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---

Support for Peter Duesberg and HIV-AIDS dissent as well worth examining and apparently right

Frontiers in Public Health publishes summary of paradigm dissent in literature by Patricia Goodson of Texas A&M

Review for public health professionals outlines the multitude of reasons for doubting paradigm, need for debate

Will editors or publisher of Swiss journal in Nature stable surrender when attacked by HIV-AIDS partisans, as with Medical Hypothesis?

The thirty year debate over HIV as the wrong cause of AIDS seemed to be thoroughly suffocated by the rulers of the field till last week, when a remarkable article burst into view on line.

A thorough review of the state of dissent in HIV-AIDS, it was published by a respectable public health journal and authored by a member of the Department of Health & Kinesiology at Texas A&M, one Patricia Goodson.

If Questioning the HIV-AIDS hypothesis: 30 years of dissent by Patricia Goodson, Department of Health & Kinesiology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA is not repressed by being withdrawn after the predictable political counter attack, we’d say the article has the potential to be a game changer in the hitherto stifled debate.

What the article says

Professor Goodson has done a fine job of examining the thirty year history of the logic and the politics of the discussion, in which dissenters even at the highest academic journal level have waged an uphill battle against the ruthless efforts of paradigm partisans among scientists established in the field to fend off and deny any criticism or review of their fond belief.

Goodson’s review (here is a pdf copy) appends 96 references, the first being Nobelist Kary Mullis’s striking statement, in his introduction to Peter Duesberg’s ‘Inventing the AIDS Virus’ (Regnery, 1996), that

“the HIV-AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake.”

(Photo right: Will the ship of fools, the Titanic HIV-AIDS cruise liner, meet the Goodson iceberg and sink within hours? Probably not.)

That forthright quotation by Mullis is in effect Goodson’s opening shot across the bows of the great cruise ship ‘SS HIV-AIDS’, as that gigantic vessel continues its so far unarrested world tour. For thirty years without effective opposition it has gathered unprecedented public and private funds for its mission of medicating the human race with noxious drugs that can do grievous and sometimes fatal harm and no good at all, according to HIV-AIDS dissenters, whose case is gone through in four major aspects in Goodson’s paper:

I organize the challenges put forth by unorthodox scholars into four categories of data that support the HIV-AIDS hypothesis: (1) retroviral molecular markers (2) transmission electron microscopy (EM) images of retroviral particles; (3) efficacy of anti-retroviral (ARV) drugs; and (4) epidemiological data [7,8]

In other words, claims that the tests are invalid, actual HIV particles have never been seen, the drugs are ineffective and dangerous, and the transmission of the disease has never taken place. As anyone familiar with the problem knows, all these claims, shocking as they may be to the New York Times reader uninstructed in the issue, are true, in that this is what the evidence states, and there has never been any proven valid counter evidence or argument offered by the paradigm partisans in the literature. Indeed, there is still no paper to reference demonstrating that HIV is the cause of HIV-AIDS, which remains merely a conjecture based on a correlation.

Comprehensive review

(Photo left): Nobel prize winning scientist Kary Mullis joins with distinguished cancer scientist Peter Duesberg in condemning the HIV paradigm as a gigantic error and says that AIDS is clearly a behavioral rather than a transmissible disease in the West.

The paper is admirably complete, including every major flaw in the paradigm claimed by critics, though not all of them agree as to which is important or valid. To reach her paper’s conclusion, Goodson surveys a raft of objections to the HIV-AIDS core notion from every direction, many of which may be new to many readers who have previously looked at the problem long enough to know which side must be correct.

Among the many stones she turns to reveal the wriggling population of nonsensical inconsistencies and foolishness alleged by the critics are the following:

1) The antibodies revealed by tests would suggest that ‘the immune system has controlled the invading agents” in any other context than HIV-AIDS theory.

2) The tests used to confirm exposure to HIV (the ELISA and Western blot) react positively to more than sixty factors other than HIV antibodies, including flu and flu vaccinations, second and later pregnancies, tetanus vaccination, and the malaria widespread in Africa, a claim supported by “scientifcally valid evidence published in reputable peer reviewed journals” such as Lancet, JAMA, AIDS, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and Canadian Medical Association Journal.

3) The Western blot has no standardized criteria for a positive result and one can change from positive to negative by flying from one country to another (eg a test reaction to p41, p32 and p24 would be considered positive in Africa, but not in Britain).

There are about forty more difficulties which the HIV-AIDS paradigm supporters have so far found no convincing answer for, as confirmed by their notorious habit of resorting to political evasions and counter attack to deal with them over the last thirty years. (We will convey them in a subsequent post).

A global can of worms opened

(Photo right:This is what Goodson opened with in her review of HIV and AIDS, but did she not know that there would be armed resistance? She didn’t read the label carefully!)

Goodson thus notes the flaws alleged by dissenters in each category. But what’s novel about this new review of HIV dissent, apart from its being published at all in a world where virulent attacks on any dissent from HIV paradigm supporters are notorious, is that it concludes that it is indeed politics which has repressed the contrary view in the field, not that the arguments and evidence to doubt the validity of HIV as the cause of AIDS are prima facie wrong.

In other words, that the critics have demonstrated to her satisfaction that there are indeed very good scientific reasons to believe that HIV is not the cause of AIDS’ serious and potentially fatal immune deficiency, and that current health policy should be reviewed in this light. It should not be left alone as none of our business, or not the business of health professionals, to investigate and put right.

I would argue, nonetheless, that the debate between orthodox and unorthodox scientists comprises much more than an intellectual pursuit or a scientific skirmish: it is a matter of life-and-death. It is a matter of justice. Millions of lives, worldwide, have been and will be significantly affected by an HIV or AIDS diagnosis. If we – the public health workforce – lose sight of the social justice implications and the magnitude of the effect, we lose “the very purpose of our mission.” [3,90. p.690]

The matter is particularly critical now that the CDC wishes to test all comers:

“A pressing concern for public health is the move or push toward a) HIV screening for “patients in all health-care settings” (with opt-out screening) [91] and b) placing persons-at-risk (even if not yet infected with HIV), on retroviral medication as a form of prophylaxis (see discussion about PrEP, above) (92). If in 1986 the CDC recommended voluntary testing for people in high-risk groups, in 2013 the US Preventive Services Task Force “gave routine HIV screening of all adolescents and adults, ages 15-65, an ‘A’ rating” ([93. p.1]). The recently approved Affordable Care Act “requires or incentivizes preventive services rated ‘A’ or ‘B’ at no cost to patients” ([93], p.1). Thus, routine screening of every adolescent and adult in all populations in, now, the goal [91,94].

If, to this goal we juxtapose the problems with the HIV tests, with the definition(s) of AIDS, and with the toxicity of the ARVs currently prescribed, we begin to understand the potential for harm inherent in them. Put blatantly: these recommendations can be harmful or iatrogenic [95].

A dangerous conclusion

Goodson concludes that it is “vital that public health professionals attend to the debate and embark in a questioning of their own.”

Since this is precisely what the supporters of HIV/AIDS have always feared – that competent professional outsiders should review their essentially crackpot theory and denounce it – it seems unlikely they will let this pass without mounting an immediate counter attack to undermine its credibility, and persuade the publication to withdraw it.

Such an obnoxious effort is already underway, the publisher has announced, in effect once again demonstrating that there are no good counterarguments to those of the dissenters, and that HIV defenders need politics to evade the debunking of their infatuation.

Politics: Will this publication survive?

The first target, we can predict, of the defenders of the HIV faith will be Patricia Goodson herself. We wonder if she is prepared for the onslaught, since she apparently spends her professional life among colleagues who are likely more idealistically motivated that the promoters of the heavily funded but so far failed paradigm HIV=AIDS (it has failed to produce a proof of cause, or a cure, or a vaccine, in thirty years).

We have in mind John P. Moore Professor of Microbiology and Immunology, Microbiology and Immunology, Weill Cornell Medical College, where he has worked since 2000 on research well funded by the National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Diseases on the nature and properties of HIV, particularly when applied to the private parts of macaques.

Moore is well known in the field for his notorious Op-Ed piece in the New York Times deploring dissenters in HIV-AIDS science as being “dangerous” to the community because they might discourage the taking of noxious anti-HIV drugs. He is also notorious for making personal attacks on dissenters, most effectively by writing to their employers to urge them to relieve the HIV doubters of their jobs or posts.

Another prominent deplorer of dissent in any form is Mark Wainberg, Director of the McGill University AIDS Centre and Professor of Medicine and of Microbiology at McGill University in Montreal. In one fit of zeal he has called for the imprisonment of Peter Duesberg and any other prominent dissenter.

There are a host of lesser folks who can be counted upon to come eagerly to the fray in support of the status quo, though without scientific credentials even of the suspect HIV expertise kind. We are thinking of some who have unsuccessfully though energetically trolled this site in earlier years.

(Photo left: Will Patricia Goodson of Texas A&M’s department of Health & Kinesiology survive the anticipated attacks behind her back of the notoriously ungentlemanly defenders of the HIV faith, now she has published a very thorough review of the history and state of HIV-AIDS dissent in a respectable journal, albeit thus far only on line? We hope so, for the sake of science, free speech and debate, and the cancellation of harmful HIV-AIDS policy before more lives are ruined by this unjustifiable and very dangerous scientific notion.)

An arrow at the castle of denial

So will the reputation of Goodson survive, along with her publication?

According to the website apart from being a professor of public health she is also a teacher of writing, which explains why her document is well written enough for laymen to understand it. Even Rhodes scholar Bill Clinton will be able to read through it and finally realize what’s up; not that that would make any difference to his public posture.

Which is the problem. Over thirty years this paradigm, which any reasonable person can see from her review is undoubtedly the most ill founded, wretched embarrassment to science in history, has become part of the culture, and woven into countless lives, not just of the patients but of all the scientists, bureaucrats, NGO idealists, doctors, nurses and other fellow travelers, professional or lay, engaged in any career or job involved in the spending of the hundreds of billions of dollars commanded by it.

To take one example, what precisely is a man and scientist such as John P. Moore to do with the realization that his entire life in science has been conducted on a false premise, and the whole string of grants he has received have been applied to studying a chimera? Even if there is something else his expertise can be turned to, which is questionable, what about the reputation he will lose, the standing in the community which will vanish, like fog in the sun?

The scientific truth is that HIV-AIDS is a paradigm with a hollow center, and that truth is like a trap door under the feet of all concerned, one which they have devoted their lives to nailing shut, lest it open and drop them into the void of calumny and ostracism, if not investigation and hearings on the topic of whether they knowingly misled the public and incurred the waste of billions in taxpayer funds and the blight and loss of hundreds of thousands of human lives.

They will fight to the death to prevent this trap door opening, and they have done so to date. They are not going to change now.

———————————————–

Here is the text of the article for reference in case it is obliterated for political reasons from its current place on the Web:

Click for article
Click for the 96 references listed separately here in addition to the above

Here are the comments on the article so far (by Feb 3 2015):

Click for the comments at Frontiers
Click for the Goodson article as a pdf

42 Responses to “Support for Peter Duesberg and HIV-AIDS dissent as well worth examining and apparently right”

  1. Brian Carter Says:

    Why might I be detecting that there are some very astute non hypnotized backers at Texas A&M? Could it be true? If so, it’s not too far fetched to assume other universities harbor such young minds. Minds fed up perhaps? Where are they? Still hiding behind mommy and daddy?

  2. Anthony Liversidge Says:

    Professor Goodson writes to Science Guardian that she appreciates the supportive comments on the article at Frontiers and that she has received surprising amounts of similar encouragement from colleagues at Texas A&M, especially those who have known her and have worked closely with her for years.

    No mention of younger minds as yet!

  3. davidmburd Says:

    Great to see Science Guardian has archived Goodson’s paper, esp since Fauci’s minions have purged it at PubMed.

    Cheers, david burd (aka Cervantes from years ago on Science Guardian)

  4. Anthony Liversidge Says:

    Thanks David. Google Scholar also notes that David Rasnick has posted a pdf at this link:

    Goodson PDF c/o David Rasnick.

    One will be posted here as soon as one of the interns discovers how this is done.

    Oh thank you, Penelope, here it is:

    Click this for the Goodson article as a pdf: OPINION ARTICLE Front. Public Health, 23 September 2014 – Questioning the HIV-AIDS hypothesis: 30 years of dissent, Patricia Goodson, Department of Health & Kinesiology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA.

    Let us sadly note that the misleading heading “OPINION ARTICLE” has been substituted at some point after publication (post “investigation”) on the Web by Frontiers editors for the original label on the article, “HYPOTHESIS AND THEORY ARTICLE”, which was more accurate and appropriate, as this original pdf copy shows. The article is, after all, no more and no less than an accurate and objective history of the multitude of objections in peer reviewed journals continuously raised over thirty years to the unproven hypothesis that the disease labeled HIV-AIDS is caused by HIV. Given the weight of the counted objections in leading peer reviewed journals, and the rigorous quality of the most important by Duesberg which are still unanswered, Goodson did conclude that the public interest dictates that her public health colleagues reassess the dogma for themselves. But this does not indicate that her analysis is biased or inaccurate.

    Meanwhile it has been noted in Frontiers comments by Robert Houston that the abstract has been removed or rather displaced to form the first paragraph of the article, contrary to the design of the author. Houston suggests that this is a sleight of hand to remove it from notice by PubMed search. He points out that PubMed is a database of abstracts. “It does not provide the full articles, but sometimes links to them. If the abstract is withdrawn at the journal, it surely would be eliminated at PubMed as well, perhaps along with the title.”

  5. Anthony Liversidge Says:

    New and hostile commentary by a notoriously unscientific HIV defender on the Goodson article has now been invited and platformed by the editors of Frontiers under the title Commentary on Questioning the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis: 30 years of dissent – Seth C. Kalichman

    This is the text, which entirely consists of questioning the credentials and credibility of HIV critics, and a comment by Robert Houston on the irrelevance of Kalichman’s remarks as those of a “true believer” whose claims are misleading and do not address the substance of Goodson’s article, the innumerable reasons why the HIV claim is challenged:

    GENERAL COMMENTARY ARTICLE Front. Public Health | doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2015.00030
    Commentary on “Questioning the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis: 30 years of dissent”
    Seth C. Kalichman1*
    1Psychology, University of Connecticut, USA
    The Earth is spherical. The Holocaust occurred. Man did walk on the moon. Carbon dioxide emissions are warming the planet. And yes, HIV causes AIDS. These truths are established by an accumulation of accepted and irrefutable facts. Nevertheless, individuals are free to deny facts and believe whatever they choose. But believing does not make it so. There are plenty of forums to express erroneous opinions, especially on the Internet. (1, 2) AIDS denialists, those who state that HIV is harmless and not the cause of AIDS, have created an abundance of such outlets and are free to spew as much misinformation about this deadly disease as they wish. Occasionally the filter of scientific peer review has failed and AIDS denialism has made its way into reputable scientific journals. When a journal’s unfortunate error of disseminating AIDS denialism is discovered, publishers and editors have typically taken corrective action through retractions, statements of concern, errata, and explanatory Editorials. (3-6) I was therefore invited by the publishers of Frontiers in Public Health to contribute this comment in response to Patricia Goodson’s article Questioning the HIV-AIDS hypothesis: 30 years of dissent. (7)

    At the expense of her own credibility as well as the reputation of Frontiers in Public Health, Patricia Goodson has actually performed a public service. It is important for people to know that AIDS denialists do indeed still exist. AIDS denialists are best known for having joined with former President of South Africa Thabo Mbeki to create the impression that there is a debate among scientists as to whether HIV causes AIDS. Tragically, more than 330,000 South Africans needlessly died and 35,000 babies were born with HIV infection as a result of Mbeki’s denialist policies. (8-11) The harms of AIDS denialism continue today and extend beyond the boarders of South Africa.

    One group that tracks the activities of AIDS denialists, http://www.AIDSTruth.org post the tragic stories of over 25 prominent AIDS denialists who have died of AIDS. There are numerous testimonials from family members and friends of people who have refused to accept their HIV diagnoses and decline treatment because they have been persuaded by AIDS denialists into thinking their HIV test is invalid, HIV is harmless, and antiretroviral medications are toxic poisons (see http://www.denyingaids.blogspot.com). For those most vulnerable to medical misinformation, especially people dealing with the trauma of a life threatening medical diagnosis, it can be difficult to distinguish the fraudulent claims of AIDS denialists from credible science and medicine.

    Goodson’s article is a primer on AIDS denialism unlike any seen in what is purportedly a peer-reviewed journal. Goodson relies on material found in articles more than two decades old, a time when HIV first emerged and there were legitimate questions raised about a then un-known pathogen. Goodson’s article relies on self-published books, blog posts, essays, and fringe articles. There is no credible research offered by Goodson to support her opinion that there is any debate about HIV as the cause of AIDS, simply because there is no such debate.

    Goodson is dismissive of science and medicine. Like the AIDS denialists she gives credence, her views are myopic. Consider her summary of the leading ‘scientists’ who have, for decades, questioned HIV as the cause of AIDS. Sadly, Goodson has not been forthright in her characterization of these characters despite having full awareness of their complete records. She cites my book Denying AIDS (12) which discusses both their credentials and credibility. In Denying AIDS I note that at the start of the AIDS crisis there were numerous potential explanations offered to explain this new disease. However, the fact that AIDS is caused by an infectious agent, to become called HIV, was determined within just a few years. But despite the facts, a small group of rogue scientists, headed by Peter Duesberg, held fast to failed theories.

    Although they consider themselves dissident scientists, they are actually denialists because they utilize specific tactics to evade and deny reality. AIDS denialists were obscure and mostly ignored until the advent of the world-wide-web. The rise of the Internet afforded denialists to amplify their volume and expand their reach. AIDS denialists have created a pseudoscience that has had its own ‘journals’ and has even conducted unethical and illegal human research. While some AIDS denialists have advanced degrees, none has credibility in the scientific community. At best Goodson has confused AIDS denialists’ credentials with credibility. At worst, she intentionally ignores their notoriety.

    For example, Goodson describes Peter Duesberg as a Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at University of California, Berkeley and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. While it is true that he was part of the group that isolated the first cancer gene and mapped the genetic structure of retroviruses in 1970, Duesberg later claimed, and still claims, that no such genes exist. (13) Duesberg has never conducted any research on HIV and he was a leading voice on Mbeki’s infamous South African Presidential AIDS Panel.

    Goodson describes Duesberg’s close companion David Rasnick as a trained biochemist who worked on protease inhibitors. However, his work was only with rodents and never had anything to do with HIV. Rasnick is a former President of the AIDS denialist group Rethinking AIDS. Rasnick is reported to have convinced Mbeki that there is a scientific debate on the cause of AIDS and suggested that Mbeki outlaw HIV testing and ban antiretroviral drugs.(14, 15) Rasnick collaborated with German vitamin salesman Matthias Rath to conduct illegal clinical trials of vitamins as a cure for AIDS. The South African courts have found Rasnick guilty of conducting unlawful clinical trials that may have killed people. Conveniently, Goodson makes no mention of these facts.

    It is also true that Kary Mullis was a 1993 Nobel Laureate who developed polymerase chain reaction. What Goodson chooses to ignore is that Mullis is also a self-proclaimed avid user of LSD and tells of how he was abducted by aliens. (16) John F. Martin, President of the European Society for Clinical Investigation summed up Mullis by stating “Mullis not only decreased the nobility of the prize but his attitude was, I believe, a potential corrupting influence on young scientists: among other things, for example, he claimed himself to have changed data-points so as to make data-sets appear more significant by way of illustrating that the practice is a common one.”

    And finally, Henry Bauer is a Professor and Dean Emeritus at Virginia Tech. He was also Editor-in-Chief of a major outlet for pseudoscience, Journal of Scientific Exploration and is a leading authority on the existence of the Loch Ness Monster. (17, 18) Goodson relies on other discredited scientists, particularly former President of Rethinking AIDS and member of Mbeki’s AIDS Panel Etienne de Harven, and non-scientists including former math instructor Rebecca Culshaw.

    As academics and scientists, our credentials are based on the degrees we receive and the appointments we hold, neither of which are typically revocable. However, our credibility is earned by the sum of our accomplishments, not just those things that we say and write that suit an opinion. When his life’s work is considered in total, are we to believe that Henry Bauer is a serious scientist? Should we conclude that his views on HIV causing AIDS are as credible as his research on the monsters of Loch Ness? Does Dr. Mullis’ Nobel Prize offer him a lifetime pass on all of his views, including those on the use of LSD, faking data, alien abductions, and HIV not causing AIDS? Does being elected to the National Academy of Sciences mean that Peter Duesberg is to be taken seriously when he claims that there are no genetic influences involved in any form of cancer and that HIV is harmless? The full record of a scientist should be taken into account when considering credibility. Publishing an article that blindly gives credence to AIDS denialism is now part of the record for Patricia Goodson and Editor Sanjay Zodpey, at the unfortunate expense of Frontiers in Public Health.

    Keywords: HIV infection, aids, Duesberg, AIDS denialism, Pseudoscience
    Citation: Kalichman SC (2015). Commentary on “Questioning the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis: 30 years of dissent”. Front. Public Health 3:30. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2015.00030
    Received: 01 Dec 2014; Paper pending published: 16 Jan 2015;
    Accepted: 05 Feb 2015.
    Edited by: John B. De Wit, The University of New South Wales, Australia
    Reviewed by: Philippe C. Adam, The University of New South Wales, Australia
    Copyright: © 2015 Kalichman. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
    * Correspondence: Prof. Seth C. Kalichman, University of Connecticut, Psychology, Storrs, 06269, Connecticut, USA, seth.k@uconn.edu

    Comment by Houston:

    1 Comments – Robert Houston.Robert Houston Dr. Kalichman acknowledges that, “Patricia Goodson has actually performed a public service.” He does not note any factual error in the information she presents. His main concern is that the credentials and accomplishments of the HIV critics are presented without condemning them as “discredited” by virtue of offbeat opinions . But Dr. Goodson’s approach is more mature and scholarly: she sticks to the issues.

    As a true believer, Kalichman presents HIV-causes-AIDS as an unquestionable dogma and ignores the scientific issues in Goodson’s review. His argument is circular: those who dissent from orthodoxy are thereby discredited, hence there’s no credibility in their dissent. For example, the retrovirologist Etienne De Harven, MD, author of “Ten Lies about AIDS,” is termed “discredited” because he’s a “former president of Rethinking AIDS.” But he was also head of Electron Microscopy at Sloan-Kettering and a professor of pathology. Dr. Henry Bauer, who was a professor of chemistry, is dismissed because he edited a journal open to controversial ideas. Similarly, Nobel laureate Dr. Kary Mullis, whose invention of PCR is important to HIV testing, is dismissed for having been a “user of LSD” and UFO believer. Dr. Rebecca Culshaw is termed a “non-scientist” and “math instructor,” though she’s been an assistant professor and mathematical biologist who published peer-reviewed studies on mathematical models of HIV immunology. Biochemist Dr. David Rasnick, a developer of protease inhibitors such as used in AIDS, is decried for consulting on an African clinical trial of multivitamins. Yet clinical trials of multivitamins for HIV-AIDS in Africa conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health reported benefits (E. Liu et al, J Int AIDS Soc. 16:18022, 2013).

    The molecular biologist Dr. Peter Duesberg is misrepresented as having “never conducted any research on HIV,” when in fact he has published over 24 research studies on HIV and AIDS, mostly in peer-reviewed journals. His 2011 publication (at Duesberg.com) demolishes assertions that lack of anti-HIV drugs caused the loss of “330,000 South Africans” – a fanciful figure 5 times the total AIDS deaths in the years concerned. In addition, Kalichman writes that Duesberg “claims there are no genetic influences in any form of cancer.” In reality, his aneuploid theory affirms the role in cancer of chromosome imbalances involving numerous genes. Duesberg and the others are termed “AIDS denialists,” yet they do not deny the phenomenon of AIDS but rather the hypothesis of HIV as cause. Its originator, Dr. Robert Gallo, was in fact officially convicted for scientific misconduct by the Office of Research Integrity in 1992 (see Duesberg, Inventing the AIDS Virus, p. 162, 166).

  6. Anthony Liversidge Says:

    Decided to add a comment ourselves, since Kalichman is so shall we say psychological in his remarks.

    Anthony Liversidge: Professor Kalichman rejects the very well written Goodson paper recounting the peer reviewed scientific and lay challenges of very many critics and authors to the belief that HIV causes HIV/AIDS as if they were all unqualified and the notion was as obvious and true as the earth is round. But in fact it remains an unproven hypothesis that HIV is the cause of HIV/AIDS, despite the name, and the whole point of Goodson ‘s paper is that many of the critics are very well qualified, the challenges are very credible, serious, logically overwhelming and undefeated. Therefore she reasonably concludes that her public health colleagues should make their own assessment.

    The most serious challenges in leading peer reviewed journals were laid out by Peter Duesberg of Berkeley in Cancer Research and in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in the late eighties and have never been contradicted in the same journals. Not a peep, even by letter. But perhaps Professor Kalichman would like to offer either of these journals a rebuttal, which he is apparently convinced would be as easy as showing the world is round.

    Unfortunately he offers no glimpse of his possible devastating rebuttal. Instead his commentary entirely consists of questioning the credentials and credibility of HIV critics, and stating as facts claims by HIV scientists based on the same unproven assumption. Assuming the very conclusion that is being debated, one so far unproven in any scientific paper, he reasons that therefore all critics are by definition “denialists” without valid scientific objections or qualifications to challenge the status quo.

    But the credentials and scientific qualifications of the critics are quite sufficient to analyze the defects of HIV dogma, perhaps since its faults are so obvious, and many, starting with the remarkable, in fact unique, claim that antibodies can be infectious and cause a pandemic (see But the credentials and scientific qualifications of the critics are quite sufficient to analyze the defects of HIV dogma, perhaps since its faults are so obvious, and many, starting with the remarkable, in fact unique, claim that antibodies can be infectious and cause a pandemic (see http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/world-aids-day-yet-again-undisturbed-by-rationality.htm) Certainly the science of Duesberg, the leading scientist who pointed first to the fallacies inherent in HIV based explanations of AIDS, has always been recognized as impeccable. In fact, Nobelist Walter Gilbert at Harvard used to use Duesberg’s papers on HIV/AIDS as specimens to teach graduate students how to challenge a paradigm. Kalichman, a psychologist, misstates Duesberg’s views on genes and cancer, as Houston points out. Perhaps his own understanding is in question?

    Such an ad hominem diatribe has no place as commentary in a journal which takes its scientific standards very seriously.

  7. davidmburd Says:

    Goodson’s excellent and comprehensive paper leaves out (I would think by design, actually, because she focused so sharply on the validity of the medical science, and no mention of fiscal politics) any mention of the almost incomprehensible, humongous record-setting annual fiscal spending in history for a medical issue. And I would add the biggest medical spending con-job EVER, with U.S. federal tax spending on Hiv/Aids rising more every year, led by the incredibly devious Anthony Fauci of NIAID/NIH.

    Here is the Chart (by Kaiser Family Foundation) of the last five years of Fed Spending, literally 3/4 of 1% of the entire Fed Budget, and has been for over the last 10 years. In sum, American taxpayers have been conned for over $400 Billion since Fed dollars over the last 25 years. But, it’s even much more than that as individual State budgets have tacked on about $200 Billion of their own Hiv/Aids programs on top of the Feds.

    http://kff.org/global-health-policy/fact-sheet/u-s-federal-funding-for-hivaids-the-presidents-fy-2015-budget-request/

    Since the actual definition of AIDS is self-perpetuating (comprising being “Hiv +” and “low white blood cell count”) there will ALWAYS be another 40,000+ new AIDS cases every year in the U.S. – thence hundreds of $billions to fund their monumentally-stupid antiretroviral drugs and pay for their housing and dozens of other fringe benefits of being an “Aids” patient. For people new to this subject, the U.S. is the ONLY country in the world having this self-perpetuating definition of Aids since 1993 now comprising 95%+ of all U.S. Aids cases, a unique definition rejected by everyone else, everywhere. I take the time to say this because I didn’t see any mention of this critical topic in Goodman’s paper (maybe I missed it?).

    Some years ago I wrote “Tap Dancing to Conquering AIDS With Two Aspirin a Day” – of course these will be two specialized Fauci-Aspirin (patented of course) and the Feds will pay $15,000 a year for each patient to get them, driving their new Aids electric car (paid for by tax dollars), from their subsidized Castro St. Aids pad in San Francisco, wherever. And in New York, SF, and LA, Fauci will have bronzed statues of him (in his lab coat) looking wise, and holding a Federal Budget sheaf of papers in his bronzed hands. Who says America is no longer the Land of Opportunity?

  8. Anthony Liversidge Says:

    Useful data, David, good reference. Outrageous totals for a misguided public boondoggle, when the money could be spent genuinely “saving lives” both in “HIV/AIDS” and without. The pages at Rethinking AIDS displaying the Kaiser statistics seem to be inconsistent.

    Incidentally, in adding Goodson the the Science Guardian honor roll of truthseekers in science (in the heading to this site) we once again noted that she has written some very appropriate books. One is

    Becoming an Academic Writer:50 Exercises for Paced, Productive, and Powerful Writing.

    The other is

    Theory In Health Promotion Research And Practice: Thinking Outside The Box. Links are beside her name.

  9. davidmburd Says:

    No doubt I need to read Goodson’s books on writing; I admit to a career of a “science/engineering” world where the rocket either takes off or explodes – and most any of my writing refers to technical specifications and such jargon. It either works, or it doesn’t.

    But! There are exceptions I admire: Such as Peter Duesberg beautifully expounding on the theory and practical biological effects of an endogenous retrovirus dubbed “hiv” while he exposes the epitome of medical charlatans such as Robert Gallo and Anthony Fauci.

    By the way, I have complimented Dr. Goodson on her work, and she has gracefully thanked me (all by email). Small pleasures.

  10. Anthony Liversidge Says:

    If you appreciate her work and wish to praise the scientific and related virtues of her paper, it would certainly be appropriate to make a comment to that effect on Frontiers pages, to counter the egregious efforts of the unscientifically motivated, such as Seth Kalichman, who are trying to prevent it instructing and influencing public health professionals and other servants of the public interest.

    Meanwhile let’s note that the Kalichman Commentary page is a mess for some reason, with no paragraphs or references. Here is the temporary pdf which does list his references: Kalichman Provisional PDF

    Also, readers of wit and discernment will enjoy this fine page making fun of poor Kalichman at http://reducetheburden.org/will-the-real-seth-kalichman-please-stand-up/ by Liam Schiff, with amusingly apt comments added also.

  11. Anthony Liversidge Says:

    The page announcing the investigation has been taken down, and with it the useful comments people made. Although most people duplicated their comments on the other pages, some didn’t, and anyway the text is of interest, so I wonder if anyone has a copy. If so please advise or post here.

    http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpubh.2014.00186/full

    Terry Michaels has found it at web.archive.org but without Comments, thanks Terry:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20141009093218/http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpubh.2014.00186/full

    ———————————————–
    GENERAL COMMENTARY ARTICLE Front. Public Health | doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2014.00186
    Statement of concern: Questioning the HIV-AIDS hypothesis: 30 years of dissent
    Frontiers Editorial Office
    Frontiers, Switzerland
    Statement of Concern: The article “Questioning the HIV-AIDS hypothesis: 30 years of dissent” (Goodson 2014), was accepted for publication on the 7th September 2014. In its duty to publish responsibly, and in light of numerous complaints received about the paper, Frontiers has launched an investigation, the outcome of which will be made public once all adequate procedures have been completed. September 26, 2014. Frontiers Editorial Office, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Keywords: statement of concern, Frontiers, Editorial Office, Frontiers Editorial Office, Statement
    Citation: Editorial Office F (2014). Statement of concern: Questioning the HIV-AIDS hypothesis: 30 years of dissent. Front. Public Health 2:186. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2014.00186
    Received: 26 Sep 2014; Accepted: 26 Sep 2014.
    Edited by: Frontiers I. Public Health Editorial Office, Frontiers, Switzerland
    Reviewed by: Frontiers I. Public Health Editorial Office, Frontiers, Switzerland
    Copyright: © 2014 Editorial Office. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
    * Correspondence: Mr. Frontiers Editorial Office, Frontiers, Lausanne, Switzerland, production.office@frontiersin.org
    ——————————————–

    Here are the Comments I have in hand from Feb 8:

    1 Shares – Edgardo Sepulveda. 5 Likes – David M Burd, Jens Foell, Edgardo Sepulveda, René Michael Malenfant and Brian T Foley.

    6 Comments – Robert Houston, Anthony Liversidge, Giampaolo Minetti and Rajesh Kumar Bhagat.

    Anthony Liversidge The editors do not state the cause of the concern of the “numerous” complaints received in regard to Questioning the HIV-AIDS hypothesis: 30 years of dissent” (Goodson 2014), but those familiar with the politically highly charged field can reasonably assume that paradigm defenders have objected to any coverage of the multitude of doubts that have accompanied the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS from the beginning. If this is the case it is surprising that the editors have ordered an investigation, since a peer reviewed article objectively reporting the many objections that have been raised against HIV theory for thirty years is surely by definition a factual summary that should not be censored, because it serves the cause of objective review and free debate which is at the heart of good science.

    Possibly the critics have objected to the fact that Goodson ends her article by calling for independent outsiders in her field of public health to review the objections she recounts and make up their own minds, and perhaps they have concluded that therefore she is a “denialist” or whatever ad hominem term with which they like to describe dissenters. But in fact she has not adopted any viewpoint in her piece, which stands as an objective account of the many studies and reviews which call into question the prevailing paradigm. That paradigm defenders would like to hide this material is understandable, perhaps, but it is not good science to censor objections to a paradigm, particularly one so expensive in terms of public spending and human lives. If they claim that any questioning of the HIV-is-the-cause-of-AIDS premise is “dangerous” because it may lead to patients resisting taking standard HIV-AIDS medication, this logic is circular as well as self-serving, since if HIV is not the cause of AIDS, then these otherwise noxious drugs should be dispensed with.

    Goodson’s conclusion that doubts about HIV are serious enough for outsiders to investigate and review before subscribing to the paradigm matches the existence of the lengthy critiques by the prominent retrovirologist Peter Duesberg in Cancer Research 1987 and Proceedings of the National Academy 1989 and 1991, which authoritatively rejected the HIV paradigm in rigorous reviews in those high level journals as long ago as the late eighties, as she notes, and which have never been answered or refuted in those same journals since. There is no reason for the Frontiers in Public Health committee to disturb a piece which only extends the story of peer reviewed paradigm critiques in the three decades since, unless and until the complainants wish to suggest that the earlier reviews by Duesberg be withdrawn also. If so, let them first answer and refute them in the same high level journals.
    27 Oct 2014 at 03:16pm|Edit|Delete

    Robert Houston The editors may be unaware of the efforts by determined HIV=AIDS proponents to censor all dissent on the issue and to root out dissidents. In regard Dr. Patricia Goodson’s excellent paper, such efforts have reached a point of absurdity: even her objective historical review of non-conventional opinions becomes intolerable to these latter-day Torquemadas. Prof. Goodson’s scholarship is impeccable and all major points were well-documented. If anyone can find factual errors, these should be dealt with through corrections (errata), not censorship. The complainants actual concern may be that she was indeed objective and did not condemn dissenting scientists, but merely advocated independent investigations. Note that the opinions she reviewed were not necessarily her own but those of a number of distinguished scientists in the relevant fields, and that published papers do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the journal. The exchange of differing views is part of the scientific process and fundamental to a free society.
    07 Nov 2014 at 12:02amRajesh

    Kumar Bhagat This is one of the best critical evaluation of state of affairs regarding the HIV / AIDS Hypotheses. Check it is not a scientific FACT, rather just a Hypotheses with lots of powerful organisations vested interests…. Are we living in the dark ages, where free scientific questioning on science issue is considered blasphemous … and thus we all should be burnt…
    02 Jan 2015 at 04:32am

    Giampaolo Minetti
    In the meantime the article is no longer present in PubMed, not even as a retracted article! It would be very interesting to know what was the outcome of the investigation that Frontiers announced back in Sept 2014.
    08 Jan 2015 at 08:21am

    Anthony Liversidge Even if the article is removed from this Frontiers in Public Health site, a copy can still be read at Science Guardian in an article which reports its appearance here (see the bottom of the text at http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/support-for-peter-duesberg-and-hiv-aids-dissent-as-worth-examining.htm) and deplores the move by paradigm promoters to censor it. The references are also listed. David Rasnick also carries the pdf at his site at http://ww.w.davidrasnick.com/Home_files/Goodson%202014.pdf It should be noted that the misleading heading “OPINION ARTICLE” has been substituted after publication on the Web by Frontiers editors for the original label on the article, “HYPOTHESIS AND THEORY ARTICLE”, which was more accurate and appropriate, as these original pdf copies show. The article is, after all, no more and no less than an accurate and objective history of the multitude of objections in peer reviewed journals continuously raised over thirty years to the as yet unproven hypothesis that the disease labeled HIV-AIDS is caused by HIV. Given the weight of the counted objections in leading peer reviewed journals, and the rigorous quality of the most important by Duesberg which are still unanswered, Goodson did conclude that the public interest dictates that her public health colleagues reassess the dogma for themselves. But this does not indicate that her analysis is biased or inaccurate.
    31 Jan 2015 at 05:02pm|Edit|Delete

    Robert Houston The removal from PubMed, a database of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, is attributable to medical politics at the NIH, which was the provenance of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. At present, Dr. Goodson’s fine review is still online at the Frontiers site and accessible at Google Scholar and other sites.

    ————————————————————

    Houston added a sentence to his last Comment but apart from that I think that may be all of them. The sentence was to the effect that the removal of the abstract was probably the reason it has vanished from PubMed.

  12. Anthony Liversidge Says:

    There are two new Comments at the Publishers Statement page

    http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpubh.2015.00037/full

    announcing that abusive comment is now to be sieved out through moderation and indeed two Comments have been removed, both by Terry Michael.

    These are the new moderator comments.

    Frontiers From Frontiers Communications Office: Please note that, due to some abuse of the commentary section for this article, this discussion is now moderated. We will moderate any posts with personal attacks, threatening/offensive language, or allegations about misconduct that cannot be verified.
    Today at 11:23am

    Frontiers The terms and conditions for using our platform are here: http://www.frontiersin.org/WebTerms.aspx
    Today at 11:23am

    The Comments removed are these:

    Terry P Michael It is a positive development that Frontiers did not completely cave-in to the fear and greed-driven HIV-AIDS Industry and retract Prof. Goodman’s meticulously researched and superbly written paper. But it is outrageous that the editors recast it from an academic article to an “Opinion Article,” and then virtually set it equal to a diatribe posing as a “commentary” from the long-time hit-man for the HIV=AIDS cult, Seth Kalichman. Anyone even slightly familiar with Kalichman knows he is infamous for his ad hominem attacks on all of us who are serious, fact-based critics of the orthodox nonsense that a single, purportedly pathogenic retrovirus can possibly explain an amorphous health syndrome of multi-factorial causation. A quick look at Kalichman’s blog will reveal to even a casual reader he is a fraud posing as an academic: http://denyingaids.blogspot.com/
    12 Feb 2015 at 04:41pm

    Terry P Michael Kalichman questions the credentials of experts in molecular biology, medicine, chemistry, science studies and public health, in his broadside, ad hominem attacks, claiming that re-thinkers with those academic backgrounds lack the expertise to challenge orthodox HIV=AIDS claims. What he neglects to mention is his own academic field, social psychology, which gives him no more expertise in retrovirology and medical science than does my research as an investigative journalist. The truth is that any intelligent person who does the necessary reading and research can deconstruct the claims of the government junk “scientists” who invented the fantasy that a single pathogen caused an amorphous health syndrome. It amazes me that Frontiers invited Kalichman to respond to Prof. Goodson, who deserves the right to have her paper restored as an article that can be indexed.
    12 Feb 2015 at 05:05pm

  13. Anthony Liversidge Says:

    Similarly, the newly active Frontiers Comments moderator has erased the following Comments at the page carrying the Goodson article:

    http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpubh.2014.00154/full

    Terry P Michael Prof. Goodson, thanks so much for having the courage to write about the history of dissent from the single pathogen theory of immune deficiency. It may sound odd to some readers to extend congratulations to an academic writer for doing what academics ought to be doing: engaging in intelligent discourse about unsettled questions, particularly those involving claims about “scientific” truth. But undoubtedly you will be attacked by the defenders of the HIV=AIDS faith. I am a former newspaper reporter, a former press spokesman for two members of Congress and the Democratic National Committee, and for the past 25 years director of a mainstream program to teach college journalism students about politics and public affairs (www.wcpj.org ). I have had a very mainstream career, always trying to seek truth. For five years, I also taught “Journalism 100: Theory and Practice,” a journalism history and ethics, as well as practices course at The George Washington Univ. here in Washington, DC. I am also a 67-year-old gay man, so I have a dog in the hunt for facts about what really caused a significant amount of immune deficiency among my contemporaries in the early 1980s. It boggles my mind that anyone would call for retraction of your superbly researched and written paper. But I have watched “hit squads” comprised of anti-intellectuals like Tara C. Smith and Seth Kalichman attempt to harass those of us who dissent from the HIV=AIDS theory, as well as try to intimidate journal editors with the courage to publish informed dissent–or, in your case, just a paper reviewing dissent! I will be watching closely to see if the publishers and editors of “frontiers” cave in to pressure from Smith et al.

    30 Sep 2014 at 09:52pm

    Terry P Michael Thank you so much, Anthony Liversidge for that excellent comment on Dr. Goodson’s paper. In just a few words, you made the case against the attempt to suppress all discourse about the single pathogen theory of “AIDS” by what many of us refer to as The HIV-AIDS Drug Industry. We will be watching to see if Frontiers resists an attempt by anti-intellectual propagandists to suppress thoughtful debate in peer reviewed journals. I reported and wrote about the latest AIDS war profiteering here: http://www.terrymichael.net/PDF%20Files/AIDS_War_Profiteering_and_PrEP_by_Terry_Michael.pdf

    There were more erasures, but unfortunately I have just lost the original to Chrome’s instability.

    Oh, Penelope, thanks, you’re sterling. Here is the entire set of Comments before erasure this morning:

    Goodson article Comments before some were erased on Feb 16:

    7 Likes – David M Burd, Henry Hermann Bauer, Richard Jannaccio, Giampaolo Minetti, Terry P Michael,… 26 Comments – Giampaolo Minetti, Phillip S Duke, Terry P Michael, David M Burd, Robert Houston,...

    Henry Hermann Bauer Very nice article. You might also be interested in my bibliography of sources disproving HIV causes AIDS: The Case against HIV http://thecaseagainsthiv.net24
    Sep 2014 at 10:19pm

    Patricia Goodson Thank you for your kind comments. I did, indeed, consult an earlier version of the piece you recommended. That citation, unfortunately, didn’t make it into this final version of the paper (you can imagine how much material I had to cut to have this piece become a journal article!).

    I really appreciate all the work you’ve done in this area: taught me a lot!
    25 Sep 2014 at 08:50am

    René Michael Malenfant Coming soon from Frontiers in Geology, the great new article: “Questioning the ellipsoidal earth hypothesis: 3000 years of dissent”.

    To be followed by a spectacular special issue in Frontiers in Chemistry: “I am Phlogiston (And So Can You!)”

    HIV denialism would be laughable if it were not irresponsible and deadly.
    26 Sep 2014 at 01:23am

    UserComment deleted on 26 Sep 2014, 02:27pm

    Mike Sandlin As educators/researchers we should always be willing to think outside the box and this article accomplishes the challenge. Thanks for the challenge!
    27 Sep 2014 at 11:03am

    UserComment deleted on 30 Sep 2014, 09:56pm

    Terry P Michael Prof. Goodson, thanks so much for having the courage to write about the history of dissent from the single pathogen theory of immune deficiency. It may sound odd to some readers to extend congratulations to an academic writer for doing what academics ought to be doing: engaging in intelligent discourse about unsettled questions, particularly those involving claims about “scientific” truth. But undoubtedly you will be attacked by the defenders of the HIV=AIDS faith. I am a former newspaper reporter, a former press spokesman for two members of Congress and the Democratic National Committee, and for the past 25 years director of a mainstream program to teach college journalism students about politics and public affairs (www.wcpj.org ). I have had a very mainstream career, always trying to seek truth. For five years, I also taught “Journalism 100: Theory and Practice,” a journalism history and ethics, as well as practices course at The George Washington Univ. here in Washington, DC. I am also a 67-year-old gay man, so I have a dog in the hunt for facts about what really caused a significant amount of immune deficiency among my contemporaries in the early 1980s. It boggles my mind that anyone would call for retraction of your superbly researched and written paper. But I have watched “hit squads” comprised of anti-intellectuals like Tara C. Smith and Seth Kalichman attempt to harass those of us who dissent from the HIV=AIDS theory, as well as try to intimidate journal editors with the courage to publish informed dissent–or, in your case, just a paper reviewing dissent! I will be watching closely to see if the publishers and editors of “frontiers” cave in to pressure from Smith et al.
    30 Sep 2014 at 09:52pm

    Evely Rodrigues Crespo Uau, Profª Pat! Ou “vixi” como diríamos no Brasil!!! Que trabalheira compilar tantos estudos e ainda dar uma “cutucada” nos laboradores da ciência! Menina corajosa, inteligente, só poderia dar em um artigo excelente. Sabe Pat, isso me fez viajar no tempo e se lembra da primeira pesquisa social que fizemos no Cemicamp? Foi em 1989. Era uma amostra de 100 mulheres que pegamos no ambulatório e a sortuda nesse trabalho de campo foi eu! Como éramos tão ignorantes naquele tempo. Lembro perfeitamente do meu chão ter sumido e rapidamente ter tido que me recompor para prosseguir na entrevista. Era uma moça com um bebê de 40 dias no colo. Em umas da perguntas que era feita, ela se identificou como portadora do HIV e que naquela dia, por estar amamentando, ela iria pegar o resultado da criança, se ela estaria ou não infectada. Lembro, também, que ela estava cheia de sacolas, com o bebê no colo e hesitei segundos se eu pegasse nas sacolas que ela havia segurado, não pegaria o vírus!!!!!! Aff!!!! Por fim, quando completou-se a amostra de 100 mulheres, somente esta identificou-se com o vírus (ela respondeu ter recebido do companheiro). Outra coisa, o Izidro é doador de sangue há muito muito tempo e doa de 3 a 4 vezes, ao ano. Há uns 3 anos, depois da doação chegou um comunicado que deveria refazer o sangue e ao ver no laboratório a causa era que tinha dado o vírus do HIV no sangue!!!! Imagina???? Ele ficou mais preocupado em se justicar comigo de não ter pulado cerca do que eu ter pensado, shsushas. Mas o Dr. google ajudou-nos a evitar uma morte antecipada, por enfarte, só de se imaginar com o vírus, e uma crise conjugal!!! Vi que pessoas que tinham tomado vacina contra o H1N1 (gripe suína) e logo em seguida faziam o teste, dava soropositivo. Quando li isso, busquei foruns de pessoas que falavam sobre isso e era assolador! Muitas pessoas passaram por isso, já que foi o ano da epidemia e muita gente se vacinou e dentre estes, muitos doadores de sangue… e as conversas nos fóruns dessas pessoas eram de muita angústia até fazerem uma contraprova. O Izidro só ficou mais tranquilo quando mostrei essas matérias e, claro, quando veio a contraprova, mais de 1 mês torturosos depois. Parabéns, minha amiga da qual tenho e terei sempre muito orgulho. Beijos
    02 Oct 2014 at 09:50am

    Richard Rolf Engnath Inadequate “HIV/AIDS” (U.S.) Policy/Promotion being Amend(ed)/Expand(ed) to “HIV/AIDS/HTLV” Policy(s)/(Dual) Response Measure(s)

    04 Oct 2014 at 04:32pm

    Martin Barnes Patricia– thank you for this excellent summary of dissident science on HIV/AIDS. I am sending it to my hard headed academic family as a way to educate them!
    10 Oct 2014 at 08:29am

    Anthony Liversidge This well written and comprehensive article seems remarkably appropriate after thirty years where paradigm defenders in HIV-AIDS have, as it indicates, signally failed to defeat profound skepticism which reaches to the highest academic level as to the validity of their hypothesis, which is therefore still an unproven claim which lacks convincing evidence to reviewers and which contradicts basic principles in its field. This lack of credibility and opposition to accepted science was rigorously established by Peter Duesberg of Berkeley in the articles mentioned by Goodson in 1987, 1989 and 1991, in the highly respected peer reviewed journals Cancer Research and Proceedings of the National Academy, an academy that had already recognized Duesberg’s distinction by making him a member.

    Significantly, since those reviews were published no attempt has been made to refute his analysis in either publication, despite promises made to do so by the leading scientists in HIV-AIDS who denounced them to the press. Until such refutation takes place on the same platforms, non peer reviewed debates and counter articles in other journals and on the Web, and the whole literature of HIV-AIDS of many thousands of studies and reviews which assume HIV is the cause of AIDS as a premise cannot be taken as countering their conclusions. Nor can the politics which has continually undermined his reputation, and the sometimes successful attempts to influence editors not to carry articles telling the public about the enduring theoretical failure of HIV-AIDS. Those who believe that the drugs which improve patient outcome prove that HIV is the true cause of HIV-AIDS overlook the possibility that they may be simply less noxious than those used earlier, especially since the death rate of HIV-AIDS patients is according to the CDC data largely being maintained despite their use (and the major causes of death are liver and kidney disease which are not accounted for by HIV).

    All in all, the continued existence of review articles in the best peer reviewed journals which stand unanswered let alone unrefuted there for thirty years is enough to justify Goodson’s call for independent review by public health officials and experts, regardless of the fact that some skepticism goes all the way down to specious conspiracy theories on the Web. Nor should the paradigm defenders who claim that any review is “dangerous” and likely to discourage people from taking standard anti-HIV medications be allowed to influence the Frontiers in Public Health committee now investigating this article’s publication. This is not only circular logic – if HIV is wrong obviously they should be influenced against the otherwise noxious medications – but also a call for censorship of the normal review process and free debate of good science.
    26 Oct 2014 at 11:12pm

    Terry P Michael Thank you so much, Anthony Liversidge for that excellent comment on Dr. Goodson’s paper. In just a few words, you made the case against the attempt to suppress all discourse about the single pathogen theory of “AIDS” by what many of us refer to as The HIV-AIDS Drug Industry. We will be watching to see if Frontiers resists an attempt by anti-intellectual propagandists to suppress thoughtful debate in peer reviewed journals. I reported and wrote about the latest AIDS war profiteering here: http://www.terrymichael.net/PDF%20Files/AIDS_War_Profiteering_and_PrEP_by_Terry_Michael.pdf26 Oct 2014 at 11:45pmHenry Hermann Bauer The Frontiers committee investigating charges raised about Dr. Goodson’s articel could make its job very easy and simple: Just ask those raising objections, or any prominent spokesperson like Dr. Fauci, to cite the published articles that prove that HIV causes AIDS.
    27 Oct 2014 at 10:26am

    Anthony Liversidge If the complainants hope the Frontiers in Public Health committee will disturb a piece which only recounts the story of peer reviewed paradigm critiques over the three decades that the critics have been politically but not scientifically defeated, they should first suggest that the earlier reviews by Duesberg in Cancer Research and Proceedings of the National Academy be withdrawn also. This would no doubt happen as soon as they answer and refute them in the same high level journals
    27 Oct 2014 at 04:16pm

    John Dawson Weir Thank you very much for the article Patricia.

    I do not have a background in any of the relevent sciences but I found the article very readable and a good springboard for conducting further research into this fascinating subject.

    Thanks Again

    John
    05 Nov 2014 at 01:31pm

    Robert Houston Dr. Goodson has produced a splendid review of the questions and alternatives that critics have put forth regarding the still unproven hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS. Backed by multi-billion dollar research funding, the hypothesis has been widely accepted by researchers anxious to be funded, published and respected. This river of gold has distorted the scientific process, biasing conventional thinking to such an extent that HIV causation is taken as an axiomatic premise, much like a religious dogma. Whereas major contradictions would normally falsify a hypothesis and lead to its rejection, in HIV-AIDS they are termed “mysteries” to justify ever more research funding.

    Such magical wording is also employed to dismiss specific contradictions (Duesberg listed 17 in his 2003 paper). For example, the finding of thousands of HIV-negative AIDS patients was dealt with by renaming them, “Idiopathic CD4+ T-cell Lymphopenia.” Even the original discovery paper by Gallo et al. (Science, May 4, 1984) reported that HIV (“HTLV-III”) was found in only 26 of 72 AIDS patients (36%). Most of the patients (64%) were HIV-negative, yet this weak association was the basis given for proclaiming the virus “the probable cause of AIDS.”

    Such inconsistency was later avoided by redefining AIDS as “HIV/AIDS.”: Dr. Root-Bernstein’s book documents that AIDS patients showed other viruses, such as CMV, at higher rates – over 90%. CMV is also found in transplant patients, as a result of immunosuppressive drugs to prevent organ rejection. Goodson mentions such immunosuppressants, as does Duesberg in his 1996 book (p. 285), but both go no further. One who did was a toxicologist, Dr. Mohammed Al-Bayati, who supplemented the toxic chemical hypothesis of Duesberg by detailing how each of the AIDS risk groups are exposed to the same class of immunosuppressive drugs, called corticosteroids.. His 1999 book, HIV Does Not Cause AIDS, is an important contribution that should be cited, as well as his remarkable 2006 paper: http://www.justiceforej.com/CausesOfAIDS(Al-Bayati).pdf .
    09 Nov 2014 at 12:46am

    Anthony Liversidge With 10,548 views, and the above Comments including more than 2 people who value this article, perhaps some have overlooked the Like button on top right, since it records only 2 Likes so far.
    14 Nov 2014 at 02:34pm

    Giampaolo Minetti The article is undergoing an alleged “investigation” whose outcome is still pending after three months. In the meantime it is no longer visible in Pubmed. I suggest that everybody interested download it as soon as possible, because I fear it will be soon removed also from this website.
    31 Jan 2015 at 12:42pm

    Anthony Liversidge Even if the article is removed from this Frontiers in Public Health site, a copy can still be read at Science Guardian in an article which reports its appearance here (see the bottom of the text at http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/support-for-peter-duesberg-and-hiv-aids-dissent-as-worth-examining.htm) and deplores the move by paradigm promoters to censor it. The references are also listed. David Rasnick also carries the pdf at his site at http://ww.w.davidrasnick.com/Home_files/Goodson%202014.pdf It should be noted that the misleading heading “OPINION ARTICLE” has been substituted after publication on the Web by Frontiers editors for the original label on the article, “HYPOTHESIS AND THEORY ARTICLE”, which was more accurate and appropriate, as these original pdf copies show. The article is, after all, no more and no less than an accurate and objective history of the multitude of objections in peer reviewed journals continuously raised over thirty years to the as yet unproven hypothesis that the disease labeled HIV-AIDS is caused by HIV. Given the weight of the counted objections in leading peer reviewed journals, and the rigorous quality of the most important by Duesberg which are still unanswered, Goodson did conclude that the public interest dictates that her public health colleagues reassess the dogma for themselves. But this does not indicate that her analysis is biased or inaccurate.
    31 Jan 2015 at 04:58pm

    Robert Houston PubMed is a service provided by the National Library of Medicine, a component of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, which is the center and origin of HIV-AIDS dogma. Thus, PubMed and the NLM may well have been pressured by NIH politics to remove the listing to Goodson’s even-handed review. At this time, the removal can’t be blamed directly on Frontiers, which still makes the article available at its own and other sites, including Google Scholar. However, the editors’ inexplicable removal of the abstract (now the first paragraph) may have made the article unacceptable to abstracting services, such as PubMed.
    01 Feb 2015 at 11:10pm

    David M Burd After 20+ years reviewing the lethal toxicities of antiviral and antiretroviral drugs, and the passiveness of all retroviruses, it’s conclusive the “AIDS” deaths ascribed to an endogenous retroviral is a humongous mistake; perpetrated by now $30 Billion dollars of U.S. Fed spending.

    Prof/Dr. Patricia Goodman has performed a marvelous contemporary Paper.

    David M Burd

    09 Feb 2015 at 07:37pm

    David M Burd PS: I meant to say $30 Billion was today’s ANNUAL spending of U.S. tax dollars; The total spending the last 25 years has reached $400 Billion – adjusted for inflation more than sending man to the moon. But, in this Hiv/Aids World, not just wasted but actually spent to kill a few million people and babies via toxic drugs.
    09 Feb 2015 at 07:45pm

    Terry P Michael It is a positive development that Frontiers did not completely cave-in to the fear and greed-driven HIV-AIDS Industry and retract Prof. Goodman’s meticulously researched and superbly written paper. But it is outrageous that the editors recast it from an academic article to an “Opinion Article,” and then virtually set it equal to a diatribe posing as a “commentary” from the long-time hit-man for the HIV=AIDS cult, Seth Kalichman. Anyone even slightly familiar with Kalichman knows he is infamous for his ad hominem attacks on all of us who are serious, fact-based critics of the orthodox nonsense that a single, purportedly pathogenic retrovirus can possibly explain an amorphous health syndrome of multi-factorial causation. A quick look at Kalichman’s blog will reveal to even a casual reader he is a fraud posing as an academic: http://denyingaids.blogspot.com/12
    Feb 2015 at 01:05pm

    Terry P Michael Kalichman questions the credentials of experts in molecular biology, medicine, chemistry, science studies and public health, in his broadside, ad hominem attacks, claiming that re-thinkers with those academic backgrounds lack the expertise to challenge orthodox HIV=AIDS claims. What he neglects to mention is his own academic field, social psychology, which gives him no more expertise in retrovirology and medical science than does my research as an investigative journalist. The truth is that any intelligent person who does the necessary reading and research can deconstruct the claims of the government junk “scientists” who invented the fantasy that a single pathogen caused an amorphous health syndrome. It amazes me that Frontiers invited Kalichman to respond to Prof. Goodson, who deserves the right to have her paper restored as an article that can be indexed.12 Feb 2015 at 05:06pmPhillip S Duke Dr. Goodson seems to have overlooked several very important lines of research in her review. For one example, Dr. Christl Meyer has published impeccable research showing that “HIV” virus genes are encoded by the MHC locus of the human genome. Her web site contains all the links to her powerpoint slides, publications, commentary on her publications, and so on. Her seminal publication on AIDS “Reconciliation between Pure Scientists and AIDS-Dissidents: Could an ancient retrovirus, RNA-interference and stress be the answer to the divergent opinions ?” Does not provide all the details, but her powerpoint show illustrates (see slide 63) that the HIV genome is found in the human MHC locus on human chromosome 6.12
    Feb 2015 at 11:31pm

    Giampaolo Minetti
    Another epicycle?
    Speaking of indexed papers, I don’t seem to find any from Christi Meyer in the PubMed… Where could we find this alleged “Reconciliation” paper?
    13 Feb 2015 at 01:47am

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

    This is the same set of Comments after moderator deletions this morning Feb 16 2015 plus Feb 17 comments:

    7 Likes – Henry Hermann Bauer, Richard Jannaccio, Giampaolo Minetti, Terry P Michael,… 28 Comments – Frontiers , Giampaolo Minetti, Phillip S Duke, Terry P Michael, Robert Houston,…

    Henry Hermann Bauer Very nice article. You might also be interested in my bibliography of sources disproving HIV causes AIDS: The Case against HIV http://thecaseagainsthiv.net24
    Sep 2014 at 10:19pm

    Patricia Goodson Thank you for your kind comments. I did, indeed, consult an earlier version of the piece you recommended. That citation, unfortunately, didn’t make it into this final version of the paper (you can imagine how much material I had to cut to have this piece become a journal article!).

    I really appreciate all the work you’ve done in this area: taught me a lot!
    25 Sep 2014 at 08:50am

    René Michael Malenfant Coming soon from Frontiers in Geology, the great new article: “Questioning the ellipsoidal earth hypothesis: 3000 years of dissent”.

    To be followed by a spectacular special issue in Frontiers in Chemistry: “I am Phlogiston (And So Can You!)”

    HIV denialism would be laughable if it were not irresponsible and deadly.
    26 Sep 2014 at 01:23am

    UserComment deleted on 26 Sep 2014, 02:27pm

    Mike Sandlin As educators/researchers we should always be willing to think outside the box and this article accomplishes the challenge. Thanks for the challenge!
    27 Sep 2014 at 11:03am

    UserComment deleted on 30 Sep 2014, 09:56pm

    UserComment deleted on 16 Feb 2015, 10:26am

    Evely Rodrigues Crespo Uau, Profª Pat! Ou “vixi” como diríamos no Brasil!!! Que trabalheira compilar tantos estudos e ainda dar uma “cutucada” nos laboradores da ciência! Menina corajosa, inteligente, só poderia dar em um artigo excelente. Sabe Pat, isso me fez viajar no tempo e se lembra da primeira pesquisa social que fizemos no Cemicamp? Foi em 1989. Era uma amostra de 100 mulheres que pegamos no ambulatório e a sortuda nesse trabalho de campo foi eu! Como éramos tão ignorantes naquele tempo. Lembro perfeitamente do meu chão ter sumido e rapidamente ter tido que me recompor para prosseguir na entrevista. Era uma moça com um bebê de 40 dias no colo. Em umas da perguntas que era feita, ela se identificou como portadora do HIV e que naquela dia, por estar amamentando, ela iria pegar o resultado da criança, se ela estaria ou não infectada. Lembro, também, que ela estava cheia de sacolas, com o bebê no colo e hesitei segundos se eu pegasse nas sacolas que ela havia segurado, não pegaria o vírus!!!!!! Aff!!!! Por fim, quando completou-se a amostra de 100 mulheres, somente esta identificou-se com o vírus (ela respondeu ter recebido do companheiro). Outra coisa, o Izidro é doador de sangue há muito muito tempo e doa de 3 a 4 vezes, ao ano. Há uns 3 anos, depois da doação chegou um comunicado que deveria refazer o sangue e ao ver no laboratório a causa era que tinha dado o vírus do HIV no sangue!!!! Imagina???? Ele ficou mais preocupado em se justicar comigo de não ter pulado cerca do que eu ter pensado, shsushas. Mas o Dr. google ajudou-nos a evitar uma morte antecipada, por enfarte, só de se imaginar com o vírus, e uma crise conjugal!!! Vi que pessoas que tinham tomado vacina contra o H1N1 (gripe suína) e logo em seguida faziam o teste, dava soropositivo. Quando li isso, busquei foruns de pessoas que falavam sobre isso e era assolador! Muitas pessoas passaram por isso, já que foi o ano da epidemia e muita gente se vacinou e dentre estes, muitos doadores de sangue… e as conversas nos fóruns dessas pessoas eram de muita angústia até fazerem uma contraprova. O Izidro só ficou mais tranquilo quando mostrei essas matérias e, claro, quando veio a contraprova, mais de 1 mês torturosos depois. Parabéns, minha amiga da qual tenho e terei sempre muito orgulho. Beijos
    02 Oct 2014 at 09:50am

    Richard Rolf Engnath Inadequate “HIV/AIDS” (U.S.) Policy/Promotion being Amend(ed)/Expand(ed) to “HIV/AIDS/HTLV” Policy(s)/(Dual) Response Measure(s)
    04 Oct 2014 at 04:32pm

    Martin Barnes Patricia– thank you for this excellent summary of dissident science on HIV/AIDS. I am sending it to my hard headed academic family as a way to educate them!10 Oct 2014 at 08:29amAnthony Liversidge This well written and comprehensive article seems remarkably appropriate after thirty years where paradigm defenders in HIV-AIDS have, as it indicates, signally failed to defeat profound skepticism which reaches to the highest academic level as to the validity of their hypothesis, which is therefore still an unproven claim which lacks convincing evidence to reviewers and which contradicts basic principles in its field. This lack of credibility and opposition to accepted science was rigorously established by Peter Duesberg of Berkeley in the articles mentioned by Goodson in 1987, 1989 and 1991, in the highly respected peer reviewed journals Cancer Research and Proceedings of the National Academy, an academy that had already recognized Duesberg’s distinction by making him a member.

    Significantly, since those reviews were published no attempt has been made to refute his analysis in either publication, despite promises made to do so by the leading scientists in HIV-AIDS who denounced them to the press. Until such refutation takes place on the same platforms, non peer reviewed debates and counter articles in other journals and on the Web, and the whole literature of HIV-AIDS of many thousands of studies and reviews which assume HIV is the cause of AIDS as a premise cannot be taken as countering their conclusions. Nor can the politics which has continually undermined his reputation, and the sometimes successful attempts to influence editors not to carry articles telling the public about the enduring theoretical failure of HIV-AIDS. Those who believe that the drugs which improve patient outcome prove that HIV is the true cause of HIV-AIDS overlook the possibility that they may be simply less noxious than those used earlier, especially since the death rate of HIV-AIDS patients is according to the CDC data largely being maintained despite their use (and the major causes of death are liver and kidney disease which are not accounted for by HIV).

    All in all, the continued existence of review articles in the best peer reviewed journals which stand unanswered let alone unrefuted there for thirty years is enough to justify Goodson’s call for independent review by public health officials and experts, regardless of the fact that some skepticism goes all the way down to specious conspiracy theories on the Web. Nor should the paradigm defenders who claim that any review is “dangerous” and likely to discourage people from taking standard anti-HIV medications be allowed to influence the Frontiers in Public Health committee now investigating this article’s publication. This is not only circular logic – if HIV is wrong obviously they should be influenced against the otherwise noxious medications – but also a call for censorship of the normal review process and free debate of good science.
    26 Oct 2014 at 11:12pm

    UserComment deleted on 16 Feb 2015, 10:27am

    Henry Hermann Bauer The Frontiers committee investigating charges raised about Dr. Goodson’s articel could make its job very easy and simple: Just ask those raising objections, or any prominent spokesperson like Dr. Fauci, to cite the published articles that prove that HIV causes AIDS.27 Oct 2014 at 10:26amAnthony Liversidge If the complainants hope the Frontiers in Public Health committee will disturb a piece which only recounts the story of peer reviewed paradigm critiques over the three decades that the critics have been politically but not scientifically defeated, they should first suggest that the earlier reviews by Duesberg in Cancer Research and Proceedings of the National Academy be withdrawn also. This would no doubt happen as soon as they answer and refute them in the same high level journals
    27 Oct 2014 at 04:16pm

    John Dawson Weir
    Thank you very much for the article Patricia.

    I do not have a background in any of the relevent sciences but I found the article very readable and a good springboard for conducting further research into this fascinating subject.

    Thanks Again

    John
    05 Nov 2014 at 01:31pm

    Robert Houston Dr. Goodson has produced a splendid review of the questions and alternatives that critics have put forth regarding the still unproven hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS. Backed by multi-billion dollar research funding, the hypothesis has been widely accepted by researchers anxious to be funded, published and respected. This river of gold has distorted the scientific process, biasing conventional thinking to such an extent that HIV causation is taken as an axiomatic premise, much like a religious dogma. Whereas major contradictions would normally falsify a hypothesis and lead to its rejection, in HIV-AIDS they are termed “mysteries” to justify ever more research funding.

    Such magical wording is also employed to dismiss specific contradictions (Duesberg listed 17 in his 2003 paper). For example, the finding of thousands of HIV-negative AIDS patients was dealt with by renaming them, “Idiopathic CD4+ T-cell Lymphopenia.” Even the original discovery paper by Gallo et al. (Science, May 4, 1984) reported that HIV (“HTLV-III”) was found in only 26 of 72 AIDS patients (36%). Most of the patients (64%) were HIV-negative, yet this weak association was the basis given for proclaiming the virus “the probable cause of AIDS.”

    Such inconsistency was later avoided by redefining AIDS as “HIV/AIDS.”: Dr. Root-Bernstein’s book documents that AIDS patients showed other viruses, such as CMV, at higher rates – over 90%. CMV is also found in transplant patients, as a result of immunosuppressive drugs to prevent organ rejection. Goodson mentions such immunosuppressants, as does Duesberg in his 1996 book (p. 285), but both go no further. One who did was a toxicologist, Dr. Mohammed Al-Bayati, who supplemented the toxic chemical hypothesis of Duesberg by detailing how each of the AIDS risk groups are exposed to the same class of immunosuppressive drugs, called corticosteroids.. His 1999 book, HIV Does Not Cause AIDS, is an important contribution that should be cited, as well as his remarkable 2006 paper: http://www.justiceforej.com/CausesOfAIDS(Al-Bayati).pdf .
    09 Nov 2014 at 12:46am

    Anthony Liversidge With 10,548 views, and the above Comments including more than 2 people who value this article, perhaps some have overlooked the Like button on top right, since it records only 2 Likes so far.14 Nov 2014 at 02:34pmGiampaolo Minetti The article is undergoing an alleged “investigation” whose outcome is still pending after three months. In the meantime it is no longer visible in Pubmed. I suggest that everybody interested download it as soon as possible, because I fear it will be soon removed also from this website.
    31 Jan 2015 at 12:42pm

    Anthony Liversidge Even if the article is removed from this Frontiers in Public Health site, a copy can still be read at Science Guardian in an article which reports its appearance here (see the bottom of the text at http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/support-for-peter-duesberg-and-hiv-aids-dissent-as-worth-examining.htm) and deplores the move by paradigm promoters to censor it. The references are also listed. David Rasnick also carries the pdf at his site at http://ww.w.davidrasnick.com/Home_files/Goodson%202014.pdf It should be noted that the misleading heading “OPINION ARTICLE” has been substituted after publication on the Web by Frontiers editors for the original label on the article, “HYPOTHESIS AND THEORY ARTICLE”, which was more accurate and appropriate, as these original pdf copies show. The article is, after all, no more and no less than an accurate and objective history of the multitude of objections in peer reviewed journals continuously raised over thirty years to the as yet unproven hypothesis that the disease labeled HIV-AIDS is caused by HIV. Given the weight of the counted objections in leading peer reviewed journals, and the rigorous quality of the most important by Duesberg which are still unanswered, Goodson did conclude that the public interest dictates that her public health colleagues reassess the dogma for themselves. But this does not indicate that her analysis is biased or inaccurate.
    31 Jan 2015 at 04:58pm

    Robert Houston PubMed is a service provided by the National Library of Medicine, a component of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, which is the center and origin of HIV-AIDS dogma. Thus, PubMed and the NLM may well have been pressured by NIH politics to remove the listing to Goodson’s even-handed review. At this time, the removal can’t be blamed directly on Frontiers, which still makes the article available at its own and other sites, including Google Scholar. However, the editors’ inexplicable removal of the abstract (now the first paragraph) may have made the article unacceptable to abstracting services, such as PubMed.
    01 Feb 2015 at 11:10pm

    UserComment deleted on 16 Feb 2015, 10:27am

    UserComment deleted on 16 Feb 2015, 10:27am

    Phillip S Duke Dr. Goodson seems to have overlooked several very important lines of research in her review. For one example, Dr. Christl Meyer has published impeccable research showing that “HIV” virus genes are encoded by the MHC locus of the human genome. Her web site contains all the links to her powerpoint slides, publications, commentary on her publications, and so on. Her seminal publication on AIDS “Reconciliation between Pure Scientists and AIDS-Dissidents: Could an ancient retrovirus, RNA-interference and stress be the answer to the divergent opinions ?” Does not provide all the details, but her powerpoint show illustrates (see slide 63) that the HIV genome is found in the human MHC locus on human chromosome
    6.12 Feb 2015 at 11:31pm

    Giampaolo Minetti
    Another epicycle?
    Speaking of indexed papers, I don’t seem to find any from Christi Meyer in the PubMed… Where could we find this alleged “Reconciliation” paper?
    13 Feb 2015 at 01:47am

    Frontiers From Frontiers Communications Office: Please note that, due to some abuse of the commentary section for this article, this discussion is now moderated. We will moderate any posts with personal attacks, threatening/offensive language, or allegations about misconduct that cannot be verified.
    Today at 11:22am

    Frontiers The terms and conditions for using our platform are here: http://www.frontiersin.org/WebTerms.aspx
    Today at 11:22am

    David R. Crowe Rene, perhaps you could invite Dr. Kalichman to write an article on why he thinks “The Earth is spherical”, not ellipsoidal. As he stated, this is one of his truths, “established by an accumulation of accepted and irrefutable facts”.
    Today Feb 17 at 01:32pm

    Anthony Liversidge Since the Frontiers site extends the unusually civil option of allowing commenters to edit their comments for accuracy after posting, perhaps the moderator could mark them for erasure in two days time to allow them to be edited for tone, in order to avoid loss of scientifically relevant information? To avoid the loss in this case, readers may find them at Science Guardian under comments at the post http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/support-for-peter-duesberg-and-hiv-aids-dissent-as-worth-examining.htm#comment-12458
    Today Feb 17 1.56pm

    =====================================
    The Spanish Comment proved too difficult for Google Translate to make much sense of.

  14. Anthony Liversidge Says:

    The moderator has removed the following Comments also from the Kalichman Commentary page

    David M Burd: To Seth Kalichman: Your diatribe is symptomatic of someone rabid or crazed, but even rabid animals deserve our sympathy. I suggest you take the one-a-day antiretroviral drug for Hiv called Atripla to calm down. In fact, I assure you it works, as you assuredly will soon be dead – and no longer suffer from your illusions.

    Henry Bauer: Kalichman’s integrity and credibility is described in my article “STRANGE CASE OF DR. JEKYLL-KALICHMAN AND MR. HYDE-NEWTON” available at https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/56983081/JekyllKalichmanTale.pdf
    Kalichman transgressed the ethical guidelines of his profession by pretending to be a graduate student, to deceive people he regarded as “denialists” as he tried to find out more about them instead of simply and honestly interviewing them. The deception yielded him nothing.
    Feb 10.

    Three others lost to me. If any copies please advise thanks. They are probably by Terry Michael, and repeats of his posts in the other pages related to this paper. But he advises that he lacks direct copies.

    Here are the Kalichman page comments after the erasure this morning Feb 16:

    1 Likes – René Michael Malenfant. 12 Comments – Frontiers , J Todd Todd DeShong, Anthony Liversidge, Roger Swan, David R. Crowe,

    Robert Houston Dr. Kalichman acknowledges that “Patricia Goodson has actually performed a public service.” He does not note any factual error in the information she provides. His main concern is that the credentials and accomplishments of the HIV critics are given without condemning them as “discredited” by virtue of offbeat opinions. But Dr. Goodson’s approach is more mature and scholarly: she sticks to the issues.

    As a true believer, Kalichman presents HIV-causes-AIDS as an unquestionable dogma and ignores the scientific issues in Goodson’s review. His argument is circular: those who dissent from orthodoxy are thereby discredited, hence there’s no credibility in their dissent. For example, the retrovirologist Etienne De Harven, MD, author of “Ten Lies about AIDS,” is termed “discredited” because he’s a “former president of Rethinking AIDS.” But he was also head of Electron Microscopy at Sloan-Kettering and a professor of pathology. Dr. Henry Bauer, who was a professor of chemistry, is dismissed because he edited a journal open to controversial ideas. Similarly, Nobel laureate Dr. Kary Mullis, whose invention of PCR is important to HIV testing, is dismissed for having been a “user of LSD” and UFO believer. Dr. Rebecca Culshaw is termed a “non-scientist” and “math instructor,” though she’s been an assistant professor and mathematical biologist who published peer-reviewed studies on mathematical models of HIV immunology. Biochemist Dr. David Rasnick, a developer of protease inhibitors such as used in AIDS, is decried for consulting on an African clinical trial of multivitamins. Yet clinical trials of multivitamins for HIV-AIDS in Africa conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health reported benefits (E. Liu et al, J Int AIDS Soc. 16:18022, 2013).

    The molecular biologist Dr. Peter Duesberg is misrepresented as having “never conducted any research on HIV,” when in fact he has published over 24 research studies on HIV and AIDS, mostly in peer-reviewed journals. His 2011 publication (at Duesberg.com) demolishes assertions that lack of anti-HIV drugs caused the loss of “330,000 South Africans” – a fanciful figure 5 times the total AIDS deaths in the years concerned. In addition, Kalichman writes that Duesberg “claims there are no genetic influences in any form of cancer.” In reality, his aneuploid theory affirms the role in cancer of chromosome imbalances involving numerous genes. Duesberg and the others are termed “AIDS denialists,” yet they do not deny the phenomenon of AIDS but rather the hypothesis of HIV as cause. Its originator, Dr. Robert Gallo, was in fact officially convicted for scientific misconduct by the Office of Research Integrity in 1992 (see Duesberg, Inventing the AIDS Virus, p. 162, 166).
    06 Feb 2015 at 12:08am

    Anthony Liversidge Professor Kalichman rejects the very well written Goodson paper recounting the peer reviewed scientific and lay challenges of very many critics and authors to the belief that HIV causes HIV/AIDS as if they were all unqualified and the notion was as obvious and true as the earth is round. But in fact it remains an unproven hypothesis that HIV is the cause of HIV/AIDS, despite the name, and the whole point of Goodson’s paper is that many of the critics are very well qualified, the challenges are very credible, serious, logically overwhelming and undefeated. Therefore she reasonably concludes that her public health colleagues should make their own assessment.

    The most serious challenges in leading peer reviewed journals were laid out by Peter Duesberg of Berkeley in Cancer Research and in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in the late eighties and have never been contradicted in the same journals. Not a peep, even by letter. But perhaps Professor Kalichman would like to offer either of these journals a rebuttal, which he is apparently convinced would be as easy as showing the world is round.

    Unfortunately he offers no glimpse of this possible devastating rebuttal. Instead his commentary entirely consists of questioning the credentials and credibility of HIV critics, and stating as facts claims by HIV scientists based on the same unproven assumption. Assuming the very conclusion that is being debated, one so far unproven in any scientific paper, he reasons that therefore all critics are by definition “denialists” without valid scientific objections or qualifications to challenge the status quo.

    But the credentials and scientific qualifications of the critics are quite sufficient to analyze the defects of HIV dogma, perhaps since its faults are so obvious, and many, starting with the remarkable, in fact unique, claim that antibodies can be infectious and cause a pandemic (see http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/world-aids-day-yet-again-undisturbed-by-rationality.htm Certainly the science of Duesberg, the leading scientist who pointed first to the fallacies inherent in HIV based explanations of AIDS, has always been recognized as impeccable. In fact, Nobelist Walter Gilbert at Harvard used to use Duesberg’s papers on HIV/AIDS as specimens to teach graduate students how to challenge a paradigm. Kalichman, a psychologist, misstates Duesberg’s views on genes and cancer, as Houston points out. Perhaps his own understanding is in question?

    Such an ad hominem diatribe has no place as commentary in a journal which takes its scientific standards very seriously.
    08 Feb 2015 at 02:35am|Edit|Delete

    UserComment deleted on 16 Feb 2015, 10:15am

    UserComment deleted on 16 Feb 2015, 10:39am

    UserComment deleted on 16 Feb 2015, 10:17am

    UserComment deleted on 16 Feb 2015, 10:43am

    Roger Swan Thank you to all of the above for your lucid rejoinders to Kalichman’s known modus operandi. Patricia Goodson’s retrospective look at the evidence attesting to the causal claims of the HIV was a study in clarity given the tortured history of this terribly destructive fraud. It is to be regretted that a publication carrying the weighty title of Frontiers in Public Health seems unable to distinguish between credible objective recounting and crude, subjective, personal attacks.
    12 Feb 2015 at 07:00pm

    Anthony Liversidge Since Kalichman’s career is heavily invested in HIV psychology research and a related book attacking HIV critics, is he the right author anyway to comment on Goodson’s paper on a topic in which she has no conflict of interest?
    13 Feb 2015 at 02:09am|Edit|DeleteJ

    Todd Todd DeShong Of course the only people flocking to the comment section of this article are themselves AIDS Denailists. They are desperate to tear down this article for it is only through attacks can they preserve their long discredited ideals. (I guess they never thought that perhaps they should do some actual research to prove their theories.) Scientists no longer attempt to debate these people. Back in the early part of the 21st Century there were robust attempts to meticulously provide detailed explanations to these people. But after seeing that 30+ years of solid science as well as sincere attempts to explain the data did not change their minds, real scientists stopped trying. Now when silly articles like the one by Ms. Goodson pop up from time to time, there is only an attempt to show rational and logical people who might be persuaded by this nonsense why it should be ignored. That is what Dr. Kalichman has so adroitly done here and why the deniers have swarmed to attack Dr. Kalichman. It is also interesting to note that they all accuse Dr. Kalichman of ad hominem attacks while attacking Dr. Kalichman with ad hominems. The hypocrisy is staggering, but not surprising. And BTW, Dr. Kalichman went under cover as Joe Newton as a good investigative reporter would do not to spy, but to gather pertinent information on the subjects for a book. And it is a very well written and well researched book on AIDS Denialists.
    Yesterday at 03:56pm

    Frontiers From Frontiers Communications Office: Please note that, due to some abuse of the commentary section for this article, this discussion is now moderated. We will moderate any posts with personal attacks, threatening/offensive language, or allegations about misconduct that cannot be verified.
    Today at 11:21am

    Frontiers The terms and conditions for using our platform are here: http://www.frontiersin.org/WebTerms.aspx
    Today at 11:21am

    HERE are further Comments added today till Feb 17 2.45am NY time.

    David R. Crowe While research grants are not technically a conflict of interest, they do indicate how much a particular researcher has invested in a particular theory. Seth Kalichman has received $37 million in grants from the NIH since 1994 for HIV/AIDS (not including grants on which he was not principal investigator, or from other organizations). If criticisms of the HIV=AIDS theory had been accepted in the 1980s Kalichman might never have received any of these grants, and his career would have had to be in a different field, and probably would not have been anywhere near as lucrative (as, per-patient, AIDS is the best funded disease). Furthermore, if the defenders of the orthodoxy wanted to find someone eager to act on their behalf, who better than someone so heavily dependent on one organization for his income, status and position within his institution (that benefits from all these grants)? You can replicate this query at: http://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm
    Yesterday at 05:53pmJ

    Todd Todd DeShong Most researchers concentrate on a particular field of study. The grants a researcher receives does not go into his/her personal bank account…not even a portion of it. Although I understand what Mr. Crowe is insinuating, his comment is irrelevant. That is why I have such a problem with AIDS Denialists and others who tear down a particular scientific theory and claim it to be bogus when they have no formal education nor experience in that field. It is the height of arrogance. I would suggest they stop trying to find fault in peer reviewed literature and do some research of their own. Formulate a hypothesis and go into the lab and do the work. See if your results support your hypothesis and publish the results in a reputable journal. OR find a particular paper that you find lacking and replicate it and see if you get the same results. In other words, stop being arm chair quarterbacks and do the work.
    Yesterday at 06:21pm

    Peter Heinz Duesberg At the end of his emotional critique of Pat Goodson’s, “Questioning the HIV-AIDS …” professor Kalichman states that “the research” for his critique “was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest”.

    However, in view of the facts that professor Kalichman has
    (1) written a book, “Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy” (2009) and
    (2) has received US-federal grants for his research on HIV-AIDS for $32,896,878.00 by the end of 2014 (),
    his statement that there is no “potential conflict of interest” seems less than credible.
    Yesterday at 07:28pm

    Seth Kalichman It is good for readers to see that the AIDS Deniers are still at it. Regretfully some comments have been removed. I hope they try again and pass through the filter of the moderators. I believe the editors and readers of Frontiers are getting a quick lesson in AIDS Denialism.
    Regarding my conflicts of interest. I still claim none for my Commentary. Royalties for my book Denying AIDS, published by Copernicus Books,are donated to the Family Treatment Fund to buy HIV treatments in Africa. And the NIH neither supported my work on the book nor my writing the commentary.
    Yesterday at 08:13pm

    Anthony Liversidge Professor Kalichman’s problem as a commentator or responder is possibly not conflict of interest as such if this is now a debate between two opinions. Doing research and writing papers and books in a field based on his fond belief in the HIV paradigm is apparently why he was chosen to oppose Goodson’s conclusion that the matter should be looked into further. He is known to be reliably prejudiced in that way, and there is no conflict of interest in his responding to the editors’ invitation. He was asked to provide an counter viewpoint in what is now represented as a debate between two opinions.

    But Goodson’s paper is not an ‘opinion’ paper that calls for debate between two viewpoints. Goodson has written an evidently open minded report without prejudice, a factual survey of the objections raised by critics to HIV, a claim that has notoriously lacked scientific proof for 30 years. She reports that the criticisms are overwhelming in quantity, often of high quality, that most if not all are still outstanding, that the most thorough are in papers unanswered in the same peer reviewed leading journals, and from critics often very expert in the field.

    Her finding that further review from public health professionals is appropriate does not call for a balancing “opinion”, especially one which it turns out merely questions the credentials of HIV critics. Professor Kalichman’s Commentary was invited according to the publisher only because the unscientific objection was made by HIV proponents that the HIV paradigm was certain, and that any opening up of the issue was therefore unjustified by definition and “dangerous” to standard HIV/AIDS health practice.

    But Goodson reported that the paradigm was uncertain given the accumulated mass of expert disagreement with it. The only relevant Commentary would be an open minded assessment as to whether she wrote an accurate paper. Frontiers peer reviewers found she did. Kalichman evidently agrees, since he does not point to any inaccuracies. No other commenter has pointed to any factual inaccuracy.

    Kalichman’s work has all been carried out for 30 years on the premise that causal HIV is correct, and he evidently does not feel it should be challenged. But if he agreed there was in fact an unresolved issue, as Goodson has found, he would be undermining the main premise of all the work he has done, and the book he has written.

    Therefore the critics are right to complain he is prejudiced in opposing her recommendation.
    Today at 01:13am|Edit|Delete

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

    Some might feel that the label “AID denailists” (sic) was abusive, but apparently not.

  15. Anthony Liversidge Says:

    Terry Michael has added a comment to the Patricia Goodson page:

    Terry P Michael The “moderator” took down my comments to this article. Yet you left this one:

    René Michael Malenfant Coming soon from Frontiers in Geology, the great new article: “Questioning the ellipsoidal earth hypothesis: 3000 years of dissent”.
    To be followed by a spectacular special issue in Frontiers in Chemistry: “I am Phlogiston (And So Can You!)”
    HIV denialism would be laughable if it were not irresponsible and deadly.
    26 Sep 2014 at 01:23am

    He uses the pejorative “denialism”, a transparent ploy to equate dissent from the HIV=AIDS paradigm with Holocaust denialists–an obvious crude attempt to shut down debate. And he calls dissent “deadly,” which equates to calling us murderers. I have no objection to leaving that comment up, because it shows how desperate has become the virtual industry surrounding HIV=AIDS. The long list of anomalies from orthodox HIV=AIDS theory can’t be answered by those like Mr. Malenfant, so they resort to sarcastic non-sequiturs and shrill cries of “deadly.” Ironically, Malenfant’s silliness was an attack on Frontiers editors. It matters not to me whether you restore my comments that you censored, which is the correct description for your “moderation.” But you might at least apply the same standards.

    —————————–

    The outspoken Terry Michael has written an unusually solid and well informed expose of the lethal drug situation in HIV/AIDS at

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31816360/AIDS_War_Profiteering_with_PrEP_by_Terry_Michael_Nov2014.pdf

    He nails Gilead and Anthony Fauci:

    “Gilead, the worldwide revenue leader in sales of HIV anti-retrovirals–over $9 billion in 2013, in a nearly $20 billion HIV drug sector of the pharmaceutical market–is a Biblically-named (“balm of Gilead,” Jeremiah 8:22 ) and politically very well connected company in Foster City, CA. NIAID director Fauci placed the CEO of Gilead, Dr. John C. Martin, on his “advisory council” over 14 years ago, in March 2000, ten months before Gilead’s then Board Chairman Donald Rumsfeld resigned to be in President George W. Bush’s cabinet as Secretary of the Dept. of Defense. Several years into Rumsfeld’s tenure, the DOD stockpiled millions of units of Gilead’s then cash-cow drug, TamiFlu, which since has been judged as nearly or totally useless as a flu palliative.
    When TamiFlu receded as Gilead’s big money-maker, the company’s extremely expensive ($1,000 to $2,500 a month) single pill, combination drug anti-retrovirals, beginning with Viread, then Atripla, Truvada, and Complera, and now Stribild, have helped catapult the corporation’s stock price from the low $20s in early 2012 to approaching $110 by September 2014.

    Martin has made Forbes magazine’s top ten list of highest compensated CEO’s in America during several recent years ($40-$50 million in annual compensation.) Fauci, holding the directorship of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases for an unprecedented 30 years (as of November 3, 2014,) was one of the top three highest paid employees, at $335,000, among two
    million U.S. civil servants in 2011 (according to Government Executive magazine.)

    In a position not even requiring U.S. Senate confirmation, Fauci has amassed informal bureaucratic power and influence over HIV-AIDS medical science research, similar to the clout amassed over decades by the late FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. Fauci has cultivated a career as the media’s face of federal AIDS policy, with the help of an aggressive NIAID public relations effort
    in his behalf. The billions in NIH/NIAID research dollars he has directed to HIV-AIDS have far exceeded outlays for diseases and conditions that take many more lives and cause much more
    illness. The son of a Brooklyn, NY pharmacist, the 73-year-old Fauci has aggressively advocated immediate drug treatment of HIV positives, whether or not they have AIDS-defining conditions, or
    any disease at all, as well as drugging HIV negatives for PrEP.

    To understand, by analogy, the danger of the PrEP concept, suppose a physician were to give a healthy gay man a standing prescription for daily use of an anti-biotic pill to “protect” him from exposure to gonorrhea on trips to a bath house and from multiple anonymous sexual hook-ups without condoms. Such a drug would certainly damage the intestinal microbiome over time,
    wiping out many of the trillions of “good gut bacteria” responsible for our first-line of defense from pathogens, our innate immunity, which works together with our adaptive immune system. Use of anti-biotics for “prophylaxis” would most certainly be termed medical malpractice, violating the
    physicians’ oath to “first, do no harm.” Prescriptions for daily use of Truvada, with its well assessed short and long-term adverse effects, constitutes the same malpractice.”

    Terry Michael is currently working on a book, which judging from this piece of it could be a blockbuster.

  16. Anthony Liversidge Says:

    Robert Houston has noted that the Goodson article is back on PubMed, along with other new Comments on the page, in particular a fine endorsement by an escapee from HIV/AIDS brainwashing whom reports all his fellow HIV positives are now dead:

    Robert Houston On 31 Jan 2015, Prof. Minetti commented that the Goodson article “is no longer visible in Pubmed.” I noticed today that its title is back up on PubMed and can be found both by title and by author (Goodson P). The article is also listed at Google Scholar along with the first two sentences of the first paragraph (which was formerly the abstract).
    Yesterday at 09:29pm

    Giampaolo Minetti As Dr Houston wrote a few posts above, the Goodson article was rearranged so as to remove the abstract (now still present as the first paragraph), which could have made the article unacceptable by abstracting services such as Pubmed. But Pubmed lists many articles without providing the abstract. Unfortunately, the Goodson paper is now listed without the abstract, but this is a lesser evil when compared to the outright blacklisting of the paper.
    Today at 02:24am

    Greg Baysans As one of the “(m)illions of lives, worldwide, (who) have been and will be significantly affected by an HIV or AIDS diagnosis” (I was diagnosed as “HIV positive” in 1998, nearly seventeen years ago), I can’t agree more with this article’s excellent conclusion that health workers should be among the first to question the “HIV causes AIDS” mistaken theory that has caused countless unnecessary deaths over the decades.

    In the seventeen years I’ve been branded as “suspect” with regard to my health and contagion-potential, I have had no AIDS-related illnesses or symptoms. For nearly six years I did take ARVs at the suggestion (insistence?) of my doctor, an HIV “specialist” — though such doctors are more likely to give orders and prescriptions than suggestions or information regarding alternative treatment(s).

    Upon the loss of a job and insurance coverage for the expensive drugs I was taking (the cost to my insurance company equaled my take-home pay at the low-level job I had at the time, from which I was fired, possibly due to the dent I added to the company insurance tab), I began belatedly to investigate many things — the origin of the “HIV equals AIDS” theory, the efficacy of the drugs and possible health consequences to stopping them, the new (to me) “unorthodox” or “dissident” point of view.

    What I learned was illuminating and life-changing. I find the “unorthodox” (dissident) viewpoint the one that makes sense of the whole AIDS/HIV confusion — the many re-definitions of AIDS over the years, the fact that I’ve “survived” seventeen years when friends in the 80s and 90s died within a year or two of learning they were “infected with HIV” (and within a year or two of being prescribed AZT and other early HIV treatments).

    This article is beyond excellent; it should be required reading for health professionals, experienced and new, “experts” and non-experts on HIV, as well as those in the general public who are affected by this and can comprehend the complex issues it presents. (Unfortunately the average citizen has been so dumbed-down that reading of this level is not possible. This is another factor in the success of the “orthodox” view of AIDS and HIV: it is easy to understand by the general public: a virus exists that is transmitted sexually and which can kill. That such an “easy” explanation is not actually proven makes no difference. The fear factor and “majority rules” overrule the holes in the theory.)
    Today at 03:46am

  17. Anthony Liversidge Says:

    More comments at Frontiers Goodson paper:

    Mika Thane Let me tell you what it was like in the 1990s.

    In 1995 I was 30 years old. We had already lived through over a decade of the plague, seeing dozens of our friends – vibrant young men in their prime – struck down by a cruel and unremitting disease. Wasted, blind from CMV, incontinent with diarrhea, disfigured with KS, feverish, sometimes demented at the end. 1994 and 1995 were the worst, far too many funerals, it was relentless, we were exhausted with a grief that had settled on our lives like a permanent fog.

    Then in 1996 the funerals suddenly stopped. Friends and loved ones we thought were near the end got up out of their beds and tentatively went back out into the world. Others who had cashed in their retirement plans expecting to be dead within a year found themselves having to look for work, and plan for new futures that seemed unthinkable only months before. Would it last? 1997 came around and then 1998, and at last it dawned on us that it was over, that relief had finally arrived.

    Except it wasn’t a miracle – it was science, the result of years of work by thousands of dedicated researchers and physicians who had finally figured out how to combine drugs to durably suppress the virus that had killed so many of our friends. It wasn’t perfect – it didn’t work for everyone, and the side effects of these handfuls of pills were often horrendous. But it gets better. And it did.

    Twenty years later I read this article by Dr Goodson and I am gobsmacked. It is as though the awful plague years we lived through, and the miracle of cART never happened. In Goodson’s upside down world having HIV antibodies means you’ve defeated the virus. And the virus doesn’t actually exist – it’s just an endogenous cellular product. And the medications don’t treat the disease, they actually cause it. And all my friends that died? Well they just did too many poppers and other drugs and should have stopped sooner. So there.

    Goodson’s associates at Rethinking AIDS have been running an internet campaign to try to convince people with HIV/AIDS that their disease is a hoax, that it can’t be transmitted, and that they should reject medical care. The results of their misinformation are often tragic. It is as though the last 20 years never happened, and they want us all to relive the nightmare years of the 1980s and early 1990s.

    This paper was peer reviewed before it was published, and then reviewed again by experts in immunology and public health. Can someone explain why it is still up? For the scientists, clinicians and others who have fought so hard to defeat this disease, publishing this paper must seem like a betrayal of sorts. It certainly feels that way to me.
    21 Feb 2015 at 06:28pm

    David R. Crowe Well, Mika, it is true that if you substitute lower doses and less toxic drugs the death rate will go down. Gay men were being poisoned less slowly. And then a couple of years later the death rate from liver disease, and other protease-inhtibitor-related illnesses increased. The docs started with 1500 mg of AZT, and then when the PIs came out, the total dosage was about 1000 mg, divided between two or three drugs, so the total dose of nucleoside analog was now only about 500 mg per day. The Darby paper in Nature in 1995 shows that the hemophiliac death rate started increasing in 1987, the year that AZT came out. So by 1996, everyone who’d gone on the AZT bandwagon was dead, so the death rate would have gone down anyway, for that reason. And those who were late to the party got less toxic medications, so they lasted longer. None of this proves that antivirals were needed in the first place.
    21 Feb 2015 at 08:55pm

    Mika Thane David, AZT was approved for the treatment only of symptomatic AIDS and advanced ARC in 1987. The initially approved dose was 200 mg every four hours, which adds up to 1000-1200 mg daily, depending on whether you had 5 or 6 doses.

    Before AZT the median survival following a diagnosis of AIDS was 11 months. AZT added an extra 6 to 12 months of life expectancy on average, if you could tolerate it.

    http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/29772315?sid=21105920839073&uid=4&uid=2&uid=3737536

    The approved dose was halved in January 1990 when dose-response studies showed that the lower dose was equally effective, and had significantly fewer side effects. Approval was also subsequently expanded to asymptomatic people with HIV and a CD4 count less than 500. Throughout the period 1990 to 1995 the standard dose of AZT was 500 – 600 mg daily.

    http://articles.latimes.com/1990-01-16/news/mn-316_1_azt-dose

    Early combination antiretroviral therapy from late 1995 on typically consisted of 600 mg of AZT daily plus 300 mg of the nucleoside analogue 3TC, plus either a protease inhibitor or nevirapine. There was no dose reduction of AZT with the introduction of combination therapy compared to what had been used for six years beforehand – rather, the death rates dropped because of the use of two or more additional drugs in the regimen. AZT has been largely replaced by better-tolerated and more effective drugs over the past decade, but when it is still used the standard adult dose is still 600 mg daily.

    Haemophiliac death rates only increased in the late 1980s among HIV infected patients, not among HIV negatives. Death rates increased because the incidence of AIDS in this group increased sharply from about 1985, as would be expected in a population who were nearly all infected with HIV over a short period in the late 70s and early 80s. The huge increase in AIDS incidence cannot be a result of AZT, because during this period AZT was only approved for use AFTER a diagnosis of AIDS or advanced ARC.
    21 Feb 2015 at 09:45pm

    David R. Crowe “The occurrence of severe anemia, although more common in the 500-mg[per day] zidovudine [AZT] group than the placebo groiup (5 cases vs. 1 case), was rare in both grouips. The subjects in the 1500-mg group, however, had higher rates of anemia (6.3%) and neutropenia (6.3%).”
    Volberding PA et al. Zidovudine in asymptomatic human immunodeficiency virus infection: a controlled trial in persons with fewer than 500 CD4-positive cells per cubic millimeter. N Engl J Med. 1990 Apr 5; 322(14): 941–9.

    If HIV was the cause of death among hemophiliacs then the death rate would have risen dramatically in the early 1980s … but it rose only in late 1986/1987 (and a lot were probably in AZT clinical trials). And the reason it only rose in HIV+ hemophiliacs (drum roll please) was because only HIV+ hemophiliacs took AZT.

    Furthermore, although the theory was that AIDS required ‘advanced’ ARC or AIDS it’s quite clear that doctors were enamored with the CD4 count alone, despite its documented weaknesses. Recognizing this the Concorde trial was changed partway through to allow diagnosis solely on this basis. Before that “Advanced ARC” was two consecutive CD4 counts under 200, plus two vague symptoms such as fever and diarrhea. So nothing like “AIDS” was required to start AZT.

    As an interesting note, during the Concorde trial, only 3 (three) people were not on AZT at the time of their death.
    Yesterday at 11:42am

    David R. Crowe And Mika Thane, is this your real name? If not, why are you hiding it? And are you providing false information about your location to Frontiers? Are you really in Canada, or are you in Mumbai, as provided to YouTube? Why is this secrecy and subterfuge necessary in a scientific discussion?

    Anthony Liversidge Mika Thane, the extensive literature surveyed by Prof Goodson is apparently not something you wish to read through, even though it contains the answers to every one of the questions you raise. But at the minimum perhaps you would like to read Prof Duesberg’s original papers in Cancer Research in 1987 and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 1989, which Goodson referenced and which are also mentioned above in Comments, which reviewed the HIV assumption and found it completely untenable, for reasons which remain current, as Duesberg’s later papers have confirmed, and have not been answered in the thirty years since in those same high level journals. Possibly you will find some error missed by the editors and the exceptionally many peer reviewers.

    Given your surprise and shock that you have been ‘gobsmacked’ it would also be worth reading Inventing the AIDS Virus (Regnery, 1996) by Duesberg and Oncogenes, Aneuploidy and AIDS: The Life and Scientific Times of Peter Duesberg (North Atlantic Books, 2004) by Harvey Bialy if you have the time to gain a clear view of the science politics which has obscured the views of insiders and outsiders in this debate, and which accounts for your understandable resistance to the possibility that Goodson’s paper is as accurate as the peer reviewers found.
    24 Feb 2015 at 02:27pm|

    Mika Thane Thank you David for finally acknowledging that the dose of AZT in early HAART combinations was 600 mg daily, rather than what you originally said, which was “the total dose of nucleoside analog was now only about 500 mg per day”. Given that HAART regimens also included 300 mg a day of lamivudine (3TC), this would imply that the AZT dose was 200 mg a day.

    So we are halfway there.

    No-one disputes that high doses of AZT were used in the 1980s. The original Fischl trial used 1500 mg, which we know was way too high. Dose-response studies in conducted in 1987 – 89 compared doses up to 1500 mg with lower doses. Concorde (which started in 1988) used the standard dose of that time, which was 1000 mg.

    But we are not talking about the 1980s. We are talking about the period 1990 to 1995, which is the relevant period immediately prior to the introduction of cART, which, as you say, included 600 mg daily of AZT.

    The AZT monotherapy dose from the start of 1990 all the way through to 1995 was 500 to 600 mg daily. There was no reduction in the AZT dose coincident with the introduction of cART from late 1995 on, as you originally suggested. It had already been reduced six years earlier, following the completion of the dose-response studies in 1987-89. I linked you the LA Times report to give you the precise date.

    So Henry’s assertion – that AZT monotherapy in 1990-95 was “obviously” more toxic than the same dose of AZT combined with 3TC and either nevirapine or one or two protease inhibitors – is patently untrue. Do you agree?
    Yesterday at 03:34pm

    Henry Hermann Bauer Mika Thane: The therapy in 1990-95—no matter what it used—was, yes, OBVIOUSLY more toxic than the cocktails, because the mortality immediately dropped by half when it was replaced.
    Yesterday at 04:56pm

    Mika Thane Henry, your “obvious” conclusion depends on a premise – that the large number of deaths in 1990 to 1995 among people with HIV/AIDS were actually caused not by the disease but by the treatment. This premise is held as a central dogma by HIV/AIDS denialists.

    The fact is, the treatments after late 1995 were actually more toxic than the AZT monotherapy used in the five or six years before. They included the same dose of AZT (actually 100 mg more in some cases), but combined with two or more additional antiretroviral drugs including 3TC, nevirapine and early protease inhibitors. And yet deaths, as you acknowledge, plummeted with the new regimen.

    What does this tell you about your premise?
    Yesterday at 05:21pm

    David R. Crowe Mika Thane, Where is your evidence that AZT was routinely dropped to the levels of pill combinations, like Combivir, that came along later? I have an article from 1990 that refers to 1000 to 1200 mg as a “therapeutic dose” and, in response to severe anemia, 400mg as a “low dose”. This is in the NEJM. So clearly your assertion that AZT mono therapy was already dropped to 500-600 mg is false.
    Yesterday at 06:46pm

    Henry Hermann Bauer David et al:
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    I am not going to attempt any longer to talk sense to Mika. He cannot distinguish actual data (mortality) from speculations about relative toxicities at various doses. MORTALITY DROPPED BY HALF IN 1996. THEREFORE the later “treatment” was less toxic than the former.
    Yesterday at 07:10pm

    Greg Baysans Since we’re now on to recommending books, I also recommend John Crewdson’s “Science Fictions” for an amazing expose on the amount of “doctoring” that “Dr.” Gallo did on his papers and tests.Yesterday at 09:55pm

    David R. Crowe Greg, don’t forget the entire title: “Science fictions: A scientific mystery, a massive cover-up, and the dark legacy of Robert Gallo”. But definitely recommended.
    Today at 12:31am

    Anthony Liversidge Henry Bauer I dont think you have in fact answered Mika’s point. If there was more AZT included in the cocktail after 1995, and mortality halved, then it must be acknowledged that AZT was not causing the higher mortality before 1995. Otherwise it would have caused even higher mortality post 1995. Unless the protease inhibitors somehow ameliorated its effect. Presumably they did otherwise there would have been no sudden halving of mortality. If Mika’s figures are correct, protease inhibitors were the answer – to AZT at least!

    Mika’s assertion that AZT was not diluted by protease inhibitors seems prima facie wrong, however. Last time we looked at the figures the share of AZT was reduced until finally about 2006 it disappeared from the standard regimen.

    Re Books May we note that readers unaware of the dominant role of politics in this and other modern scientific controversies will find a comprehensive handbook in Prof Bauer’s volume Dogmatism in Science and Medicine: How Dominant Theories Monopolize Research and Stifle the Search for Truth (McFarland, May 2012) which is currently the most penetrating work extant on this vital but neglected topic.

    Mika Thane David, I would be very surprised if a 1990 NEJM article would refer to 1200 mg daily AZT as a dose *in current use* after January in that year. But you have not provided any form of citation other than “I have an article”, so it’s a bit hard for anyone to check.

    Are you sure that it wasn’t a report published in 1990 of a study that was in fact conducted in the years 1987-89, when 1000-1200 mg daily was the standard-of-care dose?

    The only reference I can find in a cursory search of the NEJM in 1990 to AZT doses actually in use in that year was in some correspondence critical of the conclusions of a study conducted in the late 80s and published in 1990 regarding the use of erythropoietin to treat anaemia in patients receiving AZT.

    Correspondents Shepp et al noted that “Because the mean daily dose of zidovudine at base line was considerably higher (750 mg) than those now [1990] recognized to be effective,2 , 3 many of the patients might have been treated successfully with dose reduction alone.”

    And in their reply the study’s authors noted that “At the end of the study, the dose of zidovudine in the erythropoietin-treated group remained 4336 mg per week [that works out to 619 mg per day] — at or above the current [1990] recommended dose.”

    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199010113231513

    I’m not sure why you are asking me for “evidence that AZT was routinely dropped to the levels of pill combinations, like Combivir [600 mg/day]” when I already gave you two links a couple of days ago. Perhaps you missed them in the thread-noise. One was a 1992 review that observed:

    “Early in 1990 the FDA modified the recommended dosage to 500 mg daily…”

    http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/29772315?sid=21105950293433&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3737536

    And just in case “early in 1990” was too vague for our purposes, I provided a newspaper report from the exact day the change was announced:

    http://articles.latimes.com/1990-01-16/news/mn-316_1_azt-dose
    Today at 04:02am

    Anthony Liversidge With all due respect to Mika Thane, any use of pseudonyms which disguise real identity seems to be barred by Frontiers rules:

    Prohibited Activities

    The following activities are prohibited on Frontiers’ websites and can result in your registration being suspended or terminated, which Frontiers expressly reserves the right to do, and in your being liable to indemnify Frontiers as provided in these Conditions……

    – Disguising your identity when interacting in any way on Frontiers’ websites
    Today at 09:49am

    Mika Thane “Why,” asks Dr Goodson, “are not orthodox scientists and practitioners more willing to rethink the hypothesis or, at the very least, test the unorthodox arguments in a scientific, open debate?”

    I hope my discussion with David Crowe and Henry Hermann Bauer above will help readers to answer that question. Dr Goodson suggests that the reasons “lie in the complex, synergistic dynamics within the scientific, medical, economic, and political systems or ideologies worldwide”.

    Perhaps there is a simpler explanation.
    Yesterday at 05:20pm

    David R. Crowe Mika Thane. The simpler explanation is that AIDS scientists hate losing arguments. Going back to your first claim (which, since you insist on remaining anonymous, we can’t verify is true). You said, “1994 and 1995 were the worst, far too many funerals, it was relentless, we were exhausted with a grief that had settled on our lives like a permanent fog. Then in 1996 the funerals suddenly stopped.” It is true that the death rate (in the US) increased relentlessly in the early 1990s, from 36.5k in 1991 to 50k in 1995. And then it dropped in 1996, but only to 37.5k. Significant, certainly, but hardly enough to justify a cessation of funerals. In fact, after a rapid drop to about half the peak, the death rate in the US has remained relatively constant. Which makes one wonder about your personal testimony. Were all your friends who took AZT dead by now, so the new deaths were among people you didn’t know, as the circle of HIV testing spread far from the gay areas of a few major cities into every town and city? And if they were people you didn’t know, it’s like they didn’t exist. How to explain what is obviously an illusion or a delusion, that nobody was dying when in the year you said AIDS deaths stopped, they were still at 3/4 of the level of the previous year?
    Yesterday at 09:39pm

    Mika Thane David, I have pointed out that the standard-of-care AZT monotherapy dose between 1990 and 1995 was 500-600 mg daily, the same dose that was used in the early cART regimens. This is an easily demonstrable historical fact which completely falsifies a central HIV/AIDS denialist claim – that HIV/AIDS deaths during that period were actually caused by high dose AZT rather than the viral disease, and that the death rate only fell with the introduction of cART because the AZT dose was lowered at the same time.

    As you yourself put it, “Well, Mika, it is true that if you substitute lower doses and less toxic drugs the death rate will go down. Gay men were being poisoned less slowly [sic]. And then a couple of years later the death rate from liver disease, and other protease-inhtibitor-related illnesses increased. The docs started with 1500 mg of AZT, and then when the PIs came out, the total dosage was about 1000 mg, divided between two or three drugs, so the total dose of nucleoside analog was now only about 500 mg per day.”

    In fact there was no lowering of the AZT dose at the time cART was introduced widely from the end of 1995 – it had already been lowered six years earlier.

    I have provided you with linked references to a peer reviewed journal article, contemporary correspondence in the NEJM and even a historical newspaper article originally published on January 16th 1990, the day the dose reduction came into effect. You have, as expected, ignored this evidence.

    Instead, you continue to baldly insist that my assertion is “false”. You say you have proof of this, in the form of a mysterious NEJM article. But strangely, you have been unable to supply any actual details – author, title, date – of this paper you claim you have.

    Instead of addressing the facts, you have repeatedly tried to divert the discussion away from this central point of contention by introducing a barrage of barely coherent peripheral arguments and by making poorly-veiled appeals to the moderators to remove me from the discussion.

    Are we to assume that the proof you say you have does not actually exist, or does not say what you claim it says?
    Today at 01:14am

    David R. Crowe “We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial that compared early zidovudine therapy (beginning at 1500 mg per day) with late therapy in HIVinfected patients who were symptomatic and had CD4+ counts between 0.2×109 and 0.5×109 cells per liter (200 to 500 per cubic millimeter) at entry. Those assigned to late therapy initially received placebo and began zidovudine when their CD4+ counts fell below 0.2×109 per liter (200 per cubic millimeter) or when the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) developed…Leukopenia [white blood cell deficiency] occurred in 82% of the patients receiving early therapy and 77% of those receiving late therapy [AZT only when AIDS occurred]; 20% and 16%, respectively, had anemia. 14% and 10%, respectively, had severe leukopenia…and 5% and 2% had severe anemia requiring transfusion. Nausea (or vomiting) and diarrhea occurred more frequently in the early-therapy group than in the late-therapy group (40% vs. 23%, respectively; P <0.01)…The dosage of blinded study medication was reduced because of adverse reactions in 64 [38%] of the patients assigned to zidovudine (early therapy) and in 29 [17%] of those assigned to placebo (late therapy)…Once AIDS developed in patients receiving early therapy, more of them tended to have multiple AIDS diagnoses, a slightly higher proportion died, and the median survival time was slightly shorter than in similar patients who received late therapy”
    Hamilton JD et al. A Controlled Trial of Early versus Late Treatment with Zidovudine in Symptomatic Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection. N ENGL J Med. 1992; 326(7): 437–43. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199202133260703
    Today at 09:43am

    David R. Crowe “The subjects (92 percent male) were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: placebo (428 subjects); zidovudine, 500 mg per day (453); or zidovudine, 1500 mg per day (457).”
    Volberding PA et al. Zidovudine in asymptomatic human immunodeficiency virus infection: a controlled trial in persons with fewer than 500 CD4-positive cells per cubic millimeter. N Engl J Med. 1990 Apr 5; 322(14): 941–9. http://davidcrowe.ca/SciHealthEnv/papers/687-AZT-Under500CD4.pdfToday at 09:45amDavid R. Crowe “we conducted a randomized controlled trial in 524 subjects who had had a first episode of Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia. The subjects were assigned to receive zidovudine in either a dose of 250 mg taken orally every four hours (the standard-treatment group, n = 262) or a dose of 200 mg taken orally every four hours for four weeks and thereafter 100 mg taken every four hours (the low-dose group, n = 262).”
    Fischl MA et al. A randomized controlled trial of a reduced daily dose of Zidovudine in patients with the Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome. N Engl J Med. 1990; 323(15): 1009–14. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199010113231501
    Today at 09:50am

    David R. Crowe Mika Thane. The point you are totally missing is that you started this discussion from the point of view that we shouldn’t be having this discussion. It’s not simply whether you are right or I am right. The existence of the discussion has proved its own worth. The fact that you were unaware that 1500mg daily AZT was still being referred to as the normal dose well into the 1990s, your incredible claim that deaths suddenly stopped in 1996, when death statistics contradict that. All this points to the fact that you have started to believe the myths that were created through suppression of debate. At the very least you have proven that we should be having this discussion. Which is the very point of Dr. Goodson’s article. And justification for keeping it published. And kudos to the editors of Frontiers for seeing this most important point.
    Today at 12:17pm

    Mika Thane The first two of your articles, Hamilton et al and Volberding et al, report trials that began in 1987. The third, the Fischl et al study, began recruiting in December 1986. None of these three papers refer to AZT doses of 1000-1200 mg a day as being standard of care after January 1990, and in fact both the Volberding and Fischl studies provided much of the data that convinced the FDA to reduce the recommended dose in that month.

    Nor do any of these papers support your claim that “that 1500mg daily AZT was still being referred to as the normal dose well into the 1990s”.

    More to the point, none of these papers support your contention that the marked fall in AIDS deaths from late 1995 on coincided with a lowering of the AZT dose. Where is your evidence for this central claim of the dissident dogma?
    Today at 12:43pm

    Anthony Liversidge Mika Thane, What did Joseph Sonnabend tell POZ magazine in April 2006? That the AIDS leadership “made mistake after mistake” and that one of them was the initial 1500 mg dose of AZT – which “killed thousands, as did early intervention”.

    Arguing that AZT was a help to AIDS patients is absurd to anyone who has read Goodson above and checked the references. But of course other factors would interfere with a strict correlation year by year between AZT and deaths. For example, despite the recommended regimen doctors cooperated with patient revulsion in the 90s by allowing them to take ‘holidays’ and substitute other drugs. Believing that HIV was a worse threat to health than AZT is irrational, given all the impossibilities and inconsistencies in the accepted dogma. Only the vulnerability of sick patients accounts for them believing in this obvious mistake, or that other later drugs help them. Just check the CDC figures for current AIDS deaths here, and see how many are due to disease of liver and kidney, never claimed to be effects of HIV .

    Arguing the details of the correlation between AZT and the AIDS death rate year by year is a fool’s errand for these reasons but perhaps you wish it to be a distraction. Many other factors such as patient non compliance and other causes of decline may mess up any neat correlation, but nothing can obscure the fact that AZT helped sick patients die faster, and getting rid of it completely in the regimen by 2006 was based on that obvious fact, which Sonnabend stated and which became obvious even to the leadership. But not you?

    I personally asked Dr Robert Gallo in the late eighties if he would take AZT if he was found HIV positive and he said he would not hurry to do so.

    PS Maybe you would like to read Sonnabend’s reflections in 2011 on AZT:

    “If ever evidence was needed that AZT – at the initial recommended dose of 1500mg daily probably caused an excess mortality – the figure above provides it, despite the disingenuous claims of the authors that the deaths were due to AIDS. A rational response would have been to work out the minimum effective dose. Why stop at 600mg a day? 300mg a day is probably just as good. It is the dose I prescribed with no evidence that 300mg AZT daily was associated with a worse outcome…….

    “That the possibility that more people on the higher dose died from AZT toxicity is not even mentioned in the above report is a sad indication of what has become of the discussion of results section in a scientific paper, at least in the field of AIDS. Traditionally all possibilities are discussed, even to be dismissed, but not in this paper.”

    http://blogs.poz.com/joseph/archives/2011/01/_v_behaviorurldefaul.html
    Today at 05:45pm|

    Mika Thane Anthony: Diseases of the kidney are “never claimed to be effects of HIV”. Really?

    Rao TK, Filippone EJ, Nicastri AD, Landesman SH, Frank E, Chen CK, Friedman EA.
    Associated focal and segmental glomerulosclerosis in the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. N Engl J Med. 1984 Mar;310(11):669-73
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6700641

    Gardenswartz MH, Lerner CW, Seligson GR, Zabetakis PM, Rotterdam H, Tapper ML, Michelis MF, Bruno MS.
    Renal disease in patients with AIDS: a clinicopathologic study. Clin Nephrol. 1984 Apr;21(4):197-204
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6733986

    Pardo V, Aldana M, Colton RM, Fischl MA, Jaffe D, Moskowitz L, Hensley GT, Bourgoignie JJ.
    Glomerular lesions in the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. Ann Intern Med. 1984 Oct;101(4):429-34
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6476632

    etc, etc.

    And no, pointing out that AZT doses were not in fact reduced coincident with the rollout of cART is not a “distraction”. This is a central claim of the HIV/AIDS denialists. It is demonstrably untrue.

    What appears to be a fool’s errand is trying to get you and David and Henry to acknowledge that this claim is untrue, even in the face of irrefutable evidence.
    Yesterday at 06:37pm

    David R. Crowe Mika Thane Your desperation to wish away the 1500 mg dose is amusing. Clearly the papers are using 1500mg as a therapeutic dose even if they don’t use that precise phrase. Non-research doctors’ prescribing practices presumably changed slowly after the publication of increasing science and guidelines showing the high doses were deadly. And it’s prescribing practices that are most important to the people with AIDS. Perhaps you have a survey of what dose of AZT doctors preferred in the early 1990s?

    But here, perhaps you can explain why the death rate in Los Angeles took a downward dive, very steeply, starting in 1991? http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/ha/reports/angelenos/chapter4/angel4comd.pdf

    Is it possible that, in one of the early centers of “AIDS”, people got disenchanted with AZT earlier, and knew more about it’s deadly effects, and stopped taking it. Whereas, the CDC overall US statistics were still going upwards.
    Yesterday at 06:50pm

    Mika Thane No, David. These papers describe trials that began in 1986 and 1987, not standard of care after January 1990.

    “Non-research doctors’ prescribing practices presumably changed slowly after the publication of increasing science and guidelines”.

    You presume wrong. Apart from anything else, high dose AZT was horrendously expensive at $6,400 per year in 1990. No hospital pharmacy or insurer would be happy to pay an extra $3,200 a year to continue a treatment regimen that was not only no longer FDA-approved, but was also demonstrably inferior to the current standard of care.

    The death rate did not take a steep downward dive in 1991 in Los Angeles. The article you linked actually states, “Recent advances in the medical treatment of HIV infection and AIDS resulted in more than a 50% drop in AIDS-related deaths in Los Angeles County from 1996 to 1997.Furthermore, there were 31% fewer new AIDS cases reported between 1996 and 1997 in Los Angeles County.”

    You have misread the graph, which shows Cases of AIDS And Deaths *By Year Of Diagnosis* not by year of death. There is even a note at the bottom which states: “Deaths are reported by the year of AIDS diagnosis reported by June 30, 1999.”

    But you are still trying to divert the discussion away from the central point. Did the marked decrease in deaths from late 1995 on coincide with a drop in the AZT dose or not? Or am I, as Anthony suggests, on a fools errand to try to get you to acknowledge this basic point?
    Yesterday at 07:44pm

    David R. Crowe Mika Thane, you are correct that the LA data is per year of diagnosis, so not possible to connect with year of death.

    The date of impact of scientific papers is the date of publication. They would be expected to be ahead of the curve, with regular doctors changing prescribing practices after they read new studies, and see new guidelines.

    And the FDA did not dis-approve of high dose AZT, they just recommended a lower dose. You have no evidence that doctors fell into line overnight.

    And pharmacies and hospitals profited from the many funding programs for AIDS drugs, from which they took a cut, so the more expensive the better.

    We know that the hype of the protease inhibitor marketing machine had a huge impact on doctors and patients in 1995, but you’ve provided no information on actual prescribing practices in the 1990s. Papers were still being published up until at least 1992, reporting on high dose AZT therapy without any notes indicating that this therapy was no longer in use, presumably because this dosage was still in widespread use, something that we only know for sure ended with the Protease Inhibitor era because I’m sure you’ll agree that nobody was recommending PIs with 1500mg AZT, the dose was less than half.

    The reason I am concerned about the lack of honesty regarding your identity is regarding your testimony on funerals in the 1990s and your other claims of eyewitness testimony. How do I know this is a true story if you refuse to reveal yourself? How do I know you’re not repeating an urban myth?

    And finally, as for the drop in dosage of AZT being a central dogma of dissidents. Well, we don’t have dogmas, and there are hundreds of other criticisms of the HIV=AIDS dogma … such as testing, sexual transmission, whether HIV actually causes illness and so on.
    Yesterday at 11:45pm

    Anthony Liversidge Thanks Mika for providing three 1984 papers where it was first noted that AIDS patients were suffering from renal failure, in your attempt to contradict my point that HIV is not blamed for kidney disease.

    But the papers do not state such a claim, unless you are a believer that HIV causes HIV/AIDS, which of course you are. So presumably you have deduced that HIV causes AIDS and kidney disease is caused in AIDS therefore HIV causes renal failure. Poor logic, Mika, and typical of the legions who believe that HIV causes AIDS.

    What you need is papers which show that HIV directly causes kidney problems. Not a statement of your belief based on the premise that governs all your thinking on AIDS, that HIV causes AIDS causes renal problems. Do you have any? Good luck with your hunt.

    The whole underlying point of Goodson’s paper is that it collects the overwhelming expert and lay challenges to HIV as the cause of AIDS. Did you miss that point? It is stated up front that Mullis considers the belief “one hell of a mistake.” What did you think that meant? It means that your basic premise is certainly wrong unless HIV propagandists can come up with answers to these myriad and comprehensive challenges to HIV which satisfy them in a peer reviewed journal, which has not happened in thirty years, despite denial of their import on NIAID web pages, which are not peer reviewed.

    Believing that AZT is good for patients contrary to all the material which convinced your own leadership that it should be done away with makes you a champion of another early belief in AIDS which is itself now completely out of date and exploded. That seems to make two of your basic premises “one hell of a mistake”.

    So perhaps you should reassess? At least face up to the fact that AZT was replaced by less toxic drugs, which automatically enabled patients to last longer. Whether the correlation is perfect is a matter of how many factors are involved in patient outcome. But everyone has recognized it exists except you, apparently. Why is this? Do you think the leadership of HIV/AIDS are wrong?

    If so you certainly are an impressive skeptic. Congratulations.
    Today at 02:25am

    ———————————————–
    Note: mit der dummheit kämpfen götter selbst vergebens = with stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain. Let’s hope that the moderator does not object to proverbs in German.

  18. Anthony Liversidge Says:

    Also another Comment at the Kalichman page, by none other than the distinguished Harvey Bialy, the founding science editor of Nature Biotechnology, whose whiplash wit and insider anecdotes leavened his book Oncogenes, Aneuploidy and AIDS: A Scientific Life and Times of Peter H. Duesberg (North Atlantic Books, 2004) and made it a primary source for all who wish to review the politics and paradigm of cancer and AIDS for themselves.

    That first class volume should be read by anyone who interested in the real inside story, for it is the best scientific recounting and explication of Duesberg’s rejection of HIV and oncogenes as invalid paradigms currently available, other than Inventing the AIDS Virus (Regnery, 1996) Duesberg’s own classic volume, and it is all of that combined with a starkly clear recounting of the political dimensions and development of the scientific debate and its repression.

    ————————————

    Harvey Bialy Hello Seth,

    Yes I am still alive, remembering your inquiring once, under a pseudonym of course. And yes, I see that your nonsensical, circular and silly arguments have not changed one iota in 8 years.

    Actual scientific arguments, based on reproducible data, are not flavors of the month the way some AIDS “research” is. (See my very instructive. and completely fresh after 10 years. biography of Prof. Duesberg entitled Oncogenes, Aneuploidy and AIDS, The Scientific Life and Times of Peter H. Duesberg). So, unless the authors (the majority of whom are among the AIDS luminaries you so admire) of the papers, we misguided heretics cite, have retracted their experimental protocols or results, there is no reason to condemn them because of “significant advances in HIV research”; especially as there haven’t been any. The central unanswered question —- How HIV with its tiny 9kb genome destroys the human immune system — is as mysterious now as 10 years ago when I reviewed the pertinent scientific literature in my book, or 30 years ago when the “AIDS virus” came into existence by US government fiat.

    But never mind data, or the time-honored tenets of hypothesis testing that prior to the AIDS era characterized molecular biologic investigation. Just ‘keep on keeping on’ professor. $32 million is an impressive haul. As a member of the UConn psychology faculty, you must have made at least a few significant discoveries to warrant such NIH largesse. I would be curious to learn what you think they are.
    20 Feb 2015 at 08:42pm

  19. Anthony Liversidge Says:

    RetractionWatch carries some 50 comments at its page on Publisher issues statement of concern about HIV denial paper, launches investigation

    Text is:

    The publisher Frontiers has issued a Statement of Concern about a paper denying that HIV causes AIDS, and has launched an investigation into how the paper was published in the first place.

    The paper, “Questioning the HIV-AIDS hypothesis: 30 years of dissent,” is written by Patricia Goodson of Texas A&M University and was published on September 23 in Frontiers in Public Health. As Tara Smith, who blogged about the paper yesterday, notes:

    The paper itself consists entirely of the old claims that have been debunked time and time and time and time again, using tactics we defined in our paper: quote-mining, cherry-picking evidence, moving goalposts, citing prominent deniers and denial groups, and more. There is nothing of value here, and the only real nod she gives to orthodox opinions on HIV are to cite Kalichman’s book ever-so-briefly and dismissively (characterizing it as “a harsh critique of unorthodox views and of Duesberg in particular”).

    Here’s the Statement of Concern:

    The article “Questioning the HIV-AIDS hypothesis: 30 years of dissent” (Goodson 2014), was accepted for publication on the 7th September 2014. In its duty to publish responsibly, and in light of numerous complaints received about the paper, Frontiers has launched an investigation, the outcome of which will be made public once all adequate procedures have been completed. September 26, 2014. Frontiers Editorial Office, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Frontiers executive editor Fred Fenter tells Retraction Watch:

    We have started an investigation into the publication of this article, for which we will follow the requisite procedures. We will publish and act upon the conclusions of the investigation in due course.

    Frontiers had a rough go of it earlier this year when they retracted a paper linking climate skepticism to conspiratorial ideation.
    —————————————————
    Relevant Comments include the following, with Anthony Liversidge comments stuck in Awaiting Moderation for eight days so far:
    (Apologies for not providing Expansion/Hide code – apparently not available in Comments in SG – Ed.)

    ——————————————————-
    bueller007 September 26, 2014 at 1:09 pm

    Don’t be lured in by the fact that the article pretends in its Introduction that it is going to be a reasonable evaluation of “alternate” hypotheses of AIDS. She states this in the Introduction:
    “It is important to note that my purpose is not to review the state of the science regarding HIV/AIDS, nor to persuade readers to reject the mainstream hypothesis.”

    But it is clear from the next sentence that she has adopted the disingenuous neo-creationist tactic of “Teaching the Controversy”:
    “Instead, I aim to expose readers to the persisting controversies, and to motivate them to raise questions of their own.”

    In addition, the remainder of the article makes very clear the fact that she is an HIV denialist and that this is an HIV denialist article (as illustrated in the first sentence of the Discussion):
    “At this point, readers might be wondering: given the problems with the mainstream hypothesis, how did we get here? How did we come so far, tethered to such a problematic perspective?”

    The article is dreadful and this is a massive failing of peer review by Frontiers.
    Reply LinkQuoteQuote
    Hide the reply to bueller007’s comment

    Anthony Liversidge February 16, 2015 at 12:25 am

    Your statements are not justified, since none of them prove Goodson is biased, unless you call making a judgment that many qualified critics have raised many unanswered questions about HIV as the cause of HIV/AIDS as your so called “denialism”. To recount the myriad “problems with the mainstream hypothesis” and conclude HIV as cause of HIV/AIDS is a “problematic perspective” is a factual exercise, not denialism. If anything, the denialism come from the reflex supporters of HIV as the cause, who deny critics a voice, attack their credentials, and try to shut them out of publishing, without dealing with their objections. This behavior, and the fact that the very strong high academic level rejection of HIV in the late eighties by the distingushed retrovirologist at Berkely Dr Peter Duesberg has never been answered in any way in the same peer reviewed top journals (Cancer Research and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) that published his reviews, suggests as usual that HIV proponents have no answer to critics, and that the theory is what critics say it is: a vast error which has led many to lose their lives by being treated with the wrong medicines for immune collapse.
    Comment awaiting moderation. then removed Feb 25 approx. Replaced by AL as follows:
    Your statements are not justified, since none of them prove Goodson is biased, unless you call making a judgment that many qualified critics have raised many unanswered questions about HIV as the cause of HIV/AIDS as your so called “denialism”. To recount the myriad “problems with the mainstream hypothesis” and conclude HIV as cause of HIV/AIDS is a “problematic perspective” is a factual exercise, not denialism. If anything, the denialism come from the reflex supporters of HIV as the cause, who deny critics a voice, attack their credentials, and try to shut them out of publishing, without dealing with their objections. This behavior, and the fact that the very strong high academic level rejection of HIV in the late eighties by the distinguished retrovirologist at Berkely Dr Peter Duesberg has never been answered in any way in the same peer reviewed top journals (Cancer Research and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) that published his reviews, suggests as usual that HIV proponents have no answer to critics, and that the theory is what critics say it is: a vast error which has led many to lose their lives by being treated with the wrong medicines for immune collapse. (This Comment apparently inadvertently erased by the moderator about Feb 25 or before, so I am replacing it in the hope it can stay up.)

    JATdS September 26, 2014 at 2:59 pm

    In such a case, I think it is essential, for the integrity of Frontiers, to release the full peer reviewer comments, and if there were more than one round of edits, then the comments at each stage followed by the author’s responses/edits, much like f1000Research does. That’s the only way we can get to the bottom of what may have gone wrong. Judging by the EoC and the rather rough criticisms, isn’t it odd that the reviewers and editor would have detected such controversy and red flags during the peer review? Another shot in the leg for Frontiers and for traditional peer review.
    But, just to be contradictory (and at the risk of getting a barrage of thumbs down!), allow me to throw a spanner in the works. I spent an excruciating 30-40 minutes reading that paper and to be honest, I found several of the arguments to be interesting (borderline compelling). Thus, relative to what I knew of this topic 40 minutes ago, I know now quite a bit more, so surely this paper has achieved its core objective of educating the public? Albeit, judging from the criticisms, some positions or facts may be incorrect, or in debate. But to squeal to try and force a retraction, is this a responsible academic position to assume? Of course, I am no HIV/AIDS specialist, but should the literature not be allowed to retain such studies simply because they provoke such passionate responses and discussion? I am against the retraction of this paper, independent of what I stated above (I know, it sounds crazy), but simply because, in a paper like this, public discussion could fuel great advances potentially in HIV/AIDS research as specialists battle it out in the theological stage. And surely those differences in opinion should be published as a compilation by Frontiers, sort of like a supplement? That would not only enrich the discussion, but also the literature. Observing Dr. Goodson’s professional profile, we are neither dealing with a fool, or an amateur, but we are clearing dealing with a controversial issue, much like climate change, so I say NO RETRACTION, but keep the discussion active, public and published.
    Reply LinkQuoteQuote

    KW1 September 26, 2014 at 4:09 pm

    JATdS, there are a hundred scientific questions and controversies surrounding HIV/AIDS. The community celebrates vigorous discussion of these issues and rigorous pursuit of the answers. There is nothing remotely controversial about HIV as the cause of AIDS, though, or the efficacy of AIDS treatments. You think otherwise because you have been deceived. Without a grounding in the science, you have just read a paper full of lies, half-truths, and facts taken out of context. A paper that contains nothing new, just a rehashing of old material that was long ago put to rest, now dragged into the light yet again by yet another self-appointed “expert” with no standing in the field. You found her writing compelling. The HIV patient who doesn’t want to believe she is sick or needs meds will find it even more reasonable, and deadly. This is not an academic debate. It’s about the life and death of real people.
    Reply LinkQuoteQuote

    Maria September 26, 2014 at 4:10 pm

    Again, completely not an expert but I get the sense that there are good scientific reasons for the HIV-AIDS link and the debate was “settled” in the relevant scientific community. This is the first time I’m hearing about a “controversy” in relation to this topic (outside of ridiculous, clearly uninformed statements from choice leaders of foreign countries). Is this not true? The social media reactions from people with expertise in the field seem to suggest there’s no controversy here (outside of how this paper made it past peer review) – yes, I am using an “argument from authority” but not sure if lay people can be expected to be experts in every scientific field.
    Reply LinkQuoteQuote

    JATdS September 27, 2014 at 2:13 am

    Of course, like climate change, cancer research, GMOs and other powerful scientific spheres that have great political and economic repercussions, and strong social ties and consequences, let’s not lose perspective of the big business of HIV/AIDS by BIG Pharma [1, 2]. Society seeks solutions through science, but there is a very sad profitable underbelly to eradicating HIV/AIDS (or other diseases like cancer, Ebola, etc), so, perhaps, one thread of thought might powerfully prevail over another. So, let’s not mix three things: real lives, business and scientific facts. It is precisely because there are over 100 “scientific questions and controversies surrounding HIV/AIDS” that we should not dismiss what Dr. Goodson is perhaps trying to say. If she received a salary, grant or any benefits related with the publication of this paper, then I would say, OK, be hawkish. If not, then what would she have to lose, by bucking the trend and questioning the newly established thought? Nothing, so in the latter case, leave the paper and let open discussion rage. Why aggressively stamp it out?
    [1] http://www.aidsfreeworld.org/~/link.aspx?_id=56DECACF04664048A92876F31882BC6E&_z=z
    [2] http://business.inquirer.net/149057/hiv-has-big-hiding-place-foiling-hopes-for-cure

    Narad September 27, 2014 at 3:25 pm

    let’s not lose perspective of the big business of HIV/AIDS by BIG Pharma [1, 2]

    “JATdS,” how does your second citation do anything to support your “Big Pharma” point?
    LinkQuoteQuote

    JATdS September 27, 2014 at 4:19 pm

    Narad, the link is tangential. From [2]: “Our study results certainly show that finding a cure for HIV disease is going to be much harder than we had thought and hoped for,” said senior investigator Robert Siliciano, a professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine” This apparently “endless” search, coupled with the surprising massive profits by Big Pharma nicely quantified in [1] (we are talking billions, not millions), clearly shows how the dialogue (and science) is being manipulated for profit, and not really for the good of society. One should be asking, if products are not perfect, then how can they be sold for such massive record profits? And what science, or more importantly, whose science has given the results that have led to these commercial products? And what funding are those HIV/AIDS groups receiving, and from whom? And what political groups from which countries taking advantage of the narrative to advance their political agendas? I think these are the critical questions that need to be answered as Goodson gets grilled. Of course the drugs sold are not perfect, but provided that the story line can be “we are helping society rid its ills”, and provided that individuals who realize that their lives are at stake (and will thus be willing to pay the asking price for any remedy, even if imperfect), then Big Pharma will be nothing more than a pseudo-prop for equally ineffective and far-from-perfect science. Big Pharma is the complete antithesis of altruism. In my opinion, this is another classical case of crony capitalism. If you or anyone can answer my questions, then I truly believe that we may be starting to understand the real background behind the aggressive attacks on Goodson. As David Crowe correctly stated below “It stuns me how people who are presumably scientists are so anxious to stifle debate, and so unwilling to address specific arguments made in this paper. If every paper that is controversial is suppressed then science will simply stop progressing. Maybe it already has.” In other words, this is way beyond scientific discussion.
    LinkQuoteQuote

    JATdS September 27, 2014 at 5:16 pm

    Let me make some radical claims that are really going to rile some feathers here. I am frankly tired of seeing the exploration and exploitation of nature, more specifically plants, especially from their natural habitats, disguised as scientific research, all with the claims that they are assisting human health and society’s well-being. My critics would say, how are we supposed to advance medicine and health if nature is not explored? And my answer would be, you need to first establish a system that preserves a plant before you can even dare exploit it. You cannot claim to be going one good while doing one “evil” as the supporting mechanisms. In other words, you cannot justify the exploitation of forests for their natural, unexplored potential simply to mine secondary metabolites and unknown compounds only to be (ultimately) commercialized by Big Pharma for profit. The entire industry is built upon the core value of exploitation. You exploit a natural resource, and then only turn to biotechnology to continue the production line when the natural resources are exhausted, or if biomass and productivity can be increased, in return for greater profits. What the PR and marketing teams in effect do is sell the up-side of the exploitation of natural resources: it’s for your health. And since the desire for good health is a basic and inherent psychological desire of humans, the PR line is bought, line, hook and sinker. At the expense of nature. This thread of exploitation lies in so many “products” that then use science as the prop for legitimization, and the AIDS/HIV debacle is a perfect example. Once again, I am not doing a literature review here, just simply drawing some lines and joining some dots because people criticizing Goodson seem, in my opinion, to have lost the fuller picture of what the HIV/AIDs battle represents, what WHO represents, and why selling the HIV/AIDS package benefits corporations such as Big Pharma. I decided to try and find some supporting references, so I Googled / Yahoo’d the following “plants in AIDS cures”. I was really surprised to see what I found, but let me add only three representative links [1, 2, 3: these are not academic journals] from what I did find, for you to appreciate how screwed up (i.e., manipulated) this entire field of research in fact is. When looking at all these sites, many of which advertise products (for profits) for purported anti-this or anti-that functions, notice how frequently the word “possible” is used, even for commercial products. It’s sickening, to be honest, and insulting to science, to be frank.
    [1] http://www.ehow.com/about_5089387_rainforest-plants-used-cure-disease.html
    [2] http://www.motherearthnews.com/organic-gardening/seasonal-gardening-zmaz88sozgoe.aspx#axzz3EY8QTAbk
    [3] http://www.plantcures.com/
    [4] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2549649/Could-cure-AIDS-lie-GERANIUMS-Plant-extract-prevents-virus-invading-human-cells.html
    Etc. etc. etc.

    Oliver C. Schultheiss September 27, 2014 at 5:03 am

    I wish they would. They’ve stopped halfway on the road to full transparency by listing the names of the reviewers and the editor with the paper, but not making the reviews & author responses available. Plus, for some time it was impossible for reviewers to reject a paper, except by withdrawing from the review process altogether. There simply wasn’t a reject option in the final verdict. But they’ve changed that now, if I’m not mistaken.
    Reply LinkQuoteQuote

    Leonid Schneider September 26, 2014 at 1:41 pm

    Frontiers is a strange publisher. I used to subscribe to their alerts, until I saw this article about the elusive “telocytes”, only ever seen by Popescu and his colleagues:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24860423
    That was when I stopped taking Frontiers seriously.
    Reply LinkQuoteQuote
    Hide 3 replies to Leonid Schneider’s comment

    Eli Rabett September 27, 2014 at 6:59 pm

    In the last controversy, Eli likened Frontiers to the Amway of scientific publishing, a multi level marketing scheme. The”chief editors”, the “chief specialty editors” the “associate editors” and the “reviewers” have a strong motivation to push more and more papers into the publishing que.

    herr doktor bimler September 28, 2014 at 12:50 am

    Just to close the circle… I just noticed that Popescu was a member of the Editorial Board of the Italian Journal of Anatomy & Embryology back when it published Duesberg’s AIDS-denial paper back in 2011. I hasten to add that he had nothing to do with the Editor-in-Chief’s decision to accept the paper, and he publicly criticised that decision.
    Reply LinkQuoteQuote

    Klaas van Dijk September 26, 2014 at 1:48 pm

    I fail to get any insight in a solid alternative hypothesis. Am I right to assume that the author has no idea at all about an alternative hypothesis which would be superior compared to the HIV-causes-AIDS hypothesis?

    Please excuse me when this is a dumb question.
    Reply LinkQuoteQuote
    Hide the reply to Klaas van Dijk’s comment

    Anthony Liversidge February 15, 2015 at 11:53 pm

    If you read any of the main articles and books referred to in the paper you will see many proposed alternatives to causing HIV/AIDS than HIV, despite the name which attempts to foreclose the answer. The main one is the heavy use of recreational and iatrogenic drugs which are still killing as many as 17,000 in this country from HIV/AIDS according to the CDC, typically from symptoms of liver and kidney disease which cannot be ascribed to HIV. In Africa it is almost certainly malnutrition combined with TB and other diseases with HIV not even tested for in many cases.

    No one has to suggest alternative causes for HIV/AIDS to point out that a theory which in effect says antibodies are transmissible (impossible, in fact, as Nancy Padian’s orthodox research study of heterosexual couples where only one had HIV (antibodies, which is what tests indicate) reflected by finding nil transmission) and have nevertheless caused a pandemic, is an insult to the intelligence of the public, let alone any thinking scientist.
    Comment awaiting moderation.
    \
    omnologos September 26, 2014 at 1:57 pm

    sometimes when you are at the frontiers, you are bound to get yourself on the wrong side.
    Reply LinkQuoteQuote
    Nuria Gonzalez (@Rednuria) September 26, 2014 at 2:36 pm

    OK, I am going to go out on a limb here and ask: if the theory as been debunked time and time and time and time again, how did this paper get published in the first place? I think it is good and healthy to be open to changing hypothesis and give room to all theories to be published for the sake of scientific debate. But this case sounds kinda crazy, would we be publishing a paper about how the Earth is the center of the Universe?

    OMSJ (@OMSJ) September 26, 2014 at 3:48 pm

    I think Nobel Laureate Kary Mullis said it best… http://www.omsj.org/corruption/aids-researchers-neurotic-when-asked-questions
    Reply LinkQuoteQuote

    Maria
    September 26, 2014 at 4:17 pm

    This would not be the first time an incredible scientist w/ experience in one field is completely wrong about a different field.
    Reply LinkQuoteQuote

    Anthony Liversidge February 16, 2015 at 12:11 am

    But you have no a priori reason to suppose Mullis is wrong on any one belief until you examine his reasons for it. If you respect his intelligent science and productive thoughtfulness in one field you should respect it in another, since outsiders often have a clearer view of a field than those long resident in it. Mullis is constantly smeared by defenders of HIV as having seen a visitor from a flying saucer at the bottom of his garden or similar but that was the result of his exploring the effects of LSD, which may also have accounted for his inspiration with PCR, which won him the Nobel and which has released many innocent prisoners after many years from false convictions. If Mullis says HIV is one hell of a mistake, as he has said, then you should read his reasons for saying so. One is that there is no paper yet among tens of thousands that proves HIV is the culprit. None after thirty years. Perhaps this is because it is not.
    Comment awaiting moderation.
    Reply Link Quote

    Narad September 26, 2014 at 6:18 pm

    I think Nobel Laureate Kary Mullis said it best…

    I kind of prefer the bit about the glowing raccoon, Mr. Baker, but that’s neither here nor there. As Maria alluded to, there is such a thing as the “Nobel disease.”
    Reply LinkQuoteQuote

    truthymctruthenstein September 26, 2014 at 11:57 pm

    You can not give much credence to what Clark Baker with OMSJ says on this subject. He is perfectly at home in the company of the AIDS denialists. Baker’s website (the one he links to) is simply a repository for all manner of science woo and conspiracy jargon. Baker filed a lawsuit against me to quell my First Amendment Rights for daring to question his dubious HIV Innocence Group. I won in arbitration and a Federal judge dismissed his case. But Baker charges on with an appeal to the 5th Circuit. His tenacity to advance his AIDS denialist agenda will not be stopped.
    Reply LinkQuoteQuote

    Anthony Liversidge February 15, 2015 at 11:32 pm

    Wouldn’t this logic also apply to those invested in HIV commenting on Goodson’s paper? Most people commenting on either side of an issue usually are invested in the side they argue, with the exception of a very few people outside the fray who are open minded when they first approach it. This kind of ad hominem comment is just mud in the water of science.
    Comment awaiting moderation.

    Marco September 26, 2014 at 3:59 pm

    I think the choice of reviewers says it all: apparently inexperienced, both as scientists and in the field.
    Reply LinkQuoteQuote

    Anthony Liversidge February 15, 2015 at 11:34 pm

    In other words, likely to be a lot less invested in either side, and therefore more likely to advance the truth.
    Comment awaiting moderation.
    Reply Link Quote

    Anthony Liversidge February 16, 2015 at 12:02 am

    The only reason you think debating whether HIV/AIDS is caused by HIV is equivalent to discussing whether the Earth is round is that you have not heard it being debated for years, but this only reflects the success of the defenders of the HIV paradigm with their political and social repression of what initially was a healthy debate. They closed down all questioning by refusing to vote for funding any scientist who questioned HIV, including the finest scientist in the fields of retroviruses and cancer, Petr Duesberg. His overwhelming condemnation reviews of HIV in the top journals in 1987 and 1989 and later have never been answered in the same peer reviewed journals with peer reviewed rebuttals. A major reason for this to have happened is because funding is concentrated at the NIH and has to receive the support of your peers, who may not like your undermining their livelihood if they are heavily invested in HIV research. Gay politics also made the issue a hot potato. But the impression you have received that it is a settled proved issue is a mirage. There has been no proof and no real top level agreement that HIV is correct, just huge political support and condemnation of questioners..
    Comment awaiting moderation.

    Klaas van Dijk September 26, 2014 at 4:54 pm

    Please also read the comments of Tara Smith http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2014/09/26/hiv-denial-live-and-well-in-2014/ on the backgrounds of both peers. Please note that Tara Smith is a co-author of http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0040256 (HIV Denial in the Internet Era, published August 21, 2007).
    Reply LinkQuoteQuote

    mo79uk September 26, 2014 at 6:37 pm

    If this article were published when it was demonstrated that AIDS could be averted by the annihilation of HIV, then you could say its publication was alarming, but that’s not the case.

    In any case, immunodeficiency is acquired in numerous ways. Give a person immunosuppressant corticosteroids to prevent organ rejection and they can suffer from any ailment that’s not an issue to immune-competent people.
    So, if HIV is not just a marker, it has no monopoly on AID. I leave out the S since you need TB mycobacteria, for example, to cause one of the syndrome diseases. HIV does not cause TB.

    David September 27, 2014 at 5:19 am

    For the record, AIDS can be averted by ‘annihilating’ (suppressing) HIV. This is the whole aim of early diagnosis and treatment of HIV and, as long as people take their tablets, is highly successful.

    In terms of nomenclature, we tend to call immunodeficiency states resulting from other systemic illness or medication ‘secondary immune deficiency’. Semantics I know, but in practical terms ‘AIDS’ is reserved for HIV-related illness. (And they ARE related: to say anything else is extraordinary!)
    Reply LinkQuoteQuote

    mo79uk September 27, 2014 at 5:44 am

    The drugs alleged to suppress HIV have such broad mechanisms, like anti-fungal, that it is impossible to say that their benefit derives from suppressing HIV. And in 30yrs there is still no precise mechanism for HIV causing AIDS. HIV is only presumed to kill T-cells.

    In acknowledging other immunodeficiency states, how do you divorce AIDS from African poverty-induced immunodeficiency or drug abuse-related immunodeficiency (Ozzy Osbourne tested HIV+ and then negative while his body was recovering from rehabilitation)? Their outcomes can overlap.
    Also there are many HIV+s classed as long-term nonprogressors. Surely that could imply that there needs to be some other immune problem first before HIV should be pathogenic, if it is at all.
    Reply LinkQuoteQuote

    Marco September 27, 2014 at 7:09 am

    It’s actually quite simple to “divorce AIDS from African poverty-induced immunodeficiency or drug abuse-related immunodeficiency”.

    1) plenty of examples of AIDS patients who were either never drug abusers, nor live in poverty. Not anecdotal examples, but large numbers. It starts with all those poor people who received blood transfusions and then got AIDS (and who were, surprise surprise, also HIV positive)

    2) Botswana has one of the best health-care systems in the whole of Africa, and less than 20% of its population lives below the poverty line, and yet it one of the largest relative number of AIDS patients in the whole of Africa, to the extent that life expectancy is around 40. Compare it to disfunctional Somalia, which is much poorer but which doesn’t have so many AIDS cases (and no, not “African poverty-induced immunodeficiency” either).

    3) After effective actions taken to reduce infection rates in drug users, e.g. by reducing needle-sharing, and preventing unprotected sex amongst homosexuals, it is now primary the heterosexuals that get immunodeficiency syndromes – all over the world, regardless of their drug use or their poverty. Those who get this are almost all infected with HIV

    Which brings me to Ozzy Osbourne: we know HIV tests are not 100% failproof. Even with 0.1% false positives (which would make it one of the most reliable tests ever), there will be stories of people who were found to be HIV+ and then negative at the second test. That’s life with any biological test.

    Long-term nonprogressors exist in many diseases. Those are just 1 in 300, so may well have a range of genetic explanations, from a weakly infective/progressive version of the HIV to their own genetic variability. BKV and JCV are viruses for which most of us are “long-term nonprogressors” – until our immune system breaks down for whatever reason.
    Reply LinkQuoteQuote

    David September 27, 2014 at 9:21 am

    I cannot believe we are even having this discussion.
    Reply LinkQuoteQuote

    Narad September 27, 2014 at 1:45 pm

    The drugs alleged to suppress HIV have such broad mechanisms, like anti-fungal, that it is impossible to say that their benefit derives from suppressing HIV.

    “Antifungal” isn’t a “mechanism.” Blocking reverse transcription by binding to the enzyme or screwing up the viral sequence is a mechanism. Inhibiting integrase so that the virus can’t even insert itself in the first place is a mechanism. And so on.
    Reply LinkQuoteQuote

    Narad September 26, 2014 at 7:26 pm

    Incidentally, this isn’t the first time such a controversy has occurred, with part of the fallout that time being Bruce Charlton’s ouster from Medical Hypotheses.
    Reply LinkQuoteQuote
    Hide the reply to Narad’s comment

    Anthony Liversidge February 15, 2015 at 11:38 pm

    Indeed, the case is similar. Those invested in HIV counterattack any effort by an outsider to look openmindedly at the issue and what has been said on it, not by arguing with the critics but by calling into question their credentials and whether they have any right to question their belief. In fact good science dictates that beliefs be reviewed at all times, since paradigms are often updated and replaced. That is what Nobel prizes are awarded for.
    Comment awaiting moderation.

    FooBar September 27, 2014 at 2:59 am

    Look, if the editor accepts a paper, and there is no fraud, and then controversy ensues, then the fault lies not with the paper authors but with the editor.

    Dear editor: should not issue an “statement of concern” about the paper, because the authors did nothing wrong–they were honest in what they wrote. Probably the editor ought to ask to be excused.
    Reply LinkQuoteQuote
    Hide the reply to FooBar’s comment

    Anthony Liversidge February 15, 2015 at 11:42 pm

    Controversy is exactly what Goodson’s paper indicated should continue, until the issue is properly reviewed, instead of any doubt on HIV being erased by prejudicial politics. The paper carefully showed that the issue remains wide open and the critics include highly qualified ones who have not been answered in the same top level journals they published in.

    Controversy is not an indication of dereliction of duty by an editor, but that he is doing his job of publishing articles which are discussed and referred to.
    Comment awaiting moderation.
    Reply Link Quote

    David Crowe September 27, 2014 at 9:29 am

    It stuns me how people who are presumably scientists are so anxious to stifle debate, and so unwilling to address specific arguments made in this paper. If every paper that is controversial is suppressed then science will simply stop progressing. Maybe it already has.
    Reply LinkQuoteQuote
    Hide 9 replies to David Crowe’s comment

    truthymctruthenstein September 27, 2014 at 10:32 am

    Mr. Crowe, the debate is over. Real scientists have tried to debate denialists but you refuse to accept the facts. That is why real scientists have moved on and denialists are stuck in a time warp.
    Reply LinkQuoteQuote

    Marco September 27, 2014 at 2:04 pm

    A scientific debate does not include repeating long-debunked talking points without providing new evidence that such talking points are of any relevance. Specific arguments made in this paper have been addressed numerous times, and therefore it is so disappointing that they show up again.

    It is thus not about stifling debate, but about stifling attempts to promote pseudo-science through unsupported assertions.
    Reply LinkQuoteQuote

    David Crowe September 27, 2014 at 6:24 pm

    Okay, humor me and debunk them again. I remember people saying that these points have been debunked, but I must have missed the actual debunking. Like for example, just what is the mechanism by which HIV kills T-Cells (when it is present in only a tiny fraction of them)? And if the mechanism is unknown how can we possibly know that HIV does kill T Cells?
    Reply LinkQuoteQuote

    Narad September 27, 2014 at 7:14 pm

    I remember people saying that these points have been debunked, but I must have missed the actual debunking. Like for example, just what is the mechanism by which HIV kills T-Cells

    I started off trying to walk through the HIV life cycle (not for the sake of “humoring” you), but it eventually seemed simpler to just point to this and and see whether you can mount a response, as it were.
    Reply LinkQuoteQuote

    Narad September 27, 2014 at 7:17 pm

    ^ Eh, I b0rk3d the tags. It should be “and this,” but both links work.
    LinkQuoteQuote

    David Crowe February 14, 2015 at 10:44 pm

    Sorry for the delay in responding, I just saw this, but two new hypotheses in 2014 about how HIV indirectly results in the decline in CD4 cells just emphasizes that for 30 years it has not been known how HIV does it’s dirty work. And therefore it can’t be known “whether” HIV does do dirty work. I’ll wait to see if these ideas get widely accepted, or sink without a trace like all other theories trying to connect HIV and CD4 cells. And the literature on the problems with CD4 counts as a marker for HIV-induced immune suppression is voluminous. Smoking increases counts, exercise decreases them. See http://aras.ab.ca/test-cd4.php At the very least discussion should be allowed, even encouraged.
    LinkQuoteQuote

    truthymctruthenstein September 27, 2014 at 9:54 pm

    Seriously, do not even bother to “humor” AIDS Denialists. They will not accept or believe even the most rigorously tested facts. 30+ years of science have advanced past their most basic understanding. They are not worth repeating the science. The science is in the record; presented and repeated by many different scientists from around the world. The denialists either do not understand it or they chose to ignore it. The debate is over. That is why the denialists have chosen to manipulate the courts to advance their agenda. Facts in science and facts in court are worlds apart. Scientific facts are irrefutable; Legal facts are subjective, pliable and manipulative. Even given that the courts are not as stringent in their methods, that has not stopped my attorneys from making mince meat of Clark Baker’s claims to quell my First Amendment Rights. I have beaten Baker in arbitration. I have beaten Baker in Federal Court in Texas. And I have beaten Baker in State Court in Texas. None of that has stopped Baker from appealing to the 5th Circuit Court in Texas. I and my attorneys will not stop until the facts are established as precedent in the courts, as well.
    Reply LinkQuoteQuote

    Narad September 28, 2014 at 12:52 am

    Seriously, do not even bother to “humor” AIDS Denialists.

    As I said, I am not. But to the extent that simple contrarianism is going to floated here, I have no problem pointing out that even an attentive layman can sink the Bismarck.

    Anthony Liversidge February 16, 2015 at 1:01 am
    Your belief in HIV is absolute but all your statements depend on your belief as an assumption, and the whole point of scientific investigation is to be without bias and to allow testing of assumptions and beliefs at all times to see if they withstand challenge or doubt.

    All you are doing psychologically is speaking up for the group of scientists and others who share your belief, but this is not science. Denialists make arguments against HIV and if you dont answer them but only state that the matter has already been settled long ago, they have every right to judge you unscientific and apparently without answers to their points

    TuringsBrain September 29, 2014 at 7:54 am

    Uttering an opinion is NOT science.
    Reply LinkQuoteQuote

    Ed October 3, 2014 at 9:11 pm

    I think the paper raises essential questions that have never been answered and many in the world, more every day, continue to question. I do believe one day the tables are gonna turn and the truth will come out. Some of the people who post on here write as if they had ever seen HIV in the first place, other than the beautiful colorful pictures that come up on google. I hope Frontiers keeps this article. It speaks highly of it and I am sure it makes many others mad, those who don’t have the cojones to publish it!
    Reply LinkQuoteQuote

    JATdS September 26, 2014 at 3:32 pm

    Just for the record. Edited by: Sanjay P. Zodpey, Public Health Foundation of India, India
    Reviewed by:
    Lalit Raghunath Sankhe, Grant Government Medical College, India
    Preeti Negandhi, Indian Institute of Public Health – Delhi, India

  20. davidmburd Says:

    Anthony, and All:

    There has been merry-go-round discussion/debate on the Frontiers site (and here on Science Guardian) revolves on AZT as a monotherapy of AZT (in varying dosages), and of 600mgs/day in HAART – and the timing of such drug(s) and the associated yearly Aids’ mortality toll. I have been banned by Frontiers, so, I offer some thoughts here on Science Guardian

    I have irrefutable documentation from quite a few sources (such as the Los Angeles Dept. of Health and the San Francisco Health Dept., both being major epicenters of Aids) for the years 1990 to 2000. This data is also repeated on older CDC mortality Charts (but may not be accessible anymore).

    Lots of critical facts have not been accurately debated, such as:

    1) Aids mortality began its sharp drop in 1994, two full years BEFORE HAART was introduced to any large measure.

    2) Also, ample anecdotal evidence is that gay community in large part had STOPPED taking AZT prior to 1994 as they had seen first-hand the massive dying of their friends who faithfully took AZT.

    3) HAART in addition to 1,100 mgs of AZT/ddl (600gms, 500 gms respectively) comprised also a massive 2,200 mgs of protease inhibitors; totaling 3,300 mgs of very toxic drugs creating cellular havoc never seen.

    4) With massive fanfare/ads in 1996 promoting the alleged benefits of HAART, large numbers in the Hiv+ world jumped back into taking the toxic HAART. Thus STOPPING the sharp drop in mortality, and keeping it basically level the last 18 years (and 9 years after 2006 when then-new triple-combination Hiv-drug finally omitted AZT; called Atripla and introduced with great fanfare, replicating the 1996 promotions, and drawing in new adherents.

    5) There are also ample anecdotal accounts of individual Drs. evolving over the last 20 years that say “let’s wait and see if you get sick, before going on ARVs”. For instance, Dr. Donald Abrams of U. San Francisco was an early advocate of those Hiv+ to take ARVs (going back to the 1980s), but over 15 years ago he started advocating the “wait and see” approach.

    These various confounding factors (and politics) make it impossible to prove anything when it comes to arguing pros/cons of such toxic pharmaceuticals IF every argument is always based on unknowable numbers taking the ARV drugs.

    As I pointed out 8 years ago here in Science Guardian (and bandied about with much discussion), the Annals of Internal Medicine published the results of the entire Danish population, comparing those Danes Hiv+ (3,990); each positive Dane compared to 99 “uninfected” Danes. The paper by Lohse et al. concluded those Danes taking the latest “Late HAART” meds that omitted AZT were expected to live another 39 years (to age 64), about 5 years less than the average Dane.

    YET, Lohse et al. failed to discuss their own published data (contained in their JInternM paper) showing Danes who were Hiv+ and declining all ARVs were expected to live years longer – WITHOUT taking the ARVs. In other words living to a normal life expectancy when compared to other non-Hiv+ Danes who were also heavy into recreational drugs and alcohol, etc.

    This seminal paper Lohse paper was COMPLETELY IGNORED by NIAID’s Anthony Fauci and the rest of Pharma as they simply are incapable of ever reappraising anything that doesn’t fit their annual $30 Billions of spending, and their lust for power and control.

  21. Anthony Liversidge Says:

    Retraction Watch has noticed that Frontiers has decided to keep the Goodson paper up as a lower ranked Opinion piece, given Kalichman’s endorsement of it as performing a useful service, with Retraction Watch’s Cat Ferguson (who seems unaware of the vulgarity of split infinitives) editorially endorsing the view that it should be removed, and adding a few more gratuitous insults obtained by calling noted HIV/AIDS attack dogs.

    Frontiers lets HIV denial article stand, reclassifies it as “opinion”.

    Note the use of the word “denial” rather than “denialist”. Is that slightly more respectful?

    There are 12 comments, mostly akin to the dead cows and kitchen refuse hurled from the ramparts by the taunting French soldiers of the castle in Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail. Interesting how defenders of the faith delight in scorning heretics when their assumption is questioned. And how keen the reporter Ferguson is to join in, without any real knowledge of the issue.

    Retraction Watch

    Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

    Frontiers lets HIV denial article stand, reclassifies it as “opinion”

    with 12 comments

    Following an investigation sparked by criticism for its decision to publish a paper questioning the link between HIV and AIDS, a Frontiers journal has decided to not retract the article but rebrand it as an “opinion.”

    In September, 2014, Patricia Goodson, a professor of health education at Texas A&M University, published an article called “Questioning the HIV-AIDS hypothesis: 30 years of dissent.”

    The paper was quickly called into question, and the journal, Frontiers in Public Health, issued a statement of concern and promised to look into the problem. Now, they’ve announced their solution: call the paper an “opinion” and publish an argument against it.

    Here is an excerpt of the publisher’s statement:

    Frontiers has received several complaints from public health professionals related to the article “Questioning the HIV-AIDS hypothesis: 30 years of dissent,” which questions the link between HIV and AIDS. Acknowledging the gravity of these concerns, and the implications that the weakening of the HIV-AIDS link has on public health in general, an internal investigation was conducted.

    During the course of the investigation, Frontiers has sought expert input from the Specialty Chief Editors of the HIV and AIDS section of Frontiers in Public Health and Frontiers in Immunology. Based on the conclusion of the investigation the article type of “Questioning the HIV-AIDS hypothesis: 30 years of dissent” has been changed to an Opinion article, which represents the viewpoint of an individual. In addition, a commentary on the article has been published “Commentary on ‘Questioning the HIV-AIDS hypothesis: 30 years of dissent’,” which discusses the concerns and analyzes the viewpoint within a scientific discourse on the topic.

    To many scientists, this is too little, too late. As Johns Hopkins biologist Kenneth Witwer notes, publishing a rebuttal actually legitimizes the ‘debate’ by putting AIDS denialism on equal footing with the opposition. (Witwer has called on scientists to boycott the publisher in response.)

    AIDS denialism isn’t just a fun internet conspiracy. Researchers at Harvard and the University of Cape Town have estimated that around 340,000 people died between 1999 and 2007 thanks to the South African government’s refusal to acknowledge the link between HIV and AIDS, and provide timely treatment and education to prevent its spread. That’s every person in 19 Madison Square Gardens filled to capacity, dead because powerful individuals put their faith in discredited science.

    We emailed with Nicoli Nattrass, a researcher at University of Cape Town who has written extensively about AIDS denialism, about this paper. Here is part of her response:

    It is not good enough that Frontiers In now calls this denialist piece ‘an opinion piece’. It should have been retracted as it is full of demonstrably false claims. Just because there are lunatic fringe beliefs that have persisted in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary, does not justify reprinting these claims without requiring the author to engage with this evidence.

    The FPH commentary, by University of Connecticut AIDS researcher Seth Kalichman, defends the journal’s decision (“At the expense of her own credibility as well as the reputation of Frontiers in Public Health, Patricia Goodson has actually performed a public service. It is important for people to know that AIDS denialists do indeed still exist”) while heavily criticizing the paper itself:

    Goodson’s article is a primer on AIDS denialism unlike any seen in what is purportedly a peer-reviewed journal. Goodson relies on material found in articles more than two decades old, a time when HIV first emerged and there were legitimate questions raised about a then unknown pathogen. Goodson’s article relies on self-published books, blog posts, essays, and fringe articles. There is no credible research offered by Goodson to support her opinion that there is any debate about HIV as the cause of AIDS, simply because there is no such debate.

    Frontiers has a history of fumbling controversial papers. They also have an 80-90% acceptance rate, according to the Economist:

    Its peer reviewers, whose names are known, accept 80-90% of submissions, rejecting only those which are fatally flawed. Authors of successful manuscripts pay a publication fee, ranging from $750 to $2,600, so that readers can have free access to articles. A paper’s merit is gauged after publication, using assorted internet metrics like the number of downloads.

    Tara Smith at ScienceBlogs has more on the people who reviewed the article before it went to press:

    The two reviewers, Preeti Negandhi and Lalit Raghunath Sankhe are also apparently both members of the FPH editorial board, despite almost no academic record. Neither has experience in HIV/AIDS , but the latter appears to be the editor, Sanjay P Zodpey’s go-to reviewer, while the former only has one publication listed on the FPH page, co-authored with Zodpey on public health capacity development in India. No publications are listed on Sankhe’s page, but there was one I could find which may possibly be associated with this name. Other than that, zero record in PubMed.

    We’ve reached out to the journal editor and Goodson, and will update if we hear back.

    Like Retraction Watch? Consider supporting our growth. You can also follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, and sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post.

    Written by Cat Ferguson

    February 24th, 2015 at 11:30 am

    Posted in expression of concern,freely available,frontiers,Frontiers in Public Health,infectious disease,not reproducible,united states

    Comments

    Fees February 24, 2015 at 12:26 pm
    So, will Frontiers reimburse the author for “downgrading” from a category A paper (US$ 1900) to a category C paper (US$ 250)?
    http://www.frontiersin.org/Public_Health/fees

    Incidentally, the “statement of concern” that was originally linking from RW’s original story has apparently just disappeared:
    http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpubh.2014.00186/full
    http://retractionwatch.com/2014/09/26/publisher-issues-statement-of-concern-about-hiv-denial-paper-launches-investigation/

    ReplyLinkQuote
    Hide the reply to Fees’s comment

    Michiel B. Dijkstra/Frontiers Communications February 25, 2015 at 5:56 am
    Thank you for your query. I would like to clarify that our original Statement of Concern of 26 Sep 2014 has not simply disappeared, but been explicitly replaced by the present Publisher Statement (dated 11 Feb 2015). “The following statement summarizes the outcome of our investigation and replaces the Statement of Concern”.

    ReplyLinkQuote

    David Rasnick February 24, 2015 at 12:31 pm
    Why doesn’t Retraction Watch also reach out to the critics of the HIV hypothesis of AIDS that Goodson cited in her article?

    Regards,
    Dave

    ReplyLinkQuote

    Hide 3 replies to David Rasnick’s comment

    AshK February 24, 2015 at 1:25 pm
    I always wonder why the proponent of the acecepted theory/hypothesis are always worried about the alternate view, which they term as the denials. In the loght of failure of every possible mean to prepare vaccine, effective therapeutics it is time after 30 years to listen to other voices.

    ReplyLinkQuote

    ychnyc February 24, 2015 at 3:19 pm
    Yes, and when the Retraction watch is at it, they should also reach out to the critics of the theory of gravity and heliocentric hypothesis.

    ReplyLinkQuote

    Ed February 24, 2015 at 4:58 pm
    Why not reach out to the doddering dinosaurs of denial? Because there’s no scientific debate, and the story isn’t about that anyway. It’s about how an Open to Anything (OA) publisher accepted a sad excuse for a paper and then refused to retract it.

    Sylvain Bernès February 24, 2015 at 12:41 pm
    The current Frontiers web site gives publishing fees in the range 1900-250 USD:
    http://www.frontiersin.org/about/PublishingFees
    I don’t know from where the figures quoted by “the Economist” come from.
    On the other hand, the degradation of the HIV article to an “Opinion” also means a drop for fees, from Category A (1900 USD) to Category C (250 USD). At least, the author earned some moneys back (but has lost a lot of credibility).

    ReplyLinkQuote

    Leonid Schneider February 24, 2015 at 3:55 pm
    How about an “Opinion” paper in a Frontiers journal about Earth being less than 6000 years old and dinosaurs never having existed? The journal could bring a critical “Commentary” and we could have a civilized academic discussion whose view was is scientifically more plausible.

    ReplyLinkQuote

    Lee Rudolph February 24, 2015 at 4:56 pm
    ychnyc
    Yes, and when the Retraction watch is at it, they should also reach out to the critics of the theory of gravity and heliocentric hypothesis.

    Phlogiston and the Luminiferous Ether would like to have a word with you.

    ReplyLinkQuote

    herr doktor bimler February 24, 2015 at 6:00 pm
    Caloric — Teach the controversy.

    ReplyLinkQuote

    Phronesis February 24, 2015 at 7:08 pm
    This debate has always seemed to me to be an interesting example of the difference between science and medicine.

    The scientific debate over basically anything must remain open. Put up your evidence and wait for the proponents of the current theory to die if you have too.

    Medicine on the other hand is only interested in outcomes. Clinical trials show that the anti HIV drugs work in mitigating or preventing AIDS. Assuming that HIV causes AIDS and acting accordingly (prophylaxis etc) has also been proven to reduce the rate of AIDS. This doesn’t prove that HIV causes AIDS but it does legitimise acting on the assumption that it does.

    ReplyLinkQuote

    John Mashey February 25, 2015 at 3:43 am
    At least two citations come from JPandS, whose context is explained here.

    7. de Harven E. Human endogenous retroviruses and AIDS research: confusion, consensus, or science? J Am Phys Surg (2010) 15(3):69–74.

    18. Bauer H. HIV tests are not HIV tests. J Am Phys Surg (2010) 15(1):05–09.

    See JPandS home page, and its 22-pageCumulative Index includes interesting topic and book reviews, incliding
    Abortion, AIDS, HIV/AIDS, Atlas Shrugged, Bauer, H (7 articles),

    Bauer, H. The Origin, Persistence, and Failings of the HIV/AIDS Theory – 12(4):121 – 122, 2007 (reviewed quite favorably.),

    Freedom, Global Climate Alarmism … and many other topics and authors beyond my scope of recognition, but perhaps more familiar to others here.

    Anthony Liversidge February 26, 2015 at 12:33 pm
    Is the writer of this report an expert on the issues raised? If not, why does he feel justified in taking the side of the defenders of the faith? Surely it is wrong for Retraction Watch to take any position on a complex scientific debate, especially one which is unresolved in thirty years, about a ruling paradigm which still lacks proof in any experiment or peer reviewed scientific paper, and which was rejected from the beginning by expert articles in Cancer Research in 1987 and in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 1989 and later, with no rebuttal ever attempted in those leading peer reviewed journals. The only reason the commenters here can be so disparaging is that the intense politics of repression have successfully prevented the continual challenge to HIV as a credible and productive hypothesis from being covered in the mainstream media and science news journals, so they assume that all the insults that the critics are crackpots and nincompoops are true, instead of being defensive tactics on the part of HIV promoters and mere propaganda. Goodson’s paper is a very useful survey of the myriad serious and unsatisfied peer reviewed objections to HIV as the cause of immune collapse from credible critics . There is no reason why Retraction Watch should assume it is flawed and should be taken down.

    Comment awaiting moderation.

  22. davidmburd Says:

    Science Guardian, I wish to make a critical correction to an earlier comment; I had relied on my memory of years ago, but I was way off. To wit: I had cited AIDS deaths had begun steep drops in 1994. Actually, AIDS’ deaths began steeply dropping in late 1991 to early 1992, as shown by the below California references. My comments after the url/http:’s. You shall see.

    Note: CA, LA deaths’ steep drop begins late-1991/early-1992.

    Note: pubmed ref cites 1996 as first year of HAART.

    http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/aids/documents/hivaidsmergedapr09.pdf

    http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/ha/reports/angelenos/chapter4/angel4comd.pdf

    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5021a2.htm#fig1

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24419062

    On another note. Since I have been banned by Frontiers of Public Health for simply claiming ARVs kill their advocates, I hope Science Guardian will not follow suit, and ban me.

    Digesting the above genuine Reports, it is abundantly clear the US CDC lies and obfuscates and/or delays all statistics to justify their autocratic authority.

  23. Anthony Liversidge Says:

    “On another note. Since I have been banned by Frontiers of Public Health for simply claiming ARVs kill their advocates, I hope Science Guardian will not follow suit, and ban me.”

    No one is banned from this site whose interest is unwrapping venal politics from the truth, especially with references. Why would you even think so? Did we miss something? Also are you sure that was the reason Frontiers banned you?

    Is it possible you were banned from Frontiers for using a pseudonym? Or is it possible that your signup doesn’t work because your email is bouncing? There is some sign of the latter in that RA group mail returns your address at Verizon as not functioning.

    Can you state your belief in the correlation of AZT and AIDS deaths in a simple way? Don’t both go hand in hand, with deaths reflecting high then lower AZT? Is there a stark correlation or is Thane right in pointing out a backwards correlation in 1995?

    Other factors are involved, obviously, too. For example, Houston has pointed out that allowing patients to have ‘holidays’ and substitute other medication for AZT must be taken into account for helping reduce AZT caused deaths. He notes that Sonnabend told POZ in April 2006 that the leadership “made mistake after mistake” and that one of them was initially 1200 mg AZT – which “killed thousands, as did early intervention”. But corticosteroids also impacted the immune system’s T cells lethally, which would have interfered with the direct AZT-deaths correlation.

    Has anyone done a graph of AZT and deaths?

    I think your basic points are well taken and very useful. AIDS patients stopped taking AZT well before 1995 so we can’t say that they were rescued by HAART. Also people who took no medication did very well in the Lohse study. There was no reason to take anything.

  24. Anthony Liversidge Says:

    Amusing continuation this evening of Comments at the Goodson Frontiers page (Questioning the HIV-AIDS hypothesis: 30 years of dissent)

    David R. Crowe MIKA THANE -> E MIKA THAN -> ETH MIKA AN -> ETH KAMI AN -> ETH KA I MAN -> *ETH KA*I**MAN -> SETH KALICHMAN
    Yesterday at 06:22pm

    Terry P Michael Thank you, David, for exposing “Mika” as Seth Kalichman. Frontiers editors must surely understand now that they were used and abused by The HIV-AIDS Industry’s hit man, “Dr.” Kalichman, giving him digital space to respond to the well-researched and superbly written article originally published here by Dr. Patricia Goodson, assessing the state of dissent from the single pathogen theory of AIDS. Will the Frontiers editors have the journalistic integrity to restore Dr. Goodson’s article to its original status as a serious scientific paper? Moderator: censor me if you will, but know that there have been many serious people watching this travesty unfold.
    Yesterday at 07:07pm

    Mika Thane (I’m sure Dr Kalichman would find this latest development amusing given his interest in the subject, but for the record, I am not he.
    Later edited to: )
    For the record, I am not Seth Kalichman.
    Yesterday at 07:51pm

    David R. Crowe Probability of the first letter of MIKA THANE being from SETH KALICHMAN (13 letters) – 13/26. Probability of second letter being from the 12 remaining letters, 12/26. Total probability = 13/26 x 12/26 … x 6/26 x 5/26 = 1/4.8×10^5 or 48 out of a million. Conclusion: Beyond a reasonable doubt the name MIKA THANE was generated from the letters in the name SETH KALICHMAN. Therefore, it is clear that MIKA THANE is highly unlikely to be the name of a real person.

    I would be interested in anyone who could validate my probability calculation.
    Yesterday at 07:55pm

    Terry P Michael Moderator: will you take the necessary steps to determine the identity of “Mika Thane?”
    Yesterday at 08:16pm

    David R. Crowe I am sure Mike Thane, if a real person, won’t mind proving their identity to the moderators/editors. I suspect that using a false name AND commenting on your own articles would be frowned upon.

    Today at 12:51am

    Mika Thane David R. Crowe now seems to be suggesting I have been commenting on my own article under a false name.

    For the record, I am not Patricia Goodson either.
    Today at 04:04am

    Martin Barnes Well, who are you then?
    Today at 07:10am

    Terry P Michael Yes, “Mika,” and we’ll assume you’re not Eleanor Roosevelt either.
    Today at 07:46am

    Henry Hermann Bauer David, Martin, Terry et al.:
    I suggest you follow my lead and stop responding to “Mika Thane”. He/she, like innumerable Internet trolls, has excellent reason not to reveal his identity, for if he/she did, no one would bother with anything he/she had to say; they would recognize him as an HIV/AIDS groupie or vigilante who has no credentials or standing to participate in scholarly discourse (think Claus Jensen). He/she is thoroughly enjoying that at last he/she is being taken seriously when in his/her real life no one does so.
    Today at 08:29am

    Terry P Michael I agree, Henry. But I believe Frontiers may be liable for helping to perpetrate a fraud. I have saved the entire above file as PDF, in case legal action against Frontiers and Kalichman is warranted. Moderator: if you delete anything you will potentially be a party to perpetrating a fraud.

    David R. Crowe I will await Mike Thane proving his identity to the moderators. That will satisfy me.
    Today at 09:59am

    Anthony Liversidge This excessive reaction to the idea that Mika Thane might be Kalichman himself seems likely to be removed forthwith by the moderator, if he/she is active on weekends. And why not? Kalichman adopting a pseudonym to quibble over AZT rather ineffectually would be valid enough for the purposes of debate, helping to expose how he and other HIV proponents cannot see the wood for the trees. That is, they cannot see and admit the overall outline of the specious, indeed egregious HIV error because they have divined some small inconsistency and like to divert discussion into a quibble (explicable in the ordinary way as a part of a multifactorial and muddied picture where all research depends on the paradigm as premise) to halt rejecting it wholesale.

    If this is indeed the unlikely story then it doesn’t seem to deserve high outrage and threats to Frontiers of a lawsuit. And if Mika Thane is merely a fellow traveler to Kalichman, so what? He/she provides an opportunity for critics of HIV-think to clarify points and dismiss quibbles convincingly, which is always helpful to readers assessing the science and politics of this extraordinary situation where a paradigm still without proof in any published paper has resisted endless evisceration by experts and lay writers alike, primarily by suffocating the free debate which is the lifeline of good science. This is exactly what Mika Thane is providing, to the advantage of those who are now hot under the collar about it.

    David R. Crowe Just to close the loop on the decline in the AIDS death rate. The Los Angeles data unfortunately does not appear to answer the question about when the death rate started dropping there. The fact that there was a drop recorded in 1996/1997 does not mean that there wasn’t a drop earlier. Luckily San Francisco has better data:
    https://www.sfdph.org/dph/files/reports/RptsHIVAIDS/HIVAIDAnnlRpt2013.pdf

    Total number of deaths per year (Figure 1.1, page 67)
    1985:534; 1986:807; 1987;878; 1988: 1,039; 1989: 1,278; 1990: 1,365; 1991:1,510; 1992: 1,641 [PEAK]; 1993: 1,600; 1994: 1,594; 1995: 1,484; 1996: 992; 1997: 424

    So it is clear that the decline happened in 1992/1993, well before PIs were introduced in late 1995 (and not widespread in use until 1996). It is true that there was a much bigger decline in 1996. But these statistics could indicate many things. People who took AZT, ddI etc. dying. People abandoning AIDS drugs. Doctors reducing the dose of AZT. This may have started earlier in San Francisco because people were more familiar with the danger of AZT, critics like Peter Duesberg lived in the vicinity, and mainstream skeptics like Donald Abrams were also speaking out against AZT. But it is really impossible to say anything with certainty except that protease inhibitors cannot take all the credit for the drop.
    Today at 12:03pm

    Anthony Liversidge
    David Burd has pointed out in Comments at http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/support-for-peter-duesberg-and-hiv-aids-dissent-as-worth-examining.htm/comment-page-1?trashed=1&ids=12470#comment-12469 at Science Guardian that a table found at http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/ha/reports/angelenos/chapter4/angel4comd.pdf shows deaths in Los Angeles County from AIDS peaked in 1991 at 3217 and had dropped by three times by 1995 to 980 so although they halved again in 1996 to 498 the kinder protease inhibitors introduced in late 1996 cannot be credited for the steep decline in mortality that began in 1991. It has to be that even the lemming like gays who so fervently embraced the scientifically hollow notion that the inert and 99.99% absent HIV was causing immune collapse were revolting against the foulness of AZT and its effects.
    Sunday at 07:08pm
    ——————————————————————

    What David Crowe has found is that all the letters of the name Mika Thane can be drawn directly from the name Seth Kalichman, leaving only SLC and another H unused. This would seem to be significant. Could be simply a supporter of Kalichman’s though. The overreaction makes the critics of HIV look undignified, which is what trolls like to achieve.

    Meanwhile “I am not he”. Shouldn’t that be “I am not him”? Maybe not. Anyhow, the Comment has now been edited by Mika Thane to remove the phrase.

    PS Sun March 1: David Crowe has written out an extensive argument that the Editors of Frontiers should look into the possibility that Mika Thane is Seth Kalichman and if he is ban him from Frontiers, and sent it to Frontiers today Sun Mar 1.

    We think this is unwise because they might take down his own useful arguments against Mika Thane’s spurious defense of AZT as not the cause of accelerated deaths in AIDS patients, and also that they might trigger further efforts by the Frontiers editors to deal with this hot potato by acquiescing to an outside review, which in the case of Medical Hypotheses resulted in a take down of Duesberg’s very excellent article in 2009, one of the scandals of modern bad science politics. (See the usual perfidious coverage in Nature, a journal of one sided quote reporting which used to be quite respectable. The article Paper denying HIV AIDS link secures publication notes that the expanded version of Duesberg’s article was published in the Italian Journal of Anatomy and Embryology (IJAE) in 2011.)

    PPS: At 2 am Sun Mar 2 all Comments were erased from the Goodson page and the Kalichman page. They reappeared a short time later.

  25. Anthony Liversidge Says:

    More comments at the Seth Kalichman Commentary page. They follow the Harvey Bialy one which is repeated here for the sake of including an intelligent one to leaven the rest, which have neither wit nor science to them:

    Harvey Bialy
    Hello Seth,

    Yes I am still alive, remembering your inquiring once, under a pseudonym of course. And yes, I see that your nonsensical, circular and silly arguments have not changed one iota in 8 years.

    Actual scientific arguments, based on reproducible data, are not flavors of the month the way some AIDS “research” is. (See my very instructive. and completely fresh after 10 years. biography of Prof. Duesberg entitled Oncogenes, Aneuploidy and AIDS, The Scientific Life and Times of Peter H. Duesberg). So, unless the authors (the majority of whom are among the AIDS luminaries you so admire) of the papers, we misguided heretics cite, have retracted their experimental protocols or results, there is no reason to condemn them because of “significant advances in HIV research”; especially as there haven’t been any. The central unanswered question —- How HIV with its tiny 9kb genome destroys the human immune system — is as mysterious now as 10 years ago when I reviewed the pertinent scientific literature in my book, or 30 years ago when the “AIDS virus” came into existence by US government fiat.

    But never mind data, or the time-honored tenets of hypothesis testing that prior to the AIDS era characterized molecular biologic investigation. Just ‘keep on keeping on’ professor. $32 million is an impressive haul. As a member of the UConn psychology faculty, you must have made at least a few significant discoveries to warrant such NIH largesse. I would be curious to learn what you think they are.
    20 Feb 2015 at 08:42pm

    Rick Stein
    Dr. Kalichman, your perspective is amazing, and Congratulations for such a skillfully crafted article. I enjoyed reading it. It is a great service to the scientific community and to the public. At the same time, it is sad to realize how many comments, which should focus on science, are in fact personal attacks directed against individuals who express their views. It’s almost like reading political news sites. The Goodson article is clearly a faulty and deceptive piece, one that engages in scientific and journalistic misconduct, and I believe that it should be retracted. It actually is a danger for education and for public health. Keep up the good work, Dr. Kalichman.
    Today at 09:51pm

    Seth Kalichman Rick, Thanks for your comment. Many of the comments posted here are by AIDS Deniers, some of the same people who ‘consulted’ with Goodson in preparing her article. I only know this from her own public communications in social media. Many believe that the article should have been retracted. I certainly did. But I understand why Frontiers did not retract, although I do not agree with that decision. I was asked by a senior editor to provide the commentary. This person had read my book Denying AIDS and was aware that I had direct contact with some of the key Deniers in doing research for my book. I got to know some of them quite well. I agreed to write the commentary because I felt that the article should not go without an answer. I am glad I did. I also agreed with Frontier’s decision to change the article type to Opinion. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. The problem of course, is misusing science to create the illusion that opinion is fact. That is what ends up happening with the Goodson article. I believe you are right, that is misconduct at best.
    Today at 10:12pm

    Rick Stein Thanks so much for your feedback Seth. There is another aspect of the Goodson article that I believe is very dangerous, factually and for ethical reasons. Table 1 presents facts about “critics of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis” and includes James Chin among them (I don’t know him and never interacted with him, and I might be unaware of certain things from the history of the pandemic and investigators’ contributions). But later on, in the text, James Chin is quoted as being critical of *methods* that were being used for estimating and projecting infections. Thus, James Chin is not really a critic of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis, as he is erroneously labeled in Table 1. By a similar argument, if I would argue tomorrow that we need to revisit the methodology for estimating the dynamics of the spread of influenza in a population, would that make me a critic of the link between the virus and the infectious disease? I found this argument to be a very troublesome one. I also would like to add, that after reading the discussions, the intimidation that I witnessed here made me uncomfortable about posting with my previous username and I created a second account that does not have my academic affiliation and links to my published work. It is disheartening to see that a discussion on microbial pathogenesis is turning to discussions on how much funding each of us has received. I can imagine such an article (the Goodsone one) being used tomorrow by certain governments to fuel conspiracy theories (it would not be the first time when junk articles would be used for political purposes) and then, besides the factual fallacies and ethical problems, such an article could also result in the denial of therapy for people who need it most. Sad.
    Today at 10:31pm

    Seth Kalichman Rick
    First, you are correct about Chin. AIDS Deniers have misrepresented him. You characterize the problem perfectly. Part of it is their just not understanding AIDS. They recreate facts to fit their rigid belief system. That is at the core of denialism. It is what denialism shares with delusional thinking, in a psychopathological sense. If you are not familiar with Henry Bauer, you should look at his writing on AIDS. He exploits Chin and goes way, way off the deep-end in twisting HIV epidemiology. Goodson treats Bauer like an expert. Truth is, he is an expert on the existence of the monsters of Loch Ness. I am not name calling. That is a fact.
    Second, I cannot blame you for not using your profile here. The attacks will continue. No one would blame you for creating a new profile to avoid the time that is wasted dealing with AIDS deniers. The thing is, they believe I post under false names. I do not. I like for them to know I am still around. Still studying them. But unless you want to be in their face I would suggest not getting started with them.
    Finally, you are correct about the potential harm from the Goodson article. Former South African President Mbeki is an example of how such an article could lead to convenient policies of neglect. One place Goodson’s paper is likely to end up is in courts of law. AIDS deniers have become involved in legal defense teams for people prosecuted for exposing undisclosed to sex partners to HIV. I can see them waving this article in front of a jury to create doubt that HIV exists, and therefore no harmful exposure. Regardless of the article type, opinion or not,, a jury will see it as a scientific paper that underwent ‘peer review’. We can only hope that the discovery process includes these comments!
    Today at 11:09pm

    Anthony Liversidge
    The above four comments do not address any of the many scientific errors they allege in the Goodson paper, but merely question its quality on the basis that all the papers it lists, and their authors, very strongly question the scientific credibility of the HIV paradigm. But this is the very premise of all Kalichman’s and his colleague’s thinking on AIDS, so if they wish to prove the notion is not scientifically as hollow as the papers demonstrate, could they not specify the errors they see, which the peer reviewers of the papers have missed?

    Contrary to the only claim of error, that James Chin is not a “denialist”, he is certainly someone who threw a large spanner in the works of HIV dogma. He is the WHO epidemiologist with twenty five years experience in HIV tracking who wrote in his book The AIDS Pandemic: The Collision of Epidemiology with Political Correctness (2006), that the general population was not at risk outside sub-Saharan Africa, and the chances of a heterosexual global pandemic were nil.

    It is true that he made the obligatory resolute statements of undented belief in HIV as the cause of AIDS but his rejection of heterosexual risk was a major take down of HIV global dogma. His revisionist view was adopted in UNAIDS estimates in the following years.

    By the way, surely when Professor Kalichman’s friend Rick Stein writes “it is sad to realize how many comments, which should focus on science, are in fact personal attacks directed against individuals who express their views. It’s almost like reading political news sites” he is looking in a mirror?
    Today at 03:09am

    Rick Stein
    Dear Mr. Liversidge, of course, the above four comments (the ones that you were referring to) *do* address several of the scientific errors in the Goodson paper. If you read my comment carefully, just as an example, you will notice that I pointed out a factual error, that of implying that James Chin said something that he, actually, did not say. That is factually flawed, ethically unacceptable, and it erodes trust in the article. Furthermore, you do not seem to focus on the science, but rather, you are more passionate about initiating personal attacks. And you seem to be so passionate, while involved in this endeavor, that in your rush you even mistakenly attributed one of my quotes (above) to Professor Kalichman, in your eagerness to criticize him. Again – this discussion should be about science and about data, not about the people presenting the science, whether they are looking at or looking away from a mirror. Please, please, please, kindly learn some basic concepts about how to discuss science in a civil and courteous way. The focus should be on the scientific data, not on verbally attacking scientists and on sarcastic comments that reassure readers about your familiarity with the principles of optics. Thank you tons.
    Today at 03:25am

    Anthony Liversidge Sorry, Rick Stein, it all seemed so seamless, especially since Professor Kalichman has looked in this mirror so often before, I have corrected it. But where are the personal attacks you claim? I referred to your views, and characterized them, not you. Far be it for me to use terms such as “That is at the core of denialism. It is what denialism shares with delusional thinking, in a psychopathological sense.” though I would certainly think they apply. There are few stronger or more widespread delusions than your favorite scientific paradigm, in my opinion. But since you find such remarks attacks, I wouldn’t use them. It is those alleged scientific flaws that I hope you will enumerate. Counting Chin as a denialist of HIV dogma is not one. But could we please, please, please have one, since the AZT one was shot down?
    Today at 3.09 am

    Rick Stein Dear Mr. Liversidge, of course, the above four comments (the ones that you were referring to) *do* address several of the scientific errors in the Goodson paper. If you read my comment carefully, just as an example, you will notice that I pointed out a factual error, that of implying that James Chin said something that he, actually, did not say. That is factually flawed, ethically unacceptable, and it erodes trust in the article. Furthermore, you do not seem to focus on the science, but rather, you are more passionate about initiating personal attacks. And you seem to be so passionate, while involved in this endeavor, that in your rush you even mistakenly attributed one of my quotes (above) to Professor Kalichman, in your eagerness to criticize him. Again – this discussion should be about science and about data, not about the people presenting the science, whether they are looking at or looking away from a mirror. Please, please, please, kindly learn some basic concepts about how to discuss science in a civil and courteous way. The focus should be on the scientific data, not on verbally attacking scientists and on sarcastic comments that reassure readers about your familiarity with the principles of optics. Thank you tons.
    Today at 03:25am

    Anthony Liversidge Sorry, Rick Stein, it all seemed so seamless, especially since Professor Kalichman has looked in this mirror so often before, I have corrected it. But where are the personal attacks you claim? I referred to your views, and characterized them, not you. Far be it for me to use terms such as “That is at the core of denialism. It is what denialism shares with delusional thinking, in a psychopathological sense.” though I would certainly think they apply. There are few stronger or more widespread delusions than your favorite scientific paradigm, in my opinion. But since you find such remarks attacks, I wouldn’t use them. It is those alleged scientific flaws that I hope you will enumerate. Counting Chin as a denialist of HIV dogma is not one. But could we please, please, please have one, since the AZT one was shot down?
    Today at 03:49am|Edit|Delete

    Rick Stein Dear Mr. Liversidge, this is interesting. So now, after I pointed out your error, you corrected from “Professor Kalichman writes…” to ” “Professor Kalichman’s friend Rick Stein writes…”, while the continuation is left unchanged. See, this is exactly what I mean – instead of talking about science, you are directing your comments against the person. Instead of debating science, you are debating the scientist. And I find it quite ironic that you still seem to believe that your unprofessional and childish remark about the mirror is still appropriate, whether you direct it to Professor Kalichman or to me. It does not even matter to you, you change the recipient and leave the same comment. This just demonstrates something about your ethics, which I will refrain from discussing. Also, my “favorite scientific paradigm” is not the topic of this discussion and, with all respect, it should not concern you. If you are able to say something *meaningful* (and I *do* mean meaningful) about the science of HIV, you are free to do so. Otherwise, you appear to be more of an activist and frankly, a danger to science and to public education. Please, kindly educate yourself.
    Today at 04:05am

    Anthony Liversidge Dear Me Stein, the request is for flaws you see in the Goodson paper, not in me. This is a science journal, you may not have noticed. No scientific flaws to claim?
    In that case, perhaps it is not a “junk article”, even though its content may be even more “amazing” to you than Mr Kalichman’s.

    Today at 09:53am
    ——————————————————————

    Special note: Oddly, all comments were erased from both the Goodson and Klichman pages at approx 2 am NYC time Sun Mar 1/2, though left up at the Publishers Statement page. Shortly afterwards they reappeared again.

  26. Anthony Liversidge Says:

    David Crowe has got the brush off from the Frontiers Editorial Office Manager, Mirjam Curno:

    Here is David Crowe’s letter of complaint:
    ——————————————————-
    Subject: Concern about comments from “Mika Thane”
    Date: March 1, 2015 at 10:35:19 AM MST
    To: Frontiers Editorial Office

    Dear Editors;

    There is growing concern that comments on the recent Goodson and Kalichman articles by Mika Thane are by a person using a false name. Further, there is some evidence that this person might be Seth Kalichman, or a close associate.

    The articles in question are:
    http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpubh.2014.00154/full (Goodson, ” Questioning the HIV-AIDS hypothesis: 30 years of dissent”)
    http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpubh.2015.00030/full (Kalichman, Commentary on “Questioning the HIV–AIDS hypothesis: 30 years of dissent”)

    Before discussing whether Mika Thane is a real person, a little bit of background:
    He implies that he is an approximately 50 year old gay man, based on his comment, “In 1995 I was 30 years old. We had already lived through over a decade of the plague, seeing dozens of our friends – vibrant young men in their prime – struck down by a cruel and unremitting disease…Then in 1996 the funerals suddenly stopped. Friends and loved ones we thought were near the end got up out of their beds and tentatively went back out into the world”
    He is also quite knowledgeable about the dosing of AZT in the 1990s.
    In total he gives the impression of someone who lived in a gay community in the late 1980s and early 1990s, at least, and who studied the use of drugs to combat AIDS.

    Here is the evidence that Mika Thane is not a real person:
    Despite his extensive comments on Frontiers, google turns up nothing relevant except his profile on Frontiers (Loop), a posting on “scienceblogs.com” (February 2014) and a June 2014 posting on another blog (mylespower.co.uk) linked to a Facebook profile. All have similar comments defending the HIV=AIDS theory, so presumably are the same person. There is a “Second Life” profile “mika.thane”, but that appears to be unrelated to the subject of HIV and AIDS, and is probably just a coincidence.
    It is highly unlikely that someone who was within the community most affected in the 1990s, and who has obviously studied the issue, and who claims to be very knowledgeable, would have never commented before and would be essentially invisible on the internet from the very beginning of the internet up until 2014.
    None of these profiles have any photos or information that would help validate that this was a real person.
    His facebook profile does not even have any friends, let alone information about his location, interests etc. A facebook profile with no friends is highly unusual.
    On Frontiers Mika Thane claims to be from Canada, but on scienceblogs.com, he claims to be from Mumbai. On facebook no location is provided.

    Perhaps the editors could request that, because of these concerns, Mika Thane could provide some evidence of his existence (such as a photocopy of a bill with his name and address, or a photocopy of photo identification). If he refuses I feel that he has violated the Frontiers terms of service and should be removed.

    More concerning is the possibility that Mike Thane might actually be Seth Kalichman. It is very strange that the name “Mika Thane” is composed of only letters from the name “SETH KALICHMAN”. The probability of this is 13/26 for the first letter (Seth Kalichman is 13 letters long), 12/26 for the second, multiplied together until 5/26 for the last letter. This leads to a probability of about 48 out of a million that a randomly selected name would contain only letters from SETH KALICHMAN. Even if the rarer letters of the alphabet are removed (e.g. Q, X, Y, Z) leaving an alphabet of only 22 letters, the probability is 13/22 * 12/22 * … * 5/22, which is about 214 out of a million.

    Additionally, Mika Thane commented, “David R. Crowe now seems to be suggesting I have been commenting on my own article under a false name.” This comment would only make sense if written by Seth Kalichman, but not if written by another person. This implies that “Mika Thane” really is Seth Kalichman.

    The only person who is likely to generate a false name from the name Seth Kalichman, and write comments aligned with Kalichman’s views, is Seth Kalichman himself, or a close associate.

    I suggest that the editors request a signed statement from Seth Kalichman stating that neither he, nor anyone he has influence over (including graduate students, colleagues, employees family and friends) have posted comments under the name “Mika Thane”.

    Regards, David Crowe

    —————————————————
    This is Frontiers reply:

    Dear Mr Crowe,

    Thank you very much for bringing this matter to our attention. We have considered your arguments carefully. Nevertheless, we have come to the conclusion that Mika Thane is a valid user and registered with us in good faith. We consider the matter closed.

    You will appreciate that, due to internal policies, we cannot communicate any further information regarding identity verification.

    We continue to monitor the article comments in question and will take action as and when we deem it necessary.

    Best regards,
    Mirjam Curno


    Mirjam J. Curno, PhD
    Editorial Office Manager, Frontiers
    http://www.frontiersin.org | twitter.com/FrontiersIn
    EPFL – Innovation Square Building I
    1015 Lausanne, Switzerland | T +41(0)21 510 17 23
    ———————————————————-

    Loop (the comment machinery used at Frontiers) supplies a charming photo of a fresh faced young blonde woman with a very broad grin and informs us that Mirjam Jessica Curno completed a PhD in molecular oncology at the University of Dundee in Scotland in 2006, and then moved to the University of Lausanne, Switzerland as a postdoctoral fellow to work on viral immunity. From 2010 to 2014 she was the Managing Editor of the Journal of the International AIDS Society. Mirjam then joined Frontiers as Journal Manager and was made the the Editorial Office Manager since November 2014. She is a council member of the Committee on Publication Ethics.

    Google adds that she was German born (born Eckert) in March 1981 and delivered a Powerpoint talk at the XIXth International AIDS Conference in Washington at the WEWS15 session on Meet the Editors: Publishing HIV Research, Scientific Skills Development (co facilitator Mark Wainberg of Montreal) with the topics described as This workshop will bring together editors from different HIV-related journals to discuss important topics and trends in publishing research in academic journals. Different viewpoints on issues around open access, peer review, impact factor, ethics and gender will be covered, and also how these relate to HIV research as well as resource-limited settings. Each topic will be covered by short presentations, moderated discussions among panelists and open questions from the audience. Ms Curno’s presentation had the title Ethical publishing by doing the right things

    This suggests that Ms Curno’s position on publishing Patricia Goodson’s piece is probably that it was not in line with her understanding that HIV is without doubt the culprit for AIDS decline as fortified by being amid a crowd of 20,000 people who all shared this belief as a lynchpin of their world view and the premise of all their research and Powerpoint presentations given by herself and others.

    On the other hand her topic of Ethical publishing by doing the right things and her directorship of the Committee on Publication Ethics in Norfolk suggests that she supported the publication of the Goodson paper as “doing the right thing” and this even though at 9000 words it did not exceed the nominal 6000 word count limit of the original Theory and Hypothesis section it appeared in it now exceeds the 2000 nominal word limit on Opinion pieces. She also returned the excess fee.

    Thus we would argue that critics of HIV should not make her life difficult if it can be avoided. I would think that let sleeping dogs lie might be best. However, Terry Michael has just posted the following inquiry and request in Comments on Goodson.

    —————————————————————————–
    Terry P Michael Moderator: On February 18, I posted a comment (still here) on this comment, the third in this thread from September 26, 2014, from a poster calling himself/herself “René Michael Malenfant”:
    ****
    Coming soon from Frontiers in Geology, the great new article: “Questioning the ellipsoidal earth hypothesis: 3000 years of dissent”.
    To be followed by a spectacular special issue in Frontiers in Chemistry: “I am Phlogiston (And So Can You!)”
    HIV denialism would be laughable if it were not irresponsible and deadly.
    26 Sep 2014 at 01:23am
    ****
    I just looked and that poster is now listed as “Delete This Profile,” but with the same time and date, and no change in the comment text.

    Just what kind of games can be played here? Did you, the moderator, change the name? Did the poster change the name? And why? I post all comments on all web sites using my real name. I am easily identifiable, using a real name and photo. Here is my resume:
    http://www.wcpj.org/about_center/TerryMichaelBiographyContactInfoForWeb.pdf

    Most every newspaper in America has a rule that they will not publish “letters to the editor” without confirming the identity of the writer. It amazes me that a supposedly professional, peer reviewed journal will allow obviously not real persons, like “Mika Thane,” to do their dirty work under cover of anonymity. And I am stunned that Frontiers editors are apparently not attempting to determine the identity of “Mika Thane,” since there is such tremendous probability that this poster is indeed the writer of the Frontiers Commentary to which these Comments are being posted, “Questioning the HIV–AIDS Hypothesis: 30 Years of Dissent,” Seth C. Kalichman. Allowing Kalichman to engage in an ad hominem attack posing as a “Commentary” is bad enough. But how can Frontiers justify allowing Kalichman to engage in a subsequent subterfuge? Doing so calls into question the professionalism of the entire Frontiers operation.

    Readers here deserve a comprehensive response from the editors of Frontiers.
    Monday Mar 2 2015 at 01:09pm

    The specific suggestion has been rejected by Frontiers, but leaves many of the questions raised unanswered:

    Frontiers Michiel Dijkstra/Frontiers Communications: Some commenters have queried the identity of another commenter. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have looked into the matter and concluded that this person registered with us in good faith under their true name. We consider the matter closed.
    Tuesday Mar 3 at 04:20am

    Terry P Michael
    To: Michiel Dijkstra/Frontiers Communications What person are you referring to, René Michael Malenfant or “Mika Thane.” Malenfant is a real person, so why was he allowed to post under that identity and then become anonymous? Mika Thane is most clearly not a real identity. I await your answer.
    Yesterday at 03:56pm

    Eugene John Semon
    Thank you Frontiers for bringing to an end – the great “Mika Thane” controversy and the ridiculous idea of a lawsuit – this should hopefully be closed as well. Mr Thane is most certainly an artful dodger, let’s give him credit for that. Now I’m looking forward to reading the Seth Kalichman commentary given his great expertise on the purification standards for retroviruses. Will he also dodge the fundamental issue in this debate and display, as usual, total ignorance on the current idea of living virus as equal to a cell factory producing particles that eventually kill the cell. Why there are isolation standards beyond identifying the virus genes in the first place. (see Eugene Koonin, etc.) BTW, this was Gallo’s original hypothesis totally debunked by Peter Duesberg.
    Yesterday at 04:01pm

    ——————————————————————————–

    The name deleted was Lee Rudolph.

  27. Anthony Liversidge Says:

    The Progressive Radio Network site has this important story well summarized yesterday in a note on an interview by David Crowe with Patricia Goodson:


    Infectious Myth – Patricia Goodson on the Frontier of AIDS Dissent – 03.03.15

    Posted on March 3, 2015 by Archivist
    DS Dissent – 03.03.15

    Posted on March 3, 2015 by Archivist

    I September 2014 the journal “Frontiers in Public Health” published an article, “Questioning the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis: 30 Years of Dissent,” and a firestorm erupted. The very same day that the article came out, the author, Professor Patricia Goodson of Texas A&M University, was contacted by a vigorous defender of the HIV=AIDS dogma, and the journal launched an investigation.

    The purpose of the attack on the article was to erase it entirely, but this time the attack failed. Professor Goodson stood firm, did not panic, and let the investigation run its course. Eventually a token victory was handed to the defenders of the dogma, Goodson’s article was downgraded from a research article to “Opinion”, and Seth Kalichman, a psychology professor who represents the defenders of the faith, was given the right to publish an article which turned out to be an attack on the personalities of major AIDS rethinkers, avoiding any discussion of the scientific issues.

    Goodson’s article remained on the website, has received a huge amount of attention, over 18,000 views to date, and, following the investigation, it was published on the US National Library of Medicine’s PubMed database, which makes the article available to an even larger audience.

    Seth Kalichman is an interesting character, having previously invented the name “Joseph Newton” in order to infiltrate the dissident movement. Except that the dissident movement is open, so no infiltration is necessary. It’s like wearing a stocking mask and camouflage to go grocery shopping. On the web page for Goodson’s article (which is freely available for download), a man with the strange name “Mika Thane” has been commenting, effusive in his praise for Seth Kalichman’s position and therefore very critical of Goodson. The strange thing is, that the letters in the name “Mika Thane” come entirely from the name “Seth Kalichman”, the probability of which is only about 48 out of a million. Could it be that Professor Kalichman is using another fake name to help boost his own credibility by agreeing with himself?

    This interview with Goodson covers the reasons she got involved in the issue, why she wrote this article, and her feelings and experiences during the investigation by the journal, as well as discussions of the role of Seth Kalichman. David was joined in the interview by Elizabeth Ely, his co-host on the “How Positive Are You?” podcast.

  28. Anthony Liversidge Says:

    David Crowe had added this to the Goodson page:

    David R. Crowe Another comment on the decline in AIDS deaths. This report from California, published in 1999, clearly shows that the AIDS death rate started declining at the beginning of 1995 (possibly even late 1994). http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1218&context=caldocs_agencies
    The Vancouver AIDS conference was at the beginning of the second half of 1996, so there were at least three half-years of decline before protease inhibitors were widely distributed, from about 4000 deaths in 2H’94, about 3600 1H’95, about 3500 2H’95 and about 2900 1H’95. An interesting remaining question is whether the rate of usage of protease inhibitors was high enough in the second half of 1996 to explain the rapid decline to about 1700 deaths in 2H’96.
    Yesterday at 02:58pm

    Anthony Liversidge @David Crowe Fig 1 in the link you quote shows that California AIDS deaths peaked in 12/91 and total cases peaked in 6/92, so the decline in the death rate started in 1992 well before the cocktail was brought in in 1996 and even earlier than you say above. Presumably this was due to AZT “holidays” etc reflecting the revulsion of patients towards this noxious drug.

    It certainly wasn’t due to the protease inhibitor-AZT cocktails, obviously, so the latter’s arrival in 1996 did not prove that HIV was the correct target as so many believe, and “the drugs work don’t they?” which is the clinching argument for HIV in the minds of so many, including for example President Clinton, is therefore debunked.

    It is the fact that protease inhibitors were less noxious than AZT which accounts for the continuing decline in deaths after 1996, not the fact they “worked” against HIV.
    Today at 01:56am
    —————————————————–
    The information David Crowe posted was from David Burd as follows (in email):

    I finally relocated my crucial reference (see http below). This California State of the State Report in 1999 reveals and clarifies the different approaches of reporting AIDS deaths. Figures 1 to 5 show the deaths between AIDS “deaths by year of diagnosis” and “actual AIDS deaths by half-year” for the crucial years 1992 to 1998.

    For instance: Fig. 1 for year the total for 1994 has AIDS deaths by year of diagnosis, each 1/2 year close to either side of 2,000.

    Yet, Fig. 2 has actual AIDS deaths in 1994, each 1/2 year close to either side of 3,800, clearly falling through 1995 (as shown by Figs. 2 – 5), and plummeting through 1996 (HAART’s inaugural year with inevitable** cumulative toxicity just beginning) along with abandonment of heavy AZT monotherapy.

    In 1997, Figs. 2-5 continue plummeting of actual deaths as more of those with a new Hiv+ diagnosis jumped into HAART, adding ever more patients beginning, accumulating toxic effects of HAART’s constituents.

    **Starting 1998, HAART’s cumulative toxicities (3,300 milligrams daily**; 1,100 mgs of nucleoside analogues AZT & 3Tc; 2,200 mgs of protease inhibitors) to those compliant on HAART; annual death drop clearly leveling off as Figures show.

    Abundant reporting after 1998, shows the next 10 years of (near level) AIDS deaths, as the treadmill of iatrogenic death was kept fed by 30,000 (+/-) new annual AIDS diagnoses, with enough new patients accepting the HAART dogma and their consequent unwitting mortality.

    My conclusion: It’s implausible this 1999 California Report has inaccurate stats. Therefore it very plausible all other major AIDS epicenters would show actual annual AIDS deaths in concert with CA (but these reports are elusive, and so many cite reporting delays, or simply don’t have enough record keeping, whatever).

    Then, there’s the CDC: Their self-serving motives make it impossible for me to believe anything they ever report.

    Please feel free to disseminate and share this documentation — far and wide!

    Pull this up — and digest for yourselves:

    http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1218&context=caldocs_agencies

    Regards, David M Burd March 3, 2015

    ——————————————————–

    The information in fact confirms the Los Angeles county picture. AIDS deaths in Ca peaked in 1992 (not 1995) and rapidly declined thereafter, with protease inhibitors only accelerating a drop already registered for years which must reflect doctors lowering the dose and patients dumping AZT down the toilet, as Magic Johnson evidently did, according to his wife.

    Therefore the downward trend in deaths reflects lower intake of AZT not the new cocktails in 1996 and later.

  29. Anthony Liversidge Says:

    The Seth Kalichman Commentary page has added comments by Eugene John Semon and Rick Stein:

    Eugene John Semon Indeed Rick Stein, in Goodson or any of Duesberg’s papers, name one thing that violates physical laws that underly all science. This denying science stance you guys take is simply absurd.
    03 Mar 2015 at 04:25pm

    Eugene John Semon And Seth Kalichman repeats the false charge that Duesberg has never done research on HIV. And he equates denying HIV as the cause with denying AIDS, speaking of unethical behavior, since this error has been pointed out to him many times
    03 Mar 2015 at 04:27pm

    Eugene John Semon As far as Chin, anyone with working brain knows that way inflated numbers of HIV infected in Africa is based on mathematical modeling, not epidemiology based on viral detection in the population – real infected people. So what about the ethics of Kalichman’s false charge and not making it clear what the source of the inflated numbers are to journalists who wind up using the term statistics based on what they are told by HIV experts.
    03 Mar 2015 at 04:34pm

    Eugene John Semon And as far as qualifications or those who say formulate a hypothesis of your own, I say fine. HIV or any animal retrovirus is a horizontal gene transfer vector, well documented by the ways of science because, as Harvey stated above, it does not contain the genetic information to destroy a single cell in vivo, much less an entire immune system. (Really a conclusion based on all retroviral experiments analyzed by me, no experiments necessary.) But such a boilerplate point by Kalichman tells me he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. So what are my qualifications? I’m a chemical engineer and molecular biology experiments are of coursse, miniature chemical plants. So Stein and Kalichman, please explain your stance re denying science in terms of denying any physical laws.
    03 Mar 2015 at 04:50pm

    Rick Stein @Eugene: Nope, but since you brought this up, I’ll tell you what is *absurd*. Absurd is when you, and some other individuals who have suboptimal levels of knowledge and unprofessional behavior, endorse and encourage scientific misconduct and fraud, with the potential to erode the scientific literature with junk, and negatively impact public health worldwide, with the end result of potentially endangering human lives. THAT, esteemed colleague, is what’s absurd. You seem to be quite confused. FYI, the Goodson paper is a review/opinion, not a science article; thus, it cannot “violate physical laws”, it can merely be flawed. You seem to be confused about the different categories of publications. Furthermore, science is explained by more than the “physical” laws that seem to be so close to your investigative tools. Your cherished physical laws do not explain inter-individual variability in allergic reactions, for instance. You have a lot to study still and, above all, understand the basics of scientific inquiry. (I suspect I am asking too much). Ideally, this should happen before behaving in a demeaning way towards the ones who actually *know* science AND profess it in a dignified manner. And please keep your “you guys” phrases for the meetings in the pub, where your line of arguments might attract hoards of wildly cheering admirers.
    03 Mar 2015 at 04:53pm

    Rick Stein @Eugene: Does a virus *have to* destroy a mammalian cell in order to cause disease, that’s what you are trying to state above?…
    03 Mar 2015 at 04:57pm

    Eugene John Semon As far as Bauer and the Loch Ness monster, you should educate yourself Seth ol’ pal on the percentage of species on the earth that have been identified and classified. It’s far from 100% and thus according to Popper, it can’t be ruled out. Personally I don’t believe or disbelieve in its existance, it simply requires further investigation as any rational person can see who’s beyond science as dogma.
    03 Mar 2015 at 05:00pm

    Anthony Liversidge @Rick Stein you have pointed to numerous flaws you perceive in those who are concerned along with Patricia Goodson that there are thirty years worth of repeated expert challenges in the literature to the idea that HIV is the cause of AIDS and who therefore question whether it deserved to be funded to the tune of some $400 billion so far.

    But you haven’t pointed to many substantial flaws in the papers she references. In fact, none which you have been able to justify scientifically. Thus her argument that this literature should awaken outsiders – especially health professionals – to review the evidence for themselves seems justified even taking into account your own firm insistence that the HIV causal belief is beyond review or discussion.

    But if you do not wish to add substance to your opinion that the HIV paradigm is inviolate, by pointing out flaws peer reviewers may have missed in the criticism, perhaps you should consider that causal HIV may indeed be wrong, a basic premise you should not be using in your deep thinking about HIV/AIDS? If it is possibly wrong, as it appears to be to all expert and lay reviewers who read the material, should it not be a concern for you which might motivate you to become much more aware of the basic inconsistencies of HIV belief with standard science?

    After all, if the paradigm is faulty, let alone as totally wrong as the huge collection of critical and effectively unanswered papers Goodson has found state, you are maintaining a resistance to reviewing HIV which is costing lives every day that passes. In other words, when calling the critics dangerous you are looking in the mirror.

    Is that not so?
    Today at 03:00am

    Rick Stein @Anthony: Pardon me for asking this, but did you skip the classes when they taught punctuation marks in primary school? Thank you.
    Yesterday at 03:07am

    Anthony Liversidge @ Rick Stein, actually, we didn’t have classes in punctuation, since the rules of punctuation, like the dictionary, existed to record the habits of educated persons, such as myself, but thank you for asking. This is a scientific journal, by the way, as you may still not have noticed, Do we take it that you are unable to contradict the logic in our last posted Comment? That you therefore are determined to examine the objections to HIV with an open mind?
    Yesterday at 09:23am

  30. Anthony Liversidge Says:

    David Crowe responds to our interpretation of the graph of California AIDS cases at http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1218&context=caldocs_agencies by saying Fig 1 is not a good guide to when deaths started to decline. He advises that “Anthony You’re looking at the wrong graph. You’re looking at the graph of deaths by year of diagnosis, not by year of death. So, people diagnosed in 1993, had a lower death rate than those diagnosed in 1992. But the overall death rate didn’t go down until later.

    I have replied as follows, but if anyone can clear up the confusion it would be helpful. This CDC writing is designed to keep outsiders from comprehending exactly what they are up to:

    ———-
    Thanks David I was wondering why we conflicted. So how does it work? These “Dead” people are people who are diagnosed, but will be dead later? So how long did they take to die? Add two years? But some of them are also alive, it says – the White part of the bars.. So they were alive at time of diagnosis? But that would be everyone. So what is the difference between those who were alive later and those who were dead later at time of diagnosis? I mean, what does the white part mean?

    Baffling.

    The graph surely shows how many AIDS Cases were reported in any half year as labeled, and how many were still alive, how many were dead. Are these cumulative totals or what? Can’t be cumulative totals otherwise it would not decline, surely. Must be additions, no?

    This what it says in the text explaining the table 1 and I assume what you are going on:

    ———————————————————————
    As of December 31, 1998, a cumulative total of II 0, I20 AIDS cases had been reported in California. Of these, 68,465 have died, for a case fatality rate of 62%. Figure 1 displays AIDS cases and deaths by half year of diagnosis. California currently accounts for approximately 16.6% of the cumulative AIDS cases reported in the United States.

    In 1996, a number of new drug therapies became available to treat HIV-infected individuals both before and after an AIDS diagnosis. These drugs and the drug therapies may be the main reason for a continued drop in the number of new AIDS cases diagnosed since 1996 and a drop in the number of deaths attributed to AIDS between I2131/96 and 1213II98. These changes may mean that the use of AIDS case data to analyze trends in the epidemic has become less accurate and therefore less useful.
    ————————————————————————————-

    The phrases in boldface are obscure to me. Are the stats cumulative or not? If they are how does it decline? If there is a “continued drop” in new AIDS cases and in AIDS deaths after 1966, when did it start? Looks to me like the years 1992 on.

    Why is this wrong? Surely any bar represents not new but current AIDS cases, reported at that time. Some still alive and some are corpses ie died and were then reported as AIDS dead.during that period. Cant see yet why that should mean that the number of dead didn’t start declining in 1992.

    ——————————-
    OK David Crowe elucidates:

    The way it works is that the black bar for 1992, as measured in 1999 is the people diagnosed in 1992 who died between 1992 and 1999. And the white bar indicates those people who were also diagnosed in 1992, but who were still alive in 1999. So each year the 1992 black bar would grow and the 1992 white bar would shrink.

    Alternatively, you can measure the total death rate in 1999, for people who were diagnosed in any year from 1981 through 1999. That’s what is usually done, but this business of measuring the death rate relative to the year of diagnosis is also useful sometimes. What would be even more useful would be giant data table with, for each year, the number of people diagnosed (broken down by reason for diagnosis) and the number of people who died that year (broken down by year of diagnosis and reason for death).

    Then we could create our own statistics. But the CDC would never allow that.
    ———————————–
    Phew! What a mess. A simpler graph would surely be in order.

    Either way it is certain that the decline in deaths started before the introduction of protease inhibitors.

    But it is still hard to see why the death rate cannot be taken to be in decline from 1992 from this chart. Obviously if the graph records the number of dead in each (half year) bar by 1999 then the farther away the date of diagnosis from 1999 the more likely the patients are going to be dead by then. The more recently diagnosed will be less likely to be dead. But there seems to be a distinct change in 1991/2 in that pattern.

    Of course they broadened the definition of HIV/AIDS patients in 1993 so that would lessen the rate of death too. but it doesn’t seem to be reflected in this chart either. Nor in Fig 2, where deaths seem to start a decline only in 1995.

    Maybe the truth is that there is no way of telling from Fig 1. One has to go by Fig 2. If that shows a decline in 1995 on, and AZT was killing people in about two years, then it would suggest that by 1993 people were going off AZT either with “holidays” or with substitutions of other drugs, plus benefiting the change in the prescription level at the beginning of the nineties.
    ————————————————–

    David Crowe elucidates further:

    Darin Brown showed that the Case Fatality Rate (number of deaths in one year divided by number of people ‘living with AIDS’) started declining in 1985: http://aidswiki.net/index.php?title=Document:AIDS_Case_Fatality_Rates

    California statistics showed that total annual death rate there started declining in 1994. US statistics show that the decline started in 1996.

    The problem with the death rate per year of diagnosis, is that it’s a total over all subsequent years. So people diagnosed in 1995, for example, lived most of their time in the so-called HAART era. So if HAART worked, that cohort would have a lower annual death rate. So that type of statistics doesn’t really answer the question about whether something happened in 1996 to reduce the death rate. Another problem with death rate per year of diagnosis is that it should be divided by the amount of time between the date of diagnosis and the date of the report. In 2004, for example, people diagnosed in 1984 had 20 years to die, but people diagnosed in 1994 had only 10 years. So even if the death rate was perfectly uniform, the total fraction of the 1984 cohort who had died would have been expected to be significantly greater than in the 1994 cohort. And then if you throw in the influence of diagnosis, more healthy people diagnosed at later dates, it gets even more confusing.

    Bottom line:

    Figure 1 is very difficult to interpret. I’m not sure it’s useful at all. It does make it look like there has been progress. But given the more recent year’s cohort has had fewer years to die, that’s largely an illusion.

    I think the death rate probably declined due to a variety of factors:
    Rejection of AZT
    Diagnosis of people who were more and more healthy (at first everyone had KS and/or PCP, then other diseases, then just low CD4 counts)
    Some awareness of the dangers of poppers
    Dissatisfaction with the fast-track lifestyle.
    Better management of some AIDS-defining conditions.

    On the other hand, there were contrary factors:
    AZT came on the scene after the death rate started declining
    The feeling of panic and doom didn’t dissipate so quickly.

    All I can say is that there’s evidence that HAART cannot take all the credit. And if there are sales figures for PIs in the late 1990s it might add strength to this. In other words, if only 10% of people with AIDS in the US took PIs in 1996, it couldn’t take credit for a huge drop in the death rate.
    ——————————————————-
    OK a) the sharp decline in deaths started in 1995, not after the introduction of PIs in late 1996, according to Fig 2. But b) Fig 1 seems significant to some extent. The early death rate from the initial dose of AZT prescribed, 1200 mg a day – over a gram of this stuff, so filthy in its effects that it was abandoned as a cancer killer – so any improvement on two years average survival should be visible after two years lapse, and that means one can judge from the Fig 1 bars which are more than two years old from diagnosis.

    Therefore the bars before about 1996 are a guide to any improvement and they show quite a lot from about early 1992. A lot more were surviving by 1999. HAART can take no credit for that. You helpfully list the factors that were responsible.

  31. Anthony Liversidge Says:

    Comments continue on the Goodson page:

    David R. Crowe Anthony, you’re looking at deaths by year of diagnosis. People diagnosed later in 1992 had a lower death rate than those diagnosed in early 1992, and it went down from there. But the overall death rate is on the next page and didn’t start going down until 1994.
    Yesterday at 11:13am

    Giampaolo Minetti What about life style factors? It’s not because I’m after ad-hoc explanations, to try to explain why lower death rates were apparently recorded when the AZT dosages were still high (as this seems to be the case from the last few posts from David).

    I can imagine, however, that a diagnosis of AIDS will not be neutral with respect to a person’s lifestyle. The person, belonging to that peculiarly affected social community, will probably become more sensitive to the changing attention around hyperactive homosexuals and drug abusers from the rest of the society at that time, and maybe will quit poppers and other drugs. This will by itself help recovering from immunodepression and probably also help facing with less dramatic secondary effects the same dose of AZT that would have killed that person a few weeks/months before. I don’t remember what was the situation for haemophiliacs, but it seems that claims of reduced death rates among those patients have also appeared here. However, I think a similar explanation could be coinceived for this cateory of patients. I don’t have precise data but I think that a shift to leukoreduction of blood bank transfusion units (the approx 1 pint of donated blood) was also under way in those years, and probably hemophiliacs where the persons benefiting most from the better quality of transfused blood (only red blood cells without white cells).

    Thus, it was not the effect of AZT, but the overall physical improvement due to return to healthier lifestyles, DESPITE tha apparently still high AZT regimens (with maybe also the mentioned AZT “holydays”) that produced lower mortality rates. At any rate, it looks like we are dealing with a statistical trap here, from which it may become difficult to get out!

    The bottom line, in my opinion, concerning the AIDS/HIV saga is all in the arguments of Prof. Duesberg that are still valid and unaffected today, simply because thay are the only meaningful and sound hypothesis that has resisted the (non-existing) scientific attempts to falsify it.
    Yesterday at 01:05pm

    David R. Crowe Giampaolo, I think it is very difficult to extract all the factors for the decline in diagnosis and death rate. Certainly there were anti-poppers activists, so use of those drugs might have declined. More people may have realized that a life fueled by drug use was unhealthy. And more people would have recognized that AZT was toxic. But my question is different. It is whether the decline in AIDS deaths was driven ONLY by the availability of HAART (whether HAART was less toxic than AZT or was actually beneficial). The California data clearly shows that there was 18 months worth of decline in overall death rates before the July 1996 conference which drove the migration to protease inhibitors. Therefore HAART cannot have been the only factor in the decline.

    Another analysis by Darin Brown used the per-capita death rate, which started to decline in the late 1980s, probably because of diagnosis of more and more healthy people, and more people reluctant to start AIDS drugs.

    I was responding to an earlier remark by ‘Mika Thane’, “deaths, as you acknowledge, plummeted with the new regimen. ” The truth is that deaths dropped significantly before HAART. It is true that the drop in death rate plummeted in late 1996 and early 1997 … but if the percentage of AIDS patients taking HAART was low, the new drugs couldn’t even take the credit for this drop.
    Yesterday at 02:35pm

    Anthony Liversidge @ David Crowe Well, in the California paper (at http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1218&context=caldocs_agencies) the Fig 2 shows the decline starting in 1995 first half, surely. So OK a) the sharp decline in deaths started in 1995, not after the introduction of PIs in late 1996, according to Fig 2. Good enough to show HAART did not start the decline. Which is the point.

    But b) Fig 1 seems significant to an extent that can be judged by the eye. The early death rate from the initial dose of AZT prescribed, 1200 mg a day – over a gram of this stuff, so filthy in its effects that it was abandoned as a cancer killer – was roughly two years, so any improvement on two years average survival should be visible two years after diagnosis. (You note the Darin Brown mathematical analysis that shows the decline in deaths actually started in 1985 is at http://aidswiki.net/index.php?title=Document:AIDS_Case_Fatality_Rates.)

    Therefore the bars before about 1996-7 are some guide to any improvement and they show quite a lot from about early 1992. A lot more people from 1992 and other years before 1996-7 were surviving by 1999, it seems clear.

    HAART can take no credit for that, and you helpfully listed the factors that were presumably responsible in your comment at Science Guardian: “Rejection of AZT. Diagnosis of people who were more and more healthy (at first everyone had KS and/or PCP, then other diseases, then just low CD4 counts). Some awareness of the dangers of poppers. Dissatisfaction with the fast-track lifestyle. Better management of some AIDS-defining conditions.
    On the other hand, there were contrary factors: AZT came on the scene after the death rate started declining (in 1985).The feeling of panic and doom didn’t dissipate so quickly.”

    The bottom line again is that HAART (and its displacement of AZT) did not suddenly start a sharp decline and therefore prove it was an effective weapon against the supposed depredations of HIV which was therefore confirmed as the culprit for AIDS immune system crashing. The “drugs work, don’t they?” response of President Clinton to our suggestion that Thabo Mbeki was right to question HIV is an error. Protease inhibitors “worked” because they were less noxious.
    Given that about 15,000 are still dying of HIV/AIDS” in the US annually medical treatment is still noxious, and it is the drugs that are at fault, judging from the fact the corpses reveal liver and kidney damage is the chief cause of death, and these are never claimed to be effects of HIV.
    Today at 01:27pm

    Claus Jensen Friends, please note that Darin Brown’s case fatality rate calculation counts only diagnosed AIDS cases. The largest drop in the case fatality rate was actually before the 1993 redefinition of AIDS to include low CD4 counts with no clinical symptoms. The epidemic – really sub-epidemic(s) – was beginning to burn itself out already by the mid-eighties, and certainly by 1990 when they began to lower AZT doses.

    The only way they could keep the overall numbers inflated was, apart from the 1993 redefinition, the widespread testing with unreliable tests, inclusion of ever more AIDS indicator diseases, and probably drugging of healthy people with AZT.
    One reason for the drop in case fatality rates is quite simple: the ‘genuine’ AIDS cases, those who drugged themselves, and/or were drugged by doctors and pharmacies, and/or partied, and/or hypnotized themselves to death came from a fairly large but still limited pool. Once they died off, certain recreational drugs went out of fashion, life-styles changed etc., they were not replaced in equal numbers, and so could not fuel the ‘epidemic’ in the same way anymore.

    The case fatality rate went down almost from the beginning with peoples’ increasing awareness and slightly quicker AIDS diagnoses, and the above-mentioned depletion of the initial high-risk groups. But it was inevitable that overall numbers would also go down to a ‘baseline’ with only occasional blips as this or that sub-epidemic (for instance crack among blacks) flares up.

    The drop to a stable ‘baseline’ could be predicted to occur soon after the CDC stopped playing redefinition games, and indeed that’s what we have seen. The effects of phasing out high dose AZT, and of the Great Redefinition of AIDS in 1993 counteracted each other (the case fatality rate continued its downward trend, while overall deaths increased with the many new AIDS diagnoses). These factors, plus HAART in 1996 and CDC counting practices designed to make the drugs look good all contribute to obscure exactly what happened when and as a result of what.

    Yesterday at 04:40pm

  32. Anthony Liversidge Says:

    There are fresh Comments at the Kalichman page, one by none other than the author of the Commentary himself:

    Robert Houston
    As a minor correction, it should be noted that Rick Stein and Prof. Kalichman are both in error when they suggest that Dr. Goodson misrepresented James Chin, MD, MPH. It should be obvious that different critics may have different kinds of criticism. The inclusion of Dr. Chin among the “Select Critics” in Table 1 of Goodson’s paper was accompanied by a footnote, which clearly states: “Chin agrees with the mainstream hypothesis that HIV is the cause of AIDS. His critique centers on the collection and interpretation of the epidemiological data for HIV/AIDS, in the US and world-wide.”
    Today at 01:10am

    Seth Kalichman
    I wonder what Dr. Chin would say about being included with Peter Duesberg, Henry ‘Loch Ness’ Bauer, and the other AIDS Deniers?
    Today at 07:57am

    Anthony Liversidge
    @Seth Kalichman Amid your merry unscientific banter about Henry Bauer as having researched the legend of the Loch Ness monster, could you produce any instance where Dr Bauer was unscientific in his inquiries or assessment of the evidence for same? Or in his other writing on HIV/AIDS or any other scientific topic? If not, since this is a scientific journal, perhaps such merrymaking as yours is appropriate?

    Also, should you not say “HIV/AIDS Deniers”, rather than “AIDS Deniers”, since it is the role of HIV in AIDS which critics challenge on scientific grounds, arguments with which you are apparently unfamiliar, since you do not attempt to refute them in your Commentary. None of the critics denies that AIDS as such exists, however questionable its origin.

    But it is certainly an improvement that you refer to them as Deniers rather than Denialists, which other HIV defenders like to do, with its unwarranted overtones of crackpots who deny the Holocaust. Presumably this means that you realize that counted among them are many scientists and experts whose scientific points you respect, such as the scientifically impeccable Dr Peter Duesberg, and perhaps even Dr Bauer?

    What a pity that your Commentary does not address those points. Can you perhaps guide us to a site where you have done so, or direct us to the right page in your book where you dealt with them on a scientific basis? We would certainly welcome such a contribution at Science Guardian from such a well known HIV proponent as your distinguished self. We have looked in vain for 28 years for a defense of HIV which can withstand scrutiny, and have found none. Perhaps you will be the first.
    Today at 11:35am

    J Todd Todd DeShong Mr. Liversidge, you sure do seem to have a great deal of time on your hands to argue. I see from your bio that you are a journalist. Is your career on par with Celia Farber’s “journalist” career? Is that why you have so much time to come here and argue with yourself?
    08 Mar 2015 a

    Anthony Liversidge @ Todd Todd DeShong A kind inquiry, thank you. You raise a scientifically relevant question, the resources and motivation of critics of HIV. And what about their critics, who defend HIV, as Dr Kalichman does, by casting aspersions on them, rather than answer their scientific points?

    In science, we debate to seek the truth as close as we can come to it, right? That is what good journalists do. too. What is the value to you of journalism which is nothing more than stenography, recording the claims of scientists as if they were necessarily true and objective, which they often are not, as so many Nobel prizes demonstrate? Scientists are human and make errors, conscious and unconscious. We need to double check what they claim, by reading their critics.

    Why do we care? Because in medicine, at least, health may be at stake, even lives, as in this case. But also there is the fact that truth is beauty. What is uglier than wrong claims founded on self-interest, lack of thought, herd instinct, and the thousand flaws in reason that human nature is heir to?

    That is the simple answer. After thirty years scrutiny it is clear to me that the HIV theory remains the silliest piece of ugly unscientific nonsense ever perpetrated on a gullible public. A pandemic of antibodies, indeed! A pandemic from a wisp of retrovirus which is defeated by antibodies but somehow awakens in up to twenty years to destroy your immune system. An infectious viral disease causing a global epidemic where the virus’s rate of infection is zero among heterosexuals (thank you Nancy Padian, who proved this with the biggest study). A cell killing retrovirus, when retroviruses are known never to kill cells. A virus provided to labs in immortal cultures of the human T cells it is said to kill off in people (yes!) A transmissible, fatal virus hardly found in patients, even dying ones, only antibodies to it. A disease where patients effectively only with antibodies can nevertheless somehow transmit the agent and die of the disease. A disease whose nature varies radically – a homosexual and drug user ailment in North America and Europe, but entirely heterosexual elsewhere. A disease that correlates with drug use in Western cities yet is treated with a bowl full of damaging and eventually lethal drugs. A disease whose mechanism is as yet quite unexplained, let alone proved in any paper.

    You and millions of others have fallen for a piece of bad science which if you didn’t trust the authority of scientists without checking – ie reading Goodson’s collection and sources – you might recognize as unworthy of the credence of a child of ten. Infectious antibodies, indeed!
    Today at 08:51am

    Anthony Liversidge @DeShong Dear Todd, If you will allow me to continue, the list of things in the HIV hypothesis to believe in uncritically also includes:

    A cell killing disease that also causes cell multiplying cancer, with no trace of the virus in the cancer, Kaposi’s sarcoma. 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 nonetheless has added 200 million people in the last decade, to 800 million, with a growth rate of 2.5% annually. An epidemic mapped in Africa by the World Health Organization almost entirely without the benefit of AIDS tests. A disease for which the tests are not for the agent but for antibodies to it. A disease for which the tests cross react with many other agents. A viral epidemic without initial exponential growth or bellshaped rise and fall, which has maintained level prevalence in the US for 30 years (at around 1 million positives. Yes for thirty years, the prevalence of HIV antibodies in the US has been constant!) A viral epidemic which has not found immunity anywhere. A killer disease where no doctor, nurse or researcher working with it has caught the actual disease. A disease whose every symptom is shared with other diseases and which would be counted as those other diseases except for the presence of antibodies to the “virus that causes AIDS”. A viral epidemic without a vaccine after thirty years research by the best funded army of researchers in history (our candidate for a vaccine: HIV itself, which does the job very well). A virus transmitted 25-50% through birth which has produced no epidemic among children.

    This is modern science in HIV/AIDS, resisted only by traditional truth seeking scientists of great integrity such as Peter Duesberg who discharge the responsibilities of public funding by serving the public interest. Yes, I admire the critics of HIV for their distinguished contributions to science and the public welfare, including mathematician Rebecca Culshaw, scientific investigator Henry Bauer, scientific journalist and author Harvey Bialy, relentless author Celia Farber, and many more. As a journalist I have interviewed many well known scientists at length, and greatly admire the type, like Peter Medawar, or Kary Mullis, who pursues science without any compromise with politics, sometimes at great sacrifice. I group them with Harvard’s ant man and author Edward O. Wilson, who was also attacked, once with a custard pie, for pursuing science which seemed politically incorrect to the ignorant.

    At http://www.ScienceGuardian.com we have a complete list of these heroic escapees from group think in science and other fields in the blue header to the main page. They deserve to be celebrated for resisting the pressures of group think politics.

  33. Anthony Liversidge Says:

    More Comments at Klaichman Commentary page. Rick Stein tries to contradict Nancy Padian, is refuted by David Crowe, lobs schoolboy waterbombs in response, aided by Kalichman, no less. This deterioration is unfortunate if it discourages intelligent readers of a Comment series which is very informative about why HIV is not the cause of AIDS, but that is no doubt why they do it.

    Rick Stein @Anthony Liversidge: “the virus’s rate of infection is zero among heterosexuals (thank you Nancy Padian,” – those are your words I am quoting. Mr. Liversidge, go back and *read* that study, because you are either unintentionally or, what would be much worse, intentionally misinterpreting the paper and misleading your readership. (Is that your definition of journalism by the way?) Maybe you did not read the study, and somebody who spotted Elvis in the mall just told you about the summary. But please read it. And if you don’t understand it, please read it again. Not just the abstract. The entire study. FYI, The Nancy Padian study reported many things; among them, that heterosexual transmission of HIV became much lower when interventions, such as the use of a condom, were implemented. For you, to take that study, and blatantly lie about its finding, is in itself professional misconduct at its best. And for that, you should be ashamed of yourself. By the way, your statement about the lack of heterosexual transmission of HIV is an insult to so many people worldwide, as well as to scientists and physicians – and making such a statement is a disgrace for you, both as a human being and as a journalist. Since you are an insult to any decent person’s intelligence, AND you manipulate data (as it becomes clear from your unethical and unprofessional misreporting of the Nancy Padian study), you will have to continue entertaining yourself on this page – or find others who sink to your low levels. Please do yourself a favor, and study at least the basics of ethical behavior. In your professional capacity, you should not be engaging in misconduct and in deceptive reporting. Unless, of course, that’s your only resource to successfully make a scientific argument. (Disclaimer: that was sarcastic. I am not encouraging you to engage in deceptive reporting).
    Today at 11:00am

    David R. Crowe Quote from Padian:
    “We followed 175 HIV-discordant couples over time, for a total of approximately 282 couple-years of follow-up…The longest duration of follow-up was 12 visits (6 years). We observed no seroconversions after entry into the study…only 75% reported consistent condom use in the 6 months prior to their final follow-up visit. Forty-seven couples who remained in follow-up for 3 months to 6 years used condoms intermittently, and no seroconversions occurred among exposed partners.”
    Padian NS et al. Heterosexual Transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) in Northern California: Results from a Ten-Year Study. Am J Epidemiol. 1997 Aug; 146(4): 350–7. http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/146/4/350
    Today at 11:45am

    Rick Stein @David: so is your expert opinion and advice, that HIV is not transmitted by sex? Please help enlighten my feeble mind with your immense wisdom…thanks
    Today at 11:49am

    Rick Stein @David Crowe: I am certain that when some dictators leading brutal oppressive regimes will use and perpetuate your wisdom/views while inflicting violence and abuse against children, women, men, and the ill (as it has happened before), you will find an immense sense of pride and fulfillment. You are amusing. But then, I should not be surprised – you denied the existence of influenza, too, based on your own rantings on other web sites. You are so ignorant and manipulative that it would be amusing, if your ranting would not actually be a serious threat to public health and to the well-being of society.
    Today at 11:59am

    Seth Kalichman David Crowe. Try reading beyond the abstract. Not to mention nearly two decades of subsequent research. AIDS Denialists have misrepresented this study for years. Quite tedious.Today at 12:08pm

    J Todd Todd DeShong Thank you, Seth. I was about to say that. These people are trying to debate what has already been settled with over 30 years of research. I would like to change the subject slightly and let these gentlemen know that their friend and fellow AIDS Denialist, Clark Baker, just lost his Federal lawsuit against me. I am a critic of Clark Baker, OMSJ and his HIV Innocence Group. Instead of trying to prove my criticism wrong by supplying facts, Mr. Baker chose to quash my First Amendment Rights with a lawsuit. Baker spent well over $200,000 to bully a person whom he knew had no funds to defend himself. Thank goodness I found pro bono attorneys who still believe in Freedom of Speech. Just as these gentlemen are trying to say that no one here is actually debating with facts, Baker did something far worse by filing a lawsuit instead of proving me wrong with facts. This has cost him both financially and with his HIV Innocence Group which is now defunct and closed. Baker has lost all credibility in the HIV Criminalization legal arena. Perhaps these colleagues of Mr. Baker should tell Mr. Baker what he did was wrong or show their hypocrisy for what they are saying here. You can read the Fifth Circuit decision as well as other pertinent information about Baker’s dubious group at my website: http://hivinnocencegrouptruth.com/2015/03/09/clark-baker-omsj-lose-again-fifth-circuit-affirms-the-legality-legitimacy-of-this-website/
    Today at 01:01pm

    David R. Crowe Rick Kalichman (or is it Seth Stein?), I cited from the paper. The abstract, as is common, obfuscates the most important finding of the paper. Perhaps you should read it again. I did provide the URL for you. This reminds me of the Bruneau paper, also from 1997. I’m sure you’re really familiar with it. If you really want to educate yourself on heterosexual transmission (or lack therefore), I’ve made it easy for you: http://aras.ab.ca/transmission-heterosexual.php Enjoy!
    Today at 01:39pm

    Rick Stein Dear David Crowe, while I am flattered and honored that you conflate my name with Professor Kalichman’s, we are distinct persons, and your laughable insinuation is simply the result of the conspiracy theories that seem to permeate your existence (as your views on HIV/AIDS also demonstrate). I am quite educated on transmission mechanisms, thank you; and with that in mind, I have to notice that the way you select sentence fragments that support your agenda is quite pathetic and destructive to public health. You are quite a danger to public health, and to humanity, and I am certain I am not the first or the only one to make that observation. Your banter about the nonexistence of H5N1 is quite amusing, but it also shows that you are utterly uneducated in virology and lack logic. I am curious what is next. Will you develop some conspiracy theories about bacteria, too? You should diversify, because sticking to viruses might not allow you to exhibit the full spectrum of your expertise. Or maybe a story about microchips that are implanted overnight by aliens, could be another area in which you would excel.
    Today at 01:51pm

    David R. Crowe Dear Rick Stein. My apologies, I get confused by Dr. Kalichman’s multiple personalities sometimes. You could help by providing a PubMed or other list of your publications in this area, because you obviously have a bit more than a superficial understanding. One of Dr. Kalichman’s favorite ad hominem methods is to accuse people of being a danger to public health, so I hope you will understand my confusion.Today at 02:14pm

    Seth Kalichman Rick Stein. You give the likes of David Crowe too much credit. He is only dangerous if anyone listens to him. I think we are beyond that. Anyone who listens to him now as well as any other AIDS Denialists is already lost. At this point they are just self stimulating.
    Today at 02:16pm

    Rick Stein @David Crowe: Dear David, thank you, this is awesome! So others have also told you that you’re a danger to public health? Great minds do indeed think alike. I am sure if one does a survey of 100 random people in the street, most of them would think the same. But let’s be optimistic…you have Mbeki on your side. Truly distinguished company.
    Today at 02:33pm

    David R. Crowe Rick Stein, you’re avoiding the issue of providing some evidence of your knowledge on HIV/AIDS. You say you have it. Where’s the list of articles, scientific or otherwise?Today at 03:30pm

    Rick Stein @David Crowe: I am not avoiding anything – it’s all in your imagination. This discussion is about HIV/AIDS and the data, not about individual people or about their CV or amount of funding. An argument about an experiment is independent of a person’s CV. You already made a circus of this board with your inept, childish, and malicious attacks directed at individual people, and I will not fall for your pseudoscientific nonsense. So, with all due respect, my list of articles is none of your business. (Additionally, I don’t share my list of articles with people as yourself, who distort and manipulate science, because I don’t lower myself to your level). If you have anything meaningful to add about virology, please do so. Otherwise, visit the mall, maybe you spot Elvis and it would be another great story.
    Today at 03:41pm

    David R. Crowe Rick Stein, you are one of a kind. A scientist who publishes publicly, makes his work available to the world, and then refuses to tell anyone about it.
    Today at 04:31pm

    Anthony Liversidge @ Rick Stein: This discussion is about HIV/AIDS and the data, not about individual people – Rick Stein.

    Your inept, childish, and malicious attacks. – Rick Stein. People as yourself, who distort and manipulate science, because I don’t lower myself to your level. – Rick Stein. Visit the mall, maybe you spot Elvis and it would be another great story. – Rick Stein. You are quite a danger to public health, and to humanity. – Rick Stein. You are utterly uneducated in virology and lack logic. – Rick Stein. You are so ignorant and manipulative – Rick Stein. Professional misconduct at its best. And for that, you should be ashamed of yourself. – Rick Stein. You are an insult to any decent person’s intelligence. – Rick Stein. Your unethical and unprofessional misreporting of the Nancy Padian study. – Rick Stein.

    Sorry, Rick Stein, Seth Kalichman, the Padian study recorded no prospective transmissions during the study – “We observed no seroconversions after entry into the study” – and in fact the only transmissions it claimed were retrospective. Moreover the rates claimed – with Nancy Padian desperately trying not to embarrass herself and the entire HIV leadership by publishing such a revealing result naked in the light of day – were prima facie incapable of generating any epidemic let alone a pandemic. Read the study, which you and Professor Kalichman have apparently neglected to do. The rate for men transmitting to women is 1 in 1000 bouts of sex. Given the rate of copulation in an average marriage, twice a week, this would take ten years. The rate of transmission from lady to gent is given as 1 in 9000, which would be ninety years.

    In other words, you would have to marry someone to catch HIV from them, Rick. Did you not read this? Maybe you just didn’t understand it. Or maybe you just read AIDSTruth.org, the site which exists to obfuscate and cloud the emptiness of HIV theory like a squid clouds the water with ink to enable it to escape being eaten. There Nancy Padian dutifully twisted herself into a knot trying to deny the result of her own study, accusing HIV critics of misreading it etc.

    Didn’t happen Rick, HIV heterosexual transmission is a non starter, and her study gives the lie to all HIV theory related to the notion that AIDS is a transmissible disease.

    Maybe it is about time for you to read the HIV literature with more attention, Rick.Today at 09:22pm

  34. Anthony Liversidge Says:

    More comments at the Goodson page. which is at OPINION ARTICLE Front. Public Health, 23 September 2014 – Questioning the HIV-AIDS hypothesis: 30 years of dissent, by Patricia Goodson, Department of Health & Kinesiology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USAThe HIV boys have now made the mistake of challenging the well informed and mentally acute Claus Jensen:

    Mika Thane HIV/AIDS denialists target their misinformation to people with HIV/AIDS mainly through social media, but to create a patina of respectability for their target audience they also try to create a body of pseudo-scholarship by publishing in scientific journals.

    To get an idea of how they work, here’s an example of how denialist factoids are manufactured in the literature:

    Among Goodson’s litany of counterfactual statements, she asserts that HIV-1 gp41 and p24 are “found in blood platelets of healthy individuals.” This is of course utter codswallop, but is intended to convince the denialists’ intended audience that their diagnosis was wrong, and also to support the increasingly common contention on some of the crankier corners of social media that HIV does not in fact exist, and that the well-characterised HIV proteins are in reality normal cellular products that have been misidentified.

    So how does Goodson get away with this bizarre claim? She quotes a 2010 paper by Henry H. Bauer in the dubious fringe-publication Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons [1]. Henry in turn cites a 1993 paper by a different group of denialists called the Perth Group in, of all places, an Australian emergency medicine journal. [2] It also turns out that the “peer reviewers” for Henry’s JPandS effort were none other than those same Perth Group members, and they have publicly complained that their not inconsiderable criticisms were completely ignored. [3]

    Tracking it down, the Perthians’ citation for the claim is a 1985 study by Stricker et al published in the NEJM [4]. When you actually read this paper it makes no such suggestion (that the HIV-1 gp41 and p24 are components of normal human platelets), but in any case it was retracted by its authors in 1991 [5], two years before it was miscited by the Perthians.

    And now Goodson’s 2014 paper has been cited in – you guessed it – the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons [6] in a paper that also spruiks Henry Bauer’s book and web pages. Meanwhile, Goodson’s paper is now being promoted to the denialists’ social media audience – see, for example [7].

    I wonder how long it will take the Frontiers editors to wake up to the fact they have been well and truly taken for a ride by these people. Or to think seriously about whether this sort of nonsense is consistent with “Public Health Education and Promotion”.

    [1] http://www.jpands.org/vol15no1/bauer.pdf
    [2] http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/epgallo.htm
    [3] http://www.tig.org.za/Bauer_Iatrogenic_Harm__EPE_peer_review_comments.pdf
    [4] http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM198511283132202
    [5] http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199111213252106
    [6] http://www.jpands.org/vol20no1/miller.pdf
    [7] http://prn.fm/infectious-myth-patricia-goodson-on-the-frontier-of-aids-dissent-03-03-15/
    Today at 04:16am

    Claus Jensen Mika Thane

    One presumes that you have been occupied during your long absence with this impressive and detailed piece of background research. Thank you for all the interesting information you have brought to light.

    So that we can all benefit from the weighty points you are making, I will attempt to summarise the most important ones below and ask you to elaborate a bit.

    1. You find it incriminating that critics of the HIV theory cite each other. Since in science a stated principle applies generally, would you be equally suspicious of proponents of the orthodox line that cite each other? If, for example, I could demonstrate a closed web of self-references among South African HIV/AIDS interest groups and a small number of connected researchers with more at stake than merely scientific objectivity in the 2008 paper by Chigwedere et al “Estimating the Lost Benefits of Antiretroviral Drug Use in South Africa”, would you then concede that the paper is a blatant political witch hunt of no scientific value?

    2. You claim that the Perth Group ‘miscite’ a 1985 study by Stricker et al regarding the ‘HIV proteins’ p24 and p45. Please elaborate on the perceived miscitation.

    With regard to p45, Stricker et al retracted the paper in recognition of the point the Perth Group is making, namely that the protein is not HIV-specific.

    With regard to p24, the Perth Group does not cite only Stricker et al. They also cite:

    15. Ranki, A., Johansson, E. and Krohn, K. 1988. Interpretation of Antibodies Reacting Solely with Human Retroviral Core Proteins. NEJM 318:448?449.
    16. Delord, B., Ottmann, M., Schrive, M.H. et al. 1991. HIV?1 expression in 25 infected patients:A comparison of RNA PCR, p24 EIA in Plasma and in situ Hybridization in mononuclear cells, p113. In: Vol. I, Abstracts VII International Conference on AIDS,Florence.
    17. Todak, G., Klein, E., Lange, M. et al. 1991. A clinical appraisal of the p24 Antigen test, p326. In:Vol. I, Abstracts VII International Conference on AIDS,Florence.

    Perhaps you would be kind enough to show exactly, with quotes from the Perth Group paper, the Stricker paper, and preferably the three other papers, how the Perth Group has miscited them, so that the readers can judge for themselves?
    I am sure that, like your last post, it will be well worth the wait.
    Today at 05:49am

    Mika Thane Claus, the 45 kilo dalton protein identified by Stricker et al was indeed shown not to be HIV specific. It also has nothing at all to do with the well-characterised HIV-1 envelope glycoprotein gp41, which is what we are talking about.

    Nor do any of your three references have anything at all to do with Dr Goodson’s claim that HIV-1 p24 is a component of human platelets. But nice try.
    Today at 07:14am

    Claus Jensen Mika Thane

    You are right, I should have written p41 or p41/45 to cite the Perth Group paper accurately. That was a mistake.

    However, you seem to have misunderstood my question. I was not asking about Dr. Goodson.

    Please provide the text passages that show the Perth Group mis-citing the papers mentioned.
    Today at 07:23am

    Mika Thane Would you not consider citing a paper two years after it was retracted a “mis-citation”?

    [Edited to add] But citing retracted material aside, yes the Perthians seriously misrepresented the original paper in their citation. They wrote:

    “Platelets from healthy individuals also contain a p41 protein which reacts with sera from homosexual men with AIDS and immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) and which ‘represents non-specific binding of IgG to actin in the platelet preparation’.(48)”

    This is the initial misrepresentation which has turned up more than 20 years later in Goodson’s paper above.

    In fact, Stricker et al wrote:

    “A second band was present at 45,000 daltons in all blots after incubation with test serum. This represents nonspecific binding of IgG to actin in the platelet preparation.”

    Stricker et al also identified a completely different 41,000 dalton band (corresponding to HIV-1 gp41) in viral lysates (not in the platelet preparations) reacting with serum from gay men with or at risk of AIDS.

    Why did the Perth group change Stricker’s “45,000 dalton” band in the platelet preparation to “a p41” if not to confuse two completely different proteins in two different preparations?

    An *extremely* generous interpretation is that it was an honest mistake. A less generous interpretation is that it was deliberate, and intended to support their intractable delusion that cellular actin and HIV-1 gp41 are the same protein, even though they are have completely different amino acid sequences.

    You tell me, Claus.

    But whether it is deliberate deception on the Perth Group’s part or mere incompetence, it is a mis-citation.

    My point, of course, is not to sheet the entire blame for this comedy of errors on to the Perth Group. Rather, it is to show how HIV/AIDS denialist pseudoscience is constructed in “scientific” literature by the successive citation of nonsense, aided by less than rigorous editorial practices. Which naturally can result in serious adverse impacts on public health when such “peer reviewed” balderdash is subsequently promoted on social media.
    11 Mar 2015 at 07:42am

    Claus Jensen Mika Thane

    I don’t know the Perth Group’s reasons for citing the Stricker paper. Maybe they thought it contained representative points, maybe they were not aware that it had been retracted.

    In any event, the retraction has nothing to do do with the paper’s methods, results or conclusions, which are all considered valid, but pertains only to its mistaken assumptions. The thrust was, and still is, that the so-called ‘HIV proteins’ have been shown to be unspecific. That stands no matter how many papers you retract.

    So far your genealogy of dissident ‘mis-citations’ is a largely irrelevant quibble.
    Today at 08:08am

    Eugene John Semon Mika doesn’t know, speaking of citations, that env genes coding for envelope glycoproteins are endogenous to the human genome. Really guy, there are documented env open reading frames from papers that have not been retracted …
    Today at 03:09pm

    Eugene John Semon And Mika, here’s an example by me not relying on any other dissidents deconstructing Gallo’s original 1984 paper on the isolation of HTLV-III published shortly after Heckler’s famous press conference. It clearly demonstrates the failure of peer review in this particular instance. So please, you and your friends, go ahead and tear it apart … http://retrogenomic.blogspot.com/Letter to Science
    Today at 03:28pm

    UserComment deleted on 11 Mar 2015, 06:59pm

    Alexey Karetnikov @Claus Jensen and Eugene:

    HIV-1 proteins have been shown to produce highly specific signals, without any substantial cross-reaction with any endogenous retroviral proteins. Numerous articles document this 🙂

    Alexey Karetnikov, Ph.D.Today at 07:47pmAlexey Karetnikov @Eugene:

    Your “letter to Editor” demonstrates nothing but a complete lack of any knowledge of the subject 🙂

    Alexey Karetnikov, Ph.D.Today at 07:52pmClaus Jensen @Alexey

    I assure you that I am as impressed as the next gal whenever someone flashes me a smiley and the letters ‘Ph.D.’, but since you went to the trouble of signing up here would it be too much to hope for a bit more than that from a gentleman?

    Instead of discussing one hypothetical entity’s signals as compared with another equally hypothetical entity, couldn’t you inform us of how substantial – maybe even specify ‘substantial’ before the empty terms proliferate beyond control – the risk of cross-reactions on the ‘HIV’ antibody tests is? You will, I am sure, find plenty to comment on in Dr. Goodson’s part about the Western Blot above.
    Today at 08:59pm

    Alexey Karetnikov @Claus

    Sure, you are welcome 😉

    To understand what I mean by “substantial specificity”, I recommend to you these three articles:

    Detection of HIV-1 antigens and anti-HIV-1 antibodies:

    1) Sickinger et al., Multicenter evaluation of a new, automated enzyme-linked immunoassay for detection of human immunodeficiency virus-specific antibodies and antigen. J Clin Microbiol. 2004 Jan;42(1):21-9.
    2) Weber et al., Multicenter evaluation of a new automated fourth-generation human immunodeficiency virus screening assay with a sensitive antigen detection module and high specificity. J Clin Microbiol. 2002 Jun;40(6):1938-46.

    Detection of HIV-1 genome:

    3) Beck et al., Simple, sensitive, and specific detection of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 subtype B DNA in dried blood samples for diagnosis in infants in the field. J Clin Microbiol. 2001 Jan;39(1):29-33.

    Enjoy 🙂

    Alexey Karetnikov, Ph.D.Today at 10:21pm

    Claus Jensen Alexey Karetnikov

    High sensitivity and specificity have been claimed for just about every ‘HIV’ test for decades now. The question is how do they know?
    Today at 03:49am

    Mika Thane Oh God… Here comes Claus trying out the Perth Group’s Gold Standard Thingy Gambit™, for the umpteenth time on the internet….
    Today at 04:38am

    Claus Jensen Mika Thane

    Ah, but we must, Mika, because in spite of your friend’s assurances “There are many examples of similarities between
    HIV and self-antigens demonstrated by both protein homologies and cross-reactive antibodies.” (Gordon et al, Common epitope on HIV p24 and human platelets)

    But look on the bright side, when you are not tied to the fairy tale about ‘highly specific signals of HIV proteins’, you won’t have to explain why antibodies against a single ‘HIV protein’, like p24/25, on the WB is no longer considered proof of infection.
    Today at 05:07am

    Mika Thane “Ah, but we must”.

    Sorry Claus, but whatever strange compulsion you might have to repeat the same discredited arguments over and over, year after year, website after website, this does not obligate anyone to take such arguments seriously when they have already been debunked. Over and over, year after year and website after website.Today at 05:26amClaus Jensen But Mika, I thought you were familiar with the Gold Standard Thingy Gambit. The tests should be validated against the “Thingy” they’re supposed to detect.
    Today at 06:18am

    (This is Goodson page cont)

    Claus Jensen But Mika, I thought you were familiar with the Gold Standard Thingy Gambit. The tests should be validated against the “Thingy” they’re supposed to detect.
    Today at 06:18am

    Mika Thane No Claus. You cannot validate a detection method against the thingy you are detecting. You can only validate a detection method against *another detection method* for that thingy.

    The criterion standard (“gold standard”) of a diagnostic procedure (such as an HIV test) is itself a diagnostic procedure (such as a completed algorithm of tests and clinical data).

    By contrast, the Perth Group’s Gold Standard Thingy Gambit states that the only valid criterion standard for diagnostic HIV tests is the actual virus itself. This is semantically nonsensical. What they really mean is that the only valid criterion standard for HIV tests is a particular *method for detecting* the presence or absence of the virus – which they have invented themselves from the comfort of their armchairs, but have never carried out because they are not actual virologists.

    The problem with the Perth Group’s *method for detecting* HIV is that its sensitivity is at best unknown, but is probably zero. Which – even if its specificity were 100% – makes it entirely unsuitable as a criterion standard for anything.
    Today at 04:25pm

    Claus Jensen Mika Thane

    I appreciate the fact that you’ve thought long and hard about this reply; you’ve probably consulted friends, and you definitely hoped I was confused about the difference between a gold standard and a gold standard test. But in all honesty, your reply is so poor that I am just going to let it stand for every thinking human being as a perfect summary of the pseudoscience of virology.

    Adding this for the benefit of people new to the “Gold Standard Gambit”:

    “Primary infection was defined as a confirmed positive virologic test result with either a negative HIV antibody assay result or an indeterminate Western blot. Because there is no virologic gold standard, we assumed that levels of plasma HIV RNA had a sensitivity of 100% for diagnosing primary infection.” (Daar ES et al. Diagnosis of primary HIV-1 infection. Ann Intern Med. 2001 Jan 2;134(1):25-9.)

    Meaning that, unlike the Perth Group, HIV researchers don’t invent methods for detecting the presence or absence of the virus from their armchairs. They invent them on the go.
    Yesterday at 04:50pm

    Mika Thane “I am just going to let it stand for every thinking human being as a perfect summary of the pseudoscience of virology.”

    Damn. I was sure that David Crowe would be the first of you guys to let it slip that he was not just an HIV/AIDS denialist but a full-fledged virus denialist.

    Sure are a lot of crazy people on the internet these days.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31864218Today at 04:54am
    Today at 04:50pm

    ABOVE COMMENT EDITED TO THIS MAR 14:

    Mika Thane Another AIDS dissident warrior fighting “the pseudoscience of virology” is in the news:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31864218

    Still on Goodson page here at OPINION ARTICLE Front. Public Health, 23 September 2014 – Questioning the HIV-AIDS hypothesis: 30 years of dissent, by Patricia Goodson, Department of Health & Kinesiology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA
    Mar 13 Fri
    119 Comments so far.

  35. Anthony Liversidge Says:

    On the Seth Kalichman page, Front. Public Health, 13 February 2015 – Commentary on Questioning the HIV–AIDS hypothesis: 30 years of dissent by Seth C. Kalichman, Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA, the HIV troupe dance around the exposures of the Padian page without answering the central points it makes, which are that heterosexual transmission of HIV (antibodies) was found to be nil when followed in real time in her couples (prospectively) and when imaginatively asserted as detected by the embarrassed Nancy Padian in the past experience of her couples (retrospectively) is claimed as 1 in 1000 for men to women and 1 in 9000 for women to men, far too low to create any kind of epidemic. In doing so they fall off the stage.

    Alexey Karetnikov @Anthony Liversidge and David Crowe:

    I have read the whole article by Padian et al., and as a virologist I confirm that you have completely misrepresented this study. The purpose of this study was to investigate potential intervention strategies that would allow to decrease the risk of heterosexual transmission of HIV-1. For instance, one such strategy identified in this study was a condom use. As to the possibility of such a transmission during heterosexual contacts as such, it has already been demonstrated in numerous studies before Padian et al., and confirmed in many other studies later. I highly recommend to the two of you, and for any casual readers of this forum to read the expert opinion by Dr. Nancy Padian herself, on http://www.aidstruth.org. Here I present the most pertinent fragment of her description:

    “HIV is unquestionably transmitted through heterosexual intercourse. Indeed, heterosexual intercourse is now responsible for 70-80% of all HIV transmissions worldwide (2). The current likelihood of male to female infection after a single exposure to HIV is 0.01-0.32% (2, 3), and the current likelihood of female to male infection after a single exposure is 0.01-0.1% (2). These estimates are mostly derived from studies in the developed world. However, a man or a woman can become HIV-positive after just one sexual contact… In short, the evidence for the sexual transmission of HIV is well documented, conclusive, and based on the standard, uncontroversial methods and practices of medical science. Individuals who cite the 1997 Padian et al. publication (1) or data from other studies by our research group in an attempt to substantiate the myth that HIV is not transmitted sexually are ill informed, at best. Their misuse of these results is misleading, irresponsible, and potentially injurious to the public.

    A common practice is to quote out of context a sentence from the Abstract of the 1997 paper: “Infectivity for HIV through heterosexual transmission is low”. Anyone who takes the trouble to read and understand the paper should appreciate that it reports on a study of behavioural interventions such as those mentioned above: Specifically, discordant couples were strongly counseled to use condoms and practice safe sex (1,12). That we witnessed no HIV transmissions after the intervention documents the success of the interventions in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV. The sentence in the Abstract reflects this success – nothing more, nothing less. Any attempt to refer to this or other of our publications and studies to bolster the fallacy that HIV is not transmitted heterosexually or homosexually is a gross misrepresentation of the facts and a travesty of the research that I have been involved in for more than a decade…”

    I sincerely hope that you stop your misrepresentation, since this is utterly destructive for public health.

    Alexey Karetnikov, Ph.D.Today at 12:12am

    David R. Crowe Alexey; Say hi to Mark Wainberg for me. I don’t believe aidstruth.org is a peer-reviewed journal. It is very clear that Nancy Padian did NOT observe a single seroconversion in serodiscordant couples. She made assumptions that seroconcordant couples must have infected each other in the past. Just an assumption. We are not misquoting the paper. Note that she specifically noted that condom use was not universal and, besides, you must know that when people are asked about sexual behavior, and when they know what the ‘right’ answer is, they tend to give it. So condom use is probably overestimated in that study. But as I say, it wasn’t universal anyway.
    Today at 01:21am

    Rick Stein @David Crowe: your obsession with the Padian study is difficult to grasp. Get over it. There are other studies that reported that the seronegative partner becomes seropositive during the study. Do you ever read the literature? It’s an NCBI, in case you are confused. And yes, FYI, HIV can be transmitted by heterosexual contact. You must be either utterly uneducated or faking it, to claim otherwise.
    Today at 01:25am

    David R. Crowe Rick Stein, I’m still waiting for your list of publications…
    Today at 01:36am

    On the Seth Kalichman page Mar 11)

    Rick Stein David, ever bothered read Wawer et al.? “The overall rate of HIV transmission observed in these discordant couples, 0.0012/coital act, is consistent with previous estimates from Rakai [12], Europe, and North America [3, 17]. The present analysis, however, provides the first empirical data on the substantial variation in transmission by stage of HIV-1 infection. After seroconversion of the index partner, the rate of transmission (0.0082/coital act) within the first 2.5 months was almost 12-fold higher than that observed in prevalent index couples (0.0007/coital act). “….Oh well, David…I don’t know what you will want now, after you read about HIV transmission among discordant couples. I am not certain they have a video camera to “prove” that the acts took place, and I don’t know whether they have signed affidavits in place to “prove” that they did not have affairs. But see, they even did sequencing! Do you know what that is? They looked nucleotide by nucleotide at the sequence of the genome. Do you believe in RNA and DNA, and in sequencing, David, or maybe sequencing, too, is a huge conspiracy theory? Maybe there is no genetic material either, David, and we were all programmed by those small green creatures with big heads that dropped us out from a space shuttle one starry night…
    Today at 01:45am

    Seth Kalichman Rick. David Crowe is not uneducated. He has 3 BA\BS degrees. No advanced degrees. But 3 bachelors. Do you Know anyone else with 3 BA\BS degrees? So he is not uneducated.
    Today at 05:50am

    Seth Kalichman Rick. Also. I don’t think David Crowe believes we come from aliens. You may be confusing him with K Mullis. He had the close encounter. Let’s keep our nuts straight.
    Today at 06:14am

    J Todd Todd DeShong David Crowe recently publicized that he thinks there is no such thing as a virus. None. Zero. Zilch. Enough said. Now go back to Crazy Town, Mr. Crowe. No one takes you seriously. Except maybe Elizabeth Ely and everyone says she is crazy, too. Just look at her crazy public meltdown at RA over John and Jess Stragis’ decision to have a healthy, baby boy. You people are complete jokes.
    Today at 10:15am

    David R. Crowe Seth, you obviously know Rick Stein well, so I’m sure you can vouch for him. Is he a professor, has he published anything?
    Today at 10:44am

    David R. Crowe Thomas RIvers in 1937 summed it up well, and the situation hasn’t improved since then:

    “It is obvious that Koch’s postulates have not been satisfied in viral diseases. Moreover, it is equally evident that proof of the etiological significance of viruses has been obtained without their satisfaction. Such a statement, however, does not imply that certain conditions do not have to be met before the specific relation of a virus to a disease is established. The conditions are:
    (a) A specific virus must be found associated with a disease with a degree of regularity.
    (b) The virus must be shown to occur in the sick individual not as an incidental or accidental finding but as the cause of the disease under investigation.”

    Rivers TM. Viruses and Koch’s Postulates. J Bacteriol. 1937 Jan; 33(1): 1–12. http://davidcrowe.ca/SciHealthEnv/papers/5393-Viruses-Koch'sPostulates.pdf

    I will leave it to the reader to observe the absurd tautology that Rivers creates. His work is still cited today when virologists want to evade Koch’s postulates.
    Today at 10:56am

    (Still on the Seth Kalichman page)

    Anthony Liversidge It is always interesting to see the most determined supporters of the unexamined HIV premise, the pillar of all their thinking on AIDS, dance around the very embarrassing point made so well and inadvertently by the Padian paper. Let us repeat. The largest study of its kind, closely following the experience of many couples who were discordant, one being positive for HIV antibodies, one being negative, found nil transmission in real time, ie as they were followed.

    To fudge this conclusion, Nancy Padian came up with imagined transmissions from the past, and even then couldn’t claim rates higher than 1 in 1000 for men to women, and 1 in 9000 for women to men. Rates unable to support the concern which the HIV/AIDS leadership wished the public to feel in funding their unproven and so far unjustified hypothesis to the tune of $400 billion in job creating but ultimately death dealing activity (still 15000 corpses a year here mostly from medicinal drugs in HIV/AIDS, according to the CDC).

    Rates in fact which reveal that all assertions about heterosexual transmission are manipulated poppycock, scientifically speaking, derived from using the absurd causal HIV claim as premise . Thank you for reproducing Nancy’s supposed justification on aidstruth.org (what a misleading name!). Quite enough to show an intelligent observer that she is trying to backtrack a scientific conclusion which she achieved with the highest research standards. What political pressure did she feel to do so?

    I congratulated her in person in Washington at a conference on her excellent work in demonstrating that HIV was not transmitted in heterosexual sex even by couples who used no prophylactics whatsoever. She seemed taken aback but replied rather weakly that “the rates are higher in Africa”. In other words, anything to publicly deny her own conclusion, so revealing of the level of nonsense accepted without question by its deaf defenders here, who are not so deaf, however, that they do not assume pseudonyms, it seems clear.

    Since hundreds of thousands of lives are at stake, in their quality and in their date of termination, it behooves that the HIV defenders here, including the remarkable Professor Kalichman, and the even more remarkable Mark Wainberg of Montreal, if that is him posting above, to read the literature of their field more closely, and without the blinkers they normally use in their dedicated research.

    Otherwise they will dance off the stage and tumble into the orchestra pit, as they have done above. After all, claiming that HIV antibodies are transmitted from one person to the next is prima facie nonsense. No wonder Nancy Padian found it didn’t happen. Any school child could have told her, and told all the professional combatants gathered here to try and defeat Goodson’s contribution to rationality.
    Today at 12:38pm

    Alexey Karetnikov @David Crowe:

    In that study (Padian et al., 1997) Dr. Nancy Padian specifically notes that most of participants used condoms. The absence of new infections in the study nicely correlates with the condom use, and she describes this as a successful mode of intervention in the text from http://www.aidstruth.org (see above). That was the purpose of this study – to investigate possible behavioural interventions to decrease the risk of heterosexual transmission. Your assertions about “universality” of condoms and about people giving “right” answers are pure speculations, not supported by any evidence. So yes, you have absolutely misrepresented this study.

    The website, containing an interview with a researcher (Dr. Nancy Padian), of course, is not (and does not have to be) a peer-reviewed source of information. The problem is, if you (yourself) decide to interview her, that interview would not be peer-reviewed, as well as your website is not peer-reviewed… However, Dr. Nancy Padian has published peer-reviewed studies that do indeed demonstrate unambiguously the heterosexual mode of HIV-1 transmission. Here are just a few examples:

    1) Padian et al, Male-to-female transmission of human immunodeficiency virus. JAMA. 1987 Aug 14;258(6):788-90
    2) Padian, Prostitute women and AIDS: epidemiology. AIDS. 1988 Dec;2(6):413-9.
    3) Cameron and Padian, Sexual transmission of HIV and the epidemiology of other sexually transmitted diseases. AIDS. 1990;4 Suppl 1:S99-103.
    4) Padian et al., The effect of number of exposures on the risk of heterosexual HIV transmission. J Infect Dis. 1990 May;161(5):883-7.
    5) Padian et al., Female-to-male transmission of human immunodeficiency virus. JAMA. 1991 Sep 25;266(12):1664-7.
    6) Padian et al., Prevention of heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus through couple counseling. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1993 Sep;6(9):1043-8.
    7) Buchacz et al., Sociodemographic, behavioral, and clinical correlates of inconsistent condom use in HIV-serodiscordant heterosexual couples. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2001 Nov 1;28(3):289-97.
    Today at 01:12pm
    (Still on the Seth Kalichman page)

    Alexey Karetnikov @David Crowe

    And here are just a few other studies that unambiguously showed the heterosexual mode of HIV-1 transmission:

    1) Stewart et al., Transmission of human T-cell lymphotropic virus type III (HTLV-III) by artificial insemination by donor. Lancet. 1985 Sep 14;2(8455):581-5.
    2) Biberfeld et al., Transmission of HIV infection to heterosexual partners but not to household contacts of seropositive haemophiliacs. Scand J Infect Dis. 1986;18(6):497-500
    3) Powers et al., Rethinking the heterosexual infectivity of HIV-1: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2008 Sep;8(9):553-63. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(08)70156-7. Epub 2008 Aug 4.
    4) Boily et al., Heterosexual risk of HIV-1 infection per sexual act: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Lancet Infect Dis. 2009 Feb;9(2):118-29. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(09)70021-0.Today at 01:13pmAlexey Karetnikov @David Crowe:

    As to the Koch’s postulates, they have been completely fulfilled for HIV:

    1) Harden, Koch’s postulates and the etiology of AIDS: an historical perspective. Hist Philos Life Sci. 1992;14(2):249-69.
    2) O’Brien and Goedert, HIV causes AIDS: Koch’s postulates fulfilled. Current Opinion in Immunology 1996, 8:613-618
    3) Chigwedere P, Essex M. AIDS denialism and public health practice. AIDS Behav. 2010 Apr;14(2):237-47. doi: 10.1007/s10461-009-9654-7.Today at 01:21pm

    Alexey Karetnikov @Anthony Liversidge:

    Not considering your absolutely disrespectful tone, I will note just the following. The rates of heterosexual transmission, provided by Padian et al (1997), are more than sufficient for heterosexual epidemic. For instance, 1:1000 for male-to-female means that, at any given time point, out of every one thousand females having sexual intercourse with an HIV-infected male, one female will become infected.

    Also, please read the list of articles I have provided above, and do educate yourself. You are not in position to lecture experts, but they are in such a position.

    And yes, HIV/AIDS denialists are damaging public health, and should be criminally prosecuted.

    Alexey Karetnikov, Ph.D.
    Today at 01:32pm

  36. Anthony Liversidge Says:

    Even more on Kalichman page, Front. Public Health, 13 February 2015 – Commentary on Questioning the HIV–AIDS hypothesis: 30 years of dissent by Seth C. Kalichman, Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA, with a Commenter who mirrors the views of Mark Wainberg, the notoriously ad hominem HUV/AIDS researcher in Montreal who believes strongly that any critics of HIV as cause of HIV/AIDS should be incarcerated forthwith:

    Anthony Liversidge @ Alexey Thank you Alexey Karetnikov for proving my point. One thousand females having sexual intercourse with an HIV-infected male, eh? Lucky man.

    But seriously, you think that one hit per 1000 female copulations with any HIV antibodies positive male is enough to support an epidemic? You must have a splendid idea of the number of copulations in the average American’s life. Judging from the degree of sexual frustration in the States signaled by the culture, you are too optimistic. Perhaps your domicile is in Russia, is it, where they copulate as frantically as rabbits, you are reporting? Hard to believe.

    The fundamental issue here is whether you and your fellow experts actually think about any of the research you believe in. Apparently you do not. You quote a raft of papers corrupted by the very premise that is questioned. Every word you and your fellow researchers write is corrupted by the same premise. You do not take the point in any issue that critics raise, and deal with it, except by contradicting it and calling it “dangerous”.

    How is one able to be absolutely respectful of a Ph.D. scientist who cannot examine his own premises, one of the first duties of a professional scientist. Who actually calls questioning dangerous, when it is one of the first duties of a responsible scientist? Who cannot question himself, one of the first duties of a good scientist? Who insults opponents of his theory and advocates jail for them, just as Mark Wainberg of Montreal does?

    Yes, I sympathize with the predicament of a modern scientist who is held hostage by the expenses of lab equipment and personnel, who cannot afford to step out of line if he wants his colleagues to support his work and funding proposals. But lives are at stake here, not to mention good science. Your inability to deal with rational challenges to your basic assumption is not worthy of respect as an expert, nor as a public servant. My respect for you as a scientist is therefore not absolute.

    But as a human being, I understand. Human nature is heir to a thousand flaws. But you were asking for respect as a scientific expert, and for others as scientific experts. Alas, they are not behaving as good, responsible, professional scientists should. They are the dangerous ones, risking the happiness and lives of AIDS patients with treatment noxious, even lethal, without any justification except a belief criticized beyond redemption without valid rebuttal in top journals for 28 years.

    Sorry, it is impossible to respect your claimed expertise. Wave as many papers as you like, antibodies cannot infect others. HIV antibodies do not transmit to others. Padian found it. QED.
    Mar 11 Today at 03:23pm

    Eugene John Semon Alexey, the Koch postulates have NOT been fulfilled for HIV. I will presume to lecture you because of your ignorance on Koch as interpreted by Huebner in his seminal paper published in 1956 (Viruses in search of disease). The virus must be shown to be from the organism and not an artifact of the media/cell culture in which it is grown (paraphrasing). It has been stated in the Journal of Virology that HIV has never been isolated directly from patients.Today at 03:38pm

    Alexey Karetnikov @Anthony Liversidge:

    Yes, the quoted rates of transmission have been irrefutably shown in an overwhelming number of studies to be more than sufficient for triggering the epidemic.

    Are you serious in putting yourself above all the experts?? :)) Please don’t make me laugh :))) You absolutely lack any knowledge or understanding of the subject. Accusing others in being “caught by a dogma”, have you already analyzed your own dependence on your dogma of denialism? :))

    And after such your words above (“Perhaps your domicile is in Russia, is it, where they copulate as frantically as rabbits, you are reporting?”), I will just ignore you. However, I am asking a moderator to block your account here because of an absolutely unacceptable, disrespectful and rude tone.

    Go educate yourself and read all the articles I have recommended above 🙂

    Alexey Karetnikov, Ph.D.Today at 03:42pm

    Eugene John Semon And Alexey, sorry for the disrespect, but you can’t seriously argue that any study with no control for condom use (as clearly stated in the paper) can be taken seriously. How can such numbers be meaningful?
    Today at 03:44pm

    Alexey Karetnikov @Eugene:

    Unfortunately for you, Koch’s postulates have BEEN completely fulfilled for HIV. Above, I have provided several articles discussing this. You are not in position to lecture me 🙂 So do educate yourself and read these articles 🙂

    Alexey Karetnikov, Ph.D.
    Today at 03:45pm

    Alexey Karetnikov @Eugene:

    The numbers are meaningful, as clearly stated in this and many other papers. Do educate yourself, chemical engineer 🙂

    Alexey Karetnikov, Ph.D.Today at 03:47pm

    (Still on Kalichman page Mar 12)

    Rick Stein @Anthony: it’s quite pathetic, the comment you directed at Alexey. It’s prejudiced, judgmental, malicious, and disgraceful. It is sad when such a comment comes from a fellow human being. But when it comes from a “journalist”, it’s disastrous. I strongly recommend that you change your attitude and stop labeling people based on your prejudiced assumptions. And you are polluting your profession.
    Today at 03:50pm

    Eugene John Semon And Stein, I see no response to your sequencing challenge to David Crowe. Of course it measures retroviral RNA. The debate should be over its source, endogenous or exogenous. Are you aware that human endogenous retroviral open reading frames have been discovered in the human genome?
    Today at 03:53pm

    Eugene John Semon And finally Rick Stein, thank you for the response. You state incredibly that: “Your cherished physical laws do not explain inter-individual variability in allergic reactions, for instance.” Really Rick – MY knowledge is suboptimal!!! My physical laws???Surely this is one you might want to take back. You claim that explaining individual immune system variability by complexity theory in networks of biochemical reactions has no basis in physical laws (e.g. kinetics of chemical reactions within cells)!! In other words, as a public health issue, there’s no scientific way of explaining why some people die from eating peanuts. I think the editor of this fine journal Frontiers should take notice of this absurd claim.
    Today at 04:25pm

    Eugene John Semon Good question, Rick on whether or not a virus “has to destroy cell(s)” in order to cause disease. My answer follows directly from previous post. There are many papers that correlate retroviruses with autoimmune disorders – so here I part company with my good friend Anthony L. Since it’s been shown that HIV antibody tests can cross react with autoantibodies, a pos test can be the sign of a problem. The question that should be answered then is to what extent do such exogenous factors as vaccines create individualized biochemical reactions at the basis of immune cells attacking healthy tissue.Today at 04:38pmEugene John Semon And yes, Rick, by the standards of corporate science, I’m no longer “professional”. Thank God I don’t have to drag around anymore THAT ball and chain. :o)
    Today at 04:41pm

    Rick Stein @Eugene: You need to read again what I wrote, since you are (unknowingly or willfully) misrepresenting it. My statement was about “physical laws”. In your own statement, you are *twisting* my words and you claim that I talked about the fact that *there’s no scientific way of explaining…*. You twisted and misrepresented my words, and you are claiming in public that I stated something that I, actually, did not state. Thus, from now on, you will have to entertain your own ideas, without my participation. I do not appreciate people twisting my words, and I equally do not appreciate people stating that I said something I did not actually say. The absurd claim was made by *you*, in your strategy that is nothing short of misrepresentation and misconduct. And Yes, absolutely, I am standing by what I wrote before – your knowledge is suboptimal, very much so. But I will also add, this time: what is worse than your lack of knowledge, is that instead of educating yourself, you are engaging in the malicious misrepresentation of my statements. Go and study ethics, good luck.
    Today at 04:43pm

    (Still on Kalichman page Mar 12)

    David R. Crowe Alexey, you say, “The rates of heterosexual transmission, provided by Padian et al (1997), are more than sufficient for heterosexual epidemic.” The problem is that those numbers are not based on the observational portion of the study, which I’m sure you’ll agree is the most useful party of the study. Because those rates were zero. And condom use was far from 100%, so that couldn’t explain the total, complete lack of transmission.

    So Padian, to save her reputation, based on a bunch of assumptions created estimates of transmission of about 1/1000 M->F and 1/10,000 F->M. The problem is that one of those assumptions is that HIV antibodies can only be produced by infection with a virus. An assumption for which there’s no convincing evidence, since nobody’s every purified HIV, so the experiment of injecting it is impossible.

    Let’s look at one of your “convincing” papers (Stewart, 1985): “Only 3 of the 4 [sperm] donors of the index case (recipient 1 [a woman with swollen lymph glands]) could be traced; two were negative for HTLV-III [HIV] antibodies while 1 was positive. The positive donor was bisexual…He was in excellent health…all 3 children [conceived by sperm from the HIV-positive donor]…have developed normally and are in good health”.

    So how do we really know that the antibodies in the index case were caused by the sperm from the one HIV+ donor (what about the donor who couldn’t be traced?)? Interesting that the woman had only swollen lymph glands, her children were healthy, and the HIV+ donor was healthy. Not really the most convincing example. You should try reading beyond the abstract.
    Today at 11:24pm

    David R. Crowe Rick, still waiting for a list of publications. I’d love to have some independent evidence that you exist, and that you aren’t just one of Seth Kalichman’s multiplying personalities.
    Today at 11:25pm

    Alexey Karetnikov David,

    1) I have already explained everything about Padian et al (1997). And besides, I have already provided her own description of the study (see above).

    2) What you are saying about HIV-1 isolation, is very far from the truth. HIV-1 has been isolated in multiple studies, from patients at every stage of infection. I can give you a list of articles on this matter as well, but perhaps it’s better if you first read the ones I have already listed above.

    3) I always read beyond the abstract 🙂 How about you? 😉 Stewart et al. (1985) is a convincing paper indeed. Four of the eight recipients of sperm from HIV+ donor had anti-HIV-1 antibodies. This is more than convincing, if we consider heterosexual transmission – and that’s what we have been discussing so far, not symptoms 😉 Let’s not mix all things together 😉

    4) How about other papers from the list? 😉

    Alexey Karetnikov, Ph.D.
    Today at 12:05am

    David R. Crowe You are evading the questions about Padian. Please answer the following questions:
    (1) Do you agree that observational is better than retrospective, in the context of HIV sexual transmission?
    (2) Do you agree that there were 0 (zero) seroconversions in the observational arm?
    (3) Do you agree that Padian assumed that HIV antibodies could only arise from HIV infection?
    (4) Do you agree that use of condoms was not 100% among the serodiscordant couples?

    And please give me studies showing HIV purification. Not isolation. Because that word has been debased by virologists into utter meaninglessness.

    We’ll get to Stewart et al later. I’d like to see how you deal with facts first.
    Today at 09:54am

    Mika Thane 1. No. It depends on precisely what it is you are trying to study and what your design is.

    The purpose of Padian’s prospective study was not to estimate per-contact transmission rates as you seem to be suggesting: it was to study whether couple counselling of discordant couples could result in behaviour change that reduced the risk of transmission. Try reading the paper that explained this part of her work, rather than pretending it was about something completely different:

    http://journals.lww.com/jaids/Abstract/1993/09000/Prevention_of_Heterosexual_Transmission_of_Human.12.aspx

    2. Yes, but so what? Where is your evidence that the number of episodes of unprotected sex in the prospective study should have resulted in more than zero transmissions? Especially given the average per-contact transmission rates in this population estimated in the retrospective part of her work, and the fact that the 175 couples had already demonstrated lower than average transmission risk than the group as a whole, and most or all were outside the initial period of infection when transmission risk is at its highest.

    3. Yes, she most likely assumed that her HIV antibody positive subjects had been correctly diagnosed with HIV infection. Are you suggesting such an assumption would have been wrong? If so, on what basis?.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC269529/

    4. “Not 100%”, yes. But that doesn’t mean that the number or type of unprotected contacts was sufficient to guarantee one or more transmissions in the group.

    Why are you digging up this old dead horse for yet another beating, David? The Padian Gambit was well and truly debunked when it was first floated on the internet by Harvey Bialy nine years ago. Can’t you come up with something new?

    http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2006/02/23/discussion-of-the-padian-paper/
    Today at 02:41pm

    Anthony Liversidge After 89 Comments the main picture of disaster drawn by the challengers debunking the HIV claim is quite unaffected, it seems clear.

    All the trio of dedicated defenders (Alexey, Rick and Mika, each said without contradiction to be pseudonyms) can offer in defense is a) waving their degrees and “expertise” as evidence they are better thinkers and better informed than the challengers; b) citing the HIV/AIDS literature as evidence that their defense is correct; c) burying the overall issue in quibbles which distract from the vast explosion of the theory; d) laughing inappropriately at the qualifications and understanding of their critics; and e) unprofessionally urging that they be banished from commenting and, ideally, incarcerated as a danger to society.

    Therefore one concludes that the challengers have prevailed, since a) it is well known that many with degrees and specialist expertise are incompetent at logic and even their own trade, since their papers have been exposed as faulty in design, and it is well known that outsiders without specialist training can often see the flaws in their claims and beliefs better than insiders can; b) the literature of AIDS is often faulty for this reason, and in general is suspect, because it assumes HIV as a premise of all its work and discussion, so cannot readily serve as justification for its own premise; c) there is no relevance in quibbles if the main castle has collapsed in ruins; and d) and e) ad hominem remarks are not scientific responses, so they have no bearing on truth seeking; moreover, here they are often the dirty pot calling the shining kettle black.since the motivation of the critics has to be sheer truth seeking, and that of the defense, obdurate insistence on the rewarding (to them) status quo.

    We agree with Rick Stein that the debate ideally should be confined to scientific points without personal impetus. However, if that material is filtered out of the above distractions, HIV theory is left without answers. Therefore the reflex defenders are the ones who are a danger to the community, and therefore, according to Alexey, should be banned from Comments here and jailed, as Mark Wainberg and John P. Moore have often urged for the challengers to HIV to prevent them being heard.

    That is, if this trio is available for jail after they have recovered from falling into the orchestra pit, having danced too rapidly around the sharp points made by the challengers to read their posts properly. For instance, we didn’t say that Russians copulate like rabbits, but we asked if that was what Alexey was saying, since it was the inevitable implication of his previous post.

    And to say that Padian’s attempt to play down the evidence of her own study on the very unscientific and very political site AIDSTruth.org is valid scientific exposition is absurd.
    Today at 03:43pm

    (Still on Kalichman page – link is
    Front. Public Health, 13 February 2015 – Commentary on Questioning the HIV–AIDS hypothesis: 30 years of dissent by Seth C. Kalichman, Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA
    Mar 12 Thu 2015
    89th Comment.

    David R. Crowe
    Mika;

    You should try reading Padian’s actual study, not her later obfuscations. The abstract starts, “To examine RATES OF and risk factors for heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the authors conducted a PROSPECTIVE study of infected individuals and their heterosexual partners who have been recruited since 1985. Participants were recruited from health care providers, research studies, and health departments throughout Northern California, and they were interviewed and examined at various study clinic sites.” (capitalization for emphasis, mine).

    So, she recruited couples to examine the rate of heterosexual transmission going forward (observational/prospective). And when that turned out to be ZERO (ZILCH, NIENTE, NADA, ?????) she tried to cook up some estimates retrospectively. Clearly it was the retrospective analysis that was not part of the original plan. She must have thought she’d have a really nice, measurable rate of partners becoming positive, and then she could correlate that with condom use, anal sex, and so on.

    What are some of the limitations of the retrospective study? (1) “The infectivity constant (per-contact transmission risk) for male-to-female transmission was estimated using maximum likelihood methods taking account of the fact that infection times of both index cases and all infected partners occurred prior to recruitment and are known only to lie in broad intervals.” (2) “misclassification of mode of transmission may be an especially important factor to consider, particularly when interpreting estimates of the rate of female-to-male sexual transmission, because women who are injection drug users themselves are more likely to have a male injection drug user partner than vice versa” [in other words, Padian really wasn’t sure if one partner had infected the other, or if it had been dirty needles] (3) “While our estimation procedure does not require that infection time be observed, it does depend on the assumption of constant contact rates and parametric forms for infectivity”. (4) “Because couples were recruited on a volunteer basis, results presented here are not necessarily reflective of trends in the population.” (5) “there were only two instances of femaleto- male transmission” [so the estimate of female-to-male transmission is even more shaky than M->F] and (6) They had to decide, for each of the couples who were both positive at study entry, whether the man had infected the woman or the woman had infected the man, or that they had been infected independently. Obviously this was at best an educated guess.
    Yesterday at 11:24pm

    David R. Crowe Mika Thane, I just wanted to add that you certainly have thought about this a lot, and studied it in depth. And I’d love to read some of your publications in this area. If they’re not peer reviewed, that’s okay, don’t be shy, neither are most of mine. Just a reminder that I’m still waiting for this list. And Rick Stein too. It would also, as a side benefit, deal with any suggestions that you’re not real people.
    Yesterday at 11:26pm

    Mika Thane David: Seth, Alexey and yourself have all emphasized the importance of reading the whole article and not just the abstract. If you don’t, then you can easily be misled about what it is about. Padian’s 1997 paper is a good example of this very sound dictum.

    If you read the whole 1997 paper rather than just the abstract you will see that rates and risk factors were in fact examined in the retrospective part of the study, not the prospective. And if you read the reference about the prospective part I linked above (it’s reference 8 in the 1997 paper) you will find that its intention was not to provide a measure of rates and risk factors, but to study whether couple counseling of discordant couples could result in behaviour change that reduced the risk of transmission.

    You will also find that the retrospective study was not an afterthought after no transmissions were observed in the prospective one, as you seem to be suggesting. The retrospective study was the main part and began in 1985, while the prospective study did not begin until three years later in 1988, and involved only a relatively small subgroup (initially 175 out of 476 couples in the overall study, although attrition was very high over time).

    Although countering HIV/AIDS denialist arguments on the internet could and probably should be done by a machine these days (they are, after all just the same old talking points posted over and over ad nauseam), I can assure you that I am an actual person and not a bot. Whether you want to believe this or not is no concern of mine.
    Today at 12:04am

    Anthony Liversidge @ Mika Thane The problem, Mika Thane, is that the “HIV/AIDS denialist arguments” as you impolitely call them have to be endlessly repeated because they are not answered, and therefore remain the cutting edge of AIDS thinking, confounding the conventional wisdom and begging for an appropriate response, which is a very serious public review of the HIV paradigm, which looks from forty different perspectives the most lethal error in medicine since X rays were used as depilatories on women who were as trusting as AIDS patients are today.

    A good example is your attempt to evade the sharp point of the Padian finding that heterosexuals do not in fact transmit HIV antibodies by endlessly repeating that it was not the intention of the study to demonstrate this, and to quibble about other irrelevant points which make no difference to this stunning but predictable finding. Predictable because people do not infect people with their antibodies to anything, and the tests find antibodies, not virus. Stunning because it gives the lie to the whole construct of HIV as killer virus spreading through the world to more than 35 million people from one chimpanzee.

    Many discordant couples that did not use condoms or any other means to avoid transmission were tracked over three months up to six years and not ONCE did they transmit HIV antibody positivity.

    “Only 75 percent reported consistent condom use in the 6 months prior to their final follow-up visit. Forty-seven couples who remained in follow-up for 3 months to 6 years used condoms intermittently, and no seroconversions occurred among exposed partners.”

    Sorry, but zero is not enough to support the spread of infection. Let alone an epidemic. Let alone a pandemic. Period.

    The endless repetition you complain of is a result of the inability of the HIV faithful, even the very well informed and thoughtful ones such as your distinguished self, to understand and accept this simple point, and its implications. Why do you think Padian is so anxious to deny her own study’s stark contradiction of HIV lore? Because she realizes its catastrophic meaning, which you evidently also perceive, it seems.

    So how does it feel to be one of the real “denialists”?
    Today at 03:13am

  37. Anthony Liversidge Says:

    Even more at the Kalichman page, today, Fri Mar 13:

    J Todd Todd DeShong Anthony Liversidge, you should do stand up comedy: “…the cutting edge of AIDS thinking.” That made me laugh. Your “arguments” have been addressed over and over and you refuse to accept the truth and the facts. That is why no one bothers with you anymore. Just look how you harp on this one Padian study. She has done many more as have many, many other scientists and they all confirm that HIV is heterosexually transmitted. You “arguments” are relics of the past. Why don’t you do your own studies instead of trying to find poor wording in other studies or just outright misinterpreting other studies? You can never win this argument because you are wrong and 30+ years of solid science proves it.
    Today at 02:19pm

    Anthony Liversidge @ J Todd Todd DeShong Thank you for that perfect demonstration of your lack of any ability to refute scientifically this fundamental point which in itself is a knife through the heart of the HIV/AIDS construct that on the level of theory kills it stone dead, and therefore vitiates all the HIV based research which uses the HIV paradigm as a premise for analyzing data.

    Your lack, that is, of any answer other than the usual attempted ridicule and woolly assertions about 30 years of “solid science”, arguments already addressed, etc etc.

    Sadly, as Goodson’s paper confirms, this and a myriad other objections to HIV as the impossible cause of AIDS have not only failed to find a scientific answer but are as live and well as they were 28 years ago, when they were first arrayed in the leading journal, Cancer Research (http://www.duesberg.com/papers/ch1.html), and later in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (http://www.duesberg.com/papers/ch3.html), by a fine scientific mind, that of Berkeley’s Dr Peter Duesberg, in the latter journal only after unusually intense multiple peer review by high ranking HIV supporters who were unable to find valid flaws then and have been unable to rebut the conclusion since.

    But perhaps you would like to try to write your rebuttal in those journals, when you have time?

    May I recommend an update to your no doubt large collection of relevant papers – AIDS since 1984: No evidence for a new, viral epidemic – not even in Africa (http://www.duesberg.com/articles/Duesberg%20et%20al_AIDS%20since%201984%20No%20evidence%20for%20a%20new%20viral%20epidemic%20not%20even%20in%20Africa_IJAE_2011.pdf) – which was published in the Italian Journal of Anatomy and Embryology in 2011, after intense political attacks behind the scenes dislocated it from its original home.

    This is yet another example of the impeccable standards followed in scientific writing and research by Prof Duesberg, one of which is his integrity as a scientist unbent by politics. Another is a fine style, unmatched in the field by any of his opponents. Yet another is a razor sharp logic which I would advise you not to contradict lightly.

    The fact is that this distinguished scientist is undoubtedly one of the best intellects and exploratory minds in science, who has made a remarkable advance in cancer research despite the egregious politics which saw his unusually generous NIH funding evaporate. That he should have had his reputation trashed by opponents and their ignoramus followers, and had to suffer his work attacked for unscientific reasons, and his warnings in the public interest against the HIV lunacy mocked by idiots, is a sad comment on the state of modern science.

    But I am sure you will see my point and respect his work if you will open any of these papers.
    Today at 03:08pm

    Seth Kalichman Todd ” arguments have been addressed over and over and you refuse to accept the truth and the facts.”
    is what makes Goodson, Anthony, Crowe, Deusberg and the others AIDS Drnialists.
    Today at 04:05pm

    Anthony Liversidge PS @ Todd Deshong: Then of course you have the seminal paper by Duesberg pointing to drugs as the cause of immune crashing, which makes 100% more sense than blaming a 9kb wisp of retrovirus for suddenly waking up after twenty years to strike you dead in short order, when retroviruses are famous for not harming anybody.

    If there was one thing that characterized the gay men among whom AIDS first reared its ugly head in the eighties it was the enthusiasm for recreational drugs, some of them new, with which to fuel their bathhouse orgies, if that phrase is permitted by the PC police here. Then of course the first treatment for AIDS became AZT, a very unpleasantly toxic drug which excited its discoverer as a possible treatment for cancer but had to be shelved owing to its ability to kill the patient faster than the cancer.

    What actually causes AIDS? The answer is loud and clear in one paper above all, 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) (http://www.duesberg.com/papers/chemical-bases.html). 1) The revelers’ own fun drugs, 2) the toxic drugs given to them by doctors misinformed by bad science based on an unproven and unjustified scientific paradigm, and 3) finally amid the hapless poor of Africa and Asia, on top of other diseases, malnutrition and its inability to supply crucial elements in the functioning of the immune system.

    The endless resistance to this line of reasoning and preference for the almost insanely illogical and inconsistent HIV paradigm, defects exposed by the multitude of papers referenced in the Goodson survey, is a testament to the huge influence of human nature and its flaws in modern scientific practice, despite all its powerful technology.

    The chief flaw involved seems to be the inability of humans to think straight when threatened by a danger to their health, when they rush to place their destiny uncritically in the hands of their physician and through him or her the scientists the doctor relies on. But who will guard against the flaws of these guardians by double checking their work and their claims? Only those with independent minds, of whom there seem to be less than 1 per cent among us, according to our own unscientific survey.

    The reaction of most people is to trust authority, and when that authority is challenged by independent minds, to close ranks, circle the wagons and fight to the last bullet any suggestion that they should reexamine what they have been told. And the most astonishing and disturbing thing about the HIV case is that so many good minds, such as the relentless defenders of HIV here, join them.
    Today at 04:38pm

    Anthony Liversidge @Seth Kalichman The name is Peter Duesberg, not Deusberg. Do we take it that you are unfamiliar with his works, having not read them well enough to remember his name correctly? (Or perhaps you are dyslexic, in which case we apologize for the misunderstanding.)

    You reference the above Duesberg paper I mentioned – AIDS since 1984: No evidence for a new, viral epidemic – not even in Africa (http://www.duesberg.com/articles/Duesberg%20et%20al_AIDS%20since%201984%20No%20evidence%20for%20a%20new%20viral%20epidemic%20not%20even%20in%20Africa_IJAE_2011.pdf) – which was published in the Italian Journal of Anatomy and Embryology in 2011 in your Commentary text, so one would assume you have read it.

    But you give the reference as “4. Duesberg P, Nicholson JM, Rasnick D, Fiala C, Bauer HH. WITHDRAWN: HIV-AIDS hypothesis out of touch with South African AIDS – a new perspective. Med Hypotheses (2009). doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2009.06.024”. Are you even aware four years later in 2015 that it was expanded and republished in 2011 after activist HIV supporters objected to it so virulently in 2009 that Medical Hypotheses was forced to take it down and the editor resigned rather than accede to this suppression of free scientific discourse? Have you even seen the full version?

    You stated also that “While it is true that he was part of the group that isolated the first cancer gene and mapped the genetic structure of retroviruses in 1970, Duesberg later claimed, and still claims, that no such genes exist.” Since this is misleading, because Duesberg denies only “heritable cancer genes”, it suggests that you didn’t actually read carefully another reference you cited, 13. Duesberg P, Li R, Fabarius A, Hehlmann R. The chromosomal basis of cancer. Cell Oncol (2005) 27(5–6):293–318. (http://mcb.berkeley.edu/labs/duesberg/pdfs/2005%20Duesberg%20CO%20copy2.pdf)

    Please reassure us that you do in fact carefully read the Duesberg papers you scorn, and that these indications that you don’t are misleading. After all, a scientist of your stature would surely enjoy reading papers which hew to such impeccable standards of scientific accuracy.
    Today at 06:18pm

    Laura Ogar Greetings to Mr Liversidge. Your comment regarding the natural inclination of people to resist reexamination brings to mind Tolstoy: “I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”

    Add to that the natural desire we all have to create a positive difference in the world, and the power of profound empathy with the suffering. I was involved in traditional AIDS charities, benefits and so on for many years, and as Neville Hodgkinson has said in his understated but so heartfelt way, it takes “a bit of a shift” in oneself to see things differently. For me it began with Duesberg.

    But if I had made a career around HIV/AIDS, how open would I have been? What if I were faced with the possibility that I had violated the precept of primum non nocere? It really is a terrible thought, isn’t it?
    Today at 08:11pm

    Anthony Liversidge @Laura Olgar Thank you for bringing into focus the our deeply rooted human resistance to outsiders challenging our group belief, in this case the temple of HIV/AIDS dogma, built on a foundation stone inscribed “HIV is the cause of AIDS.”

    Certainly Tolstoy nailed the basic problem. When a belief is woven into our daily life for years, it is very hard for us to reconsider it. That is as true for scientists as everyone else, even though they have a professional duty to be open minded at all times to all new evidence and logic, and to reconsider all working hypotheses especially one yet to be proven. Nobel prizes often revise paradigms.

    And as you suggest in HIV/AIDS its more than the simple psychological barriers to questioning ourselves. It is almost impossible when we have thought we were serving our best ideals, by helping others, relieving suffering, combating ignorance and saving lives. Now suddenly we are asked to consider the terrible possibility that we were adding to suffering, compounding ignorance, ending lives and practicing a science which is a danger to the community. The text of the Bible is suddenly guide for the Devil!

    But sorry to say, the difficulty goes even beyond that. The pattern of behavior shown in the Commentary and some of the comments here of detracting from critic’s reputations is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to political and social sanctions applied to enforce conformity to HIV/AIDS dogma in the world at large. Not only are critics assailed in ad hominem terms but behind the scenes telephone calls are made to try and get them fired by their employers or institutions, sometimes successfully. Any publication in a respectable journal is attacked, as in this case, often successfully dislocating papers unless the editors and publishers are sufficiently principled and immune.

    Anyone who suggests reviewing the HIV belief is shunned, rather than debated, and their work attacked. In other words, by group consensus they are reckoned the Devil. Their careers in science will be in jeopardy. This phenomenon is the behavior of cults, rather than science. In this respect, it may not be going too far to say that HIV/AIDS is the Scientology of science. Certainly all who see the film just released on Scientology will find many similarities of behavior. See HBO Documentary Film “Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief, New York Times Talk Discussion, (http://www.cuny.tv/show/timestalks/PR2004000).

    Perhaps this is all predictable. After all, as Tolstoy pointed out, the leaders and followers of this scientific debacle have everything to lose. No wonder they resist so mightily. It is only human. But it is a sorry reflection on modern science that they have been allowed for thirty years to stifle review so successfully that most people have never heard of it.
    Today at 11:40pm

  38. Anthony Liversidge Says:

    Interesting irrelevant minor event on Kalichman thread:

    Frontiers Frontiers Communications: Ladies and gentlemen, we regret we have to remind you: we will not tolerate offensive remarks (including ethnic slurs) on our platform. Please remain civil.
    Today at 04:52am

    This sentence excised from earlier AL Comment:

    Perhaps your domicile is in Russia, is it, where they copulate as frantically as rabbits, you are reporting? Hard to believe.

    And this is substituted:

    [OFFENSIVE REMARK, CUT BY FRONTIERS COMMUNICATIONS ON 14 MAR 2015 09:42 CET]

    But not this from Alexey comment:

    And after such your words above (“Perhaps your domicile is in Russia, is it, where they copulate as frantically as rabbits, you are reporting?”), I will just ignore you. However, I am asking a moderator to block your account here because of an absolutely unacceptable, disrespectful and rude tone.
    ————————-

    So we have posted our objection as follows:

    Anthony Liversidge @ Frontiers Frontiers Communications: Surely you are absolutely correct to cut any ethnic slur in this Comment thread as uncivil. But the sentence you cut in my comment (“Perhaps your domicile is in Russia, is it, where they copulate as frantically as rabbits, you are reporting? Hard to believe.”) was not a slur. and if it appeared to you as such was not read correctly.

    If you review it you will see it was in the form of a question, asking if this was what Alexey was reporting, since it was the implication of his argument (that a success rate of 1 in 1000 for men transmitting HIV antibodies to women was sufficient to generate a pandemic of 35 million people in the world positive for HIV antibodies).

    It was not an ethnic slur. I do not of course believe that Russians have a sex life different in level of activity from anyone else. The suggestion was in fact Alexey’s. I merely asked if that was what he intended to report.

    Please adjust “you are reporting?” to “are you reporting?” to avoid such misunderstanding and replace the sentence in my comment to avoid destroying the integrity of its logic.

    The point, after all, is very important. A rate of 1 in 1000 could only support a global pandemic of HIV positivity in some fantasy land where the inhabitants copulate more often than rabbits.

    Yet this is a central pillar of the belief in the HIV paradigm, without which the entire logical structure collapses to the ground in smoking ruins.

    Incidentally, Rick Stein helpfully pointed to the Wawer et al Uganda study: ” Wawer et al. “The overall rate of HIV transmission observed in these discordant couples, 0.0012/coital act, is consistent with previous estimates from Rakai [12], Europe, and North America [3, 17]” .

    In other words, the rate of 1 in 830 is really no better in Africa, pace Padian.
    Today at 12:21pm

    Seth Kalichman Perhaps it is time for Frontiers to close this thread. The AIDS Denislists have had their say. Lots here for people to see what makes them tick…and… Why Goodson should not be taken seriously. Their rhetoric will only degenerate from this point as seen in the recent postings. I suggest closing commentary.
    Today at 02:03pm

    Anthony Liversidge Professor Kalichman suggests that there is nothing more to say, but it would be disappointing if as one of the leading experts in the psychology of this field he did not first give us the benefit of his own wisdom on the psychology of HIV defenders, who seek to halt any discussion of the criticism surveyed by Goodson.

    If however his application to close the Comments here is granted, posters should know that the thread is copied to Science Guardian and may be continued there if desired, under a new post reporting this debate.

    Meanwhile also perhaps Professor Kalichman might comment on two key books mentioned above, the leading retrovirus and cancer researcher Professor Duesberg’s book Inventing the AIDS Virus (Regnery Publishing 1998), and molecular biologist and Nature Biotechnology founding scientific editor Harvey Bialy’s Oncogenes Aneuploidy and AIDS: A Life and Scientific Times of Peter H. Duesberg (North Atlantic 2004).

    Has he detected any psychological flaws in the authors or scientific flaws in what they have written, which contradict their emphatic shared conclusion that HIV has always been a scientific non-starter, supported only by politics?

    What about Science Sold Out: Does HIV Really Cause AIDS? the 2007 book by mathematician and HIV/AIDS modeler Rebecca Culshaw? Does he believe that these and the more than thirty other books debunking HIV should be banned from Amazon as undermining the acceptance of the HIV theory, even though there is no proof as yet of the ruling wisdom?

    After all, sales of all three have risen in the wake of his Commentary here, unlike his own.
    14 Mar 2015 at 06:29pm

    Laura Ogar Dear Professor Kalichman: I would like to hear your reasoning for the use of the dysphemism “AIDS denialist,” when it is clear – and acknowledged in your own words – that those who raise etiological questions about immune dysfunction do not deny its existence.

    Also, just as a note – when referring to the Shoah, the word “holocaust” is capitalized as a proper noun. Apologies in advance for calling attention to what was no doubt a typo.
    Yesterday at 11:59am

  39. Anthony Liversidge Says:

    Interesting Tolstoy quote:

    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 War and Peace, 1869

    Used in Commentary From Harry W. Haverkos on The Chemical Bases Of The Various AIDS Epidemics see http://www.duesberg.com/papers/chemical-bases2.html

  40. Anthony Liversidge Says:

    Professor Kalichman, who cried Uncle in his last comment, and pleaded with his friendly editors at Frontiers to close Comments off from further embarrassments, has not responded to our plea that he advise us of the psychological or scientific flaws in three key books on HIV/AIDS.

    So we asked him to use his expertise to tell us if the Science Guardian list of source of human bias in scientific discussion contained any factors he would endorse as involved in HIV paradigm promoters’ 28 year resistance to discussing the HIV issue.

    Anthony Liversidge Since Professor Kalichman has not given his judgment here yet as to whether psychological factors might be contributing to the 28 year tendency for HIV proponents to repress discussion of the HIV paradigm in AIDS, rather than answer the challenges to it surveyed in Patricia Goodson’s seminal paper, may we refer him to the list at http://www.ScienceGuardian.com (front page, lower blue section) on the sources of such bias?

    Many of them can surely be counted as psychological in nature, whether social or personal. Since this is Professor Kalichman’s field, do any of them fit his criteria for discerning psychological factors in scientific judgment, in particular, those which he has included in his book as applicable to HIV challengers?

    In his opinion, do HIV proponents share any of these facets of human nature, and factors involved in social behavior? After all, if conscious or inadvertent prejudice in favor of ideas that reward individuals and groups rather than the public interest are involved in close minded belief in HIV, instead of being excluded from scientific judgment, as they should be, surely they have bearing on his Commentary which argues that HIV critics are not worth listening to, and should be ignored, and that, as he put it in his Comment above, Patricia Goodson’s review “should not be taken seriously”, and that Comments should be closed?

    The list is stated to be a “list of sources of human bias in scientific discussion, the personal and very human frailties that distort thinking in science and society in the 21st Century as much as they did in earlier times, and prevent proper attention to the published literature of science and other fields, and its clear evidence, for example, that a reigning paradigm such as HIV/AIDS is a grand and egregious error.”

    We would suggest factors relevant here, among many others, of particular interest to Profess Kalichman, might be the following:

    Apophenia (the spontaneous perception of connections and meaningfulness of unrelated phenomena); embodied cognition (when an agent’s cognition is strongly influenced by aspects of an agent’s body beyond the brain itself); Ringelmann social loafing (the tendency for individual members of a group to become increasingly less productive as the size of their group increases); representativeness heuristic (judgmental shortcuts that generally get us where we need to go – and quickly – but at the cost of occasionally sending us off course), and the Texas sharpshooter fallacy (an informal fallacy which is committed when differences in data are ignored, but similarities are stressed).
    19 Mar 2015 at 01:26pm

    Anthony Liversidge PS After studying the list carefully, we are unable to find any factors which are not worth Professor Kalichman consideration in his reply, so we hope that we can be allowed to state the full list of possibilities.

    Professor Kalichman, is it not fair to say that all these human psychological and social factors are involved in the resistance to reexamination of the HIV paradigm?

    Arrogance, apophenia, authority wielding, acquiescence to authority, backscratching, bootlicking, browbeating, bullying, bureaucratic bumbling and self preservation, careerism, censoriousness, clubbiness, club membership, collegiality, competitiveness, conformity, confirmation bias, convention, competing for credit, corruption of power, cowardice, credulity, crowd psychology, currying favor, cv expansion, consensus pressure, conditioning, conjunction fallacy, control seeking, deceit, discovery bias, defensiveness, Dunning-Kruger effect, delusions of grandeur, gratitude, discretion, dissembling, dogmatism, dreams of glory, embarrassment, empire building, envy, experimental bias, endowment effect, embodied cognition, expectation framing, false hope, fanciful theorizing, family loyalty, fashion, fear and loathing, fear mongering, flag waving, flocking, fondness for the status quo, friendship, following orders, group loyalty, grant seeking, groupthink, group survival, herd instinct, hindsight bias, hubris, human error, hypocrisy, haste, inattention blindness, iatrogenic ignorance, ideology, indoctrination, illogic, instigating panic, institutional affiliation, intimidation, irrationality, insanity, job seeking, job retention, just world prejudice, kowtowing to seniority and power, lack of controls, labeling, laziness, lickspittle instincts, loyalty to superiors,lynch mob mentality, maintaining labs, staff, parents, wives, mistresses and offspring, masochism, mental inertia, mentor allegiance, misdirection, misunderstanding, naivete, narcissism, Nobel hunting, normalcy bias, obedience, obeisance, officiousness, opportunism, overclaiming, operant conditioning, panic, priming, publication bias, paradigm protection, patron pandering, peer pressure, perks, preconceptions, presentation bias, privileges, prizes, piety, politicking, political pressures, popularity, power seeking, pseudoscience, prejudice, preserving face, prevarication, pride, protectionism, Ptolemaic rationalizing, public relations, (cont.)
    19 Mar 2015 at 01:34pm

    Anthony Liversidge (cont) PubMed illiteracy, pusillanimity, psychopathy, racism, rage, rationalization, religious instinct, respectability, reputation enhancing, resistance to change, rivalry, ruthless ambition, Ringelmann social loafing, representativeness heuristic, sadism, selective reporting, scheming for advancement, self-deception, self-interest, self-justification, self-preservation, self-promotion, scientific illiteracy, shame, sloth, slow wittedness, smugness in orthodoxy, social ambition, sociopathy, social belonging, status seeking, sheer stupidity, sunk cost fallacy, straw man fallacy, subjective validation, self serving, self validating bias, situation psychology, terrorizing, Texas sharpshooter fallacy, thievery, timidity, toadying, trickery, tribalism, ‘truthiness’, unthinking acquiescence, unchecked error copying, uninformed certainty, underresearch, unconscious misperception, vanity, venality, veneration, virus hunting, witch hunting, wishful thinking, worship of authority, youthful naivete, and zeal in the service of the establishment and the status quo.

    Specific items I hope may be of special interest to Professor Kalichman to comment on as an expert on psychological disruptions to clear thinking might also include the conjunction fallacy (when it is assumed that specific conditions are more probable than a single general one); the Dunning-Kruger effect (the cognitive bias wherein unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly believing their ability to be much higher than is accurate); just world prejudice (the tendency for people to believe that the world is fair and that people get what they deserve); normalcy bias (where we tend to underestimate both the possibility of a disaster and its possible effects); operant conditioning (learning that occurs through reinforcements and punishments for behavior); sunk cost fallacy (our tendency to stick to something we have greatly invested in), priming (the implicit memory effect in which exposure to one stimulus influences a response to another stimulus); and Ptolemaic rationalizing (whereby a complicated justification is created for an incorrect hypothesis).

    Are there any of these factors which Professor Kalichman, as an expert on flawed thinking, believes do not apply those who resist reexamination of the HIV belief?

    By the way, thanks to the comments editor for allowing me to reinstate my sentence above, which misled some to think I said Russians copulate like rabbits, when I said that that was the absurd implication of Alexey’s post vowing that heterosexual transmission of HIV is enough to support spread in Russia. Or anywhere else. The rates posited (not even actually found) by Padian are not enough to support HIV as a transmitted disease.

    Padian proved that the main pillar of HIV/AIDS is a fantasy.
    19 Mar 2015 at 01:35pm

  41. Anthony Liversidge Says:

    More Comments on the Goodson Page

    Eugene John Semon Alexey, you have completely missed the point of my letter to Science which deals SPECIFICALLY with the Gallo paper and has nothing to do with the argument over detection of proteins that followed from the assays developed after this paper was published. And as Claus stated above to Mika – this has nothing to do with armchair philosophy. There are or were in fact real standards of viral isolation before Perth Group came on the scene. I don’t have the exact references (four papers from the 70’s) off the top of my head, but two of them were from Toplin, one on RT detection from Smoler, Baltimore et al and of course the key from Monroe and Brandt – on the necessity of an EM from which particle counting can be performed. So of course your peremptory dismissal of my letter to Science shows me how unscientific you are, not bothering to study the argument.
    27 Mar 2015 at 02:59pm

    Eugene John Semon Alexey, you have completely missed the point of my letter to Science, which does not deal with the detection of proteins by assays developed after this paper was published. And Mika, this is not about armchair philosophy but standards of retroviral isolation published before Perth Group came on the scene. Should I bother to provide these references or will you just close your mind shut anyway?
    27 Mar 2015 at 03:04pm

    Eugene John Semon Alexey and Mika, if you bother to check the Monroe and Brandt reference to my critique of Gallo you will clearly see that there’s no back-up, according to them, for his particle count of 10^11 per L. Thus, we have the case of the missing EM and the missing gold standard …
    27 Mar 2015 at 03:09pm

    Eugene John Semon And of course, any set of tests which provides the entire HIV genome plus verification of all the HIV proteins in a patient with full blown AIDS would verify at least the correlation of HIV and AIDS. I would certainly accept this as a “non-Perthian” gold standard, but nowhere to be found. So I’m calling you guys out as the pseudoscientists; and yes, Claus and I have made this challenge over the years without a scientific response.
    27 Mar 2015 at 03:16pm

  42. Anthony Liversidge Says:

    And more on the Kalichman Commentary:

    Eugene John Semon Seth, the rhetoric is degenerating on your side. See today’s posts on the other thread here. Your boys refuse to engage with my scientific letter to Science debunking Gallo’s paper. The retroviral isolation standards come from the literature and not armchair philosophy. I appreciate Frontier not accepting your pseudoscientific recommendation that the discussion here should not be arbitrarily terminated.
    27 Mar 2015 at 03:25pm

    Eugene John Semon @ Rick Stein: way to punk out from a serious discussion – you admit in your ad hominem attack on me that you can’t do it with rational argument.
    27 Mar 2015 at 03:39pm

    Eugene John Semon @ Alexey, Trust me my friend, chemical engineers are quite expert in “looking behind the numbers”. Mathematical models have a verification problem, GIGO in short, which means the numbers from such a model do not necessarily represent the real world.
    27 Mar 2015 at 03:44pm

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


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