Science Guardian

This page contains copies of articles, letters and other texts (such as blog comments) which were refused or erased by Web administrators but which deserve permanent reference.

Some pages are still on the Web but in our view risk being removed at some point. One example is Amazon, which has reportedly erased customer reviews of Christine Maggiore’s book, What If Everything You Knew About AIDS Was Wrong?
We have no evidence of this in hand though.

All contributions welcome; please email to contributions@scienceguardian.com, thank you.

New York Observer March 13 2006
The City The Daily Transom
Celia Farber: Has the Dissenter Become the… Dissentee?

Published: March 13, 2006

The March 2006 Harper’s carries a piece by Celia Farber, who has written about AIDS—and HIV denialists such as Peter Duesberg—for 20 years. Says today’s New York Times:

Ms. Farber says that neither she nor Harper’s endorse Dr. Duesberg’s position, but that she is simply reporting on an unpopular view. “People can’t distinguish, it seems, between describing dissent and being dissent,” she said.

What could possibly have confused people about the difference between description and outright dissent?

The one thing we do know, “categorically,” is that the myths that have sprung up from Africa about AIDS are “positively absurd,” [Farber] exploded, citing theories that HIV is rampantly spreading AIDS throughout Africa. “this really lifts off into science fiction.” [...] “I suspect “they” got to him [Nelson Mandela]–Jimmy Carter and all those believing AIDS is pandemic in Africa, Black Africans know that to be loved by the West, you talk their line all the way–especially on AIDS.”

—Interview with Celia Farber, Dec 1, 2005, The Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients.

“Everybody who was wrong got journalism awards. Everybody who was right got all but driven from the profession,” Farber said.

Farber exposed the conspiracy between profit-hungry drug companies, researchers who wanted more funding, homosexuals who didn’t want the disease to be known as “the gay plague,” and conservatives who wanted to turn back the sexual revolution.

—March 19, 2004, New York Post, “Straight AIDS Myth Shattered.”

“Suffice to say, AIDS professionals will be aghast,” Farber declares. “Unless, of course, they’ve decided to take their cash and their ribbons and helicopter off to their chalets where they can hope to live out their days in anonymity.” [Rian] Milan’s findings debunk myths that the scientific community has been spreading for 20 years.

—Nov 4, 2001, New York Post, on the publication of Rian Milan’s “AIDS in Africa: In Search of the Truth” in Rolling Stone.

I fell silent, realizing from years of reporting on this issue how futile it is to argue when the big club of HIV has been pulled out. Like the child’s game of rock, paper, scissors, HIV is always the rock and the scissors.

—Celia Farber, 1998, Mothering, “AZT Roulette.”

* 9 comments

Comments
Kate (not verified) says:

Celia Farber’s claims of objectivity and commitment to journalism – that her job is to “ask questions” – is about as sincere as Pat Robertson claiming the same of the homosexual lifestyle. At least Robertson wears his bias proudly on his chest.

Farber is a crank, a sad excuse for a journalist and unfortunately for the Harper’s fact-checkers, a patent liar – always has been on the HIV/AIDS topic. There are purveyors of misleading information – she is not one of them. Farber just outright lies. She treats scientific facts surrounding HIV/AIDS with the same care a termite does a piece of wood – she hacks it up, leaving nothing but a pile of unrecognizable shavings.

Many people have lost their lives by her words. She’s pathetic.
March 14, 2006 12:55 AM

* reply
* flag this

Martin Delaney (not verified) says:

It is ludicrous for Farber to suddenly proclaim in 2006 that she is only the messenger. She has written on and argued for the denialist position for at least a decade and half. She wrote about nothing else in SPIN Magazine for years. There was never any question that she was espousing her own views. No one should be surprised by this new claim of being the messenger though. Her writing has been blatantly dishonest and misleading from day one. Like her apparent mentor Peter Duesberg, she simply ignores the principles of science, hiding all evidence contrary to her views while spotlighting the few specks of data that seem, at least to the untrained eye, to bolster her case. I have come to believe that HIV denialism, like Holocaust denialism, is a mental illness deeply rooted in problems accepting authority and an inability to admit error. Though sometimes harmless, in matters as grave as AIDS it has become criminal behavior resulting in the loss of thousands of lives.
March 14, 2006 11:41 PM

* reply
* flag this

Anonymous says:

what I loved was Harper’s editor Rodger Hodge telling the Times about the great personal cost to Farber of her “brave” reporting….really, Rodger? A greater personal toll than, say, losing both parents to AIDS, as more than 10 million African children have? Rodger Hodge, Rick MacArthur, and Harper’s should be ashamed of themselves.
March 15, 2006 2:34 PM

* reply
* flag this

Robert Houston (not verified) says:

Celia Farber is an extraordinarily gifted journalist who has had the temerity to report on an amazing scientific controversy that the national media and HIV/AIDS agencies would prefer to ignore or dismiss. This is the fact that some highly qualified scientists, including retrovirologists and Nobel laureates, believe that evidence is lacking that HIV causes AIDS. In reporting on the other side as well in the AIDS debate, Ms. Farber has acted as a truly objective journalist should and performed an outstanding public service. Her writings have helped to compensate for the extremely onesided party-line reporting that has typified the AIDS issue. Her article in Harper’s is a masterpiece that exposes the corruption in AIDS research and should merit the author a Pulitzer prize.
March 15, 2006 6:29 PM

* reply
* flag this

Diogenes (not verified) says:

What is the point of the Transom piece? Is it that sympathy for one side disqualifies one from writing about an issue? Then there would be no qualified journalists on anything, and HIV believers likewise should be silenced. Or was the point that journalists or editors who have a personal opinion on a scientific issue should issue conclusive scientific endorsements? This would be equally absurd.

The first three commentators engaged in scurrilous smear-tactics typical of HIV activist groups, which have become little more than goon squads for the government and the drug companies which finance them. One of the commentators leads a group – is it Project Misinform? – that is heavily bankrolled by the makers of HIV drugs. He speaks of “the loss of thousands of lives” from “denialism” when the nearly universal feature of longterm AIDS survivors has been refusal to take the drugs. In Lederer’s article in the current POZ (April), Joseph Sonnabend, M.D., founder of AMFAR, charges that “1200 mg a day of AZT (the first approved dose in the ’80s) killed thousands, as did so-called early intervention.” It was not Peter Duesberg but Robert Gallo who ignored the principles of science by announcing in 1984 that HIV was the cause of AIDS though it was absent in 64% of the AIDS patients he tested.
March 18, 2006 7:10 PM

* reply
* flag this

Researcher (not verified) says:

That last comment about the absence of HIV in most AIDS patients was a bit startling so I checked it out. The discovery paper for HIV (then called HTLV-III) states in the abstract: “Retroviruses… designated HTLV-III were isolated from…26 of 72 adult and juvenile patients with AIDS” (R.C. Gallo et al. Science 224:500, May 4, 1984). That’s only 36%, meaning that HIV could not be found in 64% of AIDS patients. To claim it the cause of AIDS on such a flimsy basis is a violation of Koch’s first postulate, which requires that the putative pathogen be found in all cases of the disease. This means that the “denialists” are correct: HIV failed the basic scientific principle for establishing causation.

This was one of the many striking points raised by Prof. Peter Duesberg in his critiques of the HIV theory. I have read several of his papers on AIDS and found them to be thoughtful, comprehensive, and meticulous in reviewing the data. Rather than “hiding all evidence,” as Mr. Delaney falsely claims, Duesberg examines it with respect to established scientific principles. His June 2003 paper (J. Biosci.) showss in Table 4 how the 17 claims of the HIV theory have each been disproven. In checking his references, I found they always accurately supported his statements. Ms. Farber’s quoted statements also ring true and are a refreshing change from the standard “group-think.”
March 19, 2006 7:17 PM

* reply
* flag this

Karen Lynne Lambert (not verified) says:

Can’t you see that we have it all backwards? HIV+ individuals are not even sick (assuming they are not on any meds). AIDS patients are just more “Chronic Fatigue Syndrome” (CFS) patients, who only by coincidence, have a questionably harmless virus, HIV. So, the question remains, since we know it’s not HIV: what is the cause of CFS (and it’s most progressive stage, HIV-Negative AIDS-idiopathic CD4 lymphocytopenia)?
March 19, 2006 8:05 PM

The following Comment was posted by Mark Biernbaum and disappeared mysteriously after a few days and could not be reposted, no explanation forthcoming. – NAR:

Mark’s Comment:

It is terribly misinformed to attack Ms. Farber’s journalism or the integrity of Harper’s magazine. As one commentator above has written, Robert Gallo’s original work on HIV=AIDS was unable to conclude that the relationship was evident in every AIDS patient — it wasn’t, and this should alarm all of us. Gallo’s work, and its inadequacies, are established scientific fact. Although there is evidence that HIV might be related to AIDS, this evidence is far from unequivocal. Additionally, suggesting that merely reporting on the huge gaps in the HIV=AIDS hypothesis makes Celia Farber responsible for the deaths of millions of Africans is patently absurd and makes anyone who argues such a point sound ridiculous. Opinions do not kill people, and everyone, especially those who have taken 20 years to educate themselves about the science in this area, has a right to express them. Opinions do not kill, but policies based on weak scientific evidence certainly do. Before we shower Africa with HIV meds, wouldn’t it be more prudent to put money into infrastructure that could provide clean drinking water and proper sanitation systems? Given the fact that most Africans don’t have access to clean drinking water or proper sanitation systems, what exactly do we hope these medications will accomplish? Given the current state of infrastructure in Africa, they cannot accomplish anything at all, but perhaps make sick people sicker. People must investigate the claims of the AIDS establishment for themselves. People like Celia Farber encourage us to make sure that the science about HIV and AIDS is conducted properly and provides the appropriate evidence — which currently, and very sadly for those who have been duped by the establishment, it does not.

Posted by: Mark A. Biernbaum, PhD | March 20, 2006 09:01 AM

New York Observer July 2 2006:
AIDS Anarchist Farber Hops Back in Whirlwind
by Sheelah Kolhatkar

On the night of Saturday, June 10, the controversial journalist Celia Farber was holding court at a quiet cocktail party in a roped-off section of the Roosevelt Hotel bar in midtown Manhattan. “What does an animal do when they know they’re going to be killed?” she asked, her voice taut, as a handful of people looked on. “They play dead.”

Ms. Farber was in the midst of an anecdote about one of her preferred subjects, her persecution at the hands of a vast network of enemies, and its effect on her writing career. “I’ve been there,” she continued. “You lose interest in doing well; you stop caring about being successful.”

Most of the 15 or so at the party were members of Rethinking AIDS, a group of scientists, writers and others who propagate the radical idea that H.I.V. does not cause AIDS. One of Ms. Farber’s beliefs, for example, is that the scientific explanations for the AIDS epidemic are corrupted by drug companies that seek to show that AIDS is amenable to drug therapies—profitable ones.

Their esoteric ideas have far-reaching implications, to say the least. If H.I.V. doesn’t cause AIDS, then “safe sex,” drug “cocktails”—in short, everything that the medical establishment says about prevention and treatment—is wrong.

Not unsurprisingly, the group is small, marginalized and the object of intense criticism in public-health circles. (They view themselves as AIDS “dissenters,” while their critics refer to them as “denialists.”)

Ms. Farber is a central figure among the AIDS “dissenters.” She isn’t a scientist herself; instead, she champions the scientific work of Peter Duesberg, a cancer researcher at the University of California at Berkeley. Ms. Farber sees herself as some sort of modern-day Clarence Darrow to Mr. Duesberg’s Scopes—an advocate whose lonely battle will be vindicated through the prisms of history and science.

Her two-decade career has been dominated by her efforts to keep debate about the dissenting AIDS theory alive, and nearly every piece she publishes on the subject triggers a seismic backlash. An Op-Ed piece in The New York Times on June 4 accused her camp of “Deadly Quackery”: “The truth is that H.I.V. does exist, that it causes AIDS and that antiretroviral drugs can prevent H.I.V. transmission and death from AIDS,” it read. “To deny these facts is not just wrong—it’s deadly.”

One could argue that Ms. Farber gave her life for her obsession with the cause. A few months ago, she and her ragtag band of colleagues might have been considered, by some, to be one step away from the conspiracy theorist’s asylum, next in line behind the 9/11-was-an-inside-job crowd. But they’ve been feeling emboldened by two recent successes: the publication of Ms. Farber’s first book, Serious Adverse Events: An Uncensored History of AIDS, by the independent press Melville House; and, perhaps more significantly, the appearance of a 15-page article by Ms. Farber in the March issue of Harper’s Magazine.

Indeed, as one party attendee pointed out, not everyone in the media world regards Celia Farber as a petrified animal. “There are so many people who admire her,” said Thor Halvorssen, a personal friend of Ms. Farber, who was there solely to lend her moral support. He paused. “[Former Harper’s editor] Lewis Lapham, for one.”

UP CLOSE, MS. FARBER, 40, HAS A DAMAGED, fragile air. She is tall and exceedingly thin, with limbs that look as if they might snap to the touch. Her facial features are dramatically chiseled, with large brown eyes topped off with carefully tousled blond hair. “After all these years, the spotlight is on me,” Ms. Farber said, sipping a glass of white wine. “It’s come at the same moment when I’ve ceased to care any more. There comes a point where I don’t crave respectability, I don’t expect to get it from the outside.”

Ms. Farber sees AIDS through the lens of totalitarianism (American society in general, American science specifically and the National Institutes of Health all earned the label). To engage with her is to enter a surreal plane where her intensity threatens to overwhelm. Dozens of e-mails arrive in the night filled with angry rantings, impassioned pleas, links to articles and letters to the editor—all offering a glimpse into the emotional seesaw that is her existence. She seems riven by anxious energy, and her long fingers tend to flutter around her temples like butterflies as she speaks.

At the Roosevelt, she was seated on a couch next to her friend Mr. Halvorssen, a preppy libertarian with a cowlick, whose preoccupations that night included the evils of communism, political correctness, environmentalists and the charges against the Duke lacrosse team.

“I’m an unusual subject in that for years it’s been written that I’m in denial of reality, a mass murderer …,” Ms. Farber said.

At that moment, Barry Farber—Ms. Farber’s father, the anti-communist and conservative radio host who ran for Mayor of New York in 1977—ambled over with a big grin, his tie askew.

“We’re talking about your daughter!” Mr. Halvorssen said to him.

“Ah, my favorite subject!” Mr. Farber said in his Southern drawl. He collapsed on the couch and started punching at his cell phone.

“If you are deprived of respectability over time,” Ms. Farber continued, “what happens is, it’s wounding—but eventually you get freed of the addiction to respectability. I think a lot of media people crave respectability.”

Her friend wasn’t buying it; he thinks she is too timid and insecure. “How often in the past two years have you pitched a story?” said Mr. Halvorssen in a scolding tone.

“Um … ,” Ms. Farber said, “I have pitched stories, probably …. ”

“She just does not do it!” Mr. Halvorssen said. “She could get $20,000 a story, she’s so good. But she just. Does. Not. Do. It. She’s still bleeding. If we could just cover these wounds …. ”

“I said this to Lewis Lapham, actually,” Ms. Farber said: “‘You are interfering with my persecution complex!’”

“You see this?” Mr. Halvorssen said. “She has a Joan of Arc complex!”

“A persecution complex does not develop out of nothing,” Ms. Farber said.

AIDS “HAS HAD ME IN ITS JAWS FOR 20 YEARS, and I’ve occasionally tried to get away from it. And I have found that there’s not nearly as much free will as you’d think,” said Ms. Farber. “I am not obsessed with it. I probably seem to be obsessed with it—people probably think, Can’t she shut up about AIDS? But in actual fact, I’ve been trying to, for a long time. But some portion of the culture keeps coming to me and asking me to please address it again.” Ms. Farber, however, is unable to “shut up about” AIDS for very long.

Celia Farber is a New Yorker by birth (she now lives on the Upper West Side). Her mother was a Swedish Pan Am stewardess and a nurse; her father is of Russian Jewish ancestry and grew up in North Carolina. She lived from age 11 to 18 in Sweden, which she described as an oppressive, overly socialist, weird place. She joined the alternative-rock scene, and when she returned to New York she enrolled at N.Y.U. and drummed in bands.

She began writing her infamous AIDS column, called “Words from the Front,” at Spin in 1987.

It was in the midst of the so-called “AIDS war,” when public fear (Ms. Farber likes to call it “mass hysteria”) about the disease was at its peak and there was a scientific space race underway to understand it. But: “I didn’t come in and say, ‘I wanna write about AIDS!’” Ms. Farber said. “I wanted to find something out, ideally something that really needed to be found out and nobody else had found out. That was my thing.”

Her pieces, many of which are collected in her book, raised questions about whether H.I.V. was the sole cause of AIDS, about the side effects of the AIDS drug AZT and about the severity of the AIDS epidemic in Africa. Her second installment was an interview with Mr. Duesberg, who is also known for his hypothesis that AIDS is caused by heavy recreational and anti-H.I.V. drug use rather than H.I.V. itself. Mr. Duesberg was shunned by the scientific community after publishing his theory that H.I.V. cannot cause AIDS; Ms. Farber has been aligned with him ever since.

Needless to say, many in the medical establishment, as well as gay and AIDS activists—and Ms. Farber’s own colleagues at Spin—found her columns destructive. Spin’s publisher, Bob Guccione Jr., personally shepherded her pieces into the magazine. “There was always a sense of violence and sabotage,” Ms. Farber said, adopting the cadences of a grizzled war reporter. “There were times when Bob and I had to actually walk the boards to the printer—there were people, copy editors and fact-checkers, who hated the column so much they would cut things out.”

There was also another matter: Ms. Farber was romantically involved with Mr. Guccione, which created resentment in the office. This culminated in 1994 when an employee named Staci Bonner filed a sexual-harassment lawsuit against the magazine and Mr. Guccione.

Ms. Farber had by then gone freelance, gotten married to someone else and given birth to a son just that year. In a time line she provided in an e-mail, she wrote: “The years 1994-1997 were consumed with fighting the charges which culminated in Federal Court, 1997. Hospitalized briefly for suicidal urges. Lost 25 pounds. Lost will to live. Betrayed by best friend at Spin (plaintiff).” She said the trial “absolutely leveled me—it was the darkest, scariest, most traumatic, merciless, brutal thing I’ve ever seen or imagined; it took me 10 years to even begin to want to live again.”

Shortly after that, she went to Los Angeles and spent three months shadowing O.J. Simpson for Esquire, which resulted in a sensational cover story in 1998. She wrote for Mr. Guccione at his new magazine, Gear, and had an AIDS column on the Web site Ironminds. She separated from her husband. She organized a concert called “Rock the Boat,” which was intended to raise awareness about alternative AIDS theories; the concert fell apart, and Ms. Farber said that “financial decimation” followed. She worked at a series of odd jobs—in hotels, trade shows, making candles, catering, dishwashing.

Around 2001, Tina Brown commissioned her to write a story about gene therapy for Talk. The piece was killed. She said that she has been broke, and has given up on journalism, ever since.

(There was one bright spot: Ms. Farber said in an e-mail that after she wrote a piece for the New York Press about Bill O’Reilly’s sexual harassment case in 2004, the founder of American Apparel, Dov Charney, called her up “yelling about the whole fake feminism ordeal.” Mr. Charney had been dealing with his own harassment accusations, and he hired her as a “consultant and writer.” Ms. Farber referred to Mr. Charney as her “secret benefactor.”)

She speaks of her Harper’s article as if it was a divine accident, but in reality Mr. Lapham was the puppet master. After meeting him at a party several years ago, Ms. Farber said he urged her to pitch him stories. “He said, ‘I really need someone to write about science for me,’” Ms. Farber recalled. “He said, ‘I really have a sense that it’s kind of … ,’ and then he paused, and I said, ‘Diabolical?’”

She eventually proposed a piece about the same H.I.V.-does-not-cause-AIDS virologist she’s been championing since Spin. “I had no intention whatsoever of writing about AIDS in Harper’s,” Ms. Farber said, somewhat implausibly. “The original story was about Peter Duesberg’s cancer theory. And I remember saying to Lewis Lapham: ‘The AIDS question—we’ll just fly right over that, right?’ And he said, ‘Yeah, we’ll fly right over that.’” (Mr. Lapham declined to speak to The Observer.)

Ms. Farber turned in that piece, which appears as the first chapter in her book. Mr. Lapham handed the text over to an editor, Roger Hodge, to edit. While it was being worked on, news of a problematic AIDS drug trial appeared in the press. Ms. Farber brought it to her editor’s attention and said that she was urged to look into that story: “I felt like, ‘Oh, God, what a pain in the ass. I don’t wanna go into that extraordinarily difficult, impossible, explosive, life-destroying stuff!’” Ms. Farber said. “But you don’t say that to your editors.”

The piece that ultimately ran was an awkward marriage of the two stories. Predictably, it triggered a considerable level of anger directed at Harper’s. Letters were published both in support of the article and taking issue with some of Ms. Farber’s contentions. The AIDS researcher Robert Gallo and doctors from the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, among others, wrote in protest.

Ms. Farber said that she’d tried to warn Messrs. Lapham and Hodge of her reputation and biases. “In this discredited little cadre of scientists, I’m their champion,” she said she told them. In an e-mail, Mr. Hodge, who is now Harper’s’ top editor, wrote: “Yes, we knew what we were getting into.” He also wrote: “Celia is an excellent reporter and I hope she brings us more good stories in the future.”

It’s not entirely surprising that a figure such as Ms. Farber would appeal to a particular brand of right-thinking liberalism, the type embodied by Mr. Lapham’s former magazine. By focusing her outrage on her opposition’s desire to silence dissent rather than on the actual scientific arguments, Ms. Farber finds protection under the idea that no subject or theory, regardless of its implications, should be taken off the table; continuing to ask the questions can be more important than answering them.

When asked how the endless contrarianism might have impacted Ms. Farber professionally, Mr. Guccione, another believer in the “fostering debate” approach to publishing, said: “I think she has paid a terrific price.” He continued: “You know, the flip side of that is, I think she spent too much time dwelling on the AIDS beat. It’s been a holy quest for her.”

In any case, Ms. Farber would be lost without her battles. She said that she’s always been fascinated by Stalinism, Communism, the Holocaust, witch hunts; she visits “as many dictatorships as I can.” She described herself alternately as a lapsed hard leftist, a proto-anarchist, a libertarian sympathizer and a “bit punk.” When asked if she somehow took pleasure in the turmoil triggered by her journalism, she said: “I would vastly prefer a quiet life, without roiling bands of furious AIDS activists—I mean treatment activists—smearing my name all over the world. I mean, I don’t like it. I don’t take it lightly.”

Then she thought for a moment. “I think I was built to take it,” Ms. Farber said. “I just had a very, very unsparing childhood. And I was never any ‘the world is my oyster’ kind of person. Things were always tough, and I developed kind of an identity, I guess, where maybe I relished something about the dynamic of being attacked. It’s a really good question …. It traumatizes me very much. Less now than it used to. I find it boring now. Very, very boring.” -30-

Apparently there were no comments on this article.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Least Known War In Science: Does HIV Cause AIDS?, a piece blogged by Hank Campbell on Scienceblogging on August 27 2007, including an interview with Tara C. Smith of Aetiology:

The Least Known War In Science: Does HIV Cause AIDS?
Submitted by Hank on 27 August 2007 – 5:00am. Public Health
26
peers

There’s a war happening in science but you may not know about it, and it’s stranger than most because it is pitting some people with HIV and their loved ones against the scientists and medical community trying to cure it. In other words, it’s a war that makes even less sense than most wars.

Did you know there was even a debate about whether or not HIV causes AIDS? I didn’t. You might as well have walked up and told me puppies and free money don’t cause happiness – I was that shocked – but a debate there is and I learned about it when I read an editorial in PLoS ( Public Library of Science) Medicine titled HIV Denial in the Internet Era. The authors, Tara C. Smith and Steven P. Novella, pull no punches at all. They don’t hesitate to lump in HIV/AIDS skeptics with deniers of evolution and the Holocaust. It’s powerful stuff and they clearly feel like this issue is too important to remain out of the mainstream cultural debate.

Dr. Tara Smith and Dr. Steven Novella

I was intrigued by the editorial because it’s rare that scientists invoke the Holocaust and even more rare that you have an important cause where two sides vehemently disagree yet, to an outsider, there doesn’t seem to be a villain. In the global warming debate, for example, you can look to Exxon or Environmental Defense as the villain depending on where you stand because there’s money involved in both camps.

In the world of HIV research, it’s not so clear cut. Doctors and scientists who want to save people with HIV/AIDS can’t be the villains. Likewise, people who have HIV/AIDS and are convinced the drugs do more harm than the disease can’t be the villains. Drug companies? Perhaps it is possible on a limited scale but most scientists work for little money by choice so greed isn’t a big motivator.

Medicine is occasionally art as much as science because there aren’t always clear-cut reasons why things happen the way they happen at the cellular level yet society expects decisions today based on data that may be incomplete – lives are quite literally at stake. Understanding that, I set out to discuss the science behind this. I wrote to Dr. Smith and a few of the groups and people mentioned in the editorial and left a general comment on a site critical of the editorial asking for expert input. I did not get a response from Dr. Peter Duesberg, a professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley and oft-cited source. Nor did I get an answer from Act Up San Francisco or Alive & Well but I did get a response from Dr. Henry H. Bauer, author of The Origin, Persistence And Failings Of HIV/AIDS Theory, who wrote:

Re: the Smith-Novella article in PLoS Medicine, please note that it does not deal with HIV/AIDS science, it deals with issues of dissent from a mainstream consensus, and does so in a sadly misguided and ignorant fashion: the authors are not familiar with standard knowledge in history, philosophy, and sociology of science, in particular as to the role of anomalies and heterodoxy in the progress of science, which happens to be my own academic specialty

Fair enough, but that charge can be levelled against every editorial ever written, especially if you happen not to like it. They are by definition primarily opinion pieces. Yet you don’t often get to be a professor of epidemiology or a neurologist at the Yale University School of Medicine without knowing what you are talking about, so even opinion pieces by experts carry real weight. Dr. Bauer is Professor Emeritus of Chemistry & Science Studies at Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University and also Editor In Chief of Journal of Scientific Exploration, which deals with, among other things, ufology, cryptozoology, and parapsychology, so he’s also no stranger to criticism that his writing is sometimes not mainstream hard science.

Criticism of the editorial nature of the PLoS article aside, it makes sense to tackle the subject on its merits. Smith and Novella rightly understand that policy decisions are often based on perception as much as fact, and we agree as well, so it’s important that non-experts get a ground-level understanding of the science issues at stake.

In that interest I interviewed Dr. Smith to go beyond the editorial and to try and figure out why there is any debate at all and why they decided to speak out.

Scientific Blogging: The HIV/AIDS denial movement has been around for a while. What made this important enough to address now?

Tara Smith: Like most scientists, I hadn’t even realized there was an active denial movement until recently, beginning with the story of Eliza Jane Scovill. As a parent myself, I can only imagine how horrible it must be to lose a child, but it angered me that Maggiore didn’t learn anything from her daughter’s death–and indeed, continues to actively promote her denialist ideas to other mothers. To someone in public health, that behavior is beyond appalling, and I do think attention needs to be called to this movement, and to science denial more broadly.

Scientific Blogging: Are you concerned that your status in the scientific community legitimizes these denial groups scientifically by addressing them?

Tara Smith: No. Prior to becoming interested in HIV denial, I’d worked for quite awhile battling against evolution deniers in Ohio and Iowa. I’m not inviting anyone to debate me on equal footing; I don’t disguise my views on these matters or hide my opinions. I won’t legitimize them by inviting them to my university to give a talk or debate in the interest of “fairness.” I use my blog site to address these groups because their information is already out there, frequently unchallenged, on the internet.

Scientific Blogging: Disease testing can be confusing to the general population. Critics state that HIV tests are not accurate and they introduce concepts like surrogate markers which will be unknown to most people. Can you provide a short description of how HIV tests are done and their accuracy level?

Tara Smith: Sure. There are two steps to an HIV test. The first will be a screening test, typically an enzyme-linked immunosorbant assay (ELISA). This test looks for antibodies made by the patient that are specific to HIV. I’m skipping a few steps here, but when antibodies are present, the test will change color, and the amount of color change is measured by a machine. Those that are above the cut-off point for the ELISA will then be tested by a second test called a Western blot. In this test, the patient’s serum is applied to, essentially, a piece of paper-like membrane with HIV proteins stuck to it. If there are antibodies in the patient’s serum, they’ll stick to the proteins on the membrane, which will again change color in subsequent steps. It’s only when this is positive that an individual is called HIV+. The combination of the two tests has undergone through testing, and are very accurate. (For instance, a 1998 JAMA analysis showed a false positive rate of ~1 in 250,000, or 0.0004%.)

Scientific Blogging: It seems like the debate should be over after answering one question: are there any instances of AIDS without the presence of HIV?

Tara Smith: Well, even that one isn’t as straightforward as it may seem. AIDS is now defined in part by the presence of HIV (or antibodies to HIV), so the answer to your question, technically, is that no, there is no AIDS without HIV. However, there are rare cases of T cell depletion in the absence of HIV, from an unknown cause (”idiopathic T cell lymphocytopenia”), which those who deny HIV causation of AIDS try to pass off as “AIDS without HIV.”

Scientific Blogging: New laboratory assays can’t be created overnight, yet the lack of complete understanding about which part of the T-cell replacement mechanism is wearing out and what is responsible for wiping out the T-cells that disappear seems to be an argument these critics use against the science community. Can you compare the danger of current treatments with the danger of waiting until science is certain what causes T-cell stores to dwindle?

Tara Smith: Well, those studies have been done. We don’t need to know all of the details to see if a new treatment is better than doing nothing at all. Immunology has advanced in leaps and bounds over the past 2 decades, and with it our understanding of the biology of HIV, but imagine if we’d sat back for 2 decades and done nothing, waiting for a clearer picture of HIV pathogenesis? Antibiotics were used long before their mechanism was known; mechanisms of aspirin are still being investigated. Knowing more about HIV will hopefully allow us to design better drugs, but in the meantime, we know via clinical trials and epidemiological studies that antiretroviral drugs save lives.

Scientific Blogging: On the ACTUP San Francisco site they paint the HIV/AIDS epidemic as a perceptual one based on a combination of flawed science, alarmist media and anti-sex/anti-gay sentiment. That’s brilliant spin on their part because it says if you believe HIV causes AIDS, you either don’t know what you are talking about or you dislike gay people. So which are you, uninformed or anti-gay??

Tara Smith: Yes, they’ve certainly studied their framing, haven’t they? Again, you can see how they’re setting up something those of us in the mainstream just can’t win. What’s interesting is that they get all their own information from scientists who study HIV and obviously can’t really be uninformed, yet they support the idea that HIV causes AIDS–so they must be anti-gay? Yet they’re spending their careers studying a syndrome that disproportionately affects homosexuals in this country, so how does being anti-gay make any sense? That’s when they bring out the “greed” issues, suggesting that HIV research is so lucrative and scientists are out for the quick buck. I received one comment that suggested HIV researchers routinely make in the 7 figures.

Scientific Blogging: Critics note that there is no single scientific paper that proves HIV causes AIDS. How is that an issue?

Tara Smith: This is a red herring. There is no “single scientific paper” that “proves” anything. Scientific evidence is gathered over a period of years or decades, experiments are repeated by multiple groups, knowledge is built upon in many dozens or hundreds of papers, until a “cause” is established beyond a reasonable doubt. So by asking for a “single paper,” deniers are rigging the game from the start, knowing they can pick holes in that single paper (holes that likely have been filled by subsequent studies) and say, “aha! That paper is the best you can give me, and it didn’t prove anything! Your whole paradigm is incorrect.” It’s just a stunt, essentially.

Scientific Blogging: You used the terms “denier” and “consensus” in your article and those two words have become associated with political fights more than scientific ones. Is there a science debate remaining or is this now more of a political issue?

Tara Smith: There certainly remains much that’s unknown about the science of HIV, and there are valid debates in the scientific literature. But no, issue about whether HIV causes AIDS has been settled long ago. It is, in many ways, akin to a political fight, though deniers run the political spectrum. HIV deniers don’t have the clout or money behind them that evolution deniers do, but they do have a small core of loud supporters, along with Hollywood director-types who have been cranking out documentaries promoting AIDS misinformation, and “natural health”/vitamin gurus who profit from denial. Maybe “cultural issue” would be a better term than “political” one.

Scientific Blogging: I only found one critique of your article and it didn’t address the specifics of what you wrote but instead invoked the scientific ‘we should consider all options until eliminated’ position. Is that a legitimate defense in this case?

Tara Smith: Well, of course the old adage is to be open-minded, but not so much that your brains fall out. Of course, we should consider all options, but that was already done in the early years of AIDS. The “alternative” theories suggested by many deniers (such as drugs, too much sex, not enough nutrition) were tested exhaustively, and they were not alone found to be sufficient to cause AIDS. HIV presence was, and has been repeatedly in thousands of published studies. As much as we can be sure about anything in science, we know that HIV causes AIDS.

Scientific Blogging: Usually there is a driving motivation in any cause. Some care about the environment, for example, while others see a way to make money or get elected with environmental causes. I can’t figure out a motivation for HIV/AIDS deniers. Based on your research, what do they gain by clouding the issue?

Tara Smith: I don’t think you can assign one motivation to all of them. Some of them, especially those who are themselves HIV+, simply seem to not want to believe that they’ve acquired a pathogen that could, potentially, kill them eventually. Others are highly distrustful of the government, scientists, and anyone in authority in general. Certainly some do have religious motivations–they still believe that AIDS is a punishment for “sinning,” acts such as sex (and particularly homosexual sex) and drug use. I’m sure there are probably dozens more reasons, but I’ve not come across any overarching theme. Creationists are much easier to group together than HIV deniers, who seem to run the religious and political spectrum.

Scientific Blogging: It’s obvious there are fringe individuals and groups that want to leverage the confusion about the disease to advance their ideology but most are, like advocates for any HIV awareness group, legitimate victims of the disease who genuinely care and feel like we are being duped by drug companies or groups stigmatizing sex. I can’t help but feel you’re all on the same side – you want people to stop dying. What would be enough to convince everyone? A new generation of assays? Is it reasonable to expect to find a cellular treasure chest that answers all questions?

Tara Smith: Yes, I do think that’s unreasonable. Sometimes research does move forward in a giant leap like that–finding some “treasure chest” that moves a problem far ahead. Usually, it moves forward in much smaller increments. I don’t think there will anything that’s enough to convince everyone. There are still people out there who deny that germs cause disease, period–despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. All the science in the world won’t convince people who don’t respect the scientific method, or the scientists who carry out the research, and that’s really the bottom line in all of this.

Scientific Blogging: We greatly appreciate you taking some time to discuss this. Any final thoughts for our readers?

Tara Smith: I think it’s important for scientists (and laymen interested in science) to be aware that this kind of science denial still exists, and is still being actively promoted by some groups. Obviously evolution denial has gotten the most attention (and is arguably the most organized and well-financed), but other forms of science denial exist as well, and have been propagated by the internet. And while many other forms of science denial are distressing to scientists, and have numerous political implications, HIV denial has the potential to be deadly.
* * *

I spent about a week researching this and came away more confused than ever. Not about the science, because one thing is certain in science and logic: not fully understanding how X causes Y is not proof that it doesn’t happen. I don’t think the HIV/AIDS link is a myth propagated by drug companies and at some level we have to either trust pathologists and epidemiologists or become them and prove them wrong.

Uninformed political leaders or bizarre cultural perceptions will always be on the fringes of these kinds of issues but at its core, data has to be data. I asked Dr. Smith some pointed questions and got straight answers, including acknowledgements when the answers were incomplete. In looking over the data from the skeptic side I saw far too many out-of-context bits of fact and basically-accurate-but-incomplete statements that then lead to misleading conclusions.

According to Avert.org 2.6 million people died from AIDS in 2006. At some level it doesn’t matter what caused it, it’s still an epidemic that needs to be fixed.

I am okay if the medical community can’t give me a complete explanation for what caused AIDS, as long as they fix it. Heck, in physics I can’t give anyone a comprehensive definition of what a magnetic field is.* Does that make me a fraud or a dupe for the semiconductor industry that does $120 billion annually without knowing the answer? No, we’ll figure it out some day. Likewise in the field of AIDS research, the nuances of what caused it can be found over time but medicine needs to go about the business of saving people right now.

* A magnetic field is a region in space where a magnetic force can be detected. That’s the best answer you’re going to get.

Notes:

Dr. Tara Smith is Assistant Professor, Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases, College of Public Health at the University of Iowa. Her most recent book is Group B Streptococcus and she has a blog at http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology.

Dr. Steven Novella is an academic neurologist on full-time faculty at Yale University School of Medicine and he has a blog at http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/.

Dr. Henry H. Bauer is Professor Emeritus of Chemistry & Science Studies at Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University and author of The Origin, Persistence And Failings Of HIV/AIDS Theory. His website is http://www.failingsofhivaidstheory.homestead.com/
Technorati Tags: Public Health Tara Smith Steven Novella Henry Bauer AIDS HIV HIV Denial
» Hank’s column | login or register to post comments | email this page | technorati
digg | | reddit | newsvine | stumble | nowpublic | delicious | magnoliacom | google | yahoo | technorati
Related Articles Here On Scientific Blogging
HIV ‘Deniers’ Spread Misinformation Online, Says Paper News Sat Aug 25
High-risk Behaviors Could Lead to HIV Epidemic in Afghanistan News Tue Aug 28
HIV’s Impact In Zimbabwe Explored In New Research News Mon Aug 27
Key HIV Protein Makes Cell Membranes Bend News Wed Jul 25
Hepatitis C negatively impacts HIV News Sat May 26
Not sure what to comment on
Submitted by Torchwood on 27 August 2007 – 6:53am.
2
peers

Not sure what to comment on here.
There are so many causes of death.
And I’m not going to enter into the creationist – versus- evolutionist debate with Tara, been there done that. A belief in a creation or a universe of particles that follow a predetermined path or phase changes is not a denial of evolution of species. Dog breeding is proof of evolution. Selective breeding and GM modified crops are ‘proof’ of evolution. Mutations of viruses is proof of ‘evolution’. Cities, air transport, mobile phones and the internet are proof of human ‘evolution’.

Anyone who disagrees with Tara on anything will always be categorised a denialist. My question would be, there is ultimately one truth which none of us can escape ‘death’ whether violent death in war (or other violent death) whether from cancer, aids or a thousand other diseases, and death from malnutrition, starvation or famine. Naturally different people place different important or emphasis on each case according to their predilections, belief or self-interest and research interests. Some prople will strongly argue that climate change may become the greater killer or epidemic.

Anyway Hank I came to provide the first of my suggestions
Rotating headlines as in Live Science
» login or register to post comments | email this page
I enjoyed doing the
Submitted by Hank on 27 August 2007 – 9:16am.
3
peers

I enjoyed doing the interview. She certainly knows her stuff. I asked specifically about the ‘denier’ terminology because it’s just rare in the field of science. Al Gore says it, but that’s politics.

So you had already gone to her blog too? I am, it seems, the only person who had to be told she has a column on scienceblogs.com. A lot of people seem to know and read her, so she must be doing something right, yes?

P.S. Do we have enough headlines to rotate them?
» login or register to post comments | email this page
It’s about quality of
Submitted by Torchwood on 27 August 2007 – 7:22am.
1
peers

It’s about quality of life:
We haven’t yet learnt how to save or replace teeth, we condemn people to live with ‘dentures’
We seem to move on to the next thing thinking we’ve cured something yet sometimes it feels we’ve cured nothing at all, we are just creating a society dependant on more and motre cocktails of more drugs … is that really the aim or purpose of medical research.

More focus should be placed on what can be ‘cured’
Treatment or treating a condition is such an inexact science, and saving life the alleged ‘dictum’ of medical science such a relative term – saving life to live what kind of life exactly – with some major mental or physical impediment. The reality is that to the patient the saved life is often more like a life ’sentence’ – often a sentence without parole or reprieve – doctors, surgeons and researchers should take that on board.

Torchwood.
» login or register to post comments | email this page
Hi Hank, not only do you
Submitted by Torchwood on 27 August 2007 – 2:55pm.
2
peers

Hi Hank, not only do you have enough headlines
sometimes thee are multiple posts added, and one has to scroll thru the page …
I would suggest at least 4 rotating or revolving headlines
that is at least four headlines/news subgroups: Space/Astronomy/Astrophysics, Environment/Earth/Climate, Biology/Humans/Animal, and a fourth …

PS – I’m sure Tara is delightful, and clearly passionate about her subject. Just got a little too much denialist angst (at least for my taste).
» login or register to post comments | email this page
The downside to giving all
Submitted by Hank on 27 August 2007 – 3:11pm.
3
peers

The downside to giving all of the money ( well, almost – we cover the cost of the servers ) to the writers or charity is that everyone works for free, so we have realistic limits on what we can tackle at any given time.

I have a wonderful layout of what I would like for 2.0 and the programming is not even all that substantial, since the engine works without a hitch for 500,000 people a month. However, should you happen to know php ( and css ) people who like working for free and helping to build the best science community around, invite them to join!
» login or register to post comments | email this page
Hi Hank, apologies to Tara
Submitted by Torchwood on 27 August 2007 – 5:43pm.
1
peers

Hi Hank, apologies to Tara for following up our debate on her interview.
But I’m not suggesting adding more workload
Simply channeling the posts that are up loaded to their own subgroups. Of course anyone who knows the site, can just click on the tag or writer’s name to go to that writer’s posts.

PS – I’m surprised Sabine hasn’t added a copy here of her http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/08/magics-observation-of-gamma-ray-bursts.html post. Very topical.
» login or register to post comments | email this page
Now you have me confused.
Submitted by Hank on 27 August 2007 – 6:19pm.
3
peers

Now you have me confused. The buttons in the header and the text in the upper left sidebar all go to the various science subgroups – each has its own newsfeed as well, so we have some people who only want to get our geology articles, for example, and they do.

On the right, featured writers get their own block, so do news pieces and independent columnists that sign up.

When we have a million readers a month, we’ll do a redesign that makes it all more elegant. For starters, we just wanted a strong engine that could handle the traffic volume, easy article creation and a reasonable interface. We’re not the pretty prom queen of web 2.0 but we’re smarter and more fun than most!
» login or register to post comments | email this page
lol Hank say no more, We’re
Submitted by Torchwood on 28 August 2007 – 2:56am.
1
peers

lol Hank say no more,
We’re not the pretty prom queen of web 2.0 but we’re smarter and more fun than most!
The buttons are fine, no additions needed.
Simply that (in the future) replacing the buttons with rotating imagines and headlines would give an ‘eyecatching’ overview of the latest 5 articles in each subgroup. But as you say for now those who come to look for something know where to go.
Wasn’t ‘criticising’ the front page or home page which I like, just expressing my preference for my icons & images.
» login or register to post comments | email this page
hello Mister Hank, Tara
Submitted by yello on 31 August 2007 – 4:51am.
1
peers

hello Mister Hank,

Tara “may” have been interested in HIV/AIDS science since the death of Christine Maggiore’s daughter by an allergic reaction to amoxillin; but this thread at Hank Barnes’s “You Bet your Life” suggest a longer period of thought on this subject.

http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/2006/03/index.html

Oh, btw, why do I say Ms. Maggiore’s daughter died of a reaction to amoxillin?Well, her son and husband both test negative to HIV.Her dead daughter’s HIV test has never been revealed, except for a bullshit p24 test which means nothing, as this protein is found in loads of HIV- people ranging from folks infected with bacteria to Multiple Sclerosis sufferers.

Why do I post this?Because Ms. Maggoire used to be excoriated as an HIV NEGATIVE individual who used her “mistaken” false HIV+ test to reap a benefit of money or whatever from gullible real HIV+ peoples.Ms. Maggoire admitted to testing positive,negative,indeterminate,negative and positive if I recall correctly.It was determined by a multitude of her detractors that she was a lying bitch who wasn’t REALLY positive for HIV but pretending to be so.That fufilled their vagued indeterminate reasoning for her supposed power trip over “real” HIV positives.

As this simple text in the Barnes and Noble’s review of her book shows….

“Martha Howard, MD, A reviewer, 09/08/2005
Christine Maggiore is HIV NEGATIVE
I can’t believe I am the first to point this out. Hasn’t anyone wondered why Christine Maggiore refuses to submit to the National Institutes of Health or the Center for Disease Conrol for HIV testing (using ELISA, Western Blot, PCR)? She was the victim of false positive ELISA testing over a decade ago (not that unusual) and, worse, a physician who disclosed her test results without the mandatory Western Blot confirmation. Subsequently learning of her HIV NEGATIVE status, Christine has taken the conspiracy theory ball and run, run, run away with it. Believe me friends, Maggiore is HIV NEGATIVE – which explains consistent claims that she and her children are ‘ridiculously healthy’ – most young HIV negative women are ridiculously healthy too. She is a charlatan who has desperately harmed the lives of HIV positive people by outright lies. They believed in her – by example. If she were healthy after so many years of HIV infection, then HIV=AIDS was a lie (a wonderful fantasy, I know). No lie folks. If left untreated, HIV is lethal. For an HIV NEGATIVE woman such as Christine Maggiore to claim that HIV is harmless certainly lacks conviction!”

Here is the link(and no, this cunt was _NOT_ the first to “point this out”)

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780967415307&itm=6

There used to be multitudes of similiar reviews among the more than +70 Amazon.com had that included beliefs in Ms. Maggoire’s negative status until shortly after her daughter’s death to amoxillin toxicity.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Where are they now?!?!?!?
» login or register to post comments | email this page
Hi yello, Like I mentioned,
Submitted by Hank on 31 August 2007 – 11:16am.
1
peers

Hi yello,

Like I mentioned, I had quite literally no idea this was even an issue before I saw the editorial and I appreciate that Dr. Smith was gracious enough to take some time and answer questions about the science aspects of this.

The other things you mention are cultural – HIV ‘denial’ is controversial and all controversial opinions have a tough time getting mainstream traction – because of flawed science or tyranny of the majority I am not qualified to say.

I can’t think of a single instance where science truth did not win in the end. Data is data and nothing drives scientists crazier than being deceived. If data comes out that proves HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, or even that the cures are worse than the virus, I am pretty sure a compassionate person like Smith will be first in line taking up the new position.

The most prominent scientist I could find on the skeptic side was Dr. Duesberg and I’d love to interview him also and get the other side. We have two of our professors – and it’s Stanford v Berkeley, which has lots and lots of cultural sub-currents! – debating on opposite sides of an issue today and a good discussion is always healthy for science.
» login or register to post comments | email this page
Hank, go over to
Submitted by yello on 31 August 2007 – 9:53pm.
1
peers

Hank, go over to Newaidsreview and check out the comments section of “Denialists Deplored”.

You had two fairly high level folks ready to be interviewed, both with qualifications in excess of Dr. Smith.
» login or register to post comments | email this page
Hi Yello, I tried to get
Submitted by Hank on 1 September 2007 – 11:04am.
1
peers

Hi Yello,

I tried to get someone from a few of the organizations and Dr. Duesberg, because they are on the front lines of this in the same way Smith is. I did receive an answer from Dr. Bauer ( and put a link to his book, his website and I used the quote he told me to use ) but his field isn’t epidemiology or pathology and we’re a science site and no experts came forth then.

If this article is being examined by experts I am surprised they aren’t talking about it here, given our prominence and their access to a much larger audience. 10,000 people read this article and more do every day.
» login or register to post comments | email this page
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Amazon Reviews of Christine Maggiore’s Book, What If Everything You Thought You Knew about AIDS Was Wrong? Sept 27 2007

What If Everything You Thought You Knew about AIDS Was Wrong?: The Book That Will Change Your View of HIV and AIDS . . . and Possibly Change Your Life

What if everything you thought you knew about AIDS was wrong? (Paperback)
by Christine Maggiore (Author)

46 customer reviews (46 customer reviews)
46 Reviews
5 star: 47% (22)
4 star: 10% (5)
3 star: 4% (2)
2 star: 2% (1)
1 star: 34% (16)

See all 46 customer reviews…

Availability: Available from these sellers.

23 used & new available from $6.99
‹ Return to Product Overview

Customer Reviews
Average Customer Review:
Number of Reviews: 46
Create an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
Search Customer Reviews

Show:

1-10 of 46 | next

3 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
She is right about ‘AIDS’. It is a scam, October 15, 2006
By Paul King – See all my reviews
Every epidemic disease is now renamed ‘AIDS’ under the Bangui Definition.

Mortalities (non natural) in S.A. remain at the same 2.2% P.A. that they were BEFORE AIDS. Either every other disease in the region vanished overnight or ‘AIDS’ is simply the old diseases with a new name. You decide.

————-

In Africa, the continent supposedly being decimated by
HIV, HIV tests are rarely ever done, so there the idea
that all patients with AIDS are infected with HIV is
based entirely on supposition.

At a WHO conference in the Central African Republic in 1985, U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) introduced the “Bangui Definition” of AIDS in Africa.

The CDC officials later explained, “The definition was reached by consensus, based mostly on the delegates’ experience in treating AIDS patients. It has proven a useful tool in determining the extent of the AIDS epidemic in Africa, especially in areas where no testing is available.

It’s major components were prolonged fevers (for a month or more), weight loss of 10% or greater, and prolonged diarrhea…”(McCormick, 1996). Where AIDS is diagnosed clinically, large numbers of AIDS patients test negative for HIV. As no HIV testing is required in Africa we have no idea how many AIDS cases there are HIV positive (De ####, 1991; Gilks, 1991; Widy-Wirski, 1988).

_______

Other conditions common in underprivileged and
impoverished communities that are known to cause false
positive results are tuberculosis, malaria, hepatitis and leprosy (Burke, 1993; Challakeree, 1993; Johnson, 1998; Kashala, 1994; MacKenzie,1992; Meyer, 1987). In fact, these are the primary health threats in Africa; several million cases of tuberculosis and malaria are reported in Africa each year – more than all the AIDS cases reported in Africa since 1982 (WHO, 1998)*.
Comment | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

7 of 28 people found the following review helpful:
Everyone’s entitled to there opinion, but…., February 13, 2006
By Ryan A. Stevenson “RAS” (Bloomington, IN) – See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
While Maggiore is entitled to her opinion, she should display it as such, an opinion. There are millions of people who think HIV isn’t a big problem in itself. The problem is that this opinion, and spreading it as ’scientific’ has the potential to undercut teachings of safer sex. HIV causes AIDS, and AIDS kills people. Are there drugs out there that are dangerous, of course. Are some AIDS drugs dangerous, possibly. But is HIV/AIDS itself deadly, definently. So while anyone can give there opinion, it is irresponsible for this author to pass her’s off as ’scientific’. Feel free to read the book (get it from your library instead of paying for it though), but take it with a grain of salt, and then look into the facts for yourself.
Comment | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

28 of 42 people found the following review helpful:
I take a somewhat contrary view to Mr. Sanchez and Mr. Morgan, December 8, 2005
By Kenneth Murray – See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
In reading Anthony Sanchez and Mike Morgan’s reviews of this book, an educated person must ask themselves if they are still living in America. Mr. Sanchez (who states he works for the government in one of his other reviews of a book on Sobuko puzzles and holds himself out as a child protection worker) lashes out at Christine Maggiore as only a government lacky can … by following the dogma of yet another goverment lacky despite the myopic lunacy of the findings. In referring people to the flatly biased and poorly researched LA Times article entitled “A Mother’s Denial A Child’s Death,” Mr. Sanchez would have people blindly place their fate in the hands of the government on issues such as child health care rather than the 3 pediatricians that Christine had consulted in the cough-turned-ear infection that afflicted her little girl. By Mr. Sanchez standards, he would ensure that any pregnant woman who tests positive for HIV subject their newborns to a dangerous and toxic regimine of failed cancer chemotherapy drugs as a ‘protective measure.’

Mr. Sanchez blasts Christine Maggiore for not changing her views on HIV despite the death of her daughter, and for continuing to claim that Eliza Jane did not, in fact, die of AIDS. This is probably because there is not a shred of scientific evidence (unless you take the now-full-of-holes coroner’s report as scientific evidence) that EJ died of AIDS. No positive HIV test, no actual signs of the pneumonia that she allegedly died from, a high T cell count … it goes on and on. The only ‘evidence’ that EJ died of AIDS is that over a month into the investigation into her death, somebody leaked to the coroner’s office that Christine Maggiore was the leading authority on the dissident side of the HIV/AIDS debate. Boom. EJ is now an AIDS victim. How convenient. Thank you Dr. Ribe, you hack.

For those of you who are not yet aware of it, the HIV test does not reliably predict the presence of HIV. Don’t believe me, though … read the label of the HIV test. Further, there are over 70 different conditions that would cause a positive on an HIV test … this would be of little consequence to the likes of Mr. Sanchez. Off to the forced chemical induction camps, you HIV-ridden aberations!

I actually feel sorry for Mr. Sanchez. I was of the same mind as Mr. Sanchez a scant 2 years ago. Someone close to me tested positive for HIV, and I took the opportunity to read such enlightening books as “Inventing the AIDS Virus” (Dr. Peter Duesberg, Nobel nominated cancer researcher) and Christine Maggiore’s thoughtful book “What If Everything You Thought You Knew About AIDS Was Wrong.” Unlike the vitriolic and scientifically baseless positions staked out by the likes of flat earthers such as Sanchez and Morgan, the books by Duesberg and Maggiore provide a fair and balanced, scientifically based look at the AIDS/HIV hypothesis, and the authors ask only that the rules of science apply to the study of HIV and it’s connection to AIDS. Readers of these books will be shocked to learn that the normally unbiased scientific mainstream community has turned a blind eye to the very science they purport to practice. Believe it or not – again, don’t trust me on this, just try to find the document anywhere in scientific papers to prove me wrong – there is NO instance in the literature where the ‘deadly HIV virus’ can actually be found in the fluids of those who ‘test positive’ for HIV. And yet this little devil – HIV – is off ravaging the world. Folks, there’s way more to this topic than meets the eye, and Christine Maggiore has selflessly devoted the past ten years of her life – a HEALTHY life I might add – to helping others to discover the other side of the HIV/AIDS issue. She does this out of a small, poorly funded non-profit organization known as Alive and Well AIDS Alternatives. Yes, she promotes wellness. That evil witch. How dare she live a healthy life despite her affliction. And how dare she have two healthy children – well, healthy until her delightful toddler died from what is now being determined to be an allergic reaction to amoxicillin antibiotics, NOT HIV induced pneumonia – and a husband with whom she has normal relations. The coroner, a controversial rube by the name of Ribe, has been at the center of a plethora of controversy as a result of issuing death certificates of convenience in which he will often change a ‘conclusive’ finding based on whatever new convenient cause of death seems appropriate in order to wrap up an otherwise inconvenient case. After weeks and weeks of no finding of cause of death in the Eliza Jane case, Ribe conveniently concluded EJ’s death was caused by AIDS induced pneumonia. Several independant pathology reviews have proven this finding baseless, and in time, hopefully, Ribe will be banished to the land of misfits where he can do no further harm.

This book is an essential read for anyone who has a mind of their own. Sanchez and Morgan should be ashamed of themselves for grandstanding on the grave of an innocent child. I consider myself fortunate to not be subject to the purview of any agency to which Mr. Sanchez is attached. And as for the continuing saga of attempting to set the record straight on the death of Eliza Jane, feel free to take a peek at www.justiceforej.com. The contents will fascinate you. Meanwhile, alarmists such as Sanchez and Morgan are likely beyond salvation. Go back to your puzzles, Mr. Sanchez. Every moment you spend using your pen to solve puzzles at tax payer expense is one moment closer to you leaving government service, and one moment less you are spent persecuting good folks such as Christine Maggiore.
Comment | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

18 of 58 people found the following review helpful:
Deadly Wrong, December 4, 2005
By Mike Morgan – See all my reviews
The LA County Coroner reported the writer’s daughter died of AIDS-related pneumonia a few months ago. This book details the ignorant, dogmatic conspiratorial fallacy that HIV is harmless.

In death, the writer’s daughter, Eliza Jane Scovill, has probably written the best critique of this book: deadly wrong.
Comment (1) | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

13 of 27 people found the following review helpful:
Great Book!, December 3, 2005
By Henry “Henry” (Tokyo) – See all my reviews
This book should be taught in every school in America so children can see what a mess America’s medical and scientific communities are, so they can help change things for their futures.

It is simply horrible what happen to this woman’s daughter, but out of a bad situation something beautiful usually happens. I’m predicting that the house of cards that Big Pharm, the FDA, American Medical Association, and all others connected to the deaths of millions of people each year is going to come crashing down.

The American way of life of listening to junk science, taking pills, and eating processed crap needs to be shut down and this little girl’s death could be the spear that slays the dragon!

The America people need to wake up and realize that their health is being put in jeopardy so a select few can make millions of dollars in profits.

READ THIS BOOK!
Comment | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

15 of 25 people found the following review helpful:
There are Two Sides To Every Story, November 29, 2005
By Paul Alexander – See all my reviews
First, let me express my shock at Anthony Sanchez’s review earlier.
To attack Christine and her family with absolutely no knowledge of the facts aside from a shotgun article by the LA Times was inhumane and goes a long way in showing what can happen when people get spoon-fed their information with no sense of wonder or scientific criticism. I say jump, you jump Anthony. I imagine you were one of the panic-stricken when Orson Wells announced the Martians had landed. Fool.

Christine may not have all the answers to disprove the HIV-AIDS link. But neither does the establishment have the facts to prove it. There are two sides to every story and to blindly believe in only one…well…ignorance truly is bliss. And Christine’s account, backed by hundreds of educated doctors and scientists, certainly has enough merit to warrant reading.

There is a ot of arguing about the death of Christine’s daughter being HIV-AIDS related. I have followed this story from the start on numerous sites. so I can say I’m somewhat informed on what’s going on. At least, a hell of a lot more than Anthony Sanchez is.

According to the facts, it seems very likely her daughter’s death had nothing to do with AIDS at all, but more likely an allergic reaction to Amoxycillin. The pattern of death just doesn’t fit with AIDS death as described by the mainstream medical establishment – and does seem to coincide quite tragically with the side effects of allergy to antibiotic. Regardless, to hatefully attack the family in a time of such tragedy (imagine you lost your daughter!) with ignorant assumptions and accusations is nothing short of evil.

As for the book, it is a very good read. It is extremely intersting and eye-opening. It may seem like a reach (like calling the Earth round was a reach in its time), but if it’s true, it may be the spark that rights one of the most devastating wrongs in modern history.
Comment | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

11 of 23 people found the following review helpful:
Excellent Science Fiction, November 10, 2005
By Katy “Katy” (Cambridge, MA) – See all my reviews
While reading this book I was immediately taken back by all of the misrepresentations of cited material. So I decided to highlight them and now I have a bright yellow book cover to cover and two less highlighters in my drawer.

The writer demonstrates a complete lack of scientific understanding. For starters, when research is performed, it must include all the data, not carefully select pieces. Scientists may enter into research with suspicion of outcome but are successful despite the outcome, as evidence established by scientific methods is the victory in and of itself. The writer’s HIV+ status and decade’s long insistence that HIV is benign creates profound bias fueled by conflicts of interest.

The writer cherry-picked pieces of data from the reference material to compile this pamphlet of fiction. She carefully extracted slivers of sympathetic information from large, carefully monitored studies to suggest something quite foregin to what they do state. As I read, I started to think she’d created her own study by borrowing snipets of data from different places to create a study that supports her beliefs.

Peer-reviewed studies that are published in reputable medical journals are reviewed to ensure painstaking efforts were taken to eliminate tester bias (double-blind testing, etc.) and whose data was carefully monitored. Grossly put, this book is an abortion of those studies.

If you buy this book, commit yourself to fact checking by reading the studies referenced. Better yet, pick from any one of a thousand excellent sci-fi novels instead.
Comment | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

13 of 26 people found the following review helpful:
What’s More Dangerous Than Uninformed Opinions?, October 30, 2005
By Christine Maggiore (Los Angeles, CA USA) – See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
Rather than present a cogent challenge to the referenced data in my book, Mr Sanchez calls the contents “dangerous” based on his uninformed conclusions about my daughter’s death. Apparently believing the Los Angeles Times provides all the facts necessary to render judgment on the matter, Sanchez offers his expert opinion on a child he’s never met, whose medical records he’s never seen and without having examined any evidence pursuant to the case. Dear Mr Sanchez, before jumping to conclusions about what you think you know, please consider the inconvenient facts the LA Times left out of their articles posted in the News and Updates section of www.aliveandwell.org

You may also wish to learn what the independent pathology report on the autopsy reveals before making further public statements about me and my family. In the meantime, let’s reserve the book review page at Amazon for comments on the actual publications rather than your take on an author’s personal tragedy.
Comment | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

11 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
This powerful book frames the issue like no other. It is a MUST read for EVERYONE, HIV pos and neg alike., October 17, 2005
By S. A. Sarnoff “S.A. Sarnoff” (San Roque, CA) – See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
What If Everything You Thought You Knew About AIDS Was Wrong? by Christine Maggiore IS A WINNER!
I have a reading list the size of Texas, which means I prefer to read books that are to the point, and not a dawn out excuse of an ego trip for an author intent on a study in verbosity.
Ms. Maggiore gets to the point with new information and does not waste any time doing it. This writer omits the usual mantra of un-scientific assumptions and the sci-fi dooms-day predictions, focusing instead on the history and evidence of HIV as the cause of AIDS, and she bothers to reference her work (unlike some books I’ve read lately). I appreciate that Nobel prize winners and other top scientists have come out in support of her work, her ideas and her right to question. Those who read this powerful albeit small volume with an open mind will be rewarded with insightful information that the CDC and the FDA have ignored for decades. As long as Pharma and the medical industry is imbedded with these mega-agencies they will continue to lack neutrality and integrity many of us know are the basis for true science.

If you think you know about HIV/AIDS and have not read this book, then you are in for a fast paced ride that separates fact from fiction and a book that respects the reader enough to trust him/her to make up their own minds even if it means mentioning that the emperor is naked. Any reader worth his/her salt will welcome out-of- the box writing, and this book has it in spades. This book messes with the dominant theology of pharma funded science, and the author does it with peer reviewed, published literature. Science is built upon NEW ideas, and not by systematic rubberstamping of unsupported theories.
If you are currently on HIV drugs this book is essential. If you are worried about you or a family member getting HIV…READ THIS BOOK and decide for yourself if the facts between the covers warrant a new view of HIV.

Ps I noticed some of the reviews are mean spirited personal attacks against the author, TIME-OUT. This Amazon space is for readers to post book reviews (read the guidelines) it is no place to assault a writer grieving the loss of a child.
It is outrageous, disgusting and completely out of line to post personal accusations about Ms. Maggiore, who’s young daughter died shortly after antibiotics were begun for an ear infection. Since the author’s daughter did not have an AIDS diagnosis prior to death nor a history of compromised health prior to the ear infection, this baseless attack ignores one important fact, healthy people don’t drop dead from AIDS within weeks of a ear infection. Read this book! I also really liked “Get All The Facts: HIV does not cause AIDS” (Mass Market Paperback)
by Mohammed Ali Al-Bayati
(11 customer reviews)
Available on Amazon.Com
Comment | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

16 of 27 people found the following review helpful:
This book is “dangerous”…to sloppy thinking, October 4, 2005
By John Fowler (Durango, CO) – See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
Christine Maggiore’s book is an important element in the ongoing debate about AIDS, its causes, its medications, and its consequences. While not the deepest or most carefully-argued contribution to the canon of AIDS dissident literature, this book provides a very readable introduction to the subject, with more than enough peer-reviewed citations and quotations to satisfy any skeptical reader. But more important, I think, is the fact that Christine has put her money where her mouth is, so to speak. Unlike the more academic books from Peter Duesberg and Robert Root-Bernstein, Christine’s book is her life. She dinged the bell on an HIV antibody test, and by all accounts should have been dead ages ago, especially given her steadfast refusal to poison herself with AIDS meds. If she were unique, the book might be an interesting read as a mere curiosity, an anomaly in the vast tapestry of stories of HIV antibody test results that inexorably work their way to death.

But Christine is not unique, as the book’s extended appendix suggests. She lists dozens of testimonies from people whose stories are a lot like hers. And this is the book’s greatest strength. If you think it’s impossible for people to survive 15 or 20 years with a positive result on an HIV antibody test without touching AIDS meds, this litany of reports from regular folks will quickly disabuse you of that notion.

How, then, to reconcile this with the numerous negative reviews of this book that precede mine? Well, it helps to realize that the reviews listed below share several things in common with other Amazon reviews of AIDS-questioning literature:

1. The reviewers haven’t even read the book in question. I can’t figure out why on earth anyone would vote as “helpful” a review from someone who hadn’t even bothered to read a book before reviewing it.

2. The reviewers have no idea what they’re talking about. Christine’s good health over a decade after a positive antibody test is by no means unique, and yet you should watch the logical backflips that abound when her critics try to explain it. The most common explanation is the patently circular “She was never sick–her test was a false positive.” This non-argument, taken below by Martha Howard (and virtually every other critic of Christine), is especially telling in light of the recent death of Christine’s daughter. It’s telling because it seems everyone who insisted she was a false positive is now demanding that she be strung up for allowing her child to die of AIDS. How an HIV-negative mom would have infected her daughter, I have no idea. Talk about ad hoc. And what of her child’s apparent death from “AIDS-related pneumonia”? As it turns out, there is no evidence that she died of any pneumonia, much less anything associated with AIDS:

–Every healthcare and social services professional who observed her and treated her over her three years agreed that she was the picture of health. Not quite what you’d expect for a child supposedly dying of debilitating immune dysfunction.

–The doctors who examined her for her ear infection in the days before her death all agreed that her lungs were clear and cited no evidence of respiratory illness. This was even the case just one day before she died.

–When she collapsed before being rushed to the ER, she didn’t have the blue lips or fingertips that are evidence of life-threatening pneumonia.

–In the ER, she measured normal on an oxygen test.

–Her ER doctors took chest X-rays shortly before her death and reported no suspicion of pneumonia.

–The coroner autopsied Eliza Jane in May, examining her lungs in the process, and found no evidence of any particular cause of death. The coroner’s office even went so far as to suggest that AIDS symptoms are “obvious”, implying that Eliza’s death was clearly not AIDS. They would not draw their “AIDS-related pneumonia” conclusion until 3 months later, and only then after learning of Christine’s book. They drew this conclusion despite the ME’s report citing the lack of inflammatory response in the child’s lungs.

–Several independent reviews of the coroner’s report (by medical faculty from around the country) have likewise found no evidence that would lead to an AIDS diagnosis.

Given the lack of any evidence of pneumonia (or AIDS), and given the proximity of Eliza’s death to her first-ever treatment with Amoxycillin, Ockham’s razor–heck, even just simple logic–strongly suggests a severe reaction to the antibiotic, possibly leading to anaphylaxis. This is a known, albeit rare, complication of giving Amoxycillin to kids.

3. The reviewers have abysmally low standards of evidence. The unquestioning willingness of all these recent reviewers–and those who vote their reviews as “helpful”–to accept a single line from an LA Times article as definitive proof of anything medical, well there’s not much I can say about that. Richard Francis, as part of his review/argument, even goes so far as to cite a doctor who examined neither Eliza Jane nor the coroner’s report in question. Sloppy thinking like that only makes books like Christine’s even more important.

And finally, if you needed any further motivation to read this book, consider how many reviewers have warned that the book is “dangerous”. Good grief; it’s just words on a page. Any book that instills this sort of fear in so many people probably has something of merit to offer. Read it and decide for yourself.
Comment | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

1-10 of 46 | next
previous | 11-20 of 46 | next

14 of 31 people found the following review helpful:
The Author’s 3 Year Old Daughter Died of Aids-Related Pneumonia, October 1, 2005
By Hanna Greene – See all my reviews
The only “science” in this book is what I call pick-and-choose-science. You present a meaningless bunch of theories that don’t withstand scientific testing or even the mildest level of scrutiny.

Christine Maggiore should be criminally charged for negligent homicide in the death of her daughter – a 3 year old toddler who needed her mother’s love to rate higher than her mother’s denial. Even in death, Eliza Jane’s mother remains steadfastly convinced that HIV does not cause AIDS – yet the child was HIV positive and died from AIDS-related pneumonia. Thankfully, Ms. Maggiore has reached the age where she cannot produce more human beings whose only purpose will be to die horrible deaths over their mother’s ignorance.

Christine Maggiore is incapable of acknowledging that this book is a farce – even after the death of her own daughter. How many more innocent children have to die at the hands of obstinate parents too full of pride to save them?
Comment | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

7 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
Don’t Judge a Book by the LA Times coverage, September 30, 2005
By C. Schwartz “a skeptic” (San Antonio, TX) – See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
It is interesting that some reviewers would have readers judge this book by the coverage of an article appearing in the LA Times. This book can be judged on the merit of its content. The logic and data that Christine Maggiore uses in her book will appeal to critical thinkers such as David Rasnick, PhD, designer of protease inhibitors and other respected scientists and thinkers who have recommended her work and who don’t base their conclusions about this subject on the basis of an inconclusive LA Times article.
Comment | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

24 of 33 people found the following review helpful:
Warning, This is a very dangerous book., September 26, 2005
By Richard Francis (Washington DC) – See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
This is a very dangerous book. Denying that the HIV virus causes AIDS is just a primitive escape mechanism, similar to that of a two year old holding their fingers in their ears chanting “I can’t hear you, I can’t hear you”.

It’s also sad to note that the authors own daughter, 3-year-old Eliza Jane Scovill is dead. The cause, according to a Sept. 15 report by the Los Angeles County coroner, was AIDS-related pneumonia.

“This was a preventable death,” said Dr. James Oleske, a New Jersey physician who never examined Eliza Jane but has treated hundreds of HIV-positive children. “I can tell you without any doubt that, at the outset of her illness, if she was appropriately evaluated, she would have been appropriately treated. She would not have died.

She died because her mother refused to accept the possibility of her having aids, a disease she might well have not caught if her mother took the appropriative measures during pregnancy.

EDIT (10/12/05)

sloppy thinking? It always amazes me that people (as John above) can take such pseudo-scientific thinking as this book as anything less than a load of rubbish.

We must remember that Christine Maggiore, an influential HIV-positive activist believes that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, isn’t infectious, shouldn’t be treated with “toxic” anti-retroviral drugs like AZT and certainly needn’t prevent HIV-positive mothers like herself from breastfeeding.

This is certainly dangerous thinking.

(…)
Comment | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

49 of 76 people found the following review helpful:
Epilogue: Her child is DEAD from Aids, September 24, 2005
By Anthony Sanchez (Fredericksburg, va United States) – See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
How dangerous is this book and the author? Her three year old daughter is now dead from Aids. Read about it in the L.A. Times 24 September 2005. All because the author’s (and her husband’s) anti-science ideas of HIV as espoused in this book.

Has their daughter’s death changed their attitudes on HIV testing? No, the author wouldn’t want to take any responsibility, so she set up a web cite dedicated to how much she “loves” (sorry, make that “loved”) her daughter. However, she still claims that her daughter did not die of Aids!

I work as a child abuse/neglect specialist. The doctors involved (one of whom served three years criminal probation) are fully responsible. The Los Angeles child protective services are also responsible for failing to act correctly on an earlier medical neglect complaint (the parents’ failure to test the child for Aids/HIV). Those of you who supported this author by buying her book of half-brained ideas and thereby also endangering other children are too responsible. But, most responsible for this little girl’s death are the father and mother. For the glory of publicity and book sales, they sacrificed the child.
Comments (2) | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

7 of 27 people found the following review helpful:
Christine Maggiore is HIV NEGATIVE, July 15, 2005
By Martha Howard, MD “Martha Howard, MD” (Cambridge, MA) – See all my reviews
I can’t believe I am the first to point this out. Hasn’t anyone wondered why Christine Maggiore refuses to submit to the National Institutes of Health or the Center for Disease Conrol for HIV testing (using ELISA, Western Blot, PCR)?

She was the victim of false positive ELISA testing over a decade ago (not that unusual) and, worse, a physician who disclosed her test results without the mandatory Western Blot confirmation. Subsequently learning of her HIV NEGATIVE status, Christine has taken the conspiracy theory ball and run, run, run away with it.

Believe me friends, Maggiore is HIV NEGATIVE – which explains consistent claims that she and her children are “ridiculously healthy” – most young HIV negative women are ridiculously healthy too.

She is a charlatan who has desperately harmed the lives of HIV positive people by outright lies. They believed in her – by example. If she were healthy after so many years of HIV infection, then HIV=AIDS was a lie (a wonderful fantasy, I know).

No lie folks. If left untreated, HIV is lethal.

For an HIV NEGATIVE woman such as Christine Maggiore to claim that HIV is harmless certainly lacks conviction!
Comment (1) | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

26 of 37 people found the following review helpful:
Be very cautious…, June 13, 2005
By DJ, MD (USA) – See all my reviews
Being an MD, I would caution readers to be careful in forming some of the opinions posted in reviews. You might want to visit http://www.niaid.nih.gov/publications/hivaids/hivaids.htm for reference. I can say I personally am not influenced or swayed by drug companies or money, etc that was mentioned in a review. I also do not base a diagnosis on “prejudices”. It’s hard to not interpret a positive HIV screen, followed by a positive Western blot, along with a low CD-4 and high viral load as anything but what it is. As for the deaths only resulting from the medications in one review…why did all those AIDS patients die in early years BEFORE we had any treatments??? If no modern medical treatments are needed, why do these patients bother going to the doctor when all else fails? One last piece of advice….the 11th hour is not the time to suddenly find faith in the evil healthcare system and expect a miraculous outcome.
Comment | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

5 of 35 people found the following review helpful:
CHRISTINE MAGGIORE Deserves a Million Stars!, March 25, 2005
By Thomas E. Brewster Jr. “TOMAS_HIV_DISSIDENT” (CLEARWATER FLORIDA) – See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
Christine Will go down in History as a “LIFE SAVING TREATMENT” for HIV and AIDS. By Reaching someone with TRUTH that so-called HIV/AIDS Treatments DO NOT “SAVE or PROLONG” someone’s Life is simply in the Palm of their hand.

People Must be AWARE of the FINE PRINT,The DISCLAIMERS of everyday Life…Like checking a Price Tag at a Grocery store… People Don’t READ a price tag…THEY ASSUME.

THE AIDS EMPIRE and their little IMPS ~~ The Pharmeceutical Industry & The Condom Industry are NOT The ANSWER to KILLING Innocent Human Beings.

DISSIDENTS are NOT Denialists. “Dissidents are Dissidents” which RIGHTFULLY QUESTION a RELIGIOUS Sect and their Reasoning for Misleading and Killing innocent people… people like Powertx wish AMAZON.com Not UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTIONAL Right of FREEDOM OF SPEECH and the RIGHT To QUESTION exactly what CHRISTINE MAGGIORE HAS QUESTIONED.

Everything ABOUT HIV AND AIDS.

TOMAS BREWSTER
Clearwater Florida
Comment | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

12 of 24 people found the following review helpful:
Rip away the assumptions…, July 19, 2004
Reviewer: A reader
Christine does a wonderful job asking the tough questions and wrestling with the answers. Though no single book or piece of literature should make up your entire argument, Christine makes a fairly strong case for a revisal of the HIV/AIDS death connection. A highly important read!
Comment | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

34 of 47 people found the following review helpful:
I finally read this book, May 17, 2004
By Alexander E. Paulsen “AlexP” (Jacksonville, Fl United States) – See all my reviews
(TOP 1000 REVIEWER) (REAL NAME)
I’ve been debating reading this book for a while now. I have read Duesburg’s “Inventing the Aids Virus” and I found his case convincing. I also found the negative reviews of his book likewise interesting and informative. Mainly informative in the area of demonstrating the danger of mixing politics and science. The science half is always overshadowed by the politics – and money.

I enjoyed this book and regretted waiting so long to read it. She presents her case in a well thought out manner. I have read many scientific and medical papers that were nowhere near this concise and well presented.

This book did prompt me read further in medical literature about AIDS and HIV. I saw several negative reviews here that contend that Cristine doesn’t know what she’s talking about and that HIV is the “proven” cause of AIDS.

I went looking for that proof. I have been unable to find any published scientic or medical paper that demostrated or proved that HIV causes AIDS. There aee scads of papers showing a “link”. Those links however are all circular: they define AIDS as disease X in the presence of HIV antibodies. Disease X w/o those antobodies is just plain old disease X.

I looked, there is not a single paper that demonstrates that HIV causes AIDS. No paper that describes the mechanism by which the HIV virus causes to 40 or diseases. If any of the folks here who contend that HIV is the proven cause of AIDS please write down the reference. I can’t find it.

Oddly I stumbled upon a paper that un-links Kaposi’s Sarcomi as being an AIDS disease! KC has been THE definitive AIDS disease since AIDS becaase widely known.

I don’t think Christine or anyone else is denying that people are dying, but if we wish to save their lives we had better find out whats really killing them.

After 20 years and untold billions of dollars, the important questions still have not been answered. Not only that but the AIDS establishment won’t even debate the reasons for their failure to save a single life of an AIDS patient. What are they afraid of? They could shut up Duesburg, Maggiore and Mullis with a single debate but the AIDS industry won’t do it.

It seems the only ones who survive an HIV infection are the people who don’t treat it. They live. The patients who take AZT die. The AIDS industry won’t even discuss the issue.

Silence and censorship always makes me suspicous.

This is good book. Not a great one, but a good one. I liked the personal aspects of it. Iwish she would have presented a little more of the other side of the issue if only to give us readers a few more talking points on the subject.

Somewhere, sometime the truth will eventually escape. Truth always escapes sooner or later.
Comment (1) | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

12 of 25 people found the following review helpful:
A life-saving book, May 14, 2004
By Mark Griffiths (Pierrelatte, France) – See all my reviews
This book has been responsible for awakening African politicians to the AIDS fraud. Its message has probably saved millions of innocent victims from legal poisoning by toxic, experimental, expensive and unproven medication and prevented third world countries from spending millions of dollars on worthless “AID$ testing” and creating toxic death. The price of this book should be increased in price by at least 200% (some to be directed to the author and her non-profit organisation : “Alive & Well”), and Amazon should initiate a special promotional offer.
Mark Griffiths “HIV positive” since 1986 WITHOUT legal poison.
Comment | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

previous | 11-20 of 46 | next
previous | 21-30 of 46 | next

11 of 22 people found the following review helpful:
Accurate, Referenced, Precise, Intelligent…, April 9, 2004
By Todd Phillips, MCP (San Francisco, CA) – See all my reviews
Christine did a great job putting this book together, it has everything in it that the people who have been basically deceiving you “in your own best interest” for the last twenty years do not want you to know about HIV and “AIDS”.

The information in this little book is accurate, which of course, is what makes it so infuriating for some people. Observe the reactions to this book, which contains all factual information, and decide for yourself who is afraid and acting out of fear and ignorance, and who is not.

If you’ve ever been targeted for HIV and “AIDS” this book will change your life. If you love someone that is targeted for HIV and “AIDS”, this book could save their life.

Everything in this book is factual and provocative. People need to know all the facts about HIV antibody tests BEFORE submitting to them. Many people would forgo the tests altogether if they only knew that their is no standard for determining weather or not there is HIV in human blood, and that test results are *interpreted* by clinicians based on prejudicial factors.

Save your life, and the lives of those you care about. Get this book today.
Comment | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

17 of 45 people found the following review helpful:
This book should be consored, April 2, 2004
By Nelson R. Vergel “powertx” (Houston, Texas USA) – See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
This book is responsible for politicians in Africa withholding life saving treatment to people in need. This whole AIDS denialist movement will be remembered in the future as the people who fueled ignorance and promoted death in millions. Amazon should remove it from its sales list as a responsible company.
Comment | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

7 of 16 people found the following review helpful:
Not a drop of smugness, January 17, 2004
By Tomasjpn “Tomasjpn” (Tokyo, Japan) – See all my reviews
This book gives a balanced, scientifically verifiable assessment of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis/debate. NOWHERE in this book does Ms. Maggiore come across as smug or arrogant, or ‘ha ha, I’m alive, you’re dead’ as one reviewer so idiotically put it. Her writing is concise, to the point, and devoid of mere opinions. The people who have written scathing criticisms of this book either did not read the entire book, or perhaps have reading comprehension difficulties. An excellent short summary, and a good lead-in to Peter Duesberg’s seminal work “Inventing the AIDS Virus.” Read it with your brain turned on. The AIDS issue in the U.S., as Ms. Maggiore put it so well, is a clear case of the victory of Politics over Science, Religion over Reason. Science is not about ’silencing’ other theories and hypotheses that one doesn’t agree with. Leave that sort of facism to tele-evangelists. If it were so, we would still be using leaches to cure disease.
Comment | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

13 of 35 people found the following review helpful:
Stop the Myth, this is Killing People, January 10, 2004
Reviewer: A reader
Please visit the AIDS question and answer section of the Johns Hopkins website.
Please realize that it is human nature to deny what we do not want to accept.
PLease realize that HIV can be treated and one’s life greatly extended, and that the meds get better all the time.
Please know that the earth is not flat, and that HIV causes AIDS is not now, nor ever will be, a question, an opinion or anything else other than fact. Silence=death. We’ve come so far, let us never go back.
Comment | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

19 of 28 people found the following review helpful:
christine is fabulous, May 25, 2003
By “scareefarie666″ (Los Angeles, CA United States) – See all my reviews
well I’m convinced. Christine Maggiore came and taught an alternative AIDS class at my high school and it was one of the most interesting experiences in a class I’ve ever had. We didn’t just talk about AIDS but about how the pharmaceutical companies are running our country and how your doctors get corrupted by the money. I know it sounds crazy but it seriously makes a lot of sense when you learn all about it. Christine is really smart and this book is very well written. I highly recommended if you have an open mind and are interested in learning a different point of view then the norm. An excellent book.
Comment | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

14 of 39 people found the following review helpful:
Unbelieveable, March 12, 2003
Reviewer: A reader
I think this book is some of the most unbelieveable garbage I have ever feasted my eyes upon. I think it’s homophobic and largely racist. I think it is conspiracy minded, taking statistics and twisting them to fit a predetermined narrative. It is very bizarre to think that pharmeceutical companies are responsible for the AIDS epidemic and “fooling” America into thinking that HIV leads to AIDS. People have died and are continuing to die. I am very glad that Ms. Maggiore was able to have a healthy baby despite testing positive for HIV. But that doesn’t mean that the disease doesn’t very negatively affect millions of other people in a very fatal way.
The fact that AIDS drugs have nasty side effects does not mean they are altogether worthless. Any patient with HIV/AIDS can use them and other more holistic methods in a balanced way to fight the disease.
Also, the discounting of the AIDS epidemic in Africa is very strange. Just because malaria is killing more people in Africa than AIDS, does that mean it should cease to be a concern? Advances in the African health care system that could help those with HIV/AIDS could also benefit those with malaria. The infrastructure problems in Africa that are leading to such high mortality rates are very basic (lack of clean water, food). Providing those two things to start with (which we are a long way from doing) could only help Africans in the most crucial ways.
The bottom line is, I think this book is insensitive and horrifying. If you must read it, please spend an equal amount of time reading some opposing literature about HIV/AIDS.
Comment | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

22 of 36 people found the following review helpful:
I’m suspicious of paranoia, January 28, 2003
Reviewer: A reader
Having worked in medical publishing for years, I get red flags anytime I see someone hysterically pointing fingers at doctors “in the pay of big pharmaceutical companies” as the cause of a “systematized campaign of misinformation designed to…” yada yada yada. Maybe Christine Maggiore has a valid point to make about the nature of how medicine is conducted in this country, and I won’t argue that the system is seriously flawed. However, although I’ve met MDs and researchers who are arrogant, egotistical, self-aggrandizing, and obnoxious, I’ve yet to meet one who would deliberately falsify results in order to gain notoriety. I’ve certainly never met one that would openly push a tenuous or unsupportable hypothesis just so he or she could get pharmco money. We have peer review for a reason, and the medical profession is cut-throat enough that it’s HIGHLY unlikely that such unethical chicanery would go unnoticed and unpunished–look what happened to DAvid Baltimore! So this portrait of Dr. Gallo as a guy out to make a name and/or a buck by “creating” a new disease that he could then “discover” treatments for just doesn’t ring true. That’s not to say it’s impossible for such unethical people to slip through the cracks… but having worked with Dr. Gallo on one of his publications, I can attest that he’s not such a man. So it disturbs me to see him presented in that light in the excerpts published here. It disturbs me more to see a variety of assertions about the nature of AIDS that omit some key information or use faulty logic and assume much that is not demonstrated (or even demonstrable)in order to strongly imply, without directly asserting it, that the Government is Making It All Up in order to benefit Big Business. Case in point: the statement that, because the definitions of AIDS in Canada and the United States differ, people who would be considered to have AIDS in the US would “not have AIDS” if they lived in Canada. Uh, hello, no, that’s not what it means—it means only that the government of Canada wouldn’t count them among Canada’s AIDS patients, not that they don’t have an illness. There’s more than one way to lie with statistics, and there’s more than one way to fudge the truth. Nothing I’ve seen in Ms Maggiore’s writing suggests a truly balanced and disinterested approach… so I’m every bit as suspicious of her conclusions as she wants me to be of the medical establishment’s assertions.
Comment | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

7 of 13 people found the following review helpful:
A MUST READ!, December 20, 2002
Reviewer: A reader
Extremely interesting, extremely intelligent and uncommonly sane . A priceless book which you won’t regret reading. Also a real treat – a radio interview with Christine Maggoire is available to be heard on the Virusmyth website – if you check it out you’ll definitely want to read her book. I also recommend Peter Duesberg , John Lauritson , Joan Shenton, Meditel, Hiram Caton. Very inspiring stuff !
Comment | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

6 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
A MUST READ!, December 20, 2002
Reviewer: A reader
Extremely interesting, extremely intelligent and uncommonly sane . A priceless book which you won’t regret reading. Also a real treat – a radio interview with Christine Maggoire is available to be heard on the Virusmyth website – if you check it out you’ll definitely want to read her book. I also recommend Peter Duesberg , John Lauritson , Joan Shenton, Meditel, Hiram Caton. Very inspiring stuff !
Comment | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

16 of 25 people found the following review helpful:
Critical thinking that challenges the received wisdom, December 11, 2002
By Fiona Mc Namara “fibri” – See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
It is hard to believe that the thousands or millions of “experts” who sustain the HIV=AIDS theory might be wrong. But that doesn’t make it impossible. The fact is that today’s “knowledge” about AIDS is built on a foundation of evidence that is itself highly questionable. Remove the underlying building blocks and the whole edifice crumbles.

If you are interested in critical, independent thinking, read this book.

Christine is not — as some reviewers here seem to believe — a lone, crazy voice. She does not claim to be a medical expert: what she does is painstakingly collect, and document, evidence from the many, many experts who challenge the opinion that HIV=AIDS, and the death sentence that usually implies.

Those who support her do not do so on the evidence of this one introductory book, but on the masses of evidence she has continued to collect and disseminate.

Unfortunately, the odds are not in her favor: a (relatively) few voluntary dissidents supported only by the meager income from their publications and private donations, pitted against the combined forces of the pharmaceutical lobby, government bodies, political forces, and established AIDS and other health and charity organizations (in a movie, of course, it would all be over in 90 minutes…).

The wider implications of what Christine has to say are deeply disturbing: disturbing for those of us who have lost a loved-one to “AIDS” as well as to the institutions that depend on it. No wonder many people’s automatic reaction is to dismiss her as a lunatic.

She has taken on a herculean task, but is starting to be heard in the press and in AIDS circles throughout the world. President Mbeki was among the first to publicly resist the AIDS lobby and insist on at least listening to alternative views, and now there is increased dissent in India. (And no, President Mbeki is not simply trying to “save his money” and committing genocide by refusing to buy drugs for his people that the pharmaceutical companies are so generously offering cheap…)

This book is slight in size, but a good introduction to the dissidents’ views. For more up-to-date information you should visit her website and join her mailing list.

I profoundly believe that some day Christine and the other AIDS dissidents will be vindicated. If ordinary people will only have the courage to listen to the debate and make up their own minds.
Comment | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

previous | 21-30 of 46 | next
19 of 41 people found the following review helpful:
How To Get “HIV Is Not Dangerous!” Lethally Brainwashed, November 15, 2002
By Gregg Nelson (Sausalito, CA) – See all my reviews
After reading this book cover-to-cover it is quite clear that Christine Maggiore has a very strong personal agenda — which she only can support with direct scientific lies, dangerous misinformation and half truths.

South Africa’s President Thabo Mbeki seems convinced that HIV is not the cause of AIDS; and that current treatments cause rather than effectively treat AIDS.

President Mbeki refuses to provide the anti-AIDS drug AZT to HIV-positive pregnant women. President Mbeki in fact declared the drug too dangerous to use, even though it has been proven that AZT drastically cuts the chances of newborns contracting the HIV virus.

At a recent conference in Pretoria, Mbeki invited U.S.-based researcher Peter Duesberg, a scientific outcast for his theory that AIDS is caused not by the human immunodeficiency virus but by illegal drugs and AZT. A fervent belief also promoted by Ms. Maggiore, in her book.

That’s interesting. I didn’t know extremely expensive AZT and costly illegal street drugs — were that popular in traditionally promiscious, horrific poverty ravaged sub-Saharan Africa.

Two more rationality ‘knee-cappers’ from Christine’s book in which she (also) declares “there is no proof that HIV causes AIDS” (these “facts” are not expressed as mere alternative postulates or mere personal opinion):

1) “If HIV were contagious, it would have to be multiplying exponentially, which it is not.”

This — completely ignores the physically limited sexual manner of transmission — this is not T.B.

Jesus.

2) “Bottom line? No one knows what causes AIDS. We know it cannot be the virus called HIV. We know it isn’t contagious.”

We?

This is MEASURABLY LETHAL — destructive pseudoscience authority abuse.

Look.

Take Art Bell for example. He is constantly presenting pseudoscientific unsolvable doom “experts” to a — now worldwide audience.

He then, very publicly chastises his audience for “..not being thinking adults — it is just information folks!” – when unscreened on-air callers angrily raise the -unchallenged- unsolvable doom-”expert” question.

A classic mindless guilt-spraying dogma bully control tactic.

“Credible” authoritative-sounding speech has very real impact — on busy adults without extra free time for complete research.

Especially -already frightened- adult human beings with potentially positive HIV test results.

At the official Center For Disease Control And Prevention website …

“Why do some people make statements that HIV does not cause AIDS?”

For further credible reading before deciding to “fashionably reject” modern, medically-sane personal sexual boundaries why not first visit:

The National Library Of Medicine on this topic (use google search)

And believe it or not Mother Jones Magazine’s recent article about dangerous HIV deniers (use google search).

An exerpt:

From Mother Jones Magazine

Foo Fighters, HIV Deniers

A platinum-selling alt-rock group may be endangering their fans by promoting a dangerous myth.

by Silja J.A. Talvi

Feb. 25, 2000

Foo Fighters front man Dave Grohl wants you to forget what you think you know about AIDS.

Some rock stars want to free Tibet. Others want to save Mumia. The Foo Fighters, on the other hand, want their fans to ignore accepted medical wisdom about AIDS. …

…HIV experts are alarmed by the possible impact of the Foo Fighters’ embrace of Maggiore’s theories on their potentially gullible yoexcerptns….

And — this exerpt from a San Francisco Bay Guardian article:

Bad science

They once thought HIV was harmless. Now, they say, AIDS has forced them to reconsider.

By Bruce Mirken

Jan. 26, 2000

FOR YEARS SAN Franciscans have heard from a small but vocal group of activists who claim that HIV is harmless. AIDS, these dissenters say, is caused not by a virus but by “lifestyle factors” chiefly recreational and medical drug use. The medical establishment, they say, is either misguided or murderous for advocating the use of toxic anti-HIV drugs.

The “AIDS dissident” movement has been around for well over a decade. For the most part, it has remained on the fringe, wearing the disdain of mainstream scientists and AIDS activists as a badge of pride.

But in the last year, the movement has been challenged from within – by former believers who, in keeping with dissident orthodoxy, had scorned and avoided recently developed AIDS therapies.

Now some of them have themselves gotten sick with AIDS. They say their belief that HIV couldn’t hurt them put their lives and the lives of their lovers at risk. One even goes so far as tocompare his former movement to a cult…
Comment | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

15 of 33 people found the following review helpful:
A Waste of Time, October 16, 2002
Reviewer: A reader
It is easy to write a book with a host of references at the end supporting this claim. I was not so interested in the style of the book such as the content and a~~ I can say is that while there are some HIV and Aids Myths (such as the origination of HIV), I found this book bordered on the Libe~~ious and I wonder what Ms Maggiore’s intention was. To make a mi~~ion? Certainly a catchy title. I think books like this should be put in the trash can where they belong. There is so little evidence to support what they say other than a few references here and there of a possible few people who are alive and we~~ with HIV and AIDS. It is a we~~ known fact that many people are at present “alive and we~~” with the virus. But time has shown they wi~~ get sick. Why is it that people with HIV get sick? Psycholigical? As an HIV infected individual with many friends with HIV, it cannot be mere co-incidence. I wouldn’t bother with this book other than to know what the Aids Dissidents are saying. I would like anyone who disputes the reality of the HIV virus to be infected with HIV infected blood. Put your money where your mouth is. Then we’~~ see the strength of your convictions. David Hempster
Comment | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

46 of 61 people found the following review helpful:
Thought provoking, but be careful, May 8, 2002
By Bufford D. Moore (Baytown, Texas USA) – See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
I want this book to be right. I want no one else ever to die of AIDS. I can see how anyone who is HIV positive would be greatly relieved by the postulates, and I don’t want to upset anyone. I was an ER nurse up to the early 80’s, and we were on the forefront of presentations of AIDS patients. I don’t profess to know what causes AIDS, as the author does, nor can I swap reference citations. What I can do is assure you that her thesis that AIDS is simply a name applied to pre-existing disease is a very questionable one. Even at the level of “street level” ER nurses, we recognized that something was different; there was something new out there. I think that the book should be read, but carefully and with a very large grain of salt. My biggest fear is that years of educating high-risk groups, which I feel has helped, could be very easily undone by the implication that AIDS is really caused by those terrible drugs the terrible doctors give. The patients that we saw pre-dated those agents, and you may believe me or not, but those young men were incredibly ill and died with startling speed. They were often gone before much “toxic” anti-biotic could be given.

11/10/06 Addendum:

In a very sad turn of events, the author’s three year old daughter died suddenly. The ME has ruled that she died of AIDS related pneumonia. Her pediatrician has been investigated for poor care in not testing her for HIV. Who knows what’s right? Looks real bad for the author’s theory
Comment | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

5 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
An overdue easy-to-digest explanation, April 25, 2002
By Brian Martinez “texasbrian” (KINGWOOD, TX United States) – See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
This is a vital book for anyone involved with any aspect of HIV. Without going to the question of whether she is right or wrong (and I think she is right), I will say that the book is good in that it is easily approachable. HIV books are often, necessarily, mired in dense medical and biological terms (”non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors”). This book shines in its ability to explain those terms simply and effectively.

My only complaint here is that nearly half the book is either references or appendices — ancilliary material. While that’s certainly helpful and appreciated, it leaves the reader with little more than a big pamphlet.

Still, it’s a great book to read, especially at a low price.
Comment | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

7 of 21 people found the following review helpful:
It’s worth while, February 19, 2002
By Kevin Casper (Belmont, WI USA) – See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
Christine’s book is an introduction into another point of view. This is the point of view that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS. It is an easy book to read with every detail referenced for those who would like to learn more. It is purely another view on a very touchy subject.

Let me respond to the bad reviews for a moment. I have seen a couple of rediculas arguments from the few bad reviews. Christine Maggoire is trying to spread a view that includes the use of condoms as condoms and other protection is still part of a solution from even her point of view. Christine herself is what she was when she was a part of AIDS organizations: an activist. She wrote this book based on the advice and papers written by Nobel prize winners, PHDs, doctors, and experiences she and others have had. I’m sure their are similarly qualified activists who believe HIV causes AIDS that have wrote their own books based on similar circumstances. So, since she is not a scientist is not a reason why this book can’t be trusted.
Comment | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

4 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
Before you throw away the condoms……, February 4, 2002
By Ken C (USA) – See all my reviews
I do not know how much of this book is true, false, incomplete or misleading, but even if everything Maggiore says is true, we are not out of the woods yet. We still need condoms because o syphilis, gonorrhea, hepatitis b and c and chlamidia and the other STDs out there.
Comment | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

7 of 20 people found the following review helpful:
Sanity prevails in this book…aids is dead…Hail Christine, November 23, 2001
By Carl W Cate (Knoxville, TN) – See all my reviews
This book is the best book thus far written on the farce that is HIV=AIDS. It is very short,very pointed,and very concise.
Ms. Maggiore takes apart the argument for the virus causing the disease piece by piece until you are left with only one conclusion,the virus doesn’t cause anything(if it even exists which is a whole other argument).
I highly recommend people also read “AIDS INC” by Jon Rappoport,and “Inventing the AIDS Virus” by Peter Duesberg both available on Amazon.com.
When you get through with these books,check the references,and verify to your satisfaction the truth in the information they possess, you will have only two questions left,”What do I do about my fear(s)?” How do I get rid of “AIDS fear consciousness”?
I can’t offer a book reference for you to overcome the questions in this last paragraph(except possibly RISKING by David Viscott,it would help with constructing a logic chain to overcome fear),but will leave you with a starting point to overcome them. AIDS consciousness should be thought of as a Frankenstein monster(I mean this almost literally!!).THOUGHTS ARE THINGS. The lies that make up its body were conceived in a mad scientist lab. GIVEN ENERGY BY OUR THOUGHTS and FEAR (Figuratively the LIGHTNING if you will) With Robert Gallo then screaming,”IT’s ALIVE!” at the press conference in 1984.
I personally have overcome my fears about HIV and no longer pay it any mind.I no longer get tested (among other things!!) I did this by taking the ENERGY from my fears, and killing the thoughtform in my mind. Simply,I am FREE,and no longer make decisions based on HIV or listen to those who do.
Please understand, I have lost quite a few friends to supposedly AIDS, when on further inspection they were killed by their own vices,their doctors or both.
Thanks Christine for helping set me free.
Comment | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

14 of 34 people found the following review helpful:
Can’t believe this !, October 23, 2001
By Marc (BRUSSELS, – Belgium) – See all my reviews
How can this be possible ! She is just a danger to humanity. I nearly lost my best friend 6 years ago, he was nearly dying in hospital with a close to zero immunity and thanks to new PI which were given he was back on his feet in 3 months and fully back to normal in 6 !! I wonder how somebody like her can write such stupid things and……… how people can buy it and believe what she says. Of course it may be years before something bad happens, but the day it does and you see everything going wrong, just go and knock at her door ! Only one place for this: wastebasket !
Comment | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

12 of 42 people found the following review helpful:
This woman is insane, September 25, 2001
Reviewer: A reader
How gullible are you people? You actually believe this woman. She has no qualifications to prove this. When there are people out there with several PH.D’s who can prove to you that HIV causes AIDS. So who are you going to trust. The woman with barely any education or the Ivy league university graduates with several PH.Ds and almost 20 years of research under their belts. She makes me think of those people who still think the world is flat even or the Holocaust didn’t happen. She’ll learn her lesson soon when her husband gets HIV or her kids do. I’ll tell you why people believe this insane woman. You want closure because you’ve just been given a natural death sentence. So you believe anyone, even this insane woman.
Comment | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

7 of 29 people found the following review helpful:
What an eye-opening book!!, August 28, 2001
By bfllowers7893@yahoo.com (Columbus, Ohio) – See all my reviews
As an HIV-positive, bi-sexual, sexually active male of many, many years I was absolutely thrilled to discover that HIV and AIDS are not related. For years, I have been practicing so-called “safe” sex with an endless parade of co-ed partners. I can’t believe I’ve wasted so much money on condoms!
Comment | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

previous | 31-40 of 46 | next
previous | 41-46 of 46

22 of 32 people found the following review helpful:
Sure to make a skeptic of you., August 25, 2001
By Derrick Jensen (Crescent City, CA United States) – See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
Before I read this book I hadn’t given much thought as to whether HIV causes AIDS. Of course it does. Isn’t that what everybody says? But I guarantee this book will make a skeptic of you. One by one, in straightforward, easy-to-understand language and with excellent scholarship, Maggiore demolishes the assumptions that underlie the whole AIDS industry. Her prose is very reasonable, even understated, yet her case is extraordinarily strong. If your mind is even the slightest bit open, this book will change the way you think.
Comment | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

11 of 37 people found the following review helpful:
A book of ignorance., August 25, 2001
By “i_luv_gay_doggiez” (CA) – See all my reviews
I don’t get how anyone could beleive the tripe that fills this book. How could anyone take this woman seriously? She has no medical degree, and no previous experiance that would make her even the slightest bit qualafied to make these statements. It’s people like this that are going to make it unsafe for all of the people that are buying in to her ideas.
Comment | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

23 of 42 people found the following review helpful:
Your Life Could Depend On This Book, June 25, 2001
By Kimberly Murphy-Smith (Laurel, MD USA) – See all my reviews
Christine Maggiore, thank you.

This may be the single best book I’ve ever read about the AIDS “crisis”. Especially in light of the propaganda being put forth upon the 20th anniversary of the “discovery” of AIDS, this book is a must read. You will never look at AIDS statistics the same way again. You will never believe stories of AIDS being a plague to wipe out mankind again. You will never believe stories of wonder drugs again.

Pop quiz: What is the number one disease sweeping through the population on the African continent? If you said “AIDS”, you’re wrong. This book details that there have been 10 times as many malaria cases as AIDS cases, that the number of deaths from basic diseases of poverty and unsanitary conditions outnumber AIDS deaths by a staggering margin, that AIDS is often diagnosed in Africa without the benefit of a blood test from symptoms identical to severe malaria or dysentary, two EXTREMELY common diseases in Africa. The AIDS epidemic in Africa is thoroughly debunked in this book, and its use of real statistics and analysis will shock even the most casual readers.

Pop quiz: Which sexually transmitted disease had the most reported cases from 1981 to 1996? If you said “AIDS”, you’re wrong. The book presents in bold graphics the surge of gonorrhea over this time frame. In fact, according to the book, EVERY sexually transmitted disease outnumbered AIDS cases, by substantial margins. Such details as this are laid out in remarkable detail with extensive citations of studies that back them up.

Pop quiz: Which disease was AZT developed to treat? If you said “AIDS”, you’re wrong again. AZT was developed as a cancer treatment in the 1960s and was thoroughly rejected because it was so toxic it killed more lab mice than the cancer itself. The book shows a warning label from AZT with graphic details of the drug’s carcenogenic, mutagenic, and tetragenic potential and catalogs the horrific side effects of the drug…a drug being prescribed in massive doses to AIDS patients, including children.

The author of this book is a survivor of an HIV-positive diagnosis who challenged the conventional wisdom about a death sentence based on a notoriously inaccurate blood test, found the dissident AIDS movement and found her life again, and went on to a give birth to a perfectly normal HIV-negative child. Her story starts the book; others like hers end the book, describing the survival that they found only after they threw away their AIDS drugs. Many had to go into hiding (the story of the mother who was threatened with arrest for child endangerment because she refused to take the poisonous AZT while she was pregnant will shock you); others have had their stories dismissed by doctors as “slow progressors”. A shocking book, but a must read.
Comment | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

20 of 32 people found the following review helpful:
Great overview, January 18, 2000
Reviewer: A reader
This book is very easy to read and gives a great overview of the dissident ideas. It also lists many other sources of alternative AIDS information. Readers of this book should also look at:

Get All The Facts: HIV Does Not Cause AIDS

written by Dr. Mohammed Ali Al-Bayati, a pathologist and toxicologist who provides plenty of medical evidence to demonstrate connections between drug use, corticosteroid use, starvation, and AIDS.
Comment | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

17 of 23 people found the following review helpful:
Exposing the “AIDS” myth with facts!, March 5, 1999
Reviewer: A reader
Finally a book that gives you the facts about “AIDS” and HIV. Even if you don’t believe a word of what Christine presents in the book, you must admit that, it is very odd that, none of this information is being discussed on Primetime T.V., Radio and “News” papers.

Christine presents the truth and it might hurt and perhaps even anger some people, but nevertheless, it is still the truth as many people see and experience every day. Christine shows in her book that, HIV has never been proven to cause “AIDS” or any other disease, but the public is being told over and over again that it is. Christine lays the facts on the table with extensive research and documentation to back up her claims. When you read, you might feel a sense of betrayel by the medical industry and media. That is what I felt, first time reading this book. Christine tells it like it is. The statistics that “AIDS” is not the epidemic compared to other diseases and accidents. That “AIDS” is not a disease, but a diagnose of being tested positive for HIV antibodies and having one or more of 28 old illnesses. Christine shows that, contrary to popular belief, the HIV test is NOT for the virus, but for antibodies, which they claim are specific to HIV, but is not.

The only critisism I have of the book is, I wish Christine would have spent a little more time on explaing the early cases of “AIDS” and the correlation between drug use and “AIDS”. Nevertheless, the book brings the pure facts to the public in lay terms and in only 64 pages, that there isnt any excuse not to read it.

Go out and get a copy, and learn from Christine that, “AIDS” is not a death sentence, but a wake up call from a degenative lifestyle caused by recreational, prescription drugs, poor nutrition, stress and other environmental contaminations.
Comment | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

15 of 21 people found the following review helpful:
Concise, succinct treatise on the mythic HIV-paradigm, August 13, 1998
Reviewer: A reader
Having been a social worker in the AIDS field for six years, I first picked up this little book hoping to find some answers and solutions to help my work. What I found, instead, was a series of questions I had never before considered–why are AIDS deaths counted cumulatively instead of annually like other diseases? why is the definition of AIDS and the interpretation of the HIV antibody test different in different countries? why hasn’t AIDS effected men and women equally like all other infectious diseases?–questions that Christine poses without fear of the political-correctness patrol and with the mind of a true critical thinker. Though answers to these questions are offered, the reader is left with more questions than answers, and this little book’s purpose is to encourage critical thinking, introspection and further research. Christine does not pretend to have all the answers, but she realizes that the answers we have been given are severely inconsistent and suspect. Thanks to this book and others, I have stopped my involvement with the AIDS industry and hope to contribute to the exposing of the myth of HIV. Also of interest: The AIDS Cult (John Lauritsen & Ian Young, eds), The Stonewall Experiment (Ian Young) and Inventing the AIDS Virus (Peter Duesberg).
Comment | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

previous | 41-46 of 46

Customer Reviews
Average Customer Review:
Number of Reviews: 19
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.

Show:

1-10 of 19 | next

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
Rip away the assumptions…, Jul 19 2004
Reviewer: A customer
Christine does a wonderful job asking the tough questions and wrestling with the answers. Though no single book or piece of literature should make up your entire argument, Christine makes a fairly strong case for a revisal of the HIV/AIDS death connection. A highly important read!

Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
I finally read this book, May 17 2004
By Alexander E. Paulsen “AlexP” (Jacksonville, Fl United States) – See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
I’ve been debating reading this book for a while now. I have read Duesburg’s “Inventing the Aids Virus” and I found his case convincing. I also found the negative reviews of his book likewise interesting and informative. Mainly informative in the area of demonstrating the danger of mixing politics and science. The science half is always overshadowed by the politics – and money.

I enjoyed this book and regretted waiting so long to read it. She presents her case in a well thought out manner. I have read many scientific and medical papers that were nowhere near this concise and well presented.

This book did prompt me read further in medical literature about AIDS and HIV. I saw several negative reviews here that contend that Cristine doesn’t know what she’s talking about and that HIV is the “proven” cause of AIDS.

I went looking for that proof. I have been unable to find any published scientic or medical paper that demostrated or proved that HIV causes AIDS. There aee scads of papers showing a “link”. Those links however are all circular: they define AIDS as disease X in the presence of HIV antibodies. Disease X w/o those antobodies is just plain old disease X.

I looked, there is not a single paper that demonstrates that HIV causes AIDS. No paper that describes the mechanism by which the HIV virus causes to 40 or diseases. If any of the folks here who contend that HIV is the proven cause of AIDS please write down the reference. I can’t find it.

Oddly I stumbled upon a paper that un-links Kaposi’s Sarcomi as being an AIDS disease! KC has been THE definitive AIDS disease since AIDS becaase widely known.

I don’t think Christine or anyone else is denying that people are dying, but if we wish to save their lives we had better find out whats really killing them.

After 20 years and untold billions of dollars, the important questions still have not been answered. Not only that but the AIDS establishment won’t even debate the reasons for their failure to save a single life of an AIDS patient. What are they afraid of? They could shut up Duesburg, Maggiore and Mullis with a single debate but the AIDS industry won’t do it.

It seems the only ones who survive an HIV infection are the people who don’t treat it. They live. The patients who take AZT die. The AIDS industry won’t even discuss the issue.

Silence and censorship always makes me suspicous.

This is good book. Not a great one, but a good one. I liked the personal aspects of it. Iwish she would have presented a little more of the other side of the issue if only to give us readers a few more talking points on the subject.

Somewhere, sometime the truth will eventually escape. Truth always escapes sooner or later.

Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
A life-saving book, May 14 2004
By Mark Griffiths (Pierrelatte, France) – See all my reviews
This book has been responsible for awakening African politicians to the AIDS fraud. Its message has probably saved millions of innocent victims from legal poisoning by toxic, experimental, expensive and unproven medication and prevented third world countries from spending millions of dollars on worthless “AID$ testing” and creating toxic death. The price of this book should be increased in price by at least 200% (some to be directed to the author and her non-profit organisation : “Alive & Well”), and Amazon should initiate a special promotional offer.
Mark Griffiths “HIV positive” since 1986 WITHOUT legal poison.

Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
Accurate, Referenced, Precise, Intelligent…, April 9 2004
By Todd Phillips, MCP (San Francisco, CA) – See all my reviews
Christine did a great job putting this book together, it has everything in it that the people who have been basically deceiving you “in your own best interest” for the last twenty years do not want you to know about HIV and “AIDS”.

The information in this little book is accurate, which of course, is what makes it so infuriating for some people. Observe the reactions to this book, which contains all factual information, and decide for yourself who is afraid and acting out of fear and ignorance, and who is not.

If you’ve ever been targeted for HIV and “AIDS” this book will change your life. If you love someone that is targeted for HIV and “AIDS”, this book could save their life.

Everything in this book is factual and provocative. People need to know all the facts about HIV antibody tests BEFORE submitting to them. Many people would forgo the tests altogether if they only knew that their is no standard for determining weather or not there is HIV in human blood, and that test results are *interpreted* by clinicians based on prejudicial factors.

Save your life, and the lives of those you care about. Get this book today.

Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

0 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
This book should be consored, April 2 2004
By Nelson R. Vergel “powertx” (Houston, Texas USA) – See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
This book is responsible for politicians in Africa withholding life saving treatment to people in need. This whole AIDS denialist movement will be remembered in the future as the people who fueled ignorance and promoted death in millions. Amazon should remove it from its sales list as a responsible company.

Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
Not a drop of smugness, Jan 17 2004
By Tomasjpn “Tomasjpn” (Tokyo, Japan) – See all my reviews
This book gives a balanced, scientifically verifiable assessment of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis/debate. NOWHERE in this book does Ms. Maggiore come across as smug or arrogant, or ‘ha ha, I’m alive, you’re dead’ as one reviewer so idiotically put it. Her writing is concise, to the point, and devoid of mere opinions. The people who have written scathing criticisms of this book either did not read the entire book, or perhaps have reading comprehension difficulties. An excellent short summary, and a good lead-in to Peter Duesberg’s seminal work “Inventing the AIDS Virus.” Read it with your brain turned on. The AIDS issue in the U.S., as Ms. Maggiore put it so well, is a clear case of the victory of Politics over Science, Religion over Reason. Science is not about ’silencing’ other theories and hypotheses that one doesn’t agree with. Leave that sort of facism to tele-evangelists. If it were so, we would still be using leaches to cure disease.

Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

0 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
Stop the Myth, this is Killing People, Jan 10 2004
Reviewer: A customer
Please visit the AIDS question and answer section of the Johns Hopkins website.
Please realize that it is human nature to deny what we do not want to accept.
PLease realize that HIV can be treated and one’s life greatly extended, and that the meds get better all the time.
Please know that the earth is not flat, and that HIV causes AIDS is not now, nor ever will be, a question, an opinion or anything else other than fact. Silence=death. We’ve come so far, let us never go back.

Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

0 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
Changed my Review Three Times, Dec 22 2003
By chantelle (faraway) – See all my reviews
Prescription drug abuse and even herbal treatments if used longterm can cause immune system damage.I have come to the conclusion that hiv or any mycoplasma can’t kill without some other force behind it.I suffer from hemolytic anemia( the kind dogs and cats get) because of an overusage of raw garlic.It doesn’t go away.I don’t think the book is well written but at least it addresses the fact that these medications are a deathtrap.

Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
christine is fabulous, May 25 2003
By “scareefarie666″ (Los Angeles, CA United States) – See all my reviews
well I’m convinced. Christine Maggiore came and taught an alternative AIDS class at my high school and it was one of the most interesting experiences in a class I’ve ever had. We didn’t just talk about AIDS but about how the pharmaceutical companies are running our country and how your doctors get corrupted by the money. I know it sounds crazy but it seriously makes a lot of sense when you learn all about it. Christine is really smart and this book is very well written. I highly recommended if you have an open mind and are interested in learning a different point of view then the norm. An excellent book.

Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

0 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
Take this book with a few grains of salt, April 19 2003
Reviewer: A customer
There is some rigidity in conventional medicine to alternative ideas and treatments. However, this book should not be taken with the same kind of weight as years of peer-reviewed research. Some of the assertions in this book could be dangerous, take this book with a heavy dose of salt.

Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

1-10 of 19 | nex

0 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
Unbelieveable, Mar 12 2003
Reviewer: A customer
I think this book is some of the most unbelieveable garbage I have ever feasted my eyes upon. I think it’s homophobic and largely racist. I think it is conspiracy minded, taking statistics and twisting them to fit a predetermined narrative. It is very bizarre to think that pharmeceutical companies are responsible for the AIDS epidemic and “fooling” America into thinking that HIV leads to AIDS. People have died and are continuing to die. I am very glad that Ms. Maggiore was able to have a healthy baby despite testing positive for HIV. But that doesn’t mean that the disease doesn’t very negatively affect millions of other people in a very fatal way.
The fact that AIDS drugs have nasty side effects does not mean they are altogether worthless. Any patient with HIV/AIDS can use them and other more holistic methods in a balanced way to fight the disease.
Also, the discounting of the AIDS epidemic in Africa is very strange. Just because malaria is killing more people in Africa than AIDS, does that mean it should cease to be a concern? Advances in the African health care system that could help those with HIV/AIDS could also benefit those with malaria. The infrastructure problems in Africa that are leading to such high mortality rates are very basic (lack of clean water, food). Providing those two things to start with (which we are a long way from doing) could only help Africans in the most crucial ways.
The bottom line is, I think this book is insensitive and horrifying. If you must read it, please spend an equal amount of time reading some opposing literature about HIV/AIDS.

Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

I’m suspicious of paranoia, Jan 28 2003
Reviewer: A customer
Having worked in medical publishing for years, I get red flags anytime I see someone hysterically pointing fingers at doctors “in the pay of big pharmaceutical companies” as the cause of a “systematized campaign of misinformation designed to…” yada yada yada. Maybe Christine Maggiore has a valid point to make about the nature of how medicine is conducted in this country, and I won’t argue that the system is seriously flawed. However, although I’ve met MDs and researchers who are arrogant, egotistical, self-aggrandizing, and obnoxious, I’ve yet to meet one who would deliberately falsify results in order to gain notoriety. I’ve certainly never met one that would openly push a tenuous or unsupportable hypothesis just so he or she could get pharmco money. We have peer review for a reason, and the medical profession is cut-throat enough that it’s HIGHLY unlikely that such unethical chicanery would go unnoticed and unpunished–look what happened to DAvid Baltimore! So this portrait of Dr. Gallo as a guy out to make a name and/or a buck by “creating” a new disease that he could then “discover” treatments for just doesn’t ring true. That’s not to say it’s impossible for such unethical people to slip through the cracks… but having worked with Dr. Gallo on one of his publications, I can attest that he’s not such a man. So it disturbs me to see him presented in that light in the excerpts published here. It disturbs me more to see a variety of assertions about the nature of AIDS that omit some key information or use faulty logic and assume much that is not demonstrated (or even demonstrable)in order to strongly imply, without directly asserting it, that the Government is Making It All Up in order to benefit Big Business. Case in point: the statement that, because the definitions of AIDS in Canada and the United States differ, people who would be considered to have AIDS in the US would “not have AIDS” if they lived in Canada. Uh, hello, no, that’s not what it means—it means only that the government of Canada wouldn’t count them among Canada’s AIDS patients, not that they don’t have an illness. There’s more than one way to lie with statistics, and there’s more than one way to fudge the truth. Nothing I’ve seen in Ms Maggiore’s writing suggests a truly balanced and disinterested approach… so I’m every bit as suspicious of her conclusions as she wants me to be of the medical establishment’s assertions.

Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

A MUST READ!, Dec 20 2002
Reviewer: A customer
Extremely interesting, extremely intelligent and uncommonly sane . A priceless book which you won’t regret reading. Also a real treat – a radio interview with Christine Maggoire is available to be heard on the Virusmyth website – if you check it out you’ll definitely want to read her book. I also recommend Peter Duesberg , John Lauritson , Joan Shenton, Meditel, Hiram Caton. Very inspiring stuff !

Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

A MUST READ!, Dec 20 2002
Reviewer: A customer
Extremely interesting, extremely intelligent and uncommonly sane . A priceless book which you won’t regret reading. Also a real treat – a radio interview with Christine Maggoire is available to be heard on the Virusmyth website – if you check it out you’ll definitely want to read her book. I also recommend Peter Duesberg , John Lauritson , Joan Shenton, Meditel, Hiram Caton. Very inspiring stuff !

Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
Critical thinking that challenges the received wisdom, Dec 11 2002
By Fiona Mc Namara “fibri” – See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
It is hard to believe that the thousands or millions of “experts” who sustain the HIV=AIDS theory might be wrong. But that doesn’t make it impossible. The fact is that today’s “knowledge” about AIDS is built on a foundation of evidence that is itself highly questionable. Remove the underlying building blocks and the whole edifice crumbles.

If you are interested in critical, independent thinking, read this book.

Christine is not — as some reviewers here seem to believe — a lone, crazy voice. She does not claim to be a medical expert: what she does is painstakingly collect, and document, evidence from the many, many experts who challenge the opinion that HIV=AIDS, and the death sentence that usually implies.

Those who support her do not do so on the evidence of this one introductory book, but on the masses of evidence she has continued to collect and disseminate.

Unfortunately, the odds are not in her favor: a (relatively) few voluntary dissidents supported only by the meager income from their publications and private donations, pitted against the combined forces of the pharmaceutical lobby, government bodies, political forces, and established AIDS and other health and charity organizations (in a movie, of course, it would all be over in 90 minutes…).

The wider implications of what Christine has to say are deeply disturbing: disturbing for those of us who have lost a loved-one to “AIDS” as well as to the institutions that depend on it. No wonder many people’s automatic reaction is to dismiss her as a lunatic.

She has taken on a herculean task, but is starting to be heard in the press and in AIDS circles throughout the world. President Mbeki was among the first to publicly resist the AIDS lobby and insist on at least listening to alternative views, and now there is increased dissent in India. (And no, President Mbeki is not simply trying to “save his money” and committing genocide by refusing to buy drugs for his people that the pharmaceutical companies are so generously offering cheap…)

This book is slight in size, but a good introduction to the dissidents’ views. For more up-to-date information you should visit her website and join her mailing list.

I profoundly believe that some day Christine and the other AIDS dissidents will be vindicated. If ordinary people will only have the courage to listen to the debate and make up their own minds.

Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

How To Get “HIV Is Not Dangerous!” Lethally Brainwashed, Nov 15 2002
By Gregg Nelson (Sausalito, CA) – See all my reviews
After reading this book cover-to-cover it is quite clear that Christine Maggiore has a very strong personal agenda — which she only can support with direct scientific lies, dangerous misinformation and half truths.

South Africa’s President Thabo Mbeki seems convinced that HIV is not the cause of AIDS; and that current treatments cause rather than effectively treat AIDS.

President Mbeki refuses to provide the anti-AIDS drug AZT to HIV-positive pregnant women. President Mbeki in fact declared the drug too dangerous to use, even though it has been proven that AZT drastically cuts the chances of newborns contracting the HIV virus.

At a recent conference in Pretoria, Mbeki invited U.S.-based researcher Peter Duesberg, a scientific outcast for his theory that AIDS is caused not by the human immunodeficiency virus but by illegal drugs and AZT. A fervent belief also promoted by Ms. Maggiore, in her book.

That’s interesting. I didn’t know extremely expensive AZT and costly illegal street drugs — were that popular in traditionally promiscious, horrific poverty ravaged sub-Saharan Africa.

Two more rationality ‘knee-cappers’ from Christine’s book in which she (also) declares “there is no proof that HIV causes AIDS” (these “facts” are not expressed as mere alternative postulates or mere personal opinion):

1) “If HIV were contagious, it would have to be multiplying exponentially, which it is not.”

This — completely ignores the physically limited sexual manner of transmission — this is not T.B.

Jesus.

2) “Bottom line? No one knows what causes AIDS. We know it cannot be the virus called HIV. We know it isn’t contagious.”

We?

This is MEASURABLY LETHAL — destructive pseudoscience authority abuse.

Look.

Take Art Bell for example. He is constantly presenting pseudoscientific unsolvable doom “experts” to a — now worldwide audience.

He then, very publicly chastises his audience for “..not being thinking adults — it is just information folks!” – when unscreened on-air callers angrily raise the -unchallenged- unsolvable doom-”expert” question.

A classic mindless guilt-spraying dogma bully control tactic.

“Credible” authoritative-sounding speech has very real impact — on busy adults without extra free time for complete research.

Especially -already frightened- adult human beings with potentially positive HIV test results.

At the official Center For Disease Control And Prevention website …

“Why do some people make statements that HIV does not cause AIDS?”

For further credible reading before deciding to “fashionably reject” modern, medically-sane personal sexual boundaries why not first visit:

The National Library Of Medicine on this topic (use google search)

And believe it or not Mother Jones Magazine’s recent article about dangerous HIV deniers (use google search).

An exerpt:

From Mother Jones Magazine

Foo Fighters, HIV Deniers

A platinum-selling alt-rock group may be endangering their fans by promoting a dangerous myth.

by Silja J.A. Talvi

Feb. 25, 2000

Foo Fighters front man Dave Grohl wants you to forget what you think you know about AIDS.

Some rock stars want to free Tibet. Others want to save Mumia. The Foo Fighters, on the other hand, want their fans to ignore accepted medical wisdom about AIDS. …

…HIV experts are alarmed by the possible impact of the Foo Fighters’ embrace of Maggiore’s theories on their potentially gullible yoexcerptns….

And — this exerpt from a San Francisco Bay Guardian article:

Bad science

They once thought HIV was harmless. Now, they say, AIDS has forced them to reconsider.

By Bruce Mirken

Jan. 26, 2000

FOR YEARS SAN Franciscans have heard from a small but vocal group of activists who claim that HIV is harmless. AIDS, these dissenters say, is caused not by a virus but by “lifestyle factors” chiefly recreational and medical drug use. The medical establishment, they say, is either misguided or murderous for advocating the use of toxic anti-HIV drugs.

The “AIDS dissident” movement has been around for well over a decade. For the most part, it has remained on the fringe, wearing the disdain of mainstream scientists and AIDS activists as a badge of pride.

But in the last year, the movement has been challenged from within – by former believers who, in keeping with dissident orthodoxy, had scorned and avoided recently developed AIDS therapies.

Now some of them have themselves gotten sick with AIDS. They say their belief that HIV couldn’t hurt them put their lives and the lives of their lovers at risk. One even goes so far as tocompare his former movement to a cult…

Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

0 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
A Waste of Time, Oct 16 2002
Reviewer: A customer
It is easy to write a book with a host of references at the end supporting this claim. I was not so interested in the style of the book such as the content and a~~ I can say is that while there are some HIV and Aids Myths (such as the origination of HIV), I found this book bordered on the Libe~~ious and I wonder what Ms Maggiore’s intention was. To make a mi~~ion? Certainly a catchy title. I think books like this should be put in the trash can where they belong. There is so little evidence to support what they say other than a few references here and there of a possible few people who are alive and we~~ with HIV and AIDS. It is a we~~ known fact that many people are at present “alive and we~~” with the virus. But time has shown they wi~~ get sick. Why is it that people with HIV get sick? Psycholigical? As an HIV infected individual with many friends with HIV, it cannot be mere co-incidence. I wouldn’t bother with this book other than to know what the Aids Dissidents are saying. I would like anyone who disputes the reality of the HIV virus to be infected with HIV infected blood. Put your money where your mouth is. Then we’~~ see the strength of your convictions. David Hempster

Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

Thought provoking, but be careful, May 8 2002
By Bufford D. Moore (Baytown, Texas USA) – See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
I want this book to be right. I want no one else ever to die of AIDS. I can see how anyone who is HIV positive would be greatly relieved by the postulates, and I don’t want to upset anyone. I was an ER nurse up to the early 80’s, and we were on the forefront of presentations of AIDS patients. I don’t profess to know what causes AIDS, as the author does, nor can I swap reference citations. What I can do is assure you that her thesis that AIDS is simply a name applied to pre-existing disease is a very questionable one. Even at the level of “street level” ER nurses, we recognized that something was different; there was something new out there. I think that the book should be read, but carefully and with a very large grain of salt. My biggest fear is that years of educating high-risk groups, which I feel has helped, could be very easily undone by the implication that AIDS is really caused by those terrible drugs the terrible doctors give. The patients that we saw pre-dated those agents, and you may believe me or not, but those young men were incredibly ill and died with startling speed. They were often gone before much “toxic” anti-biotic could be given.

Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

An overdue easy-to-digest explanation, April 25 2002
By Brian Martinez “texasbrian” (KINGWOOD, TX United States) – See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
This is a vital book for anyone involved with any aspect of HIV. Without going to the question of whether she is right or wrong (and I think she is right), I will say that the book is good in that it is easily approachable. HIV books are often, necessarily, mired in dense medical and biological terms (”non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors”). This book shines in its ability to explain those terms simply and effectively.

My only complaint here is that nearly half the book is either references or appendices — ancilliary material. While that’s certainly helpful and appreciated, it leaves the reader with little more than a big pamphlet.

Still, it’s a great book to read, especially at a low price.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)
previous | 11-19 of 19\

Tara Smith Aetiology Blog –
Loneliness causes AIDS, claims HIV “dissident” Michael Geiger thread Sep 27 2007

Loneliness causes AIDS, claims HIV “dissident” Michael Geiger

Category: AIDS/HIV • wtf?
Posted on: September 19, 2007 8:00 AM, by Tara C. Smith

Yes, you heard it here, folks.

Is it any wonder that HIV researchers are so outraged by these people?

Send this entry to: del.icio.us icon StumbleUpon Toolbar Slashdot Digg icon Reddit icon Newsvine icon Searchles icon

email icon Email this entry to a friend technorati icon View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry

TrackBacks

(TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/50998)

Comments

That is truly amazing.

Why are these people like this? What is wrong with their brains?

Posted by: Jeb, FCD | September 19, 2007 8:26 AM

Once again, I wonder how long it will take the HIV/AIDS denialists to hijack this thread.

Posted by: SLC | September 19, 2007 8:29 AM

Wow, that just seems… over the top. Is it fear of the disease itself that causes that kind of denialist, angry reaction?

Posted by: Jim | September 19, 2007 9:17 AM

Really, Tara,

Michael’s latest comments were worth starting a thread over?

Are you desperate? What’s up?

Posted by: Dan | September 19, 2007 9:20 AM

This just in, being a moron causes AIDS!

Posted by: apyy | September 19, 2007 10:03 AM

Is it any wonder that HIV researchers are so outraged by these people?

Nope, no wonder at all. Especially when the comment in question starts:

Hello Tara and all of you HIV promoting Terrorists,

That had me spluttering in rage before the first full stop (period to the USAians). “HIV promoting”? “Terrorist”? I sure as hell don’t wish HIV, or AIDS, or any disease on anyone. I godsdamn ain’t a terrorist or other criminal. But I am now enraged.

Posted by: blf | September 19, 2007 10:19 AM

No, you idiots! Loneliness doesnt cause AIDS.. It’s a factor to an early death. Death by prescriptiona and indocrination into the death and dying club simply for nothing other than a measurement of non-specific antibodies.

Posted by: Carter | September 19, 2007 10:26 AM

[Is it any wonder that HIV researchers are so outraged by these people?]

No it isn’t, Tara. I’m not even a researcher and I’m outraged by this clown. I’m outraged because, at the present time, people like this Michael are able to get the ear of public officials.

In that sense, HIV/AIDS denialists are becoming inimical to public health. Witness the public disaster that has become South Africa because Mbecki believes what these morons have to say.

ER

Posted by: Guitar Eddie | September 19, 2007 11:13 AM

Hello Tara and all of you HIV promoting Terrorists

Let’s do the math…

Are gay men and Africans terrorized by HIV/AIDS? Yes.

Do Tara and her goon squad promote and support the HIV/AIDS belief system? Yes.

Looks like Michael’s on the mark with this one.

Posted by: Dan | September 19, 2007 11:17 AM

Is it any wonder that HIV researchers are so outraged by these people?

Of course it is no wonder at all. HIV researchers know very well that loneliness cannot possibly be a source of disease, on the contrary: lonely people are never ill. Diseases are caused exclusively by physical things like a virus, tobacco, asbestos etc. and can exclusively be healed by other physical things like for instance life saving killer drugs.
HIV researches know this because they search and then research and research and research over and over again which is why they know everthing about life and death and that’s why they behave like they behave when they read what Michael Geiger wrote what he wrote.

I am not a HIV researcher and I personally think that what Michael wrote makes a lot of sense, but that makes no sense because I’m not a HIV researcher and thus do not know everything for sure.

Posted by: jspreen | September 19, 2007 11:30 AM

test

Posted by: Manu | September 19, 2007 12:32 PM

hello

Posted by: M | September 19, 2007 12:38 PM

Strangely, folks, I’m going to have to defend Michael Geiger on this one.

Well, maybe not “defend,” but at least point out that the studies he cites are not complete nonsense like most of what he says.

It is entirely plausible that stress, including stress caused by “loneliness,” involves physiological factors that include transcriptional changes, as Cole and colleagues suggest. Depending on what these changes are, they could theoretically lead to increased susceptibility to viral infection and disease progression.

Of course, Michael Geiger goes too far (as usual). In the absence of HIV, “loneliness” can’t cause AIDS. Loneliness also will not have a “molecular signature” of HIV (i.e. lonely people won’t test false positive for the infection).

It is an interesting study he brings up, though, and I’ll try to remind myself that “rethinkers” aren’t always completely wrong…just upwards of 99% of the time.

Posted by: ElkMountainMan | September 19, 2007 12:52 PM

…they could theoretically lead to increased susceptibility to viral infection and disease progression.

But no one is doubting that. I’ve pointed that out to Michael several times myself, as have others here. However, “increased susceptibility” by itself =/= AIDS, despite Michael’s outlandish claim, and loneliness alone (or “fear”, or any of the other things Michael typically claim) does not cause AIDS.

Posted by: Tara C. Smith | September 19, 2007 12:56 PM

It only took 2 hours and 26 minutes for whackjob Carter to show up.

Posted by: SLC | September 19, 2007 1:12 PM

SLC,
WTF? Your opinion of me is none of my business!

I watch these posts almost 24/7 so I can be reminded how completely and utterly insane the HIV/AIDS camp is and here complete with Tara, et al protecting their failed and bogus theories. It would be down right laughable if it weren’t for the mainstream establishment causing deaths from liver failure and drug testing, let alone the voodoo hex one receives by opting to take a bogus test.

Posted by: Carter | September 19, 2007 2:31 PM

they could theoretically lead to increased susceptibility to viral infection and disease progression.

I thought germ theory was a lie pushed by big pharma to sell more drugs?

Read up on Bechamp, will blow your mind!

Posted by: apy | September 19, 2007 2:49 PM

Re Carter

“I watch these posts almost 24/7 so I can be reminded how completely and utterly insane the HIV/AIDS camp is and here complete with Tara, et al protecting their failed and bogus theories.”

I guess that Mr. Carter is either retired or independently wealthy and has too much time on his hands. Mr. Carter, you should get a life.

Posted by: SLC | September 19, 2007 2:50 PM

I watch these posts almost 24/7 so I can be reminded how completely and utterly insane the HIV/AIDS camp is

Well at least we now know why your research has come so far and you’ve published so many papers on the true nature of HIV/AIDS.

Posted by: apy | September 19, 2007 2:52 PM

Wait, wait, wait. So there are really people out there who truly believe that AIDS is caused by loneliness and that researchers are all just “collaborating their lies to fool the public”? Because, well, from what I’ve heard the only way two people can keep a secret is if one of them is dead. And that’s just TWO people…

The denialism just blows my mind. I hope awe doesn’t cause AIDS next, or we’re all screwed.

Posted by: Heather | September 19, 2007 3:10 PM

This is a straw man argument Dr. Smith. I think what micheal was referring to is catastrosphic long term stress that accompanies an hiv positive test, nevertheless this “lonliness” argument does not represent the rethinker movement.

The main reason many credible scientists doubt hiv is
1) the lack of a relaible animal model, tons of chimps/mice were injected and they dont die of aids even after 20 years.
2) The lack of a carefully controlled study that would be designed to see if if hiv positive people with no other possible risk factors get AIDS, risk factors that include the cell killing chemotherapy drug AZT, coinfections w/ mycoplasma incognitus, catastrophic stress, intense drug abuse etc.

all the studies so far assume hiv is the cause of Aids, so they didnt do much to test gallo’s claim, if you want to prove me wrong please provide me with a study done by honest scientists that dont view dissidents as nazis that clearly states in the study aims ” a study to follow hiv positive people with no other risk factors to see if Gallo’s hypothesis is correct.”

3) the low amount of blood tcell infection, which is around 1/1000 t cells

4) The very low rates of transmission, the Padian study followed serodiscordant couples for years and who had all kinds of unprotected sex and there were 0 seroconversions!

Many more reasons. Lurkers should do a google search and see a film called hiv fact or fraud that explains the positions well, its free.

scientists that have doubted the hiv hypothesis at one time or another

Peter duesberg phd retroviral expert, California scientist of the year.

kary mullis phd Nobel prize winner, inventor of the PCR

Shyh ching lo md phd cheif of the infectious unit of the armed forces of pathology

Richard Strohman ucb mcb professor

Harry rubin ucb mcb professor

Walter gilbert nobel prize winner Harvard mcb professor

Lynn Margulis phd national academy of sciences member

many more………..

I would suggest people read a book called Project Day Lily, this microbe called mycoplasma incognitus killed every animal injected (Dr. Lo injected mice primates and they all died) a riveting book by garth and nancy nicolson phds found out how it was part of the biowarfare program, found in some AIDs cases and in CFS etc, google it and read a chapter for free.

Posted by: cooler | September 19, 2007 3:16 PM

nevertheless this “lonliness” argument does not represent the rethinker movement.

What argument does? None of the ‘rethinker movements’ arguments have any coherence between them. Perth say HIV does not exist, but if it did it would cause AIDS. Duesberg says that HIV does exist but is benign. So which one does represent rethinker movement?

Posted by: apy | September 19, 2007 3:24 PM

Also most viruses cause the most havok before antibodies, thats why we get vaccines, if there ever was an hiv vaccine wed all test positive……..sound strange!?

yes i know there are exceptions but exceptions are not the rules, this is just one of the many strange anomolies that needs to be further investigated about the hiv hypothesis.

see hiv fact or fraud.
http://www.archive.org/details/aids_scam
Read project day lily.
http://www.projectdaylily.com/

Posted by: cooler | September 19, 2007 3:27 PM

nevertheless this “lonliness” argument does not represent the rethinker movement.

Hmm, a fellow denier states that there is no denial movement and chatises me for using the term. Funny when y’all who are involved in the [non-existent] movement can’t even get your stories straight yet again…

Posted by: Tara C. Smith | September 19, 2007 3:27 PM

The Rethinker movement is simple, we dont know whether or not hiv is the cause of AIDS or not, it could be other things, more studies are needed by honest scientists.

Just because it was announced at a press conference, a barely detectable no animal model microbe by gallo before the publishing of any evidence and the disbarring of dissent from that day on does not make the hypothesis true.

Posted by: cooler | September 19, 2007 3:36 PM

Funny when y’all who are involved in the [non-existent] movement can’t even get your stories straight yet again.

It’s Cuz there ain’t no movement and no unified front, get it now Mrs. smartypants? (-;

Posted by: Epidemiology-LISA | September 19, 2007 4:05 PM

It’s Cuz there ain’t no movement
says ELISA

right after Ron Paul boy said
The Rethinker movement is simple

Try again guys?

Posted by: Adele | September 19, 2007 4:48 PM

No you try again Leda. I know language is slippery, but you can try. We’ll leave out the thing about denialist movement, just come up with your definition of “movement”. C’mon, give it your best shot cowgirl.

Posted by: Epidemiology-LISA | September 19, 2007 4:58 PM

Adele, aka kathy bates from the movie misery,
Ron Paul voted against the patriot act and the Iraq war, unlike your fairy godmother hillary.

the movement does not need to be defined to an exact stance…..do all people who support Obama or for gun control have to have the same views exactly? and if they don’t that nullifies evertything they say?……..some of you people need to take to critical thinking classes

Posted by: cooler | September 19, 2007 5:03 PM

or are for gun control

Posted by: cooler | September 19, 2007 5:06 PM

cooler you do know you have to be 18 to vote for Ron Paul don’t you.

ELISA I just remembered you havn’et been around last few weeks so maybe you’ll be the ONE person whose got a answer about those Duesberg flaws from the other thread.

So much talk from you people about how we’re all scared of Duesberg and we can’t find anything wrong with his crap.

Then so many examples from us of where Duesberg lied or messed around with the truth.

Then so much silence from your not existing movement!!

Maybe you got some answers well read LISA from your nice greek mythology. Why did Duesberg lie? Is it ok he lied? Since like most of your not existing movement just copies off Duesberg isn’t that not a problem its lies??

If you give us a good answer maybe i’ll even call you a rethinker.

Posted by: Adele | September 19, 2007 5:13 PM

Adso girl, what’s the matter, was defining “movement” too hard for you?

I don’t know what you are talking about re Duesberg and lying, but if it’s the anonymous or by proxy smear campaigns on AIDStruthorgy, I must confess I lost interest after Mr. Delaney’s learned inquiry into whether it cleared Duesberg of the suspicion of homophobia that he “was hanging around with leather-clad gay men”.

Posted by: Epidemiology-LISA | September 19, 2007 5:29 PM

. . . Although I would have to admit there are pretty convincing refutations of Duesberg’s scientific arguments posted on ADIStruthy. This one from Stephen Martin, Ph.D. Immunology, University of California, Berkeley is a real haymaker, which I have never seen countered satisfactorily:

When the lights dimmed and the projector was turned on, Peter always moved close to the projector light beam so he could make hand puppets that projected on the screen. The students laughed, but the lecturers and most faculty members hated him.

Posted by: Epidemiology-LISA | September 19, 2007 5:43 PM

No i’m talking about the introduction thread. Examples where Duesberg made up stuff to prove his theory. Doncha think that’s odd? Maybe makes your not existing movement look bad?

Oh but it’s way more fun to make fun of people who criticise Duesberg then deal with the facts isn’t it ELISA?

Posted by: Adele | September 19, 2007 5:51 PM

Oh now I understand what you are referring to. It’s these words by Tara in her latest variation over her one note

One way to brush off novel evidence is to attempt to discredit the scientists carrying out the studies

http://aidstruth.org/fanaticism.php

I liked this one too:

Scientists must engage more with the public or the HIV/Aids deniers will gain credibility (…) It is up to us to explain the science to the public

When will it go up next to this one?

We will not engage in any public or private debate with AIDS denialists or respond to requests from journalists who overtly support AIDS denialist causes

Posted by: Epidemiology-LISA | September 19, 2007 5:59 PM

So no you won’t talk about the real stuff here ELISA. Duesberg lied and people died. Laugh all you want, doesn’t change it.

Posted by: Adele | September 19, 2007 6:03 PM

Adso, you may think this is a laughing matter to me, but do you remember what the very serious secret was that the Benedictines were ready to kill for to keep from the public?
http://www.ruinedendings.com/film3979plot

By the Way, have you read the latest article by one famous epidemiologist revealing more denialist immorality? Here’s the headline and a relevant part of it:

Dr. Smearah Tit exposes the Deadly Denial Virus.

(…)

Dr. Tit first realized something was afoot when she heard from fellow science fictionist Beanne A. Jergman that Christine Maggiore was not HIV positive.

“I was outraged! Up until then we knew that denialism could be a co-factor in the development of AIDS. Prominent studies by Prof. J.P. Macaque and his Virus Veritas team had revealed multiple correlations between denialism and risk of premature death, or at least loss of job and funding. But with Maggiore our assumptions were clearly challenged by a case of HIV free slander. I was still outraged at this woman’s cheek, testing positive then negative just to make science look bad, but I was also intrigued: Was this a unique case of shameless dissembling or were there more people like Christine Maggiore out there? The more I thought about it the more evident it became that our firmly established HIV/AIDS hypothesis was in need of another ad hoc addition. Then, while I was reading an unusually inspiring scientific article about Maggiore’s despicable denialism, it struck me: Denialism itself must be caused by a transmissible virus, a Deadly Denial Virus”

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040256

Posted by: Epidemiology-LISA | September 19, 2007 6:32 PM

For all the denialists on this thread, I would like to know when Prof Deusberg is going to take the injection of HIV positive blood which he promised to do? After all, if HIV is just a benign retrovirus as he claims, the injection shouldn’t have any negative affects. Unfortunately, all we get are excuses and alibis. It would appear that Prof. Deusberg has some chicken feathers where his competitive spirit should be.

Posted by: SLC | September 19, 2007 7:10 PM

Adso you mule, the answer to the culture question was a comedy by Aristophanes. Now why were the Bendictines so afraid of Aristophanes?

As for the interview, I’ll have you know that, unlike so many others, Dr. Tit not only talks about talking about the science; she really explains it. See this snippet for instance:

“Like HIV, Deadly Denial Virus (DDV) can kill independently although they are most effective together”, Dr Tit explains. “But in that case it’s mostly remote controlled suicide in ethnically challenged bystanders via unexplained transduction of hypothetical signals traversing mysterious biochemical byways yet to be discovered by science. As is readily apparent, we have made enormous progress in understanding the fanaticism behind this disease although it may all seem a bit diffuse to the layperson. This is why I feel it’s my duty to stoop and explain the science on my blog, faeciology.com, and other fine outlets. But as with most cutting edge science, it can really only be expressed via mathematical modelling. The by far most popular one with retrovirologists is the “tap and drain” model of DDV funding, essentially similar to the one used with HIV”.

http://www.scientificblogging.com/hank/the_least_known_war_in_science_does_hiv_cause_aids

http://aidstruth.org/fanaticism.php

Posted by: Epidemiology-LISA | September 19, 2007 7:17 PM

And here I was thinking the HIV/AIDS denialists had already sunk to their lowest level.

I have just realized – there is no lowest level.

I would have barred them by now. They contribute nothing useful. Carter in particular, “watching these posts nearly 24/7″, should probably be dealt with under stalking provisions.

Posted by: Justin Moretti | September 19, 2007 7:18 PM

Bar them! you must want to abolish the first amendment like your hero mark wainberg…….

Posted by: cooler | September 19, 2007 7:32 PM

Adso tsk, tsk. Aristophanes was indeed close, but in fact the supposed author of that dreaded book was Aristotle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Name_of_the_Rose

Anyway, as consolation I’ll quote some more words of wisdom at you:

Since the final proof of the existenceof the fanatic Deadly Denialism Virus, Dr. Tit has been devoting the most flattering photos of herself to fighting this menace to mankind.

“It’s a disease marked by the most vicious fanaticism”, she warns. “As is often seen in mental illness, there seems to be a strong unconscious resistance against being cured -in severe cases leading to a complete refusal to discuss scientific points with anyone who is not also infected. The mode of transmission is, like everything else about DDV, not known, but early childhood trauma seems to predispose for later infection. When myself and the dazzlingly smart neuropathologist, Steamy Novel, teamed up to expose the psychological root causes of the well known denial cases of Christine Maggiore and Mathematician Rebecca Culshaw, we found that both had been encouraged by their parents to think for themselves. This is obviously a very dangerous trend which can only be fought via total censorship of the media and the school system.’

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040256

Posted by: Epidemiology-LISA | September 19, 2007 7:33 PM

cooler confuses Tara Smith’s Aetiology blog with the United States government…but similar mistakes are common amongst supporters of conspiracy theorist Rupaul.

As a refresher for those, like cooler, who have forgotten their junior high school civics class, the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the federal legislature (”Congress”) from, among other things, passing laws abridging the freedom of speech.

Perhaps cooler would like to tell us how Tara Smith’s decisions about who and what to permit on her own private blog have anything to do with the Congress. (To make it easier, look up “Pruneyard”…but you’re still going to need to explain the connection of the several states to the Congress and address the relationship of the internet and “public property.”)

In any case, Tara has permitted dissenting views on this blog far in excess of anything I have ever witnessed on “rethinker” sites, including Liversidge’s site, the rethinker message boards (which censor everything), and especially the jackbooted bozo Bialy’s boring blog.

Posted by: ElkMountainMan | September 19, 2007 7:54 PM

no wainberg was talking about abolishing the first amendment and I have not heard any aids apologists condemn his statement.

Elk, since you hate ron paul so much, why dont you go fight the war in Iraq, he voted against it, one of the very few people back in 2003, unlike your probable heroes hillary or ghouliani

Because you think hes nuts bc of his “crazy” views of non intervensionism, go to Iraq and stop being a hypocrite, practice what you preach if you hate a persons beleifs than back it up with action by enlisting, sanctimonious hypocrite.

Posted by: cooler | September 19, 2007 8:09 PM

WTF does Ron Paul’s laudable stance on Iraq and the Patriot act have to do with the validity or otherwise of his stance on HIV? A person can be right on one issue and wrong on another.

Posted by: Obdulantist | September 20, 2007 1:25 AM

Ron paul has never said hiv does not cause Aids, hes never even mentioned it………….the nazi trolls here dont like him bc he tells it like it is, that hes anti CFR globalists/nafta/federal reserve/ no new wars every 5 years/follow the constitution/non intervention stance irks the obsequious sycophants who just want flip flopping hillary who now wants a war with Iran, then hillary will say in 10 years oops, if I knew what i knew now with Iran I wouldnt have started a new war………………….shes such an idiot.

Posted by: cooler | September 20, 2007 1:36 AM

cooler -

Show me the statement, I will happily condemn it. I have absolutely no tolerance for anyone who argues against free speech, regardless of other agreed upon positions.

All that said, if this were my blog, ELISA would have been banned a long time ago. Actually, one of the reasons that I do very little posting on this topic, is that I have no tolerance for woo that kills, such as yours. Your own comments would likely be deleted out of hand. This is not because I have a problem with dissenting views, I have guest posts that I disagree with on my front page. It’s just that yours are so vile and repugnant, that I have absolutely no interest in giving them any platform from which to be voiced.

I would still, without question, fight with everything in me, with everything that I am, for your right to say what you believe. Anyone who suggests that it should be a crime to say nearly anything, is just plain wrong. Honestly, I find the suggestion of legal restrictions on speech, outside of extremely narrow parameters to be almost as repugnant as the bile you so regularly spew.

Posted by: DuWayne | September 20, 2007 1:54 AM

Tara said: “Is it any wonder that HIV researchers are so outraged by these people?”

Yes indeed Tara. Just awful, isn’t it?

Guess I’d be outraged too, if I was a fatheaded foolish HIV researcher, that failed to take the extreme stress and extreme emotions and feelings of loneliness, guilt, shame, helplessness, hopelessness, panic and fear and belief of inevitable slow and tortured death into any due consideration when considering the aetiology of a disease such as AIDS that ONLY hits those who are suffering the most from these extremely toxic emotions.

Duhhh!

Posted by: Michael | September 20, 2007 1:59 AM

If ELISA can pull herself out of the gutter for a few minutes she can respond to this post.

Does drug use cause AIDS

Posted by: Chris Noble | September 20, 2007 3:01 AM

DuWayne. As an indication of how far from scientific debate HIV researchers John P Moore and Mark Wainberg’s antisocial and medically irresponsible mentality is, their call for censorship is worth quoting in full, if you can stomach it.

You can find Moore and Wainbergs latest attempt to silence and ban free speech, and to have even had it THE AUDACITY to have it published on American Independence Day, the very 4th of July of this very year, enshrined for posterity at the following:

http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/globe-and-mail-stink-bomb.htm

GLOBE AND MAIL
EXCLUSIVE COMMENT
AIDS and the dangers of denial
MARK WAINBERG AND JOHN MOORE
Special to Globe and Mail Update
July 4, 2007 at 12:46 AM EDT

In Moore and Wainberg’s screed, you will even find the following:

“We have long accepted that free societies do have an obligation to impose restrictions on freedom of speech in the interest of public safety.” AND “Our lawmakers need to enact legislation to put appropriate limits on such irresponsible expression and to counter the ongoing damage perpetrated by denialists.”

I don’t know about you DuWayne, or anyone else here, but I find this pure trash and cry for censorship by British import John P Moore and Canadian Mark Wainberg especially repulsive, repugnant and utterly disgusting. And these two are the biggest mouths of the anti-dissident movement. Both are founders of the very AIDSTRUTH website. And I just don’t understand why.

Could it be because Wainberg has patents and royalties on AIDS drugs as a conflict of interest, or because Moore has his many years of US taxpayer funding and grants, and even a $500,000 unrestricted grant from pharma companies to protect.

Speaking for myself, and especially as one of my very own direct Ancestors, a Colonel Henry Geiger, who served directly under George Washington as a colonel in the 1776 War for American Independence, that was fought against the Brit Twits of the 18th century for the same freedoms of speech, and life, and liberty that we enjoy today, to be under threat by these pieces of conflicted crap who live off of our own tax dollars is really a bit much! Moore should be deported as a security threat. Wainberg should go to Nuremburg for all of the cases of Crix Belly, Neuropathy, and liver failure and death that his own AIDS drugs have caused.

And I will tell you what else DuWayne. We beat the snot out of the Brits in the 1700’s, beat them right back across the ocean and right up into Canada, and I myself will be glad to do it again if any of them dare to threaten our very inalienable rights that my own ancestor gave up his own life for, so that future generations, including you and your children and their children, could all live free.

Posted by: Michael | September 20, 2007 3:12 AM

“Dr. Smearah Tit,” ELISA?

Funny how those supporting HIV causation of AIDS discuss actual scientific research, while the deniers post nothing but insults and really, really bad parodies.

Posted by: Tara C. Smith | September 20, 2007 3:13 AM

Hello DuWayne. One more piece of video proof, right out of Wainbergs mouth, demanding the US Constitution be changed, can be found at the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpkQ5OvRNbI

Posted by: Michael | September 20, 2007 3:34 AM

Wow. Just… wow.

Denialists are nuts. They’re all nuts. Seriously, are there any sane ones?

Why do you even bother to argue with them? I’ve got a better chance of convincing my neighbour that passing cars are NOT using lasers to mess up his tv reception.

Posted by: SmellyTerror | September 20, 2007 3:45 AM

Funny how those supporting HIV causation of AIDS discuss actual scientific research, while the deniers post nothing but insults and really, really bad parodies.

Funny, I must have missed the scientific discussion in your latest articles Dr. Smith. Would you mind cutting and pasting, so we can have look see here? Until then, fact remains Dr. Tit discusses more “actual scientific research” than you do. And she doesn’t crib her articles from AIDStruthy eiher.

When are we gonna see you out in the real world debating Christine Maggiore, you know the case that got your bleeding heart involved with this thing in the first place. Funny again cuz it was alos what got Dr. Tit involved. Here’s how she aproached the science on that one:

Dr. Smearah Tit has made a special study of DDV prevention strategies:

“It’s important to avoid all human contact, especially if you suspect you’re dealing with a denialist, as we call those infected. When first I examined Christine Maggiore’s case, for instance I made sure never to discuss any of it with her in person. Even to this day I can hardly get any of the facts straight. I think that’s what’s kept me sane and successful in dealing with the horrors of DDV. Another thing I’d strongly advice against is sex under any circumstances. If, for reasons thankfully beyond me, you must have sex, there’s a simple test you can apply. Make sure your prospective mate has had a few glasses of wine, dim the lights, put him in a relaxed, romantic mood so you can catch him off guard. Then suddenly spring the question: Why does he think the hull of a ship disappears out of sight in the horizon before the sails? If he says it’s because the fossil records in the 4 known corners of the world cannot always explain the miraculous biological properties of retroviruses, you know you’re in bed with an advanced stage 100% infectious denialist.”

Posted by: Epidemiology-LISA | September 20, 2007 5:03 AM

Dr. Smith, a study should be performed on HIV+’s and AIDS person who do not take the meds and are healthy. However, some would not like the outcome. We would be proof enough that the current hypothesis is flawed and for the most part, this is just hype and a money-maker.

Posted by: noreen | September 20, 2007 7:06 AM

Michael seems to be just as confused as cooler about the United States Constitution and its Amendments, despite his claim to have an ancestor who fought in the Revolutionary War. (What does that make the rest of us, Michael? Second-class citizens, just barely better than the despised “foreigners”?)

Since the Revolutionary War ended well before the Constitution and the Bill of Rights existed, it is unlikely that Geiger’s ancestor was fighting for the First Amendment. The “inalienable rights” Geiger mentions….well, that phrase and the concepts behind it are derived from the work of (who else?) British thinkers. This all makes Geiger’s new-found patriotic bluster seem a bit clownish.

In truth, Michael, if you construe Mark Wainberg’s comments about imprisonment for Peter Duesberg as an attack on the Constitution, you are in for a shock: the Constitution has not only been attacked for the last 200 years and more, many of these attacks have been successful! In fact, criticism of the Constitution and proposed alterations to it are quite firmly protected under the free speech you so noisily claim to defend (at least when you’re not urging the deportation of Moore and the trial of Wainberg).

Which of these successful “attacks” on the Constitution of your noble and storied ancestors do you object to, Geiger?

The 13th Amendment (1865), which abolished slavery. What a dreadful affront to the Founders, Michael, who fought the British and held them off later in the War of 1812, fighting to preserve that “inalienable right” to hold fellow human beings in slavery in defiance of the British abolitionism! Had the Brits won in 1812, slavery would have been abolished in the States at the latest in 1834. What an insult to your ancestors that would have been, no, Michael?

The 15th Amendment, which gave the vote to former slaves and prohibited discrimination at the polls based on race. What a disgrace to this government of the whites, by the whites, and for the whites…like your ancestors, Michael.

The 19th Amendment which, (horrors!) granted the vote to women. My goodness, Michael, what would the blue-blood Founders have thought about all of those uppity women letting their voices be heard in the political process? Scandalous!

Or the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) repealed by the 21st. Such a terrible defacing of Michael’s precious Constitution has never been seen! As if the document were nothing but a wall for scrawling graffitti!

The 22nd Amendment, term limits for Presidents: a restriction on free speech, political speech, itself.

There are now 27 Amendments to the Constitution. Many more have been proposed.

I am glad that Mark Wainberg raised the issue about whether the Constitution should be changed to stop medical endangerment. I may have minor disagreements with him on this one issue, but I completely support his right to raise these important questions. While Duesberg does not present a “clear and imminent” danger or whatever the legal phrase is (see Schenck), he is still a danger to the health of people who make medical decisions based on his lies and distortions. We need to have a conversation about such behavior and what can be done about it.

A conversation, Michael, not a war:

We beat the snot out of the Brits in the 1700’s, beat them right back across the ocean and right up into Canada, and I myself will be glad to do it again if any of them dare to threaten our very inalienable rights that my own ancestor gave up his own life for,

It must be frustrating to be so wrong about as many things as you are, Michael, but I suggest that violence is not the answer. Rather, education and an open mind will help you to overcome your rage and maybe some of your prejudices, too.

Posted by: ElkMountainMan | September 20, 2007 9:24 AM

noreen said:

Dr. Smith, a study should be performed on HIV+’s and AIDS person who do not take the meds and are healthy. However, some would not like the outcome. We would be proof enough that the current hypothesis is flawed and for the most part, this is just hype and a money-maker.

Uhh, like the ones that already are being performed?

http://www.mgh.harvard.edu/aids/hiv_elite_controllers.asp

Do you actually look up anything on your own?

Posted by: apy | September 20, 2007 10:03 AM

Apy, I am aware that a few studies may be underway but I have yet to see any published results from these. It will be interesting to see these results and their conclusions!

Posted by: noreen | September 20, 2007 11:23 AM

You mean like…ohh I don’t know..the first hit on pubmed?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17720999&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Again, do you actually look up anything on your own?

Posted by: apy | September 20, 2007 12:03 PM

ElkMountainMan -

I am all about the notion that the constitution can be changed, that is one of the things that make it so great. However, I have to say that the statements made by Wainberg, in regards to free speech are absolutely repugnant. I am truly horrified by the notion of placing legal restrictions on dissenting speech, no matter how vile. That someone who has so much to offer in the fight against denialism, would say things like that, only undermines the fight against such deadly ignorance.

The way to quell dissent is not by legally restricting the dissenter’s right to speak about it. The way to fight it, is to respond to it. Don’t let it drop, don’t assume that everyone else is smart enough to know bullshit for bullshit. All that legal restrictions do, is to make martyrs and make others wonder why it was necessary to pass laws against that type of speech. It makes people wonder about the potential validity of such speech.

I am repulsed by what Wainberg had to say about this. I am also repulsed by the fact that it forces me to stand in solid agreement with the denialists here. While I am sure that there are probably many things that I would agree with these folks about, unrelated to their deadly woo, it is exceedingly distasteful to have to support anything they have to say in a thread such as this one.

Posted by: DuWayne | September 20, 2007 12:16 PM

Elisa,
calling people names like Dr tit etc kind of makes us look bad, duesberg, shyh ching lo scientists that have questioned the hiv hypothesis would never talk like that.

Wouldnt be suprised if aids inc is so desperate that they are hiring disinfo agents to make the “dissidents” look bad……..

Posted by: cooler | September 20, 2007 1:45 PM

Wouldnt be suprised if aids inc is so desperate that they are hiring disinfo agents to make the “dissidents” look bad……..

Ha! No cooler, y’all do that well enough on your own.

Posted by: Tara C. Smith | September 20, 2007 2:03 PM

DuWayne,

I agree with you on the Constitution, but I also have a difficult time finding Wainberg “repugnant.” I suspect that he has looked at all of the restrictions of speech in the United States (many of them involving comparatively trivial infractions) and wondered why denialism that results in deaths is not also restricted.

Consider all of the many, many ways in which the freedom of speech has been abridged in the United States. Consider, too, the many times when such restrictions have been upheld by the courts.

If I defame you, DuWayne, and you can prove harm, I will be forced to pay. That is a very real restriction of my free speech. Yet, what harm has been done? I have hurt your feelings, perhaps, and if you are in business and I’ve dissuaded clients from dealing with you, I’ve also damaged your business. But no one is dead.

Obscenity, too, is not fatal. Child pornography is usually not fatal. When anti-choice activists try to picket a doctor’s private residence, they are not usually engaging in violence. Yet the law has ruled against all of these forms of speech.

A government employee who makes controversial statements about, say, religion, can be silenced constitutionally. The place and time of protected speech can be restricted constitutionally. But, again, no one would die or be harmed in any bodily way if these restrictions were not applied.

Commercial speech is highly regulated: false advertising is prohibited. Advertising cigarettes within a certain distance of schools is prohibited. The airwaves are under strict control.

If all of these restrictions were lifted tomorrow, I doubt that many people would die. Sadly, speech that has killed people–non-MDs giving medical advice to AIDS patients, amateur “experts” giving false information about a virus they know nothing about–is fully protected. If I walk down the street screaming obscenities, creating nothing more than a nuisance, I will be arrested. But Duesberg convinces a mother that all retroviruses are harmless, she surrounds herself with doctors who refuse to ask questions, and her child dies…and no one suffers a serious consequence.

That is what irked Wainberg. Truth be told, even if I disagree with his conclusion (involving the Constitution), it irks me, too.

DuWayne, why should obscenity be banned but my “right” to dupe my neighbor into stopping his meds and dying be protected?

Posted by: ElkMountainMan | September 20, 2007 2:20 PM

Elite Controller studies are being performed under the auspices of the Mainstream AIDS medical research and AIDS societies.
“Participation also involves documentation of current and past viral load and CD4 counts, patient demographics and HIV history.”

Don’t expect them to have any outcome other than to say, “We don’t quite know the mechanisms for which people live longer without anti-HIV intervention, more studies are needed”. After all if one looks most of the mainstream studies end in this typical fashion.

Little do these bums of science know that the “Elite Controllers” are the ones who don’t believe in HIV to cause them harm nor do they give into pressures of medical interventions to begin with. All these studies are just throwing good money at bad science, like most of it.

“HIV is like a boat, and a boat is just a hole in the water to throw money in…………”

Posted by: Carter | September 20, 2007 2:59 PM

nope, tara you guys cant even provide us with the first scientific paper that hiv causes AIDS. In 1983 only a small group of idiotic scientists thought hiv might caused by a retrovirus (Gallo, essex, levy) , coming off thier failed retrovirus causes cancer program (how dumb can these people be, cancer isnt contagious!) they now told us their cancer virus was now the AIDS virus!

In 1985 everybody in the world thought hiv was the cause of AIDS.

Can you please provide me with this scientific paper printed in between these years that proved hiv caused AIDS, or was this ubiquitious consensus caused by politics and not science……………………?

Please dont tell of the 20 years of confirmatory evidence that confirmed Gallo’s partial correlation, barely detectable, 1/1000 blood tcells no animal model hypothesis, they all assumed hiv was the cause of aids, you cant confirm things you already beleive to be true, and design studies with that mindset, studies that would have been truly designed to test for verifying gallo’s claim would have been designed totally differently (control for confounding factors)

Instead they kept extending the window period when no one got sick, made hiv species specific when mice/primates didnt get aids when inoculated……….talk about extending the goalposts to save a hypothesis!

See hiv fact or fraud. google it.

Read Project day lily. google it.
mycoplasma biowarfare program/ this microbe found in some aids cases/CFS kills every animal injected, most amazing book ever by two phd’s scientists who uncovered a massive coverup.

Posted by: cooler | September 20, 2007 3:45 PM

Don’t expect them to have any outcome other than to say, “We don’t quite know the mechanisms for which people live longer without anti-HIV intervention, more studies are needed”. After all if one looks most of the mainstream studies end in this typical fashion.

If you mean they might come out and say that elite controllers seem to produce T-cells that lack a protien on the outside that makes it difficult for HIV to attach to then you might be right. It’s true, most of the main stream studies end in us learning something new that all the HIV dissident bitching in the world never thought of or suggested through their wide spread research. How do dissident studies typically end? Oh yes you don’t do any studies, how could I forget.

Posted by: apy | September 20, 2007 4:23 PM

Dear ElkMountainMan

Are you really sharing Wainberg idea ?

What about people living outside the US, would you also consider that they should not be allowed to propagate/ read/discuss “denialist” ** ideas ?

I was thinking not only the EU/Australia/Canada etc…but about people in China/India and mainly about Africa, where the majority of HIV+ people are presently living.

What about people who don’t want to use ARV’s for cultural reasons, for example many Chinese that I have spoken with, think that chronic diseases (not only AIDS) are better treated using traditional Chinese medicine than occidental medicine. They therefore would not accept such prohibition…

I also know that in Africa many persons go first to so-called traditional doctors. . This is likely to continue, and this may be the most important reason of the lack of use of ARV’s in Africa, not, as some may be thinking, due to the existence of internet based “denialists” movements in the US/EU.

Both Chinese Traditional Medicine, Ayurvedic medicine and African traditional doctors use mainly herbal drugs, and it may be possible that some herbal drugs would have similar effect than LDN that Noreen reported, and may at least also prolong AIDS sufferers life as ARV’s does, without ARV’s secondary effects that Noreen reported.

It is unlikely that any internet prohibition in the US would have any major effect in these populations.

So dear ElkMountainMan do you think that people that living in the US/Canada should be allowed to have less information, and therefore less opportunities to solve their problems than the non-Americans/ non-Canadians?

As you look quite articulate in explaining your ideas, I am curious to read what you have to say.

———————————-

** I understand that part of the so called “denialist” ideology is proposing non-ARV’s treatments for AIDS sufferers.

Posted by: Braganza | September 20, 2007 4:25 PM

Cooler caling people names? what are you talking about? Making us look bad, who are you talking about? Anyway how could it be worse? Jehova, Jehova….

Wanna see a real plant you paranoid bastard, watch out for the slimy, boooring prose and the truly laughable impersonation – I give you Carter and Mundt.

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=read-response&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040256

Posted by: Epidemiology-LISA | September 20, 2007 6:26 PM

Dear Braganza,

I appreciate your questions, and I would like to say that this is a very difficult legal question, one that I can’t claim to address well for the United States, much less for the rest of the world. I’ll do my best to give you my thoughts, though.

I do not share Mark Wainberg’s idea, but I sympathize with his frustration. A large group of relatively harmless types of speech are banned in the United States–and their banning has been upheld by the courts, the arbiters of the Constitution–while medical lies that have led to deaths are protected free speech.

In my view, this is inconsistent. If libertarians in the United States wish to criticize Mark Wainberg’s (free) speech on this, they act inconsistently with their principles unless they also oppose other restrictions of speech, such as laws against obscenity, child pornography, defamation, commercial speech, and…well, I gave a list in my previous comment. Many libertarians do oppose such restrictions. While I disagree with them, I cannot call them hypocrites.

In my view, Wainberg has the right to comment on the apparent hypocrisy under the law, and, in my view, this is an important issue, worth a serious conversation about whether enhanced legal protections are needed for vulnerable individuals. I, frankly, do not know the answer, but I do not think the Constitution needs to be changed. I think that the legal system can deal with medical lies on its own, and it usually does.

It’s important to define what I mean by “medical lies,” and I suspect “lies” is too narrow a term for what I mean. I would not classify the examples you give, Braganza–of traditional healers and herbal remedies–as being “medical lies” in the places where they predominate. But what about a traditional healer operating in an immigrant community in North Carolina? I’ll throw up my hands on that one. I don’t know; this is why we have courts…to decide difficult cases. To me, a medical lie is when an unqualified person poses as a health professional and gives out advice, or when a qualified doctor knowingly lies or does not adhere to a standard of treatment. Cases like these can be found in the courts every day, and that’s why I don’t favor changing the Constitution.

I don’t speak for Mark Wainberg, but I get the impression that the behavior he opposes is restricted to just a few individuals in the “denialist” community: people such as Peter Duesberg who have the training and should have the common sense to understand what they are doing is wrong.

If a given individual has dispensed medical advice to AIDS patients who have followed that advice and died, that person could be sued. I don’t know how successful such a case would be. I have corresponded with one person who was persuaded to stop HAART by a “dissident” with no medical training. There are many others. The success of a lawsuit in any case would depend partly on the fake “doctor’s” knowledge.

Many “dissidents” are surprisingly uneducated about the topic they build their lives around, and so can hardly be accused of “lying.” They believe what they say. But some dissidents are so well-versed in the literature, yet insist so strongly on lying about it knowingly, that their deception would be obvious in court.

I’m probably wrong on some of this, and it could well be that laws (not the Constitution) would need some changing before any hope of a successful lawsuit against the more malicious, knowing “denialists.”

To conclude, I hope that some of you can agree with me on the following example:

Cigarette companies have been prohibited from advertising over the airwaves in the United States. In some countries, all tobacco advertisement is banned. The purpose is to protect public health. I’m not opposed to this, but it’s worth noting that it is a restriction on “free speech,” and much more widespread than what Mark Wainberg has proposed.

Which is closer to a “clear and present danger”–cigarette ads or AIDS denialism?
Cigarette ads encourage behavior that may kill in decades.
AIDS denialism encourages behavior that may kill in months or years, depending on the patient.

Which is more deceptive–cigarette ads or AIDS denialism?
At least in the last few decades of their runs, cigarette ads could not imply health benefits from smoking.
AIDS denialism, in contrast, not only states that going off ARVs is healthy, it says that ARVs are the cause of AIDS, and does so by knowingly ignoring the many studies showing the benefits of ARVs, in some cases actually distorting and lying about those studies.

Which has a more captive audience?
Cigarette ads were targeted broadly.
AIDS denialism is targeted at affected individuals, often people who are sick and understandably desperate for answers, vulnerable.

Which can be restricted under the current commercial speech laws in the USA?
Cigarette ads, obviously.
AIDS denialism–in many cases, in my opinion should be. “Rethinkers” make money from the vulnerable people they exploit; their propaganda could be, but often is not, restricted under commercial speech regulations.

I think there is room for improvement in protecting vulnerable patients in the United States from the predatory practices of the AIDS denialists, but I think this can be done within the existing system.

There’s a legal doctrine, I can’t remember the name of it right now, about imposing the least harmful way to achieve the desired effect. Better education of the public (or individuals) by science educators is certainly less harmful than lawsuits. If legal action ever happens, and I doubt it will, it should focus on the knowing lies of the denialists, not on restricting free speech.

Posted by: ElkMountainMan | September 20, 2007 6:59 PM

While I’m sure, considering the number of comments Dr. Smith receives on every posting regarding the “shoddy science” behind HIV/AIDS and retroviruses, that this has been covered before, it bears mentioning.

Retroviruses are obviously not functionally the same. Some retroviruses cause immunodeficiency syndromes–i.e., Feline Immunodeficiency Virus; some cause cancer–the first discovered to cause cancer, the Rous Sarcoma Virus, and others like Bovine Leukemia Virus.

The Family of Retroviridae is comprised of viruses with similar characteristics, and one of those defining characteristics is their ability to insert their own RNA into the host cells’ DNA and cause a huge array of problems.

Just a point of pride among veterinarians, as Dr. Rous was the first to discover a viral cause of cancer, something for which he was rewarded with the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1966.

Posted by: Meredith M. CLancy | September 20, 2007 7:00 PM

Funny, I must have missed the scientific discussion in your latest articles Dr. Smith.

I’m still waiting for any rational response to my earlier post.

Does drug use cause AIDS

In all the whingeing and whining about censorship you seem to forget that the collective response from the “dissidents” has been “Everyone knows that Ascher was Tony Fauci’s well paid buttboy and pet lapdog…”

Nobody is censoring you here and yet the best you can come up with is calling people names like “Dr. Smearah Tit”.

Accompanying every right is a responsibility.

Posted by: Chris Noble | September 20, 2007 8:03 PM

This free speech issue is crazy, its about personal responsibility. If Duesberg or any other scientist advocated drinking gasoline and an adult did it, the person dumb enough to follow that advice is to most to blame.

Another more subtle example, say someone followed the atkins diet and because of it he had a heart attack bc many docs dont agree with it, ? Is it Atkins fault?, no its the persons fault it’s his responsibility to look at all the data pro and con and then make a choice based on informed consent,his body, his choice, his life.

All these calls for censorship are just plain fear……….the “rethinkers” have superior arguments and the moore/gallo/wainberg mob know this so they resort to calling for the abolishment of the 1st amendment and the firing of professors who dont agree with them.

This is not the way people react to an absurd argument, an absurd argument doesnt scare experts, If a group of people started a movement called the “moon is made of green cheese” can you imagine a group of astrophysicists starting a group that said the “moontruth, the moon is not made of cheese” and getting all upset about it, no of course not they would just ignore it because its absurd and laughable, the moore mob does not act like they should if the rethinkers arguments were not valid, bc they know they have no arguments to back up their positions, and need to rely on censorship and the stifling of academic freedom.

Posted by: cooler | September 20, 2007 8:34 PM

This free speech issue is crazy, its about personal responsibility. If Duesberg or any other scientist advocated drinking gasoline and an adult did it, the person dumb enough to follow that advice is to most to blame.

Of course the person drinking the gasoline has reposibility for his own actions but if Duesberg tells people that drinking gasoline is not only safe but beneficial then he is also partly responsible.

Duesberg told Raphael Lombardo that if he didn’t take recreational drugs or antiretrovirals that he wouldn’t get AIDS. Raphael didn’t take recreational drugs and he didn’t take antiretrovirals and yet he still got AIDS. To make matters worse Duesberg accused Raphael of lying after he was already dead and not able to defend himself. Duesberg is personally responsible for the eventual outcomes of his actions.

Professional Responsibilities of biomedical scientists in public discourse

Posted by: Chris Noble | September 20, 2007 8:54 PM

No as long as raphael heard both sides of the hiv debate its all on him, his body his life, and im sure many docs told him about the hiv myth over and over. Who knows what killed him, Ill have to look into it, was it HIV, mycoplasma incognitus, AZT, catastrophic stress?.

One solid epidemiological study designed to test the hiv hypothesis could easily resolve the thousands of people that are starting to doubt the hiv hypothesis, too bad AIDS inc will never allow a study that would test Gallo’s dubious partial correlation/ no animal model/ 1/1000 blood tcell hypothesis.

They are plenty of people who were killed by AZT that could have been LTNP’ers, so aids inc is responsible for their deaths, the big difference is that Rapheal was exposed to both sides of the argument, while people who were told to take monster doses of AZT were not, they were not even informed that they were being put under long term chemotherapy. Its about informed consent and doing what you want with your own body. Yes I do agree if you are hiv positive you should inform all prospective partners………..other than that Its your choice based upon what makes sense to you.

Posted by: cooler | September 20, 2007 9:53 PM

ElkMountainMan -

Actually, it is very, very hard to actually sue for defamation, thanks in large part to Larry Flynt. As for obscenity laws, they are being struck down left and right, something that I strongly support. The right to protest, has unfortunately suffered in very large ways over the last few decades, something that I find horribly disturbing.

Child porn is a whole different ball of wax. There is real harm being perpetrated in the production and to an extent with the dissemination of such materials. While it usually isn’t fatal, it is nothing short of rape, something that is definitely illegal and bloody well should be. It is not speech, it’s an act of violence, rape and degradation.

I should be clear, that I am not saying that Wainberg is himself repugnant, I have not heard enough of his views to really judge that. But what he says about speech most certainly is. Just because there are unacceptable laws restricting speech in the U.S., does not justify more restrictions.

Posted by: DuWayne | September 20, 2007 10:15 PM

Hey Chris. You are totally full of SHIT about Ralph Lombardo’s death being on Peter Duesberg in any way shape or form.

Lombardo had refused AZT even before he ever heard of Dr. Duesberg.

The following are extracts from Ralph Lombardo’s VERY OWN WORDS from a letter of his to Dr. Duesberg, and the full letter can be found at:
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:wvgAw4w3zwYJ:www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pdazt.htm+%22Raphael+Lombardo%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
————————————————–
To: Dr. Peter Duesberg

From: Raphael Sabato Lombardo

Date: May 30, 1995

Subject: Life without AZT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dear Dr. Duesberg,

My name is Raphael Sabato Lombardo, 33 years old and from Cape Coral, FL. I am writing in regards to the enclosed magazine article from this month’s issue of Men’s Style. I was thrilled to read that there was someone in the medical profession who shared the same views I’ve had for so many years…….

I am an HIV positive individual. I learned of my HIV status while in boot camp in the U.S. Navy back in 1985 (I could have very possibly been HIV positive 7 years before that)……
Remember, this was 1985, a time when HIV was called the HTLV III virus and anything and everyone associated with it meant complete and utter doom (physically, spiritually, societally, politically, etc….

Although met with discrimination and much verbal and physical abuse as well, I did go home and received my bachelor’s in business from the University of South Florida ­Ft. Myers…..
Myself and the other recruits (those who are left) still remain a closeknit group. The bond will forever exist. Several have died of AIDS and several have AIDS. As for myself I’ve remained completely asymptomatic thank God! To be honest, in regards to HIV, I haven,t seen a doctor since the day I was discharged. While in the Navy, we were subjected to incompetent Navy doctors who often gave us inaccurate medical results. As a result, I came to trust no one in the medical profession. I decided to take things into my own hands….. I spent countless hours in the medical library at the Bethesda Naval Hospital which is where we were being held and did research on one’s immune system and all AIDS information available up to that point in time. Since no drugs had yet been approved by the FDA, there were no forms of treatment available. I came up with my own form of natural healthcare…..
Shortly after discharge, AZT was approved by the FDA. My family and friends wanted me to jump on the bandwagon immediately! I can’t explain why, but I outright refused. There was this inner voice that kept telling me, and continues to tell me, to just stay away from medication. Even back then I had a feeling that taking this medication and going on drug experimental trials would do nothing more than provoke the onset of the disease. Again, this feeling was based not on medical data or research, just an inner gut feeling….. I guess you could say my spirit guides or guardian angels have been working overtime. By not going on medication, my family and friends felt I was exhibiting the same “ignorance” and “foolishness” that got me into this mess in the first place. We had countless heated argument over this, but I told them my mind was made up and that was that-period. We Italian men can often times be quite stubborn! Actually, my dad is the only one who agrees with me…. That is reflective in our conversations which last no longer than a couple of seconds.

During those years of experimenting, exploring and even rejoicing in my God given sexuality, I did the bathhouse scene, the “Saint” parties, the S&M sex clubs, the backroom bar scenes, the group sex, etc. I guess you could say that sexually, I did it all. I was curious, knew exactly what I wanted to do and experience, and did just that. Something I’m proud of? No! It’s just the way it happened. Again, this was all society felt, and still feels, gays are worthy of. While I was part of the “gay scene” in this respect, I always felt I wasn’t at all in other respects.

At about the same time as my Navy situation, I began hearing more and more of guys I had dated in N.Y.C. who had died or were dying of AIDS. I speak of approximately 2 dozen friends (that I am aware of, there’s probably more) who have died of AIDS from 1985 to 1995. They are all gay men (except for 1 woman). These men were also very much into recreational drugs (steroids, poppers, marijuana, cocaine, ecstasy, etc.). They ranged in age from mid twenties to mid forties. I don’t know at what point they started using the drugs such as AZT, ddI etc. I found out my HIV status while I was in the Navy and didn’t even know I was being tested and had not experienced any signs or symptoms of the disease. I don’t know if these other friends of mine had already progressed to ARC and full­blown AIDS before finally deciding to get tested and go on medication or they took it upon themselves early on to have the test done before experiencing any symptoms and then progressed from simply testing HIV positive and then progressing to ARC, full­blown AIDS and eventually death. My personal suspicion is that these individuals were not aware of their HIV status until they started experiencing physical complications. My friends who were sick and died since the late eighties were taking mega doses of AZT (approximately 12 pills a day). I hear that dosage has been greatly reduced. My friends today take several pills of AZT daily. I’m not sure what the dosage is for any other drugs that they’re on.

In regards to the woman I mentioned, she was a heterosexual, and in her late twenties. I am not certain how she contracted the disease. She was married with a set of twins that were merely a few years old at the time of her death last year. I believe she suffered approximately 3 years and was on AZT and several other drugs for most of that time. An unfortunate tragedy! Her husband and children test negative.

With regards to HIV, I’ve always sensed that drugs, or lack of them, has played a big part in keeping me going while so many others have been less fortunate. Another thing I’d like to add is that as a workout enthusiast, I’ve never experimented with steroids, which unfortunately runs so very, very rampant amongst gays and in my opinion is ravaging the gay community. Amongst other things, it severely compromises one’s immune system. To me, there’s nothing wrong with good old fashioned, honest hard work.

According to the article I’ve read, it sounds as though you’ve had a pretty rough time of things in trying to gain support in the medical community and gay community as well. I just wanted to let you know that I share the same views and sentiments as you…..
This year, 1995, marks the 10 year anniversary of my Navy situation, a milestone in many, many ways.

Respectfully,
Raphael Sabato Lombardo

Posted by: Michael | September 20, 2007 10:30 PM

Chris, you piece of shit liar, you act as if Duesberg had somehow led this guy around by the nose. Lombardo had decided NOT to take AIDS drugs 10 YEARS before he ever heard of Duesberg. Lombardo HIMSELF chose not to accept standard treatment. Lombardo HIMSELF witnessed the deaths of those he knew who took AZT.

And as for his death, Chris, please take note of all of the emotional pain and INTENSE STRESS AND LONELINESS that Ralph endured.

For being gay. (shamed and guilted)
For being gay in the military. (shamed and guilted)
For being diagnosed as HIV poz.(stressed, panicked, rejected, shamed and guilted)
For NOT taking meds.(stressed, with projections of death put on him regularly)
For losing those close to him.(major grief)
For not having a lover.(loneliness)

And a thousand other reasons that you, Chris, know nothing about. You do not know what he went through, and you do not know what he suffered emotionally.

Ralph was another gay man, who had an intensely stressed and intensely emotional difficult life.

And YOU CHRIS NOBLE, are nothing but a simple minded ass-wipe know-it-all who knows nothing about anything!

Posted by: Michael | September 20, 2007 10:43 PM

THE SCIENTIFIC AND MEDICAL COMMUNITY IS GUILTY OF PROMOTING AND PROJECTING THE THEN INEVITABLE SELF FULFILLING PROPHESIES OF SICKNESS AND DEATH OF GAY MEN.

All of you HIV promoters fail to ever acknowledge what we gay men have endured over the last 25 years and what we continue to endure from you. You FAIL to own up to YOUR OWN part in it. You fail to own up to continually and nonstop project upon us our sickness and our deaths. You refuse to own up to, and admit that the very source of Gay Mens ills has been completely due to your own projections at us. Projections that we are not good enough, that we are defective. That we will die or sicken of disease. You project these things on my gay brethren, and then my gay brethren accept, believe, and self create the now self fulfilling projections that you yourselves have heaped upon them.

The Scientific, Medical, and Heterosexual society has failed to own up to their own part in:

THE SOCIETAL AND FAMILY REJECTION WE HAVE ENDURED.

THE HARASSMENT WE HAVE ENDURED.

THE SHAMING and GUILTING WE HAVE ENDURED.

THE CONSTANT PANIC AND FEAR FROM YOUR PROJECTIONS OF OUR INEVITABLE DEATH FROM HIV/AIDS THAT WE HAVE ENDURED.

THE POISONING BY TOXIC PHARMA DRUGS WE HAVE ENDURED.

THE GRIEF WE HAVE ENDURED AS THOSE WE LOVE DIED FROM THE ABOVE

THE LONELINESS WE HAVE ENDURED AS OUR RELATIONSHIPS HAVE BEEN REJECTED OR SHAMED OR DIED FROM BATTLING THE NEGATIVITY AND BELIEFS IN DEATH THAT HAVE BEEN HEAPED UPON THEM.

THE DEATH WISHES THAT ARE DUE TO THE STRESS THAT WE HAVE ENDURED.

THE EXPECTATIONS OF SICKNESS AND DEATH THAT WE ENDURE.

And EACH and EVERY ONE OF YOU, that continues to project death by HIV or AIDS upon us is guilty of CONTINUING the creating of such by further stressing us with your nonstop and stress causing debilitating projections at us, until we do succumb to sickness, disease, and death.

You heap upon us your prophesies and projections of inevitable doom and sickness and death until we ourselves are so sickened by it that we fulfill these prophesies.

What you have done and continue to do is WRONG.

YOU CAN ALL SHOVE YOUR PROJECTIONS OF INEVITABLE HIV AIDS DEATH, THAT YOU HAVE HEAPED ON GAYS FOR THE LAST 25 YEARS, STRAIGHT UP WHERE THE SUN DOES NOT SHINE.

YOU CAN KEEP YOUR VOODOO AND YOUR BLACKMAGIC AND YOUR PROJECTIONS OF SICKNESS AND DEATH TO YOUR OWN SELVES.

You HIV=DEATH believers and promoters ARE THE CAUSE OF AIDS BY YOUR OWN PROJECTIONS OF DEATH BY HIV AIDS AT US GAYS!

AND YOU CAN ALL GO SHOVE YOUR HIV/AIDS “SCIENCE” STRAIGHT UP YOUR OWN ASS!

Posted by: Michael | September 20, 2007 11:25 PM

In the words of Ralph Lombardo himself: “Remember, this was 1985, a time when HIV was called the HTLV III virus and anything and everyone associated with it meant complete and utter doom (physically, spiritually, societally, politically, etc….”

Yes Ralph, that was 1985, and ten years later nothing had changed, and even now 20 years later little has changed as the world continues to heap upon us death, and disease, both physical, spiritual, societal, and political.

I dedicate my own efforts in this very thread, to wake the world up from its own self perpetuating and self creating disasters, to the late Raphael Lombardo, who succumbed nearly 10 years ago of the stress and pain that was heaped upon him as a gay man, and as someone diagnosed as HIV positive, who was simply struggling to live and to love and to serve and to be free in a world that projected nothing upon him but rejection, shame, guilt, grief, fear, sickness and projections of inevitable death.

Posted by: Michael | September 20, 2007 11:38 PM

Any of you remember Kimberly Bergalis, who supposedly died of AIDS that she supposedly got from her dentist in Florida in 1987? AIDS Incorporated used her case as the big proof that HIV is contagious.

Unbeknownst to any of you, the reality is that she died from AZT poisoning:

Bergalis meanwhile sought medical care at the University of Miami, where she was treated with an unidentified “experimental” method. Certainly this was the appropriate place for such therapies. Margaret Fischl, the head of the Phase II AZT trial, worked at that medical center, which had served as one of the twelve facilities sponsored by Burroughs Wellcome for the study. So Bergalis was prescribed AZT.

Suddenly she started a precipitous decline in health. In an angry letter, she herself acknowledged her symptoms resulted from the toxic drug:

“I have lived through the torturous ache that infested my face and neck, brought on by AZT. I have endured trips twice a week to Miami for three months only to receive painful IV injections. I’ve had blood transfusions. I’ve had a bone marrow biopsy. I cried my heart out from the pain.”

First, she was stressed to poor physical health to begin with, then further stressed by the panic and fear of being given a diagnosis of HIV. Then, she was finally poisoned to death by AZT. The aches and pains, and poisoned blood marrow and blood transfusions are ALL well established effects of AZT.

Self Fulfilling Prophecy.

Posted by: Michael | September 21, 2007 12:14 AM

Those last four comments were awesome. And by awesome I mean drop-dead hilarious. Thanks for the entertainment, Michael.

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | September 21, 2007 12:25 AM

Glad you liked them Tyler, and your very welcome. Yes, emotional pain and iatrogenic illness and societal projections of sickness and death are quite humorous, now aren’t they?

Your own post was very enlightening as well. You are obvioulsy so well spoken and such a brilliant intellectual.

Posted by: Michael | September 21, 2007 12:34 AM

Unbeknownst to any of you, the reality is that she died from AZT poisoning:

Of course it is unknown to me because it is not true.

Bergalis meanwhile sought medical care at the University of Miami, where she was treated with an unidentified “experimental” method. Certainly this was the appropriate place for such therapies. Margaret Fischl, the head of the Phase II AZT trial, worked at that medical center, which had served as one of the twelve facilities sponsored by Burroughs Wellcome for the study. So Bergalis was prescribed AZT.

Suddenly she started a precipitous decline in health. …

I’ve already been through this several times.

Bergalis had systemic candidiasis, severe weight loss, PCP and a CD4+ count of less than 50 before she was diagnosed with HIV infection let alone prescribed AZT.

Bergalis perfectly healthy before AZT?

You’ve fallen for another one of Duesberg’s lies.

How does AZT travel backwards in time to cause AIDS before it was taken? Bergalis would probably never have been tested for HIV infection if she hadn’t been extremely ill in the first place. So the diagnosis cannot have been the cause of the illness.

Raphael Lombardo’s letter says the same thing:

My personal suspicion is that these individuals were not aware of their HIV status until they started experiencing physical complications.

The same thing is still true today. A large proportion of people are only diagnosed with HIV infection when they turn up in hospital with AIDS.

Posted by: Chris Noble | September 21, 2007 12:44 AM

Here’s a question for Michael.

What does Duesberg tell HIV people to do?

As far as I can tell he says a) HIV is harmless b) AIDS is caused by recreational drugs and antiretrovirals c) if you are HIV+ and don’t take recreational drugs or antiretrovirals you won’t get AIDS.

Raphael didn’t take recreational drugs or antiretrovirals and he still progressed to AIDS. Did Duesberg reappraise or rethink his ideas? No. He accused Raphael of lying.

At some stage you have to give up on the hero worship.

Posted by: Chris Noble | September 21, 2007 1:02 AM

From the virusmyth webpage that Michael cited.

In London HIV­ positive male homosexuals ar risk for AIDS formed a survivor group called “Continuum.” In August 1993 there was no mortality during 1.25 years in all 918 members of that group who had “avoided the experimental medications on offer” and chose to “abstain from or significantly reduce their use of recreational drugs, including alcohol.” (105) Assuming an average ten­year latent period from HIV to AIDS, the virus ­AIDS hypothesis would have predicted at least 58 (half of 918/10 x 1.25) AIDS cases among 918 HIV­ positives over 1.25 years. Indeed, the absence of mortality in this group over 1.25 years corresponds to a minimal latent period from HIV to AIDS of more than 1,148 (918 x 1.25) years. As of July 1, 1994, there was still not one single AIDS case in this group of 918 HIV ­positive homosexuals. (106)

Apart from the shocking maths (where’s Darin Brown when you need a mathematician?) something else should stand out. What happened to the editorial staff of Continuum? They all died of AIDS! Huw Christie. Jodie Wells. Is Duesberg going to rethink his position? No they all must have been liars.

Why do you guys worship Duesberg? You should realise by now that if you are HIV+ and you follow his advice and don’t take antiretrovirals or recreational drugs and yet still progress to AIDS and die then Duesberg is going to lie about you when you’re dead.

The man deserves nothing less than contempt.

Posted by: Chris Noble | September 21, 2007 1:12 AM

Hey Chris. You PIECE OF SHIT LIAR! Right in the New York Times Interview, Bergalis overtly states and even overdramatizes a few mostly very minor complaints and a simple case of common thrush. She herself said:

Within a month of the 1987 tooth extraction, Miss Bergalis said, bumps broke out on her face, and she began to suffer from a sore throat. (A month later she had a sore throat? Bumps on her face? Since when are sore throats a sign of HIV infection only one month after the supposed infection by HIV occurred? Since when are bumps on a face linked to 30 days of HIV infection? Totally obvious that this is pure and complete hyped up bullshit Chris! No such thing happens to anyone else 30 days after people are supposedly infected!)

….Then these symptoms disappeared until late in the spring of 1989, as she was about to graduate from the University of Florida. Then came a parade of infections, big and little — sore throats, weakness, coughing, white patches in her mouth. (She was obviously VERY Stressed out by finals and by graduation and by who knows what else and then came down with what looks like symptoms of any common cold and flu along with a more or less common case of simple oral thrush that lots of run down or emotionally/physically stressed HIV negative people get quite often.)

….But she had a hectic schedule. “I thought I was just stressed out,” she recalled (TOTALLY ADMITTED TO BEING STRESSED OUT). A Doctor Was Puzzled (Must be because he was a complete idiot like Chris Noble)….

When she saw a doctor for the infection in her mouth, he said it was peculiar; it looked like thrush. (What the fuck? A doctor who never saw a common case of thrush? Was this imbecile just a month out of med school or what?)

“Are you a diabetic?” he asked.

“No,” she said.

“Are you on antibiotics?”

“No.”

“That’s funny. Usually, you only get thrush when you’re a newborn, a diabetic, on antibiotics. Or if you have AIDS.”
———————————————————–
Chris, who are you trying to bullshit besides yourself?
Once Again, we find a doctor paralyzing a stressed out minorly ill patient’s immune system even further, with the devastating panic and fear of death by telling her she most likely had AIDS, when all she had was a not uncommon oral thrush infection!

And Chris, you lying piece of shit. You lie and said before she was HIV diagnosed that she had wasting, PCP, systemic candidiasis, Low CD4 counts (when nobody EVER took her count before being diagnosed as HIV!)

Quite obvious again, Chris, that you do nothing but lie, exagerate, and bullshit! Shove it up your ass Chris. Bergalis simply got caught up in the wave of mass hysteria in 1987 to 89 that swept the country. Another more than obvious case of iatrogenic death combined with the patients own self creating prophesy due to stress, fear, panic, brainwashing, and more of your voodoo blackmagic bullshit.

Hey Chris. One more time. This ones just for YOU. GO Shove your voodoo and blackmagic BULLSHIT STRAIGHT UP YOUR OWN ASS CHRIS.

Posted by: Michael | September 21, 2007 1:27 AM

“The man deserves nothing less than contempt.”

The only one that deserves contempt here, Chris, is YOU!

The only things you have EVER PRESENTED to us in the last few years, Chris, are rants, screeds, easily picked apart and easily exposed as lacking any substance, very circumstantial, very flimsy, very third hand, very he said-she said, very conflict of interest filled and are also full of nothing but your own projections of your own hatred, homophobia, rascism, germaphobia, paranoia of aids and the projection at others of your own hypochondriacal illness.

Go fuck yourself.

Posted by: Michael | September 21, 2007 1:42 AM

Michael. You are correct. Bergalis’ CD4 cells were probably not measured before the diagnosis of HIV infection.

They were measured before she was prescribed AZT.

Happy now?

She was extremely ill before ever getting near AZT.

Duesberg’s claim that she was perfectly healthy before taking AZT is a complete lie.

Posted by: Chris Noble | September 21, 2007 1:47 AM

“Yes, emotional pain and iatrogenic illness and societal projections of sickness and death are quite humorous, now aren’t they?”

When I can numb the empathy enough, hell yeah!

But on the other hand, no, that’s not what I intended. I was thinking more along the lines of hysterical cranks tossing around borderline accusations of murder to an online community.

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | September 21, 2007 1:48 AM

You are welcome to take it any way you want Tyler. Hysterical? Or direct? Crank? or striking nerves because it is a bit too much reality? Borderline accusations of murder? Or pointing out another quite valid perspective?

I am open to suggestions if you think there is perhaps some other way to wake people up to the iatrogenic and societal aspects of the discussed situation. Seems you yourself did not take it too well, though you also did not take it as badly as some do. Especially as you yourself admit to the need to “numb the empathy”. Can’t say I blame you, Ty. Not your fault that you perhaps find it difficult to stomach some of the quite possible or even probable, if not even “absolute” “realities” that I have presented here.

You know it has oft been said that “the truth hurts”. Sometimes the truth hurts so much that people, or at least their egos, go right into escapism, denial, anger, humor, and a lot of other interesting but quite human egoic responses as I quite knowingly probe and poke at this festering sore on the ass of all of mankind in hopes of cleaning the would by exposing it to the light of truth. I do understand. I have seen most all of the responses possible in reacting to what I have pointed out quite clearly. I have yet to hear any admit to what I have said. To do so is far too painful. And I certainly do not expect an apology from anyone’s ego. Certainly not one online or in public. Would be nice, wouldn’t make up for or change any of the losses, and it is certainly not necessary, as al must take its course, but from my own ego’s viewpoint, it most surely it would be nice. However, I certainly do not expect or demand one from anyone.

Posted by: Michael | September 21, 2007 2:08 AM

“Duesberg’s claim that she was perfectly healthy before taking AZT is a complete lie.”

Strange Chris, but I have never seen where Duesberg claimed she was “perfectly healthy” before taking AZT. Perhaps you will show us the quote, and where exactly it is to be found, other than in the dark recesses of your own imagination.

On the other hand, the now verified “truth” is, that Chris Nobles’s claim that Kim Bergalis had a low CD4 count of 50 before being diagnosed as HIV positive, is absolutely, as you yourself even just admitted, was a complete lie.

Hmmmm. Who should I believe more, Chris or Dr. Duesberg? Hmmmm…..

Posted by: Michael | September 21, 2007 2:28 AM

“Not your fault that you perhaps find it difficult to stomach some of the quite possible or even probable, if not even “absolute” “realities” that I have presented here.”

This is really funny. What you’ve presented here is a series of long winded rants that consist of cut and pasted articles that demonstrate nothing regarding the various claims you’ve made (hint: someone claiming that they experienced stress does not necessitate to notion that they died of the stress). And to top it off, they’re complete with RANDOM CAPITALIZATION, unnecessary boldface and baseless accusations of “lying” to people like Chris. “Crank” is almost too generous for this tripe.

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | September 21, 2007 2:42 AM

And Chris, you lying piece of shit. You lie and said before she was HIV diagnosed that she had wasting, PCP, systemic candidiasis, Low CD4 counts (when nobody EVER took her count before being diagnosed as HIV!)

Have you read the article? She had candidiasis, weight loss, hair loss and PCP before she was diagnosed with AIDS or tested for HIV.
The pneumonia wasn’t just any pneumonia it was PCP. Duesberg lies about Bergalis in “Inventing the AIDS virus”. Duesberg claims she was perfectly healthy before taking AZT. All of the symptoms that Duesberg ascribes to “AZT posioning” occurred before she took the drug.

Only when the crisis passed and tests revealed that she had pneumocystis pneumonia, typical of AIDS patients, did the doctors treating her suggest she be tested for HIV infection.

If you are going to accuse me of lying then try to get your facts straight.

Posted by: Chris Noble | September 21, 2007 2:53 AM

Just a point of pride among veterinarians, as Dr. Rous was the first to discover a viral cause of cancer, something for which he was rewarded with the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1966.

Yeah! Discovered in 1966. Then, from 1973 to 1981 or so the whole world has been tracking down the viral cause of cancer. ZERO result. So the budget went low. Came smart Gallo&Co with HIV=Aids. All virologists moved over from cancer research to Aids research and the budget went rocking sky high again. They seem to have learned from the cancer distaster and now their research money may well last forever. HIV, west-nile, marburg, ebola, HxNx, corona. I tell you, it’s a gold mine. And the lie may be stupid and deadly, but also she’s so big, only few seem to be able to imagine it’s a lie.
Right on Michael, Dan, cooler, carter, Noreen and whoever else I didn’t notice.

Posted by: jspreen | September 21, 2007 3:57 AM

Actually, the virus theory of cancer goes farther back to Royal Rife and a collegue of his, Virginia Livingston, who publicly acknowledged the first cancer virus. I think that Gallo and others may have been on the right track but with their closed minds in other areas such as pleomorphism were not able to duplicate results that had already been proven.

Yes, no one wants to give up the gravy train so they all play the game and assume that HIV causes AIDS. If AIDS went away so would their funding. They may be unethical but not stupid. In the interim, the patient suffers from the grade four events, side effects from the long-term use of the meds. Thank you Tara as you are helping the world to see the truth!

Posted by: noreen | September 21, 2007 6:07 AM

Bergalis said in that article, “Here I was, 21 years old,” she says. “Faced with a diagnosis of AIDS. It’s a fatal illness. It’s hard enough to deal with the stress of having a terminal illness.”

Chris, do you think that the mere suggestion implanted into Kim’s psyche that she had several years to live could manifest itself into several illnesses such those ones she complained about? Take any of those illnesses one by one and without the death sentence can be fought off easily by western and/or natural remedies. Oh, but no, no, no, wait just a minute! It must be HIV! Even if AZT or it’s water down version, still being prescribed today has side effects somewhat indistinguishable from AIDS itself, Kim’s ATZ monotherapy is without a doubt is the icing on the cake. No amount of your psycho babel is going to change that hard core reality.

Bergalis is all but just one example. AZT singularly was pushed so readily then you cannot ever call into question that it was not the final means of slow and excruciating painful death when a person is handed the dreaded “So sorry for you but you have just so many years to live.”

You Chris are distorting that we say and making it seem like we’re saying AZT causes HIV, obviously because the public is taught the notion HIV/AIDS, “HIV disease” and all the like. AZT causes several of the AIDS defining illnesses and you cant dispute that.

Posted by: carter | September 21, 2007 8:07 AM

Chris, do you think that the mere suggestion implanted into Kim’s psyche that she had several years to live could manifest itself into several illnesses such those ones she complained about?

Your timeline seems a bit skewed here carter. Are you suggesting that stress can travel back in time and make someone sick (with fairly classic AIDS diseases) which then causes the diagnosis of stress that caused the diseases which then goes back in time and make someone sick …?

Are you saying that she was not sick prior to being diagnosed as HIV+ and with AIDS?

If you went into a hospital with a runny nose, cough, and phlegm and were diagnosed with a cold, would you then conclude that the diagnosis of a cold was the reason you originally felt sick?

Posted by: apy | September 21, 2007 9:34 AM

Michael,

For someone whose lover was diagnosed with HIV infection six years ago and who claims to know so much about HIV/AIDS, every time you post you reveal a profound ignorance of the medical and scientific literature.

You say Kimberly Bergalis “overdramatizes a few mostly very minor complaints”:

Within a month of the 1987 tooth extraction, Miss Bergalis said, bumps broke out on her face, and she began to suffer from a sore throat. (A month later she had a sore throat? Bumps on her face? Since when are sore throats a sign of HIV infection only one month after the supposed infection by HIV occurred? Since when are bumps on a face linked to 30 days of HIV infection? Totally obvious that this is pure and complete hyped up bullshit Chris! No such thing happens to anyone else 30 days after people are supposedly infected!) [Michael's Emphasis]

Since when? Well, these symptoms have been identified within 30 days of HIV infection since at least 1985:

Cooper DA, Gold J, Maclean P, Donovan B, Finlayson R, Barnes TG, Michelmore HM, Brooke P, Penny R. (1985). Acute AIDS retrovirus infection. Definition of a clinical illness associated with seroconversion. Lancet Mar 9;1(8428):537-40.

Abstract: In the course of a prospective immunoepidemiological study of homosexual men in Sydney, seroconversion to the AIDS-associated retrovirus (ARV) was observed in 12 subjects. Review of the clinical files defined an acute infectious-mononucleosis-like illness in 11 subjects. The illness was of sudden onset, lasted from 3 to 14 days, and was associated with fevers, sweats, malaise, lethargy, anorexia, nausea, myalgia, arthralgia, headaches, sore throat, diarrhoea, generalised lymphadenopathy, a macular erythematous truncal eruption, and thrombocytopenia. In 1 subject an incubation period of 6 days after presumed exposure to ARV was determined and in 3 subjects seroconversion took place 19, 32, and 56 days after onset. Comparison of T-cell subsets before and after the acute illness showed inversion of T4:T8 ratio in 8 subjects, due to increased numbers of circulating T8+ cells. These findings support the notion of an acute clinical, immunological, and serological response to infection with ARV which should be considered in the differential diagnosis of mononucleosis-like syndromes in groups at high risk for the development of AIDS.

Later, you suggest that Tyler may find “it difficult to stomach some of the quite possible or even probable, if not even “absolute” “realities” that I have presented here.”

Michael, you have told us several times how you believe that by denying the role of HIV in AIDS you will save your lover’s life. Every one of your posts is an exercise in the denial of the terrifying reality that has invaded your life.

As you, yourself said:

Sometimes the truth hurts so much that people, or at least their egos, go right into escapism, denial, anger, humor, and a lot of other interesting but quite human egoic responses

There is no better description of your response to the very real and frightening personal crisis you face.

Posted by: franklin | September 21, 2007 9:58 AM

If you went into a hospital with a runny nose, cough, and phlegm and were diagnosed with a cold, would you then conclude that the diagnosis of a cold was the reason you originally felt sick?

No, stupid. Now, have a strong coffee, wake up and think. If one goes into a hospital with a running nose, is diagnosed with AIDS and falls severly ill, after the shock of the diagnosis and the life-saving killer-drugs, then one may reasonably presume that something else than “The initial running nose caused a severe disease”.

But I guess you’ll never understand that because you simply don’t want things to be like that. Thus it’s not stupidity but something else that keeps you looking away from where you should look. Sorry for the No, stupid. It makes no sense. Sorry.

Posted by: jspreen | September 21, 2007 10:20 AM

Carter suggests that AZT

has side effects somewhat indistinguishable from AIDS itself.

This is another noxious nugget from Duesberg…and wrong.

Duesberg’s “Drug Diseases” review from 1998 (page 118) lists two AIDS-defining conditions out of the 25 or so CDC clinical diagnostic criteria that are also side effects of AZT…according to Duesberg, of course.

One of them is muscle wasting. It’s true that AZT can cause myopathy. But muscle weakness on its own is not AIDS-defining. AIDS-defining wasting involves

profound involuntary weight loss of greater than 10% of baseline body weight plus either chronic diarrhea (at least two loose stools per day for greater than or equal to 30 days), or chronic weakness and documented fever (for greater than or equal to 30 days, intermittent or constant) in the absence of a concurrent illness or condition other than HIV infection that could explain the findings (e.g., cancer, tuberculosis, cryptosporidiosis, or other specific enteritis). (From the CDC 1993 definition)

In other words, an AIDS diagnosis based on wasting requires profound weight loss AND chronic weakness in the presence of fever. This type of wasting can be caused by numerous conditions, including several AIDS-defining conditions; that’s why the CDC insists that other possible causes be ruled out.

Duesberg’s evidence is a report of “four out of five” patients who recover from myopathy after going off AZT (as reported in 1990). Duesberg doesn’t bother to confirm for his readers that the myopathy experienced by these patients is in fact related to AIDS-defining wasting. He backs up his assertions by mentioning that Rudolf Nureyev and Kimberley Bergalis both had muscle wasting.

Duesberg either confuses myopathy with AIDS-defining wasting or fully understands the difference but neglects to enlighten (i.e. misleads) his readers.

The other condition mentioned by Duesberg is HIV-associated dementia. AZT causes dementia, says Duesberg, and he refers to one article from 1991. His thought process is: AZT is said to inhibit mitochondrial DNA synthesis, neurons have mitochondria, therefore AZT causes AIDS-defining dementia.

Since Duesberg doesn’t study AIDS or work with clinicians who treat it, I suppose he doesn’t realize that many patients who show up in the clinic with HIV-associated dementia have never taken anti-HIV drugs. Many of these patients experience marked cognitive improvements on HAART. Treated HIV dementia patients also survive about seven or eight times longer than untreated patients.

To reference his assertion, Duesberg cites a report from a cohort study (Bacellar et al, 1994). The authors note an increase in HIV-associated dementia among men who reported antiviral use. The sample size was small, and there was no statistical significance. Duesberg, obviously unfamiliar with this concept, comments, “The result is interpreted by its authors with little concern for percentages.” “Percentages,” Professor Duesberg? In any case, the authors also note that the men who began taking antiretrovirals did so because they were less healthy than the men who did not. This simplest explanation is discarded by Duesberg in favor of his own relatively unsupported theory.

(What about drugs of abuse and HIV-associated dementia? Drug use is a confounding factor, and it is considered at diagnosis. For a diagnosis of HIV dementia, no known confounding factors should be present. See the CDC’s definitions.)

No, Carter, AZT’s side effects are not indistinguishable from AIDS. That’s just another Duesberg distortion.

Carter, I encourage you not to rely on non-experts, quacks, and ideological partisans to address your health concerns. Please be sure to consult a qualified doctor. Denialism has killed too many people already.

Posted by: ElkMountainMan | September 21, 2007 10:24 AM

No, stupid. Now, have a strong coffee, wake up and think. If one goes into a hospital with a running nose, is diagnosed with AIDS and falls severly ill, after the shock of the diagnosis and the life-saving killer-drugs, then one may reasonably presume that something else than “The initial running nose caused a severe disease”.

This goes a whole lot faster if you actually pay attention to the thread jspreen. The use of a runny nose was what people in the English speaking world refer to as an “analogy”. The claim is not that someone came in with a runny nose and was diagnosed with AIDS and then all the AIDS symptoms came up magically after that diagnosis. No, it is that they came in with symptoms that suggest AIDS (such as PCP), and was then tested and determined to have low CD4+ count and HIV+ with high viral load. This means that the AIDS like symptoms came before the diagnosis of AIDS, which makes them rather difficult to attribute to the diagnosis.

The question is if this is the timeline that actually happened, which there appears to be some dispute about but as usual AIDS rethinkers try to push the conversation in a new direction without answering questions.

Posted by: apy | September 21, 2007 10:29 AM

The claim is not that someone came in with a runny nose and was diagnosed with AIDS

Yes, in a certain way it’s exactly that. But if you wish you can replace runny nose with anything you want, it doesn’t matter. What matters is that there’s absolutely no way you can tell who has AIDS and who has not. HIV tests are worthless because you don’t know what exactly HIV is and have never found exactly what you think it is in a persons blood or elsewhere. Low CD4+ counts are worthless, so many people’s count are low. Starving people, people on chemo, etc etc.
Telling a person has Aids is just arbitrary. But it won’t make him or her fell better. On the contrary. It will make him or her feel terribly bad. Deny that, if you dare.

Posted by: jspreen | September 21, 2007 10:51 AM

Yes, in a certain way it’s exactly that. But if you wish you can replace runny nose with anything you want, it doesn’t matter.

No, it’s completely different. One is saying someone comes in with an illness, gets diagnosed with another illness and comes down with the symptoms of the other illness. The other is saying someone comes in with the symptoms of an illness, and is diagnosed with it.

Telling a person has Aids is just arbitrary.

No, it is based on a series of tests that give specific results and these results are then used to determine if someone has a particular disease. You can disagree with the tests if you desire, but the diagnosis is based off these tests, not arbitrary.

Posted by: apy | September 21, 2007 10:56 AM

No, it is based on a series of tests that give specific results

Specific results, certainly, but specific for what, you can’t tell.

Diseases have not changed, what you call “AIDS symptoms” is nothing new but before nobody called them “AIDS symptoms”. In the olden days people where ill, more or less severely. But today self-proclaimed experts, who know nothing about the answer to the question “What is life”, dare tell people “You have one month/ten years” to live. They act as if they were God but they don’t know shit about how many hours/weeks/monts/years a man has yet to go.

Posted by: jspreen | September 21, 2007 11:21 AM

Diseases have not changed, what you call “AIDS symptoms” is nothing new but before nobody called them “AIDS symptoms”.

So it is your belief that all diseases have come to their final resting point in terms of what they do and how?

Is it fair to come to the conclusion that you do not believe in evolution as well?

Posted by: apy | September 21, 2007 11:27 AM

apy,

Spreen doesn’t know the first thing about HIV or infectious disease, and he refuses to learn. Your logic falls on deaf ears. He doesn’t understand that it was precisely the massive increase in PCP cases that alerted the medical community to the presence of a new problem almost 30 years ago.

Bergalis displayed typical acute phase symptoms in 1987 and then became sick again in early 1989. She had candidiasis. For months, she was constantly sick, weak, and losing weight until she finally was forced to enter the hospital. She was treated for pneumonia and the doctors discovered that it was PCP. Only at this point did anyone propose a test for HIV. The test was positive.

Here’s how Duesberg describes Bergalis’ health on page 349 of “Inventing the AIDS Virus”:

“…a brief pneumonia that December sent her to the hospital, where the doctor decided out of the blue to test her for HIV. As chance would have it, she had antibodies against the virus.”

Distorting further, Duesberg continues

“Up to this point, none of her occasional diseases differed from the common health problems many HIV-negative people encounter.”

A “life-threatening bout” of PCP (to quote the New York Times of 9 Feb 1991) becomes a “brief pneumonia” and a “common health problem” in Duesberg’s hands. Faced with an AIDS-defining illness in a patient with no apparent risk factors, any competent doctor would test for HIV…to Duesberg, this is “out of the blue.” Only by “chance” did Bergalis have “antibodies” to HIV…and Duesberg ignores Bergalis’ positive PCR results.

Duesberg’s version of the Bergalis case, like most of what he has written on HIV, is an embarassment to UC Berkeley and to science in general.

Posted by: ElkMountainMan | September 21, 2007 11:27 AM

So it is your belief that all diseases have come to their final resting point in terms of what they do and how?

Of course. But if you introduce new elements in the system you may have the impression that something has changed. Like car accidents were quite rare in the middle ages. But the broken bones are the same, whether you were hit by a horse, an axe or a car. Today people see things they never saw before, with a electronic microscope for instance. But what they see is not new.
Isn’t it remarkable, the virus-shit hitting the fan just now we can have a closer look to microbes? Millions of years have past by but HIV waited for modern techiques and chose 1981. Of course. Like no TV stars before the 2Oth century.

Posted by: jspreen | September 21, 2007 11:40 AM

Well you put me in my place!

Posted by: apy | September 21, 2007 1:17 PM

I guess it is of no use whatsoever to point out to the denialist crowd a nice review article that came out recently in Immunity, about HIV Controllers, and mechanisms of durable virus control in the absence of antiretroviral therapy (Immunity, Volume 27, Issue 3, 21 September 2007, Pages 406-416 by Steven G. Deeks and Bruce D. Walker). The denialists and crazy conspiracy theorists won’t be convinced by any rational argument anyway, but long-term survivors like Noreen may understand better that they happen to belong to a small, but extremely fortunate, subset of HIV infected people, in whom in vivo attenuation of the virus, host genetics and innate immunity – singly or in combination – may provide the benefit of long-term survival, even without anti-retrovirals. It is a pity that Noreen has decided to join the throng of the denialists, but in reality, studying people like her – the so-called HIV controllers – offers an excellent and exciting opportunity to understand the nuances of the physiological defences and therapeutic options against HIV infection and AIDS.

Posted by: Kausik Datta | September 21, 2007 1:24 PM

ElkmountainMan,

You’re a fucking idiot and a poseur. You entirely ignore the FACT that Kimberly Bergalis was treated with AZT, and complained about it. Here’s her testimony to Congress

“I have lived through the torturous acne that infested my face and neck, brought on by AZT. I have endured trips twice a week to Miami for three months only to receive painful IV injections. I’ve had blood transfusions. I’ve had a bone marrow biopsy. I cried my heart out from the pain.” (Lauritsen, AIDS War, Page 324.)

The toxic cancer chemo, AZT, that Duesberg was right to decry, was used to kill the first generation of AIDS patients, most of which were young gay men. Little Kimberly — the only person in the world to allegedly get HIV from a dentist(!) was a nice, little casualty that helped scare small-town America (everyone is at risk!) and grease the wheels of government funding.

Posted by: Ben Gorman | September 21, 2007 2:02 PM

Ben,

Nobody is ignoring Kimberly Bergalis’s treatment with AZT. The only ones ignoring the facts are the Denialists, who continue to ignore that Bergalis had a severe immune deficiency with Pneumocystis pneumonia prior to being diagnosed with AIDS and prior to being treated with AZT.

You are so lacking in compassion and ignorant of the facts that as you mock her you claim Bergalis’s case was unique:

Little Kimberly — the only person in the world to allegedly get HIV from a dentist(!) was a nice, little casualty that helped scare small-town America (everyone is at risk!) and grease the wheels of government funding.

To you AIDS victims are objects of scorn simply because their deaths are the inconvenient reality that you are so desperately trying to deny. The facts mean nothing to you:

The Associated Press, Sat, 17 Dec 94

Dentist AIDS Victim Dies

STUART, Fla. (AP) — The fourth of six people infected with the AIDS virus by a dentist died Saturday. Barbara Webb, 68, slipped into a semi-coma earlier in the week, according to Hospice of Martin. She died on her 45th wedding anniversary to her husband, Robert. “She was never bitter about her death,” said hospice counselor Pam Jett. “She didn’t dwell on the future, she lived in the present.” Two years ago, a federal study concluded that six of Dr. David Acer’s patients contracted HIV from him. Scientists are baffled as to precisely how Acer transmitted the virus. Acer, of Jensen Beach, Fla., died in 1990. He is the only health professional ever known to have transmitted HIV to his patients. Among those infected was Kimberly Bergalis, who waged a crusade for mandatory testing of health care workers before she died in December 1991. Webb, a former high school English teacher and grandmother of eight, gave dozens of speeches nationwide about living with AIDS. She was the teacher of the year in 1986-87 at Martin County High School. Webb is survived by her husband and three grown children.




Posted by: Franklin | September 21, 2007 2:56 PM

Ben,

Do you deny that Kimberly Bergalis had experienced profound weight loss, a life-threatening bout with PCP, and candidiasis, in addition to many other health problems, all before being tested for HIV? And that her CD4+ T-cell count was depressed before she took AZT?

These are all matters of public record. As are the problems with AZT monotherapy, problems that I don’t deny.

AZT can cause anemia, and it can cause myopathy. It can also cause depletion of neutrophils. None of these is on its own an AIDS-defining condition.

Posted by: ElkMountainMan | September 21, 2007 3:18 PM

Franklin, please do EXPLAIN to us, just how a dentist transferred his own strain of your beloved HIV to six of his patients.

Two years ago, a federal study concluded that six of Dr. David Acer’s patients contracted HIV from him. Scientists are baffled as to precisely how Acer transmitted the virus.

Baffled? BAFFLED???? STILL FREAKING BAFFLED?????? Only the simplest of minds could yet be baffled by this.

What is so baffling about scaring six people plus the dentist into taking and dying of high dosage AZT monotherapy iatrogenic poisoning in the late 80s?

Poor baffled and conflict of interest laden Franklin, please unbaffle us so we can rejoin you and the rest of the the faithful believers in HIV.

Franklin, you must explain this great mystery of life to us.

Now tell us. How did the naughty disgusting HIV infected bad ole boogeyman dentist transfer HIS OWN STRAIN OF HIV to his patients?

Did he have anal sex with his patients including the grandma?

Did he have his dental instruments up his ass just before cleaning their teeth?

Did he drool blood into their mouths?

Did he fail to sterilize his bloody instruments that he must have just used on himself to have transmitted his own supposed virus to the patients?

Until you explain how Acer transmitted the virus to 6 of his patients over a vast period of time, you are to be considered nothing but a cornflake swirling through the clouds of a still mass hysteria driven false belief system.

The indisputable fact is that HIV fails every scientific test to be called the cause of AIDS, including Koch’s Postulates, Farr’s Law, the first epidemiological law of viral and microbial diseases, cluster formations, and
even the definition of the word ‘infectious’ itself – tried and true criteria that have been in use in medical research for decades, but are now discarded to support the theory that HIV=AIDS.

Posted by: Michael | September 21, 2007 3:20 PM

but long-term survivors like Noreen may understand better that they happen to belong to a small, but extremely fortunate, subset of HIV infected people,

Ha! Ha! Ha! The guy just realized that a person like Noreen is one of the pillars of the Aids rethinkers movement so now he smears honey all around to attract her over into his camp.

. . . Extremely fortunate . . . Ha! Ha! Ha! In a certain way you’re right but it has a lot more to do with being intelligent than with being fortunate. OK, you’re right. Noreen is fortunate to be intelligent. But I bet that that was not what you meant to say.
Anyway, all HIV-deniers are intelligent. Being intelligent is the most important criterium to become a denialist. Being a HIV-denier means you’re part of the few against herds of nerds. Didn’t you know?

Posted by: jspreen | September 21, 2007 3:22 PM

Franklin, please do EXPLAIN to us, just how a dentist transferred his own strain of your beloved HIV to six of his patients.

Two years ago, a federal study concluded that six of Dr. David Acer’s patients contracted HIV from him. Scientists are baffled as to precisely how Acer transmitted the virus.

Baffled? BAFFLED???? STILL FREAKING BAFFLED?????? Only the simplest of minds could yet be baffled by this.

What is so baffling about scaring six people plus the dentist into taking and dying of high dosage AZT monotherapy iatrogenic poisoning in the late 80s?

Poor baffled and conflict of interest laden Franklin, please unbaffle us so we can rejoin you and the rest of the the faithful believers in HIV.

Franklin, you must explain this great mystery of life to us.

Now tell us. How did the naughty disgusting HIV infected bad ole boogeyman dentist transfer HIS OWN STRAIN OF HIV to his patients?

Did he have anal sex with his patients including the grandma?

Did he have his dental instruments up his ass just before cleaning their teeth?

Did he drool blood into their mouths?

Did he fail to sterilize his bloody instruments that he must have just used on himself to have transmitted his own supposed virus to the patients?

Until you explain how Acer transmitted the virus to 6 of his patients over a vast period of time, you are to be considered nothing but a cornflake swirling through the clouds of a still mass hysteria driven false belief system.

The indisputable fact is that HIV fails every scientific test to be called the cause of AIDS, including Koch’s Postulates, Farr’s Law, the first epidemiological law of viral and microbial diseases, cluster formations, and
even the definition of the word ‘infectious’ itself – tried and true criteria that have been in use in medical research for decades, but are now discarded to support the theory that HIV=AIDS.

Posted by: Michael | September 21, 2007 3:26 PM

“You know it has oft been said that “the truth hurts”. Sometimes the truth hurts so much that people, or at least their egos, go right into escapism, denial, anger, humor, and a lot of other interesting but quite human egoic responses”

Oh the irony in that statement is just beautiful. Thanks Michael, I needed a good laugh.

Posted by: Jim | September 21, 2007 3:50 PM

Hey Elk. Same question to you as well?

How did the evil dentist transfer his own strain of HIV to 6 patients?

It is obvious to all but the deluded, upon looking at this very case, that only a hysteric and panicked mind could rationalize itself into believing or making anything sensible out of this.

Hey Elk, ever consider that in believing such nonsense yourself, that your overactive imagination is simply trapped by its own living nightmares that upon anyt rational inspection are obviously composed of completely irrational nonsense?

If you were deluded, how would you even know?

Certainly looks to be the case to me.

Until you figure it out, please do explain, along with Franklin, just how the doctor, over quite a period of time, gave six of his patients, including the Grandma Franklin presented above, his very own genetic strain of HIV?

Personally, I think the buttf**k option is the most intriguing and rational choice to me! But then again, I am gay!

Posted by: Michael | September 21, 2007 3:53 PM

Franklin and Elk,

after you finish explaining to us how the dentist gave six people his own strain of HIV, that was supposedly verified genetically by the wonder team at Los Alamos, then explain how HIV caused the Grandma: “Barbara Webb, 68, slipped into a semi-coma earlier in the week, according to Hospice of Martin”.

Do you guys, especially you, Dr. Franklin, the world renowned HIV researcher, get some kind of perverse cheap thrill, that the rest of us have not clued in on, in scaring lots of people, including little old grandma school teachers, to death?

Posted by: Michael | September 21, 2007 4:16 PM

Michael,

Let’s start with what we know about Bergalis. We know that Kimberly Bergalis was infected with HIV and died of AIDS.

How did Bergalis contract HIV? That, we don’t know. I don’t know, and neither do you. The CDC report found similarities between the virus recovered from Bergalis and other infected dental patients and HIV from the dentist, David Acer. These similarities were not found in other HIV+ persons in the surrounding community. Later reports disputed these findings. Acer’s insurance company and the referring insurance company both found the evidence for transmission convincing and settled suits with Bergalis.

But that’s not proof. I’m not sure if we will ever know how Acer’s patients were infected. Some have alleged that Bergalis herself was not a virgin, that she may have been infected during sex but refused to admit it for religious and family reasons. Maybe they’re right.

A motive for intentional infection by the dentist has also been suggested. James Dawes reports in Narrating Disease: AIDS, Consent, and the Ethics of Representation (Social Text, 43, 27-44) the concerns of Acer’s friend Edward Parsons. According to Parsons, Acer was frustrated with the public perception of AIDS as a “gay disease” and the resulting inaction on the part of the government. Acer once said something would only be done “when it starts affecting grandmothers and younger people.” Grandmothers like Ms. Webb, who died at 68? Younger people like Bergalis, who was allegedly infected at 19? If Acer indeed transmitted HIV to his patients, it was no accident.

I’ll agree with you on that, Michael. There’s no conceivable way for a dentist following proper procedures to infect a patient…other than injecting her with infected blood (or having sex with her, which the investigators ruled out…but who knows?). The motive appears to be present: Acer wanted to force a more effective government response to the spreading AIDS pandemic. But of course that doesn’t mean he really did it.

However Bergalis got infected, it’s a matter of public record that she developed several AIDS-defining illnesses before being tested, and that she died despite (not because of) subsequent medical treatment.

Here’s something you might be able to help me with, Michael: did Dr. Acer commit suicide? Media reports state that he died of AIDS, but word on the rethinker street (especially in the Chicago area) is that he killed himself, hounded by the media and government. Is this true? Are there any records? Thanks.

Posted by: ElkMountainMan | September 21, 2007 4:18 PM

Franklin, When did slipping into a coma become an AIDS defining illness due to HIV?

Posted by: Michael | September 21, 2007 4:20 PM

Michael,

You continue to heap scorn on the dead who are unable to defend themselves.

How that makes you feel better about the gravity of your situation is beyond me.

But as you said:

You know it has oft been said that “the truth hurts”. Sometimes the truth hurts so much that people, or at least their egos, go right into escapism, denial, anger, humor, and a lot of other interesting but quite human egoic responses

“Interesting” wouldn’t be my first choice to describe your “egoic response,” but then again psychopathology has never been a primary interest of mine. You are just a sad case.

Here is a serious discussion of the case of the Forida dentist, for any who are ineterested.

Posted by: franklin | September 21, 2007 4:26 PM

Ha! Ha! Ha! The guy just realized that a person like Noreen is one of the pillars of the Aids rethinkers movement so now he smears honey all around to attract her over into his camp.

Judging from the long stream of posts to noreen to have her explain how she comes up with her information and being either ignored or given some more copy&pasted website junk I would be hesitant to say noreen has done any thinking, much less rethinking.

Posted by: apy | September 21, 2007 4:34 PM

Elk. You said:

“Let’s start with what we know about Bergalis.”

Good idea. That means we empty our minds of all preconceived beliefs and start back at the beginning, and ADMIT, that in reality, we KNOW NOTHING FOR SURE.

Then you said:

“We know that Kimberly Bergalis was infected with HIV and died of AIDS.”

No Elk, you are jumping the gun here. You are putting the cart before the horse. In reality we DON”T KNOW such. You only “believe” such, and “presume” such to be true.

But your ego fails to allow you to view anything from such a perspective. See Elk, I really do understand you and how your mind operates.

Further down you even ADMIT that you do not know.

Then you go on to suspect the victim had sex with someone who just so happened to have HIV. Yet heterosexual sex is quite verified by Nancy Padian to result in HIV transference in less than 1 out of a thousand episodes. And for all we know, it is 0 out of a thousand, cause Padian noted zero transfer in sero-opposite heteros.

Then you want to jump, like a Mexican jumping bean, to accusing the dentist of intentionally giving people HIV. No proof, just your bit about someone said that someone said that Acer had motive to intentionally infect someone.

Yet, the simplest explanation, and by far the most rational, is that you sir, unbeknownst even to your own self, are seemingly quite delusional.

And if Acer did commit suicide, certainly it would be no surprise that he was driven to such, by those such as even your very own self, and others such as Franklin, and all those who pursue their “witch hunt” of unverified, unsubstantiated, unproven, and irrational accusations.

So which was it, Elk, was Kim a hooker, a drug addict, a slut,

or was she simply an emotionally overwrought stressed young women, as she herself admitted, who was already susceptible to illness, and perhaps even further susceptible to suggestion of death, and sickened by her own negative focus on what she believed was to be an inevitable death by AIDS.

Was the dentist really an evil heartless killer, or was he too falsely accused and driven to sickness or death, or even to suicide by being caught up in the frenzy of the witchhunt and frenzy of mass public hysteria at that time?

Now Elk, be sure to also carefully explain to us how HIV caused grandma to slip into a coma. Cause I swear, that the HIV retrovirus is so cunning, it can undoubtably jump through flaming hoola hoops while dancing, singing, and drinking a martini and all the while being actively involved in the cell by cell cellular destruction taking place in ones mind.

Posted by: Michael | September 21, 2007 4:50 PM

Franklin, ease up on the babbling, and simply explain the baffling.

Until you do, your very own words, “You are just a sad case” are gonna keep on commin’ right back atcha!

Posted by: Michael | September 21, 2007 4:56 PM

Apy, are you HIV+ or have you had AIDS? I would not be so fast to throw stones at others. I had AIDS so therefore I do have some experience in the matter. You believe studies yet some of you will not listen to those of us who have the disease. I have lived almost two years without the antiretrovirals and haven’t had one opportunistic infection. Therefore, I don’t need either side to convince me of anything as I am living proof that it can be done. So both sides can argue this until hell freezes over and I will not change sometime that is working quite well for me!

Posted by: noreen | September 21, 2007 5:01 PM

Michael,

You are misrepresenting what I wrote, just as Duesberg misrepresents the literature on AZT. I understand that what you’re going through must be very painful and stressful, so I don’t hold it against you. I would certainly rather see you vent your frustration on a weblog than act out the violence you’ve fantasized about in the past.

Please understand, though, that I won’t argue with an irrational person. I’m sorry.

Take care of yourself, Michael, and good luck to you.

Posted by: ElkMountainMan | September 21, 2007 5:23 PM

Elkmountainman,

You write:

Let’s start with what we know about Bergalis. We know that Kimberly Bergalis was infected with HIV and died of AIDS.

You are so fucking stupid it boggles the mind! Do you understand what the word “know” means? You don’t “know” either of those 2 things, for chrissake!

Here’s what “we” (I hate to lump myself in with you) know:

1. Kimberly Bergalis tested postive for antibodies, which are claimed to be uniquely associated with HIV;

2. Kimberly Bergalis developed some clinical symptons that are not unique to HIV

3. Kimberly Bergalis took toxic AZT, which required blood tranfusions.

4. Kimberly Bergalis died.

That’s what we know, Einstein. Now, you can begin your analysis.

I swear, Elkmountainman and Franklin have to be 2 of the dumbest bastards on planet earth.

Posted by: Ben Gorman | September 21, 2007 5:29 PM

Some of you don’t have a concept to what it is to be HIV+ or have full-blown AIDS. And adding gay onto the matter can only complicate the issue. I believe that Michael is on the right track about how the mind can affect one’s health. Being told that one is HIV+ or that one has AIDS is certainly devasting to most. Add the fact that one is labeled with a sexually-transmitted disease, an incurable illness and the worse part is that the doctor drills into one that if one misses one dose of medicine, one will die. One must be really strong to cope with all of these issues. Most aren’t and take the meds out of fear.

Even researching the matter, it took me awhile to be strong enough to stop them. It is not a decision that is taken lightly. I had to go with my inner feelings to who I believed was more right in the matter. One’s frame of mind is key to survival, whether one takes the meds or not. If one accepts AIDS as a death sentence, one’s chances of survival are not so good. I have done well because I do not believe that most diseases are incurable. I would have tackled cancer the same way, positive attitude, supplements, and good clean living.

Posted by: noreen | September 21, 2007 5:38 PM

jspreen:

The guy just realized that a person like Noreen is one of the pillars of the Aids rethinkers movement so now he smears honey all around to attract her over into his camp.

“This guy” is willing to give Noreen the benefit of doubt. She has been HIV+, is a long-term survivor not on retrovirals (as she has indicated), and “this guy” would like to hope that she understands the rarity of her situation and studies in greater detail about the possible mechanisms that lead to her good fortune (which is why “this guy” offered the link to the review article). In trying to be a “pillar” of the denialist crowd, she is eschewing that opportunity, which is a pity.

Most other denialists here are hopeless. Elkmountainman, you are wasting your breath. None of them understand the concept of AIDS defining illnesses; an example is Ben Gorman’s illogical post. All he had to do is put his (2) before (1), which would have represented the actual course of events. But no, that would upset his apple-cart, wouldn’t it?

I have worked with scores of patients of PCP, cryptococcosis, cryptosporidial diarrhoea, MA complex, recurrent salmonella septicemia, among others (all of which have come under WHO’s AIDS defining illnesses), and as a matter of routine, testing for HIV was recommended. Almost all of them turned out to be HIV+. Initiation of anti-retroviral therapy, along with supplemental anti-microbial therapy as necessary, saved the lives of many, many of these patients. HAART has changed the spectrum of our fight against AIDS across developed and developing nations, helping millions of people to live their lives despite HIV infection.

And I am expected to believe the ill-informed, misguided (often fraught with outright lies) denialist bullsh*t from a few crazy crackpots? They can live in their corner and wallow in their conspiracy theories for all I care. But that does not change the reality, the benefits of proper anti-retroviral therapy that can truly make a difference in people’s lives.

Posted by: Kausik Datta | September 21, 2007 6:17 PM

“Please understand, though, that I won’t argue with an irrational person. I’m sorry.”

Elk, dear boy, your ego is simply projecting again.

Are you really so sure that I am the one who is irrational here. Naturally, your ego would not allow you to consider for even a moment that you might be the irrational one. I do understand.

However, I am not the one who believes that the dentist mysteriously somehow either gassed his patients and had anal sex with them while cleaning their teeth, or that he had somehow intentionally murdered them. You are.

I am not the one who believes in a mysterious retrovirus as somehow causing 30 diseases while being found in one of 10,000 t cells and in only a few of the most severe of AIDS patients. You are.

I am not the one who believes that those who disagree with me and my beliefs should have constitutional amendments enacted to shut them up. You are.

Are you really so sure that I am the irrational one here?

Okay, whatever you say, cause if Elk says it, it must be true.

However, the case could very well be that You are the one who completely and unquestioningly believes in an irrational fantasy. Not I sir.

And now you are irrationally dreaming that I am in some way violent?

Well perhaps someday I will upturn the tables of the changemakers at the NIH’s temple of HIV/AIDS beliefs, but not yet at least. I usually wait until passover to do such things.

With Love and kisses, and good dreams to you and your ego,

Michael

Posted by: Michael | September 21, 2007 6:25 PM

Noreen, no one (particularly the much-maligned HIV researchers) has denied the effect of psychological status on health. The paper that Michael Geiger cited with great flourish simply says that certain psychological conditions, including depression, can suppress the overall immunity of the body. Studies like these have been around for quite some time, ever since the interface between psychology and sociology began to be explored better. Positive attitude and good, clean living (though I am not sure exactly what you mean by ‘good, clean’ living) are attributes which predispose one towards good health. But if you have an infection, just like any other infection, it needs to be treated – particularly an infection like HIV, which shanghaies body’s own defence mechanism.

By your own admission, you are a long-term survivor not on meds. Rather than using crackpot ideas to bolster an illogical hypothesis built on foundations of lies, wouldn’t you rather try to find out more about how exactly your body managed to ward off the virus? Doesn’t that prospect excite you at all?

Posted by: Kausik Datta | September 21, 2007 6:26 PM

Damn! Not psychology and sociology, I meant, psychology and physiology…
Must remember, preview is my friend…

Posted by: Kausik Datta | September 21, 2007 6:29 PM

Antiretrovirals can help when one is being attacked by many diseases as I had many of the AIDS defining diseases. I have been on both sides of the fence. The problem that I have with them is the long-term use or for the rest of one’s life use of them. Ideally, they would be used when the patient has symptoms, which may not respond to traditional treatments, then stopped when the patient has managed to restore health thus eliminating all the nasty side effects of these drugs.

Posted by: noreen | September 21, 2007 6:30 PM

God, this stuff is sickening, and the level of self-deception is amazing to me.

We had a family friend, a nurse, who was one of the first needle-stick AIDS victims in the country. She died with PCP, KS, and AIDS-related dementia. She was infected while nursing dying GRID and then AIDS patients in the days before AZT arrived. AZT was not killing those early patients she was treating – it was not yet being used.

I have an acquaintance who was at ground zero in SF in the early days of the plague years. He buried all his friends. All of them. Every one. More than 50. At least half of them died of GRID /AIDS before HIV was even identified, much less AZT was available. He himself nearly died before AZT arrived – AZT saved his life, then started failing, and he nearly died a second time before next-generation therapies arrived and saved his life a second time. AZT did not kill these people. For many of them, it hauled them back from the edge of death and gave them beck several years of life. For my friend, it is the first of several reasons he is still alive today – he was within a week or two of death before AZT pulled him back.

The ignorance of history is astounding. People were dying terrible deaths, with no known cause or treatment. Labs went looking for an infectious agent, which turned out to be HIV, because people were dying terrible deaths. When early AZT trials were successful, people were clamoring for the drug, and dying while waiting for it.

AZT monotherapy is a hard road. It is not a good drug to take. People who took it often found they could not tolerate it, or they recoiled from the side effects and bought into the woo and relied on crystals and cleansing diets and such – and when they discontinued AZT, they mostly then died of AIDS. HIV evolved resistance, and patients then died despite AZT. But the drug added years of life for a lot of people, and it kept some few of them alive long enough for the next generation drugs to extend their lives yet further.

To see the denialism, the self-delusion, the willful ignorance of history here, all of which denies the stark truth of these people’s stories… well, as I said, it sickens me. It is the reason I do not often comment on these denial threads. But this – for this I could not remain silent.

Posted by: Lee | September 21, 2007 6:34 PM

Ben,

Are you a solipsist? That would explain how we don’t really “know” anything. Truthfully, I never met Kimberly Bergalis, so I don’t really “know” she existed. I never met David Acer, so I don’t “know” that he existed. I have never observed the solar system from somewhere in the Kuiper Belt, so I don’t really “know” that the earth goes around the sun. I have never been to Alaska, so I don’t “know” that Alaska is real.

But back to reality…you claim that,

1. Kimberly Bergalis tested postive for antibodies, which are claimed to be uniquely associated with HIV;

Actually, Kimberly Bergalis tested positive for both nucleic acid sequences that are unique to HIV AND for antibodies to HIV-specific proteins. As you may or may not know, HIV proteins are encoded by those HIV-specific sequences, which are found only in HIV-infected people.

2. Kimberly Bergalis developed some clinical symptons that are not unique to HIV

Actually, Kimberly Bergalis developed several conditions that, taken together, are only found in severely immunocompromised individuals. Before being diagnosed with HIV, she almost died of PCP, a condition that was almost unheard-of outside of chemically immunosuppressed patients before the AIDS era. The challenge to you, Mr. Gorman, is to find a single person who is not a drug addict, a cancer patient, or a transplant recipient, but who displays all of Bergalis’ symptoms in the absence of HIV. Perhaps someone could even put up a $50,000 prize as an incentive for you!

3. Kimberly Bergalis took toxic AZT, which required blood tranfusions.

Your wording is vague, so I’m not sure what you’re getting at. AZT can cause anemia, depletion of neutrophils, and myopathy. These are not, by themselves, AIDS-defining conditions.

4. Kimberly Bergalis died.

Right. More specifically, she died of AIDS. Or are you perhaps a qualified pathologist who has reviewed her autopsy report and wishes to issue a “differential diagnosis?”

Posted by: ElkMountainMan | September 21, 2007 6:35 PM

I am not a non-progressor as I had full-blown AIDS. I don’t think that there is a label for persons such as myself who had full-blown AIDS, took the meds, came off of the meds and now I am healthy as ever. Doesn’t this strike you odd that someone who has a high viral load, CD4’s of 83 and is extremely healthy? How do you reconcile this according to the mainstream’s theories. This in itself goes a long way to prvoe that something is drastically wrong with this equation. Many are in the same boat as me and have stopped the meds and are fine.

Posted by: noreen | September 21, 2007 6:36 PM

No Noreen, you are slightly mistaken here. The symptoms that you mention (for example, the ones you had) are often related largely to the underlying super-infection. People have mentioned PCP and candidosis here. But there are many others. When HIV infection undermines the body’s immunity, it basically becomes a petriplate for diverse organisms (some which are normally avirulent) to grow and cause disease. Which is why it is also important to treat HIV infection at source, and currently anti-retrovirals (ART) are the best options we have for that purpose.

But I also agree with you that many individuals react adversely to ART, if not immediately, over a period of time. Not only ART, all pharmacological substances that one takes are processed by the liver, and pass through kidney. Therefore, these are the major organs that are always involved in drug metabolism. So, patients on ART need to be monitored from time to time for dysfunctions occurring in any of the major organs. Think about what happens in chemotherapy or radiotherapy; it also has certain side-effects, but they are mostly reversible.

However, the risk-benefit ratio analysis shows that since secondary symptoms of physical discomfort can be treated separately, it is much better to start an HIV+ person on ART than not. The point that you raise is a valid one, that researchers need to find out about further modifications (newer generations) of ARTs that may be more targeted, or interact less non-specifically, thereby causing less side-effects. But till scientific research (yes, the same research that is the bane of denialists’ existence) finds out a better alternative, the current therapies are our best available option.

The tapering off of dosages etc, that you mention are routinely done for many medications, including ARTs.

Posted by: Kausik Datta | September 21, 2007 6:45 PM

Noreen, if you can, please read the article whose link I provided in the beginning. Your idea of ‘mainstream theories’ may be a bit on the shallow side. Your condition, while rare, is not unknown. You did take the medications to begin with, right? So even if you are off them now, it may have had an initial effect. In vivo viral attenuation is known to happen in HIV, particularly in certain subgroups or clades of the virus. Don’t think that CD4+ T-cells are the only components of immune system that are affected by HIV or are involved in anti-retroviral defence. However, if you have persistently low CD4 (as you say), you do run the risk of getting secondary (and potentially fatal) infections. If by making certain lifestyle choices you can ward those off, well and good, and good-luck to you.

But that does not discount the utility of anti-retroviral therapy to millions of HIV+ individuals across the world.

Posted by: Kausik Datta | September 21, 2007 6:54 PM

My own doctors do not “taper” off of medicines as you put it but it would seem to make more sense. I would disagree that radiation side effects are reversible as I have had that too. Think about this, we would never give radiation
and chemotherapy long term, yet we give chemotherapy to HIV persons this long term. This is what I have heartburn with, especially since there are better options out there such as, Low dose naltrexone. Don’t hold your breath on the drug companies pushing this harmless and effective drug though because the patent has long expired and much more money is made selling antiretroviral medication.

Lastly, I don’t believe that HIV is capable of all that it is given credit for especially since too few can be found in the patient in the first place.

Posted by: noreen | September 21, 2007 6:57 PM

Kausik Datta, I for one, am well aware of your work in India. What you fail to look at Kausik, is the co-factors of poor nutrition, poverty, hygiene, and emotions of helplessness, hopelessness, fear, guilt, shame, and other intense stress filled lives of those who you have treated or whose sera you have observed. You simply blame all of the problems on HIV, which if anything, is simply a co-factor, not a cause, in all of this.

Your eye is glued so intently to your microscope, even though it has never seen HIV, that you fail to see the greater picture of hopelessness, malnutrition, beliefs, and all else that first and foremost lies behind the susceptibility to PCP, cryptococcosis, cryptosporidial diarrhoea, MA complex, recurrent salmonella septicemia, among others.

Certainly it is wonderful that you have assisted in reaching out and treating these people. Certainly it is wonderful that you have successfully treated some of their infections with antibiotics, antifungals, etc.

It is unfortunate that they must come to you half dead, before you and they will see that serious changes are necessary in their lives and thinking to maintain life and health. Usually coming for treatment also means for most that they will be attended to with a better diet and better self care.

Certainly it is wonderful that for many people their belief in a magic haart pills to be taken forever to ward off death by HIV/AIDS assists them in being lifted out of their immune system destroying states of panic and fear and belief in imminent death.

However, this does not mean the HAART drugs are of any real or proven benefit.

Haart quite often works placebo-like, simply by removing their fear and by giving them hope…. At least until the toxicities of the haart drugs overwhelm them or destroy their livers or kidneys or hearts, or cause lipodystrophy or neuropathy or a multitude of other effects.

You fail to see that only by solving the greater issues of patients being scared to death, or by solving the effects of the list that I partially stated above of extreme emotional pain and poverty, will the origination of the entire problem be solved.

Posted by: Michael | September 21, 2007 7:00 PM

The reason that I am extremely healthy is that I eat right, exercise, normal weight, positive attitude, take supplements and LDN, which is the secret to warding off the horrible opportunistic diseases, which causes harm to AIDS persons. Stopping or curing AIDS is no great secret. Anyone can do it with a little work on their part.

Posted by: noreen | September 21, 2007 7:02 PM

Noreen, it is human nature that oftentimes, when situations tend to get the better of us, and there is no way to channel that frustration, we tend to let off steam by blaming something or the other. Very natural. Drug companies are often the targets of the ires of patients frustrated with an inefficient, careless, medical care system. I state clearly that I do not support the underhanded, sales-oriented, unethical practices engaged in by some pharmaceutical companies in the US (as have come to light in recent years); but it is also not all dark and evil skulduggery on that side. Pharmaceutical research is a very time-consuming tenuous task; each drug that you see on the market usually takes 12-15 years from bench to drugstore. These pharmaceutical companies have also given us some wonderful life-saving medicines – I hope you don’t forget that or discount that off-hand.

I don’t know of course why your doctor did not choose to keep you in the loop as far as the prescriptions are concerned. I can say, my own doctor always discusses my medications with me, talking about possible side-effects etc and how to deal with them. If there is some inadvertent side-effects, he is not averse to changing my medications accordingly. For any medication, there is always a possibility that it will act for you differently than it will for the next person, because human beings are similar, not identical – as you can understand. Usually, good physicians will interact with patients for all around therapeutic benefit.

But if you talk about beliefs – like not believing “hat HIV is capable of all that it is given credit for especially since too few can be found in the patient” – that is your prerogative, of course. However, is that your informed opinion? Are you aware that HIV has been isolated from almost all tissue types present in the body? Are you willing to discount the AIDS ravaged nations of sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia, where millions of people died of AIDS and AIDS-associated infections before ART in any form reached them? And that use of ART has drastically reduced the incidence of AIDS-associated infections?

Belief is well and good, Noreen. But do open your eyes and look around the world. If you need a belief system, let it be based on sound logic and rationality.

Posted by: Kausik Datta | September 21, 2007 7:17 PM

I have yet to have HIV isolated from my body. Having antibodies is not the same as having an active virus. Those of you who believe in HIV, surely you should look into low dose naltrexone, which has been successfully used to treat AIDS persons. Even if it has been isolated from the body that in itself does not prove that it causes AIDS.

Posted by: noreen | September 21, 2007 7:26 PM

Noreen, it saddens me to find you would rather stick to your irrational belief system than listen to reason. Ask Michael; if he has indeed gone through my work (as he says), he will be able to back me up on this one, at least. OPPORTUNISTIC INFECTIONS, once present, will not go away simply by positive attitude, supplements, and low dose Naltrexone. You would need to treat the infections with anti-microbials. A case in point: Vitamin C (espoused by the great Linus Pauling) is known to boost body’s immunity and is considered to possess antiviral properties. But if you are infected with a particularly virulent strain of the influenza virus (say, of the type that severely affects elderly people, or people with chronic diseases), you’d need to treat it to prevent lasting damage; just chugging vitamin C supplements will not help you. An infection, any infection, particularly in the setting of diminished immunity, needs to be treated. What is so difficult in understanding that?

And Michael… I am curious… How exactly do you know about my work? Are you relying on a simple PubMed search? Let me answer your points in the next post.

Posted by: Kausik Datta | September 21, 2007 7:30 PM

So I am irrational because of my beliefs and because I am healthy. You folks are irrational and cannot get beyond HIV and antiretrovirals. Duhh, LDN works to PREVENT the infections, of course if one has them then they would need to be addressed. There again, practice what you preach and do some reading about LDN before you condemn it.

Posted by: noreen | September 21, 2007 7:34 PM

Noreen, AIDS is a syndrome, a culmination of many detrimental situations that occur in the body as a result of a severely diminished immune system, and HIV is certainly a virus that attacks and affects the immune system in this way. That is why it is called ‘Acquired Immunodeficiency’. There are some genetic defects that can cause similarly severe immunodeficiency in individuals, but those are not considered AIDS because they are not ‘accquired’ in the same way.

Posted by: Kausik Datta | September 21, 2007 7:35 PM

So, it the same old argument, HIV causes AIDS, HIV cause AIDS, HIV causes AIDS. What if it doesn’t then what are you folks going to say? Did you know that Merck dropped its vaccination program for AIDS. Why hasn’t one been effective? Could it be that AIDS is basically a life-style, cumulative medical issues, environmental issues, etc.? It’s very possible and probable. That’s why more and more are dropping the meds and are living normal lives. If HIV was so deadly, then we could not do this.

Posted by: noreen | September 21, 2007 7:42 PM

Michael:

However, this does not mean the HAART drugs are of any real or proven benefit.

No, Michael, that statement is simply untrue. Work amongst AIDS patients in sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia (in both pre- and post-HAART era) has provided ample evidence for that. Please go through the relevant literature and look at the evidence yourself (not through hearsay, no matter who is telling you what) before you make these wild assertions.

Once again, Michael, none of the HIV researchers here have argued against psychological conditions that you mentioned having a profound effect on a patient’s physiology. But we are dealing with an infection (or multitude of infections) here, Michael. Wishing it all on psychological conditions is terribly naïve, as is thinking that the so-called booster of immunity, low-dose Naltrexone, will be an effective barrier against opportunistic infection in the setting of severe immunosuppression caused by HIV.

You seem to be intelligent, Michael (I am not condescending, just that I don’t know you beyond your blog handle), at least more cogent that most of the raving denialists here. Give a bit of thought to what I said about the infection scenario.

I cannot post any more tonight, since I have a prior engagement, but I shall check back this thread later.

Posted by: Kausik Datta | September 21, 2007 7:48 PM

No, Noreen, one major problem in failure of vaccination programs is HIV’s ability to mutate rapidly, and thereby change the target against which vaccination is going to work. If it had been a larger organism, say a fungus, bacteria or parasite, it would have been easier since there would be a number of targets to look for; if one did not work, possibly another would. But that is not the same with a relatively structurally simple (yet profoundly functionally complex) organism such as HIV.

What of Merck… Did you know that vaccines effective against HIV strains prevalent in the United States did not work as effectively against HIV strains prevalent in some parts of Southeast Asia? The virus’s functional complexity is amazing, and therefore, vaccination efforts are not going to be so easy to direct against HIV.

But wait, aren’t there people of your ilk who say vaccination of any sort is injurious to health?

Posted by: Kausik Datta | September 21, 2007 7:55 PM

If one checks out lowdosnaltrexone.org, there is information about the use of ldn to treat AIDS patients with it only and with a combination of drugs. This is not naive and it works. Many of us are using it without incident, contrary to what Kausik Datta believes. Also, a study is currently being conducted in Africa using only LDN to treat AIDS patients.

This wonder drug is being used to treat many diseases, which effect the immune system such as, cancer, chron’s disease, alzheimer’s disease, MS, autism, and so many more. It has been around for 25 years and is the best kept secret. However, more and more patients and doctors are learning about this drug and the great hope that it offers patients, especially those with incurable and chronic diseases.

Posted by: noreen | September 21, 2007 8:02 PM

Are you a solipsist? That would explain how we don’t really “know” anything.

No. I didn’t claim “we don’t really ‘know’ anything.” I claimed that YOU didn’t know the 2 things you asserted.

1. Kimberly Bergalis tested postive for antibodies, which are claimed to be uniquely associated with HIV;

Actually, Kimberly Bergalis tested positive for both nucleic acid sequences that are unique to HIV AND for antibodies to HIV-specific proteins.

She died in 1991. PCR was not widely used until Ho’s paper in 1993. So, I doubt they did PCR analysis before she died. HIV has only 9,000 base pairs. The human cell as 3 billion base pairs, about 8% of which is retroviral genes, long dormant.

You’re guessing here. My statement is correct.

2. Kimberly Bergalis developed some clinical symptons that are not unique to HIV

Actually, Kimberly Bergalis developed several conditions that, taken together, are only found in severely immunocompromised individuals.

Do you read English? She had clinical symptoms that are not unique to HIV. That is a fact. I didn’t mention immunocompromised individuals. She may have been immunocompromised. I don’t dispute that. Do you not understand the difference between “effect” and “cause”?

Before being diagnosed with HIV,

Do you not understand the distinction between virus and anti-bodies? Being diagnosed with anti-bodies, doesn’t equate with HIV infection. There’s no evidence they cultured the virus from her. So, you, again, are sloppy and inaccurate.

The challenge to you, Mr. Gorman, is to find a single person who is not a drug addict, a cancer patient, or a transplant recipient, but who displays all of Bergalis’ symptoms in the absence of HIV. Perhaps someone could even put up a $50,000 prize as an incentive for you!

Easy. (NEJM, 1993) Please send the 50K to your Momma.

3. Kimberly Bergalis took toxic AZT, which required blood tranfusions.

Your wording is vague, so I’m not sure what you’re getting at. AZT can cause anemia, depletion of neutrophils, and myopathy. These are not, by themselves, AIDS-defining conditions.

The second clause may be a bit vague, so I’ll just repeat what Kimberly said about AZT.

“I have lived through the torturous acne that infested my face and neck, brought on by AZT. I have endured trips twice a week to Miami for three months only to receive painful IV injections. I’ve had blood transfusions. I’ve had a bone marrow biopsy. I cried my heart out from the pain.” (Lauritsen, AIDS War, Page 324.)

Also, your list of AZT side effects is deliberately under-inclusive, which makes you dishonest. Here’s the current package BLACK BOX WARNING from AZT.

“WARNING: Retrovir (Zidovudine) has been associated with hematologic toxicity including neutropenia and severe anemia particularly in patients with HIV disease. Prolonged use of Retrovir has been associated with symptomatic myopathy. Lactic acidosis and severe Hepatomegaly with steatosis, including fatal cases have been reported with the use of nucleoside analogues, alone or in combination.”

4. Kimberly Bergalis died.
Right. More specifically, she died of AIDS.

Have you heard of “affirming the consequent.” She died. We agree. Idiotic scientists and politicians, however, ignored the terrible, fatal effects of AZT that killed her, and instead blamed her death on AIDS.

Posted by: Ben Gorman | September 21, 2007 8:32 PM

Oh Jesus Jiminy Christmas! – Here we go round the mulberry bush. I SEEN it a coming!

“RARE”

“like to hope that she understands the rarity of her situation”

“Noreen may understand better that they happen to belong to a small,….” “Your condition, while rare, is not unknown..”

BULL SHIT!

How the hell do they know? Truth is they don’t! Can anyone remind these morons of the huge disparity in numbers of whats reported as to how many are supposedly carrying the dreaded almighty virus VS the numbers under anti-HIV treaments?

Posted by: Carter | September 21, 2007 8:51 PM

Antiretrovirals can help when one is being attacked by many diseases as I had many of the AIDS defining diseases.

noreen, could you please explain to us your specific belief system here? Does HIV exist? Does it cause AIDS? Are ARV’s a good treatment?

Also, are you aware of how ARV’s work? You realize that the ARV’s are not attacking the PCP or the Karposi Sarcoma right? They are meant to attack the HIV, which makes your statement somewhat confusing.

Posted by: apy | September 21, 2007 9:31 PM

Right, Ben, HIV is just part of the human genome and nobody did PCR for HIV before 1993. How, then, did the CDC compare sequences from Acer, Bergalis, other patients of Acer, and individuals from the surrounding community who were HIV positive? Silly question, though; I’m sure you have an answer to paste from virusmyth.

Yes, and antibodies have nothing to do with HIV. Antibodies are just non-specific proteins floating around in everyone’s bloodstream.

I’m still waiting for your proof that AZT killed Bergalis…or anyone else, for that matter. Where are the cases of HIV negative AZT deaths?

Posted by: ElkMountainMan | September 21, 2007 10:52 PM

Ben,

Your utter disregard for the truth and for any standards of scholarship lead to the many fallacies sprinkled through your comments.

With respect to Kimberly Bergalis you state:

She died in 1991. PCR was not widely used until Ho’s paper in 1993. So, I doubt they did PCR analysis before she died.

You doubt? You doubt therfore you draw a conclusion?

What is the name for this logical fallacy? Is this the “ostrich fallacy” where the speaker makes up his mind and buries his head in the sand lest he uncover evidence that conflicts with his “doubts”.

Did you ever consider reading the actual papers that describe the evidence?

Ou CY, et al. (1992). Molecular epidemiology of HIV transmission in a dental practice. Science 256:1165-71.

Abstract: Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) transmission from infected patients to health-care workers has been well documented, but transmission from an infected health-care worker to a patient has not been reported. After identification of an acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) patient who had no known risk factors for HIV infection but who had undergone an invasive procedure performed by a dentist with AIDS, six other patients of this dentist were found to be HIV-infected. Molecular biologic studies were conducted to complement the epidemiologic investigation. Portions of the HIV proviral envelope gene from each of the seven patients, the dentist, and 35 HIV-infected persons from the local geographic area were amplified by polymerase chain reaction and sequenced. Three separate comparative genetic analyses–genetic distance measurements, phylogenetic tree analysis, and amino acid signature pattern analysis–showed that the viruses from the dentist and five dental patients were closely related. These data, together with the epidemiologic investigation, indicated that these patients became infected with HIV while receiving care from a dentist with AIDS.

Doubting is not enough. Criticial thinking requires that one also has to examine the evidence. In the future, please provide the evidence for your claims.

Posted by: Franklin | September 21, 2007 11:39 PM

for the newbies not informed of the dissidents views, here is a primer

This is a straw man argument Dr. Smith. I think what micheal was referring to is catastrosphic long term stress that accompanies an hiv positive test, nevertheless this “lonliness” argument does not represent the rethinker movement.

The main reason many credible scientists doubt hiv is
1) the lack of a relaible animal model, tons of chimps/mice were injected and they dont die of aids even after 20 years.
2) The lack of a carefully controlled study that would be designed to see if if hiv positive people with no other possible risk factors get AIDS, risk factors that include the cell killing chemotherapy drug AZT, coinfections w/ mycoplasma incognitus, catastrophic stress, intense drug abuse etc.

all the studies so far assume hiv is the cause of Aids, so they didnt do much to test gallo’s claim, if you want to prove me wrong please provide me with a study done by honest scientists that dont view dissidents as nazis that clearly states in the study aims ” a study to follow hiv positive people with no other risk factors to see if Gallo’s hypothesis is correct.”

3) the low amount of blood tcell infection, which is around 1/1000 t cells

4) The very low rates of transmission, the Padian study followed serodiscordant couples for years and who had all kinds of unprotected sex and there were 0 seroconversions!

5) most viruses cause the most havok before antibodies not ten years later, thats why we get vaccines………..the are some marginal exceptions, but exceptions are not the rules

Many more reasons. Lurkers should do a google search and see a film called hiv fact or fraud that explains the positions well, its free.

scientists that have doubted the hiv hypothesis at one time or another

Peter duesberg phd retroviral expert, California scientist of the year.

kary mullis phd Nobel prize winner, inventor of the PCR

Shyh ching lo md phd cheif of the infectious unit of the armed forces of pathology

Richard Strohman ucb mcb professor

Harry rubin ucb mcb professor

Walter gilbert nobel prize winner Harvard mcb professor

Lynn Margulis phd national academy of sciences member

many more………..

I would suggest people read a book called Project Day Lily, this microbe called mycoplasma incognitus killed every animal injected (Dr. Lo injected mice primates and they all died) a riveting book by garth and nancy nicolson phds found out how it was part of the biowarfare program, found in some AIDs cases and in CFS etc, google it and read a chapter for free.

Posted by: cooler | September 22, 2007 12:10 AM

Carter sayeth:

How the hell do they know? Truth is they don’t! Can anyone remind these morons of the huge disparity in numbers of whats reported as to how many are supposedly carrying the dreaded almighty virus VS the numbers under anti-HIV treaments?

Carter, you are amazing. Every time you open your mouth, is it with the express purpose of putting your foot in it? Truly, no one other than you and your ilk knows anything, is that it? Try a simple test – type in HIV Controller in PubMed and do a search. Can you do that? If you can, do take a moment to check out the articles; your doubts shall be cleared…

Oh, wait! It is all a grand conspiracy, right? Ah, well…

Posted by: Kausik Datta | September 22, 2007 1:40 AM

“Portions of the HIV proviral envelope gene from each of the seven patients, the dentist, and 35 HIV-infected persons from the local geographic area were amplified by polymerase chain reaction and sequenced.”

Criticial thinking? The above is science gone wild to the side of science fiction.
_______________________

ELITE Controller, HIV Controller? WTF is that? That’s just another “AIDS” boondoggle. A way to get rid of the LTNP problem, change the language and get support (money) into another dead-end of “AIDS” research.

All these crazy f–ked up contoller studies willfully are not and will not investigate the most obvious factor that separates “controllers” from the rest – they don’t take “AIDS drugs” – science gone wild yet again. Virus hunters all at it again desperately trying to find the gene responcible, which merely amounts to more lunacy.

I tend to think term Elite Controllers, or rather Elitist Conrollers define Tara et all.

Posted by: carter | September 22, 2007 3:18 AM

RARE? So you nit wits think LTNP, controllers, whatever are rare? like I said before thats bull shit!

The CDC estimates that 1.1 million Americans are HIV+, with 40,000 new cases and a little less than 20,000 deaths each year. This accounts for a quite stable figure, and in spite of varying definitions, there have been about 1 million HIV+ Americans for well over ten years now. Yet, only 250,000 take meds and of these it is said that it’s hard to keep them taking the meds. This leaves 750,000 HIV+ Americans who haven’t been taking meds in any given year, yet there is no upsurge in the number of ‘AIDS’ cases, which remains pretty steady at 250,000, and there have been fewer than 200,000 deaths in the past ten years. So we can pretty well accept that the figure is around 75% – yes, 75% – and the other 25% are indeterminate, because they’re on the meds.

Posted by: carter | September 22, 2007 3:23 AM

Apy, once again, I will state my position about AIDS. I do not believe that HIV is the cause of AIDS due to many reasons that the rethinkers believe and due to the fact that I have managed to survive nicely for almost two years with a high viral load, low CD4’s and no sicknesses.

My feelings on the antiretrovirals is that they should only be used when the patient has symptoms that are not alleviated by normal treatment options and as a last ditch option. Then, used temporary until the patient has restored one’s health.

I am not the exception to the rule as many HIV+s are waking up to the inconsistencies about HIV and are doing the same thing. Most are only less vocal about it. We realize that it is not necessary to poison our bodies and that AIDS is not a death sentence.

Posted by: noreen | September 22, 2007 5:32 AM

Carter Says:

“Portions of the HIV proviral envelope gene from each of the seven patients, the dentist, and 35 HIV-infected persons from the local geographic area were amplified by polymerase chain reaction and sequenced.”
Criticial thinking? The above is science gone wild to the side of science fiction.

No actual criticism of the methodology, results, or interpretation. No discussion of the actual evidence. Just a blanket statement that this is “science fiction”.

The ostrich buries her head in the sand.

On the other hand, for the umptheenth time Cooler direct us to “Project Day Lily”:

I would suggest people read a book called Project Day Lily, this microbe called mycoplasma incognitus killed every animal injected (Dr. Lo injected mice primates and they all died) a riveting book by garth and nancy nicolson phds found out how it was part of the biowarfare program, found in some AIDs cases and in CFS etc, google it and read a chapter for free.

Now, “Project Day Lily,” that is science fiction.

What does it say that the denialists prefer to base their arguments on science fiction over actual scientific papers? What do you think, Noreen? Would you like your health care providers to base your treatment plan on a science fiction book?

Perhaps this preference for fictionalization explains why Professor Maniotis’s fictitious “quotes” that he attributes to scientific papers have appeared on Denialist web sites for years–and continue to appear–without any of the regular users complaining about his fraud.

Posted by: franklin | September 22, 2007 9:46 AM

Noreen,

If you don’t believe that HIV causes AIDS, why do you advocate treatment with antiretrovirals “when the patient has symptoms that are not alleviated by normal treatment options and as a last ditch option.”

Do you only advocate antiretroviral as a “last ditch option” for AIDS patients–even though you don’t beleive HIV causes AIDS?

Or do you advocate antiretrovirals for all conditions that have not responded to “normal treatment”–say a myocardial infarction or pulmonary embolus?

Do you advocate antiretrovirals “as a last ditch effort” for someone paralyzed from an automobile accident who has not recovered the abilty to walk “despite normal treatment”.

If you don’t advocate antiretrovirals “as a last ditch effort” for these other conditions, what is it about AIDS that makes you think antiretrovirals might be appropriate for this disorder but not other illnesses that fail to respond to treatment.

Posted by: franklin | September 22, 2007 9:56 AM

When one’s immune system is basically non-existant and one is being attached by numerous viruses, such as hepatitis, Epstein Barr, etc. then to me it does make good sense to use these to try and save the patient’s life. We can go on the “first do no harm” premise but if we did then many more would die. Sometimes drastic situations call for drastic measures.

Posted by: noreen | September 22, 2007 10:03 AM

noreen:

I do not believe that HIV is the cause of AIDS

Antiretrovirals can help when one is being attacked by many diseases as I had many of the AIDS defining diseases.

You’ll have to explain this one to me noreen. If you don’t believe HIV causes AIDS then why do you think ARV’s would be useful in any way?

I had AIDS so therefore I do have some experience in the matter. You believe studies yet some of you will not listen to those of us who have the disease

So far you’ve taken your singular experience with AIDS and applied them to the entire population. Do I believe studies with a lot of people vs one single persons experiences? Yes I do. Especially when that person can’t even keep straight if they have been to Alive & Well website or not and don’t seem to be capable of researching a single concept on their own (really, Gallo pardoned by Bill Clinton? How trivial is that to verify and you couldn’t). You’ve shown yourself to be a completely untrustworthy source of information so I take anything you say with a grain of salt.

Posted by: apy | September 22, 2007 10:29 AM

Apy, all you know is what you read. You did not answer my question if you are HIV+ or have AIDS so why should anyone listen to your two cents? Antriretroviral drugs are not just specific to HIV and have other uses. In fact, I recently read where they may have some benefit for treating cancer. Whether I believe HIV causes AIDS or not is not the point in whether there is any benefit of these drugs. Where you don’t get it is when I state that they, along with other chemotherapy drugs, should not be a long-term fix.

Posted by: noreen | September 22, 2007 10:42 AM

Noreen,

So you think that antiretrovirals make sense

when one’s immune system is basically non-existant and one is being attached by numerous viruses, such as hepatitis, Epstein Barr, etc.

Do you advocate antiretrovirals for heart transplant patients who get sypmtomatic EBV infections while taking the immunosuppressive drugs needed to prevent rejection of the donor’s heart?

Do you advocate antiretrovirals for leukemia patients who get opportunistic infections because their bone marrow is unable to produce immune cells due to the leukemia or effects of chemotherapy?

Do you advocate antiretrovirals for viral infections in patients with DiGeorge Syndrome who are born without a thymus and therefore do not produce T-cells?

Do you think antiretroviral therapies would make any sense in these clinical scenarios, given that the patients are not infected by HIV and don’t have AIDS?

They have a “practically nonexistent immune system” and suffer from multiple viral infections–just not from HIV infection.

Do you advocate antiretroviral therapies for these immune deficient patients, or just for AIDS patients?

Posted by: franklin | September 22, 2007 10:44 AM

Some of the examples that you describe, such as heart tranplants patients who need immune-supressive medicines would not be a good canidate. I think that the antiretrovirls should be used to help full-blown AIDS persons, who usually have more than one AIDS-defining diseases, that is why their immune system is so weak to start with. Obviously, for instance, those with thrush would need fungal medications.

Posted by: noreen | September 22, 2007 10:59 AM

Noreen,

It sounds like you only advocate antiretrovirals for viral infections in patients with immune deficiency due to AIDS, not for viral infections in patients with other conditions that lead to immune defiiciency–such as DiGeorge Syndrome, leukemia, cancer chemotherapy, etc.

Why do you think antiretrovirals are appropriate for AIDS patients but not for patients with other immunosuppressive disorders?

Posted by: franklin | September 22, 2007 11:20 AM

Mainly because I do not know if they would work for these particular diseases or not. Probably, most would be reluctant to prescribe the meds off-label without good cause.

Posted by: noreen | September 22, 2007 1:52 PM

“No actual criticism of the methodology, results, or interpretation. No discussion of the actual evidence. Just a blanket statement that this is “science fiction”.

I’m sure you dont want me to cut and past the multitude of agruments against each and every single point. Why don’t you read Henry Bauer’s book, “The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory” McFarland & Company; 1st edition, June 30, 2007 ?

Posted by: carter | September 22, 2007 2:17 PM

Noreen,

Given that you “do not believe that HIV is the cause of AIDS,” what makes you think that there is good cause to prescribe antiretrovirals as a “last ditch” effort for AIDS but not for other conditions that cause severe immune suppression?

Posted by: franklin | September 22, 2007 2:25 PM

Carter,

Instead of just cutting and pasting why don’t you use your vast knowledge of the subject matter to give us a synopsis of the arguemnts against using DNA sequence comparisons to show that one sample of HIV is genetically similar to another. Then provide a link to your sources.

Posted by: Roy Hinkley | September 22, 2007 2:29 PM

Noreen writes about anti-cancer properties of ARV and also states,

Where you don’t get it is when I state that they, along with other chemotherapy drugs, should not be a long-term fix.

I think it would be great if somebody could test Noreen’s no “long-term fix” idea, especially in the context of her anti-cancer statement, by conducting a randomized trial.

How could we set up this trial? We could have a group of HIV-positive people who take ARVs continuously, and a second group who take ARVs only when their CD4+ T-cell counts drop below a certain level. Perhaps this second group would discontinue drugs when CD4+ T-cell counts go above, say, 350, and resume them when counts fall under, say, 250.

What outcomes would we expect if Noreen’s statements are correct?

We would expect that people in the continuous treatment group would be much sicker than people in the interrupted treatment group due to Noreen’s claimed toxic effects of unnecessary ARVs that should only be taken as a last-ditch measure. Both morbidity and mortality should be higher in the group that receives continuous “poison” compared with the group that gets these “toxic” chemicals only when they are very sick, as Noreen urges.

From Noreen’s anti-cancer claim, we would predict a lower rate of cancers in the continuous treatment group than in the “conserved” treatment group.

Does anyone know of such a study? Is anyone willing to perform a study like this? We really need to know these results to evaluate Noreen’s claims.

Posted by: ElkMountainMan | September 22, 2007 2:37 PM

Carter,

I think we may have identified the reason you are having so much trouble understanding the scientific understanding of the AIDS epidemic.

We are discussing the following paper:

Ou CY, et al. (1992). Molecular epidemiology of HIV transmission in a dental practice. Science 256:1165-71.

For some reason, you seem to think that the key to understanding the scientific evidence presented in this paper can be found in “Henry Bauer’s book, “The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory” McFarland & Company; 1st edition, June 30, 2007.”

Here’s a clue, if you want to understand Ou et al. (1992), you have to read Ou et al. (1992).

Study the methodology, examine the results, pay close attention to the logical arguments made by the authors and form your own opinion as to whether their arguments are supported by the data.

You seem to think that you can form an intelligent opinion about the science without ever reading the science–just by reading Denialist diatribes filled with distortions of the science.

Just bury your head in the sand, little ostrich.

Posted by: franklin | September 22, 2007 2:44 PM

A great study would be a group on LDN verses a group on the antiretrovirals. The interesting results would be the comparison of the blood and liver enzymes and which group had the most opportunistic diseases. Actually, there is one study being done in Africa but none in other parts of the world. It is generally assumed that antiretrovirals are the only treatment for AIDS. Now, there are enough people who LDN to perform such a study.

Posted by: noreen | September 22, 2007 2:46 PM

Noreen,

To say that your stance on HIV and ARVs puzzles me would be an understatement.

How do you explain your high HIV viral load and low CD4 count prior to HAART, reduction of HIV viral load to 0 and increase in CD4 to 240 while on HAART, then after quitting your medications your HIV viral load shot straight back up to 100,000 and CD4s have been dropping continuously to about 80 (I think you said).

For me it’s simple to explain. HIV was depleting your CD4 cells. HAART prevented HIV replication (hence the drop of HIV viral load to 0 while on medication), blocking HIV from killing more CD4s allowed CD4 cell counts to rise while on HAART. Then, after stopping HAART, HIV was again able to replicate (hence the HIV viral load of 100,000) and CD4 cells began to be depleted by the large amounts of HIV in your bloodstream.

I’m glad you feel well and that you have no Opportunistic Infections. I hope LDN does work. But as long as HIV continues to replicate in your body and your CD4s continue to fall I don’t see how anyone can conclude anything other than that the standard theory of HIV/AIDS is correct and that as your CD4s continue to drop you are putting yourself at risk of new Opportunistic Infections.

Posted by: Roy Hinkley | September 22, 2007 2:46 PM

Wait! I just remembered a paper I just read in the journal “AIDS.” Conveniently, it answers all of the questions in my previous comment.

Silverberg MJ et al, “Risk of cancers during interrupted antiretroviral therapy in the SMART study,” AIDS, Sept 2007; 21(14), 1957-63.

Silverberg et al examine cancer rates in a randomized trial. One arm of the trial involves continuous use of antiretroviral drugs. The other allows CD4+ T-cell counts to direct the use of therapy. When the count rises above 350, therapy is discontinued. When the count falls below 250, therapy is resumed.

For participants on continuous therapy, viral loads are lower and CD4+ T-cell counts are consistently higher than for participants in the interrupted arm. By these measures, the continuous therapy is better for one’s health than interrupted therapy. Our prediction based on Noreen’s “last-ditch” comment is not validated by this study.

What about general health, since Noreen and other rethinkers dispute the validity of viral load and CD4+ T-cell counts? In this cohort, confirming the results of numerous previous studies, opportunistic infections and deaths are higher in the interrupted arm than in the continuous arm. Keep in mind that this is a randomized study. Continuous ARV treatment is therefore a better strategy than discontinuous ARV treatment as advocated by Noreen for minimizing outcomes such as OIs and death.

What about cancer rates? Again, what we predicted based on Noreen’s comments is not seen. The non-AIDS cancer rates are similar between the two arms. The AIDS cancer rates, however, are six times higher in the group that takes ARVs on an interrupted basis–consistent with the drugs’ role in stopping retroviral replication and protecting against immune-system damage and resulting susceptibility to certain types of cancer that are closely influenced by immune system function.

In other words, for the average AIDS patient, going off HAART is much riskier in terms of mortality and morbidity than staying on HAART.

I don’t deny that some HIV-positive people do not need ARVs. The difficulty lies in identifying these people. The literature to date, however, suggests that those who follow Noreen’s advice–advice that issues from a study with an ‘n’ of one–and use ARVs only as a measure of last resort, are more likely to suffer health consequences including death than those who take ARVs continuously.

Posted by: ElkMountainMan | September 22, 2007 2:47 PM

The HAART can wipe out the “viral load” and secondly there isn’t a large amount of HIV in the body, it is a math. formula. Yes, CD4’s do increase with the meds but this does not necessary equal to health. I have had low CD4’s and be dying and have had low CD4’s for two years and I am perfectly healthy. So, overall, CD4’s are a bad measurement of health. Even oplympic athletes have had low CD’4 and are extremely healthy.

The problem with studies that you quote in regards to survival is that they do not take into account other factors such as, diet, health habit, supplements and certainly the positive effects of LDN. It is the combination of all of these that has maintained my health.

Even by most standards, one has to wonder how can she do it? I have found a better way than the HAART to help maintain my immune system and without the side effects.

Posted by: noreen | September 22, 2007 2:59 PM

Carter writes,

Why don’t you read Henry Bauer’s book, “The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory” McFarland & Company; 1st edition, June 30, 2007 ?

Why, Carter, do you assume that none of us has read Bauer’s book? Just as you assume none of us has read Duesberg, Maggiore, Hodgkinson, and on and on. To be honest, I haven’t read the whole thing, mainly because there’s a limit to the amount of amateurish ramblings of a non-expert I can stomach in a given month. But I’ve read enough to know that Bauer is just as wrong as Duesberg, if not as well-informed. This does let him off the hook, in a sense, since it means that he may not be trying to deceive his readers intentionally. But there is really no excuse for someone with scant knowledge of biology and statistics who writes a book claiming to bring down the entirety of HIV epidemiology. No, scratch that: HIV/AIDS science! That is the height of presumption. Who is this Bauer person, anyway, and why do you believe him, Carter?

Because you like his conclusions, I suppose, and you are just as scientifically unequipped as Bauer himself, unable to recognize his flaws.

Posted by: ElkMountainMan | September 22, 2007 3:07 PM

“I have had low CD4’s and be dying and have had low CD4’s for two years and I am perfectly healthy. So, overall, CD4’s are a bad measurement of health.”

You’ve also been deathly ill with AIDS defining OI’s while your CD4 cell counts were minimal haven’t you?

Have you ever had AIDS defining OIs with normal CD4 cell counts that you know of?

Anyway, it’s the continuously dropping CD4 cell count that concerns me more than a single static number would.

” Yes, CD4’s do increase with the meds but this does not necessary equal to health.”

Not only do CD4’s increase but the viral load drops from 100,000 to 0. Then after quitting the medications viral load jumps back to 100,000 and CD4’s begin declining.

These phenomena are exactly what the standard explanation of HIV, AIDS, and HAART predict. Aren’t they?

Posted by: Roy Hinkley | September 22, 2007 3:11 PM

Noreen,

Given that you “do not believe that HIV is the cause of AIDS,” what makes you think that there is good cause to prescribe antiretrovirals as a “last ditch” effort for AIDS but not for other conditions that cause severe immune suppression?

Posted by: franklin | September 22, 2007 3:26 PM

High viral loads and low CD4’s is the current definition for AIDS but what is alarming is that HIV-Negative persons have had high viral loads. It is difficult to know what an individual’s CD4’s were prior to HIV or AIDS. Many other illnesses can bring them down too.

There may be other conditons that the HAART could possibly help but this has not been studied or generally practiced. I may be one of the few rethinkers who believes that there is a purpose for the use of the HAART under certain conditions. I never stated that it did not help me only that I do not believe that it is wise to take it for the rest of one’s life. I was fortunate to learn about LDN and to have progressive doctors who also felt that it would benefit me.

Posted by: noreen | September 22, 2007 4:32 PM

Noreen,

I have not been able to find information about Olympic athletes who have CD4+ T-cell counts as low as yours…or even anywhere close. Would you mind giving me your source for this? I would really appreciate it.

A total of perhaps several hundred cases of CD4+ T-cell counts below 300 have been found in the United States since 1985 in HIV-negative persons who do not have any other obvious reason for immunosuppression. For many of these people, the dip is transient, but for some, it persists. HIV rethinkers suggest that these rare cases prove that low CD4+ T-cell counts are a “normal” phenomenon. They are not. Just because a cause has not been identified does not mean that the low counts are normal or without cause. People with unexplained CD4+ T-cell lymphocytopenia sometimes suffer from OIs that affect AIDS patients.

Low CD4+ T-cell counts are in no way “normal,” and anyone who has such counts, whatever the cause, has elevated risk of OIs and death. Noreen may consider herself an exception, but she should remember that her personal study has n=1, and the studies contradicting her collectively have n’s in the hundreds of thousands.

Posted by: ElkMountainMan | September 22, 2007 5:34 PM

Noreen,

It seems I have much to learn from you, as I can’t find credible information about HIV-negative people with confirmed high viral loads, either. I would appreciate it if you could post your source for HIV-negative individuals with high viral loads (that is, high levels of plasma HIV RNA). Has anyone made such a claim since reliable HIV RNA assays were worked out? Have you heard of any HIV-negative person who consistently has viral loads as high as your own?

Thanks in advance.

Posted by: ElkMountainMan | September 22, 2007 5:53 PM

We all have a lot to learn in regards to HIV. I first stumbled upon the fact that athletes have low CD4’s years ago. Off hand, I do not know what the source was. You see, I had many hundreds of pages about AIDS years ago when I was trying to sort all of this out. However, I questioned my infectious disease doctor about this and he admitted that yes it was so but they did not know why. Bear with me, I am sorting through three-hundred pages to get the info on HIV-Negatives and viral loads.

Posted by: noreen | September 22, 2007 7:00 PM

Surfing the net, I found that one study was performed in 1980, cited in a report to the Un Human Rights Commission presented by Project AIDS International showing that atheletes had low CD4’s, although not as low as mine. I also found this quote, “As in other studies, we found that survival was not influenced by demographic characteristics or CD4 lyphocyte count” Narasimham M et al. Intensive Care in Patients with HIV Infection in the Era of Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy.

“False positives occur with a RNA assay including the newer generation of viral load test.” Mendoza 1998.
Few labs will run a viral load test unless the patient is HIV-Positive because too many HIV-Negatives were having high viral load results. To rectify this problem, the CDC issued an order for laboratories not to run this test on HIV-Negatives.

You might wonder how can this happen? The probes and primers used in the PCR are not specific or unique to HIV. Most of the copies made by the PCR represent non-infectious viruses. Basically, we do not know what the PCR is measuring. If one tests positive on the HIV antibody test it is assumed that it is HIV on the PCR test. The CDC stated that the specificity and the sensitivity of the PCR has not been determined and is not known. Similarly, all manufactures of the HIV viral load have written disclaimers, not to be used as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV infection.

Both of these tests are routinely used and the patients health care is based upon them, even though they have their faults.

Posted by: noreen | September 22, 2007 7:53 PM

Henry H. Bauer is Professor Emeritus of Chemistry and Science Studies and Dean Emeritus of Arts and Sciences at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. He was born in Austria and educated in Australia. After researching electrochemistry at the Universities of Sydney, Michigan, Southampton, and Kentucky, he turned to general issues relating to scientific activity, in particular how to differentiate science from pseudoscience. He has taught both undergraduate and graduate programs in humanities and science and technology studies. Upon retirement from teaching at the end of 1999, he became Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration.

Bauer has challenged the HIV/AIDS hypothesis in several papers, based primarily on the fact that the data on HIV seroprevalence are incompatible with the notion that the HIV antibody tests are detecting a sexually transmissable virus.

You morons are starting to bore me.

Posted by: carter | September 22, 2007 8:28 PM

About the book
“Thanks to enormous funding for educational programs, the whole world ‘knows’ that HIV causes AIDS. But is what we know compatible with the facts? This book challenges the conventional wisdom on this issue. Collating and analyzing, for the first time, the results of more than two decades of HIV testing, it reveals that the common assumptions about HIV and AIDS are incompatible with the published data. Among the many topics explored are the failings of HIV testing, statistical evidence that HIV is neither sexually transmitted nor increasingly prevalent, and problems caused by the differing diagnostic criteria for AIDS around the world… But how could everyone have been so wrong for so long? This vital question, unaddressed in previous works questioning the HIV/AIDS connection, is central to this book. The author considers comparable missteps of modern science, and discusses how funding influences discovery in today’s scientific circles.”

Posted by: Carter | September 22, 2007 8:31 PM

It would be great to have ElkMountain, Tara, Franklin, and the rest of these zealots take some AZT on a daily basis for a month, and report to the group here, what it does to them.

Posted by: Milt | September 22, 2007 9:12 PM

Noreen, you have yet to tell us how you think ART helps in some cases of AIDS/advanced immunodeficiency. You imply that it helps manage infections. This is incorrect. There is some very inconsistent and unimpressive data that protease inhibitors have some in vitro effect against some fungal infections – but this is at concentrations well above what would ever happen in vivo.

Recall that ART is a mixture of drugs specifically designed to inhibit elements of the life cycle of HIV. So drugs have been designed/engineered to inhibit CD4/gp120 binding, inhibit CCR co-receptor binding, to inhibit fusion, to inhibit RT by analogue substitution as well as a specially designed configuration of inhibitor that attaches into the 3 dimensional “palm” of the RT enzyme, to inhibit viral integration into the genome, to inhibit proteases and other processes in virus assembly.

Each and every one of these drugs has shown lab and clinical effects in reducing viral levels and restoring immune function.

Why is this?

Is it possible for you to think the unthinkable, and dare to imagine that these drugs act against a virus, namely HIV?

These drugs should have no effect against other microbiological organisms – well certainly not the bacteria, fungi and parasites that afflict those with advanced HIV. Some of the drugs do have an effect against Hep B and are used to treat it (eg tenofovir, lamivudine, emtricitabine). You see, the researchers have looked into all this, extensively.

How come drugs like AZT (widely ridiculed as a “cause” of AIDS because it supposedly destroys people’s immune systems (according to denialist dogma) form part of successful ART regimens? How does giving a drug that should increase the susceptibility to infection actually reduce it?

Please think this through. Your own experience (n=1) amounts to very little. As others have shown, major studies such as SMART have conclusively demonstrated the greater risks that prevail if people stop therapy. Not only is there an increase in AIDS diagnoses, but an increase in liver disease and malignancy (yes, that’s right! – the drugs that supposedly destroy your liver and cause cancer actually protect HIV patients against these things).

I have no agenda except a desire to see people with HIV do the right thing, yourself included.

Posted by: DT | September 22, 2007 9:12 PM

Carter,

Let me give you a friendly tip: copying text without giving your source doesn’t exactly impress anyone. Did you copy that Bauer bio from Henry Bauer’s website, or from where?

Carter, Henry Bauer is no more qualified than you to write a book about HIV…well, except that Bauer is at least able to give sources for his quotes. Since the 1970s he’s been teaching “science studies,” a bunch of pomo nonsense about how science is dead. For lack of a better term, “science studies,” like most of the rest of what passes for philosophy these days, is mental masturbation. The influence of “science studies” on actual science and actual society is nil. I suppose its existence adds a bit to employment figures, but that’s about it.

A teacher of “science studies” who doesn’t know the first thing about virology is bound to make a fool of himself if he writes a treatise on how everything we know about HIV and AIDS is wrong. Predictably, Bauer makes a fool of himself in a grandiose way. I don’t believe Bauer understands how wrong he is, which is why I find him more amusing or pitiful than despicable, like certain more qualified scientists who know very well that they are trying to deceive people like you, Carter, who believe them in an understandable wish to deny your own health problems.

If you would like specific examples of the sort of head-scratching, eyebrow-furrowing inanity in Bauer’s writing, I will give you a few. But you’ve already wasted my time with Duesberg. Nobody responded to any of the many flaws that I along with Franklin, Chris, DT, apy, adele, and others I’m forgetting gave you from Duesberg’s writings. We gave you quotes, references, page numbers and everything, and it doesn’t seem that any of you even checked them. You certainly didn’t respond.

Carter, you and your friends here are hero-worshiping Bauer just like you hero-worship Duesberg: because what Bauer says soothes your fears and helps you deny reality.

Posted by: ElkMountainMan | September 22, 2007 9:13 PM

Noreen, RE CD4 counts in Olympic athletes:

Also surfing the net, I can find only indirect reference to this. You appear to have got your “evidence” from the Alive and Well site:

One study on Olympic athletes in the early 1980s (cited in a report to the UN Human Rights commission presented by Project AIDS International) showed their T cell counts averaged between 400 and 600.

A few other web references exist, all of them seeming to be extracts from denialist sites (one of which actually says the study was in 1984). Forgive me for being a little cynical, but where is the original paper? Can we read what it says exactly and in context, or do we (and you) have to rely on rethinker reinterpretation of the findings? Can you tell us the precise, specific source of your data on these athletes?

Also I would point out that the athletes have CD4 counts five times as high as yours. I am afrid that a count of 500 is not, as A&W put it, “facing imminent illness and death”. Most labs have 500 as the lower limit of normal. This means that between 2.5% and 5% of normal healthy HIV-uninfected people will have a count below this level.

About 15 years ago I was a volunteer in a lab study looking at CD4 variability through the day and from day to day. My counts ranged from 400 to 700. Hardly evidence HIV does not cause AIDS, I would have thought.

Posted by: DT | September 22, 2007 9:31 PM

Noreen,

Thank you for looking up those references for me. I would give you the same advice I gave Carter: when you get your information from a website, please tell us what that website is.

You wrote,
Surfing the net, I found that one study was performed in 1980, cited in a report to the Un Human Rights Commission presented by Project AIDS International

Noreen, can you tell us honestly which websites you visited to find this report, along with the quote and the Mendez et al study?

Please, Noreen, remember that these websites are giving you only a small portion of the big picture. They are filtering out all of the data that disprove their pre-selected fantasies about HIV and AIDS.

In truth, there are hundreds of studies about the effects of various types of exercise on CD4+ T-cell counts and other immune parameters. Not just one report from the early 1980s that a “rethinker” organization reportedly sent to the UN. Endurance athletes at the Olympic level are in effect torturing their bodies; there are consequences for the immune system. Some do have transient dips in peripheral blood CD4 counts. However, I have not seen any reports of an HIV-negative athlete with a CD4 count below 200. Have you, Noreen?

As for CD4 counts, they of course have a relation to general health! I’m not sure where you got this quote, but please remember that rethinker websites often take quotes out of context. They will only present quotes and data they “agree” with, even if that means a bit of distortion.

Noreen, I don’t have the time right now to address your comments on viral load measurements and “non-specific” primers, other than to say that you are absolutely and completely wrong on this. The primers and probes used in these assays do not bind to anything in the human genome. False positive samples are usually not reproducibly positive, and are the result of laboratory errors. Noreen, I really don’t wish to come across as pompous, but Matt Irwin and others you rely upon for your information are flatly wrong, and I encourage you to consult with a knowledgeable, non-partisan doctor to learn about the viral load assay and how it applies to you.

Posted by: ElkMountainMan | September 22, 2007 10:16 PM

“The probes and primers used in the PCR are not specific or unique to HIV. Most of the copies made by the PCR represent non-infectious viruses. Basically, we do not know what the PCR is measuring. If one tests positive on the HIV antibody test it is assumed that it is HIV on the PCR test.”

I would really love to see a source for this gem. Do you even know how PCR works and how one designs the primers and probes used? In case you didn’t know:

We have the sequence of the human genome:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/291/5507/1304
and thousands of sequences from HIV isolates:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?term=human%20immunodeficiency%20virus&cmd=Search&db=nuccore&QueryKey=1

I’m sure we have the ability to form primers and probes unique to HIV. If you don’t believe me, find an alighnment program (they are available online for free) and take the time to check the available HIV sequences against the human genome if you don’t believe it’s true.

As an undergrad I worked in an HIV lab and regularly performed PCR reactions to detect various forms of the HIV genome in infected cells. And guess what, in uninfected cells I never detected HIV but I always detected HIV in infected cells. Don’t believe me? Go to a lab, infect some cells and perform PCR with HIV specific primers and see for yourself.

Posted by: Jim | September 22, 2007 10:23 PM

Hello, DT welcome back! DT how can you argue with a perfectly healthy human being? If I were not HIV-Positive, we would not be having this conversion. I am not the only HIV+ who is doing the same as many have contacted me. It is you who is stuck with this study and that study, which may have some valid points but does not represent the entire HIV population. I would expect more inquistive questioning from some one who is suppose to be scientifically minded. Instead, from most, I get the same old gloom and doom reports, who try to instill fear back into the equation. Well, at least my doctors are following me in amazement and will have to address the obvious, maybe the patient knows better how to deal with this than the same old routine of antiretrovirals.

Posted by: noreen | September 22, 2007 10:27 PM

The CDC estimates that 1.1 million Americans are HIV+, with 40,000 new cases and a little less than 20,000 deaths each year. This accounts for a quite stable figure, and in spite of varying definitions, there have been about 1 million HIV+ Americans for well over ten years now. Yet, only 250,000 take meds and of these it is said that it’s hard to keep them taking the meds. This leaves 750,000 HIV+ Americans who haven’t been taking meds in any given year, yet there is no upsurge in the number of ‘AIDS’ cases, which remains pretty steady at 250,000, and there have been fewer than 200,000 deaths in the past ten years. So we can pretty well accept that the figure is around 75% – yes, 75% – and the other 25% are indeterminate, because they’re on the meds.

If the median CD4 count at initiation of HAART is about 200 and the median time from infection to AIDS is about 10 years then what percentage of people would be expected to be on HAART?

Posted by: Chris Noble | September 22, 2007 10:38 PM

Are any of the Deniers still denying that Kimberly Bergalis had severe candidiasis, weight loss, hair loss and almost died from PCP before she was tested for HIV and was severely ill before she was ever prescribed AZT?

I’m getting sick of going through the exact same points every few months.

Posted by: Chris Noble | September 22, 2007 10:56 PM

“Well, at least my doctors are following me in amazement”

Maybe they’re following you in amazement because you have something to teach us about the complex interactions between a pathogen and its host. You seem to be lucky enough to have factors that make HIV infection different from the norm.

“and will have to address the obvious, maybe the patient knows better how to deal with this than the same old routine of antiretrovirals.”"

You don’t think it’s arrogant as hell to think you know more than someone who’s made it their life’s work to study HIV?

Posted by: Jim | September 22, 2007 11:08 PM

yeah experts hacks like gallo announced a plague to the public without any published evidence, then a week later we found out about his partial barely detectable correlation with no animal model, not one study since designed to confirm his sorry hypothesis, you cant confirm something you already beleive to be true, so where left no evidence at all, besides Gallo’s flimsy paper. His failed cancer virus turned into the AIDS virus overnight.

If im wrong please provide me with a scientific paper that states ” an experiment to test whether or not hiv is the cause of AIDS, to examine Gallo’s claim” Cant find it, bc it does not exist, they all had to assume it to be true.

“Experts” will say anything especially if the government is behind it, If gallo and heckler came out and said “mycoplasma” is the cause of AIDS you guys would be parroting that in Orwellian fashion.

Experts have a tendancy to follow the states propaganda, they did in Stalins Russia, Orwells 1984, Nazi Germany, and the AIDS apologists are doing it now, thank god more and more experts are speaking out like Margulis and Pollock, and this consensus you people gloat about evaporating.

Your consensus is manufactured consent ie, if experts heard both sides of the issue you artificial “consensus” would dissapear, youd be left with only a few crackpot scientists like moore/wainberg drinking the hiv kool aid. If you hear only one side of an issue you tend to believe it.

For lurkers
See hiv fact or fraud google it

Read project day lily to find out about the mycoplasma incognitus biowarfare program, a microbe that shyh ching lo killed every animal he injected with, dr garth nicolson found out it was part of the biowarfare program, a true story slightly fictionilized to stay out of court, rave reviews from several scientists, including a nobel laurete.

Project Day lily google it. read a chapter for free

Posted by: cooler | September 23, 2007 12:48 AM

….you cant confirm something you already beleive to be true…

Huhhh?

Posted by: Chris Noble | September 23, 2007 1:02 AM

“Experts have a tendancy to follow the states propaganda, they did in Stalins Russia, Orwells 1984, Nazi Germany…”

Did you just cite a work of fiction as an example of how real experts tend to follow “the states propaganda”?

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | September 23, 2007 1:03 AM

If the median CD4 count at initiation of HAART is about 200

Ah thank you Dr. Noble, for finally offering us your definition of “advanced stage AIDS”. Trust me I shan’t forget it.

Posted by: Epidemiology-LISA | September 23, 2007 1:06 AM

If i am already convinced a Black man broke into my house (when it could have been anybody) and all subsequent investigation was based on that essential premise, and failed to investigate any alternative scenarious, it makes the investigation flawed, for not considering alternative hypothesis.

If every study I conduct assumes as its premise a black man broke into my house, its fallacious research. IF YOU ALREADY ASSUME SOMETHING TO BE TRUE YOU CAN NOT CONFIRM ANYTHING, FOR YOU NEVER QUESTIONED THE PREMISE, and assumed it to be true from the get go, and were only looking for evidence to support your hypothesis, and would ignore evidence that didnt support your prexisting beleif that youd never abandon.

Posted by: cooler | September 23, 2007 1:32 AM

Trust me I shan’t forget it

If you are interested in anything other than rhetorical wordgames then you could attempt to answer the question I posed to Carter.

Your complete lack of any rational response to this post is also noted.

Does drug use cause AIDS

Posted by: Chris Noble | September 23, 2007 1:41 AM

IF YOU ALREADY ASSUME SOMETHING TO BE TRUE YOU CAN NOT CONFIRM ANYTHING, FOR YOU NEVER QUESTIONED THE PREMISE, and assumed it to be true from the get go, and were only looking for evidence to support your hypothesis, and would ignore evidence that didnt support your prexisting beleif that youd never abandon.

For the past 100 years every single experiment in aeronautics assumes that heavy-than-air flight is possible. Nevertheless these experiments all confirm this assumption.

Vaccine trials use the SHIV/macaque model. They all assume that HIV causes AIDS and yet they also provide confirmation from the reproducible AIDS produced in these animals. The experiments are not designed to test the theory and yet the results provide evidence that can only be ignored by people that are afraid to face reality.

Posted by: Chris Noble | September 23, 2007 1:52 AM

none of those studies were designed to test whether or not hiv causes AIDS, the asher study is a total fraud bc they viewed dissidents as nazis, If duesberg conducted a study and he came to the conclusion that hiv was not the cause of AIDS, everyone would say it’s invalid bc hes partial. Well same rules apply to hacks like winklestein etc

Im not asking for much, a study by honest scientists not tied to either side that would read” “in 1984 Gallo claimed hiv was the cause of AIDS, bc of the lack of a reliable animal model, we are going to conduct a rigorous epidemiological study to see if hiv positive people with no other possible risk factors such as AZT, Drug use, mycoplasma incognitus, catastrophic stress/mental illness develop AIDS at a higher rate compared to matched controls that are hiv negative.

Kind of pathetic you guys dont have one study like that………….just babble about macaque monkeys and siv, while ignoring virtually every other species of animal doesnt get AIDS when inoculated, siv doesnt even occur in the wild………..you guys have nothing, not one properly designed study as shown above, no animal model, thousands of ltnp’ers, no explanation why it takes 10 years, how it kills cells when it only infects 1/1000 blood tcells or so…………we need more investigation, maybe hiv does cause AIDS but its not 100% sure like you guys make it out to be………….more studies are needed, deal with it, start thinking for yourselves.

Posted by: cooler | September 23, 2007 2:14 AM

none of those studies were designed to test whether or not hiv causes AIDS, the asher study is a total fraud bc they viewed dissidents as nazis, If duesberg conducted a study and he came to the conclusion that hiv was not the cause of AIDS, everyone would say it’s invalid bc hes partial. Well same rules apply to hacks like winklestein etc

If none of studies since 1984 have been designed to test whether or not HIV causes AIDS then they can’t possibly be used as evidence that HIV does not cause AIDS according to your logic. This has never stopped Denialists from arguing exactly this. In the absence of any experimental results of their own this is their sole argument. You can’t have it both ways. If these studies can be used to argue against HIV causing AIDS then they can also be used to provide evidence for HIV causing AIDS.

There are labs around the worlds using animal models such as the SHIV/macaque model of the HIV/SCIDhu mice. These results complete destroy Duesberg’s bullshit claim that retroviruses do not cause AIDS. They provide overwhelming evidence that HIV causes AIDS.

I also notice the ad hominem attacks on Ascher and Winkelstein. At least you didn’t call them “Fauci’s buttboy” and “Winkelstinkel”. If you have any factual criticisms then present them. If we use your logic then we should also ignore anything Duesberg says because he obviously isn’t impartial.

Posted by: Chris Noble | September 23, 2007 2:46 AM

What is the height of arrogance is doctors who won’t listen to the patient, who don’t believe that supplements, alternative treatments and old drugs such as LDN have any relevance to health and who won’t take the time to learn about these and other treatments. Caring and competent physicians are to few and far between. I requested that my orthopedic doctor run a complete blood count and he stated that he could not read it. I would have been embarrassed to admit this to the patient. Anyone can go on line and learn how to do this. This is basic med shcool material. I have asked my doctors where is the epidemiology study that proves HIV causes AIDS, they state that it is “somewhere” in PUBMED. That’s fine if that is their belief but after being in the field for years, they should do better than that and tell me specifically where or that it has not been done.

Posted by: noreen | September 23, 2007 9:09 AM

Well noreen thats the problem with going to a orthopedist!! just kidding everyone, sort-of!

So your doctor can’t do a blood count, but you believe it when a doctor tells you olympic people have cd4 counts like AIDS patients??!! Why would you believe that? Well gee because you want to think your not just healthy you’re as healthy as an olympian. Therfore low CD4 counts are HEALTHY. Noreen it makes me so sad how you’re twisting things in your head, you’re smarter than that I know it.

I think DT was right you got that info from our make your own positive baby friends at A&W. You got the name of the deniosaur organisation wrong like Christine “The Mom The Legend” Maggiore. ITs not Project AIDS International its Project: AIDS International. Noreen these people don’t care about babies even why do you think their giving you good information.

Posted by: Adele | September 23, 2007 10:28 AM

I will tackle something you make reference to over and over…
Do recreational drugs cause AIDS? PMID: 8876838. My bracketed comments/questions [ ]

“We evaluated the associations [sounds like "oh never mind seeking causation, That's not going to help us with our virus theory, we'll just evaluate associations here'] of specific recreational drugs [which ones?] and alcohol with laboratory [test tube] predictors [Is this another one of those probable math equations?] of AIDS at entry into the San Francisco Men’s Health Study (SFMHS) in 1984 [out of these men, were they the occasional user or the chronic user? How was that determined?] and with the development of the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) during 6 years of follow-up. [where's the follow up to nearer today, 17 years later?] Marijuana use was associated with a decreased rate of progression to AIDS in the univariate analysis (RR = 0.7; P = 0.01). Marijuana use was more common among individuals with elevated HIV viral core protein antibody (p24Ab) titer (> 1:16) at baseline (P = 0.03); this finding suggests that marijuana users were healthier at baseline. When the data were adjusted for p24 Ab and other laboratory parameters, no association with progression to AIDS was observed for marijuana, suggesting that the observed univariate result was due to a difference in HIV-related disease at the time of enrollment. [All this talk on marijuana. Marijuana has been around virtually since recorded history, The focus seems to be sided to a rather weak drug in order to mislead] No statistically significant associations were observed for nitrites, methylene dioxyamphetamines, ethyl chloride, downers, cocaine, stimulants, narcotics, or psychedelic drugs. These data suggest no substantial association between use of these drugs and the development of AIDS among HIV-infected men.

“Laboratory predictors” does not mean real world observations. I saw, more than one can imagine, friends that took verbatim their doctors death sentence and partied like there was going to be no tomorrow, whom became ill because of drug use then were prescribed AZT/HAART because that was standard protocol just because they registered HIV+. They’re dead because of the standards the establishment’s fucked in the head thinking imposed upon them.

The refutation abounds here that drugs are not a factor and your subterfuge suggests we all say drugs cause HIV. Both are farthest from the truth. There is no logic what you say, studies are designed to look for a predicted outcome in favor of HIV being the end all be all and more often then not accounting for the mental devastation caused by the prescribed death sentence is not taken into consideration.

Posted by: carter | September 23, 2007 10:34 AM

Adele, the facts speak for themselves, HIV has not been islolated in pure form, there hasn’t been one study that proves HIV causes AIDS, the HIV test is for antibodies and not an actual virus, Grade four events are real for HIV-Positives and so is liver disease, heart attacks, abnormal blood, anemia, buffalo humps, neuropathy, and diarrhea, Viral loads are only 6 to 8% accurate, CD4’s are not the best yardstick for health, Gallo only found 40% of patients with HIV, Gallo was investigated for scientific misconduct, Nancy Padian could not find one couple who the negative partner converted to HIV-Positive and the majority of AIDS cases are still predominately in the male population. These are some of the reasons that I am a rethinker because the mainstream’s math does not add up.

Posted by: noreen | September 23, 2007 10:45 AM

Add the fact that full-blown AIDS persons are living without the antiretroviral medications does seem to challenge what we have been told.

Posted by: noreen | September 23, 2007 10:49 AM

If you are interested in anything other than rhetorical wordgames then you could attempt to answer the question I posed to Carter. Your complete lack of any rational response to this post is also noted.

Dr. Noble, your incessant torture of the word word “rational”, here used as a variant of the “no true scotsman” fallacy, may seem clever to your fellow political dogs in the AIDStruth kennel, but you’ve got to up your game a wee bit if you want me to take the bait.

Posted by: Epidemiology-LISA | September 23, 2007 11:01 AM

Noreen,

You ask for the “epidemiology study that proves HIV causes AIDS”.

Here is a link to an essay of less than 1000 words that summarizes much of the epidemiologic evidence that HIV infection is the cause of AIDS: Koch’s Postulates Fulfilled. It includes a few dozen references to the primry research literature.

I’ve posted this link before–have you read this essay? If so, do you have any specific criticisms of the scientific evidence summarized in this essay? If not, please stop claiming that no one has directed you to the “epidemiology study that proves HIV causes AIDS”.

Posted by: franklin | September 23, 2007 11:05 AM

Noreen, remember how you said apy “believes everything you read?” Thing is, apy gets information from peer-reviewed stuff. You get all your information from alive and well and virusmyth. Its like getting all you information about evolution from discovery institute.

All that stuff you just said? Its all wrong but how can anyone prove it to you you already decided what to want to believe.

Posted by: Adele | September 23, 2007 11:23 AM

Noreen here’s the epidemiological proof in just a couple of hundred words that anti-HIV drugs cause AIDS. Let me know if you have any specific criticisms of the scientific evidence summarized in this essay(-;

the Palella-study found that the mortality of
initially asymptomatic, HIV-positive people, which are
treated with new anti-HIV drug cocktails, is 8×8% (”8×8
per 100 person-years”) and the Hogg-study found it is 6×7%.
But, in the absence of untreated control groups, the
effects of the new anti-HIV drugs on the morbidity and
mortality of HIV-positive recipients can not be determined
scientifically from the results of these surveys.
However, the average annual AIDS mortality of all HIVpositives on this planet [including the minority that is o