Science Guardian

Truth, beauty and paradigm power in science and society

I am Nicolaus Copernicus, and I approve of this blog

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

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

***************************************************

HONOR ROLL OF SCIENTIFIC TRUTHSEEKERS

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

ACADEMICS, DOCTORS, AUTHORS, FILMMAKERS, REPORTERS AND COMMENTATORS WHO HAVE NOBLY AIDED REVIEW OF THE STATUS QUO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am Richard Feynman and I approve of this blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Illusion is the first of all pleasures. – Voltaire

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

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

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

Seaside Conference Reexamines HIV and AIDS

Fine speaker line-up will brief all comers on hollowness of HIV wisdom

Duesberg and Geshekter on why African claims make no sense

Media are invited, but will they come?

The Waterfront Plaza Hotel in Oakland is a palace of enlightenment over this weekend as authorities on the vexed issue of why HIV/AIDS beliefs make no scientific or common sense at all hold forth for two day of conferencing, including Peter Duesberg himselfsA gathering of luminaries in the movement to review the current dogma in HIV/AIDS is meeting today, tomorrow and Sunday morning (Nov 6-8) at the Waterfront Plaza Hotel, Jack London Square, Oakland, California. Media are invited to all conference sessions including the documentary screening on Saturday afternoon at 4.30 of House of Numbers, and the cocktails after the keynote lecture today, Friday (Nov 6).

The speakers will include Peter Duesberg, the Berkeley professor who has stood against the paradigm for 22 years, John Lauritsen, the Harvard graduate and market researcher and author of AIDS: Death by Prescription, Etienne de Harven, expert on electron microscopy, David Rasnick, Henry Bauer, Charles Geshekter, Klaus Koehnlein, Robert Giraldo, Joan Shenton, and Tony Lance. Panelists will include Celia Farber and Gary Null, and the keynote speaker is Michael Tracy professor at the School of Journalism at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Tracy is a specialist in media issues, public broadcasting and “the injustice of the American justice system.” Several years ago he said, “the news about AIDS was flagrantly wrong in fact and interpretation, but hugely successful in constructing a prevailing understanding, locking into modern consciousness the belief that here was one more bug to threaten us all.”

Here are the speakers biographies together with the abstracts of the talks (English and Spanish) (hit the icon, which is meant to display as a show button).

RA2009 SPEAKER BIOGRAPHIES

David Crowe
david.crowe@aras.ab.ca
David Crowe is a science critic and writer based in Calgary, Canada. He has a degree in biology and mathematics and has written extensively on HIV/AIDS, failures of modern medicine and telecommunications. He was one of the founders of the Green Party of Alberta, and is president of Rethinking AIDS and the Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society.

Michael Tracey
michael.tracey@colorado.edu
Professor Michael Tracey has been Professor in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Colorado at Boulder since 1988. From 1981 to 1988 he was head of the London based Broadcasting Research Unit, then Britain’s leading think tank dealing with media issues. He received his Bachelor’s degree in Politics from the University of Exeter in 1971, and his doctorate from the Centre for Mass Communications Research at the University of Leicester in 1975. From 1975 to 1981 he was a Research Fellow at the Leicester Centre. Tracey has written eight books, including his 1983 biography of Sir Hugh Greene, Director General of the BBC from 1960 to1969, “A Variety of Lives; a Biography of Sir Hugh Greene” (Bodley Head) and his 1998 book, “The Decline and Fall of Public Service Broadcasting” (Oxford University Press.) Tracey has also written scores of articles on many different aspects of media and communication, but most notably dealing with the history, condition and future of public service broadcasting. He has also lectured in many different countries. From 1991 to 1998 he was a Trustee of the International Institute of Communications, and from 1994 to 1999, Visiting Professor and Chair of International Communications at the University of Salford. More recently he has produced documentaries, with his friend and colleague David Mills, and their work has appeared in the UK on Channel Four, ITV, and the American networks CBS, Court TV and A&E. They are currently – 2009 – developing a documentary series that will profile the lives of successful men who never knew their fathers. In 2008 he published his first e-book on http://www.scholarsandrogues.com. “From Xmas to August: an Essay on Murder, Media Mayhem and the Condition of the Culture” is about his decade-long involvement in the case of JonBenet Ramsey. He is currently working on a book of essays, “The Inner Moonlight: Literacy, Culture and the Future of Democracy” and writing the authorized biography of the life and times of the legendary British broadcaster Donald Baverstock. He lives with his wife, Jen, three dogs, Beau, Jess and Babe and his cat Miss Bardot, in a small hamlet at 9,000 feet in the Rocky Mountains west of Boulder.

Keynote Lecture
The talk reflects on a number of subjects and issues that confront not just the discourse around Aids, though that will be front and center, but also other areas of discourse. Taking a historical perspective the talk will consider the confluence of forces—political, medical-industrial, cultural—which so effectively closed down ways of thinking that did not accept the HIV-Aids hypothesis. It will suggest that here was a potent example—but far from being the only one—of the extraordinary capacity of key institutions and actors to shape the public imagination, to establish “understandings” in the public mind, to lead that public to see “this” way rather than “that,” with immense consequences for fashioning public policies that rest on ignorance not knowledge, and that serve particular interests but not the public interest. It will point to the way in which the cultural apparatus employs a political economy of fear because fear, like blood, sells, is something the public understands and seems to need: fear of the “other,”—think Muslim—of “death panels,” of “socialism, Marxism, fascism” often uttered in the same sentence, and fear of “the bug” that is going to decimate human kind. In other words, “fear” however perversely, has a crude fiscal utility: it sells. The talk will finally argue that in many ways one might see in the way in which the discourse around Aids evolved, or didn’t, of how counter-discourses were so successfully closed down a harbinger of what America has become, a closing down of the rational mind, a casting aside of the pursuit of truth and understanding, and their replacement with the almost willful pursuit of ignorance so long as that comports with, and feeds, distressed emotional needs as well as political and economic interests. In other words, the repressing of open discourse about HIV-Aids was yet one example of a society in deep betrayal of the vision of its founders, that a democratic society needs rational, open, honest debate if it is to thrive. There is, in effect, as the literary critic Lionel Trilling put it, a “moral obligation to be intelligent,” not blinkered, biased, closed minded.
Conferencia principal
La ponencia reflexionará sobre un número de cuestiones y temas que no se enfrentan exclusivamente al discurso en torno al SIDA, aunque será central y principal, si no también a otros discursos. Desde una perspectiva histórica, la charla considerará aquella convergencia de fuerzas – políticas, médico-industriales, culturales – que tan eficazmente bloqueó la manera de pensar de aquellos que no aceptaban la hipótesis VIH-SIDA. La charla sugerirá que este es un ejemplo fuerte – aunque lejos de ser el único – de la extraordinaria capacidad de la que disponen las instituciones y los protagonistas claves a la hora de determinar la imaginación pública para establecer “interpretaciones” en la mentalidad pública y para guiar a aquel sector del público a ver “esta” vía en vez de “aquella”. Asimismo, las inmensas consecuencias que esto tiene a la hora de diseñar unas políticas que se apoyan en la ignorancia en lugar del conocimiento, y que sirven a intereses particulares en lugar de intereses públicos. Indicará la manera por la cual el aparato cultural emplea la política económica del miedo, ya que el miedo, al igual que la sangre, vende, siendo esto algo que el público entiende y parece necesitar: miedo al “otro”, – piensen en musulmán – a los “death panels”, al “socialismo, marxismo, fascismo” pronunciados con frecuencia dentro de la misma frase, y miedo al “bicho” que va a diezmar al ser humano. En otras palabras, el “miedo” por perverso que sea, tiene una dura utilidad fiscal: vende. Por último, la charla argumentará que uno puede ver de muchas maneras la forma en la cual el discurso en torno al SIDA evolucionó, o no lo hizo, y como los discursos en contra de la corriente oficial fueron bloqueados con tanto éxito, siendo esto precursor de lo que los EE.UU. ha llegado a convertirse. Es decir, un cerramiento de la mente racional, un dejar de lado la búsqueda de la verdad y el conocimiento, y como esto fue substituido por la casi intencionada búsqueda de la ignorancia con el fin de que ello corresponda y alimente las necesidades emocionales afligidas además de intereses económicos y políticos. En otras palabras, la represión del discurso abierto sobre el VIH-SIDA fue un ejemplo más de una sociedad en profunda traición a la visión de sus fundadores, es decir, que la sociedad democrática necesita un debate racional, abierto y honesto para prosperar. Hay, de hecho, como el crítico literario Lionel Trilling lo expuso, la “obligación moral de ser inteligentes,” sin estrecheces de miras y sin ser parciales ni cerrados de mente.

John Lauritsen
john.lauritsen@verizon.net
John Lauritsen graduated from Harvard in 1963. He is a writer, retired survey research analyst, gay liberationist, AIDS dissident, and freethinker. His first major AIDS article, “CDC’s Tables Obscure AIDS-Drugs Connection”, was published in February 1985. Beginning in 1986 he wrote for the New York Native, which in eleven years would publish over fifty of his articles. His AIDS-dissident books include Death Rush: Poppers & AIDS (1986), AZT: Poison by Prescription (1990), The AIDS War (1993) and (co-edited with Ian Young) The AIDS Cult: Essays on the gay health crisis (1997).

History of AIDS controversy spanning three decades
This talk will analyze the underlying premises and assumptions of “AIDS”, a protean construct rather than a coherent disease entity. Particular attention will be paid to gay men, the group most targeted by the AIDS Industry, with a discussion of gay media, AIDS organizations, and the premier gay drug, “poppers” (nitrite inhalants).
Historia de la controversia SIDA que ya abarca tres décadas
Esta ponencia analizará las premisas subyacentes y las suposiciones sobre el “SIDA”, una invención de extremada variabilidad más que una coherente entidad patológica. Se prestará particular atención a los hombres gays, el grupo que más ha estado en el punto de mira de la industria SIDA, con un debate sobre los medios de comunicación gays, organizaciones del SIDA, y la droga gay por excelencia, los “poppers” (inhaladores de nitritos).

Peter Duesberg
duesberg@uclink4.berkeley.edu
Peter H. Duesberg, Ph.D. is a professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley. He isolated the first cancer gene through his work on retroviruses in 1970, and mapped the genetic structure of these viruses. This, and his subsequent work in the same field, resulted in his election to the National Academy of Sciences in 1986. He is also the recipient of a seven-year Outstanding Investigator Grant from the National Institutes of Health. On the basis of his experience with retroviruses, Duesberg has challenged the virus-AIDS hypothesis in the pages of such journals as Cancer Research, Lancet, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Science, Nature, Journal of AIDS, AIDS Forschung, Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapeutics, New England Journal of Medicine and Research in Immunology. He has instead proposed the hypothesis that the various American/European AIDS diseases are brought on by the long-term consumption of recreational drugs and/or AZT itself, which is prescribed to prevent or treat AIDS. Since 1996, he has published extensively on the chromosomal (aneuploidy) theory of cancer. http://www.duesberg.com/

HIV-AIDS hypothesis out of touch with South African AIDS — a new perspective
A recent study by Chigwedere et al., “Estimating the Lost Benefits of Antiretroviral Drug Use in South Africa”, claims that during the period from 2000 to 2005 about 300,000 South African deaths from AIDS per year could have been prevented by available anti-HIV drugs. The study blamed those who question the hypothesis that the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) is the cause of AIDS, particularly former South African President Thabo Mbeki and Peter Duesberg, for not preventing these deaths by anti-HIV treatments such as the DNA chain-terminator AZT and the HIV DNA inhibitor Nevirapine. Here we ask, (1) What evidence exists for the huge losses of South African lives from HIV claimed by the Chigwedere study? (2) What evidence exists that South Africans would have benefited from anti-HIV drugs? We found that vital statistics from South Africa reported about 12,000 HIV-positive deaths per year between 2000-2005. This figure is 25-times lower than the 300,000 lives per year estimated by Chigwedere et al. Moreover, the US Census Bureau and South Africa reported that the South African population had increased by 3 million during the period from 2000 to 2005 instead of suffering losses, growing from 44.5 to 47.5 million, even though 25-30% were positive for antibodies against HIV. A similar discrepancy was found between claims for a devastating AIDS epidemic in Uganda and a simultaneous explosive growth in its population. We conclude that the claims that HIV has caused huge losses of lives are unconfirmed and that HIV is not sufficient or even necessary to cause the previously known diseases, now called AIDS when antibody against HIV is detected. Further we call into question the claim that HIV antibody-positives would benefit from anti-HIV drugs, because these drugs are inevitably toxic and because there is as yet no proof that HIV causes AIDS.

La hipótesis VIH-SIDA anticuada ante el SIDA sudafricano — una nueva perspectiva
Un estudio reciente por Chigwedere et al., “Calculando los beneficios desaprovechados por el uso de medicamentos antiretrovirales en Sur África”, afirma que durante el periodo del 2000 al 2005 se podían haber prevenido aproximadamente 300,000 muertes anuales de SIDA en Sur África a través de los medicamentos anti-VIH disponibles. El estudio culpó a aquellos que cuestionan la hipótesis de que el virus de inmunodeficiencia humana (VIH) es la causa del SIDA, particularmente al anterior presidente sudafricano Thabo Mbeki y Peter Duesberg, por no prevenir aquellas muertes a través de tratamientos anti-VIH como son el terminador de cadenas de ADN el AZT y el inhibidor de ADN del VIH el Nevirapine. Nuestra pregunta aquí es, (1) ¿Qué evidencia existe sobre la gran cantidad de muertes en Sur África por el VIH que afirma el estudio Chigwedere? (2) ¿Qué evidencia existe de que los sudafricanos podían haberse beneficiado por medicamentos anti-VIH? Vemos que las estadísticas vitales de Sur África notificaron aproximadamente 12,000 muertes anuales por VIH entre el 2000 y el 2005. Esta cifra es 25 veces menor que las 300,000 muertes anuales calculadas por Chigwedere et al. Además, el US Census Bureau y Sur África documentaron que la población sudafricana en lugar de sufrir pérdidas incrementó en 3 millones de personas durante el periodo de 2000 a 2005, creciendo de 44.5 a 47.5 millones, incluso cuando del 25-30% dieron positivos a anticuerpos contra el VIH. Una discrepancia similar se halló en las afirmaciones sobre una devastadora epidemia de SIDA en Uganda y simultáneamente un crecimiento explosivo de su población. Llegamos a la conclusión de que las afirmaciones que el VIH ha causado gran cantidad de muertes no están confirmadas, y que el VIH no es suficiente o ni siquiera necesario para causar las enfermedades ya conocidas y ahora llamadas SIDA cuando van acompañadas de la detección de anticuerpos contra el VIH. Más aun, hacemos un llamamiento a que se cuestione la afirmación de que las personas seropositivas se beneficiarían de medicamentos anti-VIH, ya que estos medicamentos son inevitablemente tóxicos y porque todavía no hay prueba de que el VIH cause el SIDA.

Etienne de Harven
pitou.deharven@orange.fr
Etienne De Harven obtained his M.D. degree in 1953 from the Université Libre de Bruxelles, (where he later became “Professeur Agrégé” in Pathology). He specialized in electron microscopy at the “Institut du Cancer” in Paris. In 1956, he joined Charlotte Friend’s team at the Sloan Kettering Institute in New York, the largest cancer research center in the United States, where he was in charge of electron microscopy research. It was there that he produced the world’s first description of a retrovirus budding on the surface of infected cells. He served as President of the Electron Microscopy Society of America in 1976. In 1981, he was appointed Professor of pathology and director of the electron microscopy laboratory at the University of Toronto, Canada, where he researched the marking of antigens on the surface of lymphocytes. He is former President of Rethinking Aids (2005-2008), a group comprising over 2600 scientists and other re-thinkers who refute the viral origin of AIDS. He recently published Ten Lies About AIDS http://books.trafford.com/07-2938

Questioning the Existence of HIV
Most unfortunately, AIDS Rethinkers have recently appeared divided on the issue of the existence or of the non-existence of HIV, one group claiming that HIV exists but is a harmless, passenger virus, while the other group asserts simply that HIV does not exist. Neither of these two stands is compatible with available scientific evidence.
Claiming a harmless passenger is not consistent with the name HIV that implies a causal relationship with immunodeficiency, a most serious pathological condition. Asserting simply that HIV does not exist is a fragile position that can hardly account for 1) the fact that typical retrovirus particles illustrated in the 1983, Barré-Sinoussi et al. Science paper, and 2) the fact that retroviral nucleic acid sequences are routinely amplified by PCR methodologies in attempts to measure an hypothetical viral load in AIDS patients.
Obviously, an alternative analysis is urgently needed that is consistent with all the scientifically published evidence. Human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs) provide such an alternative analysis that can no longer be ignored. As stated by myself in Pretoria in 2000, nobody has ever demonstrated by EM retroviral particles in the blood of patients tagged as presenting with a high viral load. An award, offered to whomever would demonstrate the opposite, has never been claimed. However, harmless viruses, when existing, are just as readily visualized by EM as pathogenic ones. The fact that they have never been observed in high viral load blood samples is therefore significant.
In conclusion, HERVs have interfered with HIV/AIDS research. Facing this fact makes it possible to correct several miss-interpretations that stand at the roots of the current HIV/AIDS dogma. Recognizing the role of HERVs in a coherent analysis of available data shall restore RA’s scientific credibility, consolidate a united front for RA, and provide RA with the strength of fundamentally redirecting AIDS research, far away from hypothetical exogenous retroviruses.
Cuestionando la existencia del VIH
Desafortunadamente, los “disidentes” del SIDA se han mostrado recientemente divididos sobre el tema de la “existencia” o “no existencia” del VIH. Mientras que un grupo alega que el “VIH existe pero es un virus inofensivo y pasajero”, el otro grupo simplemente afirma que “el VIH no existe”. Ninguna de estas dos posturas es compatible con la evidencia científica disponible.
Alegar que es “un pasajero inofensivo” no es coherente con la denominación “VIH” ya que esta implica una relación causal con la inmunodeficiencia, una condición patológica muy seria. Afirmar simplemente que el VIH no existe es una posición frágil y que apenas puede explicar 1) el hecho de que el artículo de Science de 1983 por Barré-Sinoussi et al. estuviese ilustrado por partículas típicas de retrovirus, y 2) el hecho de que se amplifiquen rutinariamente secuencias de ácido nucleico retroviral usando metodologías basadas en PCR con el fin de medir una hipotética carga viral en pacientes de SIDA.
Obviamente, se necesita con urgencia un análisis alternativo que sea coherente con toda la evidencia científica publicada. Los retrovirus endógenos humanos (HERVs) proporcionan dicho análisis alternativo que no puede seguir ignorado durante más tiempo.
Como indiqué en Pretoria en el 2000, nadie ha demostrado mediante EM la presencia de partículas retrovirales en la sangre de pacientes etiquetados como portadores de una carga viral alta. Nunca se ha reclamado un premio que se ofrecía a cualquiera que demostrase lo contrario. Sin embargo, mediante EM, los virus “inofensivos”, cuando existen, se visualizan con la misma facilidad que los que son patógenos. Por lo tanto, es significativo el hecho de que nunca se hayan observado en muestras de sangre con una carga viral alta.
En conclusión, los HERVs han interferido con la investigación sobre VIH/SIDA. Afrontar este hecho hace posible corregir varias interpretaciones erróneas que se levantan sobre las raíces del actual dogma del VIH/SIDA. En un análisis coherente de la información disponible, reconocer el papel que juegan los HERVs restaurará la credibilidad científica de RA, consolidará un frente unido para RA y proporcionará a RA la fuerza, fundamentalmente, para redirigir la investigación del SIDA, lejos de los retrovirus hipotéticos.

Charles Geshekter
chollygee@earthlink.net
Charles Geshekter is Emeritus Professor of African history at California State University, Chico. After earning his Ph.D. in History from UCLA, Geshekter has held three Fulbright Awards and his African field research was supported by grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities, Ford Foundation and Social Science Research Council. His publications examine various aspects of modern Somali history, techniques of documentary film making, and reappraising the AIDS epidemic in Africa. Geshekter helped to establish the Somali Studies International Association, coordinated its first conference in Mogadishu in 1980, and co-edited the Proceedings of the 1st Congress of Somali Studies. During the United Nations intervention in Somalia, Geshekter was news analyst for CBS National Radio Network, KRON-TV/San Francisco, PBS, and numerous radio stations. In 1985, he produced a PBS documentary, “The Parching Winds of Somalia” for WQED-TV. Portions of the film were included in a McNeil-Lehrer NewsHour special program, “Somalia: Anatomy of a Tragedy” that was nominated for a 1993 Emmy Award. Geshekter was Program Coordinator for the 1989 Meeting of the American Association for Advancement of Science/Pacific Division. From 1991-95, he served as Chairman for its History of Science Section and was on its Executive Council. In 1996, he was Chief Policy Advisor on Education Finance for the California State Assembly. He has worked for the Department of Justice as a consultant and researcher on African immigration issues. From 2000 to 2003, Geshekter was a member of the South African Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel.

The Deception and Dishonesty of African AIDS Statistics
For over 25 years, the media has bombarded the public with a barrage of figures purporting to tally AIDS cases and AIDS deaths in Africa. This presentation examines the empirical basis for those numbers and critiques the methodology used by AIDS agencies and its researchers to gather such data, interpret its meaning, and then use dubious statistics as the basis for requesting ever increasing amounts of funding.
As an example of how bogus claims come to form the basis to solicit funds and initiate interventions into African societies, the author will critique the findings of prominent AIDS investigators, published in The Lancet (2007-2008), that purported to show how male circumcision in Kenya and Uganda reduced a male’s chances of contracting HIV.
Fraude y engaño de las estadísticas del SIDA africano
Durante más de 25 años, los medios de comunicación han bombardeado al público con un aluvión de cifras pretendiendo cuadrar casos de SIDA con muertes por SIDA en África. Esta ponencia examina las bases empíricas de esos números y critica la metodología usada por los organismos oficiales del SIDA y sus investigadores para reunir tales datos, interpretar su significado y luego utilizar dudosas estadísticas como base para solicitar cada vez una mayor financiación.
A modo de ejemplo de como afirmaciones falsas llegan a formar la base para recaudar fondos e iniciar intervenciones en las sociedades africanas, la ponencia critica los hallazgos de destacados investigadores sobre el SIDA, publicados en The Lancet (2007-2008), que pretendieron demostrar como la circuncisión masculina en Kenya y Uganda reducía las probabilidades de contraer el VIH en varones.

Christian Fiala
christian.fiala@aon.at
Dr. Christian Fiala is a gynaecologist and obstetrician and currently working in Vienna, but has extensive experience in Thailand and Africa. April, 2007, he established the Museum of Contraception and Abortion. For almost 20 years he has been following critically the scientific and political discussion on the epidemiological aspects of AIDS and contributed actively. He was a member of the Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel in South Africa. Dr. Fiala has published many papers focused on the problems of AIDS in Africa and the definition of AIDS. is the author of the book “Do We Love Dangerously? – A Doctor in Search of the Facts and Background to AIDS” (Lieben wir gefaehrlich? – Ein Arzt auf der Suche nach den Fakten und Hintergruenden von AIDS) (1997); and the article in English, Aids: are we being deceived?

Aids in Africa — a call for sense not hysteria

“Can Africa be saved?” asked Newsweek on it’s front page as far back as 1984, reflecting the old Western belief that Africa is doomed to starvation, terror, disaster and death. This was repeated two years later in an article in the same journal in a story about Aids in Africa. The title set the scene: “Africa in the Plague Years”. The World Health Organization (WHO) confirmed “by mid-1991 an estimated 1.5 million Ugandans, or about 9% of the general population and 20% of the sexually active population, had HIV infection”. Similar reports were repeatedly published during the last 25 years. The predictions announced the practically inevitable collapse of the country in which the worldwide epidemic supposedly originated.
Today, however, one reads little about Aids in Uganda because all prophesies have proved false. Summing up, the Uganda Bureau of Statistics reported the results of the (ten-year) census in September 2002: “Uganda’s population grew at an average annual rate of 3.4% between 1991 and 2002. The high rate of population growth is mainly due to the persistently high fertility levels (about seven children per woman) that have been observed for the past four decades. The decline in mortality reflected by a decline in Infant and Childhood Mortality Rates as revealed by the Uganda Demographic and Health Surveys (UDHS) of 1995 and 2000-2001, have also contributed to the high population growth rate.” In other words, the already high population growth in Uganda has further increased over the past 10 years and is now among the highest in the world. Similarly economic development has shown a constant growth over the same period reflecting the energy and determination of Ugandans to improve their living conditions.
It is long overdue that we recognize obvious facts proving that all predictions about an Aids epidemic in Africa have been wrong because they were based on erroneous assumption. Consequently budgets need to be redirected so that they meet the actual needs of the local population. Furthermore, individuals and organizations who have deliberately taken advantage of the hysteria they helped to create, need to be held accountable.
www.altheal.org/statistics/fiala.htm?www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/327/7408/184-a

Sida en África — una llamada a la razón, no a la histeria
“¿Se puede salvar a África?” preguntaba Newsweek en su portada remontándose a 1984, reflejando la creencia de occidente que África está condenada a la hambruna, el terror, el desastre y la muerte. Esto se repitió dos años después en un artículo de la misma publicación incluido en un reportaje sobre SIDA en África. El título preparaba la escena: “Äfrica en los años de plaga”. La Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) confirmaba que “para mediados de 1991 se calcula que 1,5 millones de ugandeses, o aproximadamente el 9% de su población general y el 20% de su población sexualmente activa, tendrían infección por VIH”. Se han publicado informes similares de manera repetida durante los últimos 25 años. Las predicciones anunciaban el colapso prácticamente inevitable del país en el que supuestamente originó la epidemia mundial.
Hoy, sin embargo, se lee poco sobre el SIDA en Uganda. Porque todas las predicciones han resultado ser falsas. Resumiendo, el Uganda Bureau of Statistics notificó los resultados de un censo (de 10 años) en setiembre de 2002: “La población de Uganda creció a un ritmo medio anual de 3.4% entre 1991 y 2002. El alto índice de crecimiento de la población es debido principalmente a los continuos altos niveles de fertilidad (aproximadamente siete hijos por mujer) que se han observado en las pasadas cuatro décadas. El descenso en mortalidad reflejado por el descenso en los índices de mortalidad infantil tal y como muestran el Uganda Demographic and Health Surveys (UDHS) de 1995 y 2000-2001, también han contribuido al alto indice de crecimiento de la población.” En otras palabras, el ya existente alto índice de crecimiento de la población en Uganda ha incrementado aún más en los últimos 10 años, encuentrándose ahora entre los más altos del mundo. Igualmente, el desarrollo económico ha demostrado un crecimiento constante en el mismo periodo reflejando la energía y determinación de los ugandeses para mejorar sus condiciones de vida.
Hace mucho tiempo que se debió reconocer hechos obvios que prueban que todas las predicciones sobre la epidemia SIDA en África han sido erróneas porque estaban basadas en asunciones erróneas. Por consiguiente, los presupuestos deben ser redirigidos para que cumplan con las necesidades actuales de la población local. Más aun, se deben pedir cuentas a individuos y organizaciones que se han aprovechado deliberadamente de la histeria que ayudaron a crear.
www.altheal.org/statistics/fiala.htm
www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/327/7408/184-a

Roberto Giraldo
robgiraldo@aol.com
Roberto Giraldo MD, Specialist in internal medicine, infectious, immunological and tropical diseases from Universities of Antioquia (Colombia), Kansas and London. Independent AIDS researcher since 1981. Worked with the so-called HIV tests for 13 years at New York Hospital, Cornell Medical Center. Author of several critical articles and books on AIDS. Former President of rethinking AIDS. Currently is Director of the Department of Psychosomatic Medicine of the International Society of Analytical Trilogy in São Paulo, Brazil. www.robertogiraldo.com and www.trilogia.ws.

The role of the inner pharmacy in the prevention and treatment of AIDS
A short review of the literature on the Psychoneuroimmunology of AIDS. 1. The role of negative emotions on the genesis of seropositivity and on the development of AIDS. Description of the main personality characteristics, both in rich and poor countries, needed to develop seropositivity and AIDS. 2. Experience dealing with seropositive individuals and patients with AIDS indicates that external therapies, even natural measures, have very little value in the prevention and treatment of AIDS. The real 1healing comes from our inner doctor also known as our inner pharmacy. Revealing the power of consciousness in dealing with seropositivity and AIDS.
El papel de la farmacia interior en la prevención y tratamiento del SIDA
Breve revisión a la literatura sobre la psiconeuroinmunología del SIDA. 1. El papel negativo de las emociones en la génesis de la seropositividad y en el desarrollo del SIDA. Descripción de las principales características de personalidad, tanto en los países ricos como en los pobres, que son necesarias para desarrollar seropositividad y SIDA. 2. La experiencia en el trato con individuos seropositivos y pacientes con SIDA indica que las terapias externas, incluidas las medidas naturales, tienen muy poco valor a la hora de prevenir y tratar el SIDA. La verdadera curación viene de nuestro médico interior también conocido como farmacia interior. Mostrándose el poder de la conciencia a la hora de tratar con la seropositividad y el SIDA.

David Rasnick
drasnick@mac.com
David Rasnick received a PhD in chemistry (organic and biochemistry) from the Georgia Institute of Technology, a BS in Biology and a BS in chemistry. He has over 20 years experience in the pharmaceutical/biotech industry working on cancer, emphysema, arthritis, and parasitic diseases. He is former President of Rethinking AIDS: the group for the scientific reappraisal of the HIV hypothesis and former President of the International Coalition for Medical Justice. He was a member of the Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel of South Africa. He published Germ of Lies, a scientifically accurate but reader-friendly novel depicting of the AIDS blunder. Since 1996 he has been working closely with Peter Duesberg at University of California at Berkeley on the aneuploidy (or chromosomal imbalance) theory of cancer. http://www.davidrasnick.com

HIV drugs causing AIDS
It has never been shown that adults or children or fetuses in the womb taking the anti-HIV drugs live longer or at least better lives than a similar group of people not taking the drugs. On the contrary, there is ample evidence that ARVs cause AIDS-defining and other diseases and death. To hide this fact, the AIDS orthodoxy has come up with yet another syndrome given the oxymoronic name Immune Reconstitution Syndrome or IRS. The diseases of IRS are identical with the list of AIDS-defining diseases. IRS is nothing other than AIDS caused by the antiretroviral drugs.
Los medicamentos anti-VIH causan SIDA
Nunca se ha demostrado que ni adultos, ni niños, ni fetos en el útero tomando los medicamentos anti-VIH vivan más o por lo menos mejores vidas que un grupo similar de personas que no los tomen. Por el contrario, hay abundante evidencia de que los ARV causan enfermedades definitorias de SIDA además de otras enfermedades y la muerte. Para ocultar este hecho, otro síndrome más ha surgido por parte de la ortodoxia del SIDA, dándole el nombre oximorónico de Síndrome de Reconstitución Inmunológica o IRS (siglas en inglés). Las enfermedades del IRS son idénticas a las enumeradas en la lista de enfermedades definitorias de SIDA. El IRS no es más que SIDA causado por los fármacos antiretrovirales.

Claus Koehnlein
koehnlein-kiel@t-online.de
Claus Köhnlein received his MD in 1982 from the University of Kiel, Germany. From 1983-92, he trained in internal medicine in the Department of Oncology at the University of Kiel. Since 1993, he has been practicing internal medicine in Kiel and treating HIV-positive patients who are critical of antiviral treatment. Co-author of Virus Mania: http://www.amazon.com/Virus-Mania-Continually-Epidemics-Billion-Dollar/dp/1425114679

The treatment dilemma of HIV-positive patients as a result of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. The illusion of antiviral treatment.
The study that eventually led to FDA approval of AZT in 1987 was terminated after only 4 months because the treated group seemed to do better than the placebo group. In the following years, however, the mortality in both groups rose significantly. Most physicians thought that this was due to the HIV infection. However, it soon became clear that the recommended dosage of 1.5 g of AZT caused severe bone marrow suppression (AIDS by Prescription) and was killing large numbers of AIDS patients. The dosage of AZT was reduced several times to lower its toxicity and the mortality of patients taking the drug began to decline. Unfortunately, the decline in the mortality was wrongly attributed to the life-saving benefits of AZT (Pallela, 1998). In the mid 1990s, new treatments such as the HIV protease inhibitors were introduced. The HIV protease inhibitors turned out to be very good against fungal infections. The combinations of the cytotoxic antiviral drugs plus protease inhibitors are antibiotic treatments in the true sense of the word—they are anti-life. This may account for their successful short term effects in treating bacterial, viral and protozoal infections. Thus, the symptoms due to infectious diseases that are called AIDS in the presence of a positive HIV-test may improve when the drugs are first used. But soon, the combinations of anti-HIV drugs damage the liver, kidney, central nervous system and bone marrow, which is the very source of the immune system. It would be much better to treat the specific infectious diseases (e.g. TB) with recognized specific treatments instead of using the inevitably toxic anti-life cocktails.
El dilema del tratamiento de personas VIH-positivas como consecuencia de la hipótesis VIH-SIDA: La ilusión del tratamiento antiretroviral.
El estudio que finalmente llevó a la FDA a aprobar el AZT en 1987 se concluyó en sólo 4 meses, dado que el grupo bajo tratamiento parecía reaccionar mejor que el grupo placebo. Sin embargo, en los años siguientes la mortalidad en ambos grupos incrementó considerablemente. La mayoría de médicos pensó que eso era debido a la infección por VIH. Sin embargo, pronto se hizo evidente que la dosis recomendada de 1.5g de AZT causaba supresión severa de la médula ósea (SIDA recetado) y estaba matando a una gran cantidad de pacientes con SIDA. La dosis de AZT se redujo varias veces con el fin de bajar su toxicidad y la mortalidad de pacientes tomando el medicamento empezó a reducirse. Desafortunadamente, el descenso en la mortalidad fue erróneamente atribuido a los beneficios salva-vidas del AZT (Pallela, 1998). A mediados de la década de los 90, se introdujeron nuevos tratamientos como los inhibidores de proteasa. Los inhibidores de proteasa resultaron ser muy efectivos contra infecciones fúngicas. La combinación de medicamentos antivirales citotóxicos e inhibidores de proteasa son tratamientos antibióticos en el verdadero sentido de la palabra – son antivida. Esto podría explicar sus exitosos efectos a corto plazo a la hora de tratar infecciones por protozoas e infecciones bacterianas y virales. Por consiguiente, los síntomas debidos a enfermedades infecciosas, llamadas SIDA cuando van acompañadas de un resultado positivo a un test de VIH, podrían mejorar cuando los medicamentos son utilizados por primera vez. Sin embargo, las combinaciones de los medicamentos anti-VIH pronto dañan el hígado, los riñones, el sistema nervioso central, y la médula ósea que es la verdadera fuente del sistema inmune. Sería mucho mejor tratar aquellas determinadas enfermedades infecciosas (por ejemplo, tuberculosis) con tratamientos específicos reconocidos para dichas enfermedades, en vez de usar los inevitables cócteles tóxicos anti-vida.

Henry Bauer
hhbauer@vt.edu
Henry H. Bauer earned his Ph.D. in 1956 from the University of Sydney. He was trained as an electrochemist and reported his research in numerous publications. He is emeritus professor of chemistry and science studies, and emeritus dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. After his retirement in 1999, he was editor-in-chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration from 2000 to 2007. You can find details about his book The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory at http://failingsofhivaidstheory.homestead.com; the book collates and analyzes, for the first time, the results of more than two decades of HIV testing, revealing that common assumptions about HIV and AIDS are incompatible with the published data. Links to his other books are at hivskeptic.wordpress.com. His home page is henryhbauer.homestead.com

HIV/AIDS blunder is far from unique in the annals of science and medicine
I believe an enormous hindrance to Rethinking is that most people find it incredible that “everyone” could be so wrong about this for so long, but the history of science and medical science in particular shows it’s far from atypical. This wider historical context also has potential lessons for how the mainstream consensus might eventually be overturned.
El gran error VIH/SIDA está lejos de ser el único en los anales de la ciencia y la medicina
Creo que un enorme obstáculo para Repensar es que a la mayoría de la gente le parece increíble que “todo el mundo” pueda estar tan equivocado acerca de este asunto durante tanto tiempo. Sin embargo, la historia de la ciencia y la ciencia médica en particular, demuestra que está lejos de ser atípico. Este contexto histórico más amplio también ofrece lecciones potenciales sobre cómo puede ser derrocado finalmente el consenso de la opinión pública dominante.

Christopher Black
bar@idirect.com
Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer and political activist based in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. He has been involved in high-profile human rights cases investigating alleged war crimes and defending those accused of these crimes in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. Black is currently defending Augustin Ndindiliyimana, the former head of Rwanda’s Gendarmerie or National Police Force, before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha, Tanzania. He and other defense lawyers went on strike in early 2004, claiming that the tribunal was being used by the U.S. for political ends and that a fair hearing was impossible. He has been the subject of several death threats as a result of his work at the Rwanda tribunal and the subject of threats and intimidation from the current RPF Rwandan regime. Christopher Black is listed as a member by the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis. He was a signatory to a December 2008 letter which urged the journal Science to retract a number of scientific papers from the early 1980s in which Robert Gallo alleged HTLV-III (HIV) caused AIDS.

The Criminalization of Illness
The criminalization of people allegedly infected with a virus known as HIV is unique in history. No communicable disease has been criminalized in this manner. It is a phenomenon that has spread to many countries in the world. In some countries specific criminal laws have been passed, as in the UK and some US states for example, in others, such as Canada, the existing criminal law is used. I will briefly outline the various reactions to hiv in the criminal law and its contradictions and inconsistencies, and then discuss what I and others think really lies behind the criminalization of an infection whose existence is not established and whose role in AIDS is refuted.
La ciminalización de la enfermedad
La criminalización de las personas supuestamente infectadas con un virus conocido como VIH, es única en la historia. Ninguna enfermedad contagiosa ha sido criminalizada de esta manera. Es un fenómeno que se ha extendido a muchos países alrededor del mundo. Leyes penales específicas han sido aprobadas en determinados países, por ejemplo el Reino Unido y algunos estados de EE.UU., y otros, como Canadá, utilizan la ley penal existente. Resumiré brevemente las diversas reacciones al VIH por parte de la ley penal y sus contradicciones e inconsecuencias. Posteriormente hablaré sobre lo que yo y otros piensan de lo que en realidad subyace bajo la criminalización de una infección cuya existencia no se ha establecido y cuyo rol en el SIDA ha sido rebatido.

Universidad Libre Pereira Colombia Law Grouppe
joralogo@gmail.com
The “Free University of Pereira (Colombia) Law Group” is composed of three people. Jose Ramon Lopez Gomez is a university teacher of philosophy and law and has worked with people affected by HIV and AIDS for the past 5 years. Leon Dario Muñoz is a cancer specialist with more than 20 years experience. Rodrigo Andres Medina Diaz is a law student working on a thesis on AIDS and the law who has worked with people affected by HIV and AIDS for the past 3 years.

There are two main positions on the origins, diagnosis, treatment and understanding of AIDS and a Colombian law applies to physicians and patients and resulting from that established by UNAIDS in this regard. A group of teachers, students and researchers have known and studied the medical, the legal, the psychological, and nutritional Rethinking posed by Colombian MD Roberto Giraldo. Today is legally obliged to patients and physicians to follow protocols without taking into account that the Colombian law gives the possibility of applying the proposed cheap and effective treatments for RA. In the Faculty of Law at the Free University of Pereira in Colombia we have the task of studying what is nationally and internationally as legal for AIDS patients and physicians have a legal support for the proposal and receive treatment than those conventional do not give good results, but on the contrary, aggravate the situation of the sick. All our efforts are directed to seek legal action through which patients can claim and defend their rights to good health, to be fully informed, to choose between treatment options to one that better results and to foster better quality of life, even in the midst of his illness. also look through the same mechanisms that physicians can fulfill their Hippocratic duty of disclosure to the patient the whole truth about their illness and various treatment options for patients, as is their right, choose according to his will.
Repensando los aspectos jurídicos del SIDA en Colombia
Existen dos grandes posiciones sobre el origen, diagnóstico, tratamiento y comprensión del SIDA y hay una legislación colombiana aplicable a médicos y pacientes y derivada de lo establecido por la ONUSIDA al respecto. Un grupo de docentes, estudiantes e investigadores hemos conocido y estudiado lo médico, lo legal , lo sicológico, lo nutricional que plantea RA a través del MD colombiano Roberto Giraldo. Hoy en día se obliga legalmente a pacientes y médicos a seguir unos protocolos sin tener en cuenta que la legislación colombiana da la posibilidad de aplicar los baratos y efectivos tratamientos propuestos por RA. En la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad Libre de Pereira Colombia nos hemos dado a la tarea de estudiar lo que hay nacional e internacionalmente en lo jurídico sobre SIDA para que médicos y pacientes tengan un apoyo legal para proponer y recibir tratamientos distintos a los convencionales que no dan buenos resultados sino que , por el contrario, agravan la situación de los enfermos. Todo nuestros esfuerzos están encaminados a buscar que mediante acciones legales los pacientes reclamen y defiendan su derechos a un buen estado salud, a estar totalmente informados , a escoger entre opciones de tratamientos a aquel que de mejores resultados y le propicie mejor calidad de vida, aun en medio de su enfermedad .Además, también buscaremos mediante los mismos mecanismos que los médicos puedan cumplir su hipocrático deber de darle a conocer al paciente toda la verdad sobre su enfermedad y las diversas opciones de tratamiento para que el enfermo, como es su derecho ,escoja según su voluntad.

Joan Shenton
joanshenton@clara.co.uk
Joan Shenton is founder and administrator of Immunity Resource Foundation. The is the author of Positively False: Exposing the myths around HIV and AIDS. She is an award winning television producer whose company Meditel Productions has specialized in science and medical programmes. She has made over 150 programmes for network television. In 1987 she produced the first documentary challenging the science behind the HIV/ AIDS hypothesis: AIDS—The Unheard Voices (Dispatches Ch4) which won the Royal Television Society Award for Journalism. There followed three further Dispatches documentaries on the subject, The AIDS Catch, AZT—Cause for Concern and AIDS and Africa. Sky News has broadcast Diary of an AIDS Dissident, AIDS Dissidents in Europe and AZT Babies. In 2000, she was granted an interview by the South African president Thabo Mbeki broadcast by M-Net South Africa – Search for Solutions—The Great AIDS Debate. Joan Shenton is currently compiling 15 years of archive material on the AIDS debate for the Immunity Resource Foundation website. http://www.immunity.org.uk/index.html

Censorship in the AIDS debate — the success of stifling, muzzling and a strategy of silence
My talk will offer examples from my own experience of some of the most sinister examples of censorship that I and my colleagues have endured, and describe how censorship, largely the result of a very successful strategy of silence adopted by the scientific orthodoxy, has prevented the truth from coming out about the cause or causes of what came to be called Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. I have searched the Immunity Resource Foundation archive and found some filmed gems that have never before been broadcast. They include excepts from interviews with Robert Gallo, Luc Montagnier, Sam Mhlongo, Huw Christie and others that reflect essentially, what we wanted to say but couldn’t.
Censura en el debate SIDA — el éxito de sofocar, de amordazar y de una estrategia de silencio
Mi ponencia ofrecerá ejemplos desde mi experiencia personal sobre algunos de los casos de censura más siniestros que yo y mis colegas hemos sufrido y describe como la censura, en gran medida el resultado de una estrategia de silencio adoptada con mucho éxito por la ortodoxia científica, ha impedido que la verdad salga a la luz sobre la causa o causas de lo que llegó a llamarse Síndrome de Inmunodeficiencia Adquirida. He buscado entre las filmaciones de los archivos de la Immunity Resource Foundation y he encontrado algunas joyas que nunca han sido retransmitidas. Incluyen extractos de entrevistas con Robert Gallo, Luc Montagnier, Sam Mhlongo, Huw Christie y otros, que reflejan en esencia, lo que quisimos pero no pudimos decir.

Marco Ruggiero
marco.ruggiero@unifi.it
Marco Ruggiero, MD, PhD, is a professor of Molecular Biology at the University of Firenze, Italy. He has a specialization in clinical radiology and served as Lieutenant Medical Officer in the Italian Army. In 1984-86 he worked on signal transduction and protease inhibitors as a post-doctoral fellow at Burroughs Wellcome Co. (Research Triangle Park, NC) with Drs. Cuatrecasas and Lapetina. One of his papers on protease inhibitors was presented to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Nobel laureate Sir John Vane. Subsequently he worked as visiting scientist at the Laboratory of Cellular and Molecular Biology (Chief: Dr. S. A. Aaronson) of the National Cancer Institute (NIH, Bethesda, Maryland); his research was focussed on oncogenes and signal transduction. In 1992, he moved back to Firenze, Italy, where now he teaches in the Faculties of Mathematical, Physical and Natural Sciences, Medicine and Surgery, and Engineering. He has been the tutor of many students preparing Bachelor or PhD. theses, several of which have been on AIDS with particular emphasis on the non-viral origin of the disease. He is the author of more than 100 scientific papers in journals such as Science, PNAS or Oncogene, and he has been recently appointed Author in Chief of the “Springer Reference Live: Cancer”. His website is: marcoruggiero.org

Religion, Politics, and AIDS in Italy: curious paradoxes from the Ministry of Health
According to the Vatican, AIDS is “a pathology of the spirit”, and not condoms, but “chastity and fidelity are the means to defeat the fatal virus”. The Vatican is highly respected by politicians and common people alike, which has led to curious paradoxes concerning HIV infection and AIDS. The most notable is that the Italian Ministry of Health appears convinced that AIDS is not (or not solely) caused by HIV. In Italy AIDS can be diagnosed in the absence of signs of HIV infection. As of May 2009, there is no surveillance system of new HIV infections, which allows manipulation of data concerning HIV infection. The Ministry of Health does not classify AIDS either as a relevant and particularly interesting infective disease or as highly frequent, or even susceptible to control interventions. AIDS in Italy is confined to two categories of people not particularly liked by the pervasive moral regime—gay men and drug addicts. In about 25% of paediatric AIDS cases the mother was HIV-negative. If the data and the definitions provided for by the Italian Ministry of Health are accurate and consistent, and assuming that the Ministry always uses the acronym “AIDS” to indicate the same pathologic entity, then we are forced to conclude that the Ministry is convinced that HIV is not the sole cause of AIDS in Italy.

Religión, política y SIDA en Italia: curiosas paradojas del Ministerio de Salud
Según el Vaticano, el SIDA es una “patología del espríritu”, y no son los condones, si no “la castidad y fidelidad los medios para derrotar a este virus mortal”. El Vaticano es tenido en mucha consideración tanto por los políticos y como por el pueblo, lo cual ha dado lugar a curiosas paradojas respecto a la infección por VIH y el SIDA. La paradoja más notable es que el Ministerio Italiano de Salud, parece estar convencido que el VIH no es la (o no es la única) causa del SIDA. En Italia, el SIDA se puede diagnosticar en ausencia de indicios que indiquen infección por VIH. A día de hoy, mayo de 2009, un sistema de censo nacional de nuevos diagnósticos de infecciones por VIH no está disponible, lo cual permite la manipulación de datos con respecto a la infección por VIH. El ministerio de salud no clasifica el SIDA ni como una enfermedad infecciosa relevante ni particularmente interesante, ni tampoco como una patología muy frecuente, ni siquiera como una enfermedad susceptible a intervenciones de control. El SIDA en Italia esta confinado a dos categorías de personas que no son de particular agrado del régimen moral dominante – hombres gays y drogadictos. Aproximadamente en el 25% de casos de SIDA pediátricos la madre era VIH-negativa. Si los datos y definiciones proporcionados por el Ministerio Italiano de Salud son precisos y consistentes, y asumiendo que el Ministerio siempre utiliza el acrónimo “SIDA” para indicar la misma entidad patológica, entonces estamos obligados a concluir que el Ministerio está convencido que el VIH no es la única causa del SIDA en Italia.

Daniele Mandrioli
mandry83@libero.it
Daniele Mandrioli, M.D, 26 years old. He obtained his M.D. degree in 2009 from the University of Bologna, Italy, including a thesis on the Chemical-AIDS hypothesis. His thesis work was supervised by Prof. Giovanni Pierini, toxicologist, and realised thanks to his experiences at Dr. Koehnlein’s practice in 2008. In 2007/2008 he was a Medical Student at Charité—Universitätsmedizin, Berlin. He is a member of the “Conflict of Interest Formation Program”, a group where Medical Doctors and Medical Students discuss conflict of interest in medicine, which was created by the Center for International Health, Bologna with the help of NoGraziePagoIo (Italian branch of Nofreelunch). In the summer of 2009 he attended the BSRT International Summer School on Innovative Approaches in Regenerative Medicine in Berlin.

The Italian epidemiology supports the chemical AIDS theory
The Italian epidemiology supports the chemical AIDS theory. The AIDS cases went down in the last 10 years just among the drug abusers (4737 to 680). This happened because of the decline in Heroin abuse. Moreover, in Italy just 1/3 of HIV-positive people use the anti-HIV drugs, which means that antiretroviral use cannot account for the decline in AIDS cases (from 5052 to 1144) in the last 10 years. Moreover, scanning electron microscope images (SEM) help us see how the immune system could be stressed by the impurities that we can find in a heroin doses.
La epidemiología italiana apoya la teoría química del SIDA
La epidemiología italiana apoya la teoría química del SIDA. En los últimos 10 años, sólo se redujeron los casos de SIDA entre los drogadictos (de 4737 a 680). Esto es debido a la caída en el abuso del consumo de heroína. Además, en Italia sólo 1/3 de los pacientes utilizan los ARV, por lo que esto no podría explicar el descenso en los casos de SIDA de los últimos 10 años (de 5052 a 1144). Asimismo, algunas imágenes al microscopio electrónico de barrido o SEM (siglas en inglés), nos ayudarán a ver como el sistema inmune podría estar estresado por las impurezas que se pueden encontrar en una dosis de heroína.

Karri Stokely
kstokely2@yahoo.com
Karri is a 43 year old mother of two children, ages 17 and 14. She and her husband, Joe, have been married for 19 years. Karri’s background is in emergency medicine; she worked as a Paramedic, then in out-patient surgery until she had her children. As a stay-at-home mom, she has successfully home schooled both kids for the past 12 years. “It has been such a wonderful experience, quite a blessing and a privilege to build relationships with them while home-schooling” says Karri. In her spare time, Karri enjoys exercise, reading, and teaching classes on whole/living foods nutrition. Karri makes her own herbal tinctures and believes the key to good health is through natural remedies, sprouting, juicing and organic, living foods. One of Karri’s favorite quotes is: “Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food.”—Hippocrates
Diagnosed with AIDS after a positive HIV test in 1996, Karri followed the current orthodox paradigm of treating AIDS for 11 years until she and Joe discovered there was another side to the story—One they had never heard or been told. Karri has fully regained her health and has successfully been off pharmaceutical drugs for 2 ½ years.
Karri and her family reside in Florida and you can find out more about them at: ww.myspace.com/rethinkaids

How I fell victim to the AIDS machine
My story is one of how I fell victim to the AIDS machine and how my husband and I found out the truth surrounding this controversy after I had been taking the HIV drugs for 11 years. I was given an AIDS diagnosis in 1996, based on nothing but a t-cell count. I experienced many side effects from the drugs over the years, ranging from nausea and vomiting, muscle cramps, anemia, insomnia, wasting, and hair falling out. We were led to believe that these were all symptoms of HIV disease, or having full blown AIDS. My doctor never told us that these symptoms could be medication related. Since stopping all the medications in April 2007, I have fully regained my health and well-being, and all side effects have disappeared. I do have some concerns about any long-term, unseen damage these poisons may have done to me, but I try not to worry about it, as I live my life as healthy as possible.
Como caí víctima de la máquina SIDA
Mi historia trata sobre como caí víctima de la máquina SIDA y como, tras llevar 11 años tomando los medicamentos anti-VIH, mi marido y yo descubrimos la verdad en torno a esta controversia. En 1996 me diagnosticaron SIDA basado únicamente en un recuento de células T. Sufrí muchos efectos secundarios producidos por los fármacos que iban desde náuseas y vómitos, calambres musculares, anemia, insomnio, consunción y caída del cabello.
Nos hicieron creer que estos síntomas eran propios de la enfermedad por VIH, o un estadio SIDA completamente desarrollado. Mi doctor nunca nos informó que estos síntomas pudiesen estar relacionados con la medicación. Desde que deje de tomar los medicamentos en abril del 2007, he recuperado íntegramente mi salud y bienestar, y todos los efectos secundarios han desaparecido. Tengo algunas preocupaciones acerca de cualquier daño que me haya podido causar estos venenos a largo plazo y que haya podido pasar inadvertido, pero intento no preocuparme de esto mientras vivo mi vida de la manera más sana posible.

Noreen Martin
noreenelaine@hotmail.com
After having survived cancer, hepatitis, and having been diagnosed with full-blown AIDS, she knew that it was time to make major changes in her life, as she did not think that modern medicine holds out much hope for life-threatening diseases. Having to cope with these diseases in a lifetime would probably be enough to push most people over the edge. However, Noreen found that all the hurdles that one has to overcome in life only go to make one stronger. She has never accepted that these diseases, or any other for that matter, were incurable. She believes that the body and the mind have a great healing capacity if given time and the proper ingredients to work with. She has since rebuilt her health, is not on anti-retroviral medication, but takes an enhancer called low dose naltrexone. She has completed a nutritional course and a master herbalist program and soon will have a Bachelor of Science in Holistic Nutrition. She is also working on a naturopathy degree. Noreen’s program of recovery started by getting educated about health issues, then she proceeded to detoxification, eliminated negative influences and added positive ones which included vitamins, supplements, and herbal products. She paid special attention to all of the food and drinks which went into her body, including products used on the body. Her health wasn’t destroyed in a day, neither does she think it could be rebuilt in a day. She took one day at a time and pressed forward with good health habits and a positive attitude. Her latest book is Perfect Immunity Against Disease

AIDS, Big Deal, Next!: A journey to hell and back with AIDS
A journey to hell and back with AIDS that nearly killed me to wonderful health without the HAART. When life gives one lemons, make lemonade as there is always a silver lining to be found in any situation!
SIDA, no es para tanto, ¡El siguiente!: Un viaje de ida y vuelta al infierno con el SIDA
Un viaje de ida al infierno con el SIDA que casi me mata y de vuelta a una maravillosa salud sin los HAART. Cuando la vida te da un limón, haz limonada ya que en cada situación no hay mal que por bien no venga!

Tony Lance
tonylance@mac.com
Tony Lance is a freelance writer and editor living near Nashville, TN. He’s been active in the rethinking community since 1997 when he co-founded the HEAL-Atlanta chapter (now defunct). From 2004-2008 he ran an Alive and Well-affiliated peer support group in NYC. In 2008 he wrote an article exploring the connection between intestinal dysbiosis and immune dysfunction in gay men that was published on Dr. Henry Bauer’s blog.

Challenges faced by gays who question HIV/AIDS with implications for dissidents
For several decades HIV/AIDS has been a rallying point for the gay community, bringing it together against a perceived common threat and, in the process, catalyzing the gay rights movement. Consequently, there is a shared sense of pride in this group about the manner in which they’ve responded to the issue, inextricably linking HIV/AIDS to the collective esteem of many gay men and women. Where does that leave those in the community who question HIV/AIDS? What challenges does that pose for dissidents at large?
Desafíos a los que se enfrentan los gays que cuestionan el VIH/SIDA y sus consecuencias para los disidentes
Durante varias décadas el VIH/SIDA ha sido un motivo de reivindicación para la comunidad gay, aunándola contra lo que se percibe como una amenaza común y, en ese proceso, catalizando el movimiento por los derechos de los gays. Por consiguiente, existe en este grupo un sentimiento compartido de orgullo sobre la manera en que han reaccionado a la cuestión, vinculando de manera inextricable el VIH/SIDA a la estima colectiva de muchos hombres y mujeres gays. ¿Dónde deja esto a aquellos en la comunidad que cuestionan el VIH/SIDA? ¿Que desafíos plantea esto para los disidentes en general?

Click the icon (meant to display as a Hide button) to close the section)

That's odd - the more HIV we find the more AIDS diagnoses and AIDS deaths tail off.  This seems very odd - is it possible?  Something must be very wrong, somewhere.  Let's ask Anthony Fauci to explain.Notably absent from the impressive lineup are some of the best authors of books against the prevailing wisdom, including Rebecca Culshaw author of Science Sold Out, and Harvey Bialy, author of Oncogenes, Aneuploidy and AIDS. To some extent this absence reflects the vicious politics used to repress the view that HIV/AIDS science is profoundly incorrect and in urgent need of review and revision, which will undoubtedly be the theme of the conference.

The Rethinking AIDS 2009 Conference “will consist of talks that question the widely held dogma that HIV causes AIDS, including whether HIV exists, whether it is sexually transmitted, whether HIV tests are accurate and whether AIDS drugs are safe and effective. The social, psychologic and legal impacts of an HIV diagnosis will also be considered, as well as alternative health approaches for people whose health has been damaged by an HIV diagnosis, by the prescription of AIDS drugs or who have been diagnosed with an AIDS-defining illness.”

Brent Leung’s excellent documentary House of Numbers, revealing the disarray of leading scientists who promote the current paradigm and propagandize in its favor will be shown on Saturday afternoon at 4.30pm. Joan Shenton’s talk will also include her own found gems of the kind that decorate House of Numbers: statements by HIV/AIDS scientists which support the statement and claims of their critics, such that the critics are vindicated by the very people that strive so determinedly to silence them. “I have searched the Immunity Resource Foundation archive and found some filmed gems that have never before been broadcast. They include excepts from interviews with Robert Gallo, Luc Montagnier, Sam Mhlongo, Huw Christie and others that reflect essentially, what we wanted to say but couldnh’t.”

Media are invited to all conference sessions including the documentary screening and the Welcome Cocktail after the Keynote Lecture today, Friday (Nov 6) (register in advance by filling out the attached registration form and emailing it back to or call Siggi Sachs at (510) 717-8635.

Here is the program:

Rethinking AIDS 2009 Conference

Friday November 6th

Opening Session
6:00
Welcome and introduction of Keynote Speaker by David Crowe (Calgary, Canada)
6:15
Keynote Lecture: The media, HIV/AIDS, and the making of public “understandings”
by Michael Tracey (Boulder, CO, USA)
7:15 Welcome Cocktail

Saturday November 7

Morning Session Chaired by Charles Geshekter
8:00 1. History of the AIDS controversy spanning three decades by John Lauritsen
(Dorchester, MA, USA)
8:40 2. HIV-AIDS hypothesis out of touch with South African AIDS—a new
perspective by Peter Duesberg (Berkeley, CA, USA)
9:20 3. Questioning the existence of HIV by Etienne de Harven (Saint Cézaire, France)
10:00 Coffee Break
Chaired by Helen Lauer
10:30 4. The deception and dishonesty of African AIDS statistics by Charles Geshekter (Chico, CA, USA)
11:10 5. Aids in Africa—a call for sense not hysteria by Christian Fiala (Vienna, Austria)
11:50 6. The role of the inner pharmacy in the prevention and treatment of AIDS by
Roberto Giraldo (São Paolo, Brasil)
12:30 Lunch

Afternoon Session

Chaired by Christian Fiala
2:00 7. HIV drugs causing AIDS by David Rasnick (Oakland, CA, USA)
2:40 8. The treatment dilemma of HIV-positive patients as a result of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis: The illusion of antiviral treatment by Claus Koehnlein (Kiel, Germany)
3:20 9. HIV/AIDS blunder is far from unique in the annals of science and
medicine by Henry Bauer (Blacksburg, VA, USA)
4:00 Coffee Break
4:30 Screening of Brent Leung’s documentary, House of Numbers

7:00 Conference Banquet ($100)

Sunday November 8th

Morning Session Chaired by Roberto Giraldo

8:00 10. The criminalization of illness by Chris Black (Toronto, Canada)
8:30 11. Rethinking legal aspects of AIDS in Colombia by Rodrigo Andres Medina Diaz, Jose Ramon Lopez Gomez (Universidad Libre Pereira Colombia Law Group, Pereira, Colombia)
9:00 12. Censorship in the AIDS debate—the success of stifling, muzzling and a strategy of silence by Joan Shenton (London, UK)
9:30 Coffee Break
Chaired by Joan Shenton & Dale DeMatteo
9:45 13. Religion, politics, and AIDS in Italy: curious paradoxes from the Ministry of Health by Marco Ruggiero (Florence, Italy)
10:15 14. The Italian epidemiology supports the chemical AIDS theory by Daniele Mandrioli (Bologna, Italy)
10:45 15. How I fell victim to the AIDS machine by Karri Stokely (Lakeland, FL, USA)
11:00 16. Challenges faced by gays who question HIV/AIDS with implications for dissidents by Tony Lance (Nashville, TN, USA)
11:15 Panel discussion: Panelists: Celia Farber, Gary Null, Joan Shenton, and Michael Tracey Moderator: David Crowe
12:00 Closing Remarks

Conference organized by Rethinking AIDS
website www.rethinkingaids.com
or contact at info@ra2009.org

Whether any of this will have any influence on the political scene in this high spending arena is a question. Currently the leaders of HIV/AIDS are clamoring as loudly as ever for increased funding, and the idea that spending is based on a grand error maintained by self serving scientists against all logic and evidence is not something that will make itself heard until the New York Times opens up its columns to all the news fit to print on this issue, or some other watershed change comes about.

Meanwhile, one wonders about the priorities of the conference organizers themselves when they schedule the remarkable and rarely heard analyst John Lauritsen and the distinguished Peter Duesberg to speak at the ungodly hours of 8 am and 8.40 am on Saturday morning.

It reminds us of the New York conference of Rethinking AIDS where Peter Duesberg, the key speaker, was rushed off stage before he could even complete his presentation, not to mention answer any questions, so that the program schedule could be maintained.

87 Responses to “Seaside Conference Reexamines HIV and AIDS”

  1. Sadun Kal Says:

    Please pay attention to the conflict between RA and the Perth Group too:
    http://forums.aidsmythexposed.com/main-forum/5717-rethinking-aids-conference-2009-main-thread-2.html#post37400

    http://forums.aidsmythexposed.com/main-forum/5717-rethinking-aids-conference-2009-main-thread-2.html#post37391

    “Because of irreconcilable scientific and ethical differences we wish to formally disassociate ourselves from the Rethinking AIDS Group. Signed: The Perth Group”.

    Is it of no concern to this Science Guardian what those “scientific and ethical differences” are? How does he choose who or what deserves guarding?

  2. MartinDKessler Says:

    This is a sad but not unexpected state of affairs. I’ve been familiar with the Perth Group’s scientific papers and found them highly technical, well written, well researched and mind blowing and logical. They explain why AIDS was not a contagious disease – it never was and HIV never really existed. A careful analysis of the epidemiological data reveals these observations as obvious. It would never have been in the AIDS establishment’s interest (economic or existential) to accept the truth of what the data reveal (Dr. Henry Bauer has done extensive analysis of this data.) I’ve read Duesberg’s books (all of them – in fact I have them). The thing that bothered me about Duesbergs books especially “Inventing the AIDS Virus”, is that it is internally inconsistent. In one part of the book, HIV can’t be found in others it was found in tiny titres – (where was the golden proof there was really any actual HIV present? – there wasn’t any Duesberg just accepted that evidence from his references as received knowledge instead of being much more skeptical knowing well that virology’s existential survival depended on HIV being a real and deadly threat to Humankind.)

  3. MartinDKessler Says:

    I just read through an article in New York Magazine Nov. 9th issue : on the cover: +The New HIV Scare p.30. The title was Another Kind of AIDS Crisis. The article was written by David France – I don’t know anything about him but it’s obvious to me he’s just another AIDS Establishment accolyte. The synopsis was : “A striking number of HIV patients are living longer but getting older faster – showing early signs of dementia and bone weakness usually seen in the elderly.” My first thought was this was more than likely the result of their “life saving” meds – protease inhibitors and nucleoside analogues. France writes: “Whether this is a result of the drugs or the disease itself or some combination, is still an open question and certainly varies from patient to patient and condition to condition.” That in and of itself seems reasonable but a look at what the patients’ diseases are gives me a second thought: lipodystrophy, fatigue, dysplasia, Crohn’s disease, osteoporosis, memory loss, dementia, nerve damage in the feet, hip replacements. This is a list of the diseases taken from the little summaries under each of the patients pictured in the article – not all of the patients have all of the diseases. France writes glowingly about the antiretroviral treatments even the earliest AZT. Any thoughts on this article?

  4. Truthseeker Says:

    “Duesberg just accepted that evidence from his references as received knowledge”

    Yes, that was the standard policy adopted by Duesberg in his initial critiques, whatever his private views of the validity of reasoning and evidence offered in the published studies. He simply took the reasoning and evidence offered by the paradigm promoters at face value and showed that it indicated that the claim that HIV caused immune collapse did not stand up to examination.

    Questioning the validity of the reasoning and evidence of the published studies in HIV/AIDS was a second step, inevitably. He took it in a number of cases eg AZT studies and showed they did not indicate what they claimed, because they were not well done, or poorly reasoned, or both.

    In other words, he acted according to the familiar difficulties of reviewing established claims – first, you have to accept the data at face value and show that it doesn’t justify the claims made, and only then can you take the data itself apart. You cannot do both at once.

    There is a similar difficulty with regard to the Perth Group. First you have to take the existence of the virus at face value, a la Duesberg, then you can take a further step a la Perth and reexamine whether it actually exists as an independent entity or whether the indications that it does can be validly interpreted in a different way ie as bits and pieces rather than a whole virus, or whatever.

    The Duesberg critique of the HIV claim that it was a new retrovirus which caused the new syndrome was argued from his expertise as a cancer retrovirus researcher in the course of defeating the claim that retroviruses caused cancer, and then from his very thorough review of claims made for HIV, in which he became more expert than anybody else, perforce, since the counterattack was huge, and intensely political. All of this was repeatedly peer reviewed often by more reviewers than normal with great hostility and nervousness and published in the highest journals, ie can be taken as tested and proved valid by the standard professional process ratcheted up to the highest level of excruciating intensity.

    The Perth Group arguments that HIV probably wasn’t even an independent entity but a misinterpretation of various indications of the presence of bits and pieces of the supposed whole retrovirus came from outsiders whose professional expertise was in different fields and whose scientific status was considerably lower than Duesberg’s, and was rejected by top level journals and found publication only in second tier publications. This in and of itself doesn’t prove it wrong of course, but when Duesberg says he doesn’t accept it then he is speaking with greater authority than the Perth group, other things being equal.

    The Perth group reasoning looks well informed and expert on the face of it, and many people are impressed by it, and have decided it is probably correct, including some of the smart independent thinkers who have commented here. This may be partly because at every other level the HIV/AIDS paradigm doesn’t stand up to examination, and by the time anyone has become familiar with how much is rotten in the state of Denmark, they can’t help but doubt everything that is peddled by the paradigm gang. We know the feeling! When every part of a supposed elephant that you prod with your finger turns out to be no more substantial that a cobweb, you are inclined to think that all of it is an apparition.

    As far as we understand it the Perth Group have other big counts against them, however. They seem unable to come up with a coherent and sustainable account of what could be causing all the indications of the presence and activity of a retrovirus in this case if it isn’t a real one – its ability to be grown up and mailed from one lab to the next and still exhibit the same characteristics, for example. When people can work with it in independent labs and get the same behavior and results, then you have to revert to a very unlikely fantasy of how many people all over the world can be deluded in unison in this practical, hands on lab mode.

    Aha, you might reply, isn’t the whole HIV/AIDS belief a fantasy in which people all over the world are deluded in unison? Yes it is, granted, but it is more on the level of theory, not hands on lab evidence. In fact the hands on evidence for the HIV/AIDS claims is all against it – there is negligible virus found in patients, there is no evidence of an infectious epidemic, etc. The mass HIV/AIDS delusion is founded on how these contrary indications are ignored and reinterpreted. In the case of the Perth Group, the skeptics themselves seem to be the deluded ones, finding reasons to reject the ruling idea that HIV is a valid retrovirus without substituting any better idea of what is going on.

    Frankly we are admittedly handicapped in dealing with the issue because we are not up to speed with their whole literature because it has so many indications of being wrong on the face of it that it doesn’t seem worth careful review. To our mind it has all the earmarks of excess skepticism – the ability of determined and intelligent skeptics who think they are on to something to build a fine edifice of alternative thinking to justify their cause which those who are not equally familiar with the material they have studied so hard tend to find impressive ie well argued and internally consistent, and therefore enough to give pause, just as the 9/11 conspiracy theorists superficially manage to do the same thing.

    But just as the 9/11 people can’t make their overall implication fit reality as we know it – it seems inconceivable that anyone would go to the lengths required to achieve the objective suggested (arranging a inviolable and totally successful conspiracy with a fair number of of perfectly trustworthy people to import explosives into the buildings surreptitiously and blow them up on a schedule well coordinated with hijacking several planes, all in order to foment public support for action against Iraq, or whatever) so the Perth Group have every appearance of people who can build an internally consistent alternate reality which doesn’t fit basic known external reality.

    Actually what some might view as the essential foolishness of the Perth contingent was politely exposed by Duesberg in his talk on Saturday, when he preceded the gentlemanly De Haarven, who is now together with the Perth group peddling the idea that HIV is an ubiquitous endogenous retrovirus which is in the genome and liberated by certain activities of the gay kind. Duesberg having checked, unlike the Perth contingent, was able to administer the coup de grace by stating with authority that the sequence was not part of the human genome and therefore that whole idea is null and void.

    The Perth view has always had the unfortunate effect of bringing the main HIV paradigm critique into more disrepute when it deserves nothing of the kind, and the debacle in Adelaide a couple of years ago when its proponents appeared in court to argue against Gallo and instead of winning hands down were routed with the judge jeering at their credentials was the sad vindication of those who had long worried that this might be the outcome, undeserved though it may be.

    It is generally acknowledged that the Perth proponents deserve and get a lot of respect for their other contributions in this arena even if their existential fight is misguided. Sadly it appears that they are furiously disappointed not to have been invited to the Oakland conference and the rift which has opened up between anti-HIV orthodoxy and Perth has become wider than ever.

  5. Truthseeker Says:

    New York magazine, Another Kind of AIDS Crisis, By David France Published Nov 1, 2009:

    “Some fifteen years into the era of protease inhibitors and drug cocktails, doctors are realizing that the miracles the drugs promised are not necessarily a lasting solution to the disease. Most news accounts today call HIV a chronic, manageable disease. But patients who contracted the virus just a few years back are showing signs of what’s being called premature or accelerated aging. Early senility turns out to be an increasingly common problem, though not nearly as extreme as James’s in every case. One large-scale multi-city study released its latest findings this summer that over half of the HIV-positive population is suffering some form of cognitive impairment. Doctors are also reporting a constellation of ailments in middle-aged patients that are more typically seen at geriatric practices, in patients 80 and older. They range from bone loss to organ failure to arthritis. Making matters worse, HIV patients are registering higher rates of insulin resistance and cholesterol imbalances, and they suffer elevated rates of melanoma and kidney cancers and seven times the rate of other non-HIV-related cancers.

    Whether this is a result of the drugs or the disease itself, or some combination, is still an open question and certainly varies from patient to patient and condition to condition. Either way, it is now clear that even patients who respond well to medications by today’s standards are not out of the woods. Current life-expectancy charts show that people on HIV medications could live twenty fewer years on average than the general population. “It’s spooky,” says Mark Harrington, who heads Treatment Action Group, a New York–based HIV think tank. “It seems like the virus keeps finding new tricks to throw at us, and we’re just all left behind going, What’s going on?”

    Translation: So the medications cause you to lose your mind and die twenty years earlier. A welcome admission, though somewhat late in the day for the unfortunate sufferers.

    “At an AIDS conference earlier this year, researchers from Seattle presented a large-scale study that compared patients who started treatment early with those who waited. They found delaying therapy boosted the odds of dying by either 69 percent or 94 percent over a decade, depending on how low the patient’s T-cell count was. These are staggering numbers. Though the investigators say that randomized long-term studies are needed to confirm their work, they nonetheless propose beginning treatment earlier. Leading AIDS doctors are persuaded. “Many of us who see large numbers of HIV patients are becoming superaggressive,” says Dr. Stephen Dillon, who practices in the West Village. “I don’t believe everybody needs to be started on meds. But I do believe that we need to start earlier than we have been for the last five to ten years.”

    Translation: So the best thing is to start the medications earlier, says the paradigm gang, with the kind of upside down logic that students of the paradigm HIV=AIDS are all too familiar with.

    In addition, a number of leading researchers have called for more research on the drugs’ side-effects before putting more people on them, according to Jeffrey Laurence, a professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York. For one thing, he says doctors wonder if African Americans fare worse on the drugs than whites. “Our chairman of medicine said he’s never seen a white person with HIV and kidney disease, it basically doesn’t happen. There’s a whole bunch of information we need before pushing forward with this.”

    Translation: Some call for more research on the drugs’ side effects, however. Why this is needed is not immediately obvious, unless “necessary” is a decisive demand highly associated with “increased funding”.

    In a dramatic move last week, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases upped the ante even further by announcing a massive new plan to test virtually every single adult in the Bronx and the District of Columbia—homes to some of the highest rates of infection in the country—and put everybody who tests positive on anti-HIV drugs, whether they have depleted T-cell counts or not. Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top AIDS official, said the main goal of the program was to stem transmission of the virus. Untreated patients are extremely infectious. Effective treatment suppresses HIV to such a degree that transmission risks can be virtually eliminated.

    Translation: But NIAID insists that testing must be expanded to pull more people into the CDC dragnet, because “untreated patients are extremely infectious”. What exactly happened to Nancy Padian’s huge study showing nil transmission among Californian +/- couples is not clear, except that it is now a giant embarrassment to the orthodox dogmatist in the HIV/AIDS drug delivery operation, and there is a large lump under the carpet in Anthony Fauci’s office at NIAID, which may just possibly be these results, swept under the rug by those that like to keep the public message on track.

    Joseph Sonnabend, the founding force behind AMFAR and a number of other agencies, is especially incensed by a proposal, currently under consideration by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to make the drugs available to people who are HIV-negative on the theory that they will help prevent transmission. “It’s all quite bizarre, and I wonder what is driving it,” he wrote in an e-mail from his London home.

    Translation: Soon it seems that HIV negatives will be pulled into the net, which even the discreet Sonnabend calls bizarre. But how else to keep up the numbers of the candidates in the US for AIDS drug purchases, if they insist on dying off at the same rate as ever, about 17,000 a year (WHO estimates as high as 22,000 in recent years).

    “A study presented at a conference in February in Montreal showed that otherwise healthy people on HIV medications at about 56 years of age had immune systems comparable to HIV-negative subjects whose median age is 88. Perhaps as a result, many diseases that typically attack the very old are striking younger HIV-positive people disproportionately, like diseases of the liver, kidney, heart, and veins. One study found that 55-year-olds who are HIV-positive have all the telltale signs of late-life frailty—muscle loss, fatigue, and rheumatological disorders…

    “The newest data show that middle-aged patients have dramatically increased rates of bone loss and fractures for their age. Some 60 percent of HIV-positive men in their forties have osteoporosis or its predecessor condition, a problem that typically isn’t diagnosed in men until well into their eighties. Jules Levin, founder and executive director of the New York–based National AIDS Treatment Advocacy Project, only found out about this two years ago, when he stumbled and shattered his wrist. He was 57 at the time and in exceptionally good shape, other than his undiagnosed osteoporosis. “This is what opened my eyes to all of this stuff,” he says. “Aging is the No. 1 problem in HIV today.”

    “According to research presented this summer at the international AIDS conference in Cape Town, South Africa, 52 percent of all Americans infected with HIV (the mean age of which is just 43) suffer from some type of cognitive impairment—mostly mild or moderate dementias, but which nonetheless can impede one’s ability to function on a day-to-day basis. This is a staggering finding. Among people without HIV, around 10 percent of individuals under 60 experience such problems….

    “That large-scale study, called CHARTER (for central-nervous-system HIV antiretroviral therapy-effects research), began in 2002 and received $38 million in NIH grants to follow 1,500 patients. According to Igor Grant, a University of California, San Diego, neurologist who heads the effort, motor skills are often impaired as well. Some patients develop a tremor or experience difficulty with balance.

    “Some experience seizures, and others appear to undergo fundamental character changes, not uncommon in brain injuries. “I have many patients who say their personalities have changed, or their partners say, ‘He’s nicer,’ or ‘He’s meaner,’?” says Anthony Geraci, an HIV neurologist in Manhattan. Some even develop interests in areas that had never fascinated them in the past, he says. “Certain parts of their brain will be released, if you will, and they start being able to do things they couldn’t do before.”

    In contrast, others show deep disturbances of the white matter of their brains, the deep connective nerve tissue responsible for motor coordination and executive function—the region that allows us to make a plan and to follow through on it. A high-level executive assistant I’ll call Martina—diagnosed HIV-positive 22 years ago—tells me she has finally gone on disability recently, unable to juggle her own pared-down schedule, much less someone else’s. An MRI revealed significant changes in her white matter, which are likely irreversible—a possibility that devastates her. “I feel awful,” she says. “Lately my husband has been saying, ‘You know what? I think I need to take over the bills.’ For him to say that, I must be getting worse.”…

    Translation: Side effects can be dire, especially in the brain, presumably helping prevent AIDS drug takers from thinking clearly enough to second guess their doctors fond belief that HIV causes AIDS and that the drugs side effects are unfortunate but worthwhile effects of achieving the prime objective of neutralizing the deadly wisp of inert RNA, as well as neutralizing any doubts that anyone thoughtful might have as to the sense of the whole paradigm system.

    Researchers are convinced that bone loss, perhaps more clearly than the other conditions, is a direct side effect of the medications, while the brain issues are more likely to be related to HIV itself. Further puzzling to researchers is why some patients don’t experience any problems at all, even after living with HIV for decades. Dr. Justin McArthur at Johns Hopkins says genetic factors may be at play.

    Translation: Some lucky few will escape the side effects of the drugs because they have strong genes which help them overcome the assault, though another lucky few go scot free by simply not taking the drugs at all, but they are unworthy of mention.
    -30-

    Thanks Martin, but what can one say? David France should have been in Oakland this weekend, being awarded a medal. Of course, he may not realise what he is really saying, so he would have to ask, What is this for?

    Let’s note that none of the Comments so far point to what is the obvious lesson of the piece: it is medications which are causing the problem, and any honest regime would reassess the predatory behavior of the CDC/NIH.

  6. MartinDKessler Says:

    With respect to Perth and Duesberg and the conference: Why Can’t We All Just Get Along?. It’s been a few years since I read the Perth scientific papers – at the time they were printed in Continuum Magazine. AIDS skeptics as a whole may not be 100% in agreement but there has been more healthy debate than in the AIDS Establishment where there is virtually none.

    Your “translation” of excerpts from France’s article confirmed what I thought. Thanks.

  7. Truthseeker Says:

    Is there any need for an I’m OK You’re OK spirit among AIDS paradigm critics? Surely they are truthseekers, who must crank up their review engine whenever it is fed some claim by anybody, friend or foe. Should they turn it off for allies?

    The whole idea is to serve science not politics. But even in politics, the Perth group are a menace to the aim of the critics, who are first of all seeking a hearing from people of influence, which is hard enough without having the burden of dissociating themselves from extreme ideas which bring them into even more disrepute by tieing them to an easy target for the HIV/AIDS goon squad.

  8. Truthseeker Says:

    Since there was total silence from the enlightened brigade of truthseekers in HIV/AIDS – perhaps they were all in Oakland or recovering from the trip – we posted the following as a double comment at New York magazine at this page:

    David France deserves a medal for exposing the horrid truth hidden behind conventional wisdom and treatment of people who are HIV positive, which is that they suffer from adverse symptoms which are as bad as or worse than the supposed effects of HIV itself. So the medications cause you to lose your mind and die twenty years earlier? A welcome admission, though somewhat late in the day for the unfortunate sufferers. He contrasts the damage the drugs are doing with the pressure exerted by the CDC and NIAID to expand testing and even to deliver drugs to the 99% of the US population who are HIV negative. In other words, the drugs cause great damage and therefore they should be administered to more people in the wake of expanded testing even if the individual is HIV negative.

    Anyone who reads this should be forgiven for concluding that the CDC, NIAID and orthodox scientists and doctors in this arena have lost their minds, perhaps by imbibing the drugs themselves for some reason. But this is not what has happened. What has gone very wrong is that a belief that immune collapse is caused by the virus HIV has been allowed to run amok, so that it has become a global belief despite being thoroughly and repeatedly demolished in the scientific literature in the highest journals without being refuted or even responded to in the same journals, but instead being condemned by politics and ad hominem counter attack, a movement in which the New York Times has participated by restricting coverage of the professional review and its supporters in science and out.

    As the grotesque damage being done to trusting patients by this drug delivery system and its rationale is made clear in this article, it is time for the media to stop being fellow travelers with the scientific promoters of the belief that HIV is the cause of AIDS, and give an airing to the proponents of the opposite idea, that HIV does not cause AIDS, but drugs do, and give the public a chance to hear both sides.

    As a first step in this direction New York magazine and Mr France are to be congratulated for doing the job that all good journalists should have been doing for the last 22 years. It is time for the media to stop assuming that the scientists who lead a field on which vast sums in taxes are being spent are necessarily giving officials and politicians their best advice.

    Critics of the belief that HIV causes AIDS met in Oakland California this weekend and thoroughly reviewed the current situation, but not one mainstream reporter responded to invitations to join them. What a pity David France did not attend and discover that his work lifts the lid off a can of worms which has become the Worldcom of science.

  9. MartinDKessler Says:

    Hi Truthseeker, I did not get that impression at all from the article that France wrote. His thrust was that it was HIV predominantly that caused the problems these people were having. He never really said that the cure was worse than the disease – did he? Here’s a quote: “Tears of relief greeted AZT, a toxic old cancer drug that was reintroduced as an AIDS treatment in 1987. Researchers hoped AZT would neutralize the virus before it had a chance to cause infection. But even at doses so toxic that the drug destroyed livers and caused severe muscle loss, it proved no match for the virus’s ability to mutate.” That’s bullshit – AZT killed anything with DNA and RNA in them that were replicating. It would not have made any difference if a virus was mutating it would have killed it. But, there has to be a virus that was actually doing something to blame – there wasn’t any – AZT just killed the patients – period.

  10. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    Very nice discussion, Truthseeker and Mr. Kessler. It’s good to see this site’s unwavering support for good science over bad dogma.

  11. cervantes Says:

    In the realm of HIV/AIDS, the Sherlock Holmes’ clue of “the dog that did not bark” is consistently ignored by paradigm believers, as exemplified by France’s article leaving out (like they did not exist) the abundant examples HIV+ people* in fine health after 25 years while declining anti-HIV meds.

    *For newcomers, the Duesberg, Rasnick, Koehnlein paper also clearly makes this point: Duesberg, P., Koehnlein, C. and Rasnick, D. (2003) The Chemical Bases of the Various AIDS Epidemics: Recreational Drugs, Anti-viral Chemotherapy and Malnutrition.
    (J. Biosci. 28: 383-412)

    Dr. Lohse et al. (7 collaborators) published Jan. 16, 2007, Annals of Internal Medicine, takes the cake, when they fail to discuss HIV+ Danes declining anti-HIV drugs are projected to approach mortality rates of typical, uninfected Danes.

    To be specific, Lohse projects the cohort of Danes “infected” with HIV at age 25 at year 2000 (or later), dutifully taking their meds, are projected 39 more years of life (when those having Hepatitis C are taken out) – in other words, living to age 64.

    Lohse’s study included all Danes HIV+ starting in 1995. As less lethal anti-HIV meds became used, mortality rates quickly dropped from the monotherapy AZT era, as they logically discuss.

    Vitally, the text and study tables and data cite 25% Danes being HIV+ declining anti-HIV meds, and they have distinctly lower mortality rates compared to those taking meds (who are expected to live to age 64). Thus, for those rejecting anti-HIV meds, it seems rational to project life expectancy to 70, just a few heartbeats short of the average Dane.

    Lohse does, pertinently, briefly comment that those HIV+ in Denmark generally have excessive health hazards such as smoking, alcohol, recreational drugs. So, even without being HIV+, it seems sensible to have somewhat shortened life. Yet, like the dog that didn’t bark, dutiful HIV believers Lohse et al. ignored a crucial part of their own data. Likewise France and Fauci.

    Ronald Baker, Phd, summarizes Lohse’s study, while also ignoring those HIV+ declining meds:

    http://www.hivandhepatitis.com/recent/2007/012607_a.html

  12. Truthseeker Says:

    Thanks, Mark, our unwavering support for sense over nonsense will continue as long as there is not one single good reason offered by anyone at all to believe that HIV causes anything at all, including even viremia for a week or two.

    We lobbed a couple more water balloons at DeShong in the New York thread to alert anyone with a functioning mind that reads those comments to the overall situation. These simplicities can never be stated often enough.

    The whole HIV/AIDS debacle rests on a propaganda exercise of a disgraceful kind for which the scientists and Tony Fauci bear ultimate responsibility as public servants paid with public money in salary or funding. To hide the valid and unrefuted objections to the HIV claim made in the best journals for 22 years is a gross misuse of public money and criminally culpable, we would suggest, since some of the money spent went into their own pockets as a consequence of the error they maintained by blocking its public discussion and media coverage.

    Martin, you can see France questioning whether it is HIV or the drugs at several points, and also if you compare the to and fro of his statements as they proceed.

    —————————————–

    LATEST ON NEW YORK MAGAZINE DAVID FRANCE THREAD

    “CriticNYC completely misses the point of this article. Either that, or is intentionally twisting the message to fit his/her denialist agenda, which is typical of AIDS Denialists.
    The point of this article is that the meds have extended the lives of HIV/AIDS patients by 10, 20, 30 years! These people were given a chance at life that they most likely would not have had. Yes, there are side effects of all medications, especially chronic use. However, these people are not always the ONLY example of extended use of HIV meds. As I have stated above, I have been on HIV meds for 15 years and have NONE of these side effects and I look 30 eventhough I am 45.
    However, even if I looked 65, I would still be happy to have been able to watch my nephew grow up, become the best quarterback in TX 4-A schools and I will be around to watch him graduate high school and college, and get married and I will be around to see his children grow up as well. I think that is an awesome trade off!!”
    JTD
    Report

    By jtdeshong on 11/11/2009 at 7:26pm

    “J. Todd DeShong thinks I miss the point, because he compares his own happy resistance to the often revolting effects of the drugs in AIDS – buffalo humps, anyone? – to the reports in David France’s excellent piece of the cognitive problems which are also showing up in patients.

    Let’s hope it is not the effect of the drugs which makes him miss the point that while more ill effects than ever before are showing up, the CDC and NIAID are anxious to expand the market for the drugs by testing all comers, and even delivering drugs to HIV negatives in the black community.

    DeShong has huge personal enthusiasm for this doubtful regime, but it is impossible to share his love for the drugs which have done so much damage to patients that the death rate in HIV/AIDS in the US has remained the same 17,000 a year for a decade now and WHO estimates the true figure is 22,000.

    Most believe that taking these chemical poisons is worth the tragic side effects because they defeat HIV, but is it true? The rationale is that HIV is the cause of the immune collapse of HIV/AIDS and that the syndrome is infectious, a plague which now covers the globe.

    In fact it is plainly the least infectious plague on the planet ever. You can share a toothbrush with an HIV positive and not get HIV. Nancy Padian’s huge study in the mid 90s showed that heterosexual sex is so weak at transmitting the virus that she couldn’t get one transmission in six years with nearly fifty couples who did not use any kind of protection or caution.

    As explained on eg scienceguardian.com the sad truth is that the peer reviewed HIV critiques of Peter Duesberg have never been satisfactorily answered and stand as tall in the literature as they did in 1987, unrefuted and persuasive. All the DeShongs of the world can do is catcall “denialist!”, but there is nothing in the journals which says Duesberg is wrong.”

    By criticnyc on 11/12/2009 at 2:23am

    “By the way, DeSHong’s belief that the drugs have extended “the lives of HIV/AIDS patients 30, 40 or 50 years!” is a common misconception, caused by the fact that the very dangerous drug AZT was the sole medication given people at first in the 80s, when all this HIV-is-the-cause-of-AIDS ideology started in the wake of Robert Gallo’s unjustified claim that he had done laboratory work which suggested HIV was “a probable” cause of AIDS.

    After a while the horrible effects of AZT were so plain that even the most faithful believers in the ideology (still unproven by the way) were appalled, and the doses were reduced. Soon protease inhibitors were added to less AZT, the famous cocktails, subsequently expanded to a whole range of drugs which were less toxic than AZT. Recently (2006 and later) AZT has been removed entirely from the mix.

    Remove the worst stuff and substitute less lethal medications, and it is no surprise that HIV/AIDS patients have lasted much longer and suffered much less. That doesn’t mean that the stuff is good for you, and nor that it is justified, if HIV is really not the cause of immune collapse after all.

    The scientific argument over all this is very hot politics, and editors have been very reluctant to mention it for a long while, since the defenders of the conventional wisdom will attack any journal or magazine who carries the other side of the argument.

    The tragedy is that the public is not being informed well until both sides are freely covered by the media. As David France’s article make clear, however, there is more and more evidence that we are not succeeding at defeating AIDS and preventing its horrible effects and loss of life, despite all the rosy propaganda of those in charge.

    We need balance in media coverage of this topic, and we need the New York Times to lead the way instead of repeating the mantra “HIV, the virus that causes AIDS” in every story it runs.”

    By criticnyc on 11/12/2009 at 2:38am
    ———————————————————

    Let’s see if John Moore manages to have this thread scotched. All enlightened parties should post on this thread, in our opinion, since it is a squarely mainstream platform read by all the gays and most of the relevant editors in Manhattan..

  13. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    Let’s just make sure we say that ALL the current classes of “HIV” medication are toxic. In fact, the protease inhibitors might be the most toxic of all the drugs currently in use. When you review the importance of protease for proper liver function, proper digestion, and proper actions of the immune complement system, along with all the reports of liver failure that have been appearing regularly since the mid-nineties, it is impossible to view the protease inhibitors as any less toxic than other drugs.

  14. Truthseeker Says:

    If they were not less toxic, the rate of decline would have remained the same, surely.

    Our current understanding is that they are less noxious than AZT, so the move from AZT, which was removed from two of the four regimens advised by the NIH in 2006, and increasingly substituted for by alternative NRIs (nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors) by doctors when patients couldn’t stand the side effects of AZT, along with the introduction of protease inhibitors. meant that the decline eased off for a time, though it has still resulted in the same conclusion (death) in the end for 17,000 people a year (the WHO estimates 22,000). Todd DeShong is fond of saying with bursting enthusiasm as above that the drugs have extended patients’ lives by “10, 20, 30 years” and how terrific he feels taking them but he takes a triple cocktail without AZT. Atripla the all in one pill has no AZT.

    Protease inhibitors also have some beneficial effects inducing higher levels of trace elements needed for proper immune functioning, according to some papers. Along with AZT they have a kind of rotorooter effect, cleaning out the system of bad parasites as well as good ones, so the initial effect can be quite encouraging, it seems, with patients leaping off their sick beds and going back to work, or even climbing Table Mountain.

  15. Truthseeker Says:

    Another grossly unfair and probably ineffective putdown of DeShong on NYMag site by criticnyc:

    ==============================================

    CriticNY is obviously an AIDS Denialist proven by his/her statement: “In fact it is plainly the least infectious plague on the planet ever.” He/she begs for “balance on this issue from the media” and yet he/she is obviously far from offering or accepting any semblance of balance.
    Lastly, how can this person be taken seriously when he/she accuses my opinion, which is based on my personal experience, as being due to “the effects of the drugs”? That is another AIDS Denialst tactic to make wild statements based on zero facts.
    JTD
    Report

    By jtdeshong on 11/12/2009 at 1:08pm

    Unfortunately, it remains possible that DeShong’s thinking is affected by the AIDS drugs he is taking, like those many people suffering from cognitive malfunction described by David Lance in his important piece. Certainly his enthusiasm for the AIDS drugs he is taking is misleading because he is, by his own admission on his Web site, imbibing a regimen which does not include any AZT.

    DeShong’s triple cocktail is very tolerable by comparison with early doses of AZT which were taken neat, and which according to the scientific reviews standing unrefuted in the highest journals, needlessly killed the flower of New York culture, that is, all the artists, writers, playwrights, and others we have lost in Manhattan owing to this scientific error, which is always roundly denied by lay believers such as DeShong.

    What is needed is for DeShong and all who are interested in the matter to understand that media coverage of this issue has been one sided ever since Anthony Fauci of the NIAID told mainstream reporters in writing in a AAAS newletter that any of them that raised the issue at the NIAID would not get their phone calls returned.

    Ever since, all who respect mainstream science have been unaware of the complaints of the scientific critics, that the belief that HIV is the demonic virus behind AIDS symptoms has been reviewed and rejected in the scientific literature without effective rebuttal, with refutation not even attempted in the same journals.

    Instead critics have been smeared as denialist and dangerous and politically ostracised, and the prominent scientist who wrote the reviews has never again been supported in any of his NIH funding proposals, all of which were successful before.

    This bias in media coverage has led to the public being completely uninformed on the matter, and a general assumption that any objections to the ruling wisdom in HIV/AIDS must be wrong.

    It is time for editors to stop taking sides in a scientific matter which they do not study themselves, and cover the debate.

    By criticnyc on 11/12/2009 at 5:14pm

    Read more: Why a Number of HIV Patients Are Aging Faster — New York Magazine http://nymag.com/health/features/61740/comments.html#comment_list_top#ixzz0WgcRT5RY
    ======================================================

  16. cervantes Says:

    Reading the above url tag just repeats ad nauseam the belief, with an occasional opposing view, that taking AIDS’ drugs extends life, as endorsed by jtdeshong.

    I wonder, is TS actually jts? — Setting up the dialogue? To rally endlessly like baseline tennis players? Why bother responding at all to jts anymore? As in prior threads on Science Guardian?

  17. Truthseeker Says:

    Because posters such as DeShong offer the priceless opportunity to speak up on behalf of sense to an audience involved in the topic for whatever reason, in this case on a platform read by Manhattan gays and editors.

    Because quantity as well as quality counts in public debate, and the absence of dispute just reinforces the beliefs of readers who are mostly reading for confirmation of their beliefs, but also include some who are still open to questions.

    Because it offers a chance to refine what one says to tread that tightrope between sounding intemperate to outsiders and showing the just how flawed the paradigm is from every angle.

    Because the replies give one fodder to put in the mincing machine and expel at high velocity at the goon squad and the cognitively challenged (those on drugs).

    A better platform is needed, of course. Have you finished your draft for AIDS Day. Cervantes (Dec 1)? If so can you forward it for review?

  18. cervantes Says:

    TS, I intended my quick comment on correspondence for this site only, not other sites read by the New York City gay crowd. But, I do thank you for your correspondence in THEIR well read venues, and your responding to France’s article.

    I may have perceived (wrongly) from reading/participating for several years, that JTDeshong is a solitary voice arguing his logic(?) on Science Guardian. It’s just that he is so juvenile and incapable of absorbing other than his beliefs. Hey, it’s your website (thanks, really).

    Of course, you are right(!) to keep reaching outsiders in any way – I do so myself. My criticism was the amount of responses to Deshong here – my tennis baseline metaphor.

    AIDS Day December 1? I wonder how much of the $26 – $32 Billion budgeted annually (the total is not clear, after all it’s done by Congress) is for publicizing this bullshit.

  19. Truthseeker Says:

    Cervantes, these are copies of responses on New York Magazine’s site, not here.

    Go there and post, why not, if that is your public spirited mood?

  20. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    Truthseeker –
    You need to do more research on protease, not protease inhibitors.

    And again I would stress that all classes of antiretrovirals are toxic.

    In particular, I would suggest you do some research on the role of protease in the extremely important complement system, a poorly understood but vital component of the immune system. PIs directly damage this system, which seems rather contradictory to the purpose of antiretroviral therapy for HIV.

    Let’s not have a list of “most toxic” vs. “less toxic” drugs here – that’s ludicrous. They are all FDA Class 4 medications, and I assume you know what that means.

  21. Truthseeker Says:

    Mark, can you state what you know instead of all these discreet hints? Is your partner looking over your shoulder with a baseball bat in hand, a la Rian Malan (who wrote that what what he had to deal with in 2001 when he couldn’t find any new AIDS epidemic in South Africa for Jan Wenner of Rolling Stone, and his own wife didn’t believe him)? Please state clearly what it is you know. AZT is more toxic than protease inhibitors, surely, since they have “prolonged life”? Why else would people do better as AZT was withdrawn in their favor?

    Cervantes, I posted another objectionable post there on NYMag, since you haven’t moved yet:

    ======================================================

    “But Mr Deshong’s point (that he looks good after years on AIDS drugs) was answered by my reply below. He is not on AZT. There is no AZT at all in his medications, by his own assertion.

    Those on AZT are the ones to suffer “buffalo humps” etc sometimes in weeks. Then the doctors allow them to go on drug “holidays” or less obnoxious drugs. In this, they acknowledge what David France suggests – the drugs cause the symptoms, and perhaps not HIV at all, which has never been demonstrated to do anything in any controlled study.

    It may be hard for respectable members of this society to believe that scientists have their own agenda, and can mislead the public by sweeping fatal critiques of their well funded wisdom under the carpet, but a moment’s thought will tell you that there is no difference between ambitious scientists and the leaders of any other academic field, in all of which this behavior is notorious.

    No one likes to be displaced in their successful career, when their authority has been recognized by promotion to high position, generous funding, important prizes, the sycophantic attention of the media, appearance on Charlie Rose, contributions to standard textbooks, and the like.

    Scientists are no different. Their wives, children, dogs, graduate students and flights to pleasant retreats in holiday resorts are all supported by their shared wisdom, whatever it is. Anyone who contradicts it is a threat to their reputation and livelihood.

    This is precisely what has happened in HIV/AIDS, now the Worldcom of science.

    As explained for 4 years on scienceguardian.com, the whole scheme of HIV/AIDS ideology cannot stand up to the briefest inspection. For one example, the world believes that a test for HIV _antibodies_ indicates vulnerability to HIV, when it would signal a cure with any other disease.

    Even school children know that antibodies do not harm people, they defend them. Meanwhile, we pay billions to develop a vaccine – to create HIV antibodies! The HIV/AIDS ideology is laughable, as well as lethal.

    By criticnyc on 11/13/2009 at 3:39am

    Read more: Why a Number of HIV Patients Are Aging Faster — New York Magazine http://nymag.com/health/features/61740/comments.html#comment_list_top#ixzz0Wj91WMNx
    ==============================================

    AZT disappears, finally

    I should have added what our research leader has just tipped me off to, which is that while AZT was removed by the NIH from two of four recommended drug regimens in 2006, as Wikipedia has noted, the page has been updated in December 2008 so that of six recommended HAART regimens, none contain AZT.

    AZT is off the list, folks. So we can expect another temporary improvement in the health of the trusting but abused HIV/AIDS patients who are put on poisonous drugs because they have HIV antibodies and negligible HIV in their blood, evidence that HIV is no threat to them, even if it had been shown in controlled studies to do anything at all to anybody, which it hasn’t been – including even causing any viremia, Peter Duesberg noted to me yesterday.

    The paradigm propagandists from Fauci to Larry Kramer – is he still with us? – will crow that this shows the latest additions to HAART are even more beneficial than in the past. Perhaps they are right, if beneficial means a drug regimen not as dangerous as before.

    Is this a fair translation of the word beneficial? Somehow one doesn’t think it is, quite. It gives a false impression, which is something only dentists should do, according to Oscar Wilde.

  22. Truthseeker Says:

    Posted this on NYMag just now, though a software glitch ruined the impression:

    ————————————————————————–
    Regrettably it appears that a software glitch has interfered with my last two posts. Perhaps the Webmaster could remove them. The correct post to be added is this one:

    It should be added that AZT was removed from two of the four drug regimens recommended by the NIH in 2006, and the page has been updated since December 2008 so that of the six HAART regimens now advised, none contain AZT.

    So AZT is no longer included in the drugs advised for HIV/AIDS patients by the NIH.

    No doubt this will result in a temporary improvement in the health of HIV/AIDS patients on AIDS drugs, and the NIH will claim that this shows that the most recent additions to the drug lineup are a great advance on the older ones.

    As David France’s excellent article suggests, however, what is needed however is a study of HIV positive people who do not take any of the drugs, and this is precisely what NYU has now initiated. The study will try to establish what distinguishes these long term non progressives from the rest.

    Dare one suggest that it may be because they do not accept the reigning belief that HIV is a dangerous virus that causes the immune deterioration of AIDS, and that their skepticism is vindicated by their continued good health?

    Not if one wants to avoid being called a “denialist” by Mr Deshong. But this would otherwise appear to be the sensible conclusion, would it not?

    Read more: Why a Number of HIV Patients Are Aging Faster — New York Magazine http://nymag.com/health/features/61740/comments.html#comment-form#ixzz0Wly6XxRB
    ————————————————————————————

  23. cervantes Says:

    Everybody, pull this up:

    http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/bms/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20081211006452&newsLang=en

    It can be seen by the Fall, 2007 press release that Canada approved the once-daily Atripla pill after the U.S. promoted it in July, 2006. As shown 1/2 way down, Atripla had become the predominant choice in the U.S., compared to all other anti-HIV drug regimens. (This press release has a wealth of information very hard, if not impossible to dig up separately. It pays to read the enemies’ mail).

    A misconception by TS (aka nycritic) that AZT causes “buffalo hump” is important to correct. It was the gigantic dose of 2,200 mgs. of protease inhibitor Crixivan in HAART begun 1996 that brought the hump with it, NOT the 600 mgs of AZT in the daily dose of Combivir. Prior to 1996, with 100,000’s of people on AZT therapy, buffalo hump was not present – but fatal wasting away was, the exact opposite.

    I have tracked California’s stats (the best) since the ballyhooed kickoff of Atripla in July, 2006 – and it must be emphasized Atripla has a greatly reduced total dose of 1,100 mgs a day of three different nucleoside and nuclotide analogues. BUT, no AZT and no protease inhibitor, totaling a mammoth HAART regimen of 3,300 mgs daily.

    Well, folks, after three years of California on Atripla since 2006, the news is in, and it’s all bad. The death toll of AIDS in California – after mainly switching to Atripla – is inconsequential, a 7% reduction, from 119 AIDS deaths per month before Atripla, down slightly to 112 AIDS deaths per month.

    Of course, a confounding unknown is how many people actually take their meds, and not flush them down the toilet to stay on all the assistance programs for “AIDS” patients.

    The California results match the U.S. totals that have fallen slightly from a consistent 17,000 -18,000 AIDS deaths per year, down to about 16,000 per year (but these stats are in flux).

    The AIDS Industry is dead and well — and devoutly believed by New York Magazine and France.

    The Lohse Denmark study I cited many comments back (and virtually all Western countries having 1/50 AIDS death rate* of the U.S.) makes it clear that declining antiviral drugs is the healthiest approach (by far) to being HIV+, yet ignored/suppressed by the U.S. Health Generals and such as the NYT. How is this going to change?

    *That’s right, the “rate” meaning per capita. Are you reading Deshong?

  24. cervantes Says:

    Pardon me if I drop the other shoe. The patent protections and $billions of profits on AZT ran out late Fall 2005 and into 2006, as freshly-patented Atripla was approved by the FDA and then promoted July, 2006. Does anybody think this was a coincidence? If so, I still have a bridge or two in West Virginia I will sell you.

    Presently, patent-protected Atripla brings in about $14,000 per patient per year, anywhere from $5 billion to $8 billion per year in profits (cost of production being pennies per dose).

    Atripla trials were run by principal researcher Dr. Joel Gallant who long has had retainer contracts with drug manufacturers (happily disclosed on on his own bio), while concurrently a biomolecular scientist employed by Johns Hopkins (also affiliated/paid to participate and analyze the Atripla trials).

    Everybody promoting The HIV Paradigm, including Joel Gallant of Johns Hopkins, gets rich, while soaking the U.S. taxpayer $30 Billion per year, year after year after year. While the iatrogenic death toll barely misses a beat.

  25. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    Truthseeker,
    I don’t need to do your homework for you. Start with Wikipedia and search for “protease.” The adventure begins there. Enjoy!

  26. cervantes Says:

    Mark, Thank you for staying focused on the ‘protease’ enzyme. Any drugs that alter/comprise/negate protease’s function have Hell to pay.

  27. Snout Says:

    Oh dear, cervantes. You are aware that the word “protease” refers to not just a single enzyme but to a stupendously huge group of completely different enzymes found in all living things, many viruses, and even in laundry detergents? And that when people with HIV-1 use “protease inhibitors” they are using drugs designed to target the specific protease coded for by the HIV-1 pol gene, not for the multitude of proteases in general (inside the laundry and out)?

    Reminds me of how Janine Roberts remains convinced that the HIV-1 capsid protein p24 is the same as the golgi transport protein p24 because they are both referred to as “p24”, even after having had it explained to her that this designation can apply to any protein of around 24 kilodaltons.

    Equally amusing is cervantes’ peculiar belief that the relative effectiveness and toxicity of drugs in completely different classes or even two drugs in the same class can be estimated by comparing the number of milligrams in a typical daily dose of each.

    I am grateful, though, to Truthseeker for pointing out his belief to the readership of New York magazine that the presence of antibody “would signal a cure with any other disease”, a howler so elementary (I believe it originates with Duesberg) that it clearly signals the grasp of the basic science underlying his assertions. It is trivially easy to think of examples other than HIV of where particular antibodies always indicate present chronic infection (eg cytomegalovirus, Epstein Barr, herpes simplex), or usually do (hepatitis C), or sometimes do (hepatitis B core IgG, various anti-treponemal antibodies, and many others). I doubt the readers of New York magazine’s Best Doctors section would have any trouble thinking of many more.

    Regarding my choice of moniker (about which you expressed some curiosity in an earlier thread) I believe New York magazine’s main competitor The New Yorker has published an item which explains this in full:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Internet_dog.jpg

  28. cervantes Says:

    Snout, I gladly acknowledge your grasp of chemistry is far better than mine, yet there is hardly a medicine, either in antiquity or in our modern era, that isn’t subject to an ideal dose, and a dangerous/lethal dose. But, I am always curious – perhaps you could mention a few.

    Here is Merck’s own literature on Crixivan, the HIV protease inhibitor used in HAART (and I correct myself: the daily dose in HAART was 2,400 mgs per day, not the 2,200 mg I cited earlier). Pardon my being slow, but could you cite any other prescription-drugs of 2,400 mgs. per day, AND, prescribed indefinitely?

    http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/c/crixivan/crixivan_pi.pdf

    None of us (TS or Mark or I) has claimed “HIV-antibodies” or “HIV-protease” were solely specific to the entity “HIV'” so your caustic comments seem odd. In fact, there is vast literature citing the non-specificities you allude to, is there not. So?

    At any rate, only after the 2,400 mgs per day of HAART’s Crixivan became wildly popular viz-a-viz the “Hit hard, hit early” (in full swing late 1997) did buffalo hump and other fat distribution oddities frequently occur, characterized by one woman saying her physique changed into looking like a torso-potato with arms and legs as toothpicks.

    Snout, you probably already know the Crixivan literature above, could you help us all with a layman-type description of it? Did you take it yourself – just curious.

  29. Truthseeker Says:

    “a howler so elementary”

    Actually not. Snout here clearly signals either his own brilliant grasp of the basic principle of the science involved or bewilderment as to what is meant.

    This list of “chronic infections” is one of the standard misleading replies to HIV/AIDS review, and is no more than a specious attempt to rebut the simple statement, which is incontrovertible according to mainstream data and even honest mainstream analysis – attested to most recently by none other than Luc Montagnier the Nobel prizewinner for HIV discovery who told us in the film House of Numbers that “a healthy immune system defeats HIV in two or three weeks” – that the human body mounts an effective immune response in short order to the appearance of HIV in the blood, getting rid of it in two or three weeks.

    Go see House of Numbers or read Fauci if you want to contradict that, Snout. The clearing out of HIV easily keeps up even with any tendency of the virus to mutate out of reach of the immune system.

    This trivial counter argument is an annoying constant in the endless attempted but ineffective defense of the indefensible claim that HIV causes AIDS. and the irritating tendency to try and use it is like someone trying to stop a steamroller by placing a pebble in its path. The whole POINT of the skepticism about HIV causing any illness of any kind is precisely that it is cleared rapidly ie suppressed to negligible levels.

    The figures quickly found in research at the start of this quarter century of an empty claim, which Snout for his own unstated reasons constantly pops up like his fellow jack-in-the-box Todd DeShong to defend with these and other hollow objections, were that active HIV was found only in 1 in 10,000 T cells even of sick patients, and its inactive presence is found in no more than one in a minimum of two or three hundred. This is not enough to impact T cell numbers, even if T cells didn’t proliferate anyway to make replacements at far higher rates if necessary.

    The utter unreality of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is nowhere more apparent than on this point. There is virtually no HIV in AIDS patients, only antibodies, until the immune system is totally destroyed by something else.

    Whether there are a few instances of disease agents which can hide from the immune system and therefore survive defeat to exist as a chronic presence is another question altogether, one not relevant to HIV, whose defeat when it appears in the blood is so plain and whose direct effect on T cells is acknowledged in mainstream research as so minimal that it has given rise to desperate attempts by HIV.AIDS paradigm proponents to think up some indirect way it can supposedly kill T cells it does not even enter.

    Meanwhile we have the absurd situation that the health system goes around testing people for antibodies to HIV and telling them that if they have them they are going to suffer from HIV’s action in years to come and they should take poisonous drugs to defeat what they have already defeated.

    By the way Snout, re your signature, if this flows only from the cliche-familiar New York cartoon, then it is a very great puzzle why someone as brilliant as yourself should have chosen a label so easily pictured as belonging to a pig. Not that we have anything against pigs, which we have always thought were charming and intelligent animals, and we are sorry to eat them.

    We are gratified by recent research which has proved that they are indeed very smart. But as in the HIV/AIDS dispute, it is not enough to be smart to escape being eaten. You need a certain amount of meta-intelligence – the ability to see the wood as much as the trees.

    This is the attribute that the defenders of the HIV faith need more of, we daresay, the ability to understand and see the shape of the wood, not just the individual trees.

    Present company excepted, of course.

  30. Snout Says:

    TS, Dr Montagnier’s unremarkable observation that exposures to HIV do not necessarily result in chronic infection and that immune responses play an important role in achieving this happy outcome actually runs directly counter to your claim that HIV-positive status indicates the defeat of the virus.

    You see, such “near-miss” events do not result in HIV-positive status. Much of the immune response is cell mediated, and any specific anti-HIV antibodies are few and transient. A person who has cleared a transient invasion of HIV tests HIV-negative, although there have been occasional cases of briefly indeterminate antibody results during the process.

    It is true that following seroconversion to HIV antibody positive status, serum virus titres typically fall by orders of magnitude compared to those observed at the seroconversion illness, as is the pattern with nearly all chronic infections. But the fact remains – those who fully clear the virus in the first few weeks following exposure do not become HIV-positive, and those who become HIV-positive all have chronically present virus, albeit at lower serum titres than during the acute phase of the illness. This is the exact opposite of what you seem to be claiming.

    Lower than acute phase titres in the blood do not equal “negligible” or “virtually no HIV in AIDS patients” and certainly do not equal “cleared”, particularly given that HIV is principally an infection of the lymphoid tissue, not of the blood.

    I’m fascinated by your conviction that “something else” must be causing the progressive depletion of CD4+ lymphocytes culminating in opportunistic infections. Do you have any idea what that “something else” might be that virtually never occurs except in HIV-positive individuals, and that results in opportunistic disease a median of 10 years of so following seroconversion to HIV positive if such individuals are untreated?

    Cervantes, whether you, TS or Mark claim this or not, HIV-1 protease and its capsid protein p24 are indeed unique to HIV-1 (although they are not entirely dissimilar to those of other retroviruses). Their specific amino acid sequences are coded for by the specific proviral DNA of HIV-1, which is in turn reverse transcribed from its viral RNA, two copies of which can be found in every virus particle. The amino acid sequences of each protein can be found in any protein database, and the nucleic acid sequences of the virus can be looked up in any gene bank.

    Many of your questions about basic science could better be answered even by Wikipedia than by me, as I am a mere net hound and not an expert. Wiki has articles not only on “Protease”, but “HIV-1 protease” (including a picture of said beast), “Structure and genome of HIV”, “Protease inhibitor (pharmacology)”, “Indinavir”, “Lipodystrophy” and “Metabolic syndrome”.

    My question to you is about your reading of Lohse et al in which you state that “the text and study tables and data cite 25% Danes being HIV+ declining anti-HIV meds, and they have distinctly lower mortality rates compared to those taking meds”

    I have read and reread Lohse et al, and I cannot find any reference to Danes “declining” recommended treatment, which is not surprising since they are a very sensible and pragmatic people in my limited experience. Did you just make that bit up?

  31. Truthseeker Says:

    Snout, the explanation for your confusion is simple. You accept the ruling paradigm that HIV causes immune dysfunction and thus the various symptoms of AIDS, self servingly renamed HIV/AIDS at an early point, the better to corral people such as yourself in the new religion, this grand faith which has absolutely nil evidence or sensible reasoning to recommend it.

    Once you accepted that premise, you signed up to spend your entire time contemplating this medical, social, political, propaganda phenomenon with complete acceptance, and all its nonsense to seem fitting, and anything that seemed not to fit in, to be revised in your perspective until it seems to accord after all with your fond belief.

    When reviewing scientific claims on this site, the principle you should stick to is NOT to start off by accepting them as a given. Otherwise you will resemble a serpent eating its own tail, which is no way to progress in reviewing anything.

    The plain and simple fact apparent to all brilliant students of scientific claims who take care NOT to make them a premise of their review is that HIV antibodies are in no way exceptions to the standard rule of the human immune system, which is that they are a sign that HIV has been encountered by the system, recognized and responded to as an alien visitor, and dealt with and despatched in the standard manner, leaving insignificant residue.

    Anyone who then maintains that HIV then remains some kind of disease threat, and will with all its 9 kilobases somehow retain the ability to rise up years later – as long as twenty years, for Gawd’s sake – and attack and demolish the immune system which easily vanquished it in the first place, is suffering from a fantasy without any evidence to support it, a Ptolemaic syndrome induced by associating with too many people who share the same religious faith and inability to distinguish between a premise of one’s thinking and a claim one is meant to be examining with appropriate skepticism.

    This condition of detectable antibodies with undetectable virus is familiar to all, even those within the Church of HIV Dogma, such as the heroic Anthony Fauci, whose writings on the topic we recommend to you. You seem to be unfamiliar even with the graph of virus titer brought out and displayed on screen or page whenever the subject comes up.

    Perhaps you should pay more attention to the redoubtable Luc Montagnier, before dismissing his striking confirmation of all this and therefore the silliness of testing for HIV antibodies as “unremarkable.”

    You seem unfamiliar with the list of foes of a healthy immune system which might cause the depletion of CD4+lymphocytes. Overloading the system with powerful drugs would be one. You are not aware of this? Even my grandmother was aware that even aspirin could impact the immune system after a while, and she knew that this was why doctors would only prescribe antibiotics for a short period. You are not aware of this simple truth?

    You also seem unaware of the fact that AIDS occurs in people who are HIV positive but not in those who are HIV negative, because this is how HIV/AIDS is defined. What is needed, in fact, is for this to be removed from the definition of AIDS,so that it can be properly treated according to whatever is the factor assaulting or undermining the system, whether recreational or treatment drugs, malnutrition in quality (incomplete range of ingredients needed for proper immune function) or quantity (undernourishment, even starvation), or some disease agent such as strong strains of TB in Africa.

    Since you are obviously a bright spark (you sound like a computer programmer who can write good code) we must once again suggest to you that the reason you swallow and regurgitate the claptrap of these standard claims in HIV/AIDS rather than detect their self defeating inconsistency with themselves and with standard medicine, let alone with plain common sense on the level of a 12 year old, is that you are imitating that serpent we mentioned above and using as a premise what you should be reexamining as a questionable claim.

    That antibodies cause an infectious immune system collapse is only one of the thirty or more grossly absurd tenets of a structure built on a false premise which was originally nothing more than a unfounded and prima facie silly claim made by the one time leader of this twisted field, Robert Gallo, who has made an entire career of false claims, based on screwed up or patently manipulated research.

    We were once stuck in a large elevator with Bob and he showed considerable leadership qualities in keeping everyone calm. It is a pity his talent was never put to good use.

  32. Snout Says:

    Thankyou, Truthseeker, for your advice to approach skeptically any “scientific claims on this site”. Such a warning was not needed – I had myself long ago come to the same conclusion, having reviewed many such “scientific” claims made here. I am fully aware that most do not pass even basic tests of cogency, let alone of elementary scientific literacy or consistency with available evidence.

    In many cases you seem to go out of your way to signal this, such as where you drag out the old alt.med saw about antibiotics causing immunosuppression, citing no less an authority than your grandma, or pretending that Montagnier is saying that HIV can be cleared after serconversion (after chronic infection is established) when he makes it clear from the first subtitled statement on the clip that he is talking about clearing the virus before this has occurred.

    I’m surprised and a little insulted though that you felt it necessary to warn me about how seriously I should take the claims on your site – it’s as if the “Onion” came with a prominent disclaimer that its news reports didn’t necessarily happen as written, or if the Landover Baptist Church carried a large flashing banner on its website advising its status as a parody religion.

    Party pooper.

  33. cervantes Says:

    The strategy of understanding and solving/eliminating AIDS mortality and drug treatments have always been flawed, apparently unknown to the AIDS-community that reads New York Magazine or its author Mr. France.

    What is always glossed over (or never mentioned at all) is that anti-HIV drug testing of trial drugs are never, I repeat never, tested against true placbos. This has been policy since the beginning in the early 1980s, based on logic it is unethical to have HIV+ people be given only “sugar pills” (or nothing). Thus, ALL cohorts are treated with some other drug(s).

    As the Merck document (provided above in my earlier post) unequivocally illustrates, 100% of their Crixivan Trials were compared only to other drug combinations (most including 600mgs daily of zidovudine (AZT).

    Thus, Dr. Anthony Fauci continues to avoid the truth that may be revealed by valid scientific method. But, of course, the truth has already been made clear by the 17,000 (plus/minus) American hemophiliacs being 80% HIV-antibody-plus 30 years ago. With but few able to take antivirals/antiretrovirals, the result: Approximately 13,000* of the original 17,000 still alive in 2009, their total population rising to 20,000. QED.

    Using the mumbo-jumbo sorcery frequently employed by the CDC (Centers for Disease Clowns) there must be some hemophilia-gene coincidental with being immune to the ravages of HIV antibodies. So, it seems the Great Fauci, following his typical logic, should channel $billions into giving hemophilia to everybody HIV+.

    *After all, they are not immortal – and inherently fragile.

  34. Truthseeker Says:

    Snout, your intellectual difficulties with standard scientific and medical truths seem to be compounded by an inability to understand English words used conventionally in a conventional context. The words “When reviewing scientific claims on this site” mean precisely what they say, which is that when you and I and anybody else – we – are reviewing scientific claims on this site, we should try to distinguish between a premise and a conclusion claimed by whoever made the claim which we are reviewing.

    Apparently you misread that phrase as “scientific claims by this site” or “scientific claims made on this site by the posters”, and then devoted several paragraphs of comment to your own false impression.

    So perhaps we should add to our advice above, and advise that you have not only to distinguish between a premise and a conclusion when addressing the claims that we have picked out for review on this site, you also have to read accurately all the words in the post and comments here, before responding to them, otherwise you will not only be imitating a serpent eating its own tail, but one spinning at high velocity as it desperately tries to catch up with itself.

    Meanwhile we contemplate with interest your own claims here just conveyed to us with a mixture of amusement and sympathy – amusement at the contradictions of reality you seem to be fond of and sympathy for your predicament in living life so often out of tune with science. Even here you seem to have difficulty with written language and what it means – we never said our Grandma was an authority, merely someone who believed in the authority of her doctor. Like your estimable self, it appears, Snout, she believed her doctors implicitly (sorry to use that word since there are two meanings to it and we fear you will inevitably choose the wrong one), and never did her own research on any medical matter.

    Interesting that you don’t think antibiotics are entertained by the immune system as potential threats to the status quo. So you think that they are recognized as fully paid up members of the club corporeal, and given a pass without so much as a response? Given your extraordinarily deep understanding of the immune system that remains something of a mystery even to the greatest experts in its functioning extant, such as Antony Fauci, perhaps you will allow us to suggest to him that you address an audience at NIAID in the near future?

  35. Nick Naylor Says:

    TS, you said, “The plain and simple fact apparent to all brilliant students of scientific claims who take care NOT to make them a premise of their review is that HIV antibodies are in no way exceptions to the standard rule of the human immune system, which is that they are a sign that HIV has been encountered by the system, recognized and responded to as an alien visitor, and dealt with and despatched in the standard manner, leaving insignificant residue.”

    Snout responded, “pretending that Montagnier is saying that HIV can be cleared after serconversion (after chronic infection is established) when he makes it clear from the first subtitled statement on the clip that he is talking about clearing the virus before this has occurred.”

    This was after Snout previously made it clear what Monti means is not what your idol means,

    “TS, Dr Montagnier’s unremarkable observation that exposures to HIV do not necessarily result in chronic infection and that immune responses play an important role in achieving this happy outcome actually runs directly counter to your claim that HIV-positive status indicates the defeat of the virus.

    “You see, such ‘near-miss’ events do not result in HIV-positive status. Much of the immune response is cell mediated, and any specific anti-HIV antibodies are few and transient. A person who has cleared a transient invasion of HIV tests HIV-negative, although there have been occasional cases of briefly indeterminate antibody results during the process.

    “It is true that following seroconversion to HIV antibody positive status, serum virus titres typically fall by orders of magnitude compared to those observed at the seroconversion illness, as is the pattern with nearly all chronic infections. But the fact remains – those who fully clear the virus in the first few weeks following exposure do not become HIV-positive, and those who become HIV-positive all have chronically present virus, albeit at lower serum titres than during the acute phase of the illness. This is the exact opposite of what you seem to be claiming.

    “Lower than acute phase titres in the blood do not equal ‘negligible’ or ‘virtually no HIV in AIDS patients’ and certainly do not equal ‘cleared’, particularly given that HIV is principally an infection of the lymphoid tissue, not of the blood.”

    Now Snout (very nicely – what a dastardly trick), is testing you :o)

    I would say maybe there’s an idea going around in Professor Moore’s group that even Monti’s “unremarkable observation” is not grasped by Duesberg. So being coherent and crisp for a change, you can straighten all this out.

    And perhaps explain why Perth Group’s recommendations for antioxidants are consistent with Monti’s viewpoint, not Duesberg’s. And do ya think just maybe this furthers progress in developing non-toxic treatment options for “AIDS” patients?

    And please, repay Snout’s kindness, we don’t want your standard response – evasion with the BS piled higher and deeper.

    Regards,
    Gene

    PS; BTW, Mr Text-book Cherry Picker, in terms of “a premise of their review”, your criteria of objectivity fails, NOT “not” is operative here.

    There are no “neutralizing HIV antibodies”. Thus you compound two fallacious premises. How can they possibly be induced in the case of cell to cell transmission, the most likely mode in lymphoid tissue? The survival of those hardy sperm cells who make it to lymph nodes might even be enhanced by their HIV infections.

    So you caught out jumping to conclusion, just like the way HIV itself is “premised” man in all the orthodox papers. Same with antibodies; the claim that they “instruct” the immune system has been overturned by the “network” model. Except among those who make the “premise” of their immunology the “instructional view” :o)

    PPS: for a picture of Nick Naylor contemplating fringey things, see (today only):

    http://www.wfmu.org/

  36. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    Snout seems somewhat intelligent, but clearly thinks of himself as VERY intelligent. There’s a large gap there.

    I’ll ask Snout what I asked my HIV docs when I said I wanted “off” of the protease inhibitors – Would you take a protease inhibitor? If all it is targeting is HIV-protease, then theoretically, it should be as mild and uneventful as a sugar pill. Would you like one of these very fancy, very expensive protease-sugar pills, Snout? Would you like to take one everyday with no end in sight? If so, let me know. I still have some Prezista and Norvir and am willing to fedex these “harmless” medications to you.

    All my best,
    Mark

  37. Snout Says:

    @TS, you seem to be miffed that I took an ambiguous statement of yours about “reviewing scientific claims on this site” and chose the syntactically-justifiable meaning which best suited my own rhetorical purposes, disregarding the clear intent of the author which was made obvious by the context.

    I do apologise if such debating tricks are frowned upon on this site. I had assumed that they were de rigueur, given your treatment of Montagnier’s comments about exposed-but-not-chronically-infected individuals on the HoN clip. Or Duesberg`s and Bauer`s misrepresentation of the conclusions of the ART cohort collaboration that treating AIDS patients with antiretroviral drugs has not translated into a decrease in mortality.

    http://hivskeptic.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/duesbergmedhypothesessa.pdf
    (see first paragraph at the top of page 5)

    @cervantes, have you found the bit in Lohse et al where they identify a subgroup declining recommended antiretroviral treatment and which subsequently enjoys an improved life expectancy? You have made this claim on several different websites now. Did you just make it up?

    @Mark, it is not my custom to provide detailed personal information about myself on the internet, including about my health status. However, as a general rule I make decisions about whether to use prescription pharmaceuticals (including, if the need arises, HIV-1 protease inhibitors) by weighing up data on both the risks and benefits, in consultation with the prescribing physician. Thank you for your well-meant offer, but I only take prescription pharmaceuticals that have been legally prescribed and dispensed for me according to the laws of the State of Victoria, and not those supplied by random and unqualified individuals on the net, however well intentioned.

  38. Truthseeker Says:

    “you seem to be miffed”

    Not at all, Snout, not miffed at all. Welcome all errors made by commenters who disagree with the ineffably truthful statements of this humble blog with great enthusiasm as license to correct their errors and parade in front of the world the seasoned conclusions of the humble host who might otherwise feel he was bothering the enlightened readers of this blog with the obvious truths that go without saying after decades of looking at this issue. If it is not in fact an error but an advance in understanding we are also humbly grateful, though being dense we might take a little time to raise our consciousness and appreciate the point.

    Thanks for the clue to your real identity as a poster under a different name, if that is what it is, after we check our memory for Aussie contributors. How splendid it is when people actually have the courage of their convictions and stand up and stand for under their own names, instead of standing still under odd and often inappropriate monikers, present company excepted of course. Sometimes we think we should write more blatantly under own name but we are waiting until the New York Times publishes our Op Ed piece before exposing our residence to the horde of lunatic drug takers who will no doubt come to camp outside and lay siege to our happy home hoping in vain to obstruct our search for truth.

    Just now we have to apologize but we don’t have time to fight old battles long won on the topic of whether antiretrovirals have translated into a decrease in mortality, since the fact that they haven’t is annually confirmed by US statistics which have held steady for years at 17,000 HIV AIDS deaths in the US (24,000 according to WHO).

    Nick your link does not show you, and your comments are not very clear. Perhaps you could rephrase them more concisely and directly? If you are trying to argue that the standard concept of the immune system as defending the body by making antibodies to antigens is wrong, you realize that you are arguing with the dictionary, do you?

    “antigen also antigene ( ) n. A substance that when introduced into the body stimulates the production of an antibody.”

    If you want to argue that HIV antibodies don’t exist, and take us all off into the wild blue yonder of the endless skepticism of the Perth pair, perhaps it is time to write that promised post on why 9/11 conspiracy theory didn’t stand up to a book length examination by Popular Mechanics, except of course they were obviously a tool of the Bush White House. Not that we don’t agree with unlimited skepticism, especially in the field of nuclear physics, which we are currently exploring to find out when the planet disappears into a tiny black hole generated by CERN when it gets up to full speed.

    Anyhow if you are stating that HIV antibodies do not exist as such, please elaborate concisely with specific evidence or lack of same for this assertion.

  39. Truthseeker Says:

    “Cervantes, have you found the bit in Lohse et al where they identify a subgroup declining recommended antiretroviral treatment and which subsequently enjoys an improved life expectancy? You have made this claim on several different websites now. Did you just make it up?”

    Snout, if you so love the established texts in this field of manure that you revel in rolling in them for fun and instruction, perhaps you would care to explain, in the same spirit in which you challenge the existence of a subgroup that rejected taking antiretroviral treatment and did very well thank you, to explain why there have been so few control groups in any drug study in HIV/AIDS epidemiology in all these years – none, in fact, once the AZT study was cut short because it was decided that despite the mess of drug borrowing which destroyed all semblance of control, AZT was a blessing and should be taken by all patients as soon as possible in huge quantities, despite its record of being too unpleasant to use as a cancer palliative.

    If AZT wasn’t too toxic to use as an anti HIV drug, why has it now been renounced, being entirely removed from the NIAID six advised regimens since 2008, and why does such a late fellow traveler with the standard HIV belief and treatment regime, the long time AIDS treatment MD Joseph Sonnabend, now state his belief that AZT toxicity killed off a lot of patients, just as the critics have always claimed?

    I once asked Bob Gallo if he would take AZT if he proved HIV positive and to my skeptical surprise he said he would. There’s a man with the courage of his convictions! Perhaps you share his questionable faith, do you? If so, we have now given you a more scientifically informed authority than the “prescribing physician”s you have trusted so implicitly till now.

    Given that the age of the Web and its alternate source of information, including Pubmed, has been operating for ten years or more at high speed, it is very odd to hear someone talk as if their prescribing physician was a sufficient authority for them to take a drug with so many toxic side effects as the typical antiretroviral.

    Given that none of them seem to have time to do more than skim the headlines of JAMA as their total effort in keeping up with the literature – a friend reported that none of the physicians at Cornell Weill library seemed to have any interest in reading anything but the sports section when taking breaks there – we would suggest at least including your own grandmother in gauging the promise of any prescription for whatever ails you, if you don’t have access to the full papers on PubMed, which now has 19 million of them available for your perusal and counting.

    Of course you are not alone. No one reads them, as far as we know, except us. Even Dr Fauci clearly does not read PubMed before answering questions from the public, as his appearance at the New School recorded in our post a couple of years ago showed.

  40. MacDonald Says:

    TS.

    Nearly every drug study has control groups. One fears dementia is setting in and that the old mastiff bitch guarding the baron’s castle has lost another dull tooth.

    As ingenious as it was to side-step the Lancet study misquotation – standard among those who believe rethinking is for couch potatoes – by referring to a steady annual rate of AIDS deaths, your math is so simple that, like your idol, you seem unable to grasp that the steady AIDS death incidence is observed alongside an equally steady increase in HIV prevalence.

    Cervantes: Why is there no reply to Snout’s request to be directed to where,

    the [Lohse et al.] text and study tables and data cite 25% Danes being HIV+ declining anti-HIV meds, and they have distinctly lower mortality rates compared to those taking meds.

    Snout: Perhaps your time would be better spent defending Chigwedere et al. from their scientific dishonesty: http://www.tig.org.za/Chigwedere_Life-Years_saved_on_HAART.pdf

  41. Truthseeker Says:

    MacDonald, try not to be rude to the messenger who brings you glad tidings which always fit in with your inbuilt tendency to question authority on every detail of mainstream claims. Apparently you have not yet learned that this site’s authority is infallible as far as the literature is infallible, since the peer reviewed journals are our touchstone and bedside reading.

    There are no AIDS drug studies with proper control groups since the AZT studies if by such you mean as we do placebo or sugar pill control groups which are the only way to get rid of the hundreds of variables involved, that is if you also take care to randomize the allocation between the two, drug and placebo, which is admittedly hard to do but which reason insists must be done to get any kind of valid answer to the question of how useful or damaging are the drugs being tested, and one of the scandals of HIV/AIDS is that there have been no placebo groups in HAART studies.

    Studies which merely compare one drug with another to come to a conclusion about the effects of one of them are not helpful to any seeker of truth in this vexed sphere, since they only serve to evade the real issue, which is just how damaging they are in their role of supposedly warding off the depredations of the HIV virus, which all science so far tells us is harmless.

    As the UK graph included in the post shows, it may be true that in the UK HIV prevalence has risen but AIDS cases and deaths have remained more or less flat, though we doubt it, since it seems unlikely that UK experience is much different from the US. Probably it is the prevalence and use of test kits which has risen.

    Be that as it may, there is the standard tenet of the US HIV/AIDS picture which you seem not to have heard anything about, which is that the estimate of the prevalence of HIV in the US population as a whole has remained at more or less a million in 300 million ever since this whole charade began (prevalence defined as the ratio (for a given time period) of the number of occurrences of a disease or event to the number of units at risk in the population).

    Perhaps you are thinking of incidence (incidence defined as the number of newly diagnosed cases during a specific time period)? This hasn’t risen in the UK but perhaps it has risen in the US? Unfortunately like Fermat we don’t have room here to go into the question at length, but no doubt you can let us know. Perhaps the marketing drive among the blacks has had great success in finding HIV positives, since they tend to score higher than whites for some perhaps genetic reason, presumably unrelated to AIDS and sexual behavior, in which sphere we sincerely doubt their behavior is much different from whites, whatever the racist opinion at NIAID.

  42. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    Just for the record:

    1. My offer of protease inhibitors to Snout was not “well-intentioned,” and
    2. The idea that P.I.s only impact HIV protease is absolutely ridiculous, similarly
    3. The NRTIs impact all reverse transcriptase in the body – not just HIVs. Hence
    the high levels of anemia seen in response to those drugs (reverse transcriptase
    is used by bone marrow), as well as the general g.i. distress (reverse trascriptase
    is used by the mucosal linings of the intestines, so
    4. We are forced to conclude that not one, not a single one of these drugs
    is HIV-specific. That is truly a farcical thing to suggest, Snout.

    Thanks, and all my love,
    Mark

  43. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    Having made my point, let me say “goodbye.” It is not my intention to be an active contributor. I only logged on again so that certain people would know that I am still alive. This kind of thing is necessary when you have an AIDS diagnosis – one must occasionally remind people of your continued existence. Thank you TS for allowing me to do that. Best of luck.

  44. Truthseeker Says:

    ” It is not my intention to be an active contributor.”

    How about the moral obligation of all those who know to instruct those who don’t, lest they fall into the hands of profitable error, and despair?

  45. Snout Says:

    TS, you seem to be suggesting that a randomised controlled trial of HAART versus placebo-only in the treatment of AIDS is called for.

    Leaving aside the obvious issue that no ethics committee with a passing familiarity with the Nuremberg Code or the Declaration of Helsinki would approve such a human trial in which the control group was other than currently established best treatment, where do you think you would find subjects who would provide informed consent to such a trial?

    No sensible HIV-positive person in need of treatment would agree to participate in a trial in which they might be randomised to placebo-only, and no dissident would agree to take part if and when they figured out what “randomised” means. Of course many dissidents, being slow on the uptake, may never work this out, but then you have the ethical issue of whether consent is truly informed.

    The evidence base supporting the use of complex therapies such as HAART has been built up incrementally over more than two decades from the evidence provided by earlier trials, each trial using current benchmark treatments as the control. Placebo-only-controlled trials are only ethically possible when there is as yet no proven effective treatment.

    The fact that a tiny minority of individuals in the world have an unshakable belief that there is indeed currently no proven effective treatment for HIV/AIDS is neither here nor there. Such a belief is only sustained by a rigorous refusal to consider the huge accumulation of data which runs contrary to their idée fixe.

    Aside from the ethical issues surrounding your randomised placebo-controlled trial of HAART and the difficulties in recruitment I’ve outlined above, there is one more practical issue with your proposal.

    There is not a single HIV/AIDS dissident in the world with the skills and experience to be able to run such a trial.

  46. cervantes Says:

    MacDonald, It’s a fair question on my citing Lohse’s Denmark Study.

    My answer: It’s all in Lohse’s study in the Annals of Internal Medicine*, the text and tabulations, that 25% of those HIV+ rejecting ARV medicines have the lowest mortality rate compared to those taking ARVs, not far from the norm.

    Check carefully No HAART tabulations, and read the text to see but 75% take Late HAART drugs. Which means that 25% do not take Late HAART, in other words they just take their vodka or heroin or tobacco, or whatever. But not ARV drugs.

    Look at the Tabulations, they have a No HAART category.

    How hard is this to understand?

    Lohse utterly failed to expand on what he provided in this regard. But, why should he? Risk losing his job? – risk losing NIAID’s $billions that dribble down to him even in Denmark? – $Money that pays his rent?

    *Survival of Persons with and without HIV Infection in Denmark, 1995-2005

  47. cervantes Says:

    MacDonald, I should add a few more deductive thoughts. Lohse is very clear that life expectancy is 39 years starting at age 25, once he discounts those who have Hepatitis C.

    Yet most had to be “infected” before age 25, so survival time after infection rises considerably higher, to arguably 40-45 years+ after “infection.” Critically, the female No HAART tabulations show them to have dramatically lower mortality rates than the male No HAART. Thus, we can sensibly deduce that the females, who I would assert are far less prone to the ravages such as alcohol, can expect a normal life expectancy.

    This would be world headlines if Lohse followed his nose on just this one distinct topic – yet his survival and income would be jeopardized ala Peter Duesberg once he revealed “HIV” was not dangerous. This is what Snout fails to understand, or even think about: the absolute need for those devoted to HIV/AIDS to stick to the belief that HIV is pathogenic. Otherwise, poof, no job.

    As to mortality associated with Hep C, another terrific con job has been pulled by Pharma for a decade or so, with their god-awful drug combination of ribavirin and pegylated interferon being used to lower RNA levels of “Hep C” in patients’ serum. Ribavirin all by itself is an extremely dangerous nucleoside analogue drug (ahem, like AZT), inevitably bringing fatal hemolytic anemia (ribavirin causes red blood cells to explode) in doses given for Hep C if not ceased at the last moment, after RNA levels have fallen. Thus, the drug is ceased just before the patient does (usually). However, this is all a phony scenario, as patients are almost never actually clinically sick by Hep C, yet when tests (like testing for HIV) show measurable Hep C RNA, the treatments begin! And make the patients extremely ill! Until the treatments stop.

    For instance, ribavirin sells dirt cheap over-the-counter in Mexico,and astoundingly is recommended by Mexican health authorities for flus and colds!. Small wonder, with people self-medicating with a cheap, recommended lethal drug, the fabrication of Swine H1N1 Flu arose in Mexico, and with gusto blown into the phony H1N1 pandemic by the U.S. CDC (Centers for Disease Clowns).

    And, now ribavirin has been combined with two other antivirals (it always gets worse) as a “triple combination anti-flu combination”- being fast tracked by the FDA. And like the mysterious Gay Plague arising in 1981 abetted by lethal treatment drugs (I have a list of 20 or so all given in the early 1980s including ribavirin), Flu epidemic mortality is now always with us, invented by CDC, with most mortality caused by treatment drugs given in hospitals. Ever hear of anybody dying of flu at home?

  48. cervantes Says:

    TS and MacDonald,

    As to recent/current UK AIDS stats on new cases and deaths, close to 80% are recent immigrants from “HIV Endemic Countries” as shown by their own reports (it does take a bit of digging).

    Once an African immigrants in the UK are determined to have “AIDS” of course they unwittingly go on the deadly ARVs. Yet again, we see another false picture publicized by the AIDS Establishment

  49. MacDonald Says:

    TS.

    Many of your points well taken. But surely you know that HIV incidence in the US is supposed to be around 50,000 (out with the pocket calculator and subtract deaths), and that the around 1 million HIV positive has now risen to more than 1.2 million. Please present your most careful argument to Snout – although I fear his namesake has already told him that these statistics are a dead end for him.

    Cervantes, it does say in the text that 25% were not on ARVs in this rather enigmatic passage where 25% and 5% are bandied about to great confusion:

    After HAART was introduced in 1996, the prevalence of patients receiving this treatment gradually increased, surpassing 75% in 2002 to 2004. At any given time, fewer than 5% of HIV-infected patients were interrupting treatment.

    We presume that of the 75% who were on treatment, less than 5% were interrupting it. But it is still confusing since these groups aren’t static. Surely people some of those who were initially not on HAART would have commenced taking them, and some of those on HAART would have stopped. But apparently very few if the we are to trust the 5% figure.

    I think Snout’s namesake has warned him that Lohse et al. is not a winner either.

    In fact the poor beast is reduced to the predictable canard about why there are no HAART vs placebo trials. Mr. Snout, familiarity with the Nuremberg Code did not seem to stop the latest RV144 vaccine embarrassment in Thailand. A similar proof-of-concept trial was halted in the US, because the concept was already proven useless, but it went ahead in Thailand over vigorous protest from John Moore among others.

    I take it you were also unable to find fault with the linked critique of Chigwedere et al. and their phantom numbers. That’s one down, a few dozen more Truthers to go

  50. MacDonald Says:

    PS. Lohse say 25% by inference obviously, subtracting the 75% from 100%.

  51. Truthseeker Says:

    Thank you Snout for presenting the common and utterly specious argument supposedly justifying the grossly unscientific and misleading absence of genuine control groups ie placebo control groups in all HIV/AIDS drug research since the AZT series.

    This is where intelligence comes in. Any intelligent person can read and gape at the irrationality of your explanation as the basis for this policy, and conclude that the real reason lies elsewhere, in the need of the current system and its army to avoid exposure as the scientific charlatans of our time, feeding useless drugs with grotesque side effects – buffalo humps by the way the literature tells us are common accompaniments to another NRTI, d4T (stavudine), as well as protease inhibitors, not just AZT – to trusting and bewildered HIV/AIDS patients who ceteris parabus would otherwise remain healthy and happy without this lying torment which you and others either through stupidity.or worse insist on peddling endlessly to the ignorant.

    With placebo control groups this venomous drug nonsense would have halted years ago. Instead it continues with an annual death rate of 17-22,000 in the US, and justified by the kind ofm moronic nonsense you peddle here in your usual serpenting manner, eating your own tail in a kind of logical death spin.

    Ever since this abdication of scientific integrity began the gays have clamored for drugs before they have been assessed by science and proved anything but harmful, and the NIAID-drug company complex have been delighted to follow their lead over the cliff. All involved suffer from the most elementary silly misapprehension, that their supposition that the drugs are beneficial justifies researchers not bothering to check if that is true or not.

    Exit science, exit sense, exit all normal protections of the medicated patient from charlatans, liars and exploiters of other human beings for personal and professional gain.

    In other words, a new Church in science, which administers the communion of deadly Kool-Aid to its flock. We write Kool-Aid because all the evidence is that HIV is harmless, inert, and provides zero justification for any treatment of any kind, and that the drugs have a damaging and eventually lethal effect on the patients, starting with the disruption of their normal thinking processes, so that they more easily swallow your kind of guff, officially peddled by NIAID and all its fellow travelers in the press, none of whom seem willing or capable of reading the science for themselves.

  52. Snout Says:

    @TS, thank you for your spluttering rant, but you still haven’t told us where you propose to find subjects for your proposed randomised placebo controlled trial of HAART, given that neither dissidents nor sensible people would agree to such an enterprise.

    And that’s leaving out the issue that the total number of people in the world who (a) believe such a trial is both necessary and ethically justifiable and (b) have the qualifications to run such a trial, is precisely – none.

    @cervantes and Macdonald, I’m content for now to watch you both tie each other up in knots over Lohse. But here are a couple of clues:

    Lohse did not identify a group of individuals comprising 25% of the study population who “refused the offered treatment”. If you read table 3 more carefully you will note they stratify 22,744 individual person-years according to whether the individual was in that year in the 1st, 2nd/3rd, 4th/5th, 6th+ year of HAART treatment, or whether they were not taking it that year. There were not 22,744 persons. There were 3990 persons, each observed over a variable number of years (median 5.8).

    You will note that over the course of the decade deaths/person-year were highest (65/1000) among people not taking HAART in that year than among people who were. This is considerably higher than the rate among controls, which was 4.7/1000 PYR. How you manage to derive from this that people not taking HAART have life expectancies similar to control defeats me.

    You make an assumption that if a person was not taking HAART in a given year, this is because they refused offered treatment. This assumption is not sustained anywhere in the study. HAART is not offered to all HIV positive individuals, only to those who meet specific criteria, one benchmark being a CD4 count which has fallen below 350. Also note the study includes at least one year in which HAART was not available at all except to participants in clinical trials. The non-HAART observed person-years will contain a significant number of people who were not currently taking HAART because they were not yet eligible for treatment, especially in the late-HAART period. Despite this, mortality in this period was still 22/1000 PYR, considerably more than HIV negative controls.

    Carry on.

  53. Truthseeker Says:

    It is a marvel how endlessly people will rationalize their premise in ever more absurd Ptolemaic extrapolations when the obvious answer is to reexamine the premise.

    Even Snout’s mischaracterization of my paragraphs rejecting his poor logic is inaccurate. My rant wasn’t spluttering, Snout. It was a smoothly decisive summary of the entire picture of your amateur efforts supporting the leaders of HIV/AIDS in their misleading the public and yourself that HIV causes immune problems in humans, which it doesn’t, if we accept peer reviewed science published in the leading journals by your thought leaders.

    The reason it was smoothly expressed is because it is the plain truth, and the view is seasoned over more than two decades of observing the antics of persons such as yourself, who, while changing their signatures from time to time after being sufficiently discredited, peddle the same guff year after year in tiny doses on Web threads.

    Anyone who read the scientific literature or the explanations here and on leading sites of paradigm criticism in HIV/AIDS would have no hesitation in signing up for a control group, and to suggest otherwise only exhibits the main impediment to your constructive thinking on this and other points in this sphere.

    You simply cannot remove for the sake of argument and review the premise that has taken root in your brain, Snout, that HIV is a dangerous virus that causes immune problems. That is why you have to spend so much time with such great difficulty trying to suggest that there is rhyme and reason to your premise, and are so preoccupied with sorting out the minutiae ie the trees instead of the big picture ie the wood.

    Thank you for providing a live demonstration of this yet again. But please, take our advice and learn to argue over a conclusion without using it as a premise. Otherwise you will just to continue to mislead readers by wasting their time with circularity and endlessly begging the question, and wrestling and wrangling over details when the point is that the entire scheme is rotten.

    But are you capable of that? Perhaps it is no more than asking a religious zealot to reexamine his belief on God. As Massimo Pigliucci, author of Nonsense on Stilts, noted at NYU last night in discussion Religion and the Mind, trying to undermine the faith of believers in the Deity with rational argument is a lost cause.

    In this case, however, we have a believer in a retrovirus as Devil.

    Perhaps you would do yourself – and us – some good by reading Massimo’s blog, Rationally Speaking. Endless question begging gets a bit wearing.

  54. Truthseeker Says:

    “But surely you know that HIV incidence in the US is supposed to be around 50,000 (out with the pocket calculator and subtract deaths), and that the around 1 million HIV positive has now risen to more than 1.2 million.”

    Slow but inexorable spread of HIV in the population, correcting all the denialist claims that HIV doesn’t spread among heterosexuals, whatever Nancy Padian found!

    Everywhere we find claims and studies showing spread of the Virus among people. How does that happen, if it isn’t being effected through heterosexual sex?

    Enquiring minds demand to know. After all, if this is so, it knocks the denialist claims into a cocked hat.

    It couldn’t be that statistics of HIV incidence and prevalence are a mess, could it? Surely not. Surely we can trust the carrying out and reporting of HIV tests, and their accuracy, by the people to whom we have entrusted the job.

    They are doing it properly, aren’t they?

  55. Snout Says:

    “Anyone who read the scientific literature or the explanations here and on leading sites of paradigm criticism in HIV/AIDS would have no hesitation in signing up for a control group…”

    Err, in a randomised controlled trial you don’t sign up for a control group, TS. You sign up for the trial, and then get randomised to either active or control. You don’t get a say in which group you end up in. It’s random.

    In a randomised placebo-controlled trial you don’t even know which group you’ve been randomised to until the trial is complete. If it is double-blinded, not even your doctor knows.

    I had thought you might have understood this principle when you talked above about how important it is to ” also take care to randomize the allocation between the two, drug and placebo, which is admittedly hard to do but which reason insists must be done to get any kind of valid answer to the question of how useful or damaging are the drugs being tested…”

    Clearly I was mistaken.

  56. MacDonald Says:

    TS,

    They claim there’s a pasture still green, and that is Afro-American women. That’s where a lot of your HIV incidence comes from.

  57. Truthseeker Says:

    “Err, in a randomised controlled trial you don’t sign up for a control group, TS”

    Err, clearly your ability to understand more stimulating ways of expressing mundane points made o’er and o’er before is a bit limited, Snout, perhaps for the same reason as the rest of your fairy tales, the residence taken up by a global meme in your neurons. It was not meant literally.

    But it makes precisely the point which you were trying to deny – there is no ethical reason to give up placebo vs drug trials if the whole point of the trial is to test the drug.

    To fear patients being in the wrong ie unmedicated group is to assume the result before it is gained. In the case of AIDS drugs, in fact, all the evidence is that one should if anything fear being put in the drug dose group, since they all appear to have fairly serious side effects, ultimately fatal in many cases. Read the PDR.

    You don’t yet understand this trivial point? Snout, you are beginning to force us to take into account the possibility you are an HIV/AIDS drug(ged) user, and this is why you cannot easily distinguish between a premise and a point at issue, or understand what is meant by an ironic turn of phrase.

    Please support properly controlled drug trials, ones in which the results for a drug are compared directly to results without that drug, with other factors under control, which is what a controlled study means.

    Otherwise you will have to accept our labeling your estimable but misguided self as unscientific in training, attitude and understanding.

    We wouldn’t want that. We admire your debating genius too much.

  58. cervantes Says:

    MacDonald, Your attention to detail is appreciated. And so is Snout’s in this regard.

    Lohse’s tabulations are difficult, for sure. Lohse provides no information prior to Early HAART and Late HAART groupings connecting with those who took Pre-HAART (AZT big time), and carrying over to later years after 1996.

    Might I remind everybody that Pre-HAART comprised large doses of AZT and it is clear (to me) AZT’s toxicity kept the mortality rate going for some years into Early HAART (with Lohse tabbing those as “No HAART” still on their AZT regimens).

    Yes, it can be confusing – because it is. However, starting in year 2000, people taking AZT in prior years had been fatally-damaged, died, and are now out of the picture.

    So, the Late HAART and No HAART groups for years 2000-2005, distanced from AZT, have mortality rates that tell the tale: No HAART rates are distinctly lower than those taking Late HAART ARVs

    The bottom line: Lohse says 39 years is expected life after age 25, if not being poisoned with Hep C drugs. And, Lohse’s No HAART 2000-2005 stats reveal considerably longer life expectancy than 39 years – logically maybe 45 years. To age 70 (from age 25). And if someone is told they are HIV+ at age 35, their expectancy is to live to 80, sans toxic drugs!

    So, why would anybody HIV+ take Late HAART with all its terrible debilitating effects cited by France’s article in New York Magazine? My answer: those who believe Robert Gallo and Anthony Fauci. Good luck.

  59. Snout Says:

    @cervantes, Lohse doesn’t mention HCV treatments. The reduced life expectancy is for people with hepatitis C co-infection, not treatment.

    Lohse’s “no-HAART” stats do not yield a life-expectancy, because they do not refer to individuals, but to life-years of observation. Let me try to explain by providing a more concrete, if hypothetical, case to help you understand what the column in table 3 represents.

    Meet Loki. Loki was referred to Dr Lohse’s specialist clinic after being diagnosed with HIV in 1998. At the time his T-cell count was 600, and he attended every three months or so to monitor his T cells and viral load, and for treatment of some minor and mostly unrelated conditions. He was not on HAART for the first four years he attended, because he didn’t need it, and wasn’t, in fact, eligible for such treatment. By 2002, however, his T-cells had declined to be consistently below 350, and Dr Lohse recommended he begin HAART, which he continued over the next four years to 2005 when the study period finishes.

    Loki, although only one man, contributes 8 person-years of observations to the 22,744 total. Four of those years were “no HAART”, one was “1st year”, two were “2nd and 3rd year of HAART” and one was “4th and 5th year”. Athough half of Loki’s time at the clinic was not on HAART, he doesn’t represent a population 50% of whom “refused offered treatment”. Get it now?

    Oh, and might I remind everyone that the dose of AZT used in “pre-HAART” 1992-5 was precisely the same (500-600 mg daily) as that used in early HAART.

    @TS, is anything on this blog site meant literally?

  60. Truthseeker Says:

    The truth is (“meant literally”), which we hope you don’t have any difficulty in recognizing, Snout – do you? Perhaps we should define it, since you occasionally seem to have trouble.

    Truth is whatever science can determine about the nature of reality, the objective reality outside the human brain, that wonderful concocter of fantasy and fairy tale and supposition and prejudice and religious dogma and a thousand other works of the imagination that unfortunately often spill over their proper boundaries into areas that they often warp into grotesque shapes, such as science and policy.

    Science working according to its native principle, that is, worked out on the basis of double checked reasoning and reliable evidence gathered by responsible and unbiased and professionally motivated scientists who double check themselves for the distortions of measurement and perception introduced by the biases introduced by human nature mentioned.

    Science, in other words, delineated by activities unaffected by human weakness and folly and venality and underhand motivations, professionally practiced and reviewed by honest peers in reputable journals, whose editors try to remain beyond the blandishments of scientists they are pally with as sources they depend on, and run their journals as free as possible of the internal media politics they specialize in themselves as they pursue their careers, including freedom from the interference of mediocre publishers such as those at Elsevier who have the effrontery to tell the editor of Medical Hypotheses what to publish because they are frightened out of their halfwits that John Moore et al will remove that admirable journal from PubMed by complaining about it to equally stupid officials and administrators at that admirable public resource.

    There used to be a few scientists who practiced science in that spirit such as Peter Medawar in biology and there still are some eg E.O Wilson around but of course with the expansion of science into some kind of industry or trade profession as commercialism absorbs every activity it comes into contact with in this great society, they are now few and far between.

    Any truths along those lines mentioned in this humbly corrective blog are meant to be taken neat, yes, if you can stomach them. Bear up Snout – you can do it if anyone can.

    Peter Duesberg of Berkeley is one of the shining examples of this old fashioned and anachronistic species who practice science essentially as a vocation and since they are or were funded by the public purse retain a sense of public responsibility and tell the truth to the public and the media who represent them instead of playing the funding game and peddling scientific wisdom which is as long as 30 years out of date.

    Erwin Chargaff was another, poor man, who is now constantly being proved right in complaining that DNA was not the sole solution to the mysteries of the cell.

  61. cervantes Says:

    TS, I congratulate you for maintaining a civil forum, making it possible to forge agreement from opposing views, despite the occasional rudeness borne of frustration.

    Remarkably, we all agree daily 600mg of AZT was in pre-HAART regimens (early 1990’s onward, the dose down from 1,500 mgs a day since 1996), and continued at 600 mgs in the U.S. HAART begun 1996 and finally stopped July 2006 when the patents on AZT ran out and Atripla with its new lucrative patents became the instant successor to HAART.

    However, the U.S. death rate remains unchanged the last 7 years, in contrast to AIDS deaths in Euro countries plunging ever downward. So, it appears even without AZT, the present three “nucleo-components” of Atripla are just as deadly. This, the AIDS medical community calls progress?

    We agree that the present regimens have dropped the huge 2,400 mgs per day doses of protease inhibitors that was in HAART begun 1996 (Lohse mentions the Denmark regimen of late-HAART includes one protease inhibitor but does not cite dosage).

    We agree the U.S. continues with 17,000 plus/minus annual AIDS deaths on its Atripla and assorted other ARVs, including some with protease inhibitor doses.

    We agree Denmark and European countries employ similar drug regimens as the U.S. once one has been determined to be an actual AIDS patient.

    However, AIDS diagnoses in the Euro countries are but 1/30 the U.S. because only the U.S. employs low CD4 counts (along with being HIV+) to pin on the label of AIDS (my study put this category to be 95% of American AIDS cases).

    For years, Denmark and the Euro countries have had a non-endemic-country-immigrant per-capita AIDS death rate averaging 1/30 the U.S. – because much less-toxic ARVs are used for just being HIV+ (per the Lohse study), compared to AIDS-treatment regimens (similar in both U.S. and Euro).

    All that being said, Lohse’s study does open a window to glimpse mortality rates are lower for Danes not taking late-HAART drugs, compared to those that do, once the hangover of early-HAART and AZT has worn off. On this, perhaps there still remains disagreement. Nothing’s perfect.

  62. Snout Says:

    No, cervantes, I am struggling to find even a single one of your statements above in which there is anything to agree with. It is difficult to know where to start. Perhaps you could elaborate on your statement:

    “For years, Denmark and the Euro countries have had a non-endemic-country-immigrant per-capita AIDS death rate averaging 1/30 the U.S. – because much less-toxic ARVs are used for just being HIV+ (per the Lohse study), compared to AIDS-treatment regimens (similar in both U.S. and Euro).”

    What, precisely, is the difference between antiretroviral therapy offered for “just being HIV+” and that offered as “AIDS-treatment regimens”? You seem to be under the impression that there are two classes of HAART, one offered to people with HIV but not diagnosed with AIDS and a special one reserved for when the patient meets the particular epidemiological surveillance definition for AIDS used in their respective country.

    Where on earth did you get this bizarre idea?

    As an aside, the fact you refer to HAART and Atripla as mutually exclusive suggests that you are actually confused about what the term “HAART” means. Lohse et al define it as follows (a definition that I believe would be generally acceptable anywhere):

    …”the combination of antiretroviral treatment with at least 3 drugs, including at least 1 protease inhibitor, 1 nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, or abacavir; or the 2-drug combination of efavirenz and ritonavir-boosted lopinavir.”

    “Atripla” (I do not particularly like the distasteful American habit of referring to antiretroviral drugs by their brand names) fits that description.

  63. Truthseeker Says:

    “TS, I congratulate you for maintaining a civil forum,”

    Well, C, we have nothing but admiration for those people such as yourself who look into questions, and offer their findings here, for the sake of truth and spreading it to others, and we wish that we were sure that Snout was such a man, but we fear that he is merely one of the reflex defenders of the faith, perhaps driven by the easy if unconscious delight of defending Daddy, and sitting pretty in the fort of what he imagines is mainstream truth but appears too often to be merely mainstream authority, and often not only misinformed and misguided but actually misled and misleading to the public.

    Snout and Noble and Bennett and similar small time defenders of the status quo (small in position in the hierarchy of paradigm defense, not in abilities we hasten to add) always make us wonder about the psychology behind automatic defense of received wisdom, and delight in promoting it, when anyone with any intelligence one would think would be well aware of how mistaken large systematized thought can often be, not through any fantastical conscious conspiracy but simply because most human beings are interested above all in being accepted and so run with the herd, perhaps for the sake of their wives and children if not for themselves.

    The combination of the ability to think for oneself and the apparent drive to run with the herd is an odd paradoxical conflicted duality which we have yet to fathom. Perhaps Snout or another of these intellectual sycophants might explain, if they can take time off having their fun picking off the footsoldiers of the argument against their position while their entire castle crumbles around them due to the multi-cannon broadside visited upon it by logical and well founded review. We are speaking metaphorically here, because the points are so familiar that they need dressing up to appear worth sending on stage.

    Wait! Did we call Snout an intelligent sycophant? Seems rather ad hominem, which is banned here even for the host. But we are merely referring to his intellectual position, not his merits as a man, which as far as we know are sterling, except that he seems unconscious of the fact that he is supporting a death dealing regimen in his trivial skirmishes with honest thinkers who are trying to puzzle out the ramifications of a false paradigm claim as it becomes ever more deeply rooted in the brains of most of humanity.

    The bottom line is that there are plenty of indications that it is the drugs and not the supposed deadly but in fact inert virus which cause the decline and death of the trusting victims of the authorities in HIV/AIDS. To try and pick apart the thinking along these lines with trivial corrections is the kind of useless resistance put up by the footsoldiers of the failed paradigm.

    All we can advise outside readers is to notice the enormous fact that these volunteer mercenaries of HIV/AIDS are always fighting on the side issues and rarely can deal with the main points, which are overwhelming in logic and evidence. The HIV/AIDS paradigm is utterly ridiculous in reason and in science in about 35 different ways, which we listed at the Naples conference at the turn of this new century and have had no reason to revise since.

    See 2001, The Scorn of Heretics page 4 and following:

    —————————————————–

    Still an open question

    There is little point here in going through all the many stark problems in the AIDS-HIV paradigm that Duesberg and others have pointed to. But one can mention the main ones They begin with the fact that tests for HIV were positive in only 88% of the patients sampled by Robert Gallo in the papers on which the (26 of 63). 5 They end with the fact that no better proof of cause has been produced in the years since. Instead, there have been years of accumulating outrages to common sense. Among them: the blood of AIDS patients contains too little HIV, it infects too few T4 cells, it replicates in vitro harmlessly in the same cells, and too many AIDS patients test negative for HIV.

    The chief difficulty for dissenters now is that virtually all of the data of the field rests on the assumption that HIV is the cause. The presence of the virus defines AIDS. Even its name is self-serving: Human Immunodeficiency Virus. This circularity is one of the paradoxical complications that wall off the ruling paradigm from examination and protect it from public review.

    A short list of the inconsistencies inherent in the paradigm is included in “The Limits of Science” on this conference’s Web site, and many more can easily be found on the Internet.6 The most impressive are the different symptoms in different global regions, and the strange inability of the phenomenon to behave like an infectious disease in North America, where cases are tracked by actual testing, with the number of Americans who are positive for HIV remaining steady at one million or less throughout the sharp rise and recent fall of the epidemic. Instead, the
    sensationally heralded US heterosexual outbreak has never occurred, while African
    and Asian AIDS is reported as entirely heterosexual, actively infectious and
    spreading alarmingly, though confirming testing is severely limited, and the totals of
    all deaths in the countries concerned do not rise significantly.

    Proponents have an answer for every point, critics have an answer for them, and so on, in the manner of Ptolemaic astronomy defending itself against Copernicus. This zig-zag of point-counterpoint makes for a logical hall of mirrors. Added to this, the skeptics are asked to prove a negative, namely, that HIV cannot be the cause of AIDS, which is notoriously difficult as a matter of logic, and especially in this instance, since many cases where HIV is not detected are still counted as AIDS cases, because it is nonetheless assumed that HIV is present. If it is accepted that it isn’t, then the condition isn’t counted as AIDS. They are also asked to provide and prove an alternative cause, which is also difficult when all the
    data gathering assumes that HIV is the cause.

    In sum, it is not possible to drive home or refute the critique until independent research is funded. Those versed in traditional biology can, however, judge a priori how far fetched the HIV hypothesis’s rationale is, and how unlikely its logical pillars, set against conventional understanding of retroviruses and disease. Suffice it to say that the AIDS-HIV hypothesis is still literally unproven, as implied by the incessant use of the otherwise needless phrase “there is overwhelming evidence that HIV causes AIDS”. While anyone may choose to believe that HIV causes AIDS, after seventeen years there is not yet any objective, demonstrable proof of this. The latest medications, protease inhibitors, are trumpeted in the media as a great success, and as a clinching argument that HIV causes AIDS, though the mechanism of its depredations is still unknown. But David Rasnick, who worked with protease inhibitors for many years, will tell us that these claims are hollow.

    After seventeen years, incredibly, there is still no paper in science which anyone can reference which rises to the level of proof that Duesberg is wrong, and that HIV causes AIDS or indeed any illness of any kind. The truth is that the HIV theory of the cause of AIDS should not even be called a ‘theory’. It should properly be known as a hypothesis rather than a theory. In science, the word ‘theory’ refers
    to an underlying principle of observed phenomena that has been tested and verified.
    To repeat, this is not the case with the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS, which remains mere speculation. Unfortunately, the assumption that it has been proven is universally used as the premise of any research, and there is virtually no data free of it. Thus, what was a supposition to be tested has become accepted as a fact, proven by a circularity. Data gathered using the assumption that HIV causes AIDS are offered as ‘overwhelming’ evidence of the assumption.

    None of this establishes that it is wrong, of course. Whether the hypothesis is in fact wrong an outsider can judge only from a detailed study of argument and counter argument for which few people, even in science, have the motivation or time. I can say that after such research I find it impossible not to conclude that the HIV hypothesis is a worthless assumption and a superstition embarrassing to the reputation of science. Short of this, there is, first of all, the phenomenon that resistance to review is so strong, which reminds one of a remark by James Mason as Mr. Jordan, the celestial administrator in Heaven Can Wait: “I have learned that the likelihood of one individual being right increases in direct proportion to the
    intensity of others trying to prove him wrong.”

    The litmus of common sense

    But the most significant signal to outsiders is the endless list of challenges to common sense inherent in the seventeen year old hypothesis.

    As Duesberg has pointed out again and again, to believe in AIDS, we have to believe in a infectious viral disease where the virus’s rate of infection (1 in 500 sexual contacts) is outdone by the rate of human impregnation (1 in 10); a cell killing retrovirus, when otherwise retroviruses never kill cells; indeed, a virus provided to labs in immortal cultures of the same T cells it is said to kill off; a fatal virus that cannot easily be found in most patients, even dying ones, only antibodies to it; a disease where patients merely with antibodies can nevertheless die of the disease; a disease whose nature varies from place to place, being almost exclusively a homosexual and drug user ailment in North America and Europe, but heterosexual elsewhere; a disease that correlates with drug use in North America and Europe, yet is alleviated or prevented by a bowl full of other damaging and lethal drugs, never proved to be directly helpful; a disease whose mechanism, including an up-to-twenty year delay in onset, is as yet quite unexplained; a cell killing disease that also causes cell multiplying cancer, with no trace of the virus in the cancer; and a disease said to be a killer epidemic in Haiti and South Africa, with no significant change in overall mortality, and long endemic in sub-Saharan Africa, where a population explosion has nonetheless added 250 million people in two decades.

    Let’s pause for a breath before we complete the list, for that’s hardly all. We also have to believe in an epidemic mapped in Africa by the World Health Organization almost entirely without the benefit of AIDS tests, which themselves are problematic; a viral epidemic uniquely without initial exponential growth or bellshaped rise and fall; a viral epidemic which has not found immunity anywhere; a killer disease where no doctor, nurse or researcher working with it has caught the disease; a disease with risk group, lifestyle, and malnutrition specific symptoms; a disease whose every symptom is shared with other diseases–in fact, a disease which would in every case be counted as those other diseases except for the supposed presence of antibodies to the “virus that causes AIDS”; a viral epidemic without a sign of a promising vaccine despite the best funded army of researchers in history; a viral disease which quickly achieves the antibodies of vaccination of its own accord; and a virus transmitted 25-50% through birth which has produced no epidemic among children.

    That list is long enough, I think you will agree, that a New Yorker such as myself might be forgiven for saying “If you can believe all that, I have a bridge I would like to sell you.” Duesberg asserts that all these paradoxes are resolved if we simply accept that AIDS is a drug phenomenon, or elsewhere a picture artificially created by gathering other diseases under the AIDS umbrella, where any occurrence of disease is relabeled AIDS if HIV antibodies are reckoned to be present. I know of no good reason to disbelieve him. One good reason to believe him is that there is no AIDS disease among HIV positive patients who abstain from recreational and medicating drugs.

    Still, while it is an enormously important question whether the hypothesis is right or wrong, for the purposes of this talk it is irrelevant. My topic here is the influences on science which bias judgement, pervert its practice and handicap dissenters with prejudice, so that we all are deaf to their analysis. Under that heading I suggest that those influences are political and psychological, that they are exemplified in the case of AIDS science, and that I have had personal experience of them at work. But such claims of political rather than professional behavior among scientists in dealing with Duesberg do not have to be credited on my testimony alone.

    The evidence in Challenges

    All this and more has been documented with excruciating precision in Yale mathematics professor Serge Lang’s book Challenges, ably reviewed by Marco Mamone Capria in his article reproduced on the Web site of this Conference.

    Challenges is a masterful performance. Lang has extraordinary attributes as an investigator of political behavior, and Challenges is a collection of clear documentations of the ways in which members of the science and academic
    establishment evade responsibility on a number of issues.

    etc. etc ———————-

    All this is as true eight years later as it was then. Serge Lang’s Challenges is indeed an exceptional book, a still unique volume which takes the lid off estabalishment clubmanship in bad ideas and poor thinking in the US in a ruthless manner informed by the highest standards of truth and integrity unmatched by any other book we know of.

    It is the one book every intellectual iconoclast should have a a guide to the way system membership paralyzes individual thought at even the top level in the 21st Century.

    Perhaps if they are friends with an intellectual sycophant in whom Sagan’s candle flame of reason in the overwhelming darkness of ignorance and superstition and the other important flame of conscience are not yet blown out, they might give it as a present for Christmas, by which they will be offering their colleague a rare chance to redeem themselves as human beings as well as newly open minds.

    Poor Lang, why did he die? There’s material for a conspiracy theory for you.

  64. MartinDKessler Says:

    Hi Truthseeker, That was among the best summaries of the HIV Skeptic dilemma I have read. Kudos to you. The only problem is that such writing merely floats over the heads of those who really need it – those to whom the AIDS Paradigm is their livelyhood. Accolytes like Snout use semantic tricks in the way they dance around the stongest criticisms. One such trick is misinterpreting the skeptic’s criticism then criticising the misinterpretation. Whether this is done deliberately or inadvertently because of ignorance is not clear because such writers (as Snout) give the appearance of erudition and many times when I read what was written, I don’t have enough familiarity with the facts (assuming they are true) to be a good judge. But your statement that the research done so far has been with the assumption that AIDS is a contagious phenomenon caused by HIV (as you said a circular nomenclature) was cogent, so we really can’t know for sure. As Max Planck said, “Science advances one funeral at a time”, the opposite sometimes takes place when greats like Lang die it takes a step back.

  65. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    Sorry to bug everyone, but I had to make a few comments:

    1. Snout says there are no dissidents able to run a clinical trial. That is incorrect. I was trained by NIH to run clinical trials in 2002, when I was running a clinical trial at the University of Washington Medical Center. I’m sure there are other dissidents who have this experience, but even if there are not, I am certified as a clinical trial Project Director by NIH.

    2. Regarding the Lhose study and others like it – at some point, researchers moved away from individuals as the unit of analysis to “patient years” as the unit. I don’t know exactly when this happened, but my guess is that it occurred because using patients as the unit of analysis was not delivering the desired results. Lhose data could be reanalyzed using patients as the unit of analysis – there would be three groups: continuous treatment (minus the year drugs were not available), discontinuous treatment (in a way, a test of structured treatment interruptions), and no treatment. Like I said, I imagine that a patient-level analysis like this one would not provide researchers with the answer they were seeking, so they resort to “patient years.” These are statistical tricks, bottom line, and one can question the validity of the “patient years” analysis, since the unit that will be treated are patients, not patient years.

    3. HAART, or Highly Active AntiRetroviral Therapy, is simply 3 or more antiretroviral agents. A protease inhibitor does not need to be included – although current treatment protocols favor inclusion. I am on HAART right now, taking 4 drugs, 3 NRTIs and 1 Fusion inhibitor. This is still HAART even though the protease inhibitor is missing. I did have to sign an AMA (Against Medical Advice) waiver to use this combination, because standard protocols suggest that one of the 3 or more drugs should be a protease inhibitor. However, HAART itself just requires 3 or more agents. The recommended protocols are just recommended protocols. The whole idea behind HAART was that 3 agents were necessary to suppress viral replication (i.e., reduce “viral load” to undetectable levels).

    4. Modern HIV/AIDS medicine does not treat patients – they treat the virus only. They are not particularly concerned with the health of the immune system, but focus almost entirely on whether or not “viral load” tests indicate total suppression of viral replication. That is the treatment goal. It used to be that the treatment goal was to raise CD4 cell counts. Not anymore. Now, it is assumed that if viral replication is totally suppressed, CD4 counts will rise. This has not proven to be true in my case, and I am not, I don’t think, that unusual. My doctors tell me that CD4 increases are a “lagging indicator,” like unemployment, I guess, is a lagging indicator of economic recovery. Poor Kary Mullis would be upset with this state of affairs, I think. Polymerase Chain Reaction is a qualitative method. Viral load is quantitative PCR, which is an oxymoron. I could go into specifics about how “viral load” is calculated and why it’s problematic, but really, at the base of it, it is a perversion of PCR, period, and therefore highly suspect – especially when treatment revolves entirely around this indicator.

  66. MartinDKessler Says:

    Hi Mark, I have a “dumb” question. Why are you taking these drugs? Are you sure you are authentically infected? How do you know? If the antibody tests and viral load tests themselves haven’t been validated why do you accept the results? Do you get sick if you go off the regimen? If scores or more people who tested positive for antibodies supposedly for HIV, and they did not go on the so-called antiretrovirals or the currrently fashionable HAART and are still healthy, wouldn’t that influence you? If you are qualified as a Clinical Project Director, would going off the HAART regimen disqualify you from running clinical trials?

  67. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    Martin –
    I wish there was a simple answer to your questions, but there isn’t. I have been tested antibody positive on 4 different occasions in 4 different states, using 4 different labs. I accept that whatever it is the antibody test is reacting to, I have reacted positively to that thing 4 times.

    I take long treatment breaks, but I do get sick eventually. I wish I had never initiated HAART, but I was not educated at the time I first received a positive antibody test result, and was pressured to start, even though I had over 600 CD4 cells at the time. If I had to do it again, I would not start HAART. At this point, it appears that I need it sporadically. As per the question about clinical trials – my health information could not be used to disqualify me for work as a clinical trial project director – no one’s health information could be used in that way – that’s against the law.

    Obviously, my thought processes on all of these issues is much more complex than this format would allow me to discuss (I am against lengthy posts) – so hopefully those responses will do for now. And I made an error in my previous approach. The 4th drug I am on is not a fusion inhibitor, it is an integrase inhibitor. I apologize for the error.

  68. Truthseeker Says:

    The saints be praised! Here we have a fairly intelligent person who has read this blog for some time and is still taking HAART. “3 NRTIs and 1 integrase inhibitor”. Lawd save us.

    Mark, really, try to pull yourself together. The capacity of these pseudo-beneficial (because somewhat microbicidal, contrary to early denials of this predictable fact, and having various other minor positive effects) substances to enhance your health directly in relation to HIV/AIDS is nil, because HIV is medically inert and not showing any sign after 22 years of causing ill health of any kind, except mental, let alone a decline in immune system response.

    If you have not understood this elementary point then you are only going to appear foolish on this blog, which has gone into this science ad nauseam. Whatever ails you (and low levels of CD4 cells at any point is not necessarily an indication of any such thing, as athletes constantly show us) take something for it directly, not for HIV. Take antibiotics or anything more directly aimed at some other possible threat, but not something aimed at HIV, for God’s sake.

    Not asking you to take our word for it, or any prescription of a medical nature from us, but this is what the science tells us, and should tell you. If you take HAART at this late stage in our endless repetition of this point here to explain things to newcomers then either the medicines have disturbed the balance of your mind and rearranged your neurons, which they are known to do – see New York magazine this week for cognitive problems arising in HAART patients – or else we are very bad at writing simple English.

  69. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    TS,
    As always, I appreciate your advice. But as I said in response to Martin, how exactly I made the decisions I have made regarding treatment is much too complex an issue to be discussed here. I would only say in my defense that my strategy has worked now for over a decade. That’s something for you to consider.

    Best wishes always,
    Mark

  70. Truthseeker Says:

    Mark, you are showing signs of inability to think about a matter closest to your heart among all that concern you, your health. You state that your strategy has worked now for over a decade. But this is completely without any control group, that is to say, without any evidence that you would not have been better off doing something else. You might be climbing mountains before breakfast daily, but this doesn’t necessarily reflect success at warding off the threat of HIV, or even any involvement of HIV in your health at all, only your apparent assumption that any success reflects some kind of inhibition of the effects of HIV. But this assumption is totally unwarranted. There is not the slightest good science behind it. All science so far in studies and papers which have withstood examination tell us that HIV is not involved in your health in the slightest, except in this insidious meme of a paradigm which you apparently cannot uproot from your thinking, which leads you to think that any improvement over decline and death must somehow involve the welcome ability of your drugs to fight and defeat the Virus.

    It doesn’t, good science tells us. There is no reason or justification for taking anti-HIV drugs as an antidote for HIV, because HIV is medically inert. The parrot is a dead parrot, Mark, however much the defenders of the faith try to prop it up on its perch. You are taking drugs which have no good medical basis for you to partake of them, since their small beneficial effects are only temporary and liable to slowly do the damage you expect from HIV unless you take the drugs, which is the absurd circularity and paradox of HIV/AIDS thinking.

    That is what good science tells us. This is not medical advice, and it is not for us to give you medical advice, since that role is legally reserved for MDs. We are merely stating the established facts of matter as shown by the papers in the field, adjusted for incompetence and deceit.

  71. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    TS,
    I’m really trying to be gracious. Did I say anything about HIV? I don’t recall mentioning it – not even when I discussed antibody tests.

    Finally – it is none of your business. Have I asked you to explain how you choose to react to your PSA tests? It’s none of my business, but I think I’ll choose the very ungracious route and tell you what I think you should think.

    I don’t recall you mentioning that you yourself had been swept up into this nightmare as a patient. Until you have, then your “experience” does not begin to parallel mine, so since you are not an expert, not an MD, and not a friend, please, kindly keep your opinions on my health to yourself. Really, TS, it would be one thing if I thought you genuinely cared about me, but you don’t, so just lay off.

    Thanks,
    Mark

  72. Truthseeker Says:

    A clear example of how incapable AIDS patients are in thinking or feeling straight, once they get into the hands of the medical profession in this arena and share in the “nightmare”. We have complete confidence that readers can assess this evidence for themselves, however, so we won’t comment further, and will leave the comment up having removed its uncivil parts.

    On the single relevant part, we should say we are interested that anyone can suggest PSA tests are useful, given what we have learned about prostate cancer in the last decade. Also, we are happy to say we do not have any “experience” in taking anti-HIV drugs, and never claimed to have this anecdotal credential. But we have to say that we hope we would never be so irrational as to take them, given what this site has uncovered about the lack of any reason to do so other than to please your misinformed doctor.

    Special note: This is not a prescription for your medical treatment, which should be only according to the advice of a qualified physician who is familiar with your particular case and has read and understood the scientific and medical literature in the field, including the peer reviewed paradigm reviews, and no other.

  73. MartinDKessler Says:

    Hi Truthseeker, The comment : “since you are not an expert, not an MD”, is one of the typical ad hominem techniques used by many AIDS establishment accolytes. John Lauritsen told me that that’s how he would be attacked at AIDS conferences – “You’re not even a doctor” is typical. This is a sad state with the majority of “doctors” marching lock-step to the tune of the CDC, NIH, Ryan White Foundation, etc. In addition, trying to find a doctor in agreement with the dissidents would be very difficult because for a doctor to publicly acknowledge their disbelief in the AIDS paradigm (HIV=AIDS=Death), could possibly lead to their losing their license to practice medicine. As Galileo was forced to recant his astronomical observations (the earth revolves around the sun not the other way around) or be excommunicated – a doctor losing his/her license is a similar fate.

  74. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    Look – if it really makes you happy to make me a target of your longstanding anger and dismay – carry on, then. I remain unmoved. If you need a punching bag, punch away. Just seems like an awful waste of time, but it’s your time and you should do what you like with it. I just think there are probably more interesting things to be discussed than my medical situation. But, again, if it tickles your fancy – then by all means, blast away. Like I said, I am unmoved.

    Best wishes always,
    Mark

  75. Truthseeker Says:

    Please note how Mark’s responses make no sense intellectually or scientifically. What anger or dismay? Anger for sure at the AIDS establishment for leading Mark’s doctors astray so that this patient imbibes useless and toxic drugs, disorientates his neurons and leaves him the helpless complainant that those who see he makes no sense are unfairly making him the target of “longstanding anger and dismay”. In offering him the benefit of correcting his disturbed neural equipment we are seen as using him as a punchbag and wasting his time etc etc. Dismay for sure at having our generosity in troubling to enlighten him taken as an affront.

    Truly extraordinary how human beings are generally incapable of questioning their own minds, from scientists unable to remove their own wishes and hopes from their investigative conclusions, to drug addled patients who cannot understand they are under the baleful influence of disorientating chemicals, to drunks and texting drivers of SUVs who cannot understand they are incapable, to the moronic fellow traveling of HIV/AIDS scientists doctors and patients with an absurd theory which a child can see through, the parade of human unselfconsciousness goes on and on.

    Special note: This is not a prescription for your medical treatment, which should be only according to the advice of a qualified physician who is familiar with your particular case and has read and understood the scientific and medical literature in the field, including the peer reviewed paradigm reviews, and no other.

  76. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    Let’s review your recently exposed gaps in knowledge about the meds:
    1. You assert that AZT is the most toxic med. This is incorrect.
    2. You have no idea what the role of protease is in the body.
    3. You could not explain how an integrase inhibitor is meant to work.
    4. I’m doubtful you know anything about Maturation Inhibitors or Fusion Inhibitors

    Yes. Certainly you are someone people should take advice from on the meds. That would be scientific and rational. Or not.

    I hope people don’t make the same mistake I made (and already admitted to) regarding meds, because unfortunately, as you have correctly pointed out before, once you start, you may become dependent.

    So let’s leave it be now, TS. I see you have placed yourself in amongst the martyrs in the blue up top of the blog. I think you forgot a couple of people – but they are dead now, so they’re unlikely to object.

  77. Truthseeker Says:

    More evidence of intellectual and emotional disruption by the notorious HIV/AIDS drugs that only the mentally disrupted are foolish enough to take and become even more disrupted, especially after they have found out that it was a mistake, as you state above.

    Delighted to hear that AZT was/is not the most toxic med. Please expand, if you can. Don’t worry about the insults you seem to be forced by your state of mind to include, in a kind of analogue of Tourett’s syndrome. We can remove them easily enough to maintain the standards of this blog.

    The role of protease in the body, how an integrase inhibitor is meant to work (we like that “meant”), and being up to speed in maturation inhibitors and fusion inhibitors is entirely irrelevant as to whether we advise anyone to take HIV/AIDS drugs or not. You didn’t understand that?

    HIV according to the journal literature is about as likely to be the cause of AIDS as Mark Biernbaum is to jump over the moon in one leap, though we are not saying you won’t try, such is the apparent disorientating effect of the drugs you confess to taking because you cannot quite decide after years whether it is absolutely certain that HIV is not involved.

    HIV is not involved in causing AIDS, Mark, therefore there is no need to take HIV/AIDS drugs. If you haven’t gathered this yet, we can only suggest that instead of studying up on protease, integrase, maturation or fusion inhibitors you first study up on the content of this blog.

    Perhaps then you will join us and a host of other better informed people and realize that your preoccupation with calibrating HIV/AIDS drugs is a useless waste of your life, which is vanishing day by day at the same rate as everyone else’s but may end earlier than most other people’s unless you can pull your neurons together and spend some time studying what we have written out in elementary English for the last four years.

    We are not a martyr to anything in case you hadn’t noticed, unless you mean the activity of writing out plain factual information for the uninformed, and we are not even a martyr to that, since although it is tragic that so many people are deaf to our leadership away from ignorance and self deception, we also find it mildly amusing how easily the average person is taken in by the blatantly silly ideas extant in HIV/AIDS, while pitying those who so unfortunately give their lives to it and disappoint their nearest and dearest who will mourn their loss.

    Of course you seem to be under the illusion that you are “dependent” on taking these noxious concoctions, but that is only their effect on your mind, Mark, it is entirely illusory. There are much better substitutes which will restore your health if it isn’t too far gone. But of course as long as your trusted doctors are under the rule of a false paradigm they will not know this, and will continue to feed you their version of Rev Jones’ Kool Aid.

    Special note: This is not a prescription for your medical treatment, which should be only according to the advice of a qualified physician who is familiar with your particular case and has read and understood the scientific and medical literature in the field, including the peer reviewed paradigm reviews, and no other.

  78. Carter Says:

    Biernbaum’s illustrious diatribe sounds surprisingly like DeShong. They ought to be in bed together. Certainly a classic example how one’s mind is detrimentally effected by toxic intake. Hang around in a gay man’s HIV/AIDS peer support group (hell, just look at some of the posters at thebody.com) as plain as day, it’s such to make one’s head spin.

    Years ago I decided not believe any of it. Thank God, because I couldn’t even imagine what I’d be like after 5 years of anti-HIV therapy.

    Come on now Mark. You know there are better answers. Now it’s your turn to follow them. Just imagine what your life will be like years from now if you continue the path you’re on. You have had to seen it in others, i.e. liver problems, heart problems, diabetes. Do you really, I mean really want that for yourself?

  79. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    Carter,
    I’m really familiar with the effects of continuous treatment. I’ve been on treatment less than 25% of the time I have been identified as “HIV+” I’ve never advocated for continuous treatment – for myself or others.

    Here’s my predicament. After 3+ years off the drugs, I had zero CD4 cells, and dangerously low total lymphocyte count, plus severe anemia – and that was OFF of the medications. You seem to have heard of a “better answer.” Tell me what I should have done in my situation, when I was lying in hospital dying of a fungal infection that would not respond to antifungals – for those drugs to work at all, you need to have some functioning immune system, and I did not have one.

    If you have better answers, I invite you to email me and explain how I should have responded in my situation. You can find my email at my website: http://www.isis-institute.org

  80. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    Why am I responding to a pack of pseudonyms and their “advice?” (Mr. Kessler exempted from this indictment)

    Kind of hard to find the truth when you are working so hard to conceal it, “Truth” Seeker.

  81. Carter Says:

    Mark,
    You say, “when I was” and “I did not have one”. So you’re fine now as a result of? Your belief in western medicine perhaps? My friend, I cannot tell you what you should have done, but I do know well that “HIV” clouds real issues and firm hard belief in HIV seriously does. What that means is you must first unclog your mind, a de-hypnotism of sorts, in order to move out of your own way and allow proper means of healing. I don’t want to get to esoteric about this, but western medicine’s stung out over burdened HIV interventions are what got you into this mess and surly aren’t going to be your way out of it. Dissident literature is filled with good hard facts, which point to alternative medicine. You need not look far, and people who know me know that I’m a firm supporter of this.

    There are individuals in much the same predicament you’re in. They have these types of discussions all the time on the message boards at aidsmythexposed.com, which you’re invited to join.

  82. Truthseeker Says:

    A vivid example, Alas, of how both the drugs and immersion in the wrong belief over many years can lead not only to intellectual paralysis but also a weird kind of emotional short circuit in an otherwise fine and sensitive mind, so that helpful advice not only gets spurned but the normally respected messenger bringing nothing but glad tidings gets it in the neck for “concealing truth”.

    We cannot blame anyone for acting in this upside down fashion, however. Even if a dim light has shone into the prisoner’s mental padded cell as those striving to rescue him have made progress in fighting off the guards and clearing out the rubbish in front of the padlocked door, it has to take time before he can be rescued and fully rehabilitated from living among fellow inmates and white coated psychiatrists who share his paranoid fantasy and reinforce it at every turn.

    This is not so much a meme as a way of life, and hard to get out from under. Now we have an otherwise brilliant mind, well educated and literate in the smallest details of his medical religion, asking us to advise him on a better alternative to taking useless and damaging concoctions that worsen the symptoms he is trying to escape.

    All we can advise at this stage, apart from Google, is that the unshackled prisoner go buy a very large organic turkey and sprinkle it with salt, pepper, garlic and other spices, some of which are immune boosters, by the way, and lay off the powder in the large container marked with a skull and cross bones so kindly provided by the medical wingnuts he has placed his trust in for so many years.

    Happy gobbling, all!

    Special note: This is not a prescription for your medical treatment, which should be only according to the advice of a qualified physician who is familiar with your particular case and has read and understood the scientific and medical literature in the field, including the peer reviewed paradigm reviews, and no other.

  83. Truthseeker Says:

    Note to contributors: Lost a comment that we wrote the other night when Microsoft decided without consulting us that we needed a Windows security update, and had the audacity to take over the Vista 64 HP on which we were writing the comment and shut it down without so much as a by your leave. Since the comment was a reply to Mark and his irrational resistance to our correction of his belief that HIV is the cause of AIDS, we felt obliged to write out the comment again as above. Today, however, the machine did a remarkable thing and produced the comment again, as below, on the same page in Google Chrome, in the form that we were writing it when so rudely interrupted. Have to say we were somewhat amazed since the machine has been through several reboots since that time, two days, and spent the entire Thanksgiving night switched off.

    We offer this information to encourage anyone who thinks they have lost their comment for whatever reason and feels the kind of deeply resentful chagrin that we felt when our comment was arbitrarily wiped by the high handed update from Microsoft. It is possible that the thing may reappear next time your browser is booted, though only Bill “I have your $65 billion and you have my unfinished software” Gates knows how or why.

    Here is the previous edition of the Comment, which stands as proof that if one writes out a Comment again without notes it can successfully repeat the same trite ideas in slightly more efficient and polite manner.

    Clearly under the influence of so many inhibitors our friend is incapable of rational thought, or even rational emotion, it seems, since he attacks the messenger. Apparently one is not a good “friend” to serve him with obvious truths to clarify his chemically challenged mind, since he would prefer to stay in a condition of confused ignorance rather than let others do his thinking for him.

    We can understand that. How could one trust anyone having been surrounded medically and socially by fervent advocates of fatally flawed nonsense for years? Naturally he doesn’t trust anyone else having slowly woken up to the idea that he been misled by all those he placed his trust in for so long, ie having finally sensed that they are full of it even though they don’t even know it or won’t admit it.

    He and his “friends” have been caught up in this fiction and mistreated so long by HIV/AIDS wingnuts ( lets not view these medically trained asses as anything better than the unconscious loonies they are) that he is deaf to the simplest common sense when it conflicts with the paranoid fantasy he and his group have subscribed to for so long.

    Half an education is so often worse than none. Honestly it would be better if our intelligent and educated acquaintance was an untutored resident of Harlem who had dropped out of high school and might thus be influenced by conspiracy theories of how the CIA thought all of this up in cahoots with African monkeys. At least then he could be more easily be persuaded to reject whitey’s attack on black Americans and pass up his HIV tests and his CD4 counts and tell the docs that are such effective Pied Pipers to the gays to shove it.

    But here he is still swallowing the propaganda and its nostrums as if they were the key to life and health and rejecting our goodwill and helpful advice to pull himself together at long last and listen to reason and common sense, and his only response is to get his knickers in a twist about our “unfriendly attitude” and bleat that he needs information about alternatives to ARVs which any google search could tell him in an instant.

    What a pity Rev Jones isn’t still alive and a changed man who could explain to him with more authority than we can muster how this psychology works that has made him its victim as it has made so many since witch doctors first gained power over chiefs. Then perhaps he could enjoy his Thanksgiving turkey without sprinkling death powder over it to go with the salt and pepper.

    At least make sure its organic, Mark, ie free of other pesticides, at least.

    Special note: This is not a prescription for your medical treatment, which should be only according to the advice of a qualified physician who is familiar with your particular case and has read and understood the scientific and medical literature in the field, including the peer reviewed paradigm reviews, and no other.

  84. Truthseeker Says:

    The New York magazine thread ended with a final knockout of the irrepressible jack-in-the-box Todd DeShong, by the even more irrepressible Criticnyc, as follows, but then there has been another post today, this time by yet another personal testimony of a patient who is fond of the ARV’s prescribed for what he believes are HIV/AIDS symptoms, which have vanished owing to their beneficial effect, he claims.

    “Started ARVs in July 2005. No side effects. Health completely back to normal. Never looked back. Don’t want to go back to sleeping on towels again ((he suffered from night sweats and wasted away to a skeleton of his previous self, he says)). If I had not started my ARVs I probably would have been dead by now.”

    Here is the thread again, on which his post now sits atop to counter any of the science in journals that might say otherwise:
    ============================
    MOST RECENT POST FIRST:

    To all those so called “experts” who believe HIV does not exist. Please come and visit us in South Africa.

    Come join the non-stop funerals to the rapidly filling cemetaries where the young people are being buried every weekend. Come see the homes where only children live because their parents have died. People who have never used ARVs because they have no access to them.

    Come see a nation who cannot have the finger pointed at for malnutrition, drugs, being gay etc, that is dying before your eyes. A nation who is far better off now than before the days that HIV arrived here. Where the successful up and coming generation who is meant to be building this country are dying instead.

    I myself am a white, heterosexual man from an upper middle class background. Never did drugs. Always looked after my health. Never malnourished in my life. No gay contact whatsoever. Everything the denialists claim, I did not do. Was diagnosed HIV+ in 2003. Did my best to stay healthy through good nutrition, excercise etc. everything that should have defeated the HIV according to our Nobel winner in his interview. However by Febuary 2005 I had wasted away 67 pounds (30kgs) to a skeleton of my previous self. My CD4 was 96 because I was in denial that I would be OK. My night sweats were so bad I had to sleep on towels every night and wash them the following to avoid soaking my mattress.

    Started ARVs in July 2005. No side effects. Health is completely back to normal. Never looked back. Will I stop taking my meds ? Never. Don’t want to go back to sleeping on towels again. If I had not started my ARVs I probably would have been dead by 2006.

    Do I worry about long term side effects as in the article above ? Yes of course. But at least I will have a relatively normal life with my beautiful wife who BTW is also HIV+

    By Netsurfer on 11/29/2009 at 2:19pm
    ————–

    That’s not all, it continues:

    ….a cell killing disease that also causes cell multiplying cancer, with no trace of the virus in the cancer; and a disease said to be a killer epidemic in Haiti and South Africa, with no significant change in overall mortality, and long endemic in sub-Saharan Africa, where a population explosion has nonetheless added 250 million people in two decades.

    Lets pause for a breath before we complete the list, for that is hardly all. We also have to believe in an epidemic mapped in Africa by the World Health Organization almost entirely without the benefit of AIDS tests, which themselves are problematic; a viral epidemic uniquely without initial exponential growth or bellshaped rise and fall; a viral epidemic which has not found immunity anywhere; a killer disease where no doctor, nurse or researcher working with it has caught the disease; a disease with risk group, lifestyle, and malnutrition specific symptoms; a disease whose every symptom is shared with other diseases–in fact, a disease which would in every case be counted as those other diseases except for the supposed presence of antibodies to the virus that causes AIDS; a viral epidemic without a sign of a promising vaccine despite the best funded army of researchers in history; a viral disease which quickly achieves the antibodies of vaccination of its own accord; and a virus transmitted 25-50% through birth which has produced no epidemic among children.

    None of these factors has significantly changed in the eight years since, believe it or not, and together they show that only people whose minds are halted by social and career conformity, intake of drugs especially AIDS drugs, or sheer terror in the face of what they have been told, can believe in HIV. No one with an education has any excuse for following this blatantly silly conventional scientific wisdom.

    All they have to do is change their belief to HIV does not cause AIDS, and see that AIDS is other threats to health mislabeled and mistreated, and all these paradoxes vanish.

    By criticnyc on 11/26/2009 at 11:16pm
    —————————

    Popping up like a jack in the box to repeat the same uninformed insults, DeShong has the right to believe what he wishes, but we have a right to examine what it is. Evidently he thinks the drugs are the elixir of life, despite David France’s finding so much evidence that they do serious damage to patients including cognitive malfunction, which DeShong may or may not be suffering from, since he has taken drugs for some time, though his doctor lightened the intake to try to save him from side effects, his blog aimed at Dumbees tells us.

    But since he enthuses for the drugs based on his faith in the current global belief that HIV is the cause of serious and eventually fatal immune system problems, let’s list what he has to believe in to go along with this view, according to a 2001 conference talk, The Scorn of Heretics easily found with Google:

    As Duesberg has pointed out again and again, to believe in AIDS, we have to believe in a infectious viral disease where the virus’s rate of infection (1 in 500 sexual contacts) is outdone by the rate of human impregnation (1 in 10); a cell killing retrovirus, when otherwise retroviruses never kill cells; indeed, a virus provided to labs in immortal cultures of the same T cells it is said to kill off; a fatal virus that cannot easily be found in most patients, even dying ones, only antibodies
    to it; a disease where patients merely with antibodies can nevertheless die of the disease; a disease whose nature varies from place to place, being almost exclusively a homosexual and drug user ailment in North America and Europe, but heterosexual elsewhere; a disease that correlates with drug use in North America and Europe, yet is alleviated or prevented by a bowl full of other damaging and lethal drugs, never proved to be directly helpful; a disease whose mechanism, including an up-to-twenty year delay in onset, is as yet quite unexplained; cont.

    By criticnyc on 11/26/2009 at 10:34pm
    ————————–

    Last time for critic. You are a major hypocrite and liar. You are the one pushing an agenda full of ad hominem attacks as I pointed out time and again. Also, just stop with the crazy “people are dying from the meds” when in FACT as this article AGAIN points out, people are LIVING BECAUSE of the meds 20+ extra years. The side effects are a direct result of these LIFE SAVING medications.
    Also, nice deflection by NOT stating ANY personal experiences of your own. My personal experiences go DIRECTLY to the tone and facts of this very article that proves these drugs save lives! You just make yourself look more petty and stupid by trying every denialist tactic in the denialist play book. Why is that? Why do you insist on pushing your agenda which is self serving in the short run and killing others in the long run?
    Any one wanting to read more about the major denialists and their tactics of fact manipulation and flat out lies, as well as their lack of integrity and humanity, need only go to my blog, dissidents4dumbees.blogspot.com. I spell it all out in a no non~sense, take no prisoners style of gorilla warfare!
    JTD

    By jtdeshong on 11/21/2009 at 8:04pm
    ——————————–

    DeShong deserves to be called an “amateur” if as readers here can easily check almost all of what he writes is not scientific argument and information but an endless series of ad hominem insults to HIV/AIDS critics as “denialists”. etc etc. as below, and if what little he offers as counter argument derives its authority only from his own personal experience of HIV drugs much less toxic than the ones we are discussing.

    Professional scientists do not display their prejudice in every line they write, they review the reasoning and the evidence for their belief. If they have bias (many do) they at least have the sense to conceal it. Of course, the sad thing about HIV/AIDS is some of the leading scientists in this tortured sphere do insult their critics by calling them “denialists” rather than respect their objections, perhaps because they have no genuine answers.

    With so many lives at stake in this realm it is irresponsible to dismiss doubts about the validity of the belief on which toxic regimens are based as “denialist” etc etc as if critics were denying the Holocaust. Mainstream scientific beliefs have often proved to be wrong, especially in medicine and biology – Nobels are constantly being won by people who rejected the majority view and pointed to a better understanding.

    To muddy discussions with incessant ad hominem smearing of the critics’ judgment without seriously examining what they say and write is an insult to all who take seriously critical questioning of HIV/AIDS that has appeared in the leading peer reviewed scientific journals, and the very distinguished scientist who risked his career stating what he and many others believe is the truth, Peter Duesberg.

    It is also an insult to those who suffer much worse side effects than DeShong, 17,000 of whom die each year in the US.

    By criticnyc on 11/20/2009 at 6:25pm
    ————————-

    For Geosanfran if you want to read about people, such as myself who have been on meds for10, 15, 20+ years without the side effects mentioned in this article, go to POZ magazine (on line and hard print) as well as The Body.com.
    The sites criticnyc points to above are other AIDS Denialists who have a set agenda and are not scientists nor healthcare providers and in most cases are not even HIV+ and cannot speak directly to any side effects as they are not even in the position to have to decide to take meds or not.
    One should ask themselves why these people who are not poz and by their own admission do not even know poz people, “why are you so involved in this issue?”
    They are usually cranks and malcontents who believe in all manner of conspiracies or are just anti~establishment in any sense and feel the need to be involved in areas they have no knowledge, no experience and no expertise.
    JTD

    By jtdeshong on 11/19/2009 at 10:30am
    —————————————-

    Criticnyc, says that I am an “amateur” and yet he does not know anything about. Well, except that I have been on HIV Meds for 15 years with zero side effects. Critic is a hypocrite because he dismisses my first hand personal experience, all the while directing others to stories of people living without HIV Meds. Why? Because critic has an agenda and cannot see his/her own lack of logic.
    Also, I would argue further that I am not an amatuer in that I have two degrees in Science. I have worked in research, both in~vivo and in~vitro. I have also worked in research with immuno~assay machines. I am also a health care provider working in a laboratory performing every diagnostic test a major hospital offers.
    I wonder about critic. He/She is not even HIV+. Now who is the amateur?
    JTD

    By jtdeshong on 11/19/2009 at 10:20am
    —————————————

    “But, such a study will never take place. Big Pharma is who funds studies. They have no interest in the excellent health of non-med takers.”

    Indeed, there have never been any placebo control groups in AIDS drug studies since the early AZT studies, the first of which was called to a halt when it was decided that the drug must do some good, even though the study was a mess with some people giving the placebo group the AZT.

    To quote from scienceguardian.com:

    “With placebo control groups this venomous drug nonsense would have halted years ago. Instead it continues with an annual death rate of 17-22,000 in the US.

    Ever since this abdication of scientific integrity began gays have clamored for drugs before they have been assessed by science and proved anything but harmful, and the NIAID-drug company complex has been delighted to follow their lead over the cliff. All involved suffer from the most elementary misapprehension, that their supposition that the drugs are beneficial justifies researchers not bothering to check if that is true or not.

    Exit science, exit sense, exit all normal protections of the medicated patient from charlatans, liars and exploiters of other human beings for personal and professional gain.

    In other words, a new Church in science, which administers the communion of deadly Kool-Aid to its flock. We write Kool-Aid because all the evidence is that HIV is harmless, inert, and provides zero justification for any treatment of any kind, and that the drugs have a damaging and eventually lethal effect on the patients, starting with the disruption of their normal thinking processes, so that they more easily swallow this kind of guff, officially peddled by NIAID and all its fellow travelers in the press, none of whom seem willing or capable of reading the science for themselves.”

    With the notable exception of David France, that is.

    By criticnyc on 11/18/2009 at 4:09pm
    ———————————

    I don’t doubt that meds lower viral load… but at what cost? Someone who starts meds very late probably DOES have a worse prognosis, but that is simply comparing one faulty group to a more faulty one.

    If you want really useful numbers, compare the prognosis of med takers (at any CD4 count) to people who NEVER take meds. I’ll argue the med takers have a worse prognosis, and undoubtedly will be wrack with a myriad of ailments for the rest of their days, while the non-med takers simply live normal healthy lives. But, such a study will never take place. Big Pharma is who funds studies. They have no interest in the excellent health of non-med takers.

    By tyrexden on 11/18/2009 at 2:53pm
    —————————————

    Incidentally it should be stated that AZT is not the only cause of the fat redistribution among HIV/AIDS drug takers, that is, the unwitting patients uselessly fed these damaging and eventually lethal medications. The literature tells us are common accompaniments to another NRTI, d4T (stavudine), as well as protease inhibitors.

    It is time for all the patients who plead so movingly for mercy yet whose minds are occupied by the “of course I will take the drugs” to reassess, read and try to think for themselves, however vulnerable they feel and thus emotionally obliged to trust their doctors and the standard regimen based on the standard science.

    In this case the doctors are being misled by the scientists who are misled by their leaders, and the peer reviewed literature of the science would tell them so very clearly if they trouble to read it. All the problems and impossibilities of the current belief are acknowledged in the journals and books written by the leaders of the field, which they do not make clear in their public statements.

    Instead they rely on amateurs such as Mr Deshong to make their spurious case that HIV/AIDS is soundly based scientific thinking and the critics are lying.

    By criticnyc on 11/18/2009 at 2:19pm
    ——————————————

    “those who try to get others to either stop taking their HIV Meds or not take them at all by spreading lies and misinformation and those who downplay the benefits of these meds” says Mr DeShong, while the patient GEOSANFRAN pleads for mercy with “I try — and want — to stay informed. But articles this confusing — and which leave me feeling depressed — make me want to (of course) keep taking my meds, but quit reading articles about my condition.”

    “Of course” he must take his medications, and believe that the critics who say they are useless, misdirected and dangerous are merely spreading “lies and misinformation”? Really?

    All who have an interest here, especially patients on the drugs should go read the journal literature and that of the critics for themselves before joining in this easy dismissal of complaints in this realm, which have been going on for 22 years now without cease.

    There is a reason for their longevity, which is that the evidence is overwhelming that they are right. Read duesberg.com, scienceguardian.com, virusmyth.com and the other sites of this criticism and at least look at the original papers, it is not so impossible for any educated person to see that this is not another 9/11 horde of irrational crackpots but a collection of intelligent and informed people who rely on good science in their rejection of the conventional wisdom.

    By criticnyc on 11/18/2009 at 2:18pm
    —————————————

    “Do I REALLY have a 64% to 94% chance of dying early”

    No, you most certainly do not. The article misleadingly does not discuss the difference between RELATIVE risk and ABSOLUTE risk. In the cohort study being cited, the risk of dying was VERY LOW FOR EVERYONE (sorry for shouting, but this problem of articles muddling relative and absolute risks is very common and very annoying). Among the people who started treatment with a CD4 count 351-500 it was 1.6 deaths per 100 person-years, those who started at a count over 500 it was 1.3 deaths per 100 person-years. The supposed 64% increase in the risk of death associated with deferred treatment in the 351-500 group was RELATIVE to 1.6 deaths per 100 person-years, which comes out to an increase to 2.6 deaths per 100 person-years. The supposed 94% increase in risk of death associated with deferred treatment in the over 500 group was relative to the 1.3 figure, which comes out to an increase in risk to 2.5 deaths per 100 person years.

    I think in simpler terms it’s the difference between roughly 98-99 out of 100 people being fine versus 97 out of a 100 people being fine over a year of follow up. It’s not irrelevant, as it suggests that in large cohorts of people earlier treatment would prevent a significant number of deaths. But the vast majority of people in the study did fine whether they initiated therapy early or not. And the risk of death is not randomly distributed, there are other risk factors such as older age, hepatitis C coinfection and a history of injection drug use.

    By TeeD on 11/17/2009 at 7:45pm
    ———————————————

    I’m SO CONFUSED when I read this article. My doctor did not put me on meds until I was at CD4 200 (actually just under). That was two years ago, and my immune system has been steadily rebuilding since. I’ve tolerated the meds perfectly, and seem to be way healthier then any of my non HIV+ friends. They get colds and flu, I don’t. But when I read this article, I am wondering A.) Do I REALLY have a 64% to 94% chance of dying early because I DIDN’T start the meds earlier, or B.) Do I now stand a better chance of avoiding dementia, bone deterioration, or organ failure because I DIDN’T start the meds earlier? HIV/AIDS is undoubtedly a conundrum, and living with it is a conundrum.

    I try — and want — to stay informed. But articles this confusing — and which leave me feeling depressed — make me want to (of course) keep taking my meds, but quit reading articles about my condition. It would be nice if these articles could be written — presenting the issues — without reiterating the consequences in the most alarming and dire manner. Because it becomes very hard for people living with HIV and AIDS to keep a positive and forward-thinking attitude when constantly faced with articles written in this manner. Even the photos accompanying this article were taken in a purposefully artistic style to make the subjects look older, more gaunt, almost mono-chromatic, super sharp focus showing every wrinkle. If Brad Pitt were photographed with that lighting and style, he’d look bad. I don’t want to bury my head in the sand about my condition and prognosis, but by the same token, I don’t want to have my head hit by a 2×4 every time I come out of the sand to seek more information. It would be nice to see an article — more articles — that also show people with HIV/AIDS succeeding on their meds, living normal life, not succumbing to side effects.

    By geoSanFran on 11/17/2009 at 3:38pm
    —————————————

    Without stating it implicitly, the article is pretty clear that all these symptoms are due to the meds and depression.

    “liver disease? kidney disease? heart disease”? The article cites those very things as the main killers of poz people. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that those diseases have nothing to do with immune suppression and everything to do with taking the toxic meds.

    Bone loss? Article cites the meds as the culprit.
    Dementia? no Hiv found in the brain. Article cites depression the culprit.

    Hey… if you want to take the meds… if they do something for you that makes you feel better… Have at it. Swallow the whole bottle for all i care. I’m just sick of hearing of people dying of these very specific maladies, and blaming the death on “hiv/aids-related” disease. It ridiculous.

    People on meds are bothered by denialists because it makes them question their own course of action. Well guess what… I have a right NOT to take the meds, and i have the right to continue to be in picture perfect health without them, and if that bothers you, …well, actually i’m sorta glad.

    By tyrexden on 11/16/2009 at 4:47pm
    —————————————–

    I only despise those who actively and agressively perpetuate the lies that HIV is either harmless or does not exist at all! As well as those, such as stormtrooper, who make such ad hominem attacks. Baseless attacks.
    OR those who try to get others to either stop taking their HIV Meds or not take them at all by spreading lies and misinformation and those who downplay the benefits of these meds.
    This article points out that these people would be dead if not for these meds, but there are those here who gloss over this fact and scream that the meds made them sick. That is the case, but they were given an extra 15, 20 plus years of life first.
    Let’s not forget that there are also those, such as myself, who have been on meds for 15 years straight and do not experience these side effects.
    This disease is not black and white.
    We can only improve the medications when these Denialists come to terms with the truth and stop lying and spreading misinformation.
    JTD

    By jtdeshong on 11/15/2009 at 10:18am
    ——————————————-

    I tell people that I need help and they say “but you seem fine to me”. I don’t even know what fine means. There is no help and I am afraid and alone. Even my therapist says he does not know how to help.

    It is hard to smile when you don’t have any teeth or when you feel like you’re literally walking on broken glass. Hope is a luxury I cannot afford much like food.

    Just reading these comments is the ultimate example of people talking instead of listening. Lots of comments that say absolutely nothing. I am so tired of people and their free advice.

    I’m not going to join “Facebook” either I’m not interested in social scenes.

    Thank you for the article these things are not the typical magazine fare.

    By shade on 11/15/2009 at 8:01am
    ————————————-

    I do not understand why people do not give up HIV drugs. The hiv drugs not only deformed hiv+ people’s body but also make them disable and very ill !!!! How virus which destroying our immune system can be related to dementia? You don’t need a degree to see something is wrong with this theory!

    The drugs are changing our body and make us disable and Drugs Company have massive profits!!!!

    I know someone who give up drugs and now have a good quality life all what hiv+ people should do is improve diet and try to boost immune system by healthy lifestyle.

    The hiv drugs should be the last option- how you can stay healthy by putting toxins and poisons twice a day to your body?

    By krisc on 11/14/2009 at 8:00pm
    ——————————————-

    Is it my imagination, or does Mr/Ms (?) shong despise everyone who opposes his own personal viewpoint?

    By stormtrooper14 on 11/14/2009 at 4:19pm
    ———————————————–

    Please notice how critic tries to claim that I am twisting this article, as I have already accused him of doing. However, please also notice that critic does not provide any proof. Just ad hominem accusatons of my “dementia”.

    I, on the other hand, point to the proof of this very article in which David France describes people on the brink of death and regain their lives and live many years. These people get to experience years of life that they would never have been afforded without these meds. The point of the article is that we need meds that are not as toxic with 20 years of daily use. Criticny would have us believe that HIV Meds kill, they have zero benefit and all HIV Scientists are only in this for the money. Come on, criticny, just stop your one sided lies and try and be part of the solution.

    JTD

    By jtdeshong on 11/14/2009 at 3:51pm
    —————————————–

    “It clearly demonstrates that HIV Meds have brought millions of people back from the brink of death and enabled them to live 10, 15 and 20 years longer than they would have! This article demonstrates that these meds have dramatically improved the quality of life for millions as well.”

    J Todd DeShong here clearly demonstrates the effects of the drugs on the mind, since he “twists” the obvious lesson of the carefully written piece by David France until it still has its feet planted facing south, as it were, but now its head (in Mr Deshong’s mind) facing north.

    The drugs certainly seem to have this effect quite often, given the fact that so many people continue to take them, suffer the side effects described by France and Stokely, yet swear by them as if they were the elixir of health.

    This extraordinary psychology reminds one of the Reverend Jones, and his distribution of poisonous Kool Aid to his flock. In his case, there were also some who tried to escape, though few made it.

    What difference is there between Dr Fauci, the widely respected and followed leader of NIAID AIDS drug advice, and the misguided Mr Jones? Is it possible that this dedicated public servant has been taken in by bad science, as much as the patients who follow his advice through their personal physicians?

    When all this is sorted out, the friends and families of those who have died under the current NIAID regime will be asking these kind of questions, will they not? And will they not be asking why it is that the major media, led by the New York Times, have not covered a scientific debate even handedly, but have taken sides, in a matter in which almost all reporters and editors have not studied objectively for themselves?

    The media have no business showing bias in their coverage of an internal scientific debate as long as it involves respectable scientists on both sides.

    By criticnyc on 11/14/2009 at 2:43am
    ——————————————-

    Stromtrooper14 you are just as disingenuous as Stokely. The fact that she claims to have tolerated the meds very well and then to do a 180 shows that she has no integrity and a clear agenda.
    You, Stokely and critic are all trying to divert attention away from the facts of this article. It clearly demonstrates that HIV Meds have brought millions of people back from the brink of death and enabled them to live 10, 15 and 20 years longer than they would have! This article demonstrates that these meds have dramatically improved the quality of life for millions as well.

    It is ALSO about needing newer, less toxic drugs because these meds have extended life! Also, stop glossing over the fact that there are many meds out there which are much, much less toxic than AZT and the initial nucleoside analogues. We now have medications that utilize four completely different modes of action from enzymes to aspects of the virus itself. There are also other meds currently being developed that utilize other aspects such as Nef protein of the T~Cell itself and using dendritic cells as super APC’s (Antigen Presenting Cells).

    So please stop diverting attention from the life saving aspects of these medications by telling your re~tooled stories in your twisted agenda. There are medications out there that are less toxic. When I myself started on Reyataz and Truvada I did not experience one single day of adjustment side effects and yet my TCells continued to increase and my Viral Load continued at undetectable levels.

    My advice is if a person is experiencing terrible side effects is to change regimines until you find what works for you. Do not believe that these few exceptions are the rule because they are not.
    JTD

    By jtdeshong on 11/13/2009 at 8:53pm
    —————————————-

    Listening to Mrs Stokely’s interview with Mr Null, I did not find her to ASK or TELL anyone to stop taking their drugs. I also did not find her to be giving out any sort of “advice”.
    She is just relating her own experiences with them. As far as I know, we still live in a free country, with freedom of speech.

    As far as her saying that she “tolerated them pretty well”, as per another interview I heard her on, she made that statement very clear.
    By “tolerating them well”, they didn’t KILL her after 11 yrs. I’d say that’s “tolerating them” extremely well. She went on to clarify this by describing the other HIV positives that she spoke with on her local speaker’s panel. She stated that these people were on oxygen, in wheelchairs, and going blind.

    Most of my friends died after less than two years on the drugs, including AZT. I’ve been HIV positive since 1988 and have never taken these drugs. I just intuitively knew early on that this was not a good idea.

    The bottom line here is that her pictures speak for themselves. Volumes!
    As one of my favorite performers used to sing…..”every picture tells a story don’t it”.

    Keep sharing your story Mrs Stokely! People need to realize that there is another side to this debate, and we need to have freedom of choice and access to all the information.

    By stormtrooper14 on 11/13/2009 at 7:36pm
    ——————————————-
    Ms. Stokely, What “jig” is up? Why are you pushing people to stop or NOT take HIV meds when you, at one time claimed in your own words, that you “tolerated the meds very well”?
    Why have you changed your story?
    Are you really so sure that HIV is harmless that you feel it is OK to give such advice? Especially when you NOR ANY of the Denialist “scientists” have ever done research with HIV?
    It would seem to me that to give such potentially deadly advice you would have bit more to go on than just your so called experience which has changed per your very own words.
    JTD

    By jtdeshong on 11/13/2009 at 3:27pm
    —————————————–

    Regrettably it appears that a software glitch has interfered with my last two posts. Perhaps the Webmaster could remove them.

    The correct post to be added is this one:

    It should be added that AZT was removed from two of the four drug regimens recommended by the NIH in 2006, and the page has been updated since December 2008 so that of the six HAART regimens now advised, none contain AZT.

    So AZT is no longer included in the drugs advised for HIV/AIDS patients by the NIH.

    No doubt this will result in a temporary improvement in the health of HIV/AIDS patients on AIDS drugs, and the NIH will claim that this shows that the most recent additions to the drug lineup are a great advance on the older ones.

    As David France’s excellent article suggests, however, what is needed however is a study of HIV positive people who do not take any of the drugs, and this is precisely what NYU has now initiated. The study will try to establish what distinguishes these long term non progressives from the rest.

    Dare one suggest that it may be because they do not accept the reigning belief that HIV is a dangerous virus that causes the immune deterioration of AIDS, and that their skepticism is vindicated by their continued good health?

    Not if one wants to avoid being called a “denialist” by Mr Deshong. But this would otherwise appear to be the sensible conclusion, would it not?

    By criticnyc on 11/13/2009 at 3:20pm
    —————————————–

    But Mr Deshong’s point (that he looks good after years on AIDS drugs) was answered by my reply below. He is not on AZT. There is no AZT at all in his medications, by his own assertion.

    Those on AZT are the ones to suffer “buffalo humps” etc sometimes in weeks. Then the doctors allow them to go on drug “holidays” or less obnoxious drugs. In this, they acknowledge what David France suggests – the drugs cause the symptoms, and perhaps not HIV at all, which has never been demonstrated to do anything in any controlled study.

    It may be hard for respectable members of this society to believe that scientists have their own agenda, and can mislead the public by sweeping fatal critiques of their well funded wisdom under the carpet, but a moment’s thought will tell you that there is no difference between ambitious scientists and the leaders of any other academic field, in all of which this behavior is notorious.

    No one likes to be displaced in their successful career, when their authority has been recognized by promotion to high position, generous funding, important prizes, the sycophantic attention of the media, appearance on Charlie Rose, contributions to standard textbooks, and the like.

    Scientists are no different. Their wives, children, dogs, graduate students and flights to pleasant retreats in holiday resorts are all supported by their shared wisdom, whatever it is. Anyone who contradicts it is a threat to their reputation and livelihood.

    By criticnyc on 11/13/2009 at 3:17pm
    ————————————

    But Mr Deshong’s point (that he looks good after years on AIDS drugs) was answered by my reply below. He is not on AZT. There is no AZT at all in his medications, by his own assertion.

    Those on AZT are the ones to suffer “buffalo humps” etc sometimes in weeks. Then the doctors allow them to go on drug “holidays” or less obnoxious drugs. In this, they acknowledge what David France suggests – the drugs cause the symptoms, and perhaps not HIV at all, which has never been demonstrated to do anything in any controlled study.

    It may be hard for respectable members of this society to believe that scientists have their own agenda, and can mislead the public by sweeping fatal critiques of their well funded wisdom under the carpet, but a moment’s thought will tell you that there is no difference between ambitious scientists and the leaders of any other academic field, in all of which this behavior is notorious.

    No one likes to be displaced in the mature years of their career, when their authority has been recognized by promotion to high position, generous funding, important prizes, the sycophantic attention of the media, appearance on Charlie Rose, contributions to standard textbooks, and the like.

    Scientists are no different. Their wives, children, dogs, graduate students and flights to pleasant retreats in holiday resorts are all supported by their shared wisdom, whatever it is. Anyone who contradicts it is a threat to their reputation and livelihood.

    This is precisely what has happened in HIV/AIDS, now the Worldcom of science.

    As explained for 4 years on scienceguardian.com, the whole scheme of HIV/AIDS ideology cannot stand up to the briefest inspection. For one example, the world believes that a test for HIV _antibodies_ indicates vulnerability to HIV, when it would signal a cure with any other disease?

    By criticnyc on 11/13/2009 at 3:14pm
    ————————————

    For those of you that missed the big “Rethinking AIDS” conference that was held last weekend in Oakland, California, there were many testimonies from people that either have never taken the drugs, even after diagnosis in the ’80’s, OR
    people that have successfully quit these drugs after nearly being poisoned (slowly) to death.

    Plus, to see people like Lindsey Nagel, diagnosed with a positive “HIV” test as a baby, parents gave her the drugs for almost 2 yrs until she was so ill from the effects of the toxins, they decided to take her off all the prescribed poisons.
    Guess what, she made a full recovery! She is now a beautiful, well-spoken almost 20 yr old lady.

    It was an educational, informative, and thought-provoking weekend, filled with doctors, scientists, journalists, authors, media, and lay people from all over the world.
    The evidence provided was outstandingly shocking.
    Please check the Rethinking AIDS (dot com) website for follow ups.

    Guess what?
    The jig is up!

    By kstokely2 on 11/13/2009 at 12:30pm
    ———————————-

    Read more: Why a Number of HIV Patients Are Aging Faster — New York Magazine http://nymag.com/health/features/61740/comments.html#ixzz0YHjZ03Jx
    =====================================================

    So who can argue with this man’s story of the blessings of anti-HIV ARV’s? To heck with science, and with those who say they suffer under the regimen, and David France’s article. These marvels are the elixir of life to those who waste away after a diagnosis of lethal HIV antibodies. They bring them back from the dead.

  85. Truthseeker Says:

    Criticnyc has spoken again at NYMag:

    Newest First

    It is clear what you believe, Netsurfer, and it is a sad thing that what you believe is not backed up by all the science of AIDS that we know to date, if we read the journals and the studies they report in peer reviewed articles. Granted we have to examine even peer reviewed articles carefully for errors, because in AIDS all of them rest on the same unquestioned belief that you have that HIV causes AIDS, of which there has been no proof in 25 years, not even any good suggestion as to how it could possibly happen, and a number of expert reviews of the evidence say it is absolutely inconceivable, and all the drugs you suffer and want pregnant mothers and children to suffer under this supposition are misdirected, and all the suffering is for nothing.

    When you look at the world through mauve spectacles, the world will appear mauve. If you want to take off your spectacles and have another objective look this time, you will, according to the best science, find it is a different color. The best science says you are misled in your firm faith and that you mislead others by trying to sell them on it, rather than conventional approaches to their ailments.

    This appears very very unlikely to you because almost the entire medical and scientific community also take it for granted that HIV causes AIDS. But you underestimate the enormous grip an accepted wisdom has on people’s minds. It is very hard in a large group even in science to go against the shared premise on which all work is done. But you are probably unaware of how strongly internal politics distorts science, and how much many people depend on the status quo for their careers and funding.

    This is not cynicism, it is just a reality which is not widely appreciated.
    Report
    BY CRITICNYC on 11/30/2009 at 7:31pm

    http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-11-30-sa-faces-major-crisis-over

    If you gave a choice to these parents of the poor orphans of dying sooner without ARVs as opposed to later on ARVs what do you think would their answers be irrespective of the toxicity of the drugs offered and that they will eventually cause their deaths but will also lengthen their lifespan and see their children grow up ?

    I can tell you that every parent would take the ARVs, suffer the bad side effects but still appreciate the extra 20, 30 40 years of life with their children instead of 0 leaving them orphaned.

    Is my testimony in your eyes an anecdote. I suppose so but to others who are newly infected and need advice it can be encouraging, hopeful that their future may not be all too bleak after all. That there are people out there doing OK at the moment on ARVs.

    I am not just one individual who is doing well on ARVs. There are many, many of us out there.

    As for what I am taking and what dosage, why is that so important to you anyway ? In your eyes every ARV out there is poison so it doesn’t matter. So I won’t tell.

    As I said previously, get on a plane and visit us here and see for yourself firsthand what HIV does. And if taking poison lets us live a few years longer than dying tomorrow, so be it.

    BY NETSURFER on 11/30/2009 at 4:46pm

    So we should ignore all of journal science and statistics for the testimony of one man who claims that he is doing very well on drugs, without specifying which, or what dose, contrary also to the article we are discussing here by David France showing how some people have their faces health and lives effectively destroyed by this regime?

    People vary in their reactions to any substance, so we can be delighted by your unusual story, and happy for you, but still point out that the general experience with ARVs has been that health does not survive, and nor does the patient in the end, if the CDC is telling us the truth and the deaths remain at 17,000 a year, despite these wonder pills.

    In science your story is known as an anecdote and though as people we are always very impressed with the anecdotes of individual experience we go to the peer reviewed journals and their studies to find out what is happening in general.

    The story of AIDS drugs is plain to any outside reader. They are toxic to most people, in varying degrees, and eventually fatal to many.

    By criticnyc on 11/30/2009 at 2:31pm

    Read more: Why a Number of HIV Patients Are Aging Faster — New York Magazine http://nymag.com/health/features/61740/comments.html#comment_list_top#ixzz0YNBe3gTg

  86. Truthseeker Says:

    Criticnyc has spoken up yet again on NY Mag. Why is this enlightened writer not producing an Op Ed piece for the New York Times? Surely the Times has not rejected his writings on this topic? That cannot be. Or perhaps the entire staff at the Times is wearing mauve spectacles, which is indeed must be the problem, judging from their 22 year record on this topic.

    ============================
    Sort:
    Oldest First

    For all those in doubt please read on of the many articles out there about the claims made by CriticNYC

    http://www.thebody.com/content/whatis/art52090.html
    Report
    BY NETSURFER on 12/03/2009 at 9:48am

    Those in doubt please read the actual science in science journals, which is not beyond the average mortal. Please realize that almost all media coverage is written with mauve spectacles on, from the New York Times on down.

    The press have no business taking sides in a difficult scientific dispute in their reporting, which should be objective and report both sides without assuming that the critics are wrong, especially given the remarkably high credentials of Peter Duesberg, the leading critic for 22 years and an important researcher whose own research has never been questioned, unlike that of Robert Gallo, whose claim to have discovered HIV was rejected by the Nobel committee last year.

    It is important to go to the science journals and make up your own mind, and not blindly credit the journalism of mainstream reporters, who are not permitted by the editors or by the politics of the situation even to mention the peer reviewed rejection of HIV as the cause of AIDS.

    Creditably New York magazine and David France do not include a put down of critics of HIV/AIDS, as most pieces on AIDS issues do. A legitimate concern is presented in an informative manner which raises some serious questions faced by the HIV theory for 22 years, and never answered except with politics and personal attacks.

    Not only has HIV has never been proved as the cause of AIDS, but the science continually provides this kind of evidence that the theory is wrong. But the issue is buried by very antagonistic politics, extremely one sided media coverage, official ignorance (officials do not read the science journals for themselves), charity hoopla and patient trust based on the assumption that the established science must be right, and the critics must be Web wackos.

    Please read the science, and think for yourself, and not simply trust the cacophony in the media all of it filtered through mauve spectacles.
    Report
    BY CRITICNYC on 12/04/2009 at 9:50am

    Read more: Why a Number of HIV Patients Are Aging Faster — New York Magazine http://nymag.com/health/features/61740/comments.html#comment_list_top#ixzz0YjQyXeGM======================================

  87. glap2008 Says:

    What about the great research being done at Texas State University in hiv-aids research”? They announced a cure that has been proven in lab/animal tests. The next test is humans. but they claim to have found the virus weakness.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Bad Behavior has blocked 1328 access attempts in the last 7 days.