president, please do review this paradigm for the sake of this world, cause you know when US make the CHANGE others will follow. I know this CHANGE will be for the better of humanity…

regards,
Shaq

Posted by shaq shaq on 12/28/2008 @ 07:43AM PST
Report

i just wanna say a few words…

the fact that medical sicences has FAILED in a lot of area, there is an urgent sense to make this revisit to HIV=AIDS area, imagine no cure found for 26 years, no REAL evidence proof that HIV causes AIDS(what is NIH and CDC doing ????), making HIV testing a mandatory thing…this really sounds like a massive suicide…I mean really.

and I know for sure there are millions of people OUT THERE who are suffering from this confusion. Im definately NOT BOTHERED by those who will lose their job because of this HIV=AIDS, YOU DESERVE IT! and those who are being paid by pharmaceutical companies to make people confuse with all the negative staements, may God be with you…cause when you die, the Devil will certainly not be with you.

ciao

Posted by eros rammazoti on 12/28/2008 @ 08:05AM PST
Report

I saw Barack Obama and his wife Michelle in Kenya and went to South Africa to encourage Africans to take the HIV tests. I fell sick to my stomach to see a powerful African America with Oprah suppoeting the HIV testing. I hope the real science community to look into this mess. HIV is not the cause of AIDS simple!

Posted by Winfred Mwebe on 12/28/2008 @ 08:31AM PST
Report

Science and the news community will have to step in, as AIDS is now a political issue and politicians will not go against the mainstream and cut their political throats. However, we can put pressure on the above, which may help to get this changed. This is why it is so important for those affected by this to speak out, so the world will know the truth.

I for one, think that it is high time that we have a Rethinkers march on Washington or some other prominent city. We must bring attention to the issue, as many still do not know that there is disagreement about what causes AIDS.

Posted by Noreen Martin on 12/28/2008 @ 08:41AM PST
Report

Jennifer Craig demonstrates how deniers handle facts. She writes: “The name changed eventually to HIV but whatever it was called, it was not there! Gonds says so.” I have twice provided the link to the 1983 document in which Gonda describes seeing productive infection with HIV in two different cell lines, and pointed out that Gonda’s micrographs of HIV were included in the Science paper. Jennifer’s response is simply to keep making the same false claim that Gonda saw no virus. Michael’s response is to come up with a different set of false claims about chimps never getting AIDS and Bob Gallo’s results not being reproduced. The part of Galio’s work that could not be reproduced related to the claim that the virus was a member of the HTLV family; the inability of other scientists to reproduce these findings is the reason why the virus is called HIV and not HTLV-III as Bob Gallo wanted. The part about the virus causing AIDS (which Gallo wrote was “suggested” by the findings) was also well established by Barre Sinoussi and colleagues (I cited some of their papers earlier) and Jay Levy, and has subsequently been confirmed over and over again. If Jennifer wants to look at some of Gallo’s isolates through an electron microscope, any research scientist can obtain isolates like RF and MN from the NIH reagent program. To get a flavor of the political nature of AIDS denial, I’d recommend that people take a good look at the “California Conservative” website linked to above by David Collins (see what it has to say about Barack Obama), Other promoters of AIDS denial include right wing talk show host Barry Farber and fellow travelers like Cliff Kincaid. It’s appalling that people still get duped by the lies. Michael Geiger tries to pretend that posts to the “AIDS Myth Exposed” board from people who are getting sick are false, but board co-moderator Ken Anderlini died, and fellow co-moderator Joe Mandinski got toxoplasmosis and has not been heard from for a long time. Ed Lieb, a well-known longtime AIDS denier, recently described his severe illness on the board (and successful treatment with antiretrovirals), prompting several board members to share similar experiences. In the manner typical of cults, AIDS deniers have to deny the truth of these stories or try and explain them away by claiming that anti-HIV drugs are somehow broad spectrum antibiotics.

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/28/2008 @ 10:03AM PST
Report

Once again, this is the letter dated December 14, 1983 from Matthew Gonda to Popovic, describing productive infection with HIV as observed through Gonda’s electron microscope. Several people in this string (including Jennifer Craig, Henry Bauer, Etienne de Harven) signed a letter to the journal Science that was based on Gonda’s ability to distinguish retroviruses from cellular debris – did these signatories even know that Gonda had also observed and reported productive infection with HIV?
http://www.sciencefictions.net/pdfdocs/Letter_from_M_Gonda_to_M_Popovic_12.14.83.pdf

6) HUT 68/LAV – Positive; Lentivirus – Productive lentivirus infection with all forms of virus maturation.

7) T 17.4/LAV – Positive; Lentivirus – Lentivirus, same comments as #6 above.

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/28/2008 @ 10:14AM PST
Report

Hank Barnes wrote: “I have twice provided the link to the 1983 document in which Gonda describes seeing productive infection with HIV in two different cell lines, and pointed out that Gonda’s micrographs of HIV were included in the Science paper.”

Hank,

…And Jennifer has already responded repeatedly to your claim, by pointing to a March 26, 1984 letter from Gonda to Popovic, in which he says, “I do not believe that any of the particles photographed are HTLV I, II, or III.”

Here’s a link to the document:

http://www.sciencefictions.net/pdfdocs/Letter_from_M_Gonda_to_M_Popovic_03.26.84.pdf

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/28/2008 @ 10:23AM PST
Report

Which photographs is that letter referring to? If Gonda is qualified to distinguish retroviruses from cellular debris – as “Rethinking AIDS” says in their letter – then what is wrong with his identification and micrographs of productive HIV infection?

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/28/2008 @ 10:29AM PST
Report

Every man who attacks my belief, diminishes in some degree my confidence in it, and therefore makes me uneasy; and I am angry with him who makes me uneasy. – Samuel Johnson
That’s politics.
Good science and good professional scientists act in the opposite manner.
Anything else is a clear indication of their lack of integirty.

Posted by Anthony L on 12/28/2008 @ 10:29AM PST
Delete Comment Report

I will not take the time to discuss the cause of HIV/AIDS as I believe I would much rather discuss the successful treatment. For the last 12 years my organization, the “Health & Wellness Foundation”, a non-profit, humanitarian organization has been successfully treating infected persons and reducing their viral loads down to “undetectable” levels in 40 – 1 hour treatment on average and without pharmaceuticals or side effects. We are using a proven therapy that is a 100 years old and for about the last 60 years this treatment has been ignored, suppressed, discredited, etc., thanks to “Big Pharma” and the huge money interests. Visit our website www.servinghumanity.org and let’s communicate!

Posted by Bob DiStefano on 12/28/2008 @ 10:40AM PST
Report

Hank Barnes wrote: “What photographs is that letter referring to?”

Well, let’s see — according to the letter, it is 4 photographs that Gallo had requested from Gonda for the purpose of publication, because he believed that they contained HTLV particles. Given that this letter is dated March 26, 1984, just a few weeks before Gallo’s first publication on HTLV III (HIV,) I’ll give you three guesses just what photographs the letter is referring to.

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/28/2008 @ 10:43AM PST
Report

Gos provides an excellent example of denier obfuscation in action. Neither he nor the signatories to the “Rethinking AIDS” letter even know what photographs Gonda is referring to in the 3/26/84 letter. They just assume/hope that these photos were included in the Science paper, even though it’s well known that the photos were of HIV (including LAV, which Gonda had already identified and micrographed as the 12/14/83 letter shows). Gos and “Rethinking AIDS” just hope that no one notices that their claims are false. I suspect many of the signatories to the “Rehinking AIDS” letter were not aware that Gonda had already seen and micrographed productive HIV infection at the time the letter they are citing was written.

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/28/2008 @ 10:45AM PST
Report

HankNobody’s trying to explain away anything. The answers to serious infections and why they happen are not easily explained by your camp AIDS pundits including the NY Times:“That skeletal fellow reading a magazine, skin pulled taut over his skull, folds of denim covering his wasted legs, is actually one of our big successes. He is perfectly well, at least as far as his HIV infection goes. Ten years ago he was dying of AIDS; now he is living with it — or, more accurately, living almost without it, his immune system normal, no trace of virus detectable in his blood. It is the lifesaving drugs that have transformed his appearance like this, leaching the fat from his body even as they clear the virus from his blood…we have patients scattered at every possible point: men and women who cruise on their medications with no problems at all, and those who never stabilize on them and die of AIDS; those who never take them properly and slowly deteriorate and those who never take them properly and still do fine; those who refuse them until it is too late, and those who never need them at all; those who leave AIDS far behind only to die from lung cancer or breast cancer or liver failure, and those few who are killed by the medications themselves…It is all too cold, too mathematical, too scary to dump on the head of a sick, frightened person. So we simplify. “We have good treatments now,” we say. “You should do fine.””Zuger A. AIDS, at 25, offers no easy answers. NY Times. 2006 Jun 6
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/06/health/06aids.htmlThere is absolutely no wisdom coming from the part of mainstream “HIV”. Just more of the same, “we need more money, more research is needed,” It’s a complete and utter failure and you know it. What AIDSMythExposed does is to demonstrate, by inclusion of these posts, the very nature of the failure of “HIV/AIDS” as we know it.Keep it up Hank.. We love the exposure.Brian CarterAssistant Manger, AIDSMythExposed.com

Posted by Brian Carter on 12/28/2008 @ 10:46AM PST
Report

I posted that comment before I saw Gos’s follow-up. Thanks for confirming that the “Rethinking AIDS” letter is based on guesswork (and they guessed wrong). Thankfully, there’s no need to guess regarding what Gonda was writing about in his December 14th letter.
http://www.sciencefictions.net/pdfdocs/Letter_from_M_Gonda_to_M_Popovic_12.14.83.pdf

6) HUT 68/LAV – Positive; Lentivirus – Productive lentivirus infection with all forms of virus maturation.

7) T 17.4/LAV – Positive; Lentivirus – Lentivirus, same comments as #6 above.

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/28/2008 @ 10:50AM PST
Report

Hank Barnes- How could there be productive infection?! of anything when there was no isolation or direct observation via electron microscopy of purported retrovirus in the culture? Prof. Bauer explained in an earlier post to you what the Popovic/Gonda documents represented as follows:

“Please cite a publication in which virions of HIV have been isolated direct from a AIDS patient or HIV positive person. The Popovic/Gonda documents refer to components of a culture in shich several kinds of cell were incubated together with various biochemical stimulants. That’s SYNTHESIS, not isolation”.

Posted by Anthony Tarpin on 12/28/2008 @ 11:04AM PST
Report

Henry Bauer signed a letter to the journal Science which cited Matthew Gonda’s ability to distinguish between cellular debris and retroviruses. If Bauer doesn’t think Gonda is qualified to recognize productive infection with a retrovirus, he shouldn’t have signed the letter.

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/28/2008 @ 11:11AM PST
Report

Going back to the conspiracy idea. I agree, there is no need to invoke a conspiracy to promote the idea “To take a new look at the cause of AIDS”, however, we should not dismiss its possibility.

Here is a quote from “An Explosive Interview with Ellis Medavoy: Mind Control, Mind Freedom” by Jon Rappoport, posted in his “No More Fake News Archives”, 2006-02-13:

Rappoport: First of all, as you’ve told me before, you were involved in spreading the lie that AIDS is basically one condition caused by HIV.

Answer: That’s right. There was a group that knew this was all a lie, and they wanted “traction” in the press. They wanted the world to accept HIV as the cause of AIDS. They wanted plenty of stories planted in the media. So I accepted that assignment. I was, of course, not the only person doing this. This was a very big operation.

Rappoport: What was the purpose of the lie?

Answer: As with any major op, there were several purposes. I’ve explained most of it to you before. But, as you can see, the world has seen, in recent years, an explosion in PR and propaganda about so-called epidemics. West Nile, SARS, bird flu. Besides scaring people and getting them to accept any and all medical and political edicts, the idea is to bring nations of the world into a tighter connection—because when you have an international agency like the World Health Organization at the helm, telling governments what they have to do and can’t do, the “community of nations” draws closer and closer together.

Rappoport: Basically, you’re talking about the move toward globalism, the rule of the many by the few.

[...]

http://www.nomorefakenews.com/archives/archiveview.php?key=2983

Posted by Maria Papagiannidou on 12/28/2008 @ 11:13AM PST
Report

Hank Barnes- You still have not yet answered Michael Geiger’s post 12/26/2008 @ 12:41pm PST. We collectively ask for PROOF and you still fail to provide anything-

“…If you want to claim that a retrovirus is the cause of aids, then how about coming up with some serious evidence as all we have to rely upon is Gallo’s original ‘doctored’ and never produced works’.

Posted by Anthony Tarpin on 12/28/2008 @ 11:35AM PST
Report

Hank Barnes,

An electron microscopist can see what appears to be “production” of viral(-like) particles. He cannot determine if the production comes from an “infection”.

He can pronounce something a retroviral(-like) or lentiviral(-like) particle, but he cannot determine that it is a novel, exogenous retrovirus, unless that virus, at a minimum, has already been purified and isolated. Show us where Montagnier has done this for LAV.

The letter Rethinking AIDS has sent to Science is concerned with what Gonda saw or didn’t see in Gallo’s samples. What Gonda might have seen in other contexts is irrelevant to the fraud in question.

Posted by Ruairidh MacDonald on 12/28/2008 @ 11:42AM PST
Report

PS. For bystanders: LAV is the name Montagnier gave to the purported HIV, which Gallo called HTLV III.

The name HIV was decided on at a later meeting in the US.

Posted by Ruairidh MacDonald on 12/28/2008 @ 11:49AM PST
Report

PS. For bystanders: LAV is the name Montagnier gave to the purported HIV, which Gallo called HTLV III.

The name HIV was decided on at a later meeting in the US.

Posted by Ruairidh MacDonald on 12/28/2008 @ 11:49AM PST
Report

“The letter Rethinking AIDS has sent to Science is concerned with what Gonda saw or didn’t see in Gallo’s samples.” The sample in which Gonda identified and micrographed productive HIV infection was sent to him by Popovic. The “Rethinking AIDS” letter cites Gonda’s ability to distinguish retroviral infection from cellular debris but neglects to address the fact that Gonda did see and micrograph productive HIV infection in samples from Gallo’s lab. “Rethinking AIDS” and the signatories to that letter need to make up their minds about whether Gonda can recognize and micrograph productive retroviral infection or not (if not, they need to amend their letter).

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/28/2008 @ 12:01PM PST
Report

What are revisionists asking in their vote? Who will review the cause of AIDS, and what will be the action taken if the review committee or ombudsman concludes that non-Nobelist Robert Gallo and champion public fund raiser Anthony Fauci have misled us, and that Peter Duesberg is as right as he is ethical, professional and responsible to the public that used to pay him?

Posted by Anthony L on 12/28/2008 @ 12:04PM PST
Delete Comment Report

Ruairidh, can you explain why HIV isn’t called HTLV-III as Gallo wanted? Gallo argued the virus is a member of the HTLV family, why did this argument not succeed?

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/28/2008 @ 12:04PM PST
Report

Given his refusal to disclose his identity, credentials and potential conflicts of interest, is it possible for a casual reader to treat “Hank’s” posts here as anything but disruptive pro-AID$ propaganda?

Posted by Jon Barnett on 12/28/2008 @ 12:05PM PST
Report

If that interview from Jon Rappoport linked above is authentic, then we probably shouldn’t expect any real support from any government. Voting for this idea might still be good for raising awareness but it’s not going to really change anything. I had actually liked the “Carlin conspiracy” concept and it’s definitely still the bigger factor, but the interviews with “Ellis Medavoy” made me rethink a few things…

Posted by Sadun Kal on 12/28/2008 @ 12:06PM PST
Report

Oh dear Anthony L, you’re arguing that Duesberg is correct? That HIV has been isolated? Do the AIDS deniers want the Obama administration to help them resolve their differences regarding whether or not HIV has been isolated?

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/28/2008 @ 12:07PM PST
Report

Jon, “Rethinking AIDS” isn’t citing anything I’m saying, but they are citing Matthew Gonda. Do you think Gonda was thinking ahead and creating “disruptive pro-AID$ propaganda?” when he saw and micrographed productive HIV infection using his electron microscope in 1983?

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/28/2008 @ 12:09PM PST
Report

“Hank”,
Nice attempt to turn the question back on me. Now, stop being evasive and please just give us casual readers enough information about yourself to allow us to decide how much weight to give your dogmatic and prolific posts here. Many of the posters in support of this idea have done so. Your continued refusal to do so is really getting tiresome, though at least you are helping to rack up the comments count.

Posted by Jon Barnett on 12/28/2008 @ 12:25PM PST
Report

Hi, I think some more clarification is needed for bystanders. A letter to Science has been mentioned. This is one sent only four weeks ago to the Science journal signed by some 37 academics, lawyers and scientists who are asking for the withdrawal of the famed research papers on AIDS published in that journal on 4th May 1984 on the grounds of serious scientific deception and the concealment of key research findings. These papers are fundamental to AIDS science. They are those widely cited as proving that HIV causes AIDS. The reason why this letter was sent is the recent discovery that major last-minute changes were made to these papers to conceal what the scientist who carried out the work had concluded. He had stated explicitly that the cause of AIDS had not been found. A careful examination of this paper reveals that at no point is any experiment recorded that attempted to prove a virus caused AIDS. Yet despite this, the paper was changed so dramatically 7 days before it went to the Science journal that it made it possible for the Reagan Administration to announce to the world’s media 3 weeks later that this paper proved that a certain virus was the probable cause of AIDS. Within another two weeks, the Nature journal was acclaiming the same fraudulently changed paper as finding the cause of AIDS.This new evidence is published in my book “Fear of the Invisible” This evidence was then sent to the scientists who after appraising it, sent this letter to Science.It was not sent to the journal by Rethinking AIDS – despite the claim by Hank above that it was, but by the scientists who signed it. The journal is to respond to a representative of the signatories.The letter has since been strongly supported by both the Semmelweis Society, a prestigious organization that works to maintain medical research ethics and by Rethinking AIDS – the latter an organization representing a large number of scientists who are now questioning the HIV theory of AIDS.
It should also be said that this remarkable letter to Science also cites a Federal Department of Health Office of Research Integrity inquiry that reported the paper so poorly recorded the experiment purported to prove HIV the cause of AIDS that it had since proved impossible to repeat and verify this experiment.
Could it be that the reason why several hundreds of billions of dollars have been abortively spent on trying to discover how HIV causes AIDS and to find a cure or a vaccine is because the foundations of this research have been built on sand from the beginning?
Janine RobertsAuthor of Fear of the Invisible.

Posted by Janine Roberts on 12/28/2008 @ 12:33PM PST
Report

Hank Barnes,

I thought I had made myself clear: The fraud addressed in Rethinking AIDS’ letter to Science concerns specific photos of specific samples for a specific publication(s), and quite frankly it doesn’t concern me much either.

What does concern me is proof of purification and isolation of so-called “HIV”. You will now quote for us from Montagnier’s paper the relevant passages showing that a novel exogenous retrovirus had been purified and isolated. If you cannot do that, who gives a hoot what Gonda thought he saw (or not) in Gallo’s samples?

Posted by Ruairidh MacDonald on 12/28/2008 @ 12:37PM PST
Report

Janine, did Matthew Gonda document and micrograph productive infection with HIV as he describes in his letter of 12/14/83? What is your evidence that the letter Gonda wrote on 3/26/84 refers to micrographs that were published by Science?

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/28/2008 @ 12:39PM PST
Report

Federal Inquiry Finds Misconduct By a Discoverer of the AIDS Virus
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9F0CEFDA103DF932A05751C1A964958260

Evidence of HIV fraud.
http://www.fearoftheinvisible.com/fraud-in-key-hiv-research-background

TOP SCIENTISTS CALL ON SCIENCE JOURNAL TO WITHDRAW FRAUDULENT PAPERS
http://www.fearoftheinvisible.com/withdraw

Nobel Medicine Prize row as HIV scientist is excluded
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4892374.ece

Robert Gallo is obviously a fame and fortune seeking fraud and this is where the lies all began.

How someone can so staunchly defend something that has been proved to be steeped in fraud and corruption from day one I’ll never know. Unless, that someone has a personal stake in it.

“Hank Barnes” – and other HIV apologists – Please tell me what you have to gain from doing what you are doing. Why is it so important that you get people to believe you? You’re not really coming across as a genuinely altruistic kind of person who cares about saving lives. In fact, you act as if you are someone who has some kind of personal stake in perpetuating what appears to many, many people (who have actually done any research on it) to be a horrendous fraud.

Posted by David Collins on 12/28/2008 @ 12:41PM PST
Report

“Hank”
Please tell me one thing: Why don’t YOU want a new proper investigation of the basics?
I think it will not be yours to pay for it…

Posted by Stefan Risch on 12/28/2008 @ 12:43PM PST
Report

Hank/Snout/Noble/Bennett whoever you are – your argument is irrelevant. If I had photographed Joseph Ratzinger in 2004, who then became Pope Benedict in 2005 I can now claim with full authority that because he is German, and was living in Germany at the time, that he is a Nazi war criminal.Of course he wasn’t, but my assumption that being a German during the war equals Nazi criminal murderer is no less assumptive and ridiculous as claiming an EM of “something” proves that the “something” runs amok and murders people. Under your reasoning Ehrlich should have concluded the cause of infection was the white blood cells themselves. He, however, wasn’t so dumb. He realised we all have white blood cells when healthy, and that these cells increased in response to infection. The 400-fold dilution required for ELISA suggests very strongly that we all have plenty of “something” that reacts on ELISA – doesn’t prove it’s a pesky genocidal virus though does it?

Posted by Cathy Thompson on 12/28/2008 @ 12:45PM PST
Report

Do you have any ideas why Gallo didn’t succeed in persuading people that HIV was a member of the HTLV family, David? You seem to be saying that Gallo lied by suggesting that the virus “may” be the primary cause of AIDS (and that is what he said in those Science papers), and the scientific community and everyone else credulously accepted this lie. And yet, for some reason, these same people were remarkably obstinate in refusing to accept Gallo’s suggestion that the virus belonged to the HTLV family.

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/28/2008 @ 12:50PM PST
Report

“Hank”,
Nice attempt to turn the question back on me. Now, stop being evasive and please just give us casual readers enough information about yourself to allow us to decide how much weight to give your dogmatic and prolific posts here. Many of the posters in support of this idea have done so. Your continued refusal to do so is really getting tiresome, though at least you are helping to rack up the comments count.
Posted by Jon Barnett on 12/28/2008 @ 12:25PM PST

“Hank Barnes” – and other HIV apologists – Please tell me what you have to gain from doing what you are doing. Why is it so important that you get people to believe you? You’re not really coming across as a genuinely altruistic kind of person who cares about saving lives. In fact, you act as if you are someone who has some kind of personal stake in perpetuating what appears to many, many people (who have actually done any research on it) to be a horrendous fraud.
Posted by David Collins on 12/28/2008 @ 12:41PM PST

“Hank”
Please tell me one thing: Why don’t YOU want a new proper investigation of the basics?
I think it will not be yours to pay for it…
Posted by Stefan Risch on 12/28/2008 @ 12:43PM PST

So, Hank, who are you and what is your stake in this? If you are refusing to answer, just say so. Then we can ignore you from here and move on…
Posted by David Collins on 12/28/2008 @ 01:01PM PST
Report

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:”Table Normal”; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:”"; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} Wow,
There are some good posts and links here. We have a wealth of information right under the noses of all the politicians, do they not see it or not want to see it. This website is called change.org by a politician that promised change. Will President Elect Obama be able to take time out of his undoubtedly busy schedule to look at this issue that dwarfs any issue on the table today. The policy in our nation on HIV/AIDS affects the world.

I don’t like the term conspiracy either but I do think it is rather odd that there is an orchestrated group of AIDS dissident bashers on various blogs all over the internet that do nothing but blame Peter Duesberg and anybody else that is on board with us.They remind me of bashers that are paid to bash a stock until the the price of stock goes down.

I just want to say to Barack Obama that if you look into the HIV/AIDS issue, look past all of the pseudo-science that goes along with it. The AIDS establishment will not give you straight answers and they want to keep all of their funding. This is a sacred cow that you will meet much resistance with.

I just want to say this in closing, So many people that have quit the so called AIDS drugs are getting better and healthier. All of the HIV tests are surrogate markers and does not actually measure HIV, (even if HIV exists which I do not think it does).

The biggest proof I can tell you is that my wife Karri was on the drugs for 11 years and quit them over 1.5 years ago. She had so many side effects that she did not realize they were side effects until she quit the drugs and started feeling and looking better. We always thought they were from progression of the dis-ease. She is no longer on any pharmaceutical drugs and she does not plan to. So far there has not been anything that has come our way that high doses of Vitamin C, natural herb tinctures, or essential oils could not cure.

Don’t only take my word for it, there are many others that have taken control of their own health care and we would not give you 2 cents for any government sponsored health care that did not include time tested good old common sense and natural methods for healing. We will never trust the government or medical establishments until the USA owns up to is past “mistakes ” .
http://www.myspace.com/rethinkaids
Joe Stokely
Lakeland, FL
jstokely2@gmail.com

Posted by joe stokely on 12/28/2008 @ 01:05PM PST
Report

Jon, Stefan, David etc. Investigations deal with primary documentation. What we have seen here is the complete inability of AIDS deniers to deal with a single primary document that contradicts their claims. This is why their call for an investigation is specious. AIDS denial is a cult with a specific false view – that HIV does not cause AIDS – and any investigation that did not agree with this view would be dodged and vacuously attacked the same way the work of Matthew Gonda has been in this thread. And Gonda is someone whose expertise “Rethinking AIDS” had just endorsed.

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/28/2008 @ 01:09PM PST
Report

Mr. Hank,

Going back to the famous press conference April 23 1984, where Margaret Heckler announced that the “probable” cause of AIDS has been found. Can you please provide what date this “probable” cause (”HIV”) made a miraculous jump to being the difinitive cause? What date was it? When did that change? Can you please share that with your wide audience here? That would be very helpful. Do you know? I would hope so since you seem so much up on the subject.

Posted by Brian Carter on 12/28/2008 @ 01:10PM PST
Report

“Hank”,
Were Obama to appoint you to an independent commission to investigate the cause of AIDS, what credentials would you supply to the administration that you are a qualified candidate to serve?

Curious onlookers: note that the sole, vociferous defender of AID$, Inc. is unwilling to step out from behind the curtain where he plays with levers and gadgets to generate a lot of noise and smoke.

Posted by Jon Barnett on 12/28/2008 @ 01:12PM PST
Report

Jon – Hank would just lie about it anyway. He is obviously not here to actually make headway in the discussion. He is here to attempt to discredit anything that goes against his “religion” and to keep the truth from gaining ground. Period.

Posted by David Collins on 12/28/2008 @ 01:17PM PST
Report

Jon,

Independence is not a part of Hank’s vocabulary.

Posted by Brian Carter on 12/28/2008 @ 01:27PM PST
Report

Jon, I would say I’m a hospital technician who tests people for sensitivity to UV radiation. With some sort of degree in Biophysics. Or perhaps an organic chemist, who has studied murine retroviruses but never a human pathogen. David, if you think you know the truth already you don’t need an investigation. I was trying to make headway by getting some key questions answered, alas the effort was unsuccessful. Since several signatories to that letter to Science had posted here, along with the writer of the book on which it was based, it seemed reasonable to ask. If you think HIV tests lie, David, do you think we should stop testing the blood supply?

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/28/2008 @ 01:28PM PST
Report

One drug fixes over 50 diseases, huh? That’s some drug…

Posted by Jason Hart on 12/28/2008 @ 01:53PM PST
Report

Hank,
You are a perfect example of a basher. Stick around, I want others to see what you are doing, although you are not worth my time argueing with. I tell you folks, the AIDS machine is not going to go away quietly.
Joe

Posted by joe stokely on 12/28/2008 @ 02:01PM PST
Report

We need an investigation because we are moving closer and closer to forced testing and forced medication. I do not want to be forced on toxic medications, that are proven to kill people, based on a phony test for a retro virus that has not been proven to do anything.

When they start forcing the test and then forcing toxic medicines on people, those people who are not directly affected by this scam right now will begin to perk up and listen… If it’s not too late.

http://www.helpforhiv.com

Posted by David Collins on 12/28/2008 @ 02:22PM PST
Report

Like so many parts of our so called “health care system” this notion of HIV being the cause of AIDS is absurd. Almost as absurd as Cholesterol causing Heart disease. I and millions of others urge you President Obama, to look at the real causes of these diseases, and not what this so called science is telling us, so Pharma can rape us for billions of dollars. I urge you to consider China’s policy on accepting bribes from Pharma, such as their handling of Zheng Xiaoyu.

Posted by Christopher Wunsch on 12/28/2008 @ 02:50PM PST
Report

Some years ago when there was first talk about routine testing of everyone across the board the first thing that came to my mind was that it may not be such a bad idea in the sense that when some 65-year-old nuns test positive they’ll have to ask themselves what’s going on with that test. The HIV gestapo could in that way bring about their own undoing.

Posted by Reg Bielamowicz on 12/28/2008 @ 02:58PM PST
Report

As far as the “conspiracy” issue goes, most certainly, there is a concerted effort to silence information … the John P. Moores and Mark Wainbergs would have people believe that such silencing of “dangerous” people is necessary to safeguard public health.

The increasing criminalization of HIV – people serving lengthy prison sentences for having sex, women losing their children to the state unless they agree to give them the toxic drugs – make this an important human rights issue.

Posted by Laura Ogar on 12/28/2008 @ 03:00PM PST
Report

Reg – I’ve had the very same thought about routine testing.

Posted by Laura Ogar on 12/28/2008 @ 03:02PM PST
Report

As irrelevant as they are to the fundamental problems, I think some of the points “Hank” makes deserve an objective approach and clarification by the HIV/AIDS skeptics. Even though it’s not comparable to the extreme bias of the HIV/AIDS orthodoxy, I don’t think that the rethinkers are completely free from bias either.

We know very little about the Gonda’s letter/published EMs issue. There are some documents indicating certain things but it’s hard to connect all the dots in a way they will accurately represent the reality. We know that Gonda in the past recognized a “lentivirus” in some samples before the publication. Whether or not those samples are really the ones relevant to Gallo’s experiments(assuming there were some experiments done) can’t be known as far as I know. Also the published EMs may even source from much earlier dates. Publishing EMs from irrelevant samples would still be some kind of fraud, but it would be a different kind of fraud than the one implied by the letter to science, with too much certainty in my opinion. That Mr. Gonda denies communication about all this doesn’t make the whole thing easier of course.

I apologize if my thoughts cause any discomfort but that’s the way I see it currently.

“Hank Barnes” is probably “Snout” by the way… Who “Snout” might be is another question…

Posted by Sadun Kal on 12/28/2008 @ 03:09PM PST
Report

“Hank Barnes” says: “the complete inability of AIDS deniers to deal with a single primary document that contradicts their claims”

There’s no need to “deal with” the innumerable HIV/AIDS articles if there is even a single one that falsifies the theory.

Padian falsifies sexual transmission. Rodriguez et al. falsifies connection between “viral load” and CD4 decrease. The mass of HIV-test data published by CDC falsifies “HIV+”as a contagious agent. The irregular changes of mortality among PWAs over the years falsifies the notion that “PWA” means “risk of death from HIV disease”.

It’s meaningless to talk of Rethinkers’ “claims” as something we need to establish against every publication. Our claim is that HIV/AIDS theory is wrong, and I’ve just cited SOME of te proofs of that fact.

Posted by Henry Bauer on 12/28/2008 @ 04:23PM PST
Report

Hank is clearly staying clear of the main reason why the letter has just been sent to Science demanding the withdrawal of the papers said to prove that HIV causes AIDS. The main evidence of fraud is certainly not the Gonda letter – it is the authenticated draft of the lead paper with the evidence of major scientific fraud that it clearly contains.
As for Gonda, you ask me about his 1983 letters. I see no problem with him having imaged retroviruses back in 1983. What was missing were any experiments designed to prove these imaged particles were the cause of AIDS. No one is claiming that this experimental work was successfully done before 1984.
What we do know is that 3 days before Gallo sent in his papers for publication in Science, he received a letter from Gonda, the head of Electron Microscopy, saying that the samples Gallo had sent him for imaging ‘for publication’ claiming ‘they contained HTLV-III (his alleged AIDS virus) – contained only cellular debris.
We also know that Gallo submitted the papers to Science on the 30th March, that they were peer reviewed within 3 weeks and given to journalists days later, over a week before they appeared in Science.
When they appeared they contained images by Gonda that Gallo stated were of HTLV-III. Of course it is just about possible that Gallo rushed in other samples for imaging before the papers were peer-reviewed -and it is also possible he had older images of retroviruses taken by the Institut Pasteur. Thus in my book I only argue that Gonda’s letter casts strong doubts on these images. I say the other evidence is more powerful.
Incidentally, Gonda did not take “photographs” – as photons cannot be employed to do this as viruses are shorter than light waves. The correct term is imaging or micrographing.
Thus I repeat, the main arguments made by the Scientists in their letter is not based on Gonda’s letter, but on what they believe to be the convincing evidence of fraud found in the draft of the key manuscript.
Incidentally, Gallo has been confronted with this evidence and in his reply he did not contest the authenticity of this document. nor the evidence of grave fraud it contains. Instead he chose to contest my statement that the US Secret Service had investigated laboratory documents he put forward as legal evidence and found evidence of falsification in them. This was a mistake by Gallo. Two days later I had on the phone the former Head of the US Secret Service who had headed up the inquiry into Gallo. He confirmed that their laboratory found grave evidence of falsification.
I also regard seriously the evidence produced by the Office of Research Integrity of the Federal Department of Health. They reported that this key experiment, the one ever since reported as proving HIV causes AIDS, was so poorly recorded in this same paper that in the following 9 years it had proved impossible to repeat it to verify it.
Since then other evidence has mounted from many sources such as from Dr Nancy Padian’s paper reporting her testing of the hypothesis that heterosexual sex can spread HIV. She mounted the largest study ever done on this in the USA, and reported zero cases of transmission, even among couples who failed to use condoms. Scanned citations of her work are also in my book.
Then there was of course the recent Rodriquez study that showed HIV could not be killing most of the blood cells previously held to be killed by HIV. It is still an enigma in AIDS research circles just how HIV does the damage it is blamed for.
However research on contesting theories on AIDS are rarely if ever funded. Instead scientists that contest the establishment’s views lose their grants. Gallo himself boasted last year that after he published these papers in 1984, all funding on alternative theories of AIDS causation immediately ceased. This is despite the FDA by then having published scores of papers that indicated AIDS might well have other causes. I would suggest that it is definitely time we researched again all possible alternative theories given how little success has been achieved so far.
The last time the CDC published the figures, over 60% of those put on antiretroviral chemotherapy type drugs had no evident symptoms of illness at the time. The main cause of death among people on these drugs is now liver disease caused by the toxicity of these same drugs as administered over years.
It would be relatively simple to set up confirming experiments. It would not cost a great deal to endeavor again to fully isolate the AIDS retrovirus from an AIDS victim, and prove it causes AIDS. This could settle this great argument for good.
After all, if a retrovirus does not cause AIDS, then antiretroviral drugs are entirely the wrong medicine.
with respect
Janine Roberts
author Fear of the Invisible

Posted by Janine Roberts on 12/28/2008 @ 05:29PM PST
Report

This was a satisfying response for me, it clarifies some points which were open for criticism in my opinion. Maybe that one should also be sent to Science.

Posted by Sadun Kal on 12/28/2008 @ 06:07PM PST
Report

Hank: “David, if you think you know the truth already you don’t need an investigation.” Doesn’t that sum up the whole ethos of your “religious” thinking? I’m sure many Christians would say the same if technology could be developed that could detect the presence or absence of a deity. You claim to be a scientist and then in one short sentence dismiss the whole scientific method.Imagine the horror if the Police took this attitude “No investigation necessary madam because we all know the butler did it!” Oh wait, we don’t need to imagine the horror; we see it every day in the High Church of AIDS.

Posted by Cathy Thompson on 12/28/2008 @ 06:12PM PST
Report

After the latest embarrassing failure to produce an AIDS vaccine, there was a whole flurry of articles about thoroughly perplexed, head-scratching scientists forced to do some “soul-searching,” and serious calls to “go back to the drawing board.”

I couldn’t agree more. But it is always best to start at the beginning.

As Janine said:

“Research on contesting theories on AIDS are rarely if ever funded. Instead scientists that contest the establishment’s views lose their grants. Gallo himself boasted last year that after he published these papers in 1984, all funding on alternative theories of AIDS causation immediately ceased. This is despite the FDA by then having published scores of papers that indicated AIDS might well have other causes. I would suggest that it is definitely time we researched again all possible alternative theories given how little success has been achieved so far.”

Posted by Laura Ogar on 12/28/2008 @ 06:43PM PST
Report

Can someone explain why the 1980s are so important tato HIV/AIDS denialists? The discovery, the cell lines, LAV and HTLV, the press conference, the Science papers, the fraud, AZT….WHO CARES? There are 20 years of sound biomedical research from around the globe that have brought us to our very clear understanding of how HIV causes AIDS.….what is the obsession with Robert Gallo? Does this just go back to the Duesberg-Gallo thing? There are far bigger issues to contend with. For example, there remains no evidence that David Crowe – the supposed President of the Rethinkers – may be a fictitious identity. There seems to be no proof of his existence. There is some speculation, but no proof. It has been suggested that Gary Null has created the David Crowe persona to push the vitamin and micronutrient sales agenda, backed by Big Veggie and Rath International. But no proof of that either. If David Crowe does not exist, what does that say about all AIDS denialism? For more on the failure to prove David Crowe exists visit http://denyingaids.blogspot.com We also have to account for the suffering that AIDS denialism is causing. Just visit the health message board at Brian Carter’s MSN site http://groups.msn.com/AIDSMythExposed/healthissues.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=33487&LastModified=4675690813549783756Countless people who were lured into AIDS denialism have posted crying out for help. If someone living with HIV makes the informed to not take antiretroviral medications that is a decision that any one should respect. I certainly do. The problem with denialism is it persuades people to make a misinformed decision. That is what makes denialism so harmful. Checkout the MSN message board and see for yourself.

Posted by Seth Kalichman on 12/28/2008 @ 07:01PM PST
Report

Cathy, I don’t think “Hank” meant it like that. He was actually criticizing David Collins when he said that. But your critique still applies to him to some degree since he acts like he knows the truth and since he doesn’t support rethinking; he voted for 4 of the top 5 ideas in global health. Guess which one he didn’t vote for and why?

Posted by Sadun Kal on 12/28/2008 @ 07:14PM PST
Report

Ah, the return of Seth. Yes, it’s true, David Crowe does not exist! All those videos and podcasts made by “David Crowe”, why, that’s actually an actor paid very handsomely by Gary Null!

I’d like to say that Mr. Kalichman at least provided some comic value, but I find him too much of a sad case.

Posted by Laura Ogar on 12/28/2008 @ 07:21PM PST
Report

What do you mean by “denialists” Seth? What does that mean? Care to define it? Sounds like a pretty anti-scientific label to supress dissidence towards weak science to me.

Posted by Sadun Kal on 12/28/2008 @ 07:23PM PST
Report

Oh how cute Seth – you borrowed Sarah Palin’s “there you go Joe, always looking back” meme to obfuscate the war crimes of the likes of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.
It is important when an ill-conceived scientific sleight of hand leads to what we now have today – fraudulent science. Why so hysterical at the thought of independent eyes examining this issue?
Should we rewrite history and state that the assassination of Ferdinand has no bearing on WWI?
Come on Seth – I would have expected someone with a PhD in psychology to have a better grip on the debate than this childish hand waving nonsense.

Posted by Cathy Thompson on 12/28/2008 @ 07:36PM PST
Report

Denialism is the proper term for what we see in this blog.Dissident is not. Neither is delusion, although it is close. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism) defines denialism as follows… Denialism is the term used to describe the position of governments, political parties, business groups, interest groups, or individuals who reject propositions on which a scientific or scholarly consensus exists. Such groups and individuals are said to be engaging in denialism when they seek to influence policy processes and outcomes by using rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none.[1][2]The term was first used in the sense of ‘holocaust denialism’, but the usage has broadened to include ‘AIDS denialism’,[3][4][5][6][7] ‘climate change denialism’[8][9][10] and ‘evolution denialism’.[11] I really do not mean to use the term in a hurtful or nasty way. It is just the correct term.

Seth Kalichman, http://denyingaids.blogspot.com

Posted by Seth Kalichman on 12/28/2008 @ 07:38PM PST
Report

Why do you think that the “consensus” about “HIV/AIDS” is “scientific” or “scholarly” when there are so many obvious deficiencies?

Many of them were pointed out above. Gallo, obviously a fraud no matter what one believes in, is still regarded as the one of the most respected scientists in the HIV/AIDS field. You’re talking about a consensus coming from a “scientific” community allowing/accepting something like this. That should be enough to make my point clear but I can continue if you wish.

Posted by Sadun Kal on 12/28/2008 @ 08:07PM PST
Report

While I admire the efforts to involve Mr. Kalichman in a proper discussion, I’m not sure his posts to date – particularly when one includes those of “Bob Bolgger” – would pass the Turing Test.

Which is not to claim he doesn’t exist. I just don’t see him capable of engaging in rational discourse.

Posted by Laura Ogar on 12/28/2008 @ 08:22PM PST
Report

Truth does not need the consensus of scientific, scholarly or any other thought and many things that were widely regarded as “truth” have been shown to be demonstrably false.
The truth is the truth even if not one person currently alive on this planet believes it.I
n order to belong to the group one has to think like the group. This effectively ensures the sheep will band together and baah in unison. Not baahing in unison bars them from belonging.
The AIDS establishment – and lets make it clear to other readers here – yourself and your wife both make a living from this fairy tale and have strong, visceral reasons to argue that “you are right” and “we are wrong”. But that doesn’t make you right. You aren’t right because you are “in a bigger gang” – that just makes you nothing less than a bully Seth.
We don’t believe your fairy tale because it has never been scientifically proven, period.
Hitler, the German Army, the SS, the Gestapo and the German people all entered into “consensus” that Jews, homosexuals, the mentally handicapped and other unfortunates did not deserve to share breathing space on the planet. Did that make them “right” Seth? It makes your habit of lumping us in with Holocaust denialism rather ironic.

Posted by Cathy Thompson on 12/28/2008 @ 08:59PM PST
Report

The two faces of Seth Kalichman:http://letterstotheempire.com/2008/12/28/aids-blogger-a-study-in-dishonesty/

Posted by Jason Hart on 12/29/2008 @ 12:50AM PST
Report

“Should we rewrite history and state that the assassination of Ferdinand has no bearing on WWI?” _ excellent metaphor: ALL of “HIV” “science” is derived from the cellular soup labelled “Pure HIV” back in 1984.
One dog barks at a shadow… a hundred bark at its sound.

Posted by Jason Hart on 12/29/2008 @ 01:07AM PST
Report

Jason. Or to put it in the words of Arthur Conan Doyle it was more the dog that “didn’t bark” that alerted Holmes as to the true crime of the theft of Silver Blaze. Only this time it isn’t just a horse. It is millions that haven’t noticed the absence of the dog’s bark. WE need to bark, and bark as loud as possible. WOOF, WOOF, WOOF. Just to add a bit of theatrics: “WOO, the hounds of the Baskervilles are after you dirty lying charlatans.” Feel free to have sweaty nightmares you death-dealing industry prostitutes.

Posted by Cathy Thompson on 12/29/2008 @ 01:59AM PST
Report

Much as I love a good dog barking reference, can we return to Martin’s original proposal?
Martin claims that “There is a growing group of doctors and scientists who believe the common understanding of the cause of AIDS is incorrect. It is not caused by a virus but instead by drug abuse and (in Africa ) malnutrition.” Let’s leave aside the question of whether there are more than a handful of genuinely qualified doctors who actually treat AIDS in real life or scientists who have done actual research in this field who agree with his statement. (The standard “rethinker” lists on the internet have very few names in these categories. Nearly all of them are non-scientists, retired people with an internet hobby, or people pushing crank “health” agendas).
So let’s break down Martin’s claim about the relationship between illicit drug use and AIDS.
AIDS is a particular disease of the immune system characterized by a loss of CD4+ cell mediated immune function. There are several other similar immune system diseases that are characterized by a similar immune dysfunction but they have no relationship whatsoever with illicit drug use. One is CD4+ lymphopaenia associated with prescribed cancer treatment or transplant antirejection drugs. Another is ICL, which is probably several different immune system disorders – but none of them associated with unusual substance use patterns. Out of all the different immune system diseases characterized by CD4+ lymphopaenia, AIDS is by far the most common. Nearly everyone in the world with clinically significant CD4+ lymphopaenia has HIV infection demonstrable through HIV testing.
All people with AIDS have HIV. Some are also illicit drug users, partly because illicit drug use is common, partly because needle sharing is a fairly efficient way of transmitting HIV, and some because the use of some illicit drugs such as psychostimulants and inhalants correlates with sexual risk taking. However, illicit drug takers do not develop AIDS unless they have HIV. Conversely, people who have HIV who don’t take illicit drugs still get AIDS.
The only variable that predicts getting AIDS is infection with HIV. Drug use alone doesn’t. Drug users who don’t have HIV don’t get AIDS and rarely get anything that even looks remotely like AIDS, although they often have other health problems, some of them serious.
People who have HIV and don’t take antiretrovirals often get AIDS, about half of them within 10 years of infection, others later than that. A few have had HIV for decades with no treatment and no AIDS. People with HIV who use antiretrovirals at the appropriate time are less likely to get AIDS than people with HIV who don’t. People with AIDS who control their HIV infection with antiretrovirals live longer, healthier lives than people with AIDS who don’t.

This the mainstream understanding, based on over a quarter of a century of many thousands of scientists and physicians studying the phenomenon of AIDS in the lab and in the clinic. For some reason, Martin has decided they are all wrong, and believes we need to fund some other kinds of studies that will show that the “real” picture is different, and that in fact drug use per se rather than HIV infection is the real cause of AIDS. Is there any plausible evidence for that claim?

(Oh, and Cathy, I think you just Godwinned a couple of posts up).

Posted by The Snout on 12/29/2008 @ 03:11AM PST
Report

Snout, you like the dog metaphor? If the shoe fits, wear it!

The Perth Group on scientific consensus: “Only a minority of the world’s scientists work on HIV or AIDS. Of these most are cloistered in specialist fields where of necessity particular matters of significance are accepted in good faith as fact. For example, scientists working on the ‘HIV’ genome do not question the origin of the DNA molecules they research. Just as laboratory technicians performing antibody tests never question the origin of the proteins in their test kits. And it goes without saying that no protagonist questions the existence of HIV. (The same acceptance in good faith applies to the vast majority of medical practitioners as well as health planners, politicians, patients and relatives. This is not a criticism since no one has time to check up on every facet of every disease that afflicts mankind). When it comes to the question ‘What is the proof that HIV cause AIDS?’ in reality there are only a relatively small number of scientists who would be regarded by all the other scientists in the field as competent to explain and defend the HIV theory. In fact the numbers of such scientists may not be that greatly different from the number who argue there is no proof that HIV causes AIDS.

Posted by Jason Hart on 12/29/2008 @ 03:11AM PST
Report

Jason, real scientists don’t talk about “proof”. They talk about “evidence”.
The so-called “Perth Group” are not scientists in the field of HIV or AIDS. One works as a technician in a medical physics lab at the Royal Perth Hospital testing people for sensitivity to radiation, and the other used to be a doctor in the emergency department of the same hospital. Neither have ever so much as treated a patient for AIDS, formally studied any of the relevant basic science, or conducted any productive research in the field.
Their claims to be “experts” were laughed out of court (and in the Australian media) a couple of years ago when they presented themselves as “expert witnesses”. They are buffoons, a national joke in my country.
Neither of them are competent to evaluate the question of the EVIDENCE for the causation of AIDS.

Posted by The Snout on 12/29/2008 @ 03:28AM PST
Report

Snout
If it were theology, you’d say only priests & theologians can discuss God? If that were so, then we’d all still be Catholics. Tell me (& *please* be point to point in your answer) – how is what you advocate, deferring exclusively to the “experts” different to blind faith in a cult, or in the Vatican? You’re contradicting your own philosophy of auhtority worship, right now, yourself.
‘Do not believe in what ye have heard. Do not believe in the traditions because they have been passed down for many generations. Do not believe in anything because it is rumoured and spoken by many. Do not believe merely because a written statement of some old sage is produced. Do not believe in conjectures; do not believe in that as truth to which you have become attached by habit. Do not believe merely in the authority of your teachers and elders. After observation and analysis, when it agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and gain of one and all, then accept it and live up to it. -The Buddha, Kalama Sutra

Posted by Jason Hart on 12/29/2008 @ 03:47AM PST
Report

Folks, i think we should ignore anonymous posts. They are not worth the trouble….

Posted by Stefan Risch on 12/29/2008 @ 03:48AM PST
Report

Interesting phrasing, Jason. If anyone looks at the “evidence” produced by both sides, one can see that it is the orthodox view that is backed by the scientific method and evidence-based medicine.

It is the “denialist” view that is entrenched in ideology, and fails to adapt or modify its hypotheses in the face of new evidence and information. Instead, the “new” evidence is dismissed and derided as irrelevant, purely so you can stick to your dogmatic preconceptions about the subject.

The papers I cited regarding the efficacy of antiretroviral drugs are a case to point. Instead of objectively looking at this evidence, we hear accusations from Gos how the metanalysis must have looked at drug company-funded studies, or how the studies did not go on for more than 5 years (even though this “short” period of time showed clear differences in clinical outcomes and survival), or how some of the studies are too “small” (hint for you Gos, that’s why they do metanalysis, to increase the evaluable number of study subjects). This is all done so the denialists can jump to the conclusion (delusion?) that the studies mean nothing. I see no attempt to address the science or data, no objective critical analysis, no thinking as to what the studies did actually show and reasoning why they might have done so, no attempt to reappraise their own view in the light of new evidence…… no, let the denialists just rubbish the study and move very quickly on, hoping noone will see through the hand waving routine.

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/29/2008 @ 04:11AM PST
Report

Reg and Laura – regarding testing. Testing is already routine in many situations – blood donors, pregnant women, health care attenders. I have yet to hear of any scandals where hundreds of people are being diagnosed as positive, when there is very little possibility of it being so. In my view, this mererly confirms the accuracy of HIV testing.

I remain entirely open to changing my view on this, so any references that it has happened will be welcomed (I am not holding my breath)

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/29/2008 @ 04:20AM PST
Report

Why are some of you ignoring that now heart, liver, and kidney failure and a higher rate of cancer among those who take the antiretrovirals are killing AIDS persons. These are not in the 30 AIDS defining diseases but are side effects of the disease. And maybe you sweep the Lancet study under the rug, where does on the meds don’t live any longer than those of us not on them. Don’t forget the Padian study, no one, I repeat no one who was HIV- became HIV+.

We have been lied to by the NIH and the CDC, which states that HIV is a sexual disease. No numbers just don’t show that either. In fact, HIV and AIDS is extremely low in the states, .004% out of 300 million. Explain how the many who have stopped the toxic drugs have lead normal lives. We have developed or redeveloped AIDS. Is this just a coincidence too? We think not. We have found a better way, a way of life not death!

Posted by Noreen Martin on 12/29/2008 @ 04:22AM PST
Report

The above should state, are the side effects of the drugs!

Posted by Noreen Martin on 12/29/2008 @ 04:23AM PST
Report

According to a published paper, Most Published Research is Wrong:
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124&ct=1

Posted by Jon Barnett on 12/29/2008 @ 04:31AM PST
Report

Derek – interesting means nothing – is what I say true or false, & why?
As for the medical evidence supporting the orthodoxy, you are factually wrong. Please follow the links to dozens of peer-reviewed studies & articles here: http://letterstotheempire.com/2008/10/03/the-mountain-of-evidence-for-hiv/

Posted by Jason Hart on 12/29/2008 @ 04:37AM PST
Report

I’ve just had a look at the “letter to Science” by 37 “top scientists”.
What a laugh.

Tell us Jennifer Craig, in which biomedical field are you a “top scientist”? Could you cite some of your recent research? Could you enlighten us as to your qualifications to speak on the subject of HIV/AIDS?

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/29/2008 @ 04:40AM PST
Report

No, Jason, I was replying to your citation of Mrs Eleopulos-Papadopulos and Dr Turner as if they were some kind of experts in the field. They’re not – they’re clowns with a transparent crank agenda to get their ideas about oxidative stress recognised. Rather than do actual scientific work to test their hypotheses and demonstrate their validity, they have become bogged down making endless tedious nit picking “critiques” of real AIDS science and demanding to set the rules of virology – a field in which neither of them have the slightest formal training or experience.

Feel free to discuss what you think the cause of AIDS is. However, if you want to be taken seriously in any scientific sense, you need to produce evidence. “Observation and analysis which agrees with reason”, as the Buddha might have put it.

The Perthians have never made or reported any actual observations. This is why their claims to “authority” are laughable – they have never done any actual work, just sat on their bums thinking about the work of others trying (very unconvincingly) to pick holes.

Martin has suggested that drugs cause AIDS. At least this is a positive assertion, although it fails the test of close observation and analysis, and as such is unreasonable.

There is no necessity to take this on faith, or to accept this simply because some “authority” says so.

Read the evidence yourself. It’s all there on PubMed or in the libraries of your local university. Ask for help navigating through it if you need to.

Posted by The Snout on 12/29/2008 @ 04:41AM PST
Report

Jason, I checked the letters to the empire link for all the “evidence” that HIV does not cause AIDS.

First link was to a paper describing how one man developed anaemia 4 years after starting AZT, thought to be a side effect of the drug.

Wow! I am impressed. I will now conclude HIV does not exist, and even if it does it cannot cause AIDS. No need for me to check the other links, this one on its own is so overwhelming.

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/29/2008 @ 04:47AM PST
Report

LOL, Jon, and 78.2% of statistics are nonsense.

That’s why you need to read stuff critically. It’s a learned skill, particularly when what you are reading is a relatively arcane field like virology, or immunology, or epidemiology. Genuine experts can help here – not to tell you what to think, but to provide essential background and help you sort the good stuff from the nutty.

Critical reading is not simply a matter of scanning stuff and mechanically saying “bulldust!”

That’s denialism.

Posted by The Snout on 12/29/2008 @ 05:04AM PST
Report

Ho ho ho Derek. Your intellectual lack of integrity is recorded here on this page for posterity. Yes, the medical literature often contains single case-studies. But you read no further? Is this how you usually investigate evidence pertaining to a complex & abstruse subject?
For the many people reading this thread, & not posting, & whom you are alerting to the rotten dishonesty of the Aid$ orthodoxy as a group (headless monster that it is), let me post a couple of other entries, at random (note: these are from the New Enlgand Journal of Medicine & similar “top” medical journals):
“participants of open-label ZDV [AZT] still had four to five times the incidence of ARC/AIDS/death of participants on blinded therapy [of which approximately half were on AZT and half on placebo]…The unadjusted hazard of ARC/AIDS/death was 4.6 times higher for participants [in the deferred group] who had received ZDV…after adjustment for latest CD4 this became 1.6…There was a suggestion of a benefit in terms of [slower]progression to ARC, AIDS or death [with AZT], no effect on progression to AIDS or death, and a suggestion of an increase in mortality.”White IR et al. Impact of treatment changes on the interpretation of the Concorde trial. AIDS. 1997 Jul 11;11(8):999-1006.
“Extended follow-up of patients in one [AZT] trial, the Concorde study, has shown a significantly increased risk of death among the patients treated early…where is the evidence that for a patient with a CD4 count of 450 cells per cubic millimeter and a low plasma viral level, it would not be better to wait before initiating therapy?…In 1990…a patient with a CD4 count of 450 cells per cubic millimeter would have been advised to start monotherapy with zidovudine. We now tell such a patient that, in fact, follow-up data for up to 4.5 years since that time have shown no survival benefit”Phillips AN, Smith GD et al. Viral load and combination therapy for Human Immunodeficiency Virus. N Engl J Med. 1997 Mar 27;336(13):958-9; author reply 960.
“The mortality rate was significantly higher among [a group of 1372] patients who had received antiretroviral therapy [principally AZT] before enrollment in the clinic”Chaisson RE, Keruly JC, Moore RD. Sex, race, drug use and progression of human immunodeficiency virus disease. N Engl J Med. 1995 Sep 21;333(12):751-6.
“None of the LTAs [long term asymptomatics] received any antiviral drugs during the study; however, 3 [of 6] rapid progressors…were treated with zidovudine…[and] a rapid progressor was treated with didanosine during the study.”Hogervorst E et al. Predictors for non- and slow progression in HIV type-1 infection: low viral RNA copy numbers in serum and maintenance of high HIV-1 p24-specific antibody levels. J Infect Dis. 1995;171:811-21.
I could go on & on; you will of course respond with counter-citations (non-randomized, uncontrolled, drug company-funded) , citing the effectiveness of AZT. The fact is, the studies I have cited here *exist*, and dozens and dozens more like them, concerning every facet of “HIV” science, not only treatment.
All honest intellectuals, please see for yourself: click on the links at the end of the entry to be found at http://letterstotheempire.com/2008/10/03/the-mountain-of-evidence-for-hiv/ for *dozens* of peer-reviewed articles &verbatim extracts from studies detailing the deadly toxicity of “life-saving” ARV’s.

Posted by Jason Hart on 12/29/2008 @ 05:09AM PST
Report

Noreen, you are picking up on widely disseminated rumors that the drugs are wreaking havoc by causing cancers and other problems like liver failure and cardiac disease.

Like all rumors, there is a grain of truth. But only a grain. Since HIV related mortality has plummetted with the use of ARVs, the relative importance of other things has increased. ARVs may well increase some cardiac risks. People may get liver failure (but these are always patients with Hep B or C, so the drugs actually play a minor part). As people age (they survive longer on ARVs) they become susceptible to cardiac problems and cancer – that is only to be expected. Next you will be blaming the drugs for causing people to die from “old age”. Yup, ARV-induced old age is the commonest cause of death! Stop the ARVs!

If you don’t believe me look at the actual data in this paper.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16878047?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Some quotes:
“Among 6945 HIV-infected patients followed for a median of 39.2 months, death rates fell from 7.0 deaths/100 person-years of observation in 1996 to 1.3 deaths/100 person-years in 2004 (P=0.008 for trend). Deaths that included AIDS-related causes decreased from 3.79/100 person-years in 1996 to 0.32/100 person-years in 2004 (P=0.008).”

Translation:
ARVs have dramatically cut the death rate.

“Proportional increases in deaths involving liver disease, bacteremia/sepsis, gastrointestinal disease, non-AIDS malignancies, and renal disease also occurred (P=or<0.001, 0.017, 0.006, <0.001, and 0.037, respectively.) Hepatic disease was the only reported cause of death for which absolute rates increased over time, albeit not significantly, from 0.09/100 person-years in 1996 to 0.16/100 person-years in 2004 (P=0.10).”

Translation:
Deaths from “non-AIDS” conditions increased, but only RELATIVELY because AIDS deaths had dropped. The only thing which increased in ABSOLUTE terms was liver deaths. This rose from 0.09 to 0.16/100 person years. When you consider that ARVs have reduced death rates from AIDS from 3.79 to 0.32/100 py, is that not a very small price which is worth paying?

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/29/2008 @ 05:11AM PST
Report

Jason. The fact that the drugs have side effects is not news to me or anyone else. The only question a doctor will ask is whether the drugs do more benefit than harm. With HIV drugs, the benefits are clear and exceed the harms.

What will you be advocating next, that we stop treating meningitis because the antibiotics might cause a rash? Perhaps you will take this argument to the same illogical conclusion as you deploy for HIV, and decide that since antibiotics cause rashes, then meningitis does not exist.

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/29/2008 @ 05:15AM PST
Report

Erm… did you actually read the three extracts above? (And please, spare us the non-sequiturs, or go back to high school).
Intelligent people out there: READ FOR YOURSELF! Don’t take anyhting on authority. You might be surprised by what you find.

Posted by Jason Hart on 12/29/2008 @ 05:24AM PST
Report

Death is a side-effect? Then what’s the main effect? Healing?

Posted by Jason Hart on 12/29/2008 @ 05:37AM PST
Report

Derek & Snout,It’s all been so well said on this blog, that I really can’t add anything else, except how incredibly painful you both are to read.By the way, we don’t spend ANY of our valuable time on your pathetic sites, such as aidstruth or avert, why would you possibly spend so much time here, if you weren’t really very fearful that this scandal might be exposed?

Posted by Karri Stokely on 12/29/2008 @ 05:51AM PST
Report

I suppose that the antiretrovirals are not messing with one’s blood either. I monitored my blood reports every three months while on the meds and believe me, my blood was far from being normal. I would recommend that others do the same, the proof is in the pudding as the saying goes. Whether one believes in HIV or not, LDN or low dose naltrexone is a much better way to go. It doesn’t interfere with one’s blood reports and it certainly keeps any opportunistic infections away. But then, it’s a cheap drug, so the drug companies are not interested in promoting it. It’s all about money, not the health of the patient!

Posted by Noreen Martin on 12/29/2008 @ 05:53AM PST
Report

Derek,

No doubt you’d like to dismiss personal experience as irrelevant in the fields of science. I disagree. Indeed ultimately it is all that matters. I’ve taken those drugs before and the answer to your question is: No, it is NOT a very small price worth paying.

Your argument is based on some flawed definitions of “health”. As long as I pursued good health based on some meaningless lab results I was miserable. Only when I turned my back on your so-called “science” and sought out ways to actually improve my health did I start to feel better.

Today I feel GOOD and have been free of ALL prescription drugs for nearly two years, ARV drugs for about five years. All the studies, papers, research and arguments you make cannot change that. Though I must confess that the underlying intent and condescending tone of your and Snout’s posts have cost me my appetite this morning.

Not one single doctor has directed me to a research study for why my experience defies the “science” you defend. Can you help me and others like me find a clinical trial so we can help find an even better way to deal with immune deficiency?

We lesser humans do not exist for your ideal of science. Science exists to serve US.

Denial of open research into all the possible causes (yes, plural) as espoused by you and your associates is unhealthy. Your strategies and tactics are not unlike the virus you defend; stealthy, invisible to the naked eye, mutating… and deadly.

We ask only that the original research be evaluated, repeated and verified. You charge us with heresy and even murder.

What the hell motivates you guys? (rhetorical question)

Posted by Jon Barnett on 12/29/2008 @ 05:58AM PST
Report

Over the years, I have heard AIDS patients complain that they were concerned that if they had some other health problem, they would not be treated appropriately. Well, they are right. I recently had a similiar experience. I had difficulty breathing and went to the emergency room. Instead of treating my breathing issues, the infectious disease doctor was called. I went to the er not breathing well and left the same way.

The only acceptable way to deal with AIDS patients is with antiretrovirals, which does not address every problem in life. I would recommend that if one has issues and seeks out a doctor, to not reveal their HIV status, or risk not being properly treated. My problem was asthma and I only got better after seeing the proper specialist and proper medications.

I respect those who choose not to see the AIDS doctors. I still go because they read my CD4’s, so-called viral load, and they see my improved lab reports. It has to be messing with them.

Posted by Noreen Martin on 12/29/2008 @ 06:13AM PST
Report

Snout et al

I asked a very simple question back up in this thread to Hank. Maybe you have an answer?

Going back to the famous press conference April 23 1984, where Margaret Heckler announced that the “probable” cause of AIDS has been found. Can you please provide what date this “probable” cause (”HIV”) made a miraculous jump to being the difinitive cause? What date was it? When did that change? Can you please share that with your wide audience here? That would be very helpful. Do you know? I would hope so since you seem so much up on the subject.

Posted by Brian Carter on 12/29/2008 @ 06:19AM PST
Report

While we’re at it, maybe some of the believers in the faith can tell us what proved that having “antibodies” to HIV equated to having an active infection. Also, what proves that CD4’s have any significance at all. Lastly, if we have a dangerous virus in us, then why can’t it be found in our blood or body without PCR, which is only one violation of Koch’s Postulates. If it is real, then it should be found freely circulating in our body fluids.

Posted by Noreen Martin on 12/29/2008 @ 06:28AM PST
Report

Just stopping the AIDS drugs was enough for me to regain my physical and mental health. I also avoid AIDS doctors, that is important.

When testing positive, the belief in HIV/AIDS itself can affect our health, like a nocebo effect.

Maria Papagiannidou
Author of the book “GoodBye AIDS! Did it ever exist?”

Posted by Maria Papagiannidou on 12/29/2008 @ 06:30AM PST
Report

Jon, I don’t dismiss personal experience; I see it every day in the clinic among the cohort of patients I help look after (I am a health care worker in an Infectious Diseases facilty). Witnessing something with one’s own eyes is always convincing (and I personally am as convinced about the benefits of therapy as you are of any harm). But the point I make is that we can all be fooled by personal experiences, we generalise and extrapolate our own onto the remainder of people with the problem. Personal experience and anecdote is why parents whose children have had a vaccine reaction are so implacably antivaccine, or why someone who was ill on ARVs and feels better when they stop thinks the drugs do not work. But the final judge of whether treatments work or don’t work is not anecdotal experience, as powerful as it may seem. It is analysis of the treatment in sufficient numbers of people to detect significant effects. These studies will also incorporate information about the harms from the treatments. If a treatment is toxic and kills people, then studies will not demonstrate that it lengthens overall survival unless the survival benefit of being on treatment greatly outweighs the reduced survival through toxicities. It’s that simple, really. You can post as many studies of how “harmful” the drugs may be as you wish. Overall, they are of benefit.

What motivates me is a desire for patients with HIV to be able to experience the benefits that medical science has brought to the field of HIV medicine. This applies not just to the developed world, but to the developing world. Stories such as Mbeki’s denial of ARVs to his own people, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths and infections appal me.

But science has moved on. Go look at the contents list of an HIV research journal. Try this one:
http://www.liebertonline.com/toc/aid/24/12

While we sit here arguing about irrelevancies such as EMs of virus, every day researchers are refining techniques for HIV resistance assays, genotyping, tropism assays, gene therapy, coreceptor affinities, and so on. Things haved moved way past any historical “questions” you have about say Gallo’s 1983 virus paper. This whole discussion is an anachronism.

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/29/2008 @ 07:01AM PST
Report

Derek / Seth, “You can post as many studies of how ‘harmful’ the drugs may be as you wish. Overall, they are of benefit.” – Ok, so we’re quitting the realms of evidence-based medicine here, officially? If you’re not basing your testimony on the medical literature, then you’re basing it on voodoo or your gut feel; & that’s of no use to anyone, I’m afraid.
Free thinkers, again I invite you, read the medical literature yourself: an extensive overview of relevant material is linked at http://letterstotheempire.com/2008/10/03/the-mountain-of-evidence-for-hiv/

Posted by Jason Hart on 12/29/2008 @ 07:30AM PST
Report

“Extended follow-up of patients in one [AZT] trial, the Concorde study, has shown a significantly increased risk of death among the patients treated early…where is the evidence that for a patient with a CD4 count of 450 cells per cubic millimeter and a low plasma viral level, it would not be better to wait before initiating therapy?…In 1990…a patient with a CD4 count of 450 cells per cubic millimeter would have been advised to start monotherapy with zidovudine. We now tell such a patient that, in fact, follow-up data for up to 4.5 years since that time have shown no survival benefit”Phillips AN, Smith GD et al. Viral load and combination therapy for Human Immunodeficiency Virus. N Engl J Med. 1997 Mar 27;336(13):958-9; author reply 960.
……..there are many, many more.

Posted by Jason Hart on 12/29/2008 @ 07:34AM PST
Report

We’ve yet to hear how antibodies equals active infection. Where is the proof? If you can’t answer basic questions, then no one is going to believe you. Why are those of us who no longer or who have never taken the meds, not sick and dying. Are you going to tell us about some ridiculous latent period. We are living proof that the current paradigm is incorrect.

Also, wouldn’t it make more sense to give starving people clean water, nutritious food, and a clean living environment? After all, that’s what they really need.

Posted by Noreen Martin on 12/29/2008 @ 07:37AM PST
Report

“Can someone explain why the 1980s are so important to HIV/AIDS denialists?”

This is Mr Kalichman’s purported “appeal to reason” which apparently is the definitive rhetorical flourish that finishes off “denialism”.

Can someone explain why the genomic studies that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt where molecular signatures of retroviruses come from are ignored by the likes of Mr. Kalichman?

And why do they ignore the stress and retroelement studies that explain AIDS-like diseases?

But since humor is now his tack re David Crowe as a fictitious persona of Gary Null, why not also be aware that Mr Kalichman is a creation of John P Moore – or at least his arguments indicate a mind meld with the distinguished Cornell professor?

Thus his refusal to engage Dr Maniotis on the quite current subject of retrogenomics at his own blog site.

Come on tuff guy, you say the papers on HIV in the form of reviews are the final proof that any idiot can understand. So what do they add to what was published in the 80’s on the “unique cytopathic variant”. How do they go beyond the logical fallacy of assuming the conclusion that HIV is pathogenic?

Posted by Gene Semon on 12/29/2008 @ 07:38AM PST
Report

Snout/Hank/Seth and all those HIV advocates,In spite of all these scientifical evidence debate, sometimes I really wonder, if HIV = AIDS ( as what the world is led to believe ), and that the medical establishments claim that the evidence for HIV = AIDS is overwhelming, why are you guys seem to concern about the aids dissidents debating about HIV doesnt causes AIDS ? I mean logically speaking, if those evidence that you guys/medical establishment says exist, when this debate is being brought up to Obama, Im sure they will not win the case, right ? But, somehow all you hiv advocate guys seem to be trying DESPERATELY proving that all of the aids dissidents are wrong, at times making negative statements…I really wonder

It is very clear to me, somehow you guys seems very concern of the AIDS dissidents proving that HIV does not cause AIDS(and just keep rejecting without analyzing the aids dissidents point of view, is this science anymore?). If the evidence of HIV=AIDS are there, why are you guys concern about ?

something fishy here….

Posted by brandon lopez on 12/29/2008 @ 07:59AM PST
Report

Derek,

A most excellent post! Interesting how perspective can affect how we perceive things.

We now know that your very livelihood is dependent on the validity of the paradigm. Small wonder you want to defend it. I know how guilty I feel for participating in die-ins in the 1980s to demand the very drugs that made me and other victims of the HIVAIDS myth deathly ill years later.

I know how difficult it will be for the tens of thousands of well-intentioned “helpers” like you to finally realize that you’ve been a good little German (to use an earlier analogy of how probably well-intentioned Germans put Hitler and the Nazis in power). That you are here is a good sign. It signifies that you aren’t quite so sure yourself, so there’s hope.

I too have watched as friends struggled to fight their disease, only to succumb to death in as horrible a manner as any prior to the drugs. Unlike you, I was not paid for my services. I remember a few years ago the look on the shell-shocked face of my HIV doc the morning he shared that another patient of his and friend of mine had recently died very suddenly. “It was like every organ in him just blew up… I don’t understand what happened…”

Mark Chaney was a compatriot of mine in the ACTUP wars demanding treatment. Like me, at the time he was convinced enough that modern researchers knew what they were doing to put his life in their hands. Mark died a ghastly death, Derek, and if you work in a clinic, you’ve seen this too.

Are YOU “poz”, Derek? Have you taken an ARV cocktail for years?

How in the world (or rather, in the developing world, to use your words) can you wish drugs on a population such as Africa when so many there do not even have clean drinking water, let alone sufficient food or adequate basic health care for previously existing illness that are now being misdiagnosed as “AIDS”? You may as well give a laptop to every kid in that village without electricity or basic education. Appalling? Try nonsensical.

The “techniques” with impressive sounding names that you list are not treatments, Derek. They are accessories on that useless laptop mentioned above. Let’s upgrade them to high-end gaming laptops with built in GPS and wireless network adapters. “What? No Internet connection in your village? That’s not important. What’s important is that you have this modern, expensive laptop!”

How can you say ARV drugs “overall” are beneficial on one hand, and simply dismiss any studies that contradict that on the other hand? I’m not so dogmatic as to say I will NEVER take any ARV drugs under any circumstances (though they’d have be mighty extreme circumstances and I would try to stop taking them as quickly as possible). The system you are defending, on the other hand, will only be satisfied if every single person testing “positive” is not only on the drugs, but monitored to ensure they take them for life!

Unlike you, I’m willing to answer “I don’t know” to the question of whether HIV exists or whether it can cause disease. When a scientist/researcher/clinic assistant claims to know they have the sole correct answer, they can only claim to be objective and indeed become suspect sources of information… especially if they won’t even use their real name.

You are obviously enthralled at the state of modern research from your side of the one-way mirror. It is this very profit-driven system that makes some of us so wary. I cannot get so excited about research that is based on previously accepted knowledge that is now known to be fraudulent. It is frightening that we are expending so many resources this way. No wonder so little (virtually none) progress has been made in treatment, let alone a vaccine or cure.

Except, that is… for the thousands of us who ARE living healthy lives with your incurable disease. What the hell good is genotyping a retrovirus that may not only be harmless, but actually necessary for good health in some people?

I strongly encourage you and others to read the excerpt below from Janine Roberts’ book Fear of the Invisible. IF the biologists are right, this amazing progress of virology just might be what is killing people. I salute Janine for making this information freely available on the web for those who may not be able to afford (or otherwise interested in buying) her book.

http://www.fearoftheinvisible.com/why-our-cells-make-retroviruses

Posted by Jon Barnett on 12/29/2008 @ 08:01AM PST
Report

Janine Roberts, thank you for acknowledging that your claims regarding Matthew Gonda are based on selectively ignoring his micrographing of HIV and speculation regarding what he was writing about in his March 84 letter. You should inform Semmelweis Society International, an organization whose credibility you endorsed earlier in the thread. For some reason, they treated your claims about Matthew Gonda’s letter as proven facts. From their statement: “After fellow researcher Matthew Gonda PhD informed Gallo that his electron microscopy showed no evidence of a virus in 1984, Gallo used Gonda’s name and photographs to corroborate his claim that he had isolated the virus.” And from their board resolution, which is featured and linked to on the front page of Janine Roberts website: “WHEREAS, Matthew Gonda, head of NCI electron microscopy, reported four days before Popovicís paper was submitted for publication, that nothing in Dr. Gallo’s samples contained anything more than cellular debris. WHEREAS, Dr. Gallo used Dr. Gonda’s photographs of cellular debris and Dr. Popovicís heavily edited report to support his assertion that HTLV-III was the cause of AIDS.” What Gallo wrote in the paper, btw, was that his data “suggests” that HTLV-III “may be the primary cause of AIDS.” Barre-Sinoussi, Jay Levy and others were saying the same thing (more accurately, in that they weren’t mistakenly suggesting the virus belonged to the HTLV family). Barre-Sinoussi was working with the virus Gonda micrographed.

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/29/2008 @ 08:40AM PST
Report

Seth,
David Crowe does exist and so do I. We also know that this subject is very important to you and me, why else would we be here? (although we are both here for different reasons)

You and I (and every one else here) are very different from those that have not ever heard about that there might be another reason people get AIDS.

Don’t you think that all people should at least hear that HIV might not cause AIDS and that it might be chemical and/or malnutrition? That way they can make their own decision on how to heal themselves. With cancer, people have a choice and they do with most other diseases too.

!.5 years ago I had no idea this debate even existed and I believed everything I had been told by the medical establishment. I looked the evidence and I was so angry that the doctor that diagnosed my wife never told us that there was another side to this story. I doubt he even knew.

Taking ownership of your health is a freedom that all should exercise. Anyone that wants to censor all of the information we now know, does not want health freedom and they do not have our best interests at heart.

Joe

Posted by joe stokely on 12/29/2008 @ 09:09AM PST
Report

Hank,

You continue to harp on and on about EM photos that were derived from cord blood.

What part of harmless endogenous retroviruses in cord blood have been well known since 1979, do you not yet understand.

To this, of course, you will argue that it was assuredly a lentivirus. But then, when asked for evidence that it was not common lab contamination and artefacts, by showing us an EM from the same patient in peripheral blood, you just slink away and ignore the fact that your 12/14 EM is meaningless without further verification that any other supposedly “infected” sick individual had any such thing in their peripheral blood.

I would ask you to show us a sample of any lentivirus from any hiv positive person’s periperal blood, but I am already quite aware that you can NOT do so.

So until and unless you do show us HIV from the blood of a sick aids patient, you are welcome to put your cord blood harmless endogenous retroviruses, right beside your lab artefacts, and politely place them where the sun don’t shine.

Posted by Michael Geiger on 12/29/2008 @ 09:35AM PST
Report

It is amazing how otherwise intelligent people such as Derek, Hank, Snout, et al, can be so overcome by their willingness to believe that all sickness in the gay community of the 80’s (and even currently) in individuals who were stressed to breaking by “coming out of their closets” and being disowned by their families, publicly humiliated by being kicked out of their jobs and out of the military for being gay, who were suffering from extreme self loathing, who were drugged out of their minds on alcohol-mixed with-crystal-coke-poppers-uppers-downers, who had shit diets, who took loads of antibiotics, who often had their own internal death wishes, who were taking experimental live hep-b vaccinations, who were often and repeatedly infected by sexually transmitted diseases……..

and yet foolish people like yourselves and other hiv/aids advocates and believers would expect that these people were all going to be just perfectly healthy if they just didn’t catch that one single unfindable in their blood, the boogyman retrovirus, hiv.

Serious question to Hank and Derek and Snout, et al….

Are you guys complete incompetent imbeciles, or are your childhood fears of the boogeyman and of cooties are still controlling your ability to observe life around you.

Posted by Michael Geiger on 12/29/2008 @ 09:54AM PST
Report

Noreen Martin wrote: “Over the years, I have heard AIDS patients complain that they were concerned that if they had some other health problem, they would not be treated appropriately. Well, they are right. I recently had a similiar experience. I had difficulty breathing and went to the emergency room. Instead of treating my breathing issues, the infectious disease doctor was called. …My problem was asthma and I only got better after seeing the proper specialist and proper medications.”

Noreen,

I have had the exact same experience, over and over and over again. In fact, when I nearly died of “AIDS-related pneumonia” in November of 2000, it turned out later that the real problem was an allergic reaction to structural mold in my living environment, and the reason it progressed over the course of two years to “AIDS-related pneumonia” was that I continued to live in the same environment for the whole two years, while treating the illness with ARVs for the first year (I had to be withdrawn after a year due to abnormal liver enzyme readings.) And as with you, when I sought and obtained appropriate treatment for my real health condition, I got real results, and my “AIDS” symptoms have improved every year since.

What a wild coincidence, that two extraordinary cases such as ourselves, should meet in a place such as this, where there are dozens of others with extraordinary stories just like ours, and not a single one of the ordinary cases that Derek claims are the rule, where we are the exception…

…and speaking of extraordinary stories….

Derek Neumann wrote: “Could you enlighten us as to your qualifications to speak on the subject of HIV/AIDS?”

I’ll tell ya my qualifications, buddy, I’m what you’d call an “AIDS patient”, and that makes me the expert and you the student. You got that?

I don’t care if there are 500 patients in your clinic, I don’t care how many of their hopes and dreams you claim to have heard, I don’t care how many of them you claim to have held as they cried on your labcoat, and I don’t care how many letters you’ve got behind your name, you will never be the expert that the patient is, because you do not live with AIDS, and your own life does not depend on knowing everything you can about it. Only your job depends on your knowledge, and if you knew half as much as people like Noreen and I know about AIDS (not to mention the other dozen or more “AIDS patients” in the room, not one of whom has spoken in your defense,) the next words out of your mouth would be, “Ya want a coke and fries with that?”

So first of all, quit pretending that you and those like you are the only people qualified to speak on AIDS. By the same logic, if we have doubts about the existence of God, we should only consult with priests, ministers, and rabbis, because they are the only experts on God; and under no circumstances are we to ask the opinion of an atheist or agnostic.

By your logic, we should not ask our modern doctors whether masturbation causes disease, since they’ve never treated masturbatory disease, and instead we should defer to the opinion of William Acton, who made a name for himself in the mid-19th Century, treating masturbatory disease whose symptoms included (I couldn’t make this up) blindness. After all, Acton treated the victims of masturbatory disease, so he’s the expert, right?

Let me ask you something, Derek: What are your qualifications to question anyone’s qualifications? Do you hold a degree as an expert on credential? No? So who are you to speak on the subject of qualifications?

But then again, if you could attack the message, you wouldn’t need to attack the messenger’s credentials.

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/29/2008 @ 09:55AM PST
Report

“Hank Barnes”, go back to read what I wrote in my book – and here in my previous email – and what was said by 37 independent scientists who sent the letter to Science – and do not misquote us so gravely.
The evidence of fraud is primarily the Popovic et al draft paper as said before. What Gonda imaged in 1983 is totally irrelevant – seeing a virus-like particle in a cell culture sample from the Institut Pasteur does not prove it causes AIDS! Retroviruses are normally healthy particles found in intra-cellular fluids. We now know they play a vital role in evolution and in our immune system.
May I make a suggestion? On this site in particular, it would be good if you would write in your own name. We surely should be advising Obama in our own names.
Janine Roberts

Posted by Janine Roberts on 12/29/2008 @ 09:59AM PST
Report

Very well said, Michael.

Posted by Karri Stokely on 12/29/2008 @ 09:59AM PST
Report

Michael, it was “Rethinking AIDS,” Janine Roberts, etc. who tried to abuse Matthew Gonda’s findings and use them to support their specious arguments about the 1984 Science papers. You provide an excellent example of why denialist dogma can never be addressed by an investigation or any other method – you can’t even accept the fact that endogenous retroviruses cannot productively infect cells! HIV is being isolated from the peripheral blood of infected people every day, even Peter Duesberg understands that the virus has been isolated. It’s the two unqualified people in Australia who think they understand the Pasteur Institutes 1973 manual on viral isolation better than people at the Pasteur Institute who argue that the virus hasn’t been isolated.

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/29/2008 @ 10:01AM PST
Report

“Derek” says, “Yup, ARV-induced old age is the commonest cause of death! Stop the ARVs!”

The National Center for Health Statistics reports that the median age of death from “HIV disease” in 2005 was 45.

Yup, ARV-induced old age!

That’s a decade after HAART started, which is claimed to add decades to life expectancy, even for AIDS patients who started HAART in 1996/7 or later.

Posted by Henry Bauer on 12/29/2008 @ 10:03AM PST
Report

Jon, you make a lot of assumptions, and speak from a position of ignorance. If AIDS ended tomorrow, I would still have a job in Infectious diseases, and if all infections ceased to exist (some HIV deniers are in the camp of the germ denial too), then I would get employed in ER where I previously worked. I make no money from AIDS/HIV, I get a standard fixed salary, and get no money from pharma companies. Sorry to disappoint you. I often wonder why it is that anyone supporting mainstream views on HIV automatically is labelled as being in the pockets of pharma, or somehow making money from it. Well, I don’t wonder actually, it is clear that when the scientific arguments dry up, denialists are left with nothing but ad hominems and slurs on the motives or reputations of their opponents in the debate. It’s generally a sign their own ideas are bankrupt, and they have lost the argument.

In some ways I don’t really care about what happens to you people who diss the ARVs – you are adults who have made up your own minds about this. Noone would force you to take ARVs or do anything you don’t want to do. But you may influence others who don’t have full access to the information, or who are gullible enough to buy into your theories/denial. That’s what needs to be stopped.

So you go ahead and take drugs, then stop them as soon as possible as you say you would. However, I should warn you that the SMART study showed those stopping treatment was linked to a higher mortality (2.3 per 100 person years) versus 1 per 100 person years) for those continuing to take drugs. [Yet another anomaly - over twice as many people STOPPING the ARVs die than those who continue to take the toxic, lethal poisons. Fancy that!]

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/29/2008 @ 10:10AM PST
Report

Hello everybody:

Just search the name: STEFAN LANKA on Google!

Dr. STEFAN LANKA!!!

Thanks in ADVANCE.

PS: Dear Mr. President Barack Obama:
Please CONTACT DR. STEFAN LANKA!
Thank you VERY VERY MUCH!

Posted by Severino . on 12/29/2008 @ 10:13AM PST
Report

Janine,

If you’d ever encountered “The Snout” and his buddies before, as I have, you wouldn’t be using your real name here.

Especially not considering the fact that in this forum, we’re actually giving them their comeuppance for the Yahoo massacre — they’re not gonna sit still for it, and they are NOT a harmless bunch.

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/29/2008 @ 10:14AM PST
Report

Henry, you will also have seen the data showing that those diagnosed with HIV and requiring treatment have an average predicted survival 39 years (if they don’t have other infections like Hep C).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17227932?dopt=AbstractPlus

20 years ago, before antiretrovirals, life expectancy was around 2-3 years for AIDS patients.

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/29/2008 @ 10:18AM PST
Report

Derek Neumann wrote: “Noone would force you to take ARVs or do anything you don’t want to do.”

That’s not entirely true, now is it, Derek?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/27/health/27essa.html

…and let’s not forget the children at Incarnation Children’s Center and accross the US being taken from their parents who stopped ARVs, and being forcefed the drugs, and even having PEG tubes implanted if they refused the drugs, and in some cases even being enrolled in drug toxicity studies against their and their parents’ will.

So yes, there are those who would force myself and others to take ARVs, even if we don’t want to.

Are you kidding, that’s why people like Janine, myself, and other “AIDS patients” are here — we’re tired of having a myopic treatment approached forced on us whether we want it or not.

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/29/2008 @ 10:20AM PST
Report

So Janine, it’s dangerous to use your real name? Nice to have confirmation that Gos is a pseudonym.

I would actually agree with him, Janine. You see, if you use your real name, people can easily find out what other whacky ideas you subscribe to. Like your idea that MMR vaccine causes AIDS and cancer, for instance.

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/29/2008 @ 10:21AM PST
Report

Janine, you are still doing very poorly with the facts. Gonda did not see “a virus-like particle in a cell culture sample from the Institut Pasteur.” Gonda described and micrographed productive infection with HIV in two different cell lines, HUT 68 and T 17.4. Are you claiming the Pasteur sent these cell lines to Gonda? There is no way for any endogenous retrovirus to productively infect cells, and they cannot be transmitted from cell to cell. So your attempt to suggest that Gonda micrographed an endogenous retrovirus is a completely impossible fantasy.

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/29/2008 @ 10:30AM PST
Report

Noreen’s comment about her experience in the ER with asthma reminded me of when my HIV doctor sent me to the ER when I complained of excruciating pain in my scapula and numbness and tingling down my left arm. I absolutely knew it was a recurrence of a pinched nerve that had first occurred 11 years earlier. I hadn’t been tested at that time so I was treated for a pinched nerve, no mystery involved. This time though, the doctor in the ER, seeing on my chart that I was HIV positive, said it could be caused by “some rare virus, perhaps sort of like herpes that attacks HIV-positives”. (I quote him.) He ordered a spinal tap and got a somewhat incredulous resident to administer it. After 3 punctures and coming up dry every time I finally just pulled my pants up and said “I’m getting out of here.” The resident said, “OK, I’m sorry. I’m sure it’s just a pinched nerve anyway” and gave me a look that showed he, too, thought that “rare virus” doctor was a fanatic. I’m sure every HIV positive person has heard scores of ridiculously inane comments from doctors who treat HIV.

Posted by Reg Bielamowicz on 12/29/2008 @ 10:30AM PST
Report

“I would actually agree with him, Janine. You see, if you use your real name, people can easily find out what other whacky ideas you subscribe to. Like your idea that MMR vaccine causes AIDS and cancer, for instance.”
Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/29/2008 @ 10:21AM PST

“…left with nothing but ad hominems and slurs on the motives or reputations of their opponents in the debate. It’s generally a sign their own ideas are bankrupt, and they have lost the argument.”
Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/29/2008 @ 10:10AM PST

Posted by David Collins on 12/29/2008 @ 10:32AM PST
Report

Derek, MMR causes AIDS! What a nonsense. I never said anything of the sort – as I think you well know.As for a possible link with Cancer – that was a citation from a NIH transcript.

Janine

Posted by Janine Roberts on 12/29/2008 @ 10:38AM PST
Report

Hank and Derek,

Do you admit or deny that aids drugs have directly caused death in many people who took them?

Of course you admit it, because the literature is filled with such cases.
Do you admit or deny that you yourself have promoted these drugs, that did indeed cause death in many who took them, to those who are diagnosed as hiv positive?
Of course you admit promoting and advocating these drugs, because you have done so right here in this thread.
Therefore, the evidence is in. You yourself are indeed GUILTY of promoting drugs that are well PROVEN to cause early death, disfigurement, and a host of other health problems.
As such, I now fully understand why you are here. You are in DENIAL of your own roles in having caused human death and suffering.
Deny all you like, guys, you are still GUILTY OF CAUSING DEATH AND SUFFERING, whether it was intentional or not.

Posted by Michael Geiger on 12/29/2008 @ 10:45AM PST
Report

Pseudo Hank, In 1983 the Pasteur Institut loaned cell culture samples to Gallo’s lab. It was not until February-March 1984 that the experiment was done that has since been claimed to have proved a retrovirus in these samples was the cause of AIDS.My critique is primarily of that experiment – as I have repeatedly said. The evidence of fraud is in the same document that also proved that this experiment deliberately and illegally used the French sample renamed as if it were the American.
Janine

Posted by Janine Roberts on 12/29/2008 @ 10:50AM PST
Report

“But without the drugs, they would all have died of AIDS.”
PROVE IT! Not a single one of the dozens of aids drugs have been placebo tested since the 4 month original trial of AZT.

“But they are life extending”
PROVE IT! And the proof better be more substantial than comparing current drugs and regimens to the years of highly toxic AZT monotherapy.

Derek and Hank and Snout and Seth are 100% GUILTY of promoting drug treatments that are well proven to cause DEATH and DISFIGUREMENT and a host of other health problems.

Posted by Michael Geiger on 12/29/2008 @ 10:56AM PST
Report

The French sample of what, Janine? It’s not clear whether you’re acknowledging that the sample contained HIV, as Gonda documented.

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/29/2008 @ 11:06AM PST
Report

ARV’s causing death: sad recent case in point: Dan Dunable: http://letterstotheempire.com/2008/12/29/aids-activist-killed-by-arvs/

Posted by Jason Hart on 12/29/2008 @ 11:15AM PST
Report

Reg, Noreen did not say she had asthma. What Noreen wrote is that she went to the ER because of “difficulty breathing.” Anyone with experience of the risks associated with a blood CD4 count of less than 200 is sure to have had a sinking feeling reading that. The most common cause of difficulty breathing in that setting is PCP or pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia. The trouble breathing often is worse when lying down. I was going to ask Noreen about this but also knew this would lead to accusations of wanting to put a disease hex on her or something. I don’t, and I hope the problem is resolved already. If it isn’t, I’d urge Noreen to get a proper work up whatever her decisions about HIV treatment (PCP can be treated directly, although the success rate of treatment declines as the severity of immune deficiency becomes greater).

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/29/2008 @ 11:15AM PST
Report

Derek Neumann wrote (12/29/2008 @ 10:10AM PST): “Noone would force you to take ARVs or do anything you don’t want to do.”

As ‘Gos’ mentioned earlier (12/29/2008 @ 10:20AM PST), what about the HIV-positive mothers, who are forced to take ARVs in the last three months of pregnancy, and during the delivery. Here in Athens, Greece, babies are often taken away from their mothers for 40 days, so that ‘AIDS’ doctors can enforce their (mis-)treatment. Those babies are then given an antibiotic (Bactrim) “to prevent future infections” and an AZT syrup called Retrovir. Even if the baby does not test ‘HIV’ positive.

More details at http://www.hivwave.gr/pages/en/?The_dynamic_potential_of_a_single_AIDS_case::Giving_AZT_to_pregnant_women_and_babies_should_be_considered_criminal

In some countries (USA, Canada), they send the police to mothers who refuse to give their baby AZT, and threaten to take the permanent custody of the child.

Posted by Maria Papagiannidou on 12/29/2008 @ 11:27AM PST
Report

Gonda is an electron microscopist . He did not attempt to prove the retrovirus he was imaging was HIV – as I think you know? Nor did the other scientists involved claim to prove this at the time. He simply described it very generically.
And incidentally, retroviruses are now known to be naturally ‘infectious’. They are a means used by cells to exchange information. Evolutionary biology is based on this.
Countless HIV papers now describe HIV as an exosome – which is defined as a particle made by cells that leaves cells and is absorbed by other cells – and as a “cargo-loaded small vesicles released into intracellular space”. They can carry from one cell to another a wide variety of codes. This is simply achieved. “An non-infectious non-infectious retrotransposon” becomes “a budding infectious retrovirus merely by appending a retroviral MA domain.” Journal of Cell Science, 113, 3365-3374They are now said to be one of the most important mechanisms our cells have to facilitate the transmission of information and regulate cellular activity. In 2007 it was reported that ‘cells send RNA messages to each other by packing them into exosomes.” See “The Exosome exchange” in Journal of Cell Biology, 21 May 2007.
Janine

Posted by Janine Roberts on 12/29/2008 @ 11:36AM PST
Report

To clarify my last post – I am describing exosomes, into which family all retroviruses have now been put. Some of those that believe in HIV now state it must also be an exosome. Hildreth was reported in 2003 as saying HIV was an exosome in every sense of the word. Astonishingly, this has lead some to now propose that all exosomes be destroyed in the search to find a way to kill”HIV – no matter that exsomes are reported to be a major part of our cell regulatory system.

Posted by Janine Roberts on 12/29/2008 @ 11:45AM PST
Report

So you don’t believe Gonda micrographed HIV? Even though that virus has since been sequenced and the match to HTLV-III demonstrated? You think Gallo stole an exosome? Exosomes cannot productively infect cell lines. You talk about “merely appending a retroviral MA domain” as if this would somehow create something similar to HIV! You also neglect to mention who has to do the appending. I can’t find that quote in the paper you’re citing: http://jcs.biologists.org/cgi/reprint/113/19/3365.pdf
Can you point out where it is?

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/29/2008 @ 11:53AM PST
Report

Don’t worry Janine, I found the paper, it’s here:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?&artinstid=1885833

People can read for themselves. They’re saying the exosomal pathway is used by retroviruses for budding, not that retroviruses are harmless exosomes. More selective misrepresentation of the scientific literature.

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/29/2008 @ 12:08PM PST
Report

AIDS Social Worker Experiences Paradigm Shift November 27th, 2008 Sarah Breidenbach was a highly regarded social worker who specialized in assisting people diagnosed HIV positive or with AIDS. For Sarah, this position was far more than a job, it was an opportunity to make a real difference in the lives of her clients, and she approached her work with great dedication and conviction. She felt very strongly that by encouraging compliance with AIDS drug treatments and discouraging skepticism about the causal link between HIV and AIDS she was offering HIV positives their best possible chances for staying alive. But after more than half a decade of a professional and personal life that revolved around AIDS from the mainstream perspective, Sarah very reluctantly agreed to watch the documentary film, The Other Side of AIDS, and something remarkable happened as a result: she began to question the basis for her staunchly held views, and ultimately the direction and meaning of her life’s work. Listen in as David and Christine speak with Sarah about her journey from certainty into the unknown, an experience she recounts with intelligence, grace and unusual honesty.News items include a Ugandan drug trial testing the idea of “reduced transmission” a proposed HIV prevention drug combo in the UK, and the criminalization of HIV in a growing number of countries. http://www.howpositiveareyou.com/2008/11/27/hpay-010/#more-421

The Other Side of AIDS:
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/video/

Posted by David Collins on 12/29/2008 @ 12:09PM PST
Report

Hank,

Are you saying that first they had a virus called LAV, hen a different virus called HTLV III, then a different virus called HIV, then they sequenced the different viruses and found out they were the same?

Posted by Ruairidh MacDonald on 12/29/2008 @ 12:17PM PST
Report

Michael Geiger wrote:

“Derek and Hank and Snout and Seth are 100% GUILTY of promoting drug treatments that are well proven to cause DEATH and DISFIGUREMENT and a host of other health problems.”

No Michael they are sick bastards who promote a Genocide agenda,They are politically motivated by modern day Genocide denialism and they can and will hurt anyone who opposes their quack-medical-Jim Jones belief system.

The Time is defintely now,that African People and The Gay Community stand up for their rights and take back control of their lives.

Obama must give us a forum! Obama must investigate these Pharmaceutical drug pushers! It’s a shame that Society has people like this walking around or working in our hospitals.

Isn’t it ironic that the ones who call us a denialist are the ones who are guilty of marketing a genocidal fraud

Posted by Eddie Brewster on 12/29/2008 @ 12:23PM PST
Report

I did state that I had asthma, which was not properly treated. But they choose to give me two arterial blood gas tests, blood tests from both arms, and a chest x-ray. In fact, I had three x-rays in a very short period of time. They couldn’t believe that I didn’t have some sort of AIDS related problem. I won’t reveal my status to incompetant doctors again. If I had not been HIV+, I would have gotten much better medical care.

Also, I had sinus and allergy problems long before being diagnosed with AIDS.

Posted by Noreen Martin on 12/29/2008 @ 12:23PM PST
Report

Here’s the story…
Nature 363, 466 – 469 (03 June 1993); doi:10.1038/363466a0

The origin of HIV-1 isolate HTLV-IIIB
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v363/n6428/pdf/363466a0.pdf

Posted by Hank Barnes on 12/29/2008 @ 12:31PM PST
Report

Don’t make me laugh, Hank!

Go talk to Karry Mulles who invented PCR. There is no proven evidence that any of these so-called isolations of tiny fragments of cellular and intracellular RNA are proof of any contagious, yet alone harmful, retrovirus being found.

These are not full retrovirus isolations. These are PCR cellular fragments that, at best, are less than 5 percent of a 9kb retrovirus. They are also, as yet, unfound by any verification of Electron Microscopy to be found in the blood of even the sickest of hiv positives.

PCR of tiny portions of genetic fragments is NOT retroviral isolation.

Now, please Hank, just answer the question.

Have you promoted the use of drugs and treatments that you fully know are the cause of death and disfigurement of many thousands of hiv positives?

Do you understan that having done so makes you fully liable for their deaths and disfigurement?

Posted by Michael Geiger on 12/29/2008 @ 01:44PM PST
Report

Noreen wrote: “If I had not been HIV+, I would have gotten much better medical care.”

That’s the problem I run into time after time myself. I have autoimmune issues (asthma, multiple allergies, Crohn’s disease, arthritis (likely rheumatoid, though never formally diagnosed as such,) and I can’t get appropriate treatment for these illnesses anymore, because if I have difficulty breathing, or rash, or diarrhea, or abscesses in my colon or rectum, or any number of other symptoms of diseases I’ve had which predate my “HIV infection”, the doctors always want to call it “AIDS” and treat it with ARVs.

…But if I were to die from these untreated diseases, it would be claimed that I died from complications arising from “HIV infection”.

Ironically enough, this would be in a way true, since the “complication” that killed me at that point would be the complication of being unable to get appropriate medical treatment, which would be directly caused by my “HIV infection”.

…So I guess you guys are right after all — HIV does cause AIDS, by causing medical professionals to give you an entirely different standard of care from any other patient, and then when you die, it causes them to call your death “AIDS”.

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/29/2008 @ 01:54PM PST
Report

Hank,

Since the story you referenced is about LAV and HTLV-III, I take it this was just a clumsy formulation:

“So you don’t believe Gonda micrographed HIV? Even though that virus has since been sequenced and the match to HTLV-III demonstrated?”?

Because it looks like you’re saying that something was called a “Human Immune-deficiency Virus” before it was even sequenced.

Posted by Ruairidh MacDonald on 12/29/2008 @ 02:14PM PST
Report

Now, please Hank, just answer the question.

Have you promoted the use of drugs and treatments that you fully know are the cause of death and disfigurement of many thousands of hiv positives?

Posted by Michael Geiger on 12/29/2008 @ 02:58PM PST
Report

I will frame the question a little more accurately.

Have you promoted the use of drugs and treatments that you fully know are the cause of death and disfigurement of many thousands of THOSE who have been DIAGNOSED as hiv positive by antbody tests that, as the manufacturers of the tests themselves still admit, have as yet no recognised standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV- 2 in human blood?

It is a YES or NO question, Hank. Should be a simple one for you.

Posted by Michael Geiger on 12/29/2008 @ 03:15PM PST
Report

Janine, you HAVE promoted, or at least given publicity to, the idea that MMR vaccine causes AIDS and cancer.

There is no use denying it, because it is quite plain in “The dangerous impurities of vaccines” [AKA Chapter 7 of your book "Fear of the Invisible"]. Perhaps you should read it again sometime. In this chapter you discuss the supposed finding of RT activity in MMR vaccine, and expound on the theory that this means MMR contains retroviruses which cause cancer and AIDS.

I quote you directly: “[There was a] two-year investigation into the safety of MMR headed by the World Health Organisation. She explained that this study was initiated in 1996 after the discovery in MMR of RT. an enzyme linked to retroviruses as well as cells. In the back corridors of virology this had immediately caused alarm as some retroviruses were thought to cause cancers – as well as AIDS – for HIV is said to be a retrovirus….. What they then discovered confirmed their worse (sic) fears.”

You said it yourself, “what a nonsense”. I guess we can at least be reassured that you think AIDS is caused by a retrovirus, a concept quite in contrast with the views you have expressed on this thread.

Yes, Janine, perhaps it would have been better to post here anonymously, then noone could see how duplicitous and filled with nonsense you are.

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/29/2008 @ 03:53PM PST
Report

Michael, I’ll answer for you.

I have given people ARVs. I appreciate they might have side effects, sometimes severe (or rarely even fatal), but we constantly work to minimise these side effects and chose the most appropriate combo for each individual. But I do so in the knowledge that the benefits to the patient outweigh the risk of harm from these side effects. So I am a genocidal maniac by your criteria.

I have also given antibiotics in people dying from meningitis. I appreciate that antibiotics have side effects, sometimes severe (or rarely even fatal in the case of anaphylaxis). I do so in the knowledge that the benefits of antibiotics outweigh the risk of harm from these side effects. So I am also a genocidal maniac for treating children dying from meningitis with antibiotics.

I have also given patients in diabetic coma insulin…. etc.
I have also given patients with myocardial infarction thrombolytic drugs….etc.
etc. ad infinitum…..

So Derek is guilty as charged, your honor.

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/29/2008 @ 04:02PM PST
Report

Gos, if a medical doctor ignores any relevant ilnesses in someone’s history they are not a very good doctor. Look at it from the other viewpoint. We have several Crohn’s patients with HIV. When they see their gastroenterologists, the doctors seem focussed on the idea that all bowel symptoms must be due to their Crohn’s. In fact in several of these patients there were infections such as salmonella (related to their HIV-induced immune deficiency, and nothing to do with their Crohn’s).

So, to take your story from the perspective of the patient who thinks Crohn’s does not exist, these anecdotes would provide confirmation that doctors are focussed solely on Crohn’s and not other medical issues. Of course, in your book this would be “evidence” that Crohn’s does not exist.

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/29/2008 @ 04:11PM PST
Report

“Derek” said “Henry, you will also have seen the data showing that those diagnosed with HIV and requiring treatment have an average predicted survival 39 years (if they don’t have other infections like Hep C).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17227932?dopt=AbstractPlus

Yes. I’ve also read Walensky et al., Bashkaran et al., & Antiretroviral Collaboration (Lancet 2006, 2008). As I said, PREDICTED survival is several decades AFTER HAVING ALREADY HAD AIDS; but the actual fact is that the median age of death of PWAs in 2005 was 45. The prediction is wrong.

Posted by Henry Bauer on 12/29/2008 @ 04:20PM PST
Report

Derek: besides the obvious problem with your statement that you KNOW that the benefits to the patient outweigh the risk of harm from side effects, I’m curious … do you ever consider that throwing drugs at a problem such as apparent immunodeficiency might not be the best, let alone the only, treatment option?

Posted by Laura Ogar on 12/29/2008 @ 04:21PM PST
Report

Forgive me, I gave the wrong reference. Do not ridicule this quote so lightly Hank – if you disagree take it up with the paper’s authors – the correct citation (as in my book) is from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1885833#pbio-0050158-b058To give the quote more fully….”This notion is consistent with the ability to convert the mouse LTR retrotransposon MusD from an intracellular, noninfectious transposon into a budding, infectious retrovirus merely by appending a retroviral MA domain to the N-terminus of its Gag-like protein [58].”

Also”An exosomal mechanism of retrovirus budding is also likely relevant to the evolutionary relationships between retroviruses and LTR retrotransposons [11]”

May I remind you that Nobel Laureate Barbara McClintock described elegantly how cells use their retrotransposons to modify their DNA to protect themselves from toxins and other challenges. Since retrotransposons are so invaluable, it is surely likely that the retroviruses they can become are also valuable to us.
This paper also states “The primary significance of these observations is that they reveal retrovirus budding to be a manifestation of a normal, cell-encoded exosome biogenesis pathway”
and that “we proposed that retroviruses are, at their most fundamental level, exosomes.”

My other quotes stand on how useful exosomes are proving to be – as does my comment that it is plain stupid for some to propose to destroy all exosomes – or retroviruses – in order to protect us from HIV, given how important these particles are turning out to be.
Hank what is your stand on this? Would you attack all retroviruses or exosomes in order to attack HIV – even if these particles are invaluable to us?

Posted by Janine Roberts on 12/29/2008 @ 04:27PM PST
Report

Derek, thank you for reading my book so carefully. It is clear from the quote you give from my book that I am citing the words of a senior government scientist responsible for vaccine safety in the US.
Their words are their own. They worried at the evidence they had uncovered for the presence of retroviruses in the MMR vaccine – and particularly because they believed that retroviruses can be linked to AIDS and cancers. They were particularly concerned because chicken leukosis virus had been widely found in the MMR vaccine – and worried that this might get out to the public. Their concern arose from their inability to clear this contamination from all vaccines produced from fertilized eggs – like mumps and measles. It remains in them to this day. They also greatly worried about the particles of DNA and RNA still remaining in the vaccines, saying this too might cause cancers. I would be glad if you helped to spread information about this contamination.
This is from an authoritative NIH transcript of a meeting of our top vaccine scientists.

Posted by Janine Roberts on 12/29/2008 @ 04:39PM PST
Report

Janine – Derek is over on the “Vaccine Schedule” thread pushing vaccines too… He’s not going to be much help to anyone but the pharmaceutical and medical industries…

http://www.change.org/ideas/view/vaccination_schedule

Posted by David Collins on 12/29/2008 @ 04:45PM PST
Report

Yup, just categorise anyone who disagrees with you as a pharma shill or drug pusher. As I said earlier, resorting to such tactics is a sign you have lost the argument, since you are failing to debate the science.

I think people looking at this thread can judge for themselves whether what I say about the benefits of ARVs merely assists the pharmaceutical industry. I like to think that what I say might benefit patients, by persuading them to look again at the pup they have been sold by the AIDS denialism industry, and helping keep them healthy and living longer than they would do otherwise.

Big pharma gains no plaudits from me. They have behaved reprehensibly regarding pricing and using anticompetitive practice, and restricted availability of ARVs through patent protectionism. This has directly harmed people with HIV.

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/29/2008 @ 05:06PM PST
Report

Henry, we’ve already been over the “median age of death” issue on your blog, at least until you started deleting posts when it became crystal clear that you had no idea at all about the mathematical relationship between mortality and median death age and were merely waving your hands about. The fact is that median death ages are continuing to rise with the fall in mortality associated with antiretroviral and other treatments. They are rising at the expected rate. By 2006 it was 47.2 years. Your argument is based on not understanding the math. The 2005 median age of death applied only to those few per cent of PWAs alive that year who actually died. They are not a representative sample of the group as a whole – most survived the year and will die in subsequent years where the median death age will be significantly higher on current trends. Your modus operandi is quite transparent. Recently on your blog you said: “At any rate, AIDStruthers [i.e. virtually the entire scientific community] are not the audience to be courted. Their arguments must be countered with answers directed to the media and the general public in terms that are understandable by and clearly convincing for unengaged observers. That means the points cannot be too technical.” Anyone with a modicum of scientific background in the field of HIV and AIDS can tell that your arguments are flawed and fallacious. That is why you target a lay audience with your specious nonsense. That is intellectually cowardly, and ethically reprehensible for someone with supposed pretensions to scientific credibility. It is no wonder that you choose to present your ideas on your own self moderated blog and at conferences like “Collapsing Paradigms at the Frontiers of Consciousness & UFO Research” rather than to real scientists with the background to critically assess your claims on their merits.

Posted by The Snout on 12/29/2008 @ 05:12PM PST
Report

So, Janine, do you agree with the “top vaccine scientists” only when it suits you? According to you they think retroviral contamination of MMR can cause cancer and AIDS.

If you agree, then how do you explain that you called this claim “nonsense” earlier in the debate?
At least you would still agree a retrovirus cause AIDS if you did agree though.

If you do not agree, why did you put this extraordinary claim in your book? Because you thought it was untrue, and just wanted to show how ridiculous it was?

Go on, pull the other one.

Posted by Derek Neumann on 12/29/2008 @ 05:14PM PST
Report

Derek said: “Yup, just categorise anyone who disagrees with you as a pharma shill or drug pusher.”

As opposed to categorising anyone who disagrees with you as a “denialist”?

My question to you about whether you ever consider non-drug-based treatments was a genuine one, and I’m looking forward to your answer.

Posted by Laura Ogar on 12/29/2008 @ 05:21PM PST
Report

(A digression: I’m not sure which aspect of Snout I’m most fascinated by: is it that someone so assured of his rightness would spend so much time posting on every blog and forum in sight without ever revealing his identity? Or is it the idea that somebody actually chooses to be known by the name “Snout”?. Aye, it’s a puzzler, either way.)

Posted by Laura Ogar on 12/29/2008 @ 05:44PM PST
Report

Derek Neumann wrote: “Gos, if a medical doctor ignores any relevant ilnesses in someone’s history they are not a very good doctor. Look at it from the other viewpoint. We have several Crohn’s patients with HIV.”

Then what you’re saying is that every single doctor I’ve been to in the past 10 years wasn’t a very good doctor.

It doesn’t surprise me that you have several Crohn’s patients who test positive on HIV tests, since Crohn’s is an autoimmune disorder, and autoimmune disorders are known to cause false positives.

However, your comparison to Crohn’s patients doesn’t hold — hell, it was my gastroenterologist who used to test me regularly for HIV.

However, I’ve never been to a doctor for asthma, and had them say, “You have Crohn’s and you’re not currently seeing a gastroenterologist, therefore I won’t treat you unless you first see a gastroenterologist.” On the other hand, I went to see an immunologist/allergist earlier this year who refused to treat my allergies unless I first went to see an infectious disease specialist for treatment of HIV.

In fact, this doctor formed her opinion that I had “classic” signs of HIV infection based on three criteria: 1) My CD4/CD8 count was inverted (748/1726); 2) My ANA titer was high (166); and 3) My Westergren sedimentation rate was elevated (32).

Now, my CD4/CD8 count wasn’t inverted because my CD4s were suppressed — in fact my CD4 count was normal (748), but my CD8 count was more than twice what it should have been(1726). When I asked my doctor how it is that HIV boosts CD8 counts instead of lowering CD4s the way it’s supposed to, she developed a sudden, inexplicable inability to look me in the eye, and said that my question was outside her field of specialty, and that I’d need to see an infectious disease specialist.

As for the Westergren sedimentation rate, I went to LabCorp’s site (https://www.labcorp.com/datasets/labcorp/html/chapter/mono/he005000.htm), where they had this to say: “Use: Evaluate the nonspecific activity of infections, inflammatory states, autoimmune disorders, and plasma cell dyscrasias.”[emphasis mine]

Now, as for the ANA titer, I looked that up on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_antibody), and here’s what I found: “They are present in higher than normal numbers in autoimmune disease. The ANA test measures the pattern and amount of autoantibody which can attack the body’s tissues as if they were foreign material. Autoantibodies are present in low titers in the general population, but in about 5% of the population, their concentration is increased, and about half of this 5% have an autoimmune disease.”[emphasis mine] Not a word about HIV causing high ANA titers.

Now, Derek, I get what you’re saying about a gastroenterologist (for example) mistaking salmonella symptoms for Crohn’s symptoms in a Crohn’s patient. Not only would I agree with you on this point, I’d say that it’s so widespread in medicine that if you let 4 different specialists examine the same patient, the GI doc would diagnose Crohn’s, the infectious disease specialist would diagnose salmonella, the nutritionist would call it a dietary deficiency, and the chiropractor would want to start twisting the patient’s skull. When you’re holding a hammer, everything looks like a nail — I get it.

However, how do you explain an allergist/immunologist, seeing a patient with a lifelong history of autoimmune disease, presenting with a high ANA titer, a high Westergren sedimentation rate, and an absolutely normal CD4 count, and concluding that the patient is suffering from AIDS? That’s exactly the opposite of what your theory should predict — according to you, she should have called it an allergy even if it was AIDS.

This is the sort of myopia I’m talking about, and I don’t care how many specious analogies you try to present, you’re not going to find a single other disease on the planet which causes such a great degree of myopia among doctors.

This is hardly an isolated example, either — this is how I’ve been treated by every doctor I’ve seen in the past 10 years. And now that I’m meeting all of these other HIV-positives in this forum, all of whom tell similar stories, it is obvious that I’m not an isolated case either — doctors are treating ALL HIV-positives this way, but then when we die from our untreated diseases, they call it AIDS.

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/29/2008 @ 05:48PM PST
Report

Addendum to the above post: Incidentally, a high ANA titer is also one of the conditions which is known to cause false positives on HIV tests.

Sources:

Schleupner CJ. Detection of HIV-1 infection. In: (Mandell GI, Douglas RG, Bennett JE, eds.) Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases, 3rd ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1990:1092.

Cordes R, Ryan M. 1995. Pitfalls in HIV testing. Postgraduate Medicine. 98:177

Steckelberg JM, Cockerill F. 1988. Serologic testing for human immunodeficiency virus antibodies. Mayo Clin. Proc. 63:373

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/29/2008 @ 05:54PM PST
Report

Yes Derek, you are one of the worst Genocide Denialists I have ever observed since Annie Lennox joined the other Pharmaceutical Political Party over in South Africa.

There is no Science that can explain away Toxic drug induced Diseases camoflauged by the term ‘Side Effect’. a diseases is a disease! and Genocide is Genocide no matter how many Pubmed abstracts you post.

Posted by Eddie Brewster on 12/29/2008 @ 06:04PM PST
Report

Hi EVERYBODY.

Do you know Dr. Stefan Lanka?

PLEASE, just search on Google the name: STEFAN LANKA.

Thanks in ADVANCE!

Posted by Severino . on 12/29/2008 @ 06:09PM PST
Report

So-called HIV positives just aren’t allowed to get sick the way other people do all the time, because after you are pronounced to have the devil HIV in you, once you get sick, why, it was the HIV wut done it. But who is to say you wouldn’t have gotten that yeast infection (or whatever) anyway? No one can make that claim.
But this whole notion is behind most of the frequent redefinitions of AIDS, as more and more conditions (some of them having nothing to do with immune deficiency) were called AIDS when they occurred in anyone who had tested “HIV+”.

Posted by Laura Ogar on 12/29/2008 @ 06:28PM PST
Report

It appears that there are enough “real” people (as opposed to paid plants – or unconscious drones) with legitimate doubts about what is expressed in the mainstream as unquestionable science regarding HIV to warrant an expanded look at AIDS and what could be the possible causes of a failing human immune system besides what appears to be an unproven retrovirus. If it were so cut and dry then there wouldn’t be so much fraud and deceit and there wouldn’t be so many anomalies to the dogma. Why have so many people from many different backgrounds questioned the flaws in this issue when given the opportunity to know more information?

What would motivate anyone to deny an expanded look at such a relevant subject concerning the life and death of millions? Why would anyone fight so hard to keep deadly pharmaceutical drugs as the only possible way to treat a “disease” regardless of any information to the contrary? Why would it seem that there are people who do not want to find a better way but wish to keep poisoning people with highly toxic black box drugs? Why does it feel like these people have something to gain by keeping the status quo and something to hide from shutting down dissent? If they are simply ignorant, then they are willfully ignorant and shoving that ignorance down a lot of people’s throats.

The only thing I keep coming up with is that these people have a personal stake in toeing the line. It usually turns out that they have ties to the pharmaceutical and/or medical industries which reaps huge profits from the sale of HIV tests and HIV medications. They usually say they work for the clinics that need the point of view they offer to keep their funding. They usually say they have jobs that they would probably lose if the mainstream view were found to be less than true. I guess this is an attempt to gain credibility or something (saying you are a medical professional), because it really seems that it would be a full-time effort to scour the internet for these discussions and then spend so much time hijacking threads and derailing conversations (Yes, these same people show up over and over all over the internet). If they really have the jobs they say they have, they really aught to be fired because they’re not paying attention to what they say their being paid to do – or are they? They are way, way too busy engaging people on the internet and spreading disinformation wherever they can find to do it.

I’ve not yet seen one of these AIDS religionists say how much they care about the “risk groups” that suffer the most from this paradigm. They don’t come across as very “caring” people at all. They are just as quick to attack those they believe to be “victims” of a disease that don’t agree with them as quickly as they will attack anyone else. I never witness any compassion or concern for anyone but themselves and there need to be right. They don’t give anyone credit for having enough sense and knowledge to take care of their own health. No, we need them to tell us what to do.

AIDS seems to mainly afflict gays, blacks, poor people and their innocent children. The same groups that a lot of “certain people” would love to see disappear off the face of the Earth. It looks like the cleverly concealed genocide of the unwanted of the world to which these people flock to do their part.

You people who are fighting so hard to keep the HIV=AIDS paradigm alive don’t give a flip about me or anyone else suffering from the outcome of this fraud or you would welcome all the research that could be done to find all the answers that could be found. You actually work to stall progress, stop debate and shut people up. You care about your AIDS religion, not people. You care about your ego, your job, you money, your reputation, your credentials, etc. You are programmed drones motivated by all of the above. I suppose I should have more sympathy for you. It’s like getting shot with a gun and getting upset with the gun instead of the person aiming it at you. You are a tool.

For all those who are new to this idea that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, but a distraction from finding the real cause… Don’t believe ANYONE here. Research for yourselves and make an intelligent and informed decision for yourself. There are unscrupulous people on both sides. Question everything. Follow the money! The AIDS religionists, like other elitists, don’t believe you have the capacity to do this. They think you are ignorant “little people” who need to be told what to accept and to accept it without real question. They will tell you to ignore everything but the mainstream “program”. You will be rewarded with support and encouragement (or at least tolerated) for “believing” and you will be punished with intimidation and ridicule if you don’t. I speak from experience. I’ve been on both sides.

Don’t fall for it!!

Most people don’t look at this information unless they have too. Unless they are already frightened and vulnerable. If this is you, please give yourself some time, time to adjust and educate yourself.

You really do have brains and the ability for critical thinking. The only people really being harmed here are the ones who won’t research and think for themselves. Unfortunately, not everything can be summed up in cute little sound bites or a few online posts. Today’s media has programmed a very short attention span into the public mind. AIDS Religionists count on you being too busy, too confused, too ignorant, too drugged and too programmed to ask questions and to actually look for the answers. It is VERY daunting (especially if you’ve recently been informed that you’re going to die from an incurable disease) to go through the overwhelming amount of information that is out there and some of it can be very technical and very boring. But, if you don’t research and do some thinking for yourself then you’re giving your power to make a choice for yourself to someone else. Someone else who only has their own best interests at heart NOT yours.

AIDS Religionists, again, are very elitist and will try to convince you that you can’t possibly make any decisions without their knowledge and expertise or without telling you where to look and where NOT to look. You don’t have to have some sort of PhD or be a doctor, virologist or anything other than what you are to know the truth. Knowledge is available to everyone who seeks it and we all have the ability to know the truth. You do not have to know EVERYTHING there is to know to make an informed decision, as that would be pretty much impossible. But, you can make a decision for yourself.

This may not win me any popularity here (thankfully I’m not running in a popularity contest), but I personally do not think the Obama administration will do a damned thing. There is only one real political party in America and that is the party of the wealthy elite (who just got a lot wealthier thanks to Bush and the Bailouts). They control everything and only let you think you have some sort of choice. The wealthy elite would, particularly, like to get rid of “useless eaters” like racial minorities, gays and the ungodly poor and only keep enough of us to work and supply them with their material goods and services.

The AIDS apologists on this thread are not debating anyone. They are creating an illusion of debate. How can someone who believes that they have all the correct answers, without exception, debate anyone? No, they are here to put people in their place and influence those silent readers out there. They could very well even be playing both sides of an argument to make their case. It is useless to “debate” these guys as they use psychological warfare designed to intimidate, confuse, redirect and just plain ole wash your brains out.

This website is an illusion of choice and freedom. Just like the presidential election. The wealthy elite own Obama and Obama will do what his masters (not you) tell him to do. This issue is only one of the many, many tentacles of the beast used to distract you from it’s head, which needs to be hacked off and burned if America or, indeed, the planet is to survive.

This country is no longer ruled by the people. The people have become a nuisance to be dealt with.

In defense of AIDS religionists online… See Plausible Deniability:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability

When the full truth comes out these drones will scurry like cockroaches to the nearest rock to hide under lest they end up on trial for complicity.

See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissocial_personality_disorder

Posted by David Collins on 12/29/2008 @ 06:31PM PST
Report

Laura, here’s a related quote from a “HIV/AIDS” believer:

“…From the early to mid ‘90s, a lot of investigators had jumped into the ’HIV bandwagon’ – not only in the US, but in other countries as well. The HIV infected immunocompromised patients were live receptacles for many other infections, then considered ‘opportunistic’, and the focus on HIV research was so expansive and urgent (rightly, of course) that it encompassed easily ‘HIV-associated infections’. Which was fine. But gradually, perhaps, it resulted in the focus getting diluted, and among the first affected was funding. Many investigators found that their otherwise important disease research was in the danger of being under-funded or non-funded unless a link – however tenuous – was made with HIV. When they got the grants, they continued to work in their own existing areas, with just a passing nod to HIV. The big name Pharma companies were pushing money into anti-retrovirals and cocktails, once again, with barely a passing nod to basic HIV research. And then there were the so-called HIV researchers, who knew that their livelihood and continued funding depended upon tenaciously maintaining their link to HIV, and therefore concentrated on diagnostics, therapetics and such like, but less on the basic biology. Some exciting discoveries did come about during this time through some enterprising investigators. But for myriads of others… Well, here is the hearsay. A friend of mine works in the lab of reputed HIV researcher in big city. When he joined the lab, he found that the research was extremely haphazard with no strictness in record/result keeping, and the scientific standards in that lab were low enough to accept arbitrary results from assays done with no controls if they jived well with the hypothesis, and disregard equally arbitrary results, if they did not, all without any further scrutiny. Now that is a pretty serious accusation, to my mind, and for want of hardcore evidence, I would not want to make a case of it. But this, taken together with the current status of HIV research (read ‘repeated failures of testable hypotheses’), raises severe doubt in my mind as to the true direction HIV research has taken. Now the question: Given the amount of money that has been put into it, the time spent and the number of people involved all over the world, why have we not yet been able to demystify HIV? Why have we not found a sure shot cure? Is HIV the bin Laden of the microbial world? Why do we fall back upon the same excuse that the virus mutates rapidly to avoid eradication? …”

You can read the rest of it here:
http://network.nature.com/groups/humans_vs_pathogens/forum/topics/3279

Despite all that this person says above, he can’t imagine the possibility of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis being wrong… such is the power of consensus nowadays…

Posted by Sadun Kal on 12/29/2008 @ 08:09PM PST
Report

I had never heard of this before:

UW: Researcher faked AIDS data, altered images
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/education/2004039427_uwresearch28m.html

” A former University of Washington AIDS researcher committed scientific misconduct by altering images and fabricating data, a UW investigation found. … All his research is now “viewed with suspicion” and subject to independent verification, according to a UW Investigation Committee Report.
…
Not only did it cast doubt on Brodie’s own work, but it also created problems for many other researchers who relied on his data, Liggitt said. “The problem with things like this is that people build on someone else’s knowledge. It wastes money, it wastes time and it can lead science in a wrong direction,” Liggitt said. “Even the smallest misguidance can cripple a very large investigation.” … ”

Someone was inspired by Gallo I guess. But one wonders why Gallo’s work is still not really viewed with that much suspicion. Funny really…a perfect demonstration of how powerful vested interests can be.

Posted by Sadun Kal on 12/29/2008 @ 08:41PM PST
Report

It gets better:

Banned Scientist Now Works At Schering-Plough:
A scientist that the University of Washington found guilty of research misconduct now works for the big drugmaker.

The comments left there are also interesting:

“If the accusations against Dr. Brodie are true, he will fit it beautifully at Schering-Plough. The company probably hired him because they knew he’d have no problem with their lack of ethics….”

Posted by Sadun Kal on 12/29/2008 @ 08:56PM PST
Report

Sadun I think the drug companies actually advertise for staff in the Jounal of Scientific Research Fraud, edited by and contributed to, by frauds in medicine and science.
Why anyone would believe one word out of the mealy mouths of anyone in this industry is unbelievable.

Posted by Frank Murphy on 12/29/2008 @ 09:10PM PST
Report

What? Gambling? In Casablanca?

Posted by Laura Ogar on 12/29/2008 @ 09:14PM PST
Report

Sadun Kal wrote: “such is the power of consensus nowadays”

Why single out nowadays? Do you not realize that this very same scientific community believed only last century that masturbation caused blindness, and that they’d believed this dogmatically for 150 years before they finally were forced to see the truth? And they were just about as dogmatic about that consensus as they are about this one.

Indeed, in his seminal (no pun intended) work on the subject of masturbatory disease, Tissot denounced all previous publications on the subject, because they were based upon the Bible, where his claim that masturbation is a deadly act was rooted in (and I quote) “sound science.”

Now, 248 years after Tissot’s wholesale plagiarization of the very religion he denounced, we have a bunch of neo-Puritanical scientists telling us that sex (and most especially homosexual sex) is a deadly act — but all those Christians who say the exact same thing are wrong, and OUR erotophobic and homophobic consensus dogma is rooted not in the Bible, but in (and I’m quoting again,) “sound science”.

Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it, and with AIDS, we are repeating the lessons of spermatorrhea.

Sadun Kal wrote: “If the accusations against Dr. Brodie are true, he will fit it beautifully at Schering-Plough.”

Interestingly enough, I refer to taking AIDS-cocktail drugs(*) as “getting Schering-Ploughed in the Astra-Zeneca.”

— Gos

(*) – “AIDS cocktail” is an appropriate name if I’ve ever heard one — When your doctor prescribes them, he’s really saying, “Come over here, boy, and let me stick this big AIDS c*** in your tail. I wanna Schering-Plough you in your Astra-Zeneca.”

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/29/2008 @ 09:49PM PST
Report

I once worked with one Dr Malcolm Pearce – a charlatan and honestly a bit of a pervert. He got the job and got published in the British Obstetrics Journal because he was good buddies with “the distinguished” Prof Geoff Chamberlain – who was actually not a bad surgeon but a fat twit and a buffoon nonetheless. Well, after rejecting Pearce’s disgusting sexual advances he made my life on the ward a complete misery. Even placing a patient’s life in danger – I had rushed down the ward to grab a doctor for a burst abdomen – and he basically told me to eff off! I did what I could for the lady (surgipads and warm saline), rang theatre etc. Luckily she survived no thanks to him. He also put my life and that of my unborn child in danger when I went into early labour myself a couple of years later.
Imagine my absolute delight when a few years later he was struck off the register for falsifying not one but two papers (with the full co-operation of Chamberlain). In the first he claimed to have re-sited an ectopic pregnancy and brought the pregnancy to a successful conclusion. Err no, not only was the purported patient about 90-years-old at the time, but she was dead! In the second he claimed to have successfully treated some 280 PCOS women for infertility – at a time when his clinic didn’t have that many patients at all.
I still chuckle when I think about his come-uppance; it couldn’t have happened to a nastier git. If you ever google yourself Pearce and happen across this post – I’m still laughing in late 2008 – and I sure hope you remember who I am!
For newbies to the health system – doctors and nurses are not all saints. I’m not saying that there aren’t some truly dedicated and altruistic doctors and nurses out there but they ain’t the rule but the exception, and nowhere more so than in the whacky world of HIV-AIDS.
http://www.bmj.com/archive/6994e-1.htm
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=523133

Posted by Lucinda Arkwright on 12/29/2008 @ 09:58PM PST
Report

More details – and I’d like to add, Chamberlain, who allowed a queue of med students into theatre to perform vaginal examinations on women under general anaesthetic WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT was NOT liked by many of us that worked with him.
http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/full/99/5/232

Posted by Lucinda Arkwright on 12/29/2008 @ 10:07PM PST
Report

Christine Maggiore has died. Please see LA Time article http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-christine-maggiore30-2008dec30,0,7407966.story Her tragic death should give everyone who is buying into AIDS denialism pause. It should make Peter Duesberg, the only credible scientist who influences AIDS denialism, back off from his destructive stance. AIDS denialism is killing people and it has to stop. For information on AIDS denialism visit http://www.aidstruth.org/new/ and http://denyingaids.blogspot.com

Posted by Seth Kalichman on 12/29/2008 @ 10:24PM PST
Report

“William Summerlin from the Sloan-Kettering Institute in New York, one of the world’s leading biomedical research centres, claimed to have transplanted human corneas into rabbits. He also faked transplantation experiments in white mice by blackening patches of their skin with a pen; an extraordinarily crude form of forgery. Eventually, Summerlin’s misconduct could no longer be ignored, but his behaviour was attributed to a mental health problem. This is a response that is seen repeatedly. It is a form of scientific denial.[emphasis mine]

John Darsee worked in the department of cardiology at Harvard and was observed falsifying data. His boss, Eugene Braunwald, an eminent cardiologist, decided that this misconduct was an isolated incident and so did not fire him. A few months later, however, it became clear that results he had obtained in a study being conducted in several places were very different from those of the others. An investigation was started and went back to when he was an undergraduate. Many of his more than a 100 studies proved to be fraudulent and had to be retracted.

Case after case followed, but scientists were slow to respond.” — http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/full/99/5/232

If there’s anything that I’ve learned about the High Church of Science (or as I like to call it, the “Church of Saint Thomas the Agnostic”,) it’s that the scientific establishment protects corrupt scientists the same way the Church protects child-molesting priests. They move them around, they transfer them to another department, they bury complaints against them, or excommunicate their accusers. And, in fact, they do it for the same reason: To protect the image of the institution.

Other “denialists” are quick to accuse our detractors of being in the pay of “Big Pharma” or protecting their own jobs, or whatever, but I think that the example of Robert Gallo is one of the very sort of denial to which Smith alludes in the above passage.

I had a debate earlier this year with a biologist on the subject of AIDS causation. When I brought up the subject of Gallo’s checkered reputation (to put it at its sweetest,) he became hostile, and accused me of trying to drag the discussion into the mud.

I countered by saying that I was just calling a spade a spade, and said something to the effect that the only reason he didn’t want to be in the position of defending Gallo was that Gallo was indefensible.

He then said something VERY interesting: “Gos, I am still rereading your other e-mail but I would like to point out that I agree with you on one aspect of Gallo. I have no doubt that he did indeed take a culture of HIV from the other lab and claim it as his own. This was something we learned in our Biology of AIDS course in college. I also know that a professor who was researching HIV in our university had to rush patent something that he and Gallo had collaborated on because Gallo was trying to “steal” the patent by getting it first.[emphasis mine] As you said, this isn’t a world of angels. I have no doubt Gallo would do things like this but I also have no doubt about the existence and causality of HIV. As this debate goes on I hope to, at the very least, show you why I believe this to be so, regardless of whether you ultimately agree with me.”

Bob Gallo has enjoyed the knowing protection of the scientific establishment for 40 years or more — and they knew he was a con man and a thief. His reputation is no secret in the scientific community, but they guard the secret like it’s the crown jewels.

If you ask me, that’s why he didn’t get the Nobel Prize, along with Montagnier and Barre-Sinoussi(sp?). The Nobel committe knew that if they gave Gallo the Nobel Prize, it would scandalize the whole scientific community that this two-bit pickpocket got it. But on the other hand, they had to give the Nobel Prize to somebody, because it was starting to look awful suspicious that no one had gotten a Nobel Prize for this momentous discovery. (I myself was making an issue of it on Tribe only two years ago, and I actually lamented for Montagnier in the aforementioned debate, that he’d never get the Nobel because of the Gallo taint.)

So, if you’re anything but a scientist or a Catholic priest and you are corrupt and/or criminal, you go to jail. If you’re a Catholic priest, you get tranferred to another parish. But if you’re a scientist who has never legitimately discovered a virus in your entire career and you’ve claimed to have discovered no fewer than four, you get snubbed by the Nobel Committee. Bummer.

I don’t think that those who defend the failed HIV/AIDS hypothesis are crooked or in the employ of Big Pharma or anything like that. I think the accusation that they make against us (like all accusations) is an admission of their own failing: They are in denial. Just like Catholics don’t want to believe that priests have genitals, much less that they molest children, scientists and their followers don’t want to believe that scientists are as human and as prone to corruption as anyone else.

This tendency to close ranks and protect the most corrupt members will be the undoing of science, the same way it has driven many Catholic churches into bankruptcy.

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/29/2008 @ 11:20PM PST
Report

This is the comment I left at Seth’s blog, I doubt he’ll approve it:

“Even though you still abuse it to a degree and you’re too eager to jump on to certain conclusions, thanks for limiting your rudeness in this case. And as you’re aware, such incidences can’t make essential scientific questions simply disappear, that’s not how real science works. In fact, you’re probably too biased to notice but even you should be thankful to Christine for what she achieved in her life. Asking questions like she did is crucial for all sciences. She would’ve been welcomed by the scientific community if what’s being pursued was only the truth and nothing else. A patient as courageous as she asking questions was labeled as “denialism” instead. What a shame for humanity that this woman’s worth couldn’t have been recognized by the “best minds”…

I wish a lot of strength to everybody… including you Seth. You may not be aware but you need even more strength than those who really perceive her loss as an important loss for the entire humanity. ”

…

And Seth, you still don’t realize it apparently but this is beyond Duesberg or Christine. It’s about questions without answers and questions don’t magically go away, it doesn’t even matter who asks. If you people can’t do it, then somebody else has to do it. There are still people with enough courage and interest. Christine was one of those and in the future there’ll be many others. These are questions that matter and you should better concentrate on the questions instead of those who ask them. Or you’ll never ever succeed at stopping whatever it is that you want to stop.

Posted by Sadun Kal on 12/29/2008 @ 11:58PM PST
Report

Seth (if that is indeed your real name),

I was wondering how long it would take you ghouls to begin dancing on Christine’s grave, the way you danced on her daughter’s grave two years ago. Have you no shame? Did your mother teach you no respect? Have you no common human decency? Obviously not — Her body’s not even cold yet, and you’re already gloating.

I’ve spent much of this evening on the phone with people who (unlike you) knew her personally, and those who knew her best tell me that she never fully recovered after E.J.’s death, and I can’t say I blame her. I was just telling someone that I doubt I could survive 2 1/2 weeks of what Christine has gone through, much less 2 1/2 years. My immune system would probably shut down after 2 1/2 minutes of the hell she’s endured at the hands of people like you.

On any other day, I’d say I hope you never have to experience what Christine went through, but right now I hope you lose a child, and rather than being given time to greive as any parent should, I hope that you are immediately (and wrongly) accused of your child’s death, and that your name is dragged through the mud in the national papers and on TV, and that people write fictional TV shows about you in which you die horribly, and that even after you are exonerated in your child’s death, people like you are still calling you a murderer. You have no idea what that’s like, but right now I hope you live every moment of it, and I hope you survive for more than 2 1/2 years, because you deserve to suffer for as long as possible, you soulless vulture.

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/30/2008 @ 12:18AM PST
Report

People like Seth may be able to relate to the wishes expressed above better if they listen to the ninth and the last episode of Christine’s podcast with David Crowe:

http://www.howpositiveareyou.com/2008/11/23/hpay-009/
http://www.howpositiveareyou.com/2008/12/06/hpay-11-jocelyn_dee/

I’m not sure if anyone else has to live through the same though…

Posted by Sadun Kal on 12/30/2008 @ 12:52AM PST
Report

Only a scum-sucking bottom feeder like Seth “Trust Me I’m a Psychologist” Kalichman could come out in all his “professional glory” and make the case that Christine was the architect in her own death BEFORE he even knows what the fricking cause of death is.
If this doesn’t sum up the “I’m an expert and you’re going to die, trust me, no evidence required” mindset of you witch-burning establishment apologists I don’t know what the hell does.
Okay Seth “I’m not the murderer here” Kalichman can you name me ONE person whose life has been saved by AZT, any ARVs or HAART? No you sodding well can’t because there aren’t any. “Her tragic death” – you are rubbing your damned Shylock (and yes I’m well aware you are a Jew, making your alliance with JT “Kike-hating” Deshong all the more suppuratively gross) fat sweaty hands together like you already have a chapter written for your next irrelevant and inconsequential tome.
You Seth are a leech, a tumour, a growth on society. You produce nothing except negative hack writings that feed off society and offer nothing in return. Can you, you ego-driven bag of rat excrement point to one single act in your whole ego-driven stinking life that actually made a positive difference in someone’s life?
Won’t be holding my breath.

Posted by Cathy Thompson on 12/30/2008 @ 01:01AM PST
Report

Cathy,

Jeez, I thought I’d stepped over the line.

Calm down, girl — if we let them take away our ability to speak in even tones, they’ve taken away our ability to think evenly, and if they take away our ability to think evenly, then we become just like they are.

Christine, even at the lowest point in her life, did not lash out, but kept up a calm demeanor, even as her heart was breaking and her soul screaming to be reunited with E.J. She would want us to remember her by doing as she did.

Let’s not allow monsters like Seth to turn us into monsters ourselves, let’s do as Christine would have done, and continue to calmly and rationally argue the facts, while our opponents throw feces, and see if the onlookers can tell who the monkeys are.

— Gos

Posted by Gos Blank on 12/30/2008 @ 01:10AM PST
Report

I agree with that last one.

Posted by Sadun Kal on 12/30/2008 @ 01:22AM PST
Report

Gos I saw your post after I had mostly written mine. While I agree “temperance” is often called for this is my raw emotions calling it as I see it – as a mother and as someone involved in a case along these lines, yes my emotions get the better sometimes. So sorry, I’m posting anyway. I know Christine kept a calm demeanour – the last podcast she did with David Crowe shamed me in that she exerted such serenity that I felt ashamed in her shadow. But alas it did not diminish my baser instincts right now. So I’m going to post what came from the heart:
Now I’ll tell you how I really feel. If Christine had succumbed to ARVs early on after her “diagnosis” you would say “Oh, how sad, we didn’t catch it early enough… and she died (subtext – our drugs are wonderful and “life-saving” but she didn’t get treated early enough) of AIDS.
But when someone tells you to shove your crap drugs when the sun doesn’t shine, and then goes on to outlive your dire bone-pointing death predictions by many, many years, when she finally does die – even though no cause of death has even been speculated in the most preliminary manner, you immediately make the assumption she died from HAART deficiency.
I admit I am very upset at Christine’s death. I had immense respect for this lady. It upset me in the extreme as a mother myself that she attracted the kind of gutter politics employed by the drug companies to smear her devotion and love for her children as somehow “misguided” or outright “loony”, aided and abetted by the likes of Nick “the only offspring I have is a bunny” Bennett, Chris “I have no life” Noble AKA “Hank Barnes” on this blog (Queensland, Australia) and “Snout (another Nigel-no-mates somewhere in the vicinity of Melbourne)”.
It’s like that card trick where the person playing the trick always has the “right card” whatever happens. Except people’s lives are not a goddamn card game, and complete tossers like Bennett, Noble or Kalichman do NOT dictate the game. You might think people’s lives are expendable in your “great experiment” but the day someone you love is touched by this you might feel differently.
Sadun Kal – no offence, you are a lovely person and always wa