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---

Tara Smith’s “Mbeki: Still In Denial” Thread

November 21st, 2007

Assistant Professor of Epidemiology Tara Smith ran a post on her SEED Magazine Science Blogs blog Aetiology at November 6, 2007 1:45 PM, insulting Thabo Mbeki President of South Africa as a “denialist”. Mbeki’s new biography, Thabo Mbeki: The Dream Deferred was published recently and revealed that Mbeki had never abandoned his skepticism on the claims of HIV=AIDS to be a good analysis of South African health problems, but retreated from making official statements on the topic only because of political pressure from the activists in South Africa, and other baying hyenas of ignorance that seem impelled to seek revenge for his independent thinking on the matter,

The resulting comment thread has now (Jan 11 2008) reached 1771 comments – two books! -and we thought it appropos quickly to record its current stage in case it provokes editing or even erasure from Tara or her new HIV=AIDS friends, such as John P. Moore of Weill-Cornell, whose replies – till he abandoned ship – like those of other defenders of the faith were so ad hominem and scientifically evasive and/or misleading that they provide strong evidence that John is a good enough scientist to be well aware of how weak they are. In other words, further proof that the chief public defender of the paradigm is actually a closet dissident, his conscience apparently still working and in need of balm despite his armored shield of self-deception and denial, according to our psychoanalysis. His papers confirm this impression, and how they do so will be noted in an imminent post.

Here for permanent reference is a take out as of Jan 11, 2008 when it appears that it finally ground to a halt.

Seed Media Group
Aetiology

Discussing causes, origins, evolution, and implications of disease and other phenomena.

Profile

Tara C. Smith is an Assistant Professor of Epidemiology. Her research involves a number of pathogens at the animal-human nexus. Additionally, she is the founder of Iowa Citizens for Science and also writes for The Panda’s Thumb. Please note the views expressed on this site are Dr. Smith’s alone and may not be representative of the groups mentioned above.
Search this blog

Mbeki: still in denial

Category: AIDS/HIV • Politics • Public health
Posted on: November 6, 2007 1:45 PM, by Tara C. Smith

In our paper on HIV denial, Steven and I started the introduction off with a note about South African president Thabo Mbeki:

This denial was highlighted on an international level in 2000, when South African president Thabo Mbeki convened a group of panelists to discuss the cause of AIDS, acknowledging that he remained unconvinced that HIV was the cause. His ideas were derived at least partly from material he found on the Internet. Though Mbeki agreed later that year to step back from the debate, he subsequently suggested a re-analysis of health spending with a decreased emphasis on HIV/AIDS.

Though he’s not been publicly vocal about his views in recent years, it has been suggested that they’ve not changed–that he still remains unconvinced, at best, of HIV causation of AIDS. An article in today’s Guardian suggests he’s ready to start speaking on it again–and it’s the same old schtick:

President Thabo Mbeki remains an “Aids dissident” who has told a biographer that he regrets bowing to pressure from his cabinet to “withdraw from the debate” over the disease ravaging South Africa.

***

Thabo Mbeki: The Dream Deferred describes how the president contacted the author earlier this year to reiterate some of the views that caused uproar in the medical community before Mr Mbeki stopped talking publicly about Aids several years ago. Mr Gevisser also describes how the president’s view of the disease was shaped by an obsession with race, the legacy of colonialism and “sexual shame”.

The book will reinforce the view of Mr Mbeki’s critics who say his unorthodox opinions have cost hundreds of thousands of lives by delaying the distribution of medicines, and that the health minister, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, has continued these views.

This may sound familiar to those who’ve read our PLoS Medicine paper (or who’ve simply dealt with pharma-phobic deniers) as well:

The president said he was seeking an open debate but portrayed those who disagreed with him – who include Nelson Mandela, trade union leaders whose members were dying in large numbers and Aids activists – as in the pay of the drug companies.

And while Mbeki attributes much power to “drug companies,” it sounds like many who’ve disagreed with his stance on AIDS have been fearful to tell him as much:

Mr Gevisser says that while Mr Mbeki has never explicitly denied the link between HIV and Aids, he is a “profound sceptic”. The issue came to a head in the cabinet in 2002 after Mr Mbeki’s political advisers and some ministers told him it was running out of control and damaging South Africa’s reputation, which had been so high under Mr Mandela’s leadership.

“What happened was not, quite, a rebellion,” writes Mr Gevisser. “Only one elected ANC representative, Pregs Govender, the chair of a parliamentary committee on the status of women, resigned and publicly criticised Mbeki. And even behind closed doors only one or two people actually had the courage to tell Mbeki they thought he was wrong.”

(TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/54915)

Comments

Any quality political leader worth his salt will go out of way just to make sure there are people close to him that will disagree with him sometimes. Sadly, there are few political leaders anywhere like that any more.

Posted by: Dave S. | November 6, 2007 2:54 PM

Stand by for the deluge of denialists hijacking this thread. I’ll bet the first one will appear within the first 10 posts.

Mbeki is stubborn. Perhaps he is unwilling to admit he was wrong, or unwilling to admit others may be right. Either way, he is not helping the situation in the RSA at all, and should shut the hell up about AIDS.

Posted by: wheatdogg | November 6, 2007 6:29 PM

I take it that Mr Mbeki is willing to be injected with HIV to prove his point? I understand that, after the demonstration, he can heal himself with traditional medicines. No? Not stepping forward, sir?

Posted by: Ex-drone | November 6, 2007 7:27 PM

I am interested in hearing Dr. Braganza’s take on this story, since he seems well-informed on SA politics and also stated that Mbeki had forsaken Duesberg’s denialism.

Sometimes I try to decide which is better: a “stupid” leader who delegates to experts or a brilliant leader, full of ideas (like Mbeki), who insists on making his or her own decisions against conventional wisdom? Of course there are dangers in both. Why do we so rarely find a brilliant leader who is willing to take advice from brilliant experts?

Posted by: ElkMountainMan | November 6, 2007 7:58 PM

This is bizarre.

Mbeki’s official biographer claimed that Mbkei was never a Denialist!

Now in fiction: the president on Aids

Is Mbeki now denying that he denied that he was a Denialist?

Does Mbeki still claim that he doesn’t know anybody who died from AIDS?

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 6, 2007 8:59 PM

“Stand by for the deluge of denialists hijacking this thread. I’ll bet the first one will appear within the first 10 posts.

Posted by: wheatdogg | November 6, 2007 6:29 PM”

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

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

“Once again, I wonder how long it will take for the HIV/AIDS deniers to hijack this thread. Counting one, two, three, …

Posted by: SLC | October 10, 2007 5:12 PM”

“The AIDS/HIV denialist whackjobs whould be hijacking this thread any time now.

Posted by: SLC | October 25, 2007 5:50 PM”

“I wonder how long it will take for the HIV/AIDS denialists to pollute this thread with their bogus claims?

Posted by: SLC | September 14, 2007 9:23 AM”

Posted by: pat | November 6, 2007 9:32 PM

You have actually found something you can predict! congratulations!

Posted by: pat | November 6, 2007 9:36 PM

Chris,

I think it comes down to the technicality:

In the Guardian article:

Mr Gevisser says that while Mr Mbeki has never explicitly denied the link between HIV and Aids, he is a “profound sceptic”.

and in Nicoli’s article:

Claiming that Mbeki was not an Aids denialist because he “never said that HIV does not cause Aids” is a red herring.

Mbeki can claim he was never a “denier” because he never explicitly said (to my knowledge) that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS–though policies he implemented and invitations he made to deniers shows otherwise.

Posted by: Tara C. Smith | November 6, 2007 9:42 PM

President Mbeki is a bona fide hero. He prevented the pharmaceutical cabal from polluting the country with toxic AZT. Probably saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

Glad he got re-elected in a landslide.

Posted by: Mountain Man | November 6, 2007 11:18 PM

Sigh…
As someone who has held a child that died because of Mbeki’s denialism, Mountain Man makes me sick. Of course, the children at the same orphanage suddenly stopped dying when they were put on antiretrovirals like AZT. Fascinating coincidence? No, Mbeki is guilty of negligent homicide, if not worse.

Posted by: bdkeller | November 6, 2007 11:30 PM

bdkeller,

Hey moron — do you really think giving cancer chemo (AZT) to pregnant woman is a good thing?

If so, that is why you are a loser on the internet, while Mbeki worked tirelessly at Mandela’s side to smash apartheid and now runs a country of millions.

Go crawl under your rock — or better yet, take some AZT for 30 days and tell us what it does to you.

Mbeki is a hero — I hope upon his retirement they make him General Secretary of the UN.

Posted by: Mountain Man | November 6, 2007 11:41 PM

You do realize that insulting me for using the internet is rather ironic, eh?

The question of whether or not giving AZT to pregnant women is a good thing is answered by research, not by your rantings. Because women treated with AZT reduce the likelihood of their children getting HIV (which leads to AIDS and eventual death without treatment), yes, I think it’s a very good thing.

Mbeki’s admirable work against apartheid does not make his views on HIV/AIDS correct. If it did, by that logic Mandela’s even greater work against apartheid would justify his stance (which happens to be correct) that HIV does cause AIDS.

Posted by: bdkeller | November 6, 2007 11:49 PM

Jeez, bkeller, you’re like a trained seal. Good at regurgitating a narrative, terrible at any real thought. You sound like one of those gullible assholes who thought it was a good idea to invade Iraq or that driving a Prius somehow makes a difference in the environment.

Here, Moron, is some research on AZT, a deadly cancer chemo drug:

Within 48 weeks on AZT, 172 (56%) out of 308 Australian AIDS patients developed one or more new AIDS diseases, including pneumonia and candidiasis [1]. This indicates that AZT induces AIDS diseases with less than 1 year and thus much faster than the 10 years HIV is said to need to cause AIDS [2]. Likewise, no therapeutic benefits were observed in a study of 365 AIDS patients from France after six months on AZT, but new AIDS diseases and approximately 50% leukopenias and 20% deaths occurred within nine months on AZT, Further, no therapeutic benefits were observed in four Norwegian AIDS patients after six months on AZT [3].

The annual lymphoma incidence of AZT-treated AIDS patients was reported to be 9% by the National Cancer Institute and was calculated to be 50% over 3 years [4]. The lymphoma incidence of untreated HIV-positive AIDS risk groups is 0.3% per year and 0.9% per 3 years, derived from the putative average progression rate of 10 years from HIV to AIDS [2,5,6] and the 3% incidence of lymphoma in AIDS patients [7]. Thus the lymphoma incidence is 30 to 50 times higher in AZT-treated than in untreated HIV-positive counterparts. In addition, “during the past three years [of AZT therapy] a progressive increase in the number of [AIDS] patients dying from lymphoma…”, to a current total of 16%, was noted in 1991 in a group of 346 AIDS patients in London, most of whom were on AZT.

Citations:

1. Swanson et al,(1990) Factors influencing outcome of treatment with zidovudine of patients with AIDS in Australia. AIDS 4, 749.

2. Lemp et al, (1990) Projections of AIDS morbidity and mortality in San Francisco. J Am Med Assoc 263, 1497

3. Reinvang et al, (1991) Only temporary improvement in imparied neuropsychological function in AIDS patients treated with zidovudine. AIDS 5, 228

4. Pluda et al,(1990) Development of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in a cohort of patients with immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection on long-term antiretroviral therapy. Ann Int Med 113, 276.

5. Duesberg (1991) AIDS epidemiology: inconsistencies with human immunodeficiency virus and with infectious disease. PNAS 88, 1575

6. Moss et al, (1988) The cause of AIDS. Science 242, 997

7. Centers for Disease Control (1991) HIV/AIDS Surveillance. (January) US Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, GA

Posted by: Mountain Man | November 7, 2007 12:12 AM

Glad he got re-elected in a landslide.

My impression was that the ANC did their best to eliminate HIV/AIDS as an election issue at the previous election.

They agreed to start distributing ARVs and Mbeki shut up. The silence was deafening. He stopped making any Denialist statements and the official ANC policy was that HIV causes AIDS and that ARVs are the appropriate treatment.

If Mbeki had any guts he would have taken his HIV denialism to the election.

Why didn’t he come out and say what he apparently thinks? He’s obviously a clever politician and knew that he would lose votes from many of the voters who had lost family members to AIDS. Much better to keep quiet and instead do your best to slow down the distribution of ARVs.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 7, 2007 12:20 AM

Trained seals must bark loudest at other seals. You say that I regurgitate a narrative (my personal story of involvement with children with HIV/AIDS is original, as were my comments on Mbeki and Mandela), and then you copy and past large sections of research from virusmyth.net. This is called irony.

As I am not a trained seal, I will however read the articles (not just the conclusions) you cited when I get the chance. It may take me a day or two to do them justice as I have a genetics test coming up soon. (Ie., I need to go memorize some more of that baseless Mendelian dogma.)

Your characterization is again, rather inaccurate. I think invading Iraq was a terrible idea and driving a Prius is more about impressing the Joneses than having an appreciable impact on the environment. You’re right on one count; I do have an anus. I’m sure you’ll find a way to sprinkle any future responses with more invective, and I look forward to it. It’s one of the main reasons I respond.

Posted by: bdkeller | November 7, 2007 1:37 AM

Within 48 weeks on AZT, 172 (56%) out of 308 Australian AIDS patients developed one or more new AIDS diseases, including pneumonia and candidiasis [1]. This indicates that AZT induces AIDS diseases with less than 1 year and thus much faster than the 10 years HIV is said to need to cause AIDS [2].What sort of mind could possibly distort these papers in this way? It can’t be simply ignorance. It has to be concious deception.

In the first study all patients had already been diagnosed with AIDS and had opportunistic infections.

Figure 2 shows the survival of people in this category in the period before AZT and the survival when given AZT. I can’t imagine what happens when “Mountain Man” looks at this figure. Do his frontal lobes shut down? Do his magical denialist spectacles turn opaque?

In the period before AZT only about half of the patients were alive 1 year after diagnosis with AIDS. To claim that this paper demonstrates that AZT causes AIDS is monumentally stupid. AZT increased the survival rate.

The Concorde study gave 1000mg per day of AZT to the immediate group and a placebo to the deferred group. During in 55 weeks only 24 out of 505 in the immediate group developed advanced ARC or AIDS.

The Concorde study completely refutes the idea that AZT causes AIDS. If AZT caused AIDS you would expect that the immediate group would get AIDS at a higher rate than the deferred group who received a placebo. This was not observed. “Mountain Man”‘s assertion that AZT caused AIDS within a year is also refuted.

The only question that I have is why does “Mountain Man” provide citations when they contradict his claims? Does he think that people won’t read them? Does he think everybody else is stupid? Is he so blinded by his own stupidity that he can’t comprehend these studies?

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 7, 2007 1:37 AM

Good at regurgitating a narrative,…

I should have checked before I assumed that you had the mental capacity to compose the pseudoscientific nonsense you posted.

There is a quaint scientific custom whereby text is attributed to the original authors. If you copy and paste text without attribution it is called plagiarism. I doubt that Duesberg is going to complain but it is still plagiarism. Changing the reference numbers to hide this fact suggests that it was deliberate.

That explains why you cited this paper

1. Swanson et al,(1990) Factors influencing outcome of treatment with zidovudine of patients with AIDS in Australia. AIDS 4, 749.

You haven’t read it. You are just relying on Duesberg’s misinterpretation.

Go to the library. Get the paper. Read all of it. Look at figure 2.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 7, 2007 2:00 AM

President Mbeki is a bona fide hero. He prevented the pharmaceutical cabal from polluting the country with toxic AZT. Probably saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

How Mbeki wanted to poison his people with Virodene(TM)

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 7, 2007 3:29 AM

Mbeki’s South Africa is the only government in the world to reject the HIV causes AIDS toxic drug propaganda. They recognize it for what it really is. In a phrase so aptly coined by Rebecca Culshaw, HIV drugs for Africa is a form of genocide masquerading as philanthropy. South Africa is a test case scenario for the political battle between big pharma paid activists who harass government officials, and the a democratically elected government opposed to iatragenocide.

South Africa has had its long years of suffering under apartheid and colonial racist rule which have made it wary of further oppression at the hands of a western medical system which has blundered itself into the untenable and fraudulent hypothesis that toxic drugs should be given to Africans suffering from chronic medical problems of poverty, malnutrition, tuberculosis, contaminated water.

Mbeki and his colleagues have tremendous courage and wisdom to lead their people away from the corruption of Big Pharma money and toxic drugs. For the benefit of their people, may these great leaders continue in strength and health for many years.

Posted by: Neverapeen | November 7, 2007 4:57 AM

Mbeki is a hero — I hope upon his retirement they make him General Secretary of the UN.

Being a hero and being infallible is not the same thing.

How old are you not to have noticed that…?

Posted by: David Marjanović | November 7, 2007 7:42 AM

For years South Africa fought for it’s right to acquire inexpensive generic ARV’s for its people. For years the HIV team has DENIED them this right.

United Press International – November 1, 2001

Activists: Poor countries need AIDS meds
Kelly Hearn

WASHINGTON (UPI) — Under heavy security, activists converged Thursday on the office of U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, calling for a relaxation of drug patents, a move that would let Third World countries produce generic medicines for millions of impoverished AIDS sufferers.

The protests, organized by the AIDS activist group ACTUP based in Philadelphia, comes a week before a key World Trade Organization meeting in Doha, Qatar, and days after U.S. officials threatened to break a patent for the antibiotic Cipro, forcing German drug maker Bayer Corp. to lower its prices.

“(President) Bush talks of breaking the Cipro patent after four people died (of anthrax). But he refused to extend AIDS drugs to 30 million AIDS suffers, most of whom are black,” said Asia Russell of Health Gap, an HIV/AIDS drug activist organization. “It is a racist policy.”

Btw: we still hear this one thrown about wildly:

“South Africa is currently experiencing one of the most severe AIDS epidemics in the world. By the end of 2005, there were five and a half million people living with HIV in South Africa, and almost 1,000 AIDS deaths occurring every day.1” -avert.org

according to Statistics SA-www.statssa.gov.za

Table 4.4:
The ten leading underlying natural causes of death, 2004

10. Human immunodeficiency virus [HIV] disease
total deaths: (hold tight) 14’532 or 2,5%

Ok, who the f..k is pulling my leg?
And people wonder why Mbeki is skeptical about the “Aids world”

Posted by: pat | November 7, 2007 8:20 AM

I think Tara incessantly posts a blog entry about AIDS denial to get into that TOP FIVE / MOST EMAILED list as often as possible.

Well, who cares. I think these are great threads, it’s a real treat. Once you’ve unraveled the HIV=Aids nonsense, discussing with any member of the Scientific Community defending the equation is like playing soccer with guys who have only one leg but who nevertheless boast about being the only people in the world to know how to play that ball. What did I say? One leg? No legs at all, that’s closer to reality. And drunk!
No wonder the denialist camp is leading about 98757 to 0.
No, 98757 to 1. I once scored against my own camp when I wrote amoebea instead of Plasmodium spp.

Posted by: jspreen | November 7, 2007 8:26 AM

Tara omitted the claim in the article I found even more disturbing (emphasis added):

[A] 100-page paper secretly authored by Mr Mbeki and distributed anonymously among the ANC leadership six years ago … compared Aids scientists to latter-day Nazi concentration camp doctors and portrayed black people who accepted orthodox Aids science as “self-repressed” victims of a slave mentality. It describes the “HIV/Aids thesis” as entrenched in “centuries-old white racist beliefs and concepts about Africans”.

That he’s still some sort of denier is a “dog bites man” story. Not a big surprise.

It’s the claim he apparently thought, and may still think, that HIV/AIDS researchers are “Nazi concentration camp doctors” is what astonished me. That’s seriously muddled “thinking”. I’m sure Orac could expand on this point!

Posted by: blf | November 7, 2007 8:39 AM

Can we see this secrtely authored paper or should we just blow wind around as usual.

Posted by: pat | November 7, 2007 9:00 AM

http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/life/life_expectancy.txt

Note South Africa life expectancy:

1960:49
1970:53
1980:57
1990:62
1999:48

Is there a denier explanation for this? Why is it that the following countries (and ONLY the following countries) see double digit life expectancy drops from 1990 to 1999?

Botswana
Lesotho
Zambia
Zimbabwe

Posted by: Andrew Dodds | November 7, 2007 9:35 AM

Can we see this secrtely [sic] authored paper or should we just blow wind around as usual.

The Guardian’s article reports Mr Gevisser (authour of Mr Mbeki’s biography) has two copies of this paper, an older one and a updated one. The updated one was sent to him by Mr Mbeki (according to the article).

It would indeed be useful to see the paper (either, and ideally both, versions). Based on the information in the article, four possible sources to ask for a copy spring to mind: Mr Mbeki, the ANC, Mr Gevisser, and The Guardian. Also, I assume the bibliography Mr Gevisser is writing(? has written?) will include more details.

I do not understand what “we should just blow wind around as usual” means. Please explain.

Posted by: blf | November 7, 2007 9:38 AM

“blowing wind around” is just another way to say “throwing gossip around” like the 1000 S Africans that die daily due to AIDS. In other words, we should wait to see if such a paper even exists before we opine about Mbeki’s statec of “denial”.

PS: [sic] looks ridiculous on a blog thread.

Posted by: pat | November 7, 2007 9:51 AM

Just in case anyone was fooled by a denialist’s (Michael’s?) use of the name “Mountain Man,” I did not make the disgusting comments about genocide and AZT above.

Of course, if I were Michael, I wouldn’t want to take credit for my own drivel, either.

Posted by: ElkMountainMan | November 7, 2007 10:01 AM

Andrew, no one is deniying that death in SA and Africa is HIGH. It is much higher than it probably ever was. To think this supports AIDS is ludicrous. Only a reality denialist would think that poverty and health has improved an inch these last couple of decades. The high death rate in Africa can easily be explained by the western world’s behavior towards that continent. African’s are poorer today than they were ever before and not because of AIDS but because of another epidemic, namely the epidemic economic plunder of that continent. Dare investigate what it is the World bank does there and you will find wholesale theft taking place. AIDS is just what we say so we don’t have to blame ourselves for it. With AIDS we can blame the lusting masses of Africans.

Posted by: pat | November 7, 2007 10:01 AM

I think Tara incessantly posts a blog entry about AIDS denial to get into that TOP FIVE / MOST EMAILED list as often as possible.

Incessantly? Typically I do one or two posts on HIV a month–and it’s not always denial. Y’all are the ones who keep them running for months at a time.

It’s the claim he apparently thought, and may still think, that HIV/AIDS researchers are “Nazi concentration camp doctors” is what astonished me.

Mbeki has a flair for that. There was another one we included in our PLoS paper, where he compared scientists to those facilitating witch hunts: “In an earlier period in human history, these [dissidents] would be heretics that would be burnt at the stake!”

Posted by: Tara C. Smith | November 7, 2007 10:07 AM

Of course, the children at the same orphanage suddenly stopped dying when they were put on antiretrovirals like AZT.

Hey! Come over here, put your name on the bible, swear upon what’s dearest to you that you’ll speak the truth and nothing but the truth, look me straight in the eyes and repeat that The children suddenly stopped dying when they were put on antiretrovirals like AZT.
If you dare do that, then it must be true that the kids stopped dying. In which case it’s certainly not because of AZT but because caring and well equiped people in a well equiped health care center started to look after them. So then, continue with the good care, cut out the AZT and your results will improve tenfold.

Posted by: jspreen | November 7, 2007 10:34 AM

Whats the problem, mbeki, like most intelligent people sees flaws in the hiv hypothesis. The more you use the term “denialist” the more it shows how little you know about science.

150 chimps injected not one has died of aids after 20 years
no explanation how a infection thats in 1/1000 blood tcells destroys the immune system
MOst viruses wreak havok before antibodies, not 10 years later, thats why we get vaccines.
NO study to see if people with this species specific microbe who dont have any other risk factors such as AZT, mycoplasmas, severe stress/drug abuse even get AIDS.

NO original scientific papers published in between 1983-85 that prove the hypothesis using kochs postulates, or a rigorous matched controlled long term study. What are you left with, the cherry picked NIH fact sheet released years later!

NO wonder you guys rely on censorship, if intelligent people heard of these arguments they’d dump the hiv dogma overnight.

Posted by: cooler | November 7, 2007 10:42 AM

Slightly OT, but Mbeki “being re-elected in a landslide” has very little to do with his actions as president. In present-day South Africa, the ANC always wins in a landslide.

Posted by: Chris Rowan | November 7, 2007 11:04 AM

“Mbeki has a flair for that. There was another one we included in our PLoS paper, where he compared scientists to those facilitating witch hunts: “In an earlier period in human history, these [dissidents] would be heretics that would be burnt at the stake!”

But Tara, you’re in denial. It is a fair comparison that some scientists facilitate which hunts.
To quote THE eminent HIV scientist-come-witch hunter JP Moore:

“This IS a war, there ARE no rules, and we WILL crush you, one at a time, completely and utterly (at least the more influential ones; foot-soldiers like you aren’t worth bothering with).”

We just don’t use “witch” any more but the equally obscure “denialist” and we don’t burn them anymore; just sabotage their careers.

Posted by: pat | November 7, 2007 11:26 AM

AIDS researchers are “Nazis”? What do we call vitamin quacks who experiment on people with AIDS?

Guardian, 2005:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1483821,00.html

“Dr [Mathias] Rath denounces Aids drugs and claims that all those who promote them are the paid lackeys of western drug companies. Vitamins, not drugs, are the cure for Aids – and cancer and diabetes too for that matter – he says, and there are those in the South African government who appear to give him credence. …

Supporting him are some of the maverick US scientists whose argument that HIV was not the cause of Aids found favour with the South African president, Thabo Mbeki some years ago. They, too, said the drugs made people ill. David Rasnick, one of those scientists, has now joined Dr Rath in Cape Town. Both names appear in one of the New York Times adverts which details a “clinical pilot study” of 18 people with Aids in the Cape Town township of Khayelitsha who were said to improve after four weeks on the supplements.

According to the Treatment Action Campaign in South Africa, which has cajoled and fought with the government for access to treatment for some of the 5 million now infected with HIV there, Dr Rath’s experiments with vitamins in Khayelitsha are probably illegal because he did not have approval to open clinics and offer any kind of therapy. Furthermore, the levels of vitamin C in the supplements were far beyond the 200mg a day recommended as safe by the US National Institutes of Health, says TAC, and could cause diarrhoea, which could kill somebody with Aids.”

Posted by: Colugo | November 7, 2007 11:44 AM

Pat,

I appreciate the comments on poverty, but how do you explain that (in South Africa, as in others parts of the world) lifespan of HIV+s is smaller than the one of HIV-s.

And has poverty just increased in South Africa now that the Apartheid has finished ? This would be anyway a proof that something is wrong in South Africa.

————

On the patent thing, anyone can patent anything if he can provide proof of an innovative step. Therefore an opiate antagonist which would behave a bit better than LDN and would have a different structure is likely to be patentable. Big companies have databanks of products and can have easy access to databases of natural products that they can screen against a biological test, therefore find new chemical structures that can be optimised and could theoretically provide a new LDN.

Is this likely ? If LDN can be used to control HIV/AIDS, everything would depend on the economics.

Posted by: Braganza | November 7, 2007 12:05 PM

“AIDS researchers are “Nazis”?

I don’t know about all researches but some like JP Moore, Bermann and Weinberg definitly have fascist tendencies:

“This IS a war, there ARE no rules, and we WILL crush you, one at a time, completely and utterly (at least the more influential ones; foot-soldiers like you aren’t worth bothering with).”

this is not what we would expect from a “curious” mind.

Also, I agree that anything that causes diarrhoea doesn’t make sense for people already suffering from AIDS BUT I must add that giving anything that causes bone marrow destruction to AIDS patients is equally stupid.
David Rasnik may be wrong about HIV/AIDS and vitamins but he designs protease inhibitors for a living. He knows a thing or two about them no?

Posted by: pat | November 7, 2007 12:14 PM

Thank God scientists can’t make all the laws yet

“Sigh…
As someone who has held a child that died because of Mbeki’s denialism, Mountain Man makes me sick. Of course, the children at the same orphanage suddenly stopped dying when they were put on antiretrovirals like AZT. Fascinating coincidence? No, Mbeki is guilty of negligent homicide, if not worse.”

Those children died of disease. Why isn’t Tara calling the pharmaceuticals and their political sheep murderers? They are the ones who for years REFUSED to let S. Africa get affordable ARV’s in effect FORCING Mbeki to wonder outload what the hell is going on and seek ALTERNATIVES. That is what I call “Denialism”: they forget! Anyone who blames Mbeki is in denial of historical FACTS!

Posted by: pat | November 7, 2007 12:21 PM

Thank you for your comments Braganza. S. Africa’s “explosive” death rate perhaps is best explained by the fact that black African’s were not allowed to die in white hospitals. No one kept a record of how and when they died so, of course, when Apartheid ended there was a very nasty surprise for the world. Poverty is not anything new to black S. African’s only what we let them die of…

Posted by: pat | November 7, 2007 12:36 PM

” how do you explain that (in South Africa, as in others parts of the world) lifespan of HIV+s is smaller than the one of HIV-s.” – Braganza

I can’t explain that. I also can’t explain the following:

SA: 5.5 million HIV+ and 14’000 HIV related deaths

N. America and central Europe: 2.1 million HIV+ and 30’000 HIV related deaths.-UNAIDS

Uganda: From a high of 35% infection rate to less than 7% in ten years. It is touted as an AIDS prevention success yet no one can find out where the 35% went. They did not die, so much is certain.

etc..

Posted by: pat | November 7, 2007 12:46 PM

Other things I can’t explain:

-Why some people still believe thoughts are dangerous.(fascist ideology)
-Why some scientists abandon the field of education.
(deriliction of duty)

Posted by: pat | November 7, 2007 2:09 PM

Pat, you are not taking into account the fact that those annual prevalences in Uganda are measured in specific at-risk populations, such as antenatal clinics and sexually transmitted infection clinics, so each measurement is of a different population walking in the door. It’s not that there was a measurement of the whole population, and a subset of people died, moved away, or cleared the virus – it’s that people coming in to be treated for their STIs in 1990 had lower seroprevalence than the ones coming in in 2000.

The evidence that Uganda is doing something different from its neighbors is reflected in the risk behavior data, too – kids are delaying their sexual debut, condom use is on the rise especially among teens, folks are reporting fewer casual partners, and STI rates are dropping.

Posted by: jen_m | November 7, 2007 2:10 PM

Of course, the children at the same orphanage suddenly stopped dying when they were put on antiretrovirals like AZT.

Hey, bdkeller! Will you answer my previous post please and tell me whether yes or no you are willing to repeat the above phrase in the conditions I mentioned?

Posted by: jspreen | November 7, 2007 2:43 PM

Why do the deniers hate AZT? Did AZT once insult your mother? What the hell, I just don’t get it. Of all the things in life to wage a war against, why AZT?

Posted by: J | November 7, 2007 2:44 PM

bc its a chemotherapy in a pill that kills dividing cells, being on chemo for years can kill you.

See hiv fact or fraud, read project day lily. google them for some real science, not eternal woo.

Posted by: cooler | November 7, 2007 2:47 PM

For more information on the situation in Uganda, see (and the pages it links to):

http://www.avert.org/aidsuganda.htm

There is also a discussion of the difference between “incidence” and “prevalence”, which may help in understanding the statistics. The possible reasons for the drop in prevalence (from c.35% to c.7%) is discussed:

Why might HIV prevalence have declined?

According to the best statistics available, HIV prevalence in Uganda fell dramatically during the 1990s. Such a steep reduction in HIV prevalence has not been seen in countries neighbouring Uganda, and is something that many would like to emulate. The debate is – why did HIV prevalence in Uganda decline? And how can this decline be replicated?

A declining prevalence indicates a lower proportion of positive people in the population. This could result from a fall in the number of new infections (incidence) or from a rise in the death rate among HIV-positive people, or from a combination of both factors.

New infections

It is likely that the number of new infections peaked in the late 1980s, and then fell sharply until the mid 1990s. This is generally thought to have been the result of behaviour change. …

Deaths

There is no precise data on the number of AIDS-related deaths that have taken place. The reasons for this are several, and include lack of healthcare facilities able to diagnose either HIV or AIDS cases in patients, and many deaths having gone unrecorded, or recorded as the results of opportunistic infections.

It has been suggested that an increase in the AIDS death rate may have been largely responsible for the drop in the number of people living with HIV that occurred in the late 1990s (though not for earlier declines). Such a rise in deaths would be a natural consequence of the earlier rise in HIV incidence. In the absence of widespread antiretroviral treatment, any rise in the number of new infections will almost inevitably result in an increase in the death rate a few years later, as people reach the end of their survival period.

It is clear that a huge number of HIV+ people have died in Uganda since the epidemic began, and a sufficiently high number of deaths could certainly result in a decrease in HIV prevalence figures. However, it should be noted that many other countries in sub-Saharan Africa experienced rapid increases in HIV incidence at the same time as Uganda, and, although they are similarly likely to have experienced large numbers of AIDS deaths, have not yet seen any substantial decline in prevalence. This suggests that the decline seen in Uganda wasn’t a natural occurrence, but rather that it was the result of something that was done differently in Uganda.

Or in short, an unknown and probably unknowable number of HIV infected people did die, and those deaths, combined with the lower incidence, is why the prevalence has dropped. Furthermore, the neighbouring areas did not show a drop in prevalence or incidence, strongly suggesting the decreases in Uganda are the result of something peculiar to Uganda. The policies used in Uganda, including free ARV medication to people living with HIV (ARVs are now used by c.40% of the infected), is an obvious suspect (i.e., what at least part of the peculiarity is).

Posted by: blf | November 7, 2007 2:52 PM

I have read Day Lily and HIV fact or fraud. They’re on par with stuff like “9/11 was an inside job” and “Moon landing was a hoax”. I looked into it, and found their arguments to be not so good.

I have a pretty good understanding of HIV & AIDS and the treatments. What I don’t understand is what motivates those who deny the obvious — what do you get out of it?

Posted by: J | November 7, 2007 2:53 PM

What would swearing on the bible (or whatever the challenge was) make the slightest bit of difference? Assuming an oral oath, then at best all it’d show is the person not mute. Geesh…

Posted by: blf | November 7, 2007 2:59 PM

150 architects have just come out to say that the explosives were used to bring down the towers, google architects for truth.

Project Day lily is based on the work of military scientist shyh ching lo, mycoplasma incognitus, the only microbe discovered that kills/sickens every animal inoclated, unlike hiv, hpv and hep c.

personally superior arguments in the film hiv fact or fraud is what swayed me, trust me before i thought it was nuts as well. We have all argued this to death, I just beleive people should have informed consent when it comes to these issues, once they do certain myths evaporate.

God damn robert Baer former cia officer and writer of award winning movie “syriania” just
came out for 9/11 truth.

You people are “government atrocity apologists” ie its impossible for the govenrnment, CDC, NIH to possibly lie or be incompetent.

Yeah I know you guys are going to respond and say im a nut, like I care, millions of americans think 9/11 was a false flag operation, look at the movie Loose change, its gotten like 50 million views, I think you guys are nuts.

Posted by: cooler | November 7, 2007 3:10 PM

jesus, I mean your governemnt killed like 3 million in vietnam, millions in Iraq, the tuskegee experiment and you say im a nut? god i swore i would stay away from you government atrocity apologists, no more posts for the next 24 hours

Posted by: cooler | November 7, 2007 3:15 PM

Pat,

You wrote:

“Thank you for your comments Braganza. S. Africa’s “explosive” death rate perhaps is best explained by the fact that black African’s were not allowed to die in white hospitals. No one kept a record of how and when they died so, of course, when Apartheid ended there was a very nasty surprise for the world. Poverty is not anything new to black S. African’s only what we let them die of…”

This is not correct,

Even during the Apartheid time, mainly in the last years, black have access to hospitals (for black people, it is true), and had death registrated. I just know that because in the 80’s I was, as a child, living in the border Mozambic-South Africa.

Even during the war that Apartheid forces funded in Mozambic, people from Mozambic (who are mainly blacks) use to go to South Africa for more complicated treatments.

You also wrote:

(…)
I also can’t explain the following:

SA: 5.5 million HIV+ and 14’000 HIV related deaths

N. America and central Europe: 2.1 million HIV+ and 30’000 HIV related deaths.-UNAIDS

(…)

This is easy to answer, the point is that statistics are not made using the same standards, a person who died with tuberculosis and HIV may be registrated as dead by tuberculosis or dead by HIV.

Posted by: Braganza | November 7, 2007 3:33 PM

jen_m,

How are the risk specific groups identified?
What’s an “at risk” population?. The way you explain takes me to a different view of this. If they take measurements from antenatal clinics and STI clinics I come to the conclusion that the “risk group” identified is the sexually active Ugandan population in general. The only thing specific about this risk group walking in the door is that they are specifically Ugandans. This is what some allude to when they says that there are no “risk groups” in Africa. “African” IS the risk group.

this is helpful
www.iavireport.org/Issues/Issue11-4/Prevalence.asp

I may be misunderstanding but this:

“It’s not that there was a measurement of the whole population,…,it’s that people coming in to be treated for their STIs in 1990 had lower seroprevalence than the ones coming in in 2000”

means more HIV today than in 1990 which is contrary to the Ugandan experience. Any thoughts on SA?

Posted by: pat | November 7, 2007 3:54 PM

jesus, I mean your governemnt [sic] killed like 3 million in vietnam, millions in Iraq, the tuskegee experiment and you say im a nut? god i swore i would stay away from you government atrocity apologists, no more posts for the next 24 hours

Actually, at the moment, that sounds like drunk-talk. Sleep it off.

I’m sortof interested in knowing what the connection is between the currently estimated (an extrapolation from the second Lancet study) c.1M excess Iraqi deaths (with which I am not disagreeing) and whether or not the commenter is a “nut”. I don’t see any connection at all, excepting that making an absurd claim like a billion dead (or something similarly impossible) would be a bit, ah, “nutty”. But since the actual claim of a million or so is not absurd, and is broadly in line with the best available reports, that exception does not apply. So what is the connection? What does the number of Iraqi deaths have to do with the “nuttiness” of the commenter?

Posted by: blf | November 7, 2007 4:04 PM

Braganza,
I am sure black Africans had “hospitals”. I am also sure they were nowhere near the shabby standards still encountered in other places in Africa today.

“and had death registrated”.

How many did they register? Is there evidence of a massive emerging plague?

“statistics are not made using the same standards, a person who died with tuberculosis and HIV may be registrated as dead by tuberculosis or dead by HIV.”

I knew that. They can also be dead of Tuberculosis due to AIDS without a known HIV status. Do you think this is a likely source of misleading data? In SA 14’000 are listed as HIV-related deaths. It is very likely that many died without the benefit of knowing their HIV status and thus became “mondaine” deaths but do you think they missed 350’000 as UNAIDS claims is the estimated total?
When I take the UNAIDS estimates and super-impose them on actual counts, I see HUGE discrepencies that cannot be explained through different data collecting techniques. If this were so then I must say that the techniques and results should be handled with extreme care if not outright ditched. The total death rate of SAfrica can barely accomodate UNAIDS predictions. How can 2004 UNAIDS estimates (for example) declare 250-350’000 HIV related deaths for SA when the total body count hits a high water mark of 460’000 and a low of 420’000? For how many years now have “up to a thousand” died everyday? I want to joke that if AIDS were cured then the S. Africans would enjoy a lower mortality rate than the Swiss but I can’t; it’s too darn depressing.

First Apartheid. Then AIDS hysteria. Then the denial of affordable life-saving medicine on financial grounds. We then manage to delude ourselves with the idea that the refusal by western nations to relax patent rules is actually “blood on Mbeki’s hands”. When Mbeki went out searching for alternatives high and low (literally) he was not prepared for the political shit storm ahead.
We have lavish conventions where we jet people around, house them in top hotels and demonstrate our disdain for garlic and lemons by having activist goons squash them with their feet. They should try that on the field in S. Africa and see how their life expectancy suddenly takes a dive too.
We talk of Dooms-day scenarios but we bring NO solutions that are compatible with the reality in S Africa but we do feel very strongly, whatever is really going on, that it is blood on Mbeki’s hands. A 1000 a day are now blamed on Mbeki/AIDS. I am amazed at how far some will go with their fiction for political gain but I am truely speechless at how others will swallow it “hook,line and sinker”.

Posted by: pat | November 7, 2007 5:06 PM

With regard to AIDS in S. Africa, Pat asks:

Is there evidence of a massive emerging plague?

Only if you are willing to pull your head out of the sand.

Posted by: franklin | November 7, 2007 5:10 PM

Pat, I misstated! I meant to say “higher seroprevalence in 1990”. I am sorry to have muddied matters.

Of course the risk group is intended to be sexually active Ugandans, but we can’t capture the whole denominator. So STI and antenatal clinics provide populations presumed to be sexually active without condoms, and for the most part already having blood drawn.

Posted by: jen_m | November 7, 2007 5:43 PM

“It has been suggested that an increase in the AIDS death rate may have been largely responsible for the drop in the number of people living with HIV that occurred in the late 1990s (though not for earlier declines). Such a rise in deaths would be a natural consequence of the earlier rise in HIV incidence. In the absence of widespread antiretroviral treatment, any rise in the number of new infections will almost inevitably result in an increase in the death rate a few years later, as people reach the end of their survival period.

It is clear that a huge number of HIV+ people have died in Uganda since the epidemic began, and a sufficiently high number of deaths could certainly result in a decrease in HIV prevalence figures. However, it should be noted that many other countries in sub-Saharan Africa experienced rapid increases in HIV incidence at the same time as Uganda, and, although they are similarly likely to have experienced large numbers of AIDS deaths, have not yet seen any substantial decline in prevalence. This suggests that the decline seen in Uganda wasn’t a natural occurrence, but rather that it was the result of something that was done differently in Uganda.”

The problem with this text is that “it becomes clear that many HIV+ people died” is justified based on assumptions of a disease that itself is largely based on assumptions.

According to statistics Uganda
Population growth total:
1969. 9.5 million
1980 12.6 (+32%)
1991 16.7 (+32%)
2002 24.4 (+47%)
2005 26.8 (est)

Note the decade 1991-2002 when these people supposedly were dying. This means one of several possibilities:

-There was no high prevalence of HIV to begin with

-The 65% That were not infected successfully remained so and brought not only very low prevalence but also simultanuously drove Ugandas largest population leap on record inspite of being “short manned”.

Posted by: pat | November 7, 2007 5:56 PM

“With regard to AIDS in S. Africa, Pat asks:

Is there evidence of a massive emerging plague?
Only if you are willing to pull your head out of the sand.

Posted by: franklin | November 7, 2007 5:10 PM”

I knew it was only a matter of minutes for the first sly remark. I was asking if there is evidence for this emerging disease during Apartheid; I’d love to learn more about it. My fault, I should have clarified for the ADD ones amongst us. You apparently “believe” 1000 die every day in S Africa? You have found a way to fit that number in S. Africas total mortality rate? Please, continue…

Posted by: pat | November 7, 2007 6:08 PM

“Pat, I misstated! I meant to say “higher seroprevalence in 1990″. I am sorry to have muddied matters.

Of course the risk group is intended to be sexually active Ugandans, but we can’t capture the whole denominator. So STI and antenatal clinics provide populations presumed to be sexually active without condoms, and for the most part already having blood drawn.”

Give me some more of your thoughts. If Aids Awareness- as defined by abstinence, condom use and less partners- has helped reduce prevalence doesn’t it also simultanuously clash with the data on population growth in Uganda today? It only follows logic that more condoms equals less incidence but… more babies? What are your thoughts on that?

Posted by: pat | November 7, 2007 6:21 PM

less die in infancy I hope is the answer.

Posted by: pat | November 7, 2007 6:24 PM

Can we see this secrtely authored paper or should we just blow wind around as usual.

CASTRO HLONGWANE, CARAVANS, CATS, GEESE, FOOT & MOUTH AND STATISTICS

If Mbeki was such a hero why didn’t he come out and openly state his beliefs? Why the subterfuge?

Why did he claim not to know anyone who had AIDS when it is clear from this document that Parks Mankahlana had AIDS?

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 7, 2007 6:24 PM

Pat (or Christine),

we have seen this conversation many times on this blog, most recently in the “Introduction to HIV Denial” thread.

You may wish to re-read the comments there before you repeat the mistakes of your friends (or other pseudonyms). Here is adele’s response to Kyle, who uses the same statistics and makes the same points as you have:

http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/06/introduction_to_hiv_and_hiv_de.php#comment-536445

If you read the comments there, and view the actual South African statistics (to which some of the writers link), you will learn that the official statistics give a mortality figure of almost 600,000 in 2005. Not all deaths are recorded, so the true mortality is closer to 700,000 (and I am rounding the numbers, so please forgive me). The total yearly deaths in South Africa quite easily accomodate the estimated AIDS toll.

Also in the Introduction thread, we learn that numerous separate studies, including those funded by the South African government, arrive at roughly the same figures for AIDS mortality: over 300,000 per year. These numbers mean almost 1000 deaths per day. If your point, Pat (Christine?), is that an estimated 947 deaths per day (ASSA for 2006) or 921 deaths per day (from the Medical Research Council of South Africa for 05/06) should not be rounded to 1000 per day, then I hope you won’t get upset if someone accuses you of pedantry.

Posted by: ElkMountainMan | November 7, 2007 6:39 PM

Of course, the children at the same orphanage suddenly stopped dying when they were put on antiretrovirals like AZT.

The above lie is typical of the AIDS apologists who actually believe their own propaganda. AZT is a highly toxic poison that essentially kills the user. To even remotely suggest that AZT prolongs or extends life is so contrary to our collective knowledge of its biological activity, that it is amazing that anyone could possibly believe this, except of coure, paid political activists and drug company shills.

AIDS researchers are “Nazis”? What do we call vitamin quacks who experiment on people with AIDS?

In a valid clinical trial, a vitamin or even a placebo would be more effective than AZT, or even the whole filthy mess of HIV drugs. That’s because placebos and vitamins don’t kill people. HIV drugs are deadly toxins that kill the user. In addition, starving Africans suffering from malnutrition and contaminated water need nutrition, protein, and yes also vitamins.

If offering vitamins is quackery, then the US government is a quack government because they recommend vitamins for pregnancy and for anyone over the age of 50. And what about the quacks who put vitamins in all the cereals at the grocery store, or the vitamins placed into the flour sent to our fighting GI’s overseas during the wars. If offering vitamins is quackery, then the American Society of Pediatrics is a quack organization because there are vitamins in the infant formula they prescribe. Would you deny the same vitamins for Africans that your own government has arranged for you ? That is the height of hypocrisy. The REAL quacks are eating the vitamin enriched food with one hand, and the other hand applying the false label “vitamin quack” to those honorable and just health workers who offer the same benefits to Africans.

If these are experiments, then the entire US population, which is eating vitamin enriched foods at the grocery store, is also the victim of a government quack experiment, a proposition as to be so ridiculous as to be laughed out of town. Only a paid political activist or drug company shill could propose this absurdity.

Posted by: Never-a-peen | November 7, 2007 7:10 PM

“Give me some more of your thoughts. If Aids Awareness- as defined by abstinence, condom use and less partners- has helped reduce prevalence doesn’t it also simultanuously clash with the data on population growth in Uganda today? It only follows logic that more condoms equals less incidence but… more babies? What are your thoughts on that?”

Not necessarily. If you think about how sexually transmitted infections spread among heterosexuals, it requires more than just penile-vaginal intercourse – it requires unprotected sexual contact between partners with disease and partners without. Conception, though, requires just the unprotected sex. If two people without disease come together (er, as it were), they can have as much unprotected sex as they like, and they won’t acquire an STI.

If people are, generally speaking, having unprotected sex with fewer partners, and young people who are just becoming sexually active are having unprotected sex with fewer partners over their lifetimes, and curable STIs are being treated, the number of new STIs can drop, and the number of babies can go up at the same time. If uncurable STIs (like herpes, HPV, and HIV) are prevented from spreading by universal use of condoms by those who know themselves to be infected, a drop in the rates of new infections with those STIs can still happen while the whole population is growing. Finally, if the growth rate of the population at risk is higher than the incidence of new infections, then the prevalence will drop, assuming unknowns are held reasonably constant. (Such unknowns could include host susceptibility, changes in viral pathogenicity, changes in carrier health that might alter likelihood of transmission…I can think of a lot of other variables, but relatively few that are going to be common enough to affect the population dynamic that didn’t also pertain in the early years of the epidemic.)

I do also hope that infant mortality is dropping. (And that perinatal HIV transmission is being reduced.)

I doubt you’ll find many STI epidemiologists, much less AIDS epidemiologists, who disagree that there are horrifying disparities in not only HIV and STI treatment between poor and wealthy countries, but in basic health care, education, nutrition, and infrastructure.

Posted by: jen_m | November 7, 2007 8:01 PM

jspreen,
Certainly I swear that I speak the truth and nothing but the truth. I would look you in the eyes, but we’re both on computers.
The children were getting excellent palliative care a the hospital before ARV’s were available. They got great nutrition, love, and affection from the caretakers. They were even getting treatment for opportunistic infection. They were still dying, because the underlying cause of their illness wasn’t being addressed (HIV). The children were put on ARV’s and the mortality rate dropped hugely. I would swear on the bible, but as a nonbeliever I find that exercise rather silly.

Posted by: bdkeller | November 7, 2007 8:18 PM

Quick correction from my previous post. Hospital= hospice. Their primary treatment was provided by physicians who visit the combined hospice & orphanage where the children and many of their parents live. The children do go to local hospitals (including Baragwanath and Coronation hospitals in the Jo’burg area) to see specialists for OI’s.

Posted by: bdkeller | November 7, 2007 8:20 PM

If offering vitamins is quackery, then the US government is a quack government because they recommend vitamins for pregnancy and for anyone over the age of 50.

This is a strawman argument. Everybody including the evil orthodoxy are in favour of good nutrition and vitamins.

Howvever good nutrition and vitamins alone do not prevent AIDS. To give vitamins in place of antiretrovirals is quackery.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 7, 2007 8:48 PM

Yes, good nutrition and vitamins would prevent AIDS defining diseases as then one’s immunity would be up to par and these wouldn’t occur in the first place. But then, there isn’t any money to be made in selling supplements comapared to antiretrovirals. One way that I have managed to prevent O.I.’s is by substituting supplements for antiretrovirals along with LDN. This would work for most diseases, not just AIDS. Many studies over the years have been done on the effects of malnutrition on human health. Many diseases are due to deficiencies and when they are corrected, the patien’t health returns. Hey, this isn’t rocket science just good 0ld-fashioned common sense that many are lacking.

Posted by: Noreen | November 7, 2007 9:06 PM

But then, there isn’t any money to be made in selling supplements comapared to antiretrovirals.

Pharmaceutical companies would tend to disagree with you there. Supplements are very good earners for these companies.

Matthias Rath didn’t become a millionaire by giving away his supplements.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 7, 2007 9:23 PM

The above lie is typical of the AIDS apologists who actually believe their own propaganda. AZT is a highly toxic poison that essentially kills the user. To even remotely suggest that AZT prolongs or extends life is so contrary to our collective knowledge of its biological activity, that it is amazing that anyone could possibly believe this, except of coure, paid political activists and drug company shills.

It’s typical of Denialists to deny any evidence that contradicts their dogmatically held beliefs.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 7, 2007 9:26 PM

Quoth Noreen, “But then, there isn’t any money to be made in selling supplements comapared to antiretrovirals.”

Not compared to antiretrovirals, true, but there’s certainly still a tidy profit to be made in selling supplements. (My daily multivitamin is nothing fancy, but it still runs me 13 cents a tablet, which is more than Advil runs, and billions of dollars are spent advertising Advil a year.)

However, we’re not talking about selling either class of item at a profit – if we’re talking about providing medication or nutrition to poor countries, where there is no money to be made selling either, because there is no money period, we need to ask wealthier countries to pony up, because the manufacturers don’t make anything for free.

Posted by: jen_m | November 7, 2007 9:29 PM

ElkMountainMan,

Pat, not Christine. don’t let that old fool Moore confuse you. Those are 2001 estimates and not 2004 as I stated and not 2005 as you suggest.

Even 2005 numbers say 590’000. The desperate upward nudge to 800’000 is quite arbitrary but yes 356’000 is fitting better today than it did back in 2001.

you write arrogantly:

“You may wish to re-read the comments there before you repeat the mistakes of your friends (or other pseudonyms). Here is adele’s response to Kyle, who uses the same statistics and makes the same points as you have”

First off Adele’s answer is less than convincing. Here it is:

“So anyway I hope those estimates are all wrong and way too high. If they are, those people who estimate are using bad methods and they need new ones. Thing is, those methods are actually good and another thing is, if their not they don’t say yes HIV causes AIDS or no HIV doesn’t cause AIDS. So if the epidemiologists are all drunk off their ass and getting everything wrong and really there’s only 50,000 people dying of AIDS in south Africa every year well that’s still too many people dying of AIDS.”-Adele

Blablabla…IF these figures are wrong then blabla…but they are not wrong and even If they were wrong they don’t say HIV does or doesn’t blablablabla

I have seen that very same paper thank you. Scroll down to figure 4.4 and look at where HIV disease ranks on the top ten list. It ranks as ten with a total of 14’532. Can you explain this and why Adele’s blather is more accurate?

Jen_m,

” If two people without disease come together (er, as it were), they can have as much unprotected sex as they like, and they won’t acquire an STI.”

That would all make sense but consider that most Ugandans do not have the benefit of knowing their hiv status prior to conception.

“I do also hope that infant mortality is dropping. (And that perinatal HIV transmission is being reduced.)”

Rest assured. You don’t have to “hope” anymore! you can now “know” that they have been going down steadily since at least 1960 with a slight bump in 1980. Right back down through the peak of Ugandas AIDS epidemic in the 1990’s.
(globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_detail.cfm?IndicatorID=25&Country=UG)

Chris Noble:
“If Mbeki was such a hero why didn’t he come out and openly state his beliefs? Why the subterfuge?”

He is a politician and he is eyeing the AIDS cash cow like everybody else. He also knows that creatures like you lurk under the surface. Subterfuge?..what country are you from?

Posted by: pat | November 7, 2007 10:47 PM

He is a politician and he is eyeing the AIDS cash cow like everybody else. He also knows that creatures like you lurk under the surface. Subterfuge?..what country are you from?

Of course he’s a politician. If he really believes that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS then why didn’t he make it an election issue. If South Africans aren’t dying from HIV/AIDS then he should have gotten lots of votes. The reality is that although Mbeki claims he doesn’t know anybody that has AIDS most citizens of his country have a different experience.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 7, 2007 11:15 PM

Again, I’m just very thankful that President Mbeki had the courage and intellectual honesty to stand up to the AIDS/Pharma cabal, and refuse to let his people wreck their collective health on toxic junk.

Mbeki is as an important figure as Nelson Mandela. God Bless them both.

Posted by: Mountain Man | November 7, 2007 11:18 PM

“no explanation how a infection thats in 1/1000 blood tcells destroys the immune system”

There absolutely is, cooler. Papers linked by myself and also braganza give two different explanations for how a low level of infection results in the destruction of the immune system. Don’t confuse you not knowing about them and them not existing.

Posted by: Jim | November 7, 2007 11:21 PM

Chris,

“If South Africans aren’t dying from HIV/AIDS then he should have gotten lots of votes. The reality is that although Mbeki claims he doesn’t know anybody that has AIDS most citizens of his country have a different experience.”

He got lots of votes. Maybe they don’t apreciate the hysteria after all. Most S. African share a very similar experience. S. Africa reached out for help with AIDS and it wasnt forthcoming. Is there any wonder they are feeling cheated again? Is there any wonder they circle the wagons? Is there any wonder that some might wonder? This is a case of a smear campaign against Mbeki having back-fired.

Posted by: pat | November 7, 2007 11:37 PM

Again, I’m just very thankful that President Mbeki had the courage and intellectual honesty to stand up to the AIDS/Pharma cabal, and refuse to let his people wreck their collective health on toxic junk.

If he is so courageous and honest then why didn’t he take his Denialism to the last election? Before the last election the official ANC policy switched to HIV causes AIDS and they promised to roll-out antiretrovirals for everybody. These are the policies that they took to the election. These were the policies for which the people voted.

Now we find out that in secret Mbeki never gave up his Denialism. Instead of openly stating his beliefs he just set about doing his best to obstruct and delay the roll-out of antiretrovirals.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 7, 2007 11:49 PM

Here’s an interview with the SA Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang where she is asked whether HIV causes AIDS.

‘Don’t call me Manto’

So much for courage and honesty!

The official policy at that stage was that HIV causes AIDs and a fullscale roll-out of ARVs had been promised.

Manto could not answer a straight question honestly.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 7, 2007 11:57 PM

Again, I’m just very thankful that President Mbeki had the courage and intellectual honesty to stand up to the AIDS/Pharma cabal, and refuse to let his people wreck their collective health on toxic junk.

Did you read how Mbeki wanted to poison his people with toxic Virodene(TM)

Illegal unethical drug trials. Secret transfers of ANC money. Courageous and honest? Not really.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 8, 2007 12:01 AM

mbekis got the big balls and the big heart, he should win the noble prize for the size of his balls

Posted by: cooler | November 8, 2007 12:04 AM

mbekis got the big balls and the big heart, he should win the noble prize for the size of his balls

If Mbeki has got such big balls then why didn’t he stand up in front of the South African public and say that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS?

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 8, 2007 12:48 AM

If Mbeki has such big balls why didn’t he put his name on this document?

CASTRO HLONGWANE, CARAVANS, CATS, GEESE, FOOT & MOUTH AND STATISTICS

Why distribute it anonymously?

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 8, 2007 2:01 AM

Let’s see what we could do with $1,200 dollars a month the cost of the average antiretrovirals and give it to HIV+’s in Africa. Maybe we could give them vitamins, food and even have some left over towards thier medical care but then that would make too much sense and also take away from the profit to be made there by shoveling down HIV medicines into them that they may not need in the first place. Yeah, I see the light and what is really happening here.

Posted by: Noreen | November 8, 2007 6:20 AM

If Mbeki has got such big balls then why didn’t he stand up in front of the South African public and say that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS?

Why? Well, if you don’t understand that, you’re even worse than I already thought. Have a look at the way “denialism” is treated on this non-sense blog, extrapolate, and, if you do have some working brain cells left, you might have some better insight at how a denialist president would be treated by the totally indoctrinated population of his country.

The children were put on ARV’s and the mortality rate dropped hugely.

OK, bdkeller, I take your word for it that you really noticed exactly that. Now, is there any denialist around who also works in SA and has something to answer to the above affirmation? What else did happen to the children at the same time they were put on the drugs?

Posted by: jspreen | November 8, 2007 6:49 AM

Certainly I swear that I speak the truth and nothing but the truth. I would look you in the eyes, but we’re both on computers. The children were getting excellent palliative care a the hospital before ARV’s were available. They got great nutrition, love, and affection from the caretakers. They were even getting treatment for opportunistic infection. They were still dying, because the underlying cause of their illness wasn’t being addressed (HIV). The children were put on ARV’s and the mortality rate dropped hugely. I would swear on the bible, but as a nonbeliever I find that exercise rather silly.

A few questions about the author of the above anecdote:

Any information as to method of documentation of HIV status? the exact drugs used ? dosage? route of administration? adverse side effects? duration of treatment? underlying OI’s, drugs used for OI’s, nutritional status and age of the kids, any vitamin mineral supplementation, any other changes in treatment or care during the time periods?

It’s typical of Denialists to deny any evidence that contradicts their dogmatically held beliefs.

If the above anecdotal story about the “miraculous” recovery of kids in an African orphanage after HIV drugs is called EVIDENCE, then we must also call EVIDENCE, the well documented inside story of the ICC orphans (Incarnation Catholic Charity) by Liam Scheff and the interviews with the doctors, nurses and aids. Also see the BBC documentary Guinea Pig Kids. That story was quite different. The kids got very sick and some died after the “life saving ” deadly drugs. The kids who refused the drugs were tortured with gastrostomy tube placement and forced fed the drugs, amounting to an ethics violation on par with nazi concentration camp medical experiments.

The standard operating procedure of the AIDS apologists is to either (a) believe their own propaganda or (b) make up lies which they later delude themselves into believing. Don’t forget, paid drug company shills and mercenary political activists will lie about anything, or (c) accept flimsy anecdotes as EVIDENCE when it supports their case and reject similar information when is does not.

However good nutrition and vitamins alone do not prevent AIDS. To give vitamins in place of antiretrovirals is quackery.

Noreen has just testified from her own experience that good nutrition and vitamins DOES prevent AIDS. Typical of AIDS apologists to deny the evidence in front of their noses.

As mentioned above, western governments have mandated vitamin supplements to be added to the food supply, yet the above AIDS apologist labels the same practice in Africa as quackery. This is absurd.

Opportunistic infectious diseases in Africans caused by poverty, malnutrition and contaminated water should be treated with 1) vitamin enriched nutrition 2) standard medical treatment of the oppotunistic infection 3) and not the quackery of deadly HIV drugs which will kill the patient. The real quack here is the paid drug company shill chris (the quack) noble who advocates deadly hiv drugs for diseases of malnutriton and poverty.

If Mbeki has got such big balls then why didn’t he stand up in front of the South African public and say that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS?

Why should Mbeki do any such thing? The drug companies are just waiting for an excuse to send out their paid activist cronies to harrass the government. By playing along, he got them off his back. Playing along is an old and well used political trick which works every time. It takes more than bravado to be successful at politics.

Why distribute it anonymously?

A quote from the anonymous document attributed to ANC member:

No longer will the Africans accept as the unalterable truth that they are victim to a self-inflicted “disease” called HIV/AIDS. For centuries we have carried the burden of the crimes and falsities of ‘scientific’ Eurocentrism, its dogmas imposed upon our being as a definitive, ‘universal’ truth.

Posted by: Never-a-peen | November 8, 2007 7:17 AM

Pat,

You wrote,

Even 2005 numbers say 590’000. The desperate upward nudge to 800’000 is quite arbitrary but yes 356’000 is fitting better today than it did back in 2001.

700,000, Pat, not 800,000, but I’ll assume you missed the proper key. Since you have read the South African government publication, you know that under 90% of deaths are estimated to have been reported for that year. Adjusting reported death number for under-reporting results in a total mortality estimate of between 650,000 and 700,000 (as I mentioned earlier this morning, I rounded to 700,000 in my comment).

Concerning the reported “14,000” deaths from HIV infection, Braganza explained the disparity, and you agreed. Tuberculosis deaths are classified as TB deaths, pneumonia deaths as pneumonia, and so on. Trace the rise in deaths in these categories in recent years, and you will see the effects of HIV infection on mortality.

Should you agree with a South African government organization, a SA gov’t-funded organization, and the UN, who all arrive at AIDS mortality figures in the range of 320,000 to 360,000? Perhaps you should not. An estimate is only as good as its methodology and the input data. If you have better data or better methods, Pat, please share them with us.

In the absence of new and improved estimates, we would all be interested if you could divulge the reasoning behind your apparent need to minimize the human costs of AIDS in South Africa.

Posted by: ElkMountainMan | November 8, 2007 8:46 AM

In the absence of new and improved estimates, we would all be interested if you could divulge the reasoning behind your apparent need to minimize the human costs of AIDS in South Africa.

AIDS in Africa is a the same old collection of diseases of poverty, malnutrition, slim disease and contaminated water renamed “AIDS”. There is little money for HIV testing, so AIDS is merely a convenient label applied to the unfortunate Africans who succumb to malnutrition, slim disease, wasting and other diseases of poverty.

The distribution of deadly HIV drugs in this setting is genocide masquerading as philanthropy.

The distribution of money in the form of charity in the name of “AIDS Programs” is a welcome cash cow for an impoverished people. Keep up with the money, forget the drugs. The government death rates and stats are all bogus, and can be used either way.

Posted by: Never-a-peen | November 8, 2007 9:30 AM

“Now, is there any denialist around who also works in SA and has something to answer to the above affirmation? What else did happen to the children at the same time they were put on the drugs?”
jspreen,
I’m not sure if your question is addressed to me or others. However, I think the answer should be obvious: Of course, none of the staff/family/doctors I met who are involved with this clinic are denialists because they’ve seen the wonderful effects that ARV’s have on children and adults with HIV. Do you ever think that, since people without ARV treatment die of HIV at much higher rates than those who receive treatment, maybe it’s the HIV/AIDS that’s to blame and not the drugs? Or is that too far outside the realm of possibility because of how much energy you’ve invested into denial?

Posted by: bdkeller | November 8, 2007 9:31 AM

Dear Never-a-peen,

Why should HIV test in US/EU be an indicator of probability to have AIDS and not in Africa.

Would this be a bit of …. racism ?

Posted by: Braganza | November 8, 2007 9:51 AM

Dear Pat,

It may be true that numbers of HIV+ deaths are not totally correct. But this is not the critical question referent to HIV/AIDS in South Africa.

I have seen that you agree that HIV+s have higher mortality than HIV-s. I assume that you agree that many of them would have immune dysfunction, gradual reduction of CD4+, and if left without treatment, they would have OIs, and ultimately would die from what is known as AIDS.

The critical question is: do these persons, in South Africa or elsewhere, have the right to have access to medical treatments or no ?

Posted by: Braganza | November 8, 2007 10:02 AM

Those who question whether HIV/AIDS is a devastating epidemic in Africa should read Ron Bayer and Gerald Oppenheimer’s new book, Shattered Dreams, a history of the epidemic in South Africa from interviews with front-line doctors and nurses. The difference between AIDS and the patterns of diseases that health care workers dealt with before AIDS is profound, absolute, and agonizing. The book also addresses how HIV/AIDS–and Mbeki’s (and Mandela’s) failure to confront it immediately and with comprehensive prevention and treatment initiatives–has undermined the promises of liberation in South Africa.

Posted by: Redeye | November 8, 2007 10:11 AM

Elk,
Yes I kinda agreed. This then means that only 15’000 died with the benefit of knowing their status which in turn means that we are not only witholding the medicines but also the kits they need to get a clearer picture of this disease.

“In the absence of new and improved estimates, we would all be interested if you could divulge the reasoning behind your apparent need to minimize the human costs of AIDS in South Africa.”

I do not have a “need”. Why you think it is “apparent” is beyond me. I am merely suspicious and, again, don’t let that drooling fool Moore tell you otherwise. I do however see why some may have a “need” to inflate them: up the hype, up the pressure and shake them down and call them murderers if they balk.

Braganza,
“The critical question is: do these persons, in South Africa or elsewhere, have the right to have access to medical treatments or no ?”

Good question and I am glad you asked. These people have the right to access medicines. The west has no moral right to withold them any longer. It has been over twenty years and the squabble around the patent rules has killed enough as it is. It escapes me how people can sit at their pooters and call Mbeki the murderer when the real ones in fact sit in their glass towers in the wealthiest countries. It is time for this blog and all other “anti-denialist” crusaders to start voicing their anger at those who hold the power to change things. Everything else is pissing against the wind.

Posted by: pat | November 8, 2007 10:25 AM

Do you ever think that, since people without ARV treatment die of HIV at much higher rates than those who receive treatment, maybe it’s the HIV/AIDS that’s to blame and not the drugs?

Of course, of course. That’s why I wrote my question.

My question addresses any of the readers of this forum, who works like you in South Africa and who may have an opinion different from yours and which is also exclusively based on practical experience. You know, I think the quality of the ever lasting and leading nowhere discussions on this blog would greatly increase if practical experience meets practical experience eye to eye in the presence of well informed witnesses.

You speak of wonderful effects that ARV’s have on children and adults with HIV. I have read and heard exactly the opposite in many places but, personally, I have never witnessed or experienced neither wonderful nor terrible effects and I think that at least 95% of the active big mouthed visitors, apologist or denialist, of this blog can’t say any better than that.

Hence my attempt to get away from the opinion battle and provoke a life discussion between people who see it happen all the time.

Posted by: jspreen | November 8, 2007 10:43 AM

“Mr Gevisser says that while Mr Mbeki has never explicitly denied the link between HIV and Aids, he is a “profound sceptic”.

Tara, when will you stop trying to reduce a complex geopolitical issue to name-calling and rhetoric? It doesn’t matter whether you have good intentions or not, it’s not productive. The only purpose sensationalism serves is to bring people to your website. Can’t bloggers just leave the oversimplified propaganda to the mainstream media?

Posted by: bayman | November 8, 2007 11:25 AM

Bayman,

Those aren’t my words–that’s a quote from the article. As I noted in my response to Chris, it’s a nitpicky technicality regarding whether one can refer to Mbeki as a “denier” or not (one which I’m not really concerned about, quite frankly). The issue isn’t what label to attach to Mbeki, but rather his backwards views on HIV that continue to harm his country, and by virtue of his status and perceived authority, harm others around the world.

Posted by: Tara C. Smith | November 8, 2007 12:19 PM

Tara,

It appear from the paper that you quote, that because Mbeki was in minority in his own government, he abdicated from taking positions on HIV/AIDS questions, and therefore he had no major say in the present governamental HIV/AIDS say in South Africa/ and his views on this matter could not be translated in policies.

So how could it be that “his views on HIV continue to harm his country (..) ?”.

Posted by: Braganza | November 8, 2007 12:39 PM

Tara, when will you stop trying to reduce a complex geopolitical issue to name-calling and rhetoric?

It’s really important, after all, that we consider both sides of the complex geopolitical issue of whether or not HIV causes AIDS and not take hasty action that might save lives. Mbeki is quite progressive and informed in his decision to teach both sides of the argument and let the dying decide.

The president said he was seeking an open debate but portrayed those who disagreed with him – who include Nelson Mandela, trade union leaders whose members were dying in large numbers and Aids activists – as in the pay of the drug companies.

That’s a quote worthy of jspreen — so I’m going to call Mbeki exactly what he is: an HIV denialist. It’s worth calling him out on this because he is in a position where his failure to act costs lives and spreads disease. If you’re interested, I’ve also stooped so far in my rhetoric that I’ve called Jeffrey Dahmer a cannibal. I once, though I will admit I may have been a little less composed than I should have been at the time, also suggested that the sky is blue and that the earth is round. Perhaps I should have paid more attention to the nuances of those complex geopolitical issues before shooting my mouth off.

Posted by: Dustin | November 8, 2007 12:40 PM

Anyone capable of understanding science and the truth (i.e., posters other than the AIDS denialist trolls who are sadly a dime a dozen on this site), and who is genuinely interested in what’s happened in South Africa over the past decade, should read the following book:

Nattrass N. 2007. Mortal Combat: AIDS Denialism and the Fight for Antiretrovirals in South Africa, University of KwaZulu Natal Press, Pietermaritzburg.

“The Invisible Cure: Africa, the West, and the Fight Against AIDS” by Helen Epstein, which I recently reviewed in the J Clin Invest, is also excellent source material.

Posted by: John Moore | November 8, 2007 12:47 PM

Hi Braganza Mbeki brought in duesberg. He said it was poverty not HIV causing aids. So they dragged thier feet on meds. So in 2005 Uganda had a third of people getting HAART who needed it South Africa like 10 or 12%. More people with high viral load, more infections more people with AIDS. So Mbeki’s policy still effects people it will for a long time.

Posted by: Adele | November 8, 2007 1:00 PM

“(at least since Harvey Bialy wandered off the scene to die of his kidney cancer)” John moore

John has probably lost all credibility in the scientific community with this quote, mocking another scientist while he is dying of cancer.

Not only that, the government could never tell a lie trolls on this blog that have not condemened his statement, including Tara, have lost all credibility for standing by silently.

Bialy started slinging insults at Moore AFTER Moore declined a civil debate with Bialy calling him a charlatan etc.

To quote the sanctimonious hypocrite Tara
“Ya’ll are a real classy bunch”

Posted by: cooler | November 8, 2007 1:09 PM

Here is his disgusting post, filled with ad hominem attacks as usual, but mocking people who are dying or possibly dying of Cancer?…………

OK, now I’m really confused….. Pat, who its been obvious for days now is Christine Maggiore writing under a pseudonym, is attacked by fellow AIDS denialist Claus Jensen, writing as Molecular Entry Claw (why and why?), then admits in a fit of temper that she (Pat) is indeed Christine Maggiore, but next Molecular Entry Claw (Jensen) denies it was him who attacked her/Pat/Christine Maggiore, and then Christine Maggiore (writing under her own name or, as ElkMountainMan suggests, perhaps someone else pretending to be Christine Maggiore) denies being Pat after all, and also denies admitting that she (Pat?) admitted to being Christine Maggiore (have I missed any link in the bizarre chain of events?).

But then, thinking about, what else should one expect from AIDS denialists? They’ve never been known for clarity of expression, telling the truth, integrity, logic, etc. So the above events are entirely within their standard modus operandi, and no doubt they either see some perverse logic to it all, or else it’s another manifestation of the internecine splits within the ranks of denialism that occur now and then, to the amusement of the rest of us (e.g., Perth Group vs Duesberg).

I’m also still confused about cooler, who appears to occupy this site principally to boast about his alleged sexual conquests, which presumably explains why his typing appears to be carried out using only one hand. But is cooler really a sophisticated plant, a parody of an AIDS denialist, created by AIDS professionals to make the world of denialism look worse than it already is, as has been suggested earlier on this string? It’s an interesting theory. But to invent cooler would be overkill, as Jan Spreen is the living embodiment of the AIDS denialist parody, the arch conspiracy theorist and nihilist who already serves as AIDS science’s best exemplar of the madness of AIDS denialism (at least since Harvey Bialy wandered off the scene to die of his kidney cancer). So, with Spreen already posting on this Blog, would anyone actually NEED to invent cooler? I doubt it, so cooler probably is real; sad, lonely, foolish, mono-dimensional, Dr.Lo-obsessed but real.

And who the heck is BuffaloValleyWoman?

Ah well, it’s all too puzzling, and rather a waste of time, so I don’t think I’ll bother looking at this thread again. But do take a look at AIDS Truth’s next posting, on how the denialists use fake identities and commit cybercrimes, to get some insights into just who some of these various people truly are, and how they operate on the internet.

John Moore (aka Moore, John; John P. Moore)

Posted by: John Moore | November 3, 2007 1:38 AM

Posted by: cooler | November 8, 2007 1:20 PM

Well Steve cooler Billingham slash harvey bialy hows it insulting to say some one is dying of cancer.

Oh and I didn’t hear you condem your Arizona buddy Rob who says alot worse things like it’s fun to expirement with Jewish kids. You say you don’t know Rob so its ok. Rob made you administrator on his site but you don’t know him, right.

Your the person that lost all credibility for standing by silently.

Posted by: Adele | November 8, 2007 1:23 PM

I condemn that statement, I dont even know the guy, he made me an admin bc i just updated a link, your turn to condemn his statement

Posted by: cooler | November 8, 2007 1:26 PM

Thank you cooler I to condemn Rob on his racist joke. Genocide, its not funny to joke about it. Rob is a despicable hater, he doesn’t know any thing about HIV or AIDS either.

OK cooler back to you will you condemn the 911 twoofers who say evil Jews blew up the towers. We can go back and forth, condemn racists or homophobes on your side all day until I get bored which is now.

Posted by: Adele | November 8, 2007 2:04 PM

“The issue isn’t what label to attach to Mbeki, but rather his backwards views on HIV that continue to harm his country, and by virtue of his status and perceived authority, harm others around the world.”

Maybe you can try to work with him instead of against him. It usually achieves better results. The dithering on patent rules and the attack style AIDS propaganda led by JP Moore have done way more harm to anyone than any single individual with “doubts”.

Posted by: pat | November 8, 2007 2:09 PM

good if youre bored dont talk to me and stop stalking me

Posted by: cooler | November 8, 2007 2:09 PM

jspreen said:
“…I think that at least 95% of the active big mouthed visitors, apologist or denialist, of this blog can’t say any better than that.”

I’ve only ever heard the denialist position supported online, or by people who came across the arguments online and latched onto them for whatever reason (Mbeki being a great example). I would caution that while my reaction is tempered by my personal experience (knowing that ARV’s have saved the lives of countless people with HIV can lead one to react rather viscerally against denialists who seek to keep those treatments away from people) I wouldn’t say it is wholly based on personal experience. There is, of course, the huge body of research supporting the facts that HIV causes AIDS, and that ARV’s are a vital component of our response to HIV/AIDS (along with treatment of OI’s, good nutrition, prevention strategies, etc.).

The body of research that can be misconstrued to back the denialist position is so narrow that anonymous posters such as MountainMan resort to coping and pasting from websites with references that don’t support his case when you actual read the files. An actual reading of that scientific literature reveals that many of those articles disprove denialist theories.

That said, I’ve also interacted with quite a few medical doctors in the US and in Africa (Ghana, Zambia, and South Africa) involved in the treatment of HIV/AIDS. Far from being the murderous cabal the denialist crowd makes them out to be, the ones I’ve met have been deeply compassionate and base their support of ARV’s on both the scientific research and the results they have personally seen in treatment.

The only way the denialist perspective makes sense is if all of these doctors are in on some sort of murderous conspiracy where they are purposefully silent about ARV’s dire results, and where they repeatedly fabricate stories about their success. It should come as no surprise that these theories find their strongest support online and in communities where the long unavailability of treatment has driven the HIV+ to fatalistic despair. Denialist theories do not hold up to the rigor of scientific research or the reality of the effects of ARV treatment. I imagine the denialist movement will stay strong for many decades because it is in no way dependent on external facts.

jspreen–thanks for your honest questions. I think you might learn the most from contacting some doctors who treat HIV/AIDS in your area and asking to sit down and talk with them about their experiences. I’m sure they would oblige you.

Posted by: bdkeller | November 8, 2007 3:21 PM

Anyone capable of understanding science and the truth (i.e., posters other than the AIDS denialist trolls who are sadly a dime a dozen on this site), and who is genuinely interested in what’s happened in South Africa over the past decade, should read the following book: Nattrass N. 2007. Mortal Combat: AIDS Denialism and the Fight for Antiretrovirals in South Africa, University of KwaZulu Natal Press, Pietermaritzburg. “The Invisible Cure: Africa, the West, and the Fight Against AIDS” by Helen Epstein, which I recently reviewed in the J Clin Invest, is also excellent source material.

For those interested in an excellent source of reading material here is the short list:

The Origin, Persistence, and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory (ISBN 0786430486) is a 2007 book by Henry Bauer.

Science Sold Out: Does HIV Really Cause AIDS? (ISBN 1556436424) is a 2007 book by Rebecca Culshaw.

A Critical Reappraisal of African AIDS Research and Western Sexual Stereotypes by Charles Geshekter May 1999

DEBATING AZT MBEKI AND THE AIDS DRUG CONTROVERSY Anthony Brink Foreword by Martin Welz

SCIENCE FICTIONS: A SCIENTIFIC MYSTERY, A Massive Cover-Up, and The Dark Legacy of Robert Gallo by John Crewdson (2002)

Posted by: Pro-tea-hays-inhibi-door | November 8, 2007 4:53 PM

As someone who has held a child that died because of Mbeki’s denialism, Mountain Man makes me sick. Of course, the children at the same orphanage suddenly stopped dying when they were put on antiretrovirals like AZT.

That’s what you wrote, bdkeller. And after that you wrote that you’re willing to swear upon what’s dearest to you that it is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Now, after reading that I figured you were a nurse or a doctor who has really gone through holding dying children in her/his arms and who thereafter has personally experienced huge progress once ARVs became available and that the kids stopped dying right then.
Now, I’m not like all those guys here who massively try to make a person like Noreen, who’s talking from personal experience, change her mind and I said to myself: Hey, that bdkeller, that’s an interesting person I want to listen to. And also, I’d like to put him on stage with other health care workers, apologists and denialists, and see what comes out of their opposing experience.
But just now I have started to doubt your experience and find it difficult not to see just another dogmatic HIV=Aids believer preaching for his church. Your post reminds me of that interview where ambassador Dybul, when questioned about EM pictures of HIV starts to boast about the pictures being all around and actually says: “I have one in my office”. It’s plain stupid, even HIV apologists agree that such picture does not exist, adding immediately, I admit, that it’s of no importance because today other scientific techniques supply work around methods.

I think you’re basically wrong, bdkeller, when you write that There is, of course, the huge body of research supporting the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that the ratio first _hand_ HIV-researchers : second_hand_I_read_about_HIV-research_researchers is at best 1:1000, 1:10000 being probably much closer to reality.
In other words, the huge body only seems to be huge. Which gives us an opportunity to put things quite differently than you express here: The only way the denialist perspective makes sense is if all of these doctors are in on some sort of murderous conspiracy. Its not at all the only way to see things, bdkeller, not at all. I don’t need to think of any conspiracy at all: all these doctors simply do the best they can with the knowledge they have and they all simply think that their knowledge can’t be wrong because so many share the same believes. But when it really comes to it, bdkeller, that’s all they share: believes. No one really knows from personal experience.

But that is theorization. I want to see/read a discussion between in the field health care workers who speak out of personal experience. Cut out the bits about interaction with quite a few medical doctors, I know quite a few to.

Posted by: jspreen | November 8, 2007 6:12 PM

Tara,
Sorry I should have been more clear. My question was why do you continue to write posts with titles clearly calling Mbeki a denialist and make similar claims in your academic publications when you now acknowledge sources who state that he is not?

There is indeed a big difference between calling someone a denialist and a skeptic. One implies irrationality and the other implies balanced thinking and careful consideration. I wish you were concerned about the precision of the terminology you use when writing about important issues, as a fair number of people seem to read what you have to say. As you must surely be aware, inflammatory language tends to polarize people, which might explain why the discussion comments inspired by your posts seem to so rapidly decline into name-calling and e-shouting matches. Maybe if you didn’t resort to such sensationalism and good-guy/bad-guy characterizations, the tone of ensuing discussion might follow suit and maybe even encourage people to think.

Until then, you will remain my favorite corporatist/anti-skepticist/westerncentristic/Puritanist crusader. Or we could just drop the labels and try and get along.

Posted by: bayman | November 8, 2007 6:29 PM

It appear from the paper that you quote, that because Mbeki was in minority in his own government, he abdicated from taking positions on HIV/AIDS questions, and therefore he had no major say in the present governamental HIV/AIDS say in South Africa/ and his views on this matter could not be translated in policies.

So how could it be that “his views on HIV continue to harm his country (..) ?”.

I think it is obvious that the only reason that the health minister remains the health minister is that she has Mbeki’s support. Together, although they have given lip service to the official ANC policy that HIV causes AIDS, they have done their best to delay and undermine the response to HIV/AIDS.

Before the last election they announced targets for the distribution of antiretrovirals that they have consistently failed to meet. Remember the policies that they were elected upon included well defined targets for the distribution of the se drugs.

When the deputy minister had a chance to actually do something it was not long before Mbeki sacked her.

Meanwhile, they have let fraudsters prey upon vulnerable people by offering fake cures such as Ubhejane.

They let Matthias Rath conduct illegal trials in South Africa with no consequences.

If you read the articles on Virodene that I have linked to you can see how they sought to override their own health institutions.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 8, 2007 7:15 PM

Bayman,

I wish I could be as optimistic as you, but I’ve just been around the block too many times. Look at jspreen’s reaction to bdkeller above. Jan has no history with bd, and bd gave him a sincere and polite answer to Jan’s question, and even thanked him for asking honest questions. jspreen’s response? To “doubt his experience” and reiterate what he’s already said. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Additionally, I think it is pretty clear from Mbeki’s writings that he’s in denial about how bad HIV has affected his country. His “I’ve never known anyone who died from AIDS” is in pretty stark contrast to the death of his spokesman.

I understand very well the distinction between a “skeptic” and a denialist, and I also understand how those who vocally *deny* HIV as the causative agent of AIDS want people like me and others to lend respectability to their positions by calling them “skeptics” or “dissidents.” While Mbeki may not be as far on the denial scale as the Perth group or Duesberg, his refusal to believe the impact AIDS has had on his country, despite appeals from scientists, despite even appeals from hundreds of doctors in South Africa, surely makes him akin to a child putting their fingers in their ears and saying, “la la la la, I can’t hear you” and hoping the problem will go away. In other words, in denial.

Posted by: Tara C. Smith | November 8, 2007 7:29 PM

Sorry I should have been more clear. My question was why do you continue to write posts with titles clearly calling Mbeki a denialist and make similar claims in your academic publications when you now acknowledge sources who state that he is not?

Mbeki is a true politician. He has rarely made any definite statements about HIV and AIDS. If you read the Castro Hlongwane document it is fairly clear that he is a denialist. He tries to create doubt where there shouldn’t be any.

When he makes statements such as “A virus cannot cause a syndrome” what is he trying to say?

Did you read the set of articles on his involvement with the Virodene scandal?

The Virodene Affair

If it’s all about finding an African solution rather than relying on evil colonial western science then Mbeki just looks ridiculous.

Mbeki ignored the South African scientists. Instead he brought in people like Peter Duesberg, David Rasnick and Matthias Rath. Not much of an African solution.

Virodene which was supposed to be an African solution turned out to be a complete disaster.

It appears to be Mbeki that has turned the issue into one of race and colonialism and not the scientists.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 8, 2007 7:32 PM

While Mbeki may not be as far on the denial scale as the Perth group…

Even the Perth Group attempt to nuance their position by not saying directly that HIV doesn’t exist but rather that they have not seen the evidence that HIV exists. Instead of openly stating their position they pretend to be skeptics.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 8, 2007 7:39 PM

Gosh Tara! You said in regards to Mbeki:

His “I’ve never known anyone who died from AIDS” is in pretty stark contrast to the death of his spokesman.

Well girl, I am a gay man who has lived smack dab in the middle of a gay community since long before the word “HIV” or “AIDS” even existed. In this community where more than 5000 perished, including close friends and loved ones during the “AIDS” years, AND YET I HAVE NEVER KNOWN ANYONE THAT DIED OF AIDS EITHER!

I have known some who died of pneumonia, some of liver failure, some of heart failure, some of kidney failure, some of systemic candida, some of tuberculosis, some of other things, BUT NOT A SINGLE ONE OF ANY OF THESE SO-CALLED “AIDS CASES” EVER DIED OF AIDS!

The reason is simple, dear Tara. AIDS is a SYNDROME, and NOT A DISEASE!

Thought you were smarter than that, Tara, but I suppose not!

Posted by: Michael | November 8, 2007 7:43 PM

Tara said:

I also understand how those who vocally *deny* HIV as the causative agent of AIDS want people like me and others to lend respectability to their positions by calling them “skeptics” or “dissidents.”

No Tara, not true. We couldn’t give a flying f**k what you think or what you call us, though your choice shows you to be an mean, petty, immature, belligerant, disrespectful, and fully biased individual, who in return warrants no respect from others.

But no, Tara, we do not care less about any of this “lend respectability” shit. For we fully have our own self respect quite intact, thank you. But what we would like, Tara, is for you to show us that YOUR BELIEF has any respectability, and put the scientific citations where your mouth is and show us the scientific study citations that shows HIV, all by its wee little self, causes immune depression in human beings with any high degree of probability.

Say what, says you! You, Tara, claim there is a “mountain of evidence”?

Then PROVE IT TARA the TART! and show us FIVE, or even THREE, of EVEN JUST A SINGLE Citation out of your “mountain of evidence” that proves HIV causes immune suppression with a high degree of probability, to prove your beloved beliefs!

Should be easy for you to find one or three or five citations to prove your position out of those big old mountains of evidence, Tara!

And be sure the cites are not simply filled with individuals who are emotionally stressed, or lacking nutrition, or strung out on illicit drugs or AZT, or suffering from transfusions of factor VIII, or you will have not proved a thing at all to us, except that WE DENIALISTS ARE COMPLETELY CORRECT, AND HAVE BEEN FOR TWENTY YEARS!

Posted by: Michael | November 8, 2007 8:05 PM

Bayman: there’s not that much name-calling. It’s mostly a few bad actors calling names. However, feelings do run high around this issue, on all sides. But Dr. Smith isn’t obliged to maintain a cool neutrality on topics that mean a great deal to her, just for the sake of providing an example for her commenters, either.

If it would make you feel any better about the Westerncentrism and Puritanism pieces, I betcha that Dr. Smith harbors very few kind memories of President Ronald Reagan’s protracted silence concerning HIV/AIDS, and probably could drum up some downright vitriolic language around that.

Posted by: jen_m | November 8, 2007 8:07 PM

Well girl, I am a gay man who has lived smack dab in the middle of a gay community since long before the word “HIV” or “AIDS” even existed. In this community where more than 5000 perished, including close friends and loved ones during the “AIDS” years, AND YET I HAVE NEVER KNOWN ANYONE THAT DIED OF AIDS EITHER!

Thank you for illustrating exactly why Mbeki is referred to as a Denialist.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 8, 2007 8:08 PM

Thanks for proving my point, Michael.

Posted by: Tara C. Smith | November 8, 2007 8:11 PM

No Tara, THANK YOU FOR PROVING MY POINT!.

You have no evidence. Yet you blow your mouth off like an all knowing high priestess of virology!

Thank you, Tara, for proving my own point that you are indeed a mean, belligerant, biased, EMPRESS OF HIV with NO CLOTHES AND NO PROOF FOR YOUR POSITION!

Posted by: Michael | November 8, 2007 8:22 PM

Dr. Smith, you have been called a “Puritanist” and a “tart” (in all caps, no less) within two hours. Being a female scientist sure is glamorous.

Posted by: jen_m | November 8, 2007 8:23 PM

Jen-m,

Seeing as “tara the tart” (she does not deserve caps) is unable to supply us the cites that prove HIV as the cause of AIDS with any high degree of probability, then perhaps you would be so kind as to present us with these citations.

After all, Jen-m, you said in a former thread that you “are not one of those denialists”.

So why don’t YOU show all of us dingy denialists the scientific evidence for your belief, so we can rejoin civilized society again as card carrying members and believers of “the faith” of HIV=AIDS!

Posted by: Michael | November 8, 2007 8:37 PM

Michael Geiger February 20, 2007 11:22 PM

I will agree to shut up eternally on the dissident issue and I will refrain from ever again posting any dissident beliefs on this or any other site, and furthermore, I will take up arms with the opposing side, and I will henceforward be twice as determined to espouse only the establishment views.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 8, 2007 8:39 PM

jspreen,
I see from your response and those of others that any amount of arguing will not persuade you of the truth because, as I said, the denialist position is not based on research but on a desire to believe an already-arrived-at position. Of course, you will say the same about so-called “apologists.” It is unfortunate for your argument that the evidence (both scientific and anecdotal) ultimately rests in our favor. But why should I give you a full explanation if you’ve already shown an unwillingness to even trust the few things I have said? Doesn’t sound like a worthwhile proposition.

For the record, I am a real person and all of my statements were accurate. I have helped take care of children with HIV in Johannesburg,
But again, it is not the anecdotal experiences I (and the doctors and others I’ve worked with) could tell you that prove that HIV causes AIDS and that ARVs prevent countless, needless death, it’s the research. It’s out their for your own perusal. The only reason I am concerned that you and your friends deny HIV as the cause of AIDS and ARVs as appropriate treatment is that I’ve seen the effect that public policy based on such nonsense can have.

I’m going to go back to my studies now so I can learn how to prevent, treat, and cure disease. I’m going to be basing my studies soundly on the data, and hope you aren’t bothered too much by that. Cheers,
Brett Keller

Posted by: bdkeller | November 8, 2007 8:43 PM

Hey Brett, thanks for your own anecdotal evidence, which certainly does not prove HIV causes anything. But you, ahhhemmmm, claim to “base your studies soundly on the data”.

So present us “denialists”, as you enjoy calling us, THE DATA

Please show us the scientific cites and studies that you hold so highly in regard, that clearly show HIV is the cause of AIDS with any high degree of probability. Until you do, you are just another of the brainwashed fools who think anecdotal experiences constitute verified reality!

Posted by: Michael | November 8, 2007 8:48 PM

Hey Chris, it seems the post you refer to above is authored by an incarnation of Abraham Lincoln, as it is not signed with my own name.

Chris, seeing as “tara the tart” (she does not deserve caps), jen-m, and Brett are unable to supply us the cites that prove HIV as the cause of AIDS with any high degree of probability, then perhaps you would be so kind as to present us with these citations.

Posted by: Michael | November 8, 2007 8:50 PM

Because Michael, you’re probably insane…

Doesn’t matter how often Chris, adele, Tara, ElkMountainMan and others present evidence for HIV being the causative agent of AIDS, you wont accept it and probably never will. Why? Because in your mind, you’re right and everyone else who doesn’t agree with you on this is wrong. Oh and the constant use of capitals is a slight give away.

Posted by: Nick Sullivan | November 8, 2007 8:52 PM

Note to self, AND to all other “denialists”.

Continue to demand of each and every one of the avid faithful believers in HIV that they show us “denialists” five, or three, or even just a single scientific citation out of their “mountains of evidence” to substantiate that HIV causes immune suppression with any high degree of probability, to prove their beloved beliefs.

Should be VERY easy for them after 25 years of this nonsense!

And be sure that any of the cites they may present are not simply filled with individuals who are emotionally stressed, or lacking nutrition, or strung out on illicit drugs or AZT, or suffering from transfusions of factor VIII.

Until they present such evidence, they are all simply full of shit, and this simple point proves it!

Do NOT let them off the hook on supplying this evidence!

Posted by: Michael | November 8, 2007 9:02 PM

Hey Nick!

Cut the shit and cut the mumbling and present the scientific proof that has NOT ONCE IN 25 YEARS been presented, let alone on any of these threads!

Until you do, you are just one more brainwashed goon!

Posted by: Michael | November 8, 2007 9:05 PM

Hey Nick! Wake up!

Chris, adele, Tara, ElkMountainMan and others HAVE NEVER presented any evidence for HIV being the causative agent of AIDS. Not even in a year and a half of tara’s threads on hiv/aids. If you have some evidence of any posts that they posted with this evidence, then please do present it!

And make sure that any of the cites they supposedly presented are not simply filled with individuals who are emotionally stressed, or lacking nutrition, or strung out on illicit drugs or AZT, or suffering from transfusions of factor VIII.

Posted by: Michael | November 8, 2007 9:11 PM

So why don’t YOU show all of us dingy denialists the scientific evidence for your belief, so we can rejoin civilized society again as card carrying members and believers of “the faith” of HIV=AIDS!

Here is the evidence that HIV causes AIDS for all of you dingy denialists, but sorry, even if you accept this government dogma, you guys are still rejected from rejoining civilized society because after all, lets face it, you are the very same undesirable gay drug addicts that we were trying to get rid of with the HIV drugs.

Posted by: Eva_Dance | November 8, 2007 9:19 PM

Eva, baby, you are cracking me up! Give me a good swig of that AZT and let me outa this nut house!

Eva, darling. Can you present something that has at least been peer reviewed, instead of a page full of Bob Gallo and company’s swerving and dodging that was posted to hopefully counter Peter Duesberg’s accusations of “scientists gone wild”? The Niaids page is obviously Fauci and Gallo et al’s unsubstantiated non peer reviewed wishful thinking and anecdotals and ramblings including the laughable bit about some supposed but never verified or documented lab assistants?

Posted by: Michael | November 8, 2007 9:30 PM

not peer reviewed? what do you consider journals like Current Opinion in Immunology and Journal of Infectious Diseases? the NIH document contains information taken from the peer-reviewed literature. i’m confused as to what your objection is.

Posted by: golden boy | November 8, 2007 9:50 PM

“Houston, we have a problem”

There is a Rebuttal to The Evidence That HIV Causes AIDS, NIAID Fact Sheet

Who to believe now? We need a rebuttal to the rebuttal.

Posted by: Eva_Dance | November 8, 2007 10:00 PM

Hey goldie.

Take a good look at the niaids piece and check out any of the studies presented. You will find there is NO study there at all, that evidences HIV as the cause of AIDS with even a moderate degree of probability. It is just an asundry collection of biased studies that did not control for other factors, such as drug abuse or malnutrition, plus bits of this and bits of that with anecdotes thrown in. Plus, the part about SIV being used as evidence for HIV is completely laughable, as SIV is most definitely NOT HIV. It is a much larger organism.

Please note, goldie, that the die hard HIVologists that post on this thread are all dead silent or turning tails and running off when asked for their evidence that HIV causes AIDS with any high probability. The reason is, there ISN’T ANY!

Posted by: Michael | November 8, 2007 10:01 PM

I’m afraid Nick called this one…

…and Michael really needs to be banned.

Posted by: Dustin | November 8, 2007 10:11 PM

Dustin, put your money where your mouth is, and show us denialists any peer reviewed studies that show HIV causes AIDS with any high probability. And make sure it is not just a study done on a bunch of emaciated worn down drug addicts with a hundred other cofactors please.

Posted by: Michael | November 8, 2007 10:20 PM

Unless tara presents the requested evidence to back her bias, tara needs to start a new thread, entitled:

tara the terrible tart still in denial!

Posted by: Michael | November 8, 2007 10:26 PM

Unless tara presents the requested evidence to back her bias, tara needs to start a new thread, entitled:

tara the terrible tart still in denial!

Posted by: Michael | November 8, 2007 10:32 PM

Dear Michael and your many pseudonyms,

Let’s try to remember the subject of this thread: not calling Tara names, not regaling us with your entertaining but empty prose, but rather Mbeki, denial, and the consequences for South Africans.

Dear Pat,

This is how I understand your position on South Africa and AIDS; please correct me where I’ve got you wrong:

According to you, scientists have a need to exaggerate South African AIDS deaths (rounding an estimated 950 or so per day to 1000 per day). They have this need because they:
1) wish to make a case for more funding of their work (“the AIDS cash cow,” as you wrote)
2) want to profit from the sale of toxic antiretrovirals to people who don’t need them (more milk from the cash cow)
3) have a need to blame on a phantom syndrome the many deaths resulting from the poverty they (or their governments) caused through racist, colonialist policies.

So far, so good? If so, I partly disagree with you, but at least I understand your position. You lose me entirely when you switch gears and criticize scientists for supposedly withholding antiretrovirals from South Africans with AIDS over the objections of Thabo Mbeki.

If you believe that antiretrovirals are toxic and that AIDS is just a new name for poverty, then should you not applaud any attempts to withhold ARVs from Africans?

Not that those attempts had anything to do with science… can you really believe that scientists wish to withhold treatment from South Africans?

If Thabo Mbeki has been pleading for ARVs and truly wants them for the people of SA, then why did he and his associates repeatedly attempt to slow their approval and distribution?

Assuming that Mbeki has always wanted to bring in the drugs, how do you explain the disparities pointed out above (by bdkeller, I believe?) in the percentage of ARV-requiring patients in various African countries who receive the drugs? South Africa is near the bottom of the list; in some countries (Uganda was mentioned already), the percentage of patients recieving ARVs is three times higher than in SA.

Pat, if you think me “arrogant,” I apologize. I ask these questions because I want to understand your position on Mbeki, South Africa, and ARVs. Do you have a position, or are you simply trying to ask provocative questions without regard to consistency?

Posted by: ElkMountainMan | November 8, 2007 10:38 PM

I am completely opposed to banning Michael, if only for gems such as this one, which give us a chance to correct some misconceptions about virology:

SIV is most definitely NOT HIV. It is a much larger organism

SIV and HIV are the same “size.” They have essentially the same genomic structure and proteins. Without care, one could be mistaken easily for the other. Some parts of HIV-1 are more closely related with SIV sequences than with HIV-2 sequences. Also a virus is not really an organism

Posted by: ElkMountainMan | November 8, 2007 10:50 PM

My dearest friend, Elkmountain,

I will certainly try to stay on topic, providing you can do the same. The topic here is Mbeki and his denialism, I gather, as such is the title of the piece.

Now, Elkie, we first must ascertain whether Mbeki is actually in denial, don’t you think?. Prove to us that Mbeki is actually in denial by presenting us the scientific cites that show with any high probability that HIV causes immune suppression!

For God’s sake, man, you are a long standing HIV researcher receiving tax payer funds for this issue! This should be but a 1 minute task for someone such as yourself! There should be hundreds of such cites in the “mountain of HIV studies”. Your claims and beliefs about HIV and AIDS should are based on their even existing such evidence! You should know of at least one such citation by rote, without even having to look it up. It would be the very foundation for all of your damned research!

Try to stay on subject here Elkie, and refrain from your attempts to avoid or change the subject! Show us the cites and I, and undoubtedly Mbeki and his Manto, his Minister of Health, will undoubtedly cease from our denialist beliefs!

After all, Elkmountainman, it is for lack of a single such citation, that I, as well as Mbeki himself, and his minister of health, and hundreds of thousands of others, are now labeled by tara, and you and yours as crackpots and “denialists”! Please show us why we are mistaken!

Posted by: Michael | November 8, 2007 11:09 PM

Even if I came to this “debate” with absolutely no prior knowledge of the specific subject matter of HIV and AIDS, the behavior of the deniers on this thread would instantly skew me to strong skepticism towards their position. Just the conspiracy theories that dismiss most epidemiologists and doctors around the world as “big pharma” shills, rubbing their hands and cackling gleefully as they contemplate the deliberate genocide of Africans, would be enough. Add in the sexist name-calling (“Tara the Tart”? Really? Seriously? And you’re not a ringer for Tara’s side, deliberately trying to lose the argument?). The ALL CAPS shouting. The playground-level strawmen (“of course you believe in HIV – you think the government is always right”). And I can’t even make sense of the posts quoting those paragraphs about HIV/AIDS activists trying to force price drops in anti-HIV drugs. They’re trying to lower drug prices and push governments to break patents because… they’re shills for big pharma?

I get a kick out of observing and occasionally encouraging the goofy ramblings of evolution deniers. HIV deniers are too scary/scuzzy to even be funny. No wonder I tend to avoid these threads now – I feel like I need a shower.

Posted by: MPW | November 8, 2007 11:33 PM

Hey Chris, it seems the post you refer to above is authored by an incarnation of Abraham Lincoln, as it is not signed with my own name.

I somehow doubt that Abraham Lincoln posted that message. Abraham Lincoln had a reputation for not lying. You don’t.

You promised to stop posting here. You lied.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 8, 2007 11:56 PM

I concur with ElkMountainMan that “Michael” should be allowed to continue posting so long as this thread continues. To the few people on this site who might be unaware of who “Michael” is, he is Michael Geiger of San Diego, HEAL, a one-man-and-a-rather-smarter-dog AIDS denialist group. His stunning ignorance of the virology, epidemiology and immunology of HIV infection is extreme even by the standards of AIDS denialists in general. Thus, his recent comment “SIV is a much larger organism than HIV” ranks with Jan Spreen’s classically idiotic posting that TB is nothing other than “the recovery phase of lung cancer” among the all-time scientific howlers. Ignorance like this is very useful to AIDS scientists in their fight to destroy AIDS denialism, as it nicely exposes the foolishness of our enemies. We archive comments such as Geiger’s and Spreen’s, to demonstrate to journalists and neutrals just what type of people we are dealing with. The only pity is that Geiger is too insignificant a denialist for his comments to be really useful, as nobody takes him seriously in the real world.

It is also worth noting that as well as calling female scientists “Tarts”, Geiger is prone to using this Blog to issue threats of violence against those whom he does not like. He also sends letters to senior university officials that are full of scatological references to feces, toilet paper, as well as being riddled with epithets and general abuse (but of course with no scientific content). Such activities of course reveal AIDS denialism for what it truly is – the province of twisted minds, sick and puerile personas and the scientifically ignorant.

So, Tara, please do let Michael Geiger carry on posting. We have not such a useful set of written material for our archives since Harvey Bialy stopped writing his own Blog.

MPW is also correct. Reading scuzzy postings like “Michael”‘s is a rather nasty experience. Politically useful, but nasty nonetheless.

John Moore

Posted by: John Moore | November 8, 2007 11:58 PM

Elkie, nice try at avoidance again, but you are still full of shit. You claimed:

SIV and HIV are the same “size.” They have essentially the same genomic structure and proteins.

Simply stated, HIV-1 is claimed to consist of 15 proteins and 9.1 kb of RNA, and SIV is claimed to have nearer to 10 kb. That alone is NEARLY A TEN PERCENT DIFFERENCE!

TEN PERCENT difference is about the same difference of ten percent DNA difference between a clam and a primate! Obviously HIV and SIV are not the same the same and are not interchangeable.

SIV is NOT HIV, no matter how hard you and yours try to spin it!

Furthermore, HIV/SIV (SHIV) where parts of HIV are spliced to parts of SIV, and that was used as an animal model for supposedly proving HIV causes AIDS, was a completely different size from both SIV and HIV and is not even found anywhere in nature, and therefore, neither SIV NOR SHIV can possibly be used to prove HIV causes AIDS in humans.

They are NOT the same and are NOT interchangeable.

Posted by: Michael | November 8, 2007 11:59 PM

“While Mbeki may not be as far on the denial scale as the Perth group or Duesberg, his refusal to believe the impact AIDS has had on his country, despite appeals from scientists, despite even appeals from hundreds of doctors in South Africa, surely makes him akin to a child putting their fingers in their ears and saying, “la la la la, I can’t hear you” and hoping the problem will go away. In other words, in denial.” — Tara Smith

“The experience of AIDS medicine tends to confirm that the origin of human suffering is anxiety of death. Its vision of calamity was not confected from the morbid anxieties of those sick to death, nor from the depths of extreme pain, but sprang from the minds of well medical scientists. The vision of mass death expresses, I have argued,

—> the trauma of a profession that has assumed responsibilities beyond its capacity to deliver

The inflation of a small number of sick persons into an imaginary gigantic pool of suffering, and the urgency of ‘saving lives’ from an unknown virus, started an odyssey that courses through fraud in Dr. Gallo’s laboratory, the helplessness of accountability systems to detect and penalise the fraud, and the haunting curse of Kimberly Bergalis…. Presently we travel down the fork in the road that leads to Kimberly’s curse. There are many Kimberlys among us. But we can retrace our steps, scale down our expectations of medicine, and travel the alternative path on which suffering is transfigured by its meaning.

—> In the case of AIDS, retracing the steps places the burden of suffering on the medical profession’s recognition that a phantom epidemic symbolises its misconception of the aims of medicine.

— Hiram Caton

“Even if you don’t get AIDS, YOU STILL DIE” — Zen master

The reason the apologists can’t see the evidence against HIV is not because of some grand conspiracy. It’s because to admit as much would mean giving up their role as saviors of the world. If you don’t believe me, just look at the transhuman movement, that recent field of science and culture where scientists are honestly speaking of making people immortal and doing away with “unfavorable” aspects of being human. Their position is simply the most perverted form of this affliction. But make no mistake, it is PRECISELY the same intellectual foundation behind the HIV apologists.

However, the world will go on with or without their struggle. People have been living and breathing and having sex and dying for millions of years. The world is not “dying of AIDS”. We’ll survive.

Even if you don’t get AIDS, you STILL die.

Posted by: Zen master | November 9, 2007 12:02 AM

Chris Noble et al.,
I really want to join the anti-denialist camp. You guys seem pretty intelligent, fairly reasonable, but most of all, some of the people arguing against you seem really crazy. But I still have trouble understanding what seems to be one of your main arguments:

“Mbeki ignored the South African scientists. Instead he brought in people like Peter Duesberg, David Rasnick and Matthias Rath. Not much of an African solution.”

So the argument as I understand it is that Mbeki entertained Duesberg at a summit. Duesberg is a denialist, Mbeki listened to his words, therefore Mbeki is a denialist. However, Luc Montagnier, one of the co-discoverers of HIV as the cause of AIDS, was also in attendance. So were other scientists with views more compatible to your own. So following you own logic, Luc Montagnier discovered HIV, Mbeki heard him speak, so Mbeki knows HIV is the cause of AIDS…wait, I guess he can’t be a denialist and a truthist…maybe we’re using some faulty logic here? Or do you have some reason to believe that given equal opportunity to be heard, Duesberg somehow argued his beliefs more effectively than a real-deal HIV scientist? Or, maybe we should blame Robert Gallo for Mbeki’s denialism, since he is the world’s foremost authority on HIV and declined the invite to participate in Mbeki’s summit and influence his policy. Oh well, maybe he heard from Tara that Mbeki was a denialist so there wasn’t even any point trying…

Here’s the summary of what went down at Mbeki’s AIDS advisory panel.

http://www.info.gov.za/otherdocs/2001/aidspanelpdf.pdf

Chris, do you believe that hosting an open discussion between scientists representing a diverse range of viewpoints on AIDS constitutes denialism?

Posted by: bayman | November 9, 2007 12:04 AM

Michael,
“And make sure it is not just a study done on a bunch of emaciated worn down drug addicts with a hundred other cofactors please.”

why don’t you provide us the study where a cohort of individuals that meet the criteria above are HIV- and exhibit symptoms of AIDS. This should be easy considering the vast amount of research you denialists do.

“I have known some who died of pneumonia, some of liver failure, some of heart failure, some of kidney failure, some of systemic candida, some of tuberculosis, some of other things, BUT NOT A SINGLE ONE OF ANY OF THESE SO-CALLED “AIDS CASES” EVER DIED OF AIDS!”

Are you purposefully this obtuse or is this a serious comment? I remember feeling clever when I thought this way back in elementary school.

Posted by: Jim | November 9, 2007 12:14 AM

JP Moore said:

Geiger is prone to using this Blog to issue threats of violence against those whom he does not like.

Well, hell, JP! You should know all about threats of violence, seeing as I have an email directly from you to me, saying, and I quote:

This IS a war, there ARE no rules, and we WILL crush you, one at a time, completely and utterly

And undoubtedly, either you yourself or one of your mooron buddies are the ones who sent me an anonymous email greeting card from “Encircling Pistol” with the sole word “BANG” in the letter body a few months ago!

OOOHHHHH JP! I am soooooo scared!

And don’t worry, JP, I am sure the FBI can figure out which of you moorons sent it to me! And hopefully such threats will be enough to have you deported back to UKiland, JP!

So do bring it on JP! Get to crushing! And I even have a couple of buddies right here in my desk drawer for just such an occasion!

But as I know you yourself have no balls to back your own threats of violence, perhaps you would be so kind as to just stay on the subject of this thread, and show us “denialists” five, or three, or even just a single scientific citation out of your “mountains of evidence” to substantiate that HIV causes immune suppression with any high degree of probability, to prove your beloved beliefs.

Particularly as there is no such evidence on your propaganda riddled, laughably called AIDSunTRUTH website that nobody but you and your assistant monkeys ever read!

And be sure that any of the cites you may present are not simply filled with individuals who are emotionally stressed, or lacking nutrition, or strung out on illicit drugs or AZT, or suffering from transfusions of factor VIII.

And undoubtedly JP, you will post no such study because none exists, and you will either run away and hide or scream out more of your very dignified ad hom attacks, just like the yappy little monkey that you have always been!

PS: JP, You and your ego are an abomination not just to science, but to all of mankind!

Posted by: Michael | November 9, 2007 12:27 AM

Chris, do you believe that hosting an open discussion between scientists representing a diverse range of viewpoints on AIDS constitutes denialism

Just as in the “debate” over evolution there are not two sides with two equally valid viewpoints. When people argue for an open discussion about evolution they are really arguing for ID and creationism.

Mbeki was looking for justification to avoid doing anything. The costs of tackling HIV/AIDS was going to be large. The attraction of scientists that argue that HIV does not exist or if it does exist it doesn’t cause AIDS is obvious. All you have to do is create enough doubt and then you don’t have to do anything.

What would people think if Bush ignores the IPCC and holds his own conference with an equal number of AGW “skeptics” and real cliumate scientists? If that happened I would make the conclusion that Bush was doing his best to create doubt about AGW so he doesn’t have to do anything.

I am judging Mbeki not just on the Presidential AIDS panel but on his other comments and actions.

He claimed not have known anybody that died from AIDS despite the the death of his spokesman Parks Mankahlana who had died euphemistically after a long illness. Parks Mankahlana died from AIDS.

His actions that undermined the rollout of antiretrovirals after the pharmaceutical companies reduced prices is undeniable.

If Mbeki’s point was the cost of the antiretrovirals then why did he go to the lengths he did to sow doubts and denial about HIV?

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 9, 2007 12:38 AM

Particularly as there is no such evidence on your propaganda riddled, laughably called AIDSunTRUTH website that nobody but you and your assistant monkeys ever read!

If nobody reads the website then how do you know that it contains no evidence? You are simply confirming what is extremely obvious that you are at all interested in the evidence. You have already made your mind up and nothing will change your mind.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 9, 2007 12:52 AM

Hey Chris, you said: Parks Mankahlana died from AIDS.

That is another total lie Chris. AIDS is a definition of a syndrome, it is not a disease nor a cause of death, therefore Parks could NOT have died from AIDS. He may have died from liver failure after taking AZT, or he may have died from TB, or any one of hundreds of other things, but he surely did NOT die from AIDS.

As I said, I am a gay man who has lived in the middle of the 6th largest gay community for the last 30 years, and I have had lovers and friends diagnosed as HIV and as AIDS

So Chris, perhaps you would stay on topic and present the study or studies that show HIV is the cause of the state of immune suppression called AIDS, as I have been asking you for this evidence for at least a couple of years now. You certainly should have found it after all this time! OR BEEN MAN ENOUGH TO ADMIT THAT SUCH EVIDENCE DOES INDEED NOT EXIST!

But Chris, as you have shown us time and again, you are indeed a liar, and are most dishonest, and you have no integrity, and you are incapable of admitting when you are mistaken, and, you are full of bullshit!

Posted by: Michael | November 9, 2007 1:03 AM

Let me be very, very clear here:

AIDS science is indeed in a war with the AIDS denialists, and the denialist leadership is indeed being targeted, not by violence or by threats of violence, but by legal and moral methods intended to destroy their ability to influence vulnerable people who have been persuaded to make choices that damage their health and the health of others. It will take time to defeat all the denialist leadership, but it’s being done (as some of them have already found out) and, in the end, science and morality will crush pseudoscience and evil.

That a war must be fought and will be won is sadly necessary as a life-saving measure. The time for scientific debate and discourse has long passed; the debate was held, and won by AIDS scientists, via the peer-reviewed literature over a 25-year period. The denialists refuse to accept their defeat, and continue to act against the best interests of public health. Hence the gloves came off, and it became necessary to move to a new phase – the destruction of AIDS denialism as a movement. However, I say again: this ongoing fight does not involve the use of violence against its leadership, or the issuing of threats of violence, and it never has. Geiger’s comments on this point are as foolish, inaccurate and misguided as his opinions on the relative sizes of SIV and HIV. And as he well knows, he himself is not being targeted as he’s not a leader of the AIDS denialist movement; we only go after the organ-grinders. Moreover, we consider Geiger’s craziness as advantageous to our side, so see no reason to hinder his actions.

AIDS denialism kills people. It has killed tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of people in South Africa as a result of Mbeki’s personal denialism and dangerous public policies; it has killed very many individuals in the western world, including, ironically, many AIDS denialists who themselves died of AIDS (see the postings on AIDSTruth.org); it killed Eliza Jane Scovill. These sad, unnecessary and utterly avoidable deaths represent the casus bellum for the battle between AIDS science and AIDS denialism. We make no apologies for this war; it was thrust upon us.

Freedom of speech has acknowledged limits when it comes to public health and safety. It is not legal to promote cigarette smoking by children; it is not legal to shout “Fire” in a crowded cinema; it is not legal to tell a drunk or a mentally impaired person to consume a bottle of bleach. At present, it is, unfortunately, still legal to deny that HIV causes AIDS and to oppose the use of antiretroviral drugs to treat or prevent HIV infection. Because the denialists do still have that legal right, there is a moral imperative to fight them, using whatever tactics are legally and ethically permissible.

Geiger refers to my British origins (although as I am now an American citizen, his reference to having me deported is as misguided as the rest of his posting). A rather greater and better known Briton once said:

we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender.

This was a reference by Winston Churchill to the fight against the Nazis.

It seems rather appropriate as a statement of AIDS sciences’ intent to defeat the AIDS denialists.

John Moore

Posted by: John Moore | November 9, 2007 1:25 AM

That is another total lie Chris. AIDS is a definition of a syndrome, it is not a disease nor a cause of death, therefore Parks could NOT have died from AIDS.

That is a silly semantic game. Mankahlana was infected with HIV. The HIV caused immune suppression which lead to opportunistic infections. He died from these opportunistic infections.

So Chris, perhaps you would stay on topic and present the study or studies that show HIV is the cause of the state of immune suppression called AIDS, as I have been asking you for this evidence for at least a couple of years now.

You have been given the evidence time and time again. The fact that you do not accept the evidence has little to do with the quality or quantity of the evidence and everything to do with your psychological state of mind.

Your response to the Ascher et al paper is indicative of you capabilities of understanding and debating the scientific studies.

Everyone knows that Ascher was Tony Fauci’s well paid buttboy and pet lapdog…

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 9, 2007 1:26 AM

These viral loads sounds so scary!, hundereds of thousands of virus particles in the blood! Got any electron microscope pictures from patients blood confirming this?
Or is this just another act of hiv
Woo created on a labratory bench?

“if you make a thousand copies of a dollar bill how much money do you have?” kary mullis hiv skeptic nobel prize winning inventor of the PCR

NO animal model, tons of animals injected, nothing happened.
no explanation how a virus thats in 1 in thousand cells destroys the immune system

not one study that shows that people without any risk factors such as drug abuse, mycoplasmas, AZT severe mental illness even get AIDS vs matched controls. Just extend the window period by to 10 years to buy time to save Gallo’s hypothesis!

Cant wait for the vaccine, because well all test positive then! Becuase most every other virus causes disease before antibodies, thats why we get vaccines!

see hiv fact or fraud.

Posted by: cooler | November 9, 2007 1:46 AM

Wow, this Michael person really puts the demented in demented fuckwit.

Posted by: BG | November 9, 2007 1:57 AM

Bayman writes:

I really want to join the anti-denialist camp. You guys seem pretty intelligent, fairly reasonable, but most of all, some of the people arguing against you seem really crazy. But I still have trouble understanding what seems to be one of your main arguments:

I have trouble understanding what your point is. Are you saying that the evidence that HIV exists is lacking? Or that HIV causes AIDS? Or that antiretrovirals are effective in reducing mother-to-child-transmission of HIV? Or that antiretrovirals are effective at reducing mortality and morbidity?

I also wonder what you think a responsible response from a leader of a country that is threatened by HIV/AIDS should be.

a) Fight with the pharmaceutical companies to make antiretroviral drugs affordable.

b) Launch education campaigns to try to reduce the spread of HIV

c) Invite cranks from Australia who will tell you that HIV doesn’t exist.

d) Pretend that nobody dies from AIDS because it is a syndrome

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 9, 2007 2:43 AM

Hi all, I know this comment is a change of gear as I can see it has been severely troll-jacked. It seems to be common here although I don’t read this blog daily (I’ll try to change that Tara, I do like your posts). I am not interested in getting into the above exchanges as it is a waste to me.

I’m an American who has been living here in South Africa for over 9 years. I have seen a lot of the developments first hand. I have even been to a government hospital in Soweto (quite an experience).
I do believe Mbeki is a denialist. The uproar he caused in 2000 was palpable here. There are excellent doctors and other medical personnel in SA. Now, for the government to put those professionals on the same level as an old fart sitting in front of hut out in the contryside with a loin cloth and headress who will give you “muti”, disgusts me.
Mbeki did basically shut up because of pressure from the ANC. However, his support of Tshabalala-Msimang shows his mindset. Tshabalala-Msimang is probably the worst health minister this country could possibly have. She has stated before that olive oil and garlic is a treatment for HIV. Earlier this year, she received a liver transplant, and it came out that she had forced hospital staff to run out to fetch her booze (during an earlier non-related stay in hospital). She was fired in Botswana earlier in her career for stealing from the hospital at which she worked. And, there are lots of other things. I think she is vile, and damages this country immensly.
One of the deputy ministers was dismissed a couple of months ago because she would not toe the party line. She was vocal about the HIV/AIDS pandemic, and Tshabalala-Msimang and Mbeki did not like it.

Now here’s an important point, Tara: You may have even worse stories to post about in the future related to SA and HIV/AIDS. As we speak, the succession race for the ANC leadership is brewing. One of the candidates who is near the top of the pile for the ANC is Jacob Zuma. Zuma has a lot of support from some areas. This guy is a slimy, crook in my opinion but I digress. Last year, he went on trial for rape. Without getting into the specifics of the rape case itself, several things came out during the trial. Zuma is married, but claims that in his “culture” (he is a Zulu, and I put the quotes around culture, because I have personally asked other Zulus who say this is not the case, and he is using culture as an excuse to be a pig), it is acceptable to basically bang anybody you want. If you think you might like it more than a couple of times, then pay your lebola and marry however many women you want (note these are tribal marriages, so not the same as an official state-recognised marriage).
But here is the kicker: He stated during the trial that he had consentual sex with the accuser, knowing that she was HIV positive (he knew very well), without a condom, and that after the sex he had a shower to cut down his risk of infection.
Folks if this man succeeds Mbeki for the ANC leadership, he WILL be the next president of South Africa. The mind boggles.
Fortunately, he is now up on corruption charges, and it does not look like he will be able to easily shake them. Also the Xosa population really don’t want the guy leading them, so there may be pressure to avoid Zuma in order to avoid a split within the ANC (and it is not just the Xosas, the party is complicated, but I simplified).
The only problem is that while this should effectively nix his chances, the ANC seems to consider changing the constitution so that Mbeki can serve another term as their other option.

Posted by: scienceteacherinexile | November 9, 2007 2:47 AM

Dear bdkeller, scienceteacherinexile, John Moore,

I appreciate your comments and the fact that you have field experience.

Do you think that engaging with the RSA government (instead of moving an hostile campaign against Mbeki) could be useful to solve HIV/AIDS problems in Southern Africa or no ?

For example, last week I have been in a meeting with the officer in charge of HIV/AIDS (in the Commonwealth offices in London) and he told that there is no compreensive national plan to tackle the epidemy in Swaziland, despite the high infection rate in this country.I understand that some pressure should be done on the Swazi government to control its own epidemics of HIV/AIDS, otherwise not only HIV crisis in Swaziland will grow but also it will be a focus of continuous reinfection in the Natal border. South African government with internationla help, may be the partner of choice to exercise such pressure.

I ask all this because I thought that contructive engagement is a good political concept, I understand that Mbeki have no real say in HIV/AIDS in SouthAfrican policies, but others members of the government/ANC are really be worry on the AIDS questions.

Impression that I have is that in AIDS/HIV questions, and as confirmed by the Guardian paper above reported, Mbeki is just a figurehead. Criticizing him now does not help to tackle the problems.

Am I correct ?

Posted by: Braganza | November 9, 2007 6:03 AM

But again, it is not the anecdotal experiences I (and the doctors and others I’ve worked with) could tell you

Holding babies in your arms who suddenly stop dying the day you administer a new drug is far from anecdotal experience in my book and when you wrote your first message I’m quite sure you had the feeling that your experience itself could blow denialism to smithereens. Which is perfectly the case if what you write is exactly what happened. That’s why I wanted yo know more. You don’t have to thank me for my questioning, because there’s absolutely no kindness or honesty in it, only eagerness to know more about it and an attempt to get these agressive going nowhere discussions moving somewhere.
You wrote yourself I wouldn’t say it is wholly based on personal experience which means, the way I see it, that you cannot possibly swear that your statements about kids who suddenly stopping dying are absolutely accurate.

Your reaction, as well as Tara’s, to my previous post is rediculous. True, I don’t know you, so why should I not trust what you write? But give me one reason why I should? Trusting each other has nothing to do here. I want plain, indeniable facts.

My statement about the 1:1000 or even 1:10000 ratio, where’s your reaction? Do you agree with me?
My statement about the ambassador boasting about non-existing EM pictures being all around and even in his office: where’s your reaction? Do you agree with me?

Apologists, they always start with a big mouth about overwhelming evidence but when it comes to it, there’s no evidence nowhere.
I myself, on the other hand, am constantly providing, may be not evidence but at least very clear and logical reasoning, but all you people can come up with are phrases about how stupid I really am.
My statement about lung TB always being preceded by lung cancer and always accompagnied by an oedema in the brain stem, hence the head aches, together with the reasoning that lung cancer is caused by a traumatic moment of fear of death and that that is exactly the reason why terminally ill people always have breating problems, you can’t get away from that with name calling and some stupid declaration of war on denialism.

BTW, J. Pee Moore, your Churchill quote sounds nice, but it doesn’t hold because it’s not his side you’re on.

Posted by: jspreen | November 9, 2007 6:56 AM

Braganza,
I do think extensive engagement with the SA government by the UN would be very beneficial, but, I think to be effective, there would still have to be heavy pressure on SA to carry through with the plans.
There are many in government who work extremely hard to fight this pandemic, and would do well with the constructive approach you suggest. Businesses here as well are spending much money on different programs and are attempting to be proactive not only within their own business, but also the community at large to combat the pandemic.
I think the damage that Mbeki is doing is through not making HIV/AIDS a more urgent issue. And, as I mentioned before, keeping a horrible, horrible health minister who he so staunchly supports. The messages coming from the top are not appropriate.
Having said that, western nations could do much to help in the battle, but it does not help when the US say that they will give millions, but you can only use it on abstinence only education programs. If those programs are a flop in the US, they are a nightmare here and I think have gone the way of the Dodo. At my previous workplace, and in many public buildings, and at any clinic, you can get free condoms.
I forgot to mention earlier another thing that I found disgusting. The government would not supply Nivirapin (someone help me if that is incorrect) to HIV+ pregnant women which greatly reduces mother to child transmission. They eventually did because of pressure from various places, but many children are now sitting here with HIV that should have been born free of the infection because the government was dragging it’s feet.

Posted by: scienceteacherinexile | November 9, 2007 6:57 AM

Brazanga,
Constructive engagement with RSA’s government is of course the way to go, and nothing will get accomplished if the South African government (and Swaziland’s and other governments) aren’t behind the plans. In expressing my earlier disgust with Mbeki I was making a personal statement, not a statement on the best policy approach. Mbeki may only be a figurehead, but the difference between a figurehead who pushes strongly for the right approach and one who dithers around and makes unfounded excuses when decisive action is needed is important.

Posted by: bdkeller | November 9, 2007 7:53 AM

jspreen,
I think personal experience is by definition anecdotal when I’m telling you about it online. What else does anecdotal mean to you? And yes, my experience–and that of the patients saved by ARVs–does of course blow denialism to smithereens.

The children I worked with were dying because they were born with HIV in a window of time when SA could have implemented programs to prevent transmission of HIV from mother to child, but had not at least in part because of Mbeki’s flirtation with the denialists. It seems that Mbeki found denialism desirable because he was faced with a political dilemma (providing treatment to millions of South Africans) that he could not resolve. The overpricing of the ARVs by drug companies certainly also played a role in that situation, so the South African activists who helped drive down the prices are to be commended.

At the time I was there ARV treatment was being phased in, and both adult and childhood death rates from HIV/AIDS were dropping. For those who were already at an advanced stage of HIV/AIDS (with their status established by ELISA, and disease progression by low CD4 counts, high viral load, and the presence of characteristic opportunistic infections) the ARV treatment was being made available too late, so some adults and children were still dying. Since I left the hospice/orphanage (in 2004) I have been in touch with people who have worked at the hospice about how the kids were doing. One year later (summer 2005) all of the children who I had worked with (who were on ARVs) were still alive and much healthier. That is a dramatic turnaround for a place where they usually only lived several months or years from admission to the hospice, despite getting incredible care and nutrition. I am not as familiar with the adult situation simply because most of the work I did while there was with children, though I understand it parallels the children’s experiences.
One of the people who kept me updated on the situation was there doing her masters dissertation research in medical anthropology. Her research largely resolved around the so-called “Lazarus syndrome,” which is basically how people who have long expected to die and had been progressing toward that end, and are now put on ARV treatment and regain their weight, their health, and their hope, deal with their new situation.

Will answer the rest later.

Posted by: bdkeller | November 9, 2007 8:12 AM

Apologies; this is an off-topic response to Michael’s comments about HIV and SIV.

Michael wrote that,

Simply stated, HIV-1 is claimed to consist of 15 proteins and 9.1 kb of RNA, and SIV is claimed to have nearer to 10 kb. That alone is NEARLY A TEN PERCENT DIFFERENCE!

The protein-coding portions of HIV-1 and SIV are almost identical in length, around 8500 nt. Slight length differences between reported sequences of HIV and SIV strains are due to differences in the non-coding terminal regions (or to how much of the non-coding terminal regions is cloned and sequenced).

For example, “HXB2,” a commonly-used HIV-1 reference: 9719 nt, and NC_001549 (SIV): 9623 nt.

Of course, the close relationship between HIV-1 and SIV is best established by comparing the organization and sequences of their genomes, not the sizes, as Michael’s next comment demonstrates.

TEN PERCENT difference is about the same difference of ten percent DNA difference between a clam and a primate!

The clam and human genomes are almost equal in size. Compared with these two, the chicken genome is less than half as large, while the frog has more than double the genetic material. The lungfish genome is about 30 times as large. By Michael’s reasoning, humans must be much more closely related to clams than to chickens, frogs, or lungfish. When we examine genetic sequences from these five organisms, we find that he is wrong.

Sequences from HIV and SIV are more closely related to each other than to any other known sequences. No, HIV is not SIV, but these two lentiviruses have very close ties.

Posted by: ElkMountainMan | November 9, 2007 9:11 AM

JP Moore,

You ceased being a scientist long ago and have now become a general complete with foot soldiers.

“using whatever tactics are legally and ethically permissible.”

On the internet I can understand this but when it comes to political leaders and such then your approach is far from sane and will cause further “stone-walling” and foot dragging.

War on poverty didn’t work
War on drugs didn’t work
War on war isn’t woring either.
Why you think your “war” is going to work escapes me.

But it is your war, you fight it on the beaches if you like.

Stell Dir vor es ist Krieg und keiner geht hin!

Posted by: pat | November 9, 2007 9:16 AM

To our racist americam friend who has been living in SA for 9 years.

“Now, for the government to put those professionals on the same level as an old fart sitting in front of hut out in the contryside with a loin cloth and headress who will give you “muti”, disgusts me.”

You take to some of the locals very well. Have you also called people ragheads by any chance?

You say:

“Earlier this year, she received a liver transplant, and it came out that she had forced hospital staff to run out to fetch her booze (during an earlier non-related stay in hospital)”

and

“She was fired in Botswana earlier in her career for stealing from the hospital at which she worked.”

Mbeki writes these lines:

“However, the hospitalisation of our Minister of Health will have taught us
that our value system is changing towards an ugly and inhumane direction. In
this regard, views were expressed and a campaign waged essentially to convey
the brutal message that everybody concerned, including the doctors who
treated her, should have allowed Manto Tshabalala-Msimang to die.

Various propositions were advanced in this regard by and through the media.
One of these was that the Donald Gordon Medical Centre carried out the liver
transplant when it did because I, as President of the Republic, had obliged
the medical centre to do so. Alternatively, the medical centre had treated
her as a priority patient, because she is the Minister of Health.

Consequently, as another proposition, allegedly the doctors at the medical
centre had compromised all ethical medical principles to enable Manto
Tshabalala-Msimang to jump the queue, displacing other patients who should
have been treated first.

The unadorned truth is that the allegation about our intervention with the
medical centre was entirely false. Similarly, the accusation that the
doctors at this centre had given preference to the Minister of Health, ahead
of other and waiting patients, responding to our pressure, was also a
complete fabrication. Equally, the suggestion that, unprompted, the medical
centre unethically broke some rules, to enable itself to admit the Minister
of Health as a priority patient, is an unadulterated concoction.

It is obvious that those who deliberately manufactured and peddled these
lies did so to argue that Manto Tshabalala-Msimang should not have been
treated, and should have been allowed to suffer and die. They were enraged
that the Donald Gordon Medical Centre saved her life, whereas they wished
and wish that her health condition should and could have been allowed to
kill her.”

The following is an interesting read and puts this sentence of JP Moore into perspective “Because the denialists do still have that legal right, there is a moral imperative to fight them, using whatever tactics are legally and ethically permissible.”.

Here they discuss exactly what JP Moore thinks is legally and ethically permissible.
www.journalism.co.za/insight/time-for-some-soul-searching-2.html

Posted by: pat | November 9, 2007 10:52 AM

Very funny pat I guess everyone is racist except you with your little german sayings. what is german your second language you have to brag about. Sheesh.

Dont disagree with pat or know more about South Africa then her or god forbid GO to South Africa and live bc that makes you racist!!

Oh and SO SHAWCKING Mbeki doesn’t think his minister got special treatment!! Will you tell us next Bush thinks there’s WMDs in Iraq, I guess it must be true then!!

Posted by: Adele | November 9, 2007 11:24 AM

Braganza, I don’t have “field experience” of the political scene in SA. My knowledge is second-hand, based on what I read in various newspapers and on input from several friends who do live and work in SA. Would engaging Mbeki work? Well, engagement is a two-way thing, and there’s no evidence he has any interest in discussing anything relating to HIV/AIDS nowadays. He’s received a great deal of input on HIV/AIDS over the years from AIDS professionals within and outside SA, and from other governments, but his mind is as closed as the denialists’ who post here. Mbeki’s interests nowadays are in anything that will enable him to cling to power after his Presidential term expires, at which time the Constitution requires him to stand down. He therefore seeks to become the power behind the throne, to control his successor, and maintain his position as ANC leader. That’s all that matters to him right now, because he’s a politician, and politicians need power the way normal humans need oxygen. He supports Manto because Manto, and her husband, support him, whereas Madlala-Routledge and her husband are political rivals within the ANC. I suspect that, irrespective of his and their views on HIV/AIDS, he would have found a way, any way, to remove his opponents from power, and support his supporters – that kind of behavior is endemic to politicans worldwide, paricular when power struggles are going on. For all these reasons, I doubt that Mbeki has the slightest interest in any further discussions about HIV/AIDS with anyone. For one thing, he could never afford to now change his position, whatever the facts, as to do so would be a sign of weakness at a time when he needs to appear strong and resolute (to his supporters). The loss of face involved in a volte-face would cripple him within the ANC.

Unfortunately, as has been noted on this string, one of his possible successors, Zuma, is a deeply-flawed man who would also be a problematic leader of SA. The only reason to support Zuma is because he’s not Mbeki, and that’s never a good reason.

Quite how all this will shake out over the coming months is impossible for anyone to predict. Once the politics of succession are in play, anything and everything could happen. All that outside observers can do is watch with crossed fingers, hoping that SA eventually finds a political leader that can help the country and not harm it. The best hope is that Nelson Mandela finds a way, behind the scenes, to ensure that his political legacy is not destroyed and that the new nation he built does not descend into anarchy, or become a second Zimbabwe.

So, no, I don’t see any way for anyone to have a meaningful dialog with the Mbeki regime, although I’m sure that some people in SA are still trying to do that.

Posted by: John Moore | November 9, 2007 11:27 AM

Ya know pat for a guy you said stopped being a scientist long ago JP Moores doing some damn fine science this month!!

Shan M, Klasse PJ, Banerjee K, Dey AK, Iyer SP, Dionisio R, Charles D, Campbell-Gardener L, Olson WC, Sanders RW, Moore JP.
HIV-1 gp120 Mannoses Induce Immunosuppressive Responses from Dendritic Cells.
PLoS Pathog. 2007 Nov 2;3(11):e169 [Epub ahead of print]

Posted by: Adele | November 9, 2007 11:32 AM

We archive comments such as Geiger’s and Spreen’s, to demonstrate to journalists and neutrals just what type of people we are dealing with.

You’re very welcome, Mr Moore. I don’t know how Michael takes this, but I am very happy to know that my comments are passed on to the masses. A day will come when all the insanities I have written here and elsewhere will finally be recognized by mankind for what they are, and I sincerely hope that you’ll be around long enough to live that day, a day which will also be the day Dr Ryke Geerd Hamer obtains the Nobel Prize for medicine.
All diseases come by the pair, my friends. Lung cancer is followed by lung-TB (that is if koch bacilli are present and if the patient has solved the biological “Fear of death” conflict), leukemia is without exception preceded by bone cancer (osteo-porosis).

I see Tara has posted an entry about TB. All nonsense, Tara. Just as wheels are not the cause of speed, germs don’t cause TB. They’re simply part a an overall process you have not recognized at all yet. And that is why you have to bother about so many exceptions and are forced to try to pass a critical examination of your hypotheses with silly phrases like … Though most infections are asymptomatic,…
Bloody nonsense, Tara, comparable to the long-term non-progressor concept designed to get away with HIV+ people who stubbornly stay alive while refusing the life saving killer drugs.

Posted by: jspreen | November 9, 2007 11:50 AM

Bdkeller,

I thank you for you answer, and I hope that JPMoore and his friends at AIDSTRUTH could learn that there is no solution of the problems of HIV/AIDS in the region without constructive engagement with the RSA government.
———————————————————–

There are many anecdotes of babies or adults living/or dying after receiving HAART in Africa. Question should be seen in the context of large cohort studies. I suggest to read the following meta study which show that even with HAART, DEATH is still a major risk of HIV+ patients in Subsaharian Africa !:

“ART programs in Africa have retained about 60% of their patients at the end of 2 y. Loss to follow-up is the major cause of attrition, followed by DEATH.”

Fom Sydney Rosen, Matthew P. Fox, Christopher J. Gill “Patient Retention in Antiretroviral Therapy Programs in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review”, PLoS Medicine, Oct 2007, available online at:

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040298

In addition with the need of prevention, and providing affordable treatment to everybody, the problem of toxicity of the drugs, which is also acute in Africa, is one of the variable that need to be seen in detail to solve HIV/AIDS in the region.

Posted by: Braganza | November 9, 2007 11:52 AM

“You have actually found something you can predict! congratulations!”

Posted by: pat | November 6, 2007 9:36 PM

____________________________________________________________

Adele and all the other real denialists on this blog are exceedingly astute with their predictions. How could you have missed that, Pat? All one has to do is look at the post history here at Aetiology to discern just how accurate and honest these bozos are, right?

For example, several months ago I attempted to have an intelligent discussion here at the Aetiology blog regarding the dire effects that the culture of corruption in the housing market would have on the US economy, even comparing that culture to the obvious culture of corruption that now defines most all scientific research that deals with human health. Of course, none of the hacks here were capable of discussing such a matter intelligently, but they were certainly quick to call me “paranoid” and/or a “conspiracy theorist”:

Kevin your paranoia is still expanding isn’t it? Like a bubble I think. Here’s a hint though to make your rants more believable. A “Ponzi scheme” is not the same thing as a bubble. The current housing market has been at a stand still for a few years slightly higher in some markets lower in others. If it crashes like if everyone loses half their value then we had a bubble. If it doesn’t its not even a bubble. And no way is it a Ponzi scheme even if it’s a bubble which is doubtful.

Kevin you’ve convinced everyone here you don’t know anything about HIV and you’re not interested in learning anything about it. Now your busy convincing us you’re a ignorant in other areas. If you make some better analogies though maybe you could get someone to take you seriously. Maybe but I doubt it. Good luck!

Good thing, I had Adele to set me straight on how I’m “ignorant in other areas”. How’s the housing market doing, Adele? Am I still a paranoid denialist? My predictions about the housing market and its effect on the US economy were way off, right guys?

Of course, Adele is one the dumber members of the pathetic collection of regular posters here, but the claims are always the same no matter which real denialist is making them. Rather than dealing with the facts, name-calling takes precedence over actual intelligent discussion. Instead, we, “denialists”, are all “paranoid” and “ignorant” and incapable of making sense of anything about the real world– all because we refuse to accept the HIV dogma that is masquerading as Science. Bullshit.

Before I return to the real “real” world, I’d like to make another book recommendation, in the off-chance that there actually are a few participants and/or readers here who are interested and concerned with the unfortunate direction that our country is taking. While I certainly still highly recommend “Overdosed America: The Broken Promise of American Medicine”–particularly to those who remain incredulous as to how a “mistake” the caliber of HIV/AIDS could occur–I also highly recommend a more recent release that deals with America’s current problems with corruption. It is entitled “Are We Rome: The Fall of an Empire and the Fate of America”. While the title is a bit cliche, the book’s content is quite insightful. On point, the author notes that one of the most important similarities between Ancient Rome (the Empire, not the Republic) and the US is the rapid privatization of public institutions and how that precipitated the rapid decline of democratic institutions within the empire. America is headed to a similar end if our citizens continue to sell our collective interests to the highest bidder. For those of you working within biomedicine, if you open your eyes and assess the matter objectively, you cannot help but to see that pharmaceutical companies have way too much control over the direction of public health, and that the privatization of human health concerns have not been good for society, nor for Science. No matter how “advanced” our technology becomes, the impartial and objective use of that technology will remain a mirage, unless the extensive privatization of research is curtailed.

Lastly, here’s a look at my own attempt at making predictions copied verbatim from my posts earlier this summer. Unfortunately (for our country), unless you’ve all been living in a cave (Adele?) I think you’ll find that it’s hard to disagree with its accuracy; however, if someone here wants to disagree, I’d be happy to engage you as long as you leave the name-calling to hacks like Adele and Chris Noble…anyway, here was my prediction:

With that in mind, in an earlier thread, Adele, among others, accused me of being a wackjob for comparing the corruption responsible for the presently unwinding real estate bubble to the corruption responsible for the poor-quality health care available in the US. However, I have come to realize that Adele has plenty of company for most on this blog are far too meek to acknowledge any such similarities, even though they are easily identified. Like HIV, the recent “ponzi scheme” culture within real estate was a devastating mistake, primarily due to scale. Like HIV, it was all based on an illusion that the fundamentals no longer applied. Coming to terms with the truth will be very painful. This housing correction will jeopardize the stability of the entire global economy and the US economy will not be spared. In fact, we will suffer the most as the middle class has been virtually annihilated by the creation of this perverted “ownership society.” As the foreclosures mount, people will go from being homeowners to indentured servants, which perhaps will serve as a final wakeup call to all you with your heads in the sand (hello, Harold). However, I fear that it is too little too late to lessen the blow. Is it any wonder that our country’s future is indeed bleak when so many are so willing to accept lies as truth and profiteering as “science”. We are heading for a very deep bottom if we continue to ignore the importance of accountability in this age of unparalleled greed.

Kevin

Posted by: Kevin | November 9, 2007 12:07 PM

This is why the study going on in Africa is so important because LDN is not toxic and certainly is not expensive. This could solve many of their problems due to the effect upon the immune system, thus eliminating the need for antiretrovirals.

Posted by: Noreen | November 9, 2007 12:09 PM

Braganza, I don’t disagree with you when you say: “there is no solution of the problems of HIV/AIDS in the region without constructive engagement with the RSA government”.

What I said was: “So, no, I don’t see any way for anyone to have a meaningful dialog with the Mbeki regime, although I’m sure that some people in SA are still trying to do that.”

That statement is not inconsistent with yours; it simply expresses the difficulties in making what you want to happen actually happen. Dialog is, by definition, a two-way interchange. If you know of a way to persuade Mbeki to engage in a genuine dialog with AIDS professionals when his mind is focused on ensuring he clings to power after his Presidential term expires, then it would be good for you to act on your knowledge and make it happen.

Posted by: John Moore | November 9, 2007 12:09 PM

John,

I just have read your answer seconds ago (after writing my previous post) so thank you for your explanation.

I should say I dont have understood you before.

I still think that, if at the present moment you dont have channel to speak with Mbeki, you may have discussions with others people at others levels, and gradually have Mbeki support (he is, after all, endorsing the HIV/AIDS programme of his government) or the support of the future RSA president, whoever he is.

I also personally hope that Mandela may have a say in all this question, for the future of the region.

Posted by: Braganza | November 9, 2007 12:14 PM

Thanks, Adele, for your citation of our latest paper. I hope you found it of interest. If the trolls read it, I expect that will lead to the same kind of laughably inept deconstruction of its contents that happened when Anthony Liversidge attempted to interpret the meaning of one of my earlier papers on his Blog. All that proved to me was that the denialists were even more ignorant of the meaning of peer-reviewed science than I had ever suspected (in other words, I had been giving them way too much credit). Scientific ignorance underpins AIDS denialism, and is exemplified by the quality of the denialists’ postings on this site. It’s no wonder they ask the same questions over and over again, and then ignore the answers they don’t like – the reason is that they don’t understand the science, never have and never will. One might as well answer them in Swahili…….

Posted by: John Moore | November 9, 2007 12:35 PM

Braganza, if you know of a way to bring Mbeki to a serious discussion with serious people, I’m sure serious people would talk to him. Personally, I know of no way to accomplish this. But then I don’t live in South Africa, and really, that’s a task for those who do, or who have high level contacts there.
John

Posted by: John Moore | November 9, 2007 12:39 PM

Adele,
Talking to you is like getting involved in a cat fight during recess. I put that one there just for you.

“Oh and SO SHAWCKING Mbeki doesn’t think his minister got special treatment!! Will you tell us next Bush thinks there’s WMDs in Iraq, I guess it must be true then!!”

Relax. Read some editorials in SA, one of which I linked to. If you are going to make such sweaping allegations, please don’t be offended if someone might want to know more about it than you before building a guillotine. The problem with this is that there is no evidence for her jumping cue an thus this can only be slung around as heresay for political gain. Also, I am not denying her drinking, it is just that some seem to be under the impression it is the problem of a deranged person when in reality the alcohol problem affects people across the spectrum in SA. Do you think her drinking is the reason for her controvertial stances on HIV/AIDS? If you are going to drag someone’s private life into the limelight you better be able to make a connection with her professional performance otherwise you are nothing but a heckler throwing rotten vegetables from the cheapest seats in the house. Also you must take into consideration that the privacy of her medical records that are protected by law were violated and that someone is walking around SA going unpunished for it. So if you want to make illegal and unethical behavior stick…it better stick!

Besides, your commander in Chief said, “using whatever tactics are legally and ethically permissible.”

Was stealing her medical files legal? was spilling it out in public ethical?

“Ya know pat for a guy you said stopped being a scientist long ago JP Moores doing some damn fine science this month!!”

He should stick to what he knows best. He’s sure no fucking diplomat.

Moore:

“So, no, I don’t see any way for anyone to have a meaningful dialog with the Mbeki regime, although I’m sure that some people in SA are still trying to do that.”

As I implied. Some never give up the good fight while the rest go home and sulk and behave like general pests and spoilers. Yes, he is a politician and you dive into it like a bloody beginner; alot like Bush. He also likes to declare “war” on problems. Maybe we should be thankful that you don’t command actual weapons. People like you don’t help. People like you are polarizers, not rainmakers.

“AIDS science is indeed in a war with the AIDS denialists, and the denialist leadership is indeed being targeted, not by violence or by threats of violence, but by legal and moral methods intended to destroy their ability to influence vulnerable people who have been persuaded to make choices that damage their health and the health of others. It will take time to defeat all the denialist leadership, but it’s being done (as some of them have already found out) and, in the end, science and morality will crush pseudoscience and evil.”

– the rantings of a deluded soul.

Posted by: pat | November 9, 2007 12:53 PM

“Personally, I know of no way to accomplish this. But then I don’t live in South Africa, and really, that’s a task for those who do, or who have high level contacts there.
John”

I know of one way to begin. Perhaps you can simply be quiet and do your research and stop spoiling the work of those who are still trying to build dialogue. Sound ok with you?

Posted by: pat | November 9, 2007 1:01 PM

I am not sure who it was who came up with this objection, but someone was saying there were no elecron micrographs of HIV in human blood, I think? A Google Images search of “HIV electron micrograph” got me hundreds of images, most of which were HIV on the surface of blood cells or budding from T-cells.

Posted by: jen_m | November 9, 2007 1:07 PM

I am actually spoiling Braganza’s fine work.

motus et bouche cousue. 😉 A.

Posted by: pat | November 9, 2007 1:11 PM

“The meeting was led by Dr. Joel B. Baseman, a mycoplasma expert at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center at San Antonio. He said the participants were ”very impressed with the quality of science that Dr. Lo’s group displayed.”

”The pathology data was solid and convinced us that the agent is in the tissues,” Dr. Baseman said. The ability of M. incognitus to cause a fatal wasting disease in monkeys and mice persuaded most participants that the microbe ”has the potential to cause disease in humans,”
Dr. joel Baseman new york times 1990

Thanks Aids establishment hacks for letting this microbe spread through the population, ruining my life, good work Tara and john, keep it up. Funny how hiv , hpv etc does zilch in animals, Kochs postulates turned upside down.

Read project day lily to find out how mycoplasma was part of the bioweapons program. True story slightly fictionilized, rave reviews from several scientists including a nobel laurete. What a nightmare, hiv might be harmless and this mycoplasma incognitus/penetrans is the only microbe to worry about………….

http://www.projectdaylily.com/

Posted by: cooler | November 9, 2007 1:11 PM

Braganza, I’m following your dialogue with John Moore but I’m not very familiar with AIDS in South Africa only to state that as a young child in the sixties, we all watched sick, thin and dying children from Africa on our tv sets. My question for you would be has anything really changed?

Several years ago I was diagnosed with AIDS, took the meds and had some side effects so I stopped them and found a better immune medicine. Since stopping the antiretrovirals, my viral load is high and CD4’s are low eighties yet I haven’t any AIDS defining diseases or opportunistic infections. I’m over 50, have a normal sex life and my husband is extremely healthy. MY VA doctors try to push drugs to me based on their test results but seem to be perplexed that I am doing so well. Clearly my symptoms are a much better indicator of my overall health then these test results. What do you think is going on?

Posted by: Noreen | November 9, 2007 1:17 PM

1) Are these from patients or from lab cultures? 2) Is there a study where a patient with a very high plasma viral load gets his/her blood looked under an electron microscope and you can actually see/corroborate the millions of viremia in the plasma? I really dont know and would like to see that experiment done to confirm this.

Or is duesberg correct when he says the viral load is created on a labratory bench?

Posted by: cooler | November 9, 2007 1:20 PM

Cooler, I too would like to know the answer to this. At my next appointment, I’m going to request that HIV be cultured and see how far I get with this request. It certainly would go farther to present their case than viral load tests. If HIV is in my body, then I would like to see it. Medical tests can be flawed. I have been told three different times that I have antibodies to Hep and at the last testing last month, the tests showed no antibodies to Hep B or Hep C. With unreliable tests, what is the patient to believe?

Posted by: Noreen | November 9, 2007 1:40 PM

Pat arguing with you is like cleaning up mercury with your fingers. It doesn’t work and it makes you stupid.

You say Moore isn’t a scientist. I show you his latest paper. Then you say science is what he does best. Sheesh.

Posted by: Adele | November 9, 2007 1:42 PM

“You say Moore isn’t a scientist. I show you his latest paper. Then you say science is what he does best. Sheesh.”

Everything flies above your head. Is it because you are sitting down? He has to decide what he wants and he admits himself that he doesn’t know what to do with Mbeki so he shouldn’t try because he is no fucking diplomat. He is a trained scientist and so should do what he “does best”. Got that? This “war on denial” is all in his head. He even imagines camps and “the” leadership. He needs chill pills.

Posted by: pat | November 9, 2007 1:48 PM

Noreen
as a young child in the sixties, we all watched sick, thin and dying children from Africa on our tv sets. My question for you would be has anything really changed?

As a young child in the seventies I saw pictures of people killed in Vietnam. In drivers ed we saw pictures of people killed in car accidents. The bodies looked the same. So vietnam war never happened there was just alot of car crashes?

Posted by: Adele | November 9, 2007 1:55 PM

Noreen, I think you probably won’t get very far asking your providers to furnish electromicrographs of HIV in your blood, just because most care settings aren’t equipped to send samples for EM (that is particularly true of VA, which is pretty restricted in terms of testing.) But it can’t hurt to ask, and probably you are overdue to have a conversation with your health care providers about how the tests they use actually work, and what the drawbacks and advantages are. (My experience with VA healthcare suggests that providers are pretty rushed, especially in the clinics. But stand on your rights as a patient, and make them take the time you need.)

Cooler and Noreen: no, to the best of my knowledge there isn’t a side-by-side comparison of viral load to electron micrograph (EM) visualization of HIV particles. That’s probably because EM isn’t the standard to determine the presence of HIV.

I’m no expert in nucleic acid amplification testing (a family of tests including HIV-1 viral load tests) but my understanding is that the calibration of the test is based on titrated samples of HIV DNA (and negative controls containing test reagents without HIV DNA). So there’s a direct comparison between a known quantity of viral DNA and the sample extracted from the patient’s blood.

Posted by: jen_m | November 9, 2007 2:35 PM

Adele, I wouldn’t bother trying to hold any form of interchange with “pat”. He or she is a fool who isn’t even able to read what another poster writes without misunderstanding the words and drawing wild and inaccurate conclusions. The only difference between pat and the other trolls on this site (cooler, michael, jspreen) is that Pat can type and spell with at least moderate competence; otherwise the mindset is the same. Your mercury allusion is rather good.

John

Posted by: John Moore | November 9, 2007 3:02 PM

Whatever john, you cant even spell correctly, you make fun of other scientists while they die of cancer, and you deny people informed consent when it comes to their health. You can’t defend a single one of your zany views publicly, I mean look at what a fool Ive made of you guys, there isnt one EM picture from a patient’s plasma confirming these high viral loads.

Funny how Dr. Joel Baseman was so impressed with shyh ching Lo’s work, and his ability for mycoplasma incognitus to produce a fatal wasting disease in mice and monkeys, he reccomended further funding, and your hiv hack pals like Fauci sabotoged it and almost killed me and many others. Hiv, hpv etc does zilch in animals

“The meeting was led by Dr. Joel B. Baseman, a mycoplasma expert at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center at San Antonio. He said the participants were ”very impressed with the quality of science that Dr. Lo’s group displayed.”

”The pathology data was solid and convinced us that the agent is in the tissues,” Dr. Baseman said. The ability of M. incognitus to cause a fatal wasting disease in monkeys and mice persuaded most participants that the microbe ”has the potential to cause disease in humans, New York Times 1990

Project day lily google it. True story slightly fictionilized, written by 2 of the top cancer reserachers, Garth and Nancy Nicolson phds rave reviews from several scientists, including a nobel laurete. Part of the bioweapons program, thats why a military scientist Lo knew so much about it.

Posted by: cooler | November 9, 2007 3:19 PM

The latest edition of the International AIDS Society Newsletter contains a feature article entitled “AIDS in South Africa”, as well as a short review of Nicoli Nattrass’s book “Mortal Combat”. The Newsletter can be downloaded via:

http://www.iasociety.org/Web/WebContent/File/Newsletters/2007_11_IAS_Newsletter.pdf

Posted by: John Moore | November 9, 2007 3:37 PM

Ya know pat for a guy you said stopped being a scientist long ago JP Moores doing some damn fine science this month!!

Correction: somebody added Moore’s name to the list. Ye know, if a publication is not subscribed by at least 6 peer revewiers (read inbred critics), it is not science today. But if you ask for my opinion, I think that all J. Pee Moore has achieved this month is write silly messages on the web and declare war on people who still own something like a working brain. What kind of professor is that, anyway? A “Holy Inquisition” lackey, that’s what he is.

You know, Copernicus was not opposed to by the clergy, as many people think, but by scientists. By the JPeeMoore kind of scientists. I know exactly how Copernicus must have felt: like I do myself when I read “professor” Moore’s contributions to health care.

Posted by: jspreen | November 9, 2007 3:59 PM

Noreen –

You should be able to request HIV cultures in some form, such as phenotypic drug resistance testing for example. HIV culture is sometimes performed for difficult diagnoses (e.g. indeterminate WB results, neonatal infection etc).

You are unlikely to find a center able or willing to culture and then do an HIV EM however, if you want to “see” the virus.

The fact that you appear to have lost antibody responses to a virus is actually kinda worrying. It has been known for some time that loss of pre-existing antibody responses is a sign of end-stage AIDS, and your CD4 counts fit with that. It’s not the test that is unreliable, but rather your immune system…

I would recommend seeing an HIV doc for therapy, or PCP prophylaxis at least, as well as for your concerns about culture.

Good luck, all the best.

Bennett

Posted by: Bennett | November 9, 2007 4:23 PM

Bennett, I must respectfully disagree with you as for almost 1 1/2 years my cd4’s have been low yet I do not have one disease that is commont to AIDS persons. In other words, if I were HIV- then the doctors would think that I”m in great shape. Think about this, we HIV+’s have antibodies to HIV, which according to classic medicine is a wonderful thing to have. Antibodies means the virus has long come and gone and is nowhere to be found as is my illusive Hepatitis antibodies.

Posted by: Noreen | November 9, 2007 4:48 PM

antibodies to HIV, which according to classic medicine is a wonderful thing to have.

You mean according to Peter Duesberg. Good news I guess my antibodies to Varicella mean I don’t ever get shingles?? Great!! Nothing to worry about!!

Posted by: Adele | November 9, 2007 5:11 PM

Noreen,

I only wish what you said about antibodies were true. Unfortunately, Duesberg stated it to be true many years ago (despite all the evidence to the contrary) and the myth has persisted since. Speaking as someone trained in “classic medicine” I can tell that that I was never told that antibodies were “wonderful things to have”, nor that they meant a pathogen had come and gone. I don’t know who told you that, but they were either mistaken or deliberately lying to you. I can’t put it any plainer than that.

All antibodies have ever meant (and I’m not talking about IgM classes here, to clarify) is exposure to an antigen – be it a pathogen, an allergen or whatever. For pathogens that are acutely cleared (e.g. bacterial infections, the common cold) antibodies mean exposure and cure. For pathogens that are chronic (herpes, mono, HIV) antibodies mean life-long infection. It has always been the case, and Duesberg should have known better. I find it incredibly sad that people, such as yourself, are being told these things by Duesberg’s followers decades after the mistake was pointed out (and it was, in public) and should have been retracted.

Low CD4 counts are a RISK for opportunistic infections, in the same way as if you roll dice there is a RISK of rolling snake-eyes. If you don’t get exposed to them, you’ll do fine, and if the average time to get sick from an OI even with low CD4 counts is around a year or two then of course there will be people who do it quicker and slower. You’re not unusual in that respect, and I hope you stay that way!!

My concern would be that if you have recently got documented loss of antibody responses to one infection, it is likely that you may have undocumented loss of responses to other infections that you were exposed to (say, as a kid or through vaccinations). That means that should you get exposed to the pathogen, you are more likely to get sick. Of all the OI’s that can get you really sick, PCP is one that is relatively preventable with prophylaxis – which is why I would recommend talking to your doctor about it. HIV be damned, in any person with a vulnerable immune system (e.g. high-dose long-term steroids, anti-cancer therapy etc) PCP is worth trying to prevent. Your CD4 count is about 10% of the normal, which by any stretch of the imagination can’t be a good thing to be wandering around with (it would be similar to having a platelet count of 20 for example, or a hemoglobin of 1.4….)

The question you have to ask yourself is “why are my CD4 T cell 10% of normal?” Either you were born that way (in which case you deserve to be written up as someone who has remarkably managed to survive with what looks like a crippled immune system, on paper) or it was acquired. An Acquired Immune Deficiency. Hmm.

Anyhow, if I can’t convince you, that’s your choice. But I beg you to think about what I’ve said, and the fact that what you are describing is ENTIRELY consistent with “classic medicine” (whatever that may be 😉 and the understanding we have of HIV and AIDS. I don’t debate one-on-one with AIDS dissidents any more, but I am concerned about an individual person who appears to be at risk of getting sick, and is listening to AIDS denialism. That’s why I’m posting, for what its worth.

Stay well

Cheers

Bennett

Posted by: Bennett | November 9, 2007 5:33 PM

Noreen, Your comment “Antibodies means the virus has long come and gone and is nowhere to be found” is simply untrue. The antibody response to HIV infection does very little to control HIV replication once the virus has become established in the body post transmission. Once infection is established, the virus is present in the immune system’s cells for the rest of your life. What the denialists have persuaded you to believe is simply nonsense, and its very, very dangerous to your survival. Your reference to “classic medicine” is disturbing. HIV causes persistent infection, and that differs from many (but not all) viruses that “classic medicine” is familiar with. The fact is that you have ongoing, high level HIV replication taking place in your body right now, and it is causing inexorable and progressive immune system destruction. Bennett is correct: the loss of your antibody responses to HCV and HBV is a very disturbing sign of how your immune system is being destroyed by HIV. You may well also be losing your immune responses to other pathogens, leaving you at increased risk of opportunistic infections (antibodies to some pathogens can prevent the establishment of new infections). You are healthy now, but it’s just a matter of time before the degradation of your immune system will cause you very, very serious health problems. The survival time for people with HIV infection and CD4 counts below 100 is limited; it varies from person to person, but you are in grave danger of death during the coming year.

You need to get better health care advice than you have received in the past. I could probably arrange for you to be seen by top HIV specialists at a leading medical center (depending on where you live). Tara can put you in direct touch with me. I urge you to do that, as that phone call could literally save your life.

I’m going to ignore every (and predictable) denialist response to this posting; this is about saving someone’s life, not about a Blog.

Posted by: John Moore | November 9, 2007 5:44 PM

Noreen like pat says we fight like cats some times but I’m worried about you too and I hope you take dr. moore and dr. bennett’s advice. They know alot more about HIV then Peter Duesberg. We all want you to have a good long life not be a victim from a stupid virus they control with good treatments now.

Posted by: Adele | November 9, 2007 6:06 PM

Bennett and John, First I really wanted to hear from Braganza, who seemed like a voice of reason on this blog. I can’t stand how you people throw the word “denalist” around. Am I a denialist, just because my health is fine by quitting the antiretrovirals more than 21 months ago? I don’t think it’s written in stone that we should have one-size-fits all in medicine. Perhaps, the antiretrovirals work for some people, that’s fine. But they don’t work for me – other than causing pain, symptoms, abnormal lab work and discomfort.
As for antibodies, I always thought that when measles, mumps, hepatits, etc. has come and gone, odds were that I would never have them again, only the antibodies. Also, low CD4’s seem to be meaningless. I would think that you would concede this point as myself and many others are living this truth. Again, regardless of test results, I am in good health. I’m not too keen on changing my routines. Maybe you would admit that there is something to LDN, a cheap drug , which is helping to modualte the immune system. My blood and liver enzymes are now normal and I am no longer anemic after stopping the AIDS drugs. How do you explain this?

As for John’s offer to refer me to the top so-called AIDS specialist, you know I am more than willing to accept. I’ll talk to anyone about this. I’m pretty open-minded. But I would like an AIDS doctor to explain why my health is good inspite of all these terrible numbers. John says I’m in grave danger of death the coming year. But, they’ver been saying this for nearly a couple of years and I’m still fine. So is my husband. I still would like to hear Brazanza’s opinion.

Posted by: noreen | November 9, 2007 7:55 PM

I dont understand jp moores philosophy, he beleives people like Noreen and I are despicable scum for believing some of Duesberg’s arguments, were stupid, worthless, crazy, so why is extending so much compassion for someone who is in a group he has deemed worthless to society?

Maybe if you didnt have such hatred for people who have different views than you, they would listen to you more, why would anybody listen to someone who calls you a “denialist” “loon” etc. Looks like JP moores name calling has come back to slap him in the face. If hiv does cause aids there is a much more civil way to express it, and don’t try and be someones savior when youve insulted the group their in repeatedly, even if you’re right, its not an effective way to convince others.

Posted by: cooler | November 9, 2007 8:10 PM

Bennett, if you are a M.D. then I would encourage you to investigate LDN at the lowdosenaltrexone.org website or better yet talk with Dr. Gluck, Bihari or Zagon. You might even listen to those who take this wonder drug. You and others have the power to change lives for the better. I have found a better way to health, regardless of where you all stand on what causes AIDS.

John, since I have had the following I don’t think that you can put any fear into my brain: cancer and its terrible treatments, hepatitis, bladder damage causing cystitis, allergic reactions, cellulitis(twice), welts, pinched nerves, herniated discs, GERD, osteoporosis, diarrhea, memory loss, night sweats, unsteady gait, cold sores, dizziness, weight loss, hair loss, Epstein Barr, abnormal grey matter in brain (PML or encephalitis),lymphadenopathy causing severe breathing problems, tachycardia, high chloesterol, two hypodensities in the liver, dilated bile duct, fatty deplaced liver, anemia, low platelets, mono, kidney stone, tinnitis, mercury and lead toxicity, pain issues and chronic fatigue.

I have been prescribed over 25 drugs in a two year period. I have had a lifetime of conditions, which had caused my poor health. Finally, I received a proper diagnosis of what has been causing the majority of my problems, which is fibromyalgia not HIV. All things considered, either I am a walking miracle or the LDN has been my lifesaver.

Posted by: Noreen | November 9, 2007 9:33 PM

Apparently Tara closed the “Denialism they don’t remember” thread, so I must resort to putting a response to other posts here.

Thank you Chris Noble for at least having the courtesy of responding to my lengthy post from a couple weeks ago.

Chris Noble said:

“As usual Drain [sic] Brown totally misunderstands the nature of the problem. It is encumbent upon the Denialists to demonstrate to the scientific community that any of their theories have any merit.”

What a load of horseshit. YOU’RE the ones spending billions of dollars. YOU’RE the ones pumping people full of highly toxic ARVs. YOU’RE the ones instilling terror in people. YOU’RE the ones calling on people to be fired and hoping their careers be ruined. What a load of horseshit.

I’ve been looking for ELEVEN years to find ANY justification for what you people are doing. I haven’t found an acceptable answer yet. Yes, it’s true I’ve been supplied with a few papers ON OCCASION such as Chris Noble did above, but none of these even come close to establishing causation. Apologists would say it’s because I “don’t understand the science” or “don’t understand the papers”. I say it’s because the papers don’t prove what you say they do. And I’m willing to put my reputation and career on the line to take it to the people to let them decide for themselves and let them take away power away from the establishment which is the only way this entire affair will ever end. This is a political problem, 100%, and political revolution is the only solution.

“Denialists suffer from the delusion that the world revolves around them.”

I don’t think the world revolves around ANYone.

“There are plenty of cranks on the internet demanding that people prove Einstein’s relativity to them.”

Which is entirely irrelevant to this.

“Duesberg and Bialy have demonstrated that they will ignore any evidence presented to them.”

What evidence?? For gods sake don’t say Ascher or Schecter or Darby. Really, Chris, you’re like a friggin broken record.

In my estimation, apologists have demonstrated that THEY will ignore any evidence presented to THEM: Piatak, Padian, Rodriguez, and so on. Yes, I know there are “responses” to each of these (usually some form of childish taunting on AIDStruth or somewhere else, the equivalent of “nanny-nanny-nanny, YES SO YES SO YES SO, well I triple-dog-dare you, what about that??”), eventually it will be left both to those scientists who work outside HIV or aren’t emotionally attached to it, or finally to the general public to recognize how shitty and pathetic the orthodox responses to them have been. As I’ve pointed out before, the main reasons there is such a consensus at the moment are:

1. Financial (money at stake)
2. Cultural (science is as much a society/culture as anything else, you’re brought up into it)
3. Political (pressure to conform, with severe consequences for those who don’t)
4. Emotional/Social (doctors can’t give up HIV because it would diminish the priestly role over life and death they’ve acquired in the past several decades)
5. Saving face (self-explanatory)

There are cases in the literature where scientists and doctors literally HALLUCINATED evidence for disease causation. They were certain at the time that they were seeing “evidence” for such causation, but in time, it was shown their notions were completely wrong and their interpretations and observations entirely a product of their mental state and loss of touch with reality.

As long as these forces are in place among those in power in science and medicine, HIV will continue to mesmerize the minds of medical scientists just as ecclesiastic and religious debates about angels on the head of a pin and requirements for salvation mesmerized the religious elite for centuries, and they will be powerless to see reality in front of their face.

It will also continue to hold political sway. The HIV hypothesis is purely, 100% a POLITICAL problem, NOT a scientific problem. The evidence was non-existent 20-25 years ago, and it’s even less existent now.

Since the HIV hypothesis is purely a political problem, POLITICAL INTERFERENCE is the ONLY solution to this problem. The people MUST take power away from those holding this PHENOMENON in place. This is why this issue MUST be taken to the PEOPLE. The people are not emotionally wed to the hypothesis, and they will recognize the enormous chasm between the hypothesis and reality sooner than anyone else.

“I could go through and find some of these key papers, for instance Jay Levy’s isolation of ARV in 1984 that replicated Gallo’s and Montagniers work, Weiss’s demonstration that HIV binds to receptors on CD4+ cells. There are several other key papers published in this time period. These are what convinced the scientific community.”

Let it be written for posterity that Chris Noble offered the following papers published between May 1984 and October 1986 as proof of the HIV hypothesis:

1. Montagnier’s paper — a paper which even Montagnier at the time didn’t think proved anything re: causation

2. Gallo’s 4 Science papers — where HIV could only be “isolated” in 26 of 72 “AIDS” patients, and in which HIV could only be “isolated” by stimulating cell cultures with IL-2 and PHA and detecting certain phenomena ASSUMED to be proof of the presence of a retrovirus, hardly proof of anything

3. Levy’s “isolation” of ARV — again, HIV could only be “isolated” in 22 of 45 patients with AIDS, only marginally more “frequent” (!) than Gallo’s attempt

These 3 papers are completely laughable in establishing causation. The best that can be said is that after taking cells from AIDS patients and subjecting them to enormous mitogenic stimulation, SOME of them began producing effects INTERPRETED by SOME as evidence of an infectious exogenous retrovirus.

How on earth this proves ANYthing is beyond me. All it’s saying is [assuming “isolation” is really “isolation”], “Look! We ‘isolated’ HIV from a fraction of ‘AIDS’ patients! It must be the cause!!”

What a friggin joke. If this is your idea of the foundation upon which to devote $2 US billion per annum and a massive educational campaign, you’ve got one more screw loose than I thought.

4. Weiss demonstration that HIV binds to receptors on CD4 cells — despite the fact we now know that almost all “HIV particles” lack the gp120 spikes supposedly necessary to “bind” to CD4 cells, rendering them essentially non-infectious and therefore pathogenically irrelevant

Nice try, Chris. But I have to at least give you enormous credit for offering a response at all.

“Dairn [sic] also ignores several papers such as those by Ascher et al, Schechter et al and Darby et al that have specifically dealt with and refuted Duesberg’s claims.”

Oh, give me a break. Duesberg’s responses to all 3 of these are out there for anyone to read on the internet and make up their own mind. Schechter, if I recall, wouldn’t even share his god-damn data, rendering the entire study completely worthless on that point alone.

Even if one grants the studies prove what they say (and I’m not granting that), all 3 of these are purely epidemiological studies. All they prove is a correlation at best. Alone, they don’t prove the HIV hypothesis at all. I’m almost embarrassed explaining this to you.

It all comes down to what I wrote almost 2 years ago in the magnificent pipedream (a document that is still extremely instructive and would be to relative newcomers to this blog, simply go to Harvey’s page and scroll down to “a magnificent pipedream” under “insurgency blogging”):

“The epidemiology is supposedly used to justify the biological ‘quest’ for how HIV kills T cells or causes ‘AIDS’, yet at the same time, the epidemiology REQUIRES some kind of biological justification to move itself from beyond the realm of epidemiological surveillance tool and into the realm of gestalt diagnosis. The biology is supposed to justify the epidemiology, yet at the same time, the epidemiology is supposed to justify the biology. Another example of the ubiquitous circular logic of ‘AIDS science’. Caveat emptor.”

All of your “epidemiological” (I put that word in parentheses given in my own experience — granted, primarily with HIV/AIDS — that its illogical practices strain the label of “scientific discipline” to its limits) “evidence” is based on WHAT?? HIV ANTIBODY TESTS?? And what are the antibody tests based upon? Proof that the HIV tests are sensitive and specific for HIV. Which is itself based upon some clear knowledge of what the hell “HIV” is in the first place. If your BIOLOGICAL understanding of the nature of “HIV” is all screwed up, then all the epidemiological evidence in the world is just being misinterpreted at best or contrived at worst. It all comes down to what I was taught as a mathematician — YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND YOUR BASIC DEFINITIONS AND NOTIONS FIRST or else all the rest of your thinking will be completely nonsensical.

Likewise, the biological “evidence” in these early papers is entirely based on the notion that HIV is sexually transmitted and that “AIDS” is a coherent infectious disease. Who in their right MIND — without ALREADY accepting the notion that HIV and AIDS are both infectious and sexually transmitted would for a second consider Montagnier, Gallo, and Levy’s papers as proof of JACK SQUAT???

“If science worked the way that Denialists pretend then we would still be trying to convince phogiston proponents that oxygen exists.”

What a load of crap. The problem is not that science “works a certain way”, it’s that scientists are human like everyone else, and once the scientific process gets off on false branch of reasoning (which it inevitably will at times), the process of science itself will force science down that false branch of reasoning unless some external force is applied to make it conform more to reality. The process of hypothesis generation, experimentation, observation, and modification only works if all agents are allowed to pursue all avenues of investigation. When one narrow branch is pursued and all others completely cut off, IF that branch happens to be wrong, then the scientific process will continue working away and away, generating ad hoc hypotheses and further explanations and more and more branches in all and every conceivable direction will shoot off, desperately trying to “find” the branch of reality that has been cut off. As Feyerabend said, “VARIETY OF OPINION IS NECESSARY FOR OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE.” And the variety of opinion was certainly cut off prematurely in 1984-86, and the result has been predictable.

Trrll offered the following in response to my question (again, such response is appreciated):

“It is likely that much of the work that convinced people in the field was not actually published by that time. What typically occurs when a hot result is published is that labs all over the world jump on it and start trying to replicate it and extend it. After a year and a half, little of that work will have been published, but scientists in the field will be talking to one another about it, and will have a good idea of whether other labs are able to confirm it. So all of the people actually working in the field will know if the ‘buzz’ is favorable or unfavorable, and this is one point at which a new theory can collapse. So it is hardly surprising that after 17 months there was general agreement among virologists that the evidence for the virus was strong enough to support a major effort. Then there is a second phase in which those results are published, and begin to convince clinicians and scientists who are working on other aspects of the disease. [Followed by a link to the ever-popular NIAID/NIH “factsheet”]”

and later

“By ‘buzz,’ I am referring to the less formal communications between scientists that precede formal publication. Scientists in a field generally have a good idea whether a research direction is proving fruitful before the papers come out. Considering the potential importance of the discovery, everybody jumped on it, trying to reproduce and extend the results. This often happens in science when there is a possible breathrough. If the follow-up studies fail, then everybody drops that direction en masse, and the blip in funding dies out quickly. It is not a matter of faith — it is a matter of following up a potentially important result to find out whether it is valid or a blind alley as quickly as possible. And as we know, the follow-up studies supported the initial findings, and the rest is history.”

and from another post:

“There are many points at which the HIV hypothesis could have faltered based on subsequent work: if Duesberg’s original claims that HIV was not present in many AIDS patients had been confirmed once sensitive PCR tests had become available, if people had been found to mount an effective immune response to HIV as Duesberg claimed, if anti-HIV drugs had not been found to postpone the onset of AIDS in clinical trials and in the practical experience of AIDS doctors, if a plausible mechanism for HIV infection of cells of the immune system had not been found, etc., etc.”

This forms the ENTIRE extent (unless I’ve missed something, do point out) of Trrll’s “response” to my query for what convinced the IOM to devote $2 US billion per annum in the name of the HIV hypothesis.

WHAT A LOAD OF ****ING HORSESHIT.

REALLY, HOW CAN ANY OF YOU PEOPLE READ THIS ABSOLUTELY PATHETIC CRAP WITH A STRAIGHT FACE?? WHAT THE **** IS THE MATTER WITH YOU PEOPLE READING THIS BLOG?????????

Meanwhile, “ElkMountain” (whoever he/she is) offers the following wonderfully insightful commentary on the nature of scientific process:

“Think about the denialist fantasy of what really happened in the 1980s. What if it were true that two or three labs misled the entire world with nothing more than correlations? What if your IOM was premature with its statement? What if?… Answer: everyone involved in the scam would have been sliced to pieces, their careers ruined, mercilessly and within a few years, by hordes of skeptical scientists. And if there was a ‘gravy train’ in play, then doubly. With nothing more than correlation supporting HIV and AIDS, rival scientists would have found a more plausible explanation, double-time, and steered all the money into their own labs…. Instead, the hordes of skeptical scientists, to the disappointment of many of them, could only confirm the HIV link to AIDS again and again. Thousands of experiments later, there still is no alternative explanation for AIDS that holds up in the lab… If any rethinker reading this has a better explanation for AIDS, don’t keep it to yourself. Experiment, support, and publish, and you will become the most famous scientist of our time.”

And then we have “Dr. Duke” from the complete outer edges of the universe, claiming Callen and Ashe never took recreational or pharmaceutical drugs (WTFF???) or that they claimed this themselves (WRONG on both counts, as anyone even REMOTELY familiar with ANYthing knows):

“HIV-infected people such as Michael Callen and Arthur Ashe who lead very ‘clean’ and healthy lives, died of AIDS… My point was that…denialists simply ‘rethink’ the issue and declare that Michael Callen must have been lying about his healthy lifestyle”

Then the Small Inquisitor proceeds to offer the following VIRTUOSIC double-talk and side-stepping that would make even Bill “it depends what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is” Clinton proud as a peacock:

“That NY Press article was published BEFORE the LA Coroner’s report into the death of Ms Maggiore’s daughter became publicly available. That report proves that MS Maggiore is HIV-infected because it shows that her daughter died of AIDS, with p24 antigens detected in her brain tissues (I think it is safe to discount the incredibly unlikely possibility that the daughter acquired her HIV infection from any source other than her mother). Once the LA Coroner’s report became available, it therefore provided solid medical evidence on the HIV infection status of Ms Maggiore, evidence that outweighs Ms Maggiore’s own, and conflicting public statements on the issue.”

And Chris again:

“How can you ignore the natural history studies that show a much higher mortality in people that are infected with HIV?”

as if Chris has never even HEARD of the perth group

Really, I’m serious. I don’t know WHAT the **** is the problem with you people.

The posts on this blog have gone beyond attempts at scientific discussions or even political rantings or even ill-mannered personal attacks, and have entered the realm of HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS for future generations to ponder over the absolutely stunningly pathetic statements made here.

darin

Posted by: Darin Brown | November 9, 2007 10:20 PM

Hi Noreen,

The word “denialist” is used to describe what used to be called AIDS dissidents – I personally use the terms interchangeably having been following this whole sad debacle for so long. The change I think came about because after a decade or more of trying to educate the dissidents, they continued to refuse to accept the science – they denied the evidence.

I would make a great distinction between someone like yourself who is living with HIV seeking answers, and someone trying to GIVE you the wrong answers.

I think your opinions of medicine are skewed – no-one I know in medicine thinks “one size fits all”, least of all in HIV. It is unfortunate that you’ve suffered from the meds without any apparent benefit. The overall evidence for groups of thousands of patients is that antiretroviral therapy prolongs life, prevents OI’s and death. Among that group some will do spectacularly well, some will do badly. At the outset it’s impossible to predict with certainty who will fall into what category – although you can make educated guesses based upon more data as you go. For example, after HAART was introduced evidence accumulated that starting meds too late (e.g. counts under 200) resulted in less recovery of the immune system (as measured by CD4 counts, antibody responses, killer T cell responses etc). However, evidence also accumulated that starting at higher counts (e.g. 500) didn’t result in much benefit either, as those people weren’t at a significantly increased risk of OI’s in the first place. This is why guidelines currently recommend starting somewhere around 350.

Regarding antibodies – mumps and measles are the classic acute infections that have life-long immunity. RSV or rotavirus on the other hand are acute infections that don’t induce life-long immunity. Hepatitis A is an acute infection, but hepatitis B and C are chronic infections in some instances. Even that can change – 90% of neonatally infected kids with hep B become chronic, whereas the same is true of only 10% of adults. About 50% of hep C infections become chronic. In these situations other tests are required to check for ongoing infection (antigen testing, PCR etc). In infections like EBV (mono) the antibody pattern can be used to distinguish between acute, chronic and latent infection. None of this is new, or high tech, and all of it was known when Duesberg make his stupid statements. He had this pointed out to him and STILL continued to say the same things. Saying something that is untrue repeatedly doesn’t make it true, but it does convince and confuse a lot of people.

CD4 counts are not meaningless because the evidence shows the increased risk (NOT CERTAINTY REMEMBER!) of getting sick. Here’s a good bit of evidence:

http://www.retroconference.org/2001/posters/203.pdf

Figure 4 shows the following: in the people they studied with counts over 350 there were 2 deaths per 100 person-years. In people with 50-100 CD4 T cells per ul there were 15 deaths per 100 person-years (so, out of 100 people 15 would die in a single year). With counts under 25 half of the group died each year. That still means that half survived, but it doesn’t mean that the counts were “meaningless” in those people, and in the same way your count isn’t meaningless in you – it means you’re at a much higher risk than I am. How you play those odds is up to you.

Evidence from non-HIV related PCP also shows a relationship with low CD4 counts.

http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/content/abstract/118/3/712

The abstract ends with “These data suggest that for immunosuppressed persons without HIV infection (especially in low or undefined PCP risk groups), CD4 + counts may be a useful clinical marker to identify specific individuals at particularly high clinical risk for PCP and may help to guide chemoprophylaxis.”

This makes sense biologically. CD4 cells are the lynchpins of the immune system – they act as the go-between for antigen-presenting cells (that tell the immune system something is there) and antibody producing B cells and CD8 killer T cells. This is why in HIV infection there are dysfunctions seen in both B cell and killer T cell responses.

A very interesting, but long, study is at:

http://www.statepi.jhsph.edu/macs/dossier/MACS%20Dossier.pdf

Page 59 is interesting. It shows the percentage of people who died over time from various timepoints – it clearly shows improved survival in the HAART era. This study, the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study, has over a million blood samples from men and women enrolled prospectively from the 1980’s. Some were already HIV+, some became HIV+ over time. Some were of course untreated, some were partially treated, some got HAART. Contrary to EVERYTHING the dissidents argue, antiretroviral therapy is associated with a lower risk of death.

This is why John and I are hoping you’ll get help, because of evidence like this. You tell your own story, but we’re telling the story of tens of thousands of similar people. If you’ve had serious issues with the meds, you need to talk options over with someone who can offer options that might alleviate these problems.

I can’t speak on behalf of John, but from the interactions I’ve had with him he is terribly upset at the AIDS denialists, the core denialsts, who have promoted this BS and continue to do so. It’s hard to find a reason why some of these people are doing it without attributing either willful ignorance (i.e. they are choosing not to be educated) or some kind of weird agenda. I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt, but from my personal interactions with people like Duesberg and the Perth Group I find it difficult to comprehend why they ignore the evidence that contradicts them and misrepresent the evidence that is supposed to support their case. Cherry-picking and lying are the actions needed to support AIDS denialism. The antibody story is an example of both:

e.g. “Mumps, measles etc all are cured with antibody production and I’m going to ignore the example of herpes, mono, hepatitis B etc[cherry picking], so all viruses are cured with antibody production [lying]” That is EXACTLY what Duesberg did, and no-one can argue it any other way. The same pattern is used through EVERY AIDS denialist argument. I have no idea why – I’m not in their heads. All I can do is point out the errors, the cherry-picking and the lying, and let the readers such as yourself make up your minds.

I’m happy to answer any further questions – probably easier to go to email. njb35@cantab.net.

Cheers

Bennett

Posted by: Bennett | November 9, 2007 10:46 PM

Cooler, your assessment of what I think of you is the first accurate thing you have ever said on this Blog. However, your assessment of what I think of Noreen is as inaccurate and foolish as every other post that you ever made here.

Posted by: John Moore | November 9, 2007 11:36 PM

Noreen, my offer to try to find an HIV specialist physician for you to consult still stands. Tara knows my contact details and I have asked her to pass them to you upon request. I feel sure that if you ask him to, Bennett would also talk to you one on one.
John

Posted by: John Moore | November 9, 2007 11:40 PM

A recent article in Science about HIV vaccines

The failure of a promising AIDS vaccine in a large human trial, dubbed STEP, has stunned researchers and raised concerns about the broader T-cell vaccine concept and the future of AIDS vaccine research and development.

It certainly didn’t “stun” me. The quest for a vaccine is a FAILURE.

Do microbicides fare any better?

Here’s an article from July this year

Investigators remain puzzled about why a supposedly safe anti-HIV microbicidal gel turned out to increase the risk of HIV in women who used it.

Using the microbicide increased, not decreased, the risk of HIV. The quest for a microbicide is a FAILURE.

John Moore explains it nicely in Seed Magazine.

You always have to plan for failure in the HIV game,” said John Moore, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Cornell University.

Vaccines & Microbicides: Failure
Wasting Tax-payer money: Success

Posted by: John Givens | November 9, 2007 11:44 PM

Moore, I’m sorry you lack critical thinking skills and are too stupid to understand your own dogma. Noreen is a denialist, she has repeatedly doubted the hiv hypothesis, so by your definition she is worthless to society, as am I.
Dont create desultory sanctimonious excuses to dig yourself out of your lies and double standards. (“All denialists are stupid and worthless, but when it suits me and makes me look good then they are not.”)

Is everybody at Cornell as dumb as you are?

Posted by: cooler | November 10, 2007 12:08 AM

great post Darin, these people are mad. They tried to kill me and countless others by ignoring the military’s cheif infectious disease pathologist shyh ching lo’s md phd mycoplasma incognitus/penetrans.

Every animal he inoculated it with died, and he found in no healthy controls. He found it to be the cause of death in 6 people that died of mysterious infections. I was sick for years without a diagnosis, and am on the mend. (refrences in lonliness causes aids thread)

These people are enemies of informed consent and want people to to only hear views that are endorsed by drug companies or crooked politicians like Fauci.

Posted by: cooler | November 10, 2007 12:27 AM

1987: New York Times — AIDS Vaccine: Relentless Questions

EVEN as scientific understanding of the AIDS virus advances, researchers working to develop an AIDS vaccine continue to be plagued by severe practical and ethical dilemmas.

1993: New York Times –Little Progress Seen in Effort to Crack AIDS Puzzle.

“Our progress seems desperately slow,” Dr. Michael H. Merson, the director of the World Health Organization’s AIDS program, said at the close of the weeklong meeting.

2007: New York Times — In Tests, AIDS Vaccine Seems to Increase Risk

“The new analyses are both disappointing and puzzling” because they offer no explanation for the vaccine’s failure, said Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, a partner in the vaccine trial.

After Billions spent in research, we have more than 2 decades of utter failure. Anyone seeing a pattern?

Posted by: John Givens | November 10, 2007 12:29 AM

You are healthy now, but it’s just a matter of time before the degradation of your immune system will cause you very, very serious health problems. The survival time for people with HIV infection and CD4 counts below 100 is limited; it varies from person to person, but you are in grave danger of death during the coming year.

Hey Johnny Wishbone Moore MD(?), was that a threat or just an expression of your pious hopes?

I need to know because I have archived this statement along with your many other abuses of freedom of speech. Expect another letter to your university about these issues very soon.

In the meantime, I suppose you consider yourself a ranking scientist, somebody who has a superior obligation not to disseminate misleading information regarding clinical conditions, so can you tell me the basis for your statement; did you consult Noreen’s medical records, viral load-HIV correlation, your Tarot deck? Tea leaves? macaque familiar?

PS, I liked your “this war was thrust upon us”, and “we don’t negotiate with anybody except the terms of their surrender” speeches. Have you ever thought of becoming foreign policy advisor? Maybe speech writer for Dick Cheney? Your self-important rethoric and idolization of Churchill, dragging the poor dead man, rest his soul, into all kinds of ridiculous contexts to support your hyperbole, would fit right i with all the other neo-con chickenshits who always find a way of staying well behind the front lines.

You are willing to fight in the hills, on the beaches and what not, eh brave Sir John? Whenever you have a minute to spare from all your hairy chest thumping, perhaps you could slot in a fight with Christine Maggiore in a geographical location of your choice – face to face for once?

Dr. Bennet, who has just graced these pages, has also retired himself from the active duty of engaging dissidents personally he tells us. Actually it was Jeffrey Dach who retired Dr. Bennett after this public humiliation – cheers indeed:

Which brings me [Jeffrey Dach] to the point of my descent, that began after I read the Sept 27 JAMA 2006 article by Rodriguez et al. showing essentially no correlation between CD4 cell count and HIV viral load – indicating that unchecked virus replication is not killing the CD4 cells. On the same day, I posted this information at the misc.health.aids newsgroup and quickly realized that I had entered the proverbial snake pit.
My posted message was almost a direct quote from the JAMA authors: “The noncorrelation in the Figure 3 (click on the miniature to the left) scattergram on page 1504 is the finding which indicates that HIV plasma RNA level (HIV viral load) is not a reliable predictor of CD4 cell loss in HIV infection and challenges the concept that the magnitude of viral replication is the main determinant of the speed of CD4 cell loss at the individual level.”
I promptly received a reply from a Nick Bennett, who turns out to be an MD /PhD from Cambridge (UK), currently a pediatric infectious disease resident trainee in NY, and a self appointed guardian of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. He explained to me in a condescending and extremely arrogant manner that, “No, I am mistaken, the JAMA article actually confirms a correlation between CD4 cell count and HIV viral load. There is indeed a linear trend in Figure 3, because the R-squared Coefficient of Correlation is not zero.”
This absurdity revealed the lie behind the credentials, as clearly the man knows nothing about linear regression analysis. The Figure 3 R-squared is actually 0.04, which for statistical purposes is just slightly above zero. R-squared values range from zero to 1.0, with 1.0 indicating a straight line and zero indicating a random pattern of dots very much like Figure 3.
Bennett continued his post by questioning my training and background and ability to read and interpret the medical literature.
“I find it astonishing that you somehow think yourself better qualified to analyse (sic) the results of a paper than the authors themselves or indeed anyone else with specialist qualifications in the relevant field. Where’s your research background in HIV (or even microbiology in general)? Why should I trust what you say versus what every microbiologist/epidemiologist/clinician and researcher I’ve ever met tells me about how to analyse (sic) a paper and judge and interpret the evidence? I would say you had no relevant experience upon which to base your views and are incapable of correctly interpreting scientific evidence in context!”
I barely controlled myself in reply: “The JAMA, as you know, Dr. Bennett, is the Journal of the American Medical Association and is written specifically for the members of that organization. I have been a member of the American Medical Association and have been reading JAMA since 1976, which is probably before you were born. I was certainly reading it when you were still in knickers, my youthful but arrogant correspondent. I’ve had thirty years of experience reading and interpreting this journal. How many years have you had? “(I neglected to mention my own publication in 1983).
Bennett must have gone back to read his math book, because he finally agreed an R squared of 0.04 indicates non-correlation, and excuses his ignorance of linear regression analysis by telling me in his PhD thesis research he used PCR and did Western blots. He nonetheless continues in the same self-important manner, and then, with his new found mastery of linear regression, calculates his own R-squared value, which does not appear anywhere in the paper, from the data in the paper’s Fig. 1 (click on the miniature to the right). This turns out to be a much more acceptable 0.9776. It is also in total error. If we assume Bennett’s PhD is not a completely fraudulent document, this is either an intentional deception designed to fool the few gullible who are persuaded that this man is some kind of authority, or yet another example of the Orwellian Doublethink characteristic of the AIDS church. Bennett’s Oct 6 blog posts his deceptive graph with the sham R-squared value of 0.9351.

http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/2006/10/by_jeffrey_dach.html

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 10, 2007 5:11 AM

I meant viral load-CD4 correlation, although I could just as well have asked for the viral load-HIV correlation.

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 10, 2007 5:19 AM

For a truthful read about HIV testing and it flaws, I would recommend the following site:

http://breakfornews.com/aidsmyth/report/articles/051501mattirwinproblemshivantitest.htm

Posted by: Noreen | November 10, 2007 7:54 AM

I have been told three different times that I have antibodies to Hep and at the last testing last month, the tests showed no antibodies to Hep B or Hep C.

Think about this, we HIV+’s have antibodies to HIV, which according to classic medicine is a wonderful thing to have. Antibodies means the virus has long come and gone and is nowhere to be found as is my illusive Hepatitis antibodies.

Noreen,

When your physicians told you about the decline in your antibodies to Hepatitis B Virus and Hepatitis C Virus, did they indicate that the decline in your antibody response is a worrisome sign that most likely indicates that your immune function continues to progressively deteriorate, as Bennett and John Moore have suggested?

Given that you believe antibodies to a virus are “wonderful things to have,” whay are you so pleased that your body has stopped making the protective antibodies to Hepatitis B Virus and Hepatitis C Virus?

Did your physicians tell you that this decline in antibody titer was good news, or did they agree with the assessment of Bennett and Moore?

Posted by: franklin | November 10, 2007 10:19 AM

Mr. Moore thinks it is appropriate to hand out medical advice when I doubt he even has a license to do so. I have studied your prediction of Noreens imminent death and wondered if actual doctors spoke like that so I asked around a bit. Apparently “real” doctors don’t do that. TV doctors, on the other hand…”real” doctors don’t think of themselves as prophets and they generally refrain from your kind of garbage because there is really no way of telling unless the patients are in very poor health or very good health in which case predictions are more like foregone conclusions. You have never met Noreen and by making an online diagnosis based on nothing but a few clues and predicting her death you are overstepping major ethical boundaries. Your attempts to diagnose death online should be reported.

Posted by: pat | November 10, 2007 10:39 AM

You are healthy now, but it’s just a matter of time before the degradation of your immune system will cause you very, very serious health problems.

This is by far the most stupid, rediculous, self-sufficient, ugly, ….. sorry, I don’t have the vocabulary to write my feelings down accurately ….. and you should be chased out of your office forever. Shame on you, “professor” John P. Moore.

I must admit, right now my anger is not really genuin. I’ve called you bad names in the past, John Moore, but I have the strange feeling right now that I was wrong. Maybe I should think of you as a very lost and lonely man who is simply ready to go to any length to find some human warmth somewhere. Anywhere.

I love you, John…

How does that feel, huh?

Posted by: jspreen | November 10, 2007 11:10 AM

JMoore,
Sorry, it is hard to have an exchange here in the troll garden, but I want to disagree with you on a point. Well not really disagree with you because it was not stated as your opinion, but the vote for Zuma is much more than not a vote for Mbeki.
There are diehard supporters for Zuma here. I am still trying to figure that out because he is so obviously a horribly poor choice for the leader of this country.
Anyway, he suffered a real blow two days ago when he lost an important appeal in his corruption trial which has been expanded to fraud and money laundering.
The problem is that there is not a really good possibility within the ANC for president. That is why, as I stated earlier, that the ANC is seriously considering altering the constitution to allow Mbeki a third term.
There are a few others I think would make decent leaders, but they are not in the ANC.

Posted by: scienceteacherinexile | November 10, 2007 11:12 AM

Hi Noreen,

The word “denialist” is used to describe what used to be called AIDS dissidents – I personally use the terms interchangeably having been following this whole sad debacle for so long. The change I think came about because after a decade or more of trying to educate the dissidents, they continued to refuse to accept the science – they denied the evidence.

I would make a great distinction between someone like yourself who is living with HIV seeking answers, and someone trying to GIVE you the wrong answers.

I think your opinions of medicine are skewed – no-one I know in medicine thinks “one size fits all”, least of all in HIV. It is unfortunate that you’ve suffered from the meds without any apparent benefit. The overall evidence for groups of thousands of patients is that antiretroviral therapy prolongs life, prevents OI’s and death. Among that group some will do spectacularly well, some will do badly. At the outset it’s impossible to predict with certainty who will fall into what category – although you can make educated guesses based upon more data as you go. For example, after HAART was introduced evidence accumulated that starting meds too late (e.g. counts under 200) resulted in less recovery of the immune system (as measured by CD4 counts, antibody responses, killer T cell responses etc). However, evidence also accumulated that starting at higher counts (e.g. 500) didn’t result in much benefit either, as those people weren’t at a significantly increased risk of OI’s in the first place. This is why guidelines currently recommend starting somewhere around 350.

Regarding antibodies – mumps and measles are the classic acute infections that have life-long immunity. RSV or rotavirus on the other hand are acute infections that don’t induce life-long immunity. Hepatitis A is an acute infection, but hepatitis B and C are chronic infections in some instances. Even that can change – 90% of neonatally infected kids with hep B become chronic, whereas the same is true of only 10% of adults. About 50% of hep C infections become chronic. In these situations other tests are required to check for ongoing infection (antigen testing, PCR etc). In infections like EBV (mono) the antibody pattern can be used to distinguish between acute, chronic and latent infection. None of this is new, or high tech, and all of it was known when Duesberg make his stupid statements. He had this pointed out to him and STILL continued to say the same things. Saying something that is untrue repeatedly doesn’t make it true, but it does convince and confuse a lot of people.

CD4 counts are not meaningless because the evidence shows the increased risk (NOT CERTAINTY REMEMBER!) of getting sick. Here’s a good bit of evidence:

http://www.retroconference.org/2001/posters/203.pdf

Figure 4 shows the following: in the people they studied with counts over 350 there were 2 deaths per 100 person-years. In people with 50-100 CD4 T cells per ul there were 15 deaths per 100 person-years (so, out of 100 people 15 would die in a single year). With counts under 25 half of the group died each year. That still means that half survived, but it doesn’t mean that the counts were “meaningless” in those people, and in the same way your count isn’t meaningless in you – it means you’re at a much higher risk than I am. How you play those odds is up to you.

Evidence from non-HIV related PCP also shows a relationship with low CD4 counts.

http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/content/abstract/118/3/712

The abstract ends with “These data suggest that for immunosuppressed persons without HIV infection (especially in low or undefined PCP risk groups), CD4 + counts may be a useful clinical marker to identify specific individuals at particularly high clinical risk for PCP and may help to guide chemoprophylaxis.”

This makes sense biologically. CD4 cells are the lynchpins of the immune system – they act as the go-between for antigen-presenting cells (that tell the immune system something is there) and antibody producing B cells and CD8 killer T cells. This is why in HIV infection there are dysfunctions seen in both B cell and killer T cell responses.

A very interesting, but long, study is at:

http://www.statepi.jhsph.edu/macs/dossier/MACS%20Dossier.pdf

Page 59 is interesting. It shows the percentage of people who died over time from various timepoints – it clearly shows improved survival in the HAART era. This study, the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study, has over a million blood samples from men and women enrolled prospectively from the 1980’s. Some were already HIV+, some became HIV+ over time. Some were of course untreated, some were partially treated, some got HAART. Contrary to EVERYTHING the dissidents argue, antiretroviral therapy is associated with a lower risk of death.

This is why John and I are hoping you’ll get help, because of evidence like this. You tell your own story, but we’re telling the story of tens of thousands of similar people. If you’ve had serious issues with the meds, you need to talk options over with someone who can offer options that might alleviate these problems.

I can’t speak on behalf of John, but from the interactions I’ve had with him he is terribly upset at the AIDS denialists, the core denialsts, who have promoted this BS and continue to do so. It’s hard to find a reason why some of these people are doing it without attributing either willful ignorance (i.e. they are choosing not to be educated) or some kind of weird agenda. I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt, but from my personal interactions with people like Duesberg and the Perth Group I find it difficult to comprehend why they ignore the evidence that contradicts them and misrepresent the evidence that is supposed to support their case. Cherry-picking and lying are the actions needed to support AIDS denialism. The antibody story is an example of both:

e.g. “Mumps, measles etc all are cured with antibody production and I’m going to ignore the example of herpes, mono, hepatitis B etc[cherry picking], so all viruses are cured with antibody production [lying]” That is EXACTLY what Duesberg did, and no-one can argue it any other way. The same pattern is used through EVERY AIDS denialist argument. I have no idea why – I’m not in their heads. All I can do is point out the errors, the cherry-picking and the lying, and let the readers such as yourself make up your minds.

I’m happy to answer any further questions – probably easier to go to email. njb35@cantab.net.

Cheers

Bennett

Posted by: Bennett | November 10, 2007 11:18 AM

wheatdog:
Are you still here?
You are the prognosticator from comment 2. But, you did not predict the magnitude…

Posted by: scienceteacherinexile | November 10, 2007 1:52 PM

http://www.aegis.com/pubs/atn/1990/ATN09501.html

This is the microbe mycoplasma incognitus/penetrans that is slowly spreading through the population, any professional scientist that ignores this is guilty of torture and genocide. the only microbe that kills/sickens every animal inoculated, Google project day lily to find out how it was part of the bioweapons program

Posted by: cooler | November 10, 2007 1:52 PM

I do not have an active case of hepatitis nor do I have antibodies, so let’s put that to rest. My only complaints have to do with fibromyalgia and not with any AIDS defining diseases. All of you naysayers to mine or to Harvey’s health, shame on you. Believe me, when I was at death’s door and managed to survive months without mainstream’s medicines, I am certainly fine now with a wonderful, immune-enhancing drug on my side, irregardless of not-so-important viral load and CD4 tests. The key here is good old-fashioned “symptoms” and the complete blood counts, nothing else!

Posted by: Noreen | November 10, 2007 4:10 PM

So then why were you tested for antobodies to HBV and HCV last month?

What did your physicians tell you about their interpretation of the decline in your antibodies to these viruses?

Posted by: franklin | November 10, 2007 4:27 PM

I was tested because I was curious. This physician was not a VA doctor but he stated and I have the paper from the lab, which shows no antibodies to Hepatitis whatsoever. I questioned the doctor if one loses them and he stated no. He had no other explanation. Someone’s tests must be in error.

Posted by: Noreen | November 10, 2007 4:44 PM

Well, as Bennett and Moore have stated, with advanced immune deficiency one can “lose” antibodies.

As an immune deficiency gets more severe, one’s immune system can stop producing protective antibodies that it used to make.

Think about it, Noreen.

You pointed out that “classic medicine” says that antibodies to infectious agents are a wonderful thing to have. Your body used to make them and now it has stopped making them.

I recommend that you take up Professor Moore’s offer to refer you to an AIDS specialist in your area. Ask about these issues and about having the virus cultured from your blood.

At the very least, you can hear about the options available to you in terms of PCP prophylaxis and other possible therapies.

Just make sure that the physician knows how strongly you feel about avoiding drug toxicities. Perhaps they can find a treatment regimen that will help restore your immune system without causing the toxic effects that you find unacceptable.

Posted by: franklin | November 10, 2007 5:49 PM

First, if Bennett and Moore were right, then maybe I don’t have antibodies to HIV, wouldn’t that be great! I may have the VA retest for Hepatitis and then we will see whose tests are inaccurate. My immune system is fine. If HIV is harming me then explain why my blood counts and liver enzymes are now normal. I have an AIDS specialist who I see every three months. They know that LDN is helping me, I go for their sake, not mine. They need to see how someone does off of their antiretrovirals!

Posted by: Noreen | November 10, 2007 6:54 PM

Noreen,

The looks of amazement that you think you detect on your physicians faces may not indicate that they are amazed at “how well you are doing.”

They may be amazed at how you keep ignoring their advice despite the evidence that your immune system continues to progressively worsen.

Posted by: franklin | November 10, 2007 7:20 PM

I was tested because I was curious. This physician was not a VA doctor but he stated and I have the paper from the lab, which shows no antibodies to Hepatitis whatsoever. I questioned the doctor if one loses them and he stated no. He had no other explanation. Someone’s tests must be in error.

The doctor was wrong – you can lose antibodies. Out of interest, which antibodies did he test for out of the following battery – HepA IgG, HepA IgM; HBsAg, HBsAb, HBsAb titres, HBcAb, HBcIgM, HBeAb, HBeAg, HCV Ab? You have the results so it would be instructive to know, as these may have different interpretations.

Posted by: DT | November 10, 2007 7:40 PM

Franklin, I think that I know my physicains much better than you do. We have been through a lot together and yes, at first, they were very concerned and just like many on this blog they tried to get me back on the meds. However, after almost two years of great lab reports and not one opportunistic infections, they do not pressure me into taking their drugs. They want me to contiune to see them, you must remember the choice is mine. Maybe the old sayings is wrong, maybe you can teach old dogs new tricks! Contrary to popular belief, we get along great!

Posted by: noreeen | November 10, 2007 7:40 PM

So your physicians consider high viral loads, declining CD4 T-cell counts, and the loss of previous antibody responses to be “great lab reports?”

Posted by: franklin | November 10, 2007 7:46 PM

First you are mixing apples with oranges. Two different clinics were involved with the tests and the VA doctors do not know the results of the other clinic as yet. They consider normal CBC, no anemia and great liver enzymes to be fine. They do not in regards to the viral load or the CD4. However, they see me in the flesh, which is something that you folks do not and they see a non-symptomatic AIDS patient in regards to HIV.

Like many here, as individuals, they are fine people but they believe everything about HIV without looking further into it. They think that the proof that HIV causes AIDS is “somewhere” in PubMeb yet they can’t give me the reference. Doctors are too busy treating patients to get into the politics, etc. of AIDS. Besides, they pretty much have to go by what the AMA, CDC says to do or they will have the wrath of these organizations upon them not to forget law suits. So until things officially change, I wouldn’t expect them to spout anything other than the official party line. Nevertheless, they are human and can see the results of LDN and good health habits for themseleves.

Posted by: noreen | November 10, 2007 8:00 PM

Darin wrote:

I’ve been looking for ELEVEN years to find ANY justification for what you people are doing. I haven’t found an acceptable answer yet. Yes, it’s true I’ve been supplied with a few papers ON OCCASION such as Chris Noble did above, but none of these even come close to establishing causation. Apologists would say it’s because I “don’t understand the science” or “don’t understand the papers”. I say it’s because the papers don’t prove what you say they do. And I’m willing to put my reputation and career on the line to take it to the people to let them decide for themselves and let them take away power away from the establishment which is the only way this entire affair will ever end. This is a political problem, 100%, and political revolution is the only solution.

Darin, if you demonstrated that you understood what these papers show and what they don’t show then people would take you seriously. As it is you just appear to be yet another internet loon demanding that the scientists prove the germ theory of disease, Einsteins relativity or that Al-Quaida was really behind 911.

The issue is only political in the same way that the evolution debate is political. Duesberg and the other assorted flavours of denial lost the scientific debate 20 years ago. The “debate” about HIV exists only in popular books directed to lay audiences and in the lysenkoism of Mbeki’s government.

If you want a real example of political interference in science then you can’t go past Mbeki’s dismal record. He ignored his own scientists. He brought in crank scientists from the USA and Australia. He gave the crank scientists who told him what he wanted to hear undue credibility. He interfered with the runnings of the MRC. He sacked health officials that did not follow his lysenkoism. He supported illegal trials involving Virodene and Matthias Rath’s vitamins.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 10, 2007 8:05 PM

Noreen, as much as I don’t wish to derail this thread from the topic of Mbeki’s denialism, I ask if you might tell us the results of your lab markers for hepatitis (both the current ones and the previous ones) so that someone experienced in the interpretation of these can do so for you, rather than relying on a doctor who says “you can’t lose antibodies”.

Posted by: DT | November 10, 2007 8:12 PM

And Darin I still haven’t received an explanation of why Duesberg and the Perth Group have after 20 years failed to convince one another as to whether HIV exists or doesn’t.

The Perth Group state If one accepts that “HIV” and “HIV” antibodies exist, then one has no choice but to also accept that Koch’s postulates have been fulfilled which means that HIV is the cause of AIDS.. THis cannot be reconciled with Duesberg’s views.

If, as you appear to claim, “dissidents” are guided by evidence and are willing to modify their opinions upon evidence then why haven’t they managed to convince each other?

I don’t know about you but I think that both Duesberg and the Perth Group have committed so much of their lives and have sacrificed promising careers (at least for Duesberg) that they will never, ever admit to being wrong. No amount of evidence will ever convince them.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 10, 2007 8:21 PM

@scienceteacher

One of the candidates who is near the top of the pile for the ANC is Jacob Zuma. Zuma has a lot of support from some areas. This guy is a slimy, crook in my opinion but I digress. Last year, he went on trial for rape. /snip/
But here is the kicker: He stated during the trial that he had consentual sex with the accuser, knowing that she was HIV positive (he knew very well), without a condom, and that after the sex he had a shower to cut down his risk of infection.

He may yet get a nasty shock….
New Ugandan research says that washing the penis after sex increases the risks of acquiring HIV, not lessens it.
http://www.ias2007.org/pag/Abstracts.aspx?SID=55&AID=5536

Posted by: DT | November 10, 2007 8:27 PM

Alright DT but I will have to go through some records for your request as these tests have been ran several times. If you contact me, we can go through this off the blog. But I will add, that not all physicians are up to par. One doctor wanted to give me life-time steriods for fibromylagia, which is not a very good call for an AIDS person. Bottomline, it pays to stay on top of one’s medical tests and to do research for oneself and don’t believe everything that a doctor says because he or she has M.D. behind their name.

Posted by: noreeen | November 10, 2007 8:33 PM

“Noreen, as much as I don’t wish to derail this thread from the topic of Mbeki’s denialism, I ask if you might tell us the results of your lab markers for hepatitis (both the current ones and the previous ones) so that someone experienced in the interpretation of these can do so for you, rather than relying on a doctor who says “you can’t lose antibodies”.

Ok, I MUST say this. Noreen, take your doctors advice and your own; not the advice of webjockeys. You’ll be fine.

Posted by: pat | November 10, 2007 9:26 PM

“He may yet get a nasty shock….
New Ugandan research says that washing the penis after sex increases the risks of acquiring HIV, not lessens it.
http://www.ias2007.org/pag/Abstracts.aspx?SID=55&AID=5536”

“Post-coital penile cleaning is common in this rural population”

Eithher way you pull this wool; it’s a crock of SHIT.hahahahaha! I will stop washing.

Posted by: pat | November 10, 2007 9:38 PM

Ok, I MUST say this. Noreen, take your doctors advice and your own; not the advice of webjockeys. You’ll be fine.

A webjockey giving advice saying not to take advice frpm webjockeys? A bit oxymoronic.

Posted by: apy | November 10, 2007 9:56 PM

looks like Noreen’s gonna follow the advice of idiot webjockeys like pat and make bad choices that will kill her. In a couple of years time she’ll be just another entry on AIDS truths dead denialists page http://www.aidstruth.org/aids-denialists-who-have-died.php. Pretty sad or what? Another victim of Duesberg. http://www.aidstruth.org/malignant-narcissism.pdf. How much blood is that monster going to have on his hands when he dies then? Noreen’s for sure unless she starts ignoring the trolls on this site.

So pat feels he’s qualified to hand out medical advice to Noreen over the internet then? How does that fit with MEC’s threat to report Moore to the Cornell Dean for allegedly doing the same then? Some hypocrisy here or what? How would that letter go?

“Dear Dean, I want to report Dr JP Moore, PhD for advising a person to consult a specialist physician and obtain professional advice on her health. This is unethical because Dr Moore is not a physician.”

How fucking stupid is that then? It’s unethical to advise someone to consult a physician??? So the next time my wife says she’s got a nasty cold, and I say “you had better go see the doctor, dear”, I’m going to be hauled up by MEC on ethics charges???? You guys are totally fucking insane!!! Do you ever stop to read anything you write or comment on? No, of course you don’t.

And why is that the likes of MEC and pat are so gutless that they have to appear here using a moniker? Cowardly, just chickenshit. At least Moore and Bennett have the guts to post under their own names and take the hits and threats. What does that say about them and you, MEC and pat?

Yeah, I’m not using my own name here. With gun toting psychos like Michael reading this site, I’m not gonna expose my wife and kids to the kind of threats that are handed out by the Michael and his buddies.

MEC, pat and the other trolls on this site are disgusting, gutless shits who are driving Noreen to her death. Rot in hell you evil scum!

Posted by: notchef | November 10, 2007 11:05 PM

NOtchef,
please take a chill pill and bow your head to your master shyh ching lo md phd, the military’s highest ranking infectious disease pathologist, hes a real scientist, not a fraud that murders innocents like Tara, fauci, jp moore who have unleashed mycoplasma incognitus/penetrans on the population to destroy people’s lives and torture them.

Shyh lo, the only scientist to discover a microbe that sickened and killed every animal inoculated, why do you people enjoy destroying people’s lives with this infection?

Posted by: cooler | November 10, 2007 11:21 PM

Noreen,

Thanks for sharing your history. I hope you do well, you seem like a kind, inquisitive person, who makes up her own mind.

Anyone who would presume to give medical advice over the internet on a blog is, obviously, not someone worthy of listening to. So, feel free to ignore these guys.

Posted by: John Givens | November 11, 2007 12:08 AM

Notchef, you haven’t been following my webjockey medical advice have you? Perhaps my instructions were not clear enough last time:

Purchase, or better find for yourselves since they are unpatentable, 16 smooth round pebbles, preferably white of colour.

Distribute evenly in 4 pockets, two on the left, two on the right, then circulate by putting one of the 4 in your top right hand pocket in your mouth and suck on it for a minute or two. Put it back in the top left hand pocket, which will now contain 5 pebbles. Place one of the original 4 (not the one you just sucked) in the lower left pocket, which now will be the pocket to contain 5 pebbles. Take one of the original 4 pebbles (not the one you just shuffled from the top left hand pocket)and move to the lower right hand pocket. Now this is the pocket with 5 pebbles. Shift one of the original 4 (not the one you just moved there from your lower left hand pocket) to the upper right hand pocket, which will now contain 4 pebbles, which was the original number but with one new pebble. From here you are ready to repeat the sucking procedure.

If you suck on each stone for 2 minutes, you should be able to suck and shuffle all the stones in about 35-40 minutes, by which time you should have regained your mental equilibrium assuming there was one to begin with.

Repeat procedure as often as necessary – there are no toxic side effects – and let me know how you’re getting on in a couple of days.

Please feel free to contact me personally if you need me to refer to you to a professional stone sucker therapist in your area. Tara will guaranteed give you all my contact info seeing that you’re a patriot.

Get well soon and cheers.

MEC

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 11, 2007 12:10 AM

“A webjockey giving advice saying not to take advice frpm webjockeys? A bit oxymoronic.”

Not really. Noreen takes the advice from her doctors and herself. Not you webjockeys, not me webjockey. No one cares about your death predictions.

“looks like Noreen’s gonna follow the advice of idiot webjockeys like pat and make bad choices that will kill her.”

What was my idiotic advice? Ah, to listen to her doctor and herself and not assholes making death predictions. Dumb advice?

“So pat feels he’s qualified to hand out medical advice to Noreen over the internet then?”

What was my medical advice? I’m waiting for you to explain.

“MEC, pat and the other trolls on this site are disgusting, gutless shits who are driving Noreen to her death. Rot in hell you evil scum”

How am I driving her to her death? I am waiting for you to explain you gutless piece of shit!

“How fucking stupid is that then? It’s unethical to advise someone to consult a physician?”

No, it is unethical to tell someone they will DIE WITHIN THE YEAR. Can’t you guys tell the fucking difference?

“And why is that the likes of MEC and pat are so gutless that they have to appear here using a moniker? Cowardly, just chickenshit. At least Moore and Bennett have the guts to post under their own names and take the hits and threats. What does that say about them and you, MEC and pat? ”

Patrick Moore, I already said it. you cowardly moniker yourself!

Posted by: pat | November 11, 2007 7:48 AM

“Anyone who would presume to give medical advice over the internet on a blog is, obviously, not someone worthy of listening to. So, feel free to ignore these guys”

Well put John.

Posted by: pat | November 11, 2007 7:52 AM

Let’s move one. Obviously we all have differing medical opinions. I’m sure that I will contiune to listen to that “inner voice” that has guided me successfully along this far. Maybe Tara will start a treatment dialogue then we can all feel free to comment without being attacked.

Posted by: noreeen | November 11, 2007 7:59 AM

This blog has gone from being a good debate and source of information to mud slinging, name-calling and dodging bullets in the trenches. Good, cheap entertainment though!

Posted by: Noreen – Still Standing | November 11, 2007 8:08 AM

I got to quote this again. It is pure gold.

“And why is that the likes of MEC and pat are so gutless that they have to appear here using a moniker? Cowardly, just chickenshit. At least Moore and Bennett have the guts to post under their own names and take the hits and threats. What does that say about them and you, MEC and pat?

Yeah, I’m not using my own name here. With gun toting psychos like Michael reading this site, I’m not gonna expose my wife and kids to the kind of threats that are handed out by the Michael and his buddies.”

Posted by: pat | November 11, 2007 8:10 AM

Cooler,

Can you direct us to the organizational chart for Infectious Disease Pathology in the Military?

I’d like to know if your claim that Dr. Lo is “the military’s highest ranking infectious disease pathologist” is based in reality or if it’s just part of your fantasy life.

Please don’t back up your claim by directing us to a work of fiction.

Posted by: franklin | November 11, 2007 10:47 AM

“According to Dr Shyh-Ching Lo, senior researcher at The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology and one of America’s top mycoplasma researchers…”

he does exist. Does he need to be an admiral ?

Posted by: pat | November 11, 2007 11:07 AM

“Shyh-Ching Lo, MD, PhD, chief,. Division of Molecular Pathobiology,. Department of Infectious and Parasitic. Diseases Pathology”
from AFIP newsletter.

Dr Joel Basemen from the NIH on Lo’s work.
“The meeting was led by Dr. Joel B. Baseman, a mycoplasma expert at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center at San Antonio. He said the participants were ”very impressed with the quality of science that Dr. Lo’s group displayed.”

”The pathology data was solid and convinced us that the agent is in the tissues,” Dr. Baseman said. The ability of M. incognitus to cause a fatal wasting disease in monkeys and mice persuaded most participants that the microbe ”has the potential to cause disease in humans,” Dr. Baseman said
New York times 1990

Franklin, your scientific delusions dont really add up, like HPV causing cancer 40 years later, no animal model, just straight dru company propaganda.

Posted by: cooler | November 11, 2007 11:21 AM

Shyh-Ching Lo, MD, PhD, chief,. Division of Molecular Pathobiology,. Department of Infectious and Parasitic. Diseases Pathology

from afip news letter

Posted by: cooler | November 11, 2007 11:23 AM

Inoculated mice monkeys, embryos, chimps all sickened and died with mycoplasma incognitus/penetrans, refrences posted in this and other threads. Not found in one healthy control

Im sorry you live in a delusional drug company induced world where you think microbes like hpv with no animal model and a 40 year window period cause disease.

Posted by: cooler | November 11, 2007 11:30 AM

yeah pat, like there’s a real chance that you and mec are gonna be stalked by pyscho Michael when you’re on the same side, sure! The AIDS denialists threaten violence on this site, not the scientists. You’re a total fuckin moron.

And yeah pat, you, mec and the other denialist trolls on this site are driving Noreen to her death by making her belive HIV is harmless. A CD4 count below 100 is a terrible prognostic marker for an HIV-infected person. She needs proper help, away from disgusting killer scumbags like you.

Posted by: notchef | November 11, 2007 11:45 AM

Franklin, why do you bother asking cooler any questions? Read this post of his again.

please take a chill pill and bow your head to your master shyh ching lo md phd, the military’s highest ranking infectious disease pathologist, hes a real scientist, not a fraud that murders innocents like Tara, fauci, jp moore who have unleashed mycoplasma incognitus/penetrans on the population to destroy people’s lives and torture them.

Shyh lo, the only scientist to discover a microbe that sickened and killed every animal inoculated, why do you people enjoy destroying people’s lives with this infection?

This nutjob is saying that Tara Smith and Shyh Lo (his hero for fuck’s sake) are involved in a criminal conspiaracy with Moore and Fauci to wipe out the human race with mycoplasma. Of course he’s living in a fantasy world – he’s totally fucking insane for christs sake!!! Why bother asking him what Dr Lo’s position or rank is? Dr Lo would be embarassed if he knew his name was being used by a lunatic like cooler.

Posted by: notchef | November 11, 2007 11:54 AM

I never said they were directly involved in any conspiracy, I said by them being professional scientists it is very unethical(to say the least) for them not to raise more awareness about this infection thats ruined the best years of my life, and the lives of thousands of other people (At least).

So in a sick kind of way, if you are a bonafide scientist, and you ignore an impending epidemic because you only listen to drug companies and Crooked politicians like heckler and Fauci, you are directly or inderectly engaging in genocide and torture.

Posted by: cooler | November 11, 2007 12:05 PM

Hold up Notchef, you cannot blame them for my beliefs. It’s easy for both sides to argue back and forth because you don’t have a horse in this race. Some of us have to weed through the bs and try to determine who makes the most sense to us. Granted I will admit that both sides make some valid points and there are flaws in both ways of thinking. So, this leaves some of us in the middle then we have to rely upon our inner gut as we all know studies can be flawed or not all studies, which show contrary points of view, ever get published.

So I personally take them with a grain of salt. I go more on what I see and how I feel. If I listened to some, I would be scared ****less, panic and go back on drugs that I might not need. Then my normal blood counts would take a dive and I would be anemic again and surely this is not good. If LDN works for me and it does, then why not back off and rejoice that a better way has been found. Let those who have to deal with this make up their own mind and use whatever works for them. It’s not our place to tell another to stop or to take these drugs for that is one’s own decision. I only state what has worked for me.

Posted by: Noreen – Still Standing | November 11, 2007 12:11 PM

Lo would proabaly agree with me. His whole hypothesis was that this novel strain was pathenogenic in humans, and the NIH team headed by Dr. Joel Baseman agreed and was very impressed by his work. “the documentation was absolutely solid”

Impressed by his ability to induce a fatal wasting disease in mice and monkeys. To see it by EM in sick AIDS patients rotting organs. Found it to be the cause of death in 6 people that died of mysterious infections.

And this was 1990, imagine how many people it has spread to now, a microbe that can easily masquerade and be misdiagnosed as many other illnesses like CFS/Depression.

Very sad that some “professional scientists” like to see people suffer.

Posted by: cooler | November 11, 2007 12:19 PM

I’m sorry Cooler, I still don’t quite understand the organizationsl chart.

Is Dr. Lo really “the military’s highest ranking infectious disease pathologist”?

You sure he isn’t outranked by Dr. Wear?

Posted by: franklin | November 11, 2007 12:25 PM

Cooler, what were the symptoms of the six deaths and was there any connection to each other?

Posted by: noreeen | November 11, 2007 12:27 PM

Noreen, here is what happened to these 6 patients,and some more info. These are probably extreme cases, similar to hiv rapid progressors, most with this infection probably have a slower disabling course.

EXAMPLE 20

Vaccine Containing Cells Infected by M. fermentans incognitus

Sixteen chimpanzees are divided into four groups. Group A is inoculated
intravenously with 1 ml of the novel M. fermentans incognitus. Group B is
inoculated with 1 ml of fluid containing 10.sup.6 M. fermentans
incognitus-infected NIH/3T3 cells. Group C is inoculated with 1 ml of fluid
containing 10.sup.6 inactivated M. fermentans incognitus-infected NIH/3T3

cells, and Group D is the control group and did not receive an inoculation.

All chimpanzees in Groups A and B developed symptoms of AIDS. However, none
of the chimpanzees in Groups C and D developed the symptoms of AIDS. The
chimpanzees of Group C are rendered immune to subsequent challenge of
intravenous inoculation with 1 ml of M. fermentans incognitus or 1 ml
containing 10.sup.6 M. fermentans incognitus-infected NIH/3T3 cells.

EXAMPLE 21

M. fermentans incognitus Identified In Non-AIDS Patients

Six patients from six different geographic areas who presented with acute
flu-like ilnesses were studied. The patients developed persistent fevers,
lymphadenopathy or diarrhea, pneumonia, and/or heart, liver, or adrenal
failure. They all died in 1-7 weeks.

These patients had no serological evidence of HIV infection and could not
be classified as AIDS patients according to CDC criteria. The clinical
signs as well as laboratory and pathological studies of these patients
suggested an active infectious process, although no etiological agent was
found despite extensive infectious disease work-ups during their
hospitalization.

Post-mortem examinations showed histopathological lesions of fulminant
necrosis involving the lymph nodes, spleen, lungs, liver, adrenal glands,
heart, and/or brain. No viral inclusion cells, bacteria, fungi, or
parasites could be identified in these tissues using special tissue stains.
However, the use of rabbit antiserum and the monoclonal antibodies raised
against M. fermentans incognitus (Example 8), the pathogen shown to cause
fatal systemic infection in primates (Example 10), revealed M. fermentans
incognitus antigens in these necrotizing lesions. In situ hybridization
using a .sup.35 S labeled M. fermentans incognitus-specific DNA probe
(Example 18) also detected M. fermentans incognitus genetic material in the
areas of necrosis.

Furthermore, M. fermentans incognitus particles were identified
ultrastructurally in these histopathological lesions. M. fermentans
incognitus was associated with the systemic necrotizing lesions in these
previously healthly non-AIDS patients with an acute fatal disease.

Typical areas of necrosis due to the M. fermentans incognitus infection of
these patients are shown in FIG. 21. Most of the tissues which had massive
necrosis showed only minimal lymphocytic or histiocytic response and few
neutrophils (FIGS. 21A, B and C). FIG. 21A is a photomicrograph of splenic
tissue (x 30.5). FIG. 21B shows the peripheral margin of necrosis of 21A (x
153). FIG. 21C is a photomicrograph of lymph node tissue (x 15.25).
Occasionally, a chronic or acute inflammatory reaction could be identified
in the areas of necrosis (FIG. 21D). FIG. 21D is a photomicrograph of
adrenal gland tissue (x 153).

Representative samples of the immunostained tissues of these patients are
shown in FIGS. 22A-D. FIG. 22A is a photomicrograph of spleen tissue (x
80). FIG. 22B is a higher magnification of the margin of necrosis of 22A (x
353). FIG. 22C is a photomicrograph of lymph node tissue (x 257). FIG. 22D
is a higher magnification of cells with positive cytoplasmic staining of
22C (x 706). FIG. 22E is a photomicrograph of hemorrhagic necrosis in
adrenal gland tissue (x 706). The areas which displayed the highest
concentration of M. fermentans incognitus related antigens were often at
the margin of necrosis.

However, the necrotic center and peripheral unaffected areas had relatively
low reactivity. Most of the positively stained cells were identified as
lymphocytes or histiocytes in the lymph nodes and spleen, or reactive
mononuclear cells in the liver, lungs, adrenal glands and heart.

Immunostaining of control tissues with necrotizing lesions from patients
with cat scratch disease, Hodgkin’s disease, malignant lymphoma,
cryptococcal fungal infections and hemorrhagic splenic tissues of Hairy
cell leukemia did not display a positive reaction. Serum obtained from the
same rabbit before immunizaiton with M. fermentans incognitus antigens also
failed to display a positive immunoreaction in the necrotizing lesions of
the six patients.

Using a .sup.35 S radiolabeled psb-2.2 M. fermentans incognitus DNA probe
(Example 18), strong labeling of clusters of cells at the margins of
necrosis of the affected tissues was observed. The affected tissues tested
were formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded spleen, lung, lymph node, adrenal
gland liver and bone marrow. The intensity of the labeling, or the number
of grains localized in the cells at the margin of necrosis was well above
the level present at either the necrosis (FIGS. 23A and B). However, there
were also clusters of apparently viable cells in the necrosis which were
also strongly labeled (FIG. 23C). FIG. 23A shows strong labeling of cells
at the peripheral zone of necrosis (x 76.5). FIG. 23B is a higher
magnification of 23A (x 422). FIG. 23C shows the occasional positive
labeling in an area of diffuse necrosis in the spleen (x 150). The inset of
23C is a higher magnification (x 422).

Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded liver and spleen tissues from a patient
with pancreatic carcinoma were used as negative controls, and showed no
labeling above background levels. A control probe of .sup.35 S labeled
cloning vector DNA, not containing psb-2.2 M. fermentans incognitus DNA did
not label any of the tested tissues (FIG. 23D). FIG. 23D is the same area

of FIG. 23C in the consecutive tissue section, hybridized with .sup.35 S
labeled cloning vector DNA not containing psb-2.2 M. fermentans incognitus
DNA (x 150) (i.e., control for 23C).

Areas of the necrotizing lesions which immunostained most positively for M.
fermentans incognitus specific antigens were examined by electromicroscopy.

Particles with characteristic ultrastructural features of M. fermentans
incognitus were directly identified in all the lesions. These particles in
the areas of necrosis, morphologically resembled M. fermentans incognitus
previously identified in Sb51 cells (Example 4) and in the tissues of
experimentally inoculated monkeys (Example 10). The particles were
heterogeneous in size and shape, with most particles being spherical and
about 140 to 280 nm in diameter. At the margin of necrosis, the M.
fermentans incognitus particles were located in the cytoplasm of cells with
apparently no cytopathic changes, or in fragments of cytoplasm from
completely disrupted cells (FIG. 24). FIG. 24 shows electron mircographs of
tissues derived from areas highly positive for M. fermentans
incognitus-specific antigens. FIG. 24A is an electron micrograph at a
margin of necrosis in adrenal gland tissues (Bar=1,000 nm). FIG. 24A.sub.2
is a higher magnification of 24A (Bar=100 nm). FIGS. 24B.sub.1, and B.sub.2
are electron micrographs of the peripheral zone of necrosis in lymph node
tissue (Bar=1,000 nm). FIG. 24B.sub.3 is a higher magnification of
24B.sub.2 (Bar=100 nm).

Table 5, below, summarizes the profiles and histopathological findings for
each of the six patients.

TABLE 5
__________________________________________________________________________
Summary of Patient’s Profiles and Histopathological Findings
Tissue with necrotic

Duration
lesions identified
Personal

Salient clinical of illness by biopsy or at Patient
Profiles presentation (weeks) autopsy
__________________________________________________________________________
1 29-year old
arthralgia, myalgia, conjunc-
4.5 spleen, lung
black man
tivitis, persistent fever,
hypercalcemia, liver failure
(late), ARDs* (late)
2 33-year old
persistent fever, diarrhea,
7 lymph nodes, liver,
white woman
generalized lymphadenopathy,
spleen, kidneys
abnormal liver functions,
seizure (late)
3 40-year old
arthralgia, myalgia, sore
3.5 adrenal glands
white man
throat, chest pain, persis-
(bilateral), heart,
tent fever, malaise, diarrhea,
brain
finger numbness, comatose
(late)
4 31-year old
vomiting and diarrhea, tremor,
1.5 liver, spleen
black woman
fever, epigastric and chest
pain, abnormal liver functions,
headache
5 23-year old
Watery diarrhea, vomiting,
3 liver, heart
white man
jaundice, arthralgia, myalgia
6 33-year old
fever, malaise, nausea and
1 spleen, liver
black man
vomiting, myalgia and weakness,
liver failure and jaundice,
confusion and hallucinations
(late)
__________________________________________________________________________
*ARDS Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome

17 Lo, S.-C., Dawson, M.S., Newton, P.B., Sonoda, A.A., Shih, W.-K., Engler, W.F., Wang, R.Y.-H. and Wear, D.J. Association of the virus-like infectious agent originally reported in patients with AIDS with acute fatal disease in previously healthy non-AIDS patients. Amer. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 1989; 41: 364-376.

18 Lo, S.-C., Wear, D.J., Shih, W.-K., Wang, R.Y.-H., Newton, P.B. and Rodriguez, J.F. Fatal systemic infections of nonhuman primates by Mycoplasma fermentans (incognitus strain). Clin. Infect. Diseases 1993; 17(Suppl 1): S283-S288.

19 Lo, S.-C., Buchholz, C.L., Wear, D.J., Hohm, R.C. and Marty, A.M. Histopathology and doxycycline treatment in a previously healthy non-AIDS patient systemically infected by Mycoplasma fermentans (incognitus strain). Mod. Pathol. 1991; 6: 750-754.

Posted by: cooler | November 11, 2007 12:45 PM

Cooler, what cities and dates did these deaths occur? I don’t doubt that some of the manmade mycoplasmas have been patented and are probably locked away for experimentation or possible wartime use. Did these individuals have any connections to each other?

Posted by: Noreen – Still Standing | November 11, 2007 1:08 PM

“yeah pat, like there’s a real chance that you and mec are gonna be stalked by pyscho Michael when you’re on the same side, sure! The AIDS denialists threaten violence on this site, not the scientists. You’re a total fuckin moron.”

I have never threatened violence. Why you think I am a denialist escapes me, maybe you don’t know the meaning of the word. What am I in denial of? I am not Michel, I don’t give a flying fuck about that guy. You are bigger than a fucking moron. You are a fucking simpleton with too few shoeboxes at home to fit us all in.

“And yeah pat, you, mec and the other denialist trolls on this site are driving Noreen to her death by making her belive HIV is harmless. A CD4 count below 100 is a terrible prognostic marker for an HIV-infected person. She needs proper help, away from disgusting killer scumbags like you.”

Listen here, you fucking illiterate bozo: I never said HIV was harmless so how am I driving her to her death? I merely pointed out that JP Moore’s behavior by prognosticating her imminent “death within the year” based on nothing but a few clues, is unethical. It is fucking BIG TIME UNETHICAL, you twit! Why I can’t say that without being called a “denialist” and a murderous scumbag is beyond me. Schubladedenken is common to all people, even I do it but considering the venom you throw at me that is completely inconsistant with what I wrote, I can only deduce that it has become habitual with you.

Your reasoning on why you are allowed to be a chickenshit is hilarious though.

Posted by: pat | November 11, 2007 1:11 PM

notchef,

make a note on your fridge: “buy more shoeboxes!”

Posted by: pat | November 11, 2007 1:19 PM

no idea, but garth nicolsons finding this microbe by PCR in many CFS patients etc, too bad armed defense intelligence agents threatened him to stop his research when he was at the md cancer center, I doubt he would lie about that.

Seems it was part of the biological weapons program, which is why a military scientist knew so much about it. Google Project day lily to read nicolsons new book , true story slightly fictionilized, rave reviews from real scientists.

Posted by: cooler | November 11, 2007 1:30 PM

Notchef,

If you don’t feel you are achieving the expected results from your sucking stone therapy, likely because of mental resistance, here’s some trouble shooting advice given by the inventor. The remarkable thing about this I’m sure will not escape you: This brave scientists is testing his revolutionary remedy on himself before attempting it on macaques and Africans. I hope his example will inspire you to work with your own problems in an equally noble and disciplined manner. As before, let me… let us all know how you are getting on. Please don’t be shy when expressing
yourself; we’re all laughing with you, not at you:

I distributed the sucking stones equally between my four pockets, and sucked them turn and turn about. This raised a problem which I first solved in the following way. I had say sixteen stones, four in each of my four pockets these being the two pockets of my trousers and the two pockets of my greatcoat. Taking a stone from the right pocket of my greatcoat, and putting it in my mouth, I replaced it in the right pocket of my greatcoat by a stone from the right pocket of my trousers, which I replaced by a stone from the left pocket of my trousers, which I replaced by a stone from the left pocket of my greatcoat, which I replaced by the stone which was in my mouth, as soon as I had finished sucking it. Thus there were still four stones in each of my four pockets, but not quite the same stones. And when the desire to suck took hold of me again, I drew again on the right pocket of my greatcoat, certain of not taking the same stone as the last time. And while I sucked it I rearranged the other stones in the way I have just described. And so on. But this solution did not satisfy me fully. For it did not escape me that, by an extraordinary hazard, the four stones circulating thus might always be the same four. In which case, far from sucking the sixteen stones turn and turn about, I was really only sucking four, always the same, turn and turn about. But I shuffled them well in my pockets, before I began to suck, and again, while I sucked, before
transferring them, in the hope of obtaining a more general circulation of the stones from pocket to pocket.

I realize the hazard of sucking the same four stones over and over may seem like an unacceptable side-effect of the therapy to you, Notchef, but I wanted you to know there are ways of minimizing the risk.

Enjoy!

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 11, 2007 1:46 PM

Noreen, I am serious about my offer of trying to arrange for you to see a specialist HIV/AIDS physician in a leading medical center. If you live in or near a major city, particularly one in which the university has a Center for AIDS Research (CFAR), it should be possible. I’m not willing to post my contact details on this site, as I already get quite enough threatening and offensive emails and phone calls from AIDS denialists, but I have asked Tara to put you in touch me if you ask her to.
John Moore

Posted by: John Moore | November 11, 2007 2:31 PM

More failure from the AIDS establishment.

NEW YORK TIMES, 11/08/07

In a puzzling and potentially troubling development, an AIDS vaccine tested in a closely watched trial might have increased the risk among vaccine recipients of becoming infected with H.I.V., researchers reported yesterday at a scientific meeting in Seattle.

It’s only puzzling, if AIDS is your religion as well as your professional meal-ticket. Most normal people understand that it’s B.S.

But the new analysis looked at all the trial participants and found a wider difference — 49 in the vaccinated group compared with 33 in the placebo group. Further analysis showed that the imbalance was much more apparent among those who had the highest level of pre-existing immunity to the cold virus used in the vaccine.

Read that again: 33 in the placebo group developed HIV, while 49 in the vaccinated group developed HIV. In other words, doing nothing was much safer, than taking the vaccine.

The beat goes on and on and on and on and on.

Posted by: John Givens | November 11, 2007 3:24 PM

I’m not willing to post my contact details on this site

You should, John, you should. If you did put your email here, firstly you wouldn’t get more mails at all, because a person who wants to send you lover letters or hate mails can easily find information about how to contact you since it’s smeared all over the web. Secondly, if people found your email address here, they maybe wouldn’t think of Googling for example “john p moore” email and stumble upon all kinds of information about you and about what a lackey you really are.

I personnaly don’t think much of the OPV theory either but the way you treat any person who doesn’t easily kneel fore the nonsense you defend, man, it’s pathetic!!

Posted by: jspreen | November 11, 2007 4:09 PM

Noreen, I am serious about my offer of trying to arrange for you to see a specialist HIV/AIDS physician in a leading medical center.

Why? Are you calling Noreen’s present “AIDS doctor” incompetent Prof. Johnny Wishbone?

I’m not willing to post my contact details on this site, as I already get quite enough threatening and offensive emails and phone calls from AIDS denialists

Since, like every other neo-con chickenshit who declares himself always ready and willing to fight, you are in reality a coward through and through, physically as well as intellectually, perhaps we cold persuade your university
to assemble a team of bodyguards for you, Prof. Moore, and arrange that you receive confidence boosting self defence lessons.

In this as well as your intelligence gathering and literary
efforts I fancy I could be of great use to you.

Again my services come cheaply.

Yours truly

MEC

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 11, 2007 4:53 PM

John, there is a medical training university in my town and my AIDS doctor has been treating AIDS patients and training doctors for many, many years. So in that regard, I feel that he is as competent as any that you might know. He has been with me through thick and thin and he knows my medical history quite well. I like him and give him a Christmas present each year. You see, we have come to have respect for each other and for each other’s position. At this point in time, I don’t think there is anything to gain by switching or seeing another doctor. But if you know a good fibromyalgia doctor, then send him or her on.

Posted by: noreeen | November 11, 2007 6:12 PM

This is from that article linked above NEW YORK TIMES, 11/08/07

“Researchers told reporters by telephone that when such an analysis is performed after a trial is stopped, defining what is statistically significant is difficult.”

this reminds me of the countless other trials cut short due to “overwhealming success”: defining what is statistically significant is difficult.

Posted by: pat | November 11, 2007 6:38 PM

Noreen, maybe you could see Dr. Lo, he will show you the light, and is far more competent, intelligent and better looking than jp moore. But before you see him you must stay silent for 15 minutes and bow your head in eternal awe. This is no ordinary mediocre scientist like moore.
eternal hugs,
cooler

Posted by: cooler | November 11, 2007 6:39 PM

In all seriousness, was your tcell count always this low, did it increase with arv therapy? Did your tcell count slowly decline or was it always at 50?

Posted by: cooler | November 11, 2007 6:50 PM

According to Stats South Africa October 2007 publication The Community Survey 2007:

“The population of South Africa has increased by nearly 8 million between 1996 and 2007, a nearly 20% jump over 10 years.”

Any AIDS Truthies want to come to Los Angeles–all expenses paid–and engage in a public discussion on Mbeki, South Africa and “denialism?”

Posted by: Christine Maggiore | November 11, 2007 7:00 PM

Yes, mine have stayed in the mid-eighties and they did increase with HAART. When I stopped the HAART, it reverted back to what they were orignally. Cooler, this is why I don’t get bothered by T-cell counts as they have been low when I was sick and low when healthy. So, the mainstream can’t have it both ways.

Supposedly, this is a true story. Many were at an AIDS meeting and they were all comparing their T-cells. One persons were over 500 one 300, one under 100 and the one person sitting quietly in the back raised his hand and stated, I only have one T-cell left, but its a good one!This got a good laugh from the crowd. Numbers, numbers are not the key to all of this but “SYMPTOMS,” because one wiil not be sick without them. Some of you think that I am dying but there isn’t any evidence of this. I will probably outlive many of you long after you have argued about what causes AIDS.

Posted by: noreeen | November 11, 2007 7:10 PM

I’d love to be invited to one of those…as a listener, well understood.
I can only speculate as to why Chris won’t answer, he is here everyday. He is on all blogs all day.

Posted by: pat | November 11, 2007 7:30 PM

From MedPage, July 27, 2007

SYDNEY, July 26 — Investigators remain puzzled about why a supposedly safe anti-HIV microbicidal gel turned out to increase the risk of HIV in women who used it.

So, again, like the vaccines, you take the microbicide, it INCREASES your risk of contracting HIV.

The AIDS establishment is “puzzled” about their vaccine failures, now they are, again, “puzzled”about their microbicide failures. Also, they are “shocked!”

We did not and do not have an explanation,” Dr. Van Damme told attendees at the International AIDS Society meeting here. “It was a shock to all of us.”

Most normal people are neither puzzled, nor shocked about these bumbling fools who have exploited the fears of this inert retrovirus, and made lots of money selling drugs — that spread the virus!

Posted by: John Givens | November 11, 2007 8:04 PM

“Christine Maggiore” says
According to Stats South Africa October 2007 publication The Community Survey 2007:”The population of South Africa has increased by nearly 8 million between 1996 and 2007, a nearly 20% jump over 10 years.”

Yeah toobad “christine maggiore” doesn’t know the real Christine Maggiore he would know how it’s crappy thinking. Population increase doesn’t say there’s no AIDS!! Real Christine knows a family who’s population had a 100% jump in less then 10 years. From two to four!! Then 25% of the population died of AIDS. One of four! Over all after the death there was a 50% jump in less then ten years. Two people to three people! Lots more grwoth than South Africa but lots more percentage death of AIDS.

!!
OK now Cooler. Says he’s Steve Billingham on those blogs where Arizona denialists says its fun to experiment on Jewish babies.

cooler take notes OK look up what I said October 15 at at Denialism they don’t remember,

Steve Billingham doesnt know Dr. Lo’s name its Shyh-Ching not shyh ching.
Steve thinks Dr. Lo has a military rank Dr. Lo is not in the military he does not have a rank. Hes a civilian federal employee.
Dr. Lo is not head of AFIP he is not Dr. Mullick is.
Dr. Lo is not head of Infectious and Parasitic Diseases Dr. Wear is.
Dr. Lo is not head of a department in AFIP there are like 20 departments in AFIP he’s not head of one.
Dr. Lo is a chief of a molecular pathology lab like a P.I. in academics. That’s a great acheivement!! So don’t make him look silly lying about him.

Have some respect for Dr. Lo go play some video games with your sister steve.

Posted by: Adele | November 11, 2007 8:21 PM

Adele,
stop lying, you dont have masters and your no pcr tech, I looked all over facebook and couldnt find that quote by rob swartz, looks like your lying again. If it bothers you so much why dont you message him, I dont even know him.

Your whole life is a lie, where did you get your masters? you work in a lab all week, so youve got your wireless notebook with ya there right to post all day, yep, youre a joke.

This is his title at the AFIP

Shyh-Ching Lo, MD, PhD, chief,. Division of Molecular Pathobiology,. Department of Infectious and Parasitic Diseases Pathology

dont be so insecure and sling insults when everything that comes out of your mouth is a lie. Why do you post here all day, nobody values your opinion besides a couple of crackpacks, just spend time in your imaginary lab!

Oh and call people anti semites all week, well I think youre an arab hating racist, you think israel has the right to practice aparthied and take 85% of the water from the west bank for israeli use only? Damn racist.

Just a lying wannabe scientist. Im glad I irritate you, you damn loon, stalk me all over the internet because no one wants to be around you, so you make up a story that youre a lab tech! Who would ever suspect anyone lying about that! good one adele keep up the good work. LOL

Posted by: cooler | November 11, 2007 8:49 PM

“Yeah toobad “christine maggiore” doesn’t know the real Christine Maggiore he would know how it’s crappy thinking. Population increase doesn’t say there’s no AIDS!! Real Christine knows a family who’s population had a 100% jump in less then 10 years. From two to four!! Then 25% of the population died of AIDS. One of four! Over all after the death there was a 50% jump in less then ten years. Two people to three people! Lots more grwoth than South Africa but lots more percentage death of AIDS.”

Still having trouble making out who is who? Blame it on yourselves. Adele, I hope you never have kids and if you do I hope you never have to go through the grief of loosing one especially when the inconsiderate assholes start wheighing in.

Can you show us what S. Africa’s growth rate should be?

Posted by: pat | November 11, 2007 9:04 PM

“Steve Billingham doesnt know Dr. Lo’s name its Shyh-Ching not shyh ching”

I’m not really following your other catfights but this sherlock moment of yours just jumped out at me.

Posted by: pat | November 11, 2007 11:30 PM

Thanks, Adele, for your citation of our latest paper. I hope you found it of interest. If the trolls read it, I expect that will lead to the same kind of laughably inept deconstruction of its contents that happened when Anthony Liversidge attempted to interpret the meaning of one of my earlier papers on his Blog. All that proved to me was that the denialists were even more ignorant of the meaning of peer-reviewed science than I had ever suspected (in other words, I had been giving them way too much credit). Scientific ignorance underpins AIDS denialism, and is exemplified by the quality of the denialists’ postings on this site. It’s no wonder they ask the same questions over and over again, and then ignore the answers they don’t like – the reason is that they don’t understand the science, never have and never will. One might as well answer them in Swahili…….

Posted by: John Moore | November 9, 2007 12:35 PM

Good Lord. In view of our nomination of John (at New AIDS Review) for the Nobel for his early recognition in his own papers in peer-reviewed journals of weaknesses in the claim that HIV positivity leads to AIDS, this comment seems rather churlish.

As anyone can check, we recently posted lengthy appreciations of two of John’s seminal papers which have offered supportive analysis and data to dissenters, which don’t seem to have been accorded the prominence they deserve. In what regard is our analysis “inept”? And why has John failed to post a correction on Science Guardian/New AIDS Review? He knows he is always welcome there, since we love to deconstruct the scientific claims of paradigm defenders by quoting from their own mainstream literature, although regrettably even fully paid up members of the HIV defense squad such as Chris Noble don’t seem to survive very long.

We have praised John wholeheartedly for making the case against HIV/AIDS so clear by a) protesting far too much b) offering helpful evidence and analysis in his papers that the dissenters are exactly right c) drawing attention to the critics as loudly as possible d) showing he has no scientific answer to scientific criticism, and has only ad hominem attacks to offer, including appeals to universities to fire those who question the unlikely paradigm.

In the light of all this some may think that John’s political performance in defending the HIV/AIDS paradigm is inept, but we believe there is a different explanation. We are fairly sure that Moore is a closet dissident, or at the very least, preparing his way to survive the collapse of this murderous paradigm unscathed.

His consistent record shows us that while he may be perched on a high branch of the HIV/AIDS tree, he is driven by conscience to draw attention to the dissent and reinforce it with admissions in his papers. This is why we heartily approve of his helpful activities listed above and have nominated him for the top prize in science, which as you know reflects achievement in the cause of helping humanity.

Bob Gallo and Anthony Fauci have also been nominated in our posts at New AIDS Review for their own contributions in making it clear in their papers that HIV is not and cannot be the cause of AIDS, Gallo managing to do this in his very first four papers on the topic, even before Peter Duesberg’s Cancer Research rejection of this irrational claim.

We are just sorry that the Nobel committee can only include three names in any one prize, for it appears that John, for all his strenous efforts to bare the truth in this realm, will miss out on the grand prize. Gallo, Duesberg and Fauci have already beaten him to it.

Posted by: Truthseeker | November 12, 2007 1:02 AM

I see my fellow commenters are soundly presenting their case against the insane arrogance and hostility of the AIDS activists. I am not going to bother much with you all. Anyone who propounds warfare and outright harm to their adversaries who only want to promote a reason that would explain the utter failure (and negligence) in confronting and ending the AIDS paradigm is clearly in the wrong. Just tell me, whose motivation is pure? You, who have a vested interest in promoting the unsupported medical science which has resulted in death to millions of victims? What a scam! You all should be ashamed of yourselves. I know many of us find you all deplorable. One day, the world will see your error.

Think about it. After 25 years of this construct of HIV/AIDS you have made no progress. No vaccines, no cure, only a lethal ARV’s treatment which has shown, decidedly, to do more harm than good, followed by excuses, false statistics, improper trial studies, blame and accusation. You even try to shift the blame on others. Looks to me like you are modern day “Reformers” reminiscent of the Dark Ages. If someone could give you the power, you would burn books and heretics a like. In your hateful zeal, you call your opponents “denialist” which is of course is inflammatory since you would try to link us in some perverted way with those who deny the holocaust. Everyone knows your yen for distorting the facts. Well for your information, we call ourselves dissidents, in the tradition of Copernicus, Galileo, and Duesberg.
You must know you are completely without merit. Not being able to prove that HIV causes AIDS by the rules and laws of science, you simply abandon those tried and true steps and have taken a leap of faith into the new science and techno babble of RNA, genes, cloning, what ever cover you can find that will confuse and divert people from catching on that your hypothesis of HIV>AIDS>Death is finished.
What have you to show for all the money and time spent? NOTHING! ZERO! SQUAT! NADA! ZIP! You are all a bunch of losers who are bolstered by the succe$$ of your failures. Your leaders Gallo and Fauci, both blow hards who tap dance around the facts and end up with nothing substantive, but dribble. I’ll stick with my leaders who have, first and foremost, a pure caring heart. Who out of their generosity and compassion for others, sacrificed their time and jeopardized their careers to make the truth known. These doctors, scientist, journalist and other professionals, numbering and recorded in the thousands, are from my experience, good natured and in the highest tiers of academic accomplishment.
Look at your sour pusses. Who is right and who has the high ground?
Oh yes, this thread was supposed to center on Mbeki. I am especially proud to have him on our side. He is a stellar human being with all attributes of greatness. He has demonstrated his courage and independent thinking on many occasions. He has successfully led his country of South Africa, for nearly a decade, out the grip of Apartheid. He is widely loved and respected by his country. I’m sure we will see much more of him on the world scene.

Posted by: Douglass | November 12, 2007 2:45 AM

Christine or not, here’s the numbers and the due credit. Now why hasn’t Tara done a post on these joyous tidings? hmmmm…

“Dear Guardian,

I would like to congratulate President Mbeki for being the courageous leader he is. He has not bowed to the nonsense of apartheid, and has not bowed to the nonsense coming out of the AIDS industry.

HE HAS BEEN VINDICATED. I quote from your article the following:

” Yet, as the book points out, the government’s own statistics show the effect of Aids in South Africa has been “catastrophic” with more than 2 million people already dead and one in eight of the working-age population infected with HIV. ”

This is simply not the truth, and I have the data to back me up.

Here are the projected population sizes by the US Census
Bureau (one model with aids, one model without aids) and
the population size from the latest Household Survey of
Statistics South Africa (2007).

43.9 million (US Census Bureau, with AIDS)
49.3 million (US Census Bureau, without AIDS)
48.5 million (Statistics South Africa, 2007 Household Survey)

As you can see, the population size from the latest Household Survey is a lot closer to the US Census Bureau model that projects no mortality from HIV/AIDS.

Not only that, but the model that takes into account mortality from HIV/AIDS *shows a declining population*.

Both the without AIDS model and the Household Survey show a *growing population*.

This is a vindication of President Mbeki, and a testimony
to his courage, for taking on the farmaceutical industry
and their lobby, TAC.

Seven years ago, when the President convened a conference
highlighting both AIDS believers and dissidents, we were told ‘there is no time’, ‘lives are being lost’, and therefore, there was no need for a debate, not only on the cause of HIV/AIDS, but on the nature of the epidemic itself, or the ways it is estimated using, and the tests, whichdo not work in the African context.

Well guess what – all the shrill, screaming voices
were wrong, and President Mbeki was and is right.

This is man of great intelligence and integrity,
a combination unique in the world’s leadership.

He is to be commended and congratulated.”

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 12, 2007 4:43 AM

“SYDNEY, July 26 — Investigators remain puzzled about why a supposedly safe anti-HIV microbicidal gel turned out to increase the risk of HIV in women who used it.

So, again, like the vaccines, you take the microbicide, it INCREASES your risk of contracting HIV.

The AIDS establishment is “puzzled” about their vaccine failures, now they are, again, “puzzled”about their microbicide failures. Also, they are “shocked!”

We did not and do not have an explanation,” Dr. Van Damme told attendees at the International AIDS Society meeting here. “It was a shock to all of us.”

Most normal people are neither puzzled, nor shocked about these bumbling fools who have exploited the fears of this inert retrovirus, and made lots of money selling drugs — that spread the virus!”

Let me add to the above from John Givens this excerpt from Washington Post:

“Among a group of nearly 700 subjects worldwide who received two doses of the vaccine, 19 became infected with HIV, compared with 11 for a similarly sized group that received placebos. The finding alarmed some scientists and underscored the tricky ethics of using human subjects to test potential remedies for incurable diseases.

South African researchers last week began warning hundreds of volunteer test subjects that the vaccine might actually have increased their risk of contracting HIV.

Two trials for microbicides — gels that women insert into their vaginas to prevent infections — also ended when more women using the experimental substance became infected with HIV than those using placebos. Scientists theorize that vaginal irritation caused by these products may have made it easier, not harder, for the virus to infect women. A study of whether diaphragms might inhibit HIV found that they were also ineffective.

“It’s been an appalling year for the biologists,” said Francois Venter, president of the Southern African HIV Clinicians Society.

Technology vs. Reality

A technology that has worked in highly controlled settings often fails in the context of actual sexual behavior.

Hospitals routinely use antiretroviral drugs, for example, to prevent infections in doctors and nurses stuck by HIV-infected needles. But when researchers asked healthy West African women to take such medicine every day, the difference in infection rates was so small that scientists could not determine whether the medicine worked.”

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 12, 2007 4:54 AM

“Christine or not, here’s the numbers and the due credit.”

Thank you. Adele can stop googling now. Don’t call me christine, it will confuse Adele’s brain cell.

Pat

Posted by: pat | November 12, 2007 6:20 AM

Wow. This is my first direct exposure to HIV-deniers, and while fascinating–in a sick and demented way–all I can say is WOW. In some ways they are worse than creationists. I can only hope *their* memes aren’t contagious.:)

I don’t want to indulge in name-calling, so I’ll stop here.

Posted by: Jorg | November 12, 2007 7:36 AM

“Wow. This is my first direct exposure to HIV-deniers, and while fascinating–in a sick and demented way–all I can say is WOW. In some ways they are worse than creationists. I can only hope *their* memes aren’t contagious.:)”

Don’t worry, there is a pill on the way for people like you who are afraids of thought infection.

Posted by: pat | November 12, 2007 7:54 AM

Jorg,
any thoughts of your own on S. Africa?

Posted by: pat | November 12, 2007 7:55 AM

Haha… Pat, Jorg is just looking for a few hits on his website. Make him happy and visit it. More than half his posts have zero comments and the record number is 3.

Wow indeed.

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 12, 2007 9:13 AM

Ah, ok. I ckecked out your site Jorg and skimmed throught your “crank” post link. Some people, like you, love to spend their brain power on real trivial pursuits. Can you give me directions to the “crank” leadership JP Moore refers to? Do they have a “camp” and an anthem? Please tell me because I am itching to kick their butts, I just can’t seem to find the “camp”.

Posted by: pat | November 12, 2007 9:27 AM

Maybe we, “rethinkers,” should get organized and have a rethinkers convention and elect a leader. Then Chris and John would have something to really worry about, the people hearing the truth!

Posted by: noreen | November 12, 2007 9:35 AM

For a while I was looking everywhere I saw a Jolly Rogers for that damn elusive denialist “camp” because I thought to myself: “well pirates are scumbags and so the scumbags I am looking for MUST be here too. All of them! The Holocaust deniers, the Evolution deniers etc..” but then I realized that the Jolly Rogers was already taken by AZT. I also realized that the human body doesn’t generate enough of a gravity force so the “scum of the world” couldn’t really “gravitate” to one another.

“In some ways they are worse than creationists.”

This nonsense about “a mixed bag of nuts” is so dense that if I were to put it in a sucrose density gradient and spin it through ultracentrifugation, the crap would be all over the walls.

“In some ways they are worse than creationists”

Tell me, what on earth can possibly be worse than creationists?

Posted by: pat | November 12, 2007 9:42 AM

John Givens and others unwittingly admit to us what they can’t or won’t consciously acknowledge to themselves: HIV exists, it is transmissible, and it is far from harmless. Zealously celebrating of the end of the Merck vaccine trial, they have apparently failed to keep up with the news…and to remain logically consistent.

“Failure of AIDS Shot linked to cold virus” by Craig Timberg, Washington Post Foreign Service, Thursday, November 8, 2007; Page A24

This WaPo article reports an intriguing fact: the investigators found that only those trial participants who had immunity to the adenovirus (a cold virus) used to package the vaccine experienced higher rates of infection. Even so, the numbers are low, opening statistical analyses to potential criticism. In the much larger non-adenovirus-immune population, there was a statistical dead heat between vaccine and placebo. Did the vaccine work? Apparently not. Did it increase susceptibility to infection? Perhaps it did, in people with certain immunities. In the general population, it may not increase risk. The doubts were enough for the overseers to shut down the trial. That should tell us something about their ethics, something in opposition to what our denialist friends have been telling us.

But what is this entire conversation based upon? On infection rates. This vaccine (or that microbicide), the denialists gloat, is said to increase one’s risk of infection.

But according to Perth, HIV has never been proven to exist, which most Perth followers interpret as “HIV does not exist.” How can a non-existent virus infect anyone? Perth followers who point to a vaccine failure implicitly admit that HIV exists.

According to Duesberg, HIV exists but is a harmless passenger. It is spread perinatally, from mother to child. Sexual transmission is so unlikely according to Duesberg that if he is right, we would not necessarily expect ANY case of infection in the entire Merck vaccine trial. The virus is passed from mother to infant, and only adults are included in the trial. Duesberg followers who revel in the vaccine failure implicitly admit that HIV is sexually transmissible.

Denialists also claim that HIV is “inert,” harmless. Yet they point to vaccine trials as unethical, even Nazi-like, if the vaccine increases risk of infection. How can this be if HIV is inert? A harmless virus does not drive down CD4+ T-cell levels or otherwise disrupt the immune system, so no one with the inert virus will have to take “toxic” antiviral drugs unless he or she has some other, unrelated immune dysfunction. We have already learned that HIV positive patients WITH serious immune dysfunction (whether or not one ascribes the condition to HIV itself) have higher survival rates when taking antiretrovirals than when not taking antiretrovirals, even with all of the drug side effects included. Denialists who use the vaccine failure as an argument implicitly admit that HIV is harmful.

Posted by: ElkMountainMan | November 12, 2007 9:43 AM

No, not at all. Some of us admit that HIV is a harmless “retrovirus.” We at least admit that it probably exists. We also admit that there are flaws in the HIV hypothesis that most accept as Moses accepted the Ten Commandents without question. This is where modern-day science has failed us. Instead of pursuing other avenues and having double-blinded studies, they jumped wholeheartedly on the HIV bandwagon and won’t get off. But then, there isn’t any funding available for other viewpoints. Look what happened to Duesberg, one of America’s greatest scientists and look what happened to Jonathan Fishbein for blowing the whistle at the NIH.

The Russian leader was correct when he stated that we will fall from within. Our politicians are a joke on both sides of the fence, our president, who knows what he is thinking. Lobbists and big corporation control our representatives. One just got caught with money stashed in his freezer but how much more in handled out in envelopes to vote for their causes that we never know about? In the meantime, the average citizen is stuck with the system of corruption and with governmental agencies that won’t do their job of public service. It is wise to question and keep on questioning because most are not looking out for our best interests but their own.

Posted by: Noreen – Still Standing | November 12, 2007 9:57 AM

Noreen,

You ask my non-medical doctor opinion.

As far as I understand from previous posts, you have decided to treat an HIV infection firstly with non-antiretrovirals because of their toxicity, as you believe that in a long term they cannot be beneficial to your health. You have trialled different options and are now using LDN.

My opinion is that you should discuss all the case with a medical doctor that 1) would have a confirmed record of treating HIV+ people, and 2) would have practice of using LDN.

It is important that the doctor would at least understand what LDN is, because most doctors would never have heard of it, they are just trained to do what the guidelines are saying, and LDN is not yet in these documents.

The doctor who developed LDN has indicated that it work only with patients that are responsive and manage to decrease the IFN-alpha to approx. 11 i.u. The decrease of the IFN was related with the probability to be free of OI’s. So I expect that you are controlling your IFN-alpha.

ElkMontainMan indicated that there are many IFN-alpha, so you should ask Dr. Bihari or one of his co-authors or the persons that are performing the LDN study in Mali, the exact procedure that they have used to measure the IFN-alpha and we may be able to deduce which one he was referring to.

My guess is that with LDN treatment, many others cytokines are down-(or up-) regulated and have not been measured.

You also write that your level of antibodies is decreasing. I have been thinking that your doctors are measuring your immunoglobulins Ig, which are high when you have an infection/ or an autoimmune disease.

I can remember that I have read a study of A methodology of treatment of an HIV+, using ARV and source of glutathione where the authors where following the increase in CD4 and the decrease of Ig.

I need to trace the document to post it, but if the authors are competents these would mean that it is good that the Ig is going down to normal values.

In Wikipedia, in “immunoglobulin”, it is reported that “in the case of Epstein-Barr or Lyme disease, (..)
If (..) antibodies are not present, (..) the infection occurred a very long time ago, and the B cells generating these specific antibodies have naturally decayed.(..)

So I think that Franklin and Prof. Moore should explain more why they are so worried, so we can all understand better.

P.S. Apparently there is no need to make PCP prevention with LDN. PCP would be another OI, and you are making prevention using LDN.

Medical doctors that dont have read anything about LDN and would just follow the guidelines would not know and may advice you wrongly.

Posted by: Braganza | November 12, 2007 10:24 AM

Thnaks Braganza, you speak the truth and with common sense. Something that is far too lacking nowdays. If LDN wasn’t working and I had O.I.’s then I would listen to what is being preached to me but this has never been the case. I don’t know the ends and outs of how it works but not being a doctor nor scientist, I don’t need to know all of the technical information. I just know that it works. I tell others about it because it could help so many with immune deaseses, not just AIDS.

The doctors, who prescribed it to me in the first place, are well versed in its use. Thankfully, they are ahead of their time and of many physicains. Nevertheless, the good news is that more and more patients are requesting it and more and more physicains are learning about it and prescribing it. Hopefully, in the near future, it will become a commonly prescribed drug. Miracles still do exist and this wonderful drug has been one for me!

Posted by: noreeen | November 12, 2007 10:36 AM

Noreen,

I have been reading the link that you provided:

http://breakfornews.com/aidsmyth/report/articles/051501mattirwinproblemshivantitest.htm

I arrived to the Giraldo experiment, and as a chemist, I have been thinking that his experiment was RIDICULOUS.

The purpose of the dilution is to increase the selectivity, no dilution = no selectivity, and therefore when the sample is not diluted the Elisa results are not valid.

You can trust me more on this question of dilutions than on all the deductions that I may do on LDN. The key of the Elisa is the reaction between the antibodies and the virus particules and I have done (in lab scale) plenty of reactions in all sort of substrates and all kind of concentrations !

Posted by: Braganza | November 12, 2007 10:56 AM

Noreen,

Could you ask your doctors if it is normal that after using LDN the Ig comes down ?

This would help to know if your case is a normal one or not.

We – the readers of your post- would also know more about LDN.

Posted by: Braganza | November 12, 2007 11:01 AM

Braganaz, since some think that I no longer show antibodies to Hepatitis, then by their logic, wouldn’t I no longer show antibodies to HIV? Do you think that this is due to an immune issue or to a faulty lab test?

Posted by: noreeen | November 12, 2007 11:03 AM

Noreen,

Which immunoglobulin is decreasing ? There are a number of them.

The study that I was refering is indicating IgE going down as the result of increasing glutahione in HIV+ patients.

See in the example 3 of the patent:

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6262019.pdf

Posted by: Braganza | November 12, 2007 11:38 AM

Noreen, I am serious about my offer of trying to arrange for you to see a specialist HIV/AIDS physician in a leading medical center….but I have asked Tara to put you in touch me if you ask her to. John Moore

To recommend a physician from general knowledge or from personal experience is entirely OK and commonly done.

However, to “arrange to see specialist” enters an entirely diferent world.

Referral to a specialist is reserved for licensed physicians, and for others is illegally practicing medicine without a license, a felony in most states punishable by fines and imprisonment.

If John Moore PhD wants to play doctor, then let him go to school and get the proper credentials.

Posted by: felonyoffense | November 12, 2007 11:38 AM

In response to Braganza’s enquiry about antibody decay rates, there’s an article from Mark Slifka’s group in the latest New Engl J Med on the general subject, although it does not cover Abs to HIV.

One has to take into account here the interactions between the cellular and humoral immune systems. The B-cell responses that generate and sustain IgG production are usually, but not always, dependent on CD4+ T-helper cells. The loss of T-helper cells as a result of HIV infection can therefore compromise B cell function and the generation or maintenance of IgG production. This is a complex area of immunology, and the responses to different pathogencs (indeed different antigens from different pathogens) can differ. For example, during HIV disease progression, the antibody response to the HIV core antigens such as p24 tends to be lost much earlier than the response to the HIV envelope antogens such as gp120. The loss of the p24 antibody response reflects the loss of T-helper functions, and is a poor prognostic indicator of the progression to AIDS and death.

I remain concerned about Noreen’s apparent loss of antibody responses to several pathogen antigens. That’s likely to be an indication of progressive loss of immune function caused by her HIV infection. There may be other explanations, but loss of T help for B cell function is a reasonable one to consider, in the circumstances.

ElkMountainMan is of course quite correct. When the AIDS denialists criticize enhanced infection rates in vaccine or microbicide trials they are implicitly accepting that:

1) HIV exists.
2) HIV infection is dangerous to the recipient.
3) HIV infection can be accurately diagnosed by the use of PCR-based viral load assays.
4) (In the case of microbicide trials) that HIV can be vaginally transmitted by a man to woman, and in both Africa and elsewhere.

Of course logic and critical analysis of what they are actually saying has never been the AIDS denialists’ strength, so their actions here are not surprising.

Braganza, there’s an article on the http://www.AIDSTruth.org site under the “who are the denialists” section about Roberto Giraldo and his stunning inability to understand the basic principles behind ELISAs. It makes the same points you make. Giraldo used to work as a technician in a clinical diagnostics lab, despite his failure to understand the scientific basis of the assays he was supposed to use to test clinical samples. Fortunately, he no longer does. Unfortunately, Giraldo’s grasp of science is on a par with the AIDS denialists’ in general: utterly pitiful. It’s why we fight to oppose their influence on people like Noreen.

Posted by: John Moore | November 12, 2007 11:45 AM

Elkmountain Dude,

I may be able to help with your problem.

You say “denialists” do “this” and then they say “that” but then they also say “this” etc…The reason you are so confused about what “denialists” want or even say is that you too only have one shoebox at home. Everyone knows that Perth and Duesberg disagree but only you are confused about why. Those who say HIV is harmless will not say it doesn’t exist and vise versa. You take unconnected thoughts and group them into a boggeyman that you have named “denialist”.

Posted by: pat | November 12, 2007 11:50 AM

Dear Molecular Entry Claw,

It does not look correct to say that TAC is “the lobby of the pharmaceutical industry”.

TAC may have some strategic alliance with some pharmaceutical companies, but you dont have proof that they are not honest people with STRONG convictions that ARV’s would help to treat low CD4 HIV+ people.

How can you explain that TAC struggled to have ARVs at the lowest cost possible, by buying generics…which would not be the interest of BIG PHARMACEUTICALS COMPANIES?

Posted by: Braganza | November 12, 2007 11:51 AM

I’m glad you bring up sexual transmission is Africa, Dr. Moore. What are we to conclude by all of this, that they are sex crazed in Africa? Don’t Americans and other nations of the world have as much sex? I have yet to hear a logical explanation of why the majority of AIDS (not HIV) cases are in the gay, male population? Why, even if you are allowed to include HIV cases, the numbers are low in America. A few thousand cases out of an population of 300 million. One would have a better chance of winning the lottery than getting AIDS.

This must be a very smart virus to not cause AIDS equally in the male and the female population even though, new, military recruits test 50% male to 50% female. Tell us Dr. Moore, why doesn’t the AIDS statistics reflect this dispargy?

Posted by: Noreen – Still Standing | November 12, 2007 12:00 PM

“trials they are implicitly accepting that:

1) HIV exists.
2) HIV infection is dangerous to the recipient.
3) HIV infection can be accurately diagnosed by the use of PCR-based viral load assays.
4) (In the case of microbicide trials) that HIV can be vaginally transmitted by a man to woman, and in both Africa and elsewhere.”

Wow, I actually can agree on something with JP Moore but with one exception. From this this trial I can buy the following:
1) HIV exists
3) HIV can be measured
4) HIV is also sexually transmitted (although not as efficiently as say, HSV.)

but please explain how this trial shows that HIV is dangerous to the recipient. I think you made a mistake; I think that evidence is in a different paper altogether. right?

Posted by: pat | November 12, 2007 12:08 PM

“How can you explain that TAC struggled to have ARVs at the lowest cost possible, by buying generics…which would not be the interest of BIG PHARMACEUTICALS COMPANIES?”

I am glad you bring that up. TAC and Mbeki indeed make for strange bedfellows. In the years before, TAC and the SA government led a united front against oppressive and murderous patent rules. It is only after the west refused to budge on patent rules and Mbeki got suspicious of pharma behavior that this alliance started to desintegrate. As soon as this happened the door was open for the attack- divide and conquer. Mbeki’s main mistake was to voice his concerns out load because the second he did that it was all about HIM and not about the patent rules. Even without Mbeki the ARV “rollout” would be slow and financially crushing for the SA government because the west still won’t give them for free even though we can WELL afford it.

Posted by: pat | November 12, 2007 12:50 PM

Noreen, almost everything you say in your last post about HIV transmission and prevalence statistics in the USA and Africa is factually flawed and has been rebutted ad nauseam in multiple postings on Blogs like these. I’m not going to waste my time repeating these posts.

If you want to read more about HIV infection in Africa, I refer you to an early posting I made alerting you to Helen Epstein’s recent book (The Invisible Cure) and Nicoli Nattrass’s book (Mortal Combat). I reviewed the Epstein book in J Clin Invest this month, and a review of the Nattrass book (by Mark Wainberg) is to be found in the latest IAS Newsletter, which you can access via the weblink I listed in an earlier posting.

Those books provide excellent coverage of this subject.

Posted by: John Moore | November 12, 2007 12:55 PM

MEC: Obviously, ad hominem is your preferred style of debate. Two can play this game, but for the nonce I’ll just say that your logic and arguments fail to impress me. I actually could not care less whether anyone visits or leaves comments on my blog; it is a rather small part of my life.

Pat: I don’t know if the asymmetric collapse of supernovae is a “trivial” pursuit; I have been known to do that, among other things. 😉 But that is neither here nor there. I have very few thoughts on South African situation since I am not a specialist in either epidemiology or politics of that area; my opinion of “deniers” is based solely on the internal logic (or lack of it) of their posts in this thread.

Oh, and also, we Pastafarians know pirates are not scumbags!

In the interest of fair disclosure, I must say that about 20 years ago, I *almost* believed that Duesberg could be right (it was a possibility at the time); I think that the weight of the evidence has shifted since then, and he has no leg to stand on anymore. The Perth group never impressed me much.

Posted by: Jorg | November 12, 2007 12:56 PM

What, John, you are avoiding the question but that’s standard policy just like the politicians when confronted with reality. Are you going to say that its a different strain that is infecting Africa. You don’t mind giving an opinion on my health, someone that you haven’t met nor seen medical records for. You won’t meet and debate Christine or any rethinker, yet we are all suppose to take John’s word for everything because he says its the truth. I have to agree with others, you are a chicken. The only thing that I will give you credit for is posting your real name.

Posted by: Noreen – Still Standing | November 12, 2007 1:02 PM

“Noreen – still standing”. AIDS scientists do not ever “debate” with AIDS denialists. We provide factual information, but we will never “debate” or “discuss” it, for reasons that the hard core denialists are well aware of. Besides, your mask is slipping and you are revealing your true nature/colors now, so I’ll not respond to any further posts of yours (or pat’s, mec’s and the other hard core denialists on this site).

Posted by: John Moore | November 12, 2007 1:14 PM

Whats the matter, are we are ganging-up on Homer Boy? Well, if you can’t take the heat then stay out of the Kitchen! When you mainstream thinkers can explain all of the following to me, then I will be happy to join your side:

1) why is HIV and AIDS cases disportionally in different
sexes and why has it not spread to the general
population?
2) where is the scientific proof that HIV causes AIDS?
3) If HIV is an STD, then why are the number so low and
not in the race, section of the country, age group and
even the sex that has the most in the first place?
4) why is the antibody test not specific to HIV?
5) On what scientific basis is it for saying antibodies to
HIV is equal to having an active infection?
6) why is Koch’s Prostulates being ignored?
7) Why hasn’t the HIV Antibody test ever been validated
with a control study?
8) Why aren’t the viral load probes and primers validated?
9) Why is kidney and liver failure and heart attacks now a
concern for AIDS patients, especially since they are
not AIDS-defining disease?
10)If HIV is so deadly, how is it destroying the immune
system and how are HIV+ living without antiretroviral
medicaitons?
11)Explain why a vaccination has failed after 25 years?

Posted by: noreeen | November 12, 2007 1:34 PM

Thanks Jorg,

Here is an interesting link on the current problems facing Africa as a whole. I link to a text from 2003 at random you can trailblaze from there.

www.africaaction.org/resources/index.php

This is more intended for Adele who seems to grasp the facts about Africa so well that she even uses them as a substitute to mock Maggiore’re desceased child. Now some would have me believe that Mbeki is the sole cause of AIDS in SA but when you consider the magnitude of the actual disaster in all of Africa, it becomes clear that Mbeki is just another fall guy, another distraction for the actual world bank’s and general foreign policy boondoggle of neglect and outright theft. Mbeki only satisfies the hunger of those obsessed with the “boggeyman theory” of human conflict. They fail to see that the boggeyman is a mechanism; not a particular dude or even a network of particular dudes.
Are these examples of the “internal logic (or lack of it)” you were talking about?

“The Perth group never impressed me much.”

me neither.

“I don’t know if the asymmetric collapse of supernovae is a “trivial” pursuit”

I said “I skimmed throught your “crank” post LINK”…you know, this obsession with labelling people cranks, putting them in ONE box and making a theory out of it is…a trivial pursuit. But it is ok, alot of folk here read something I didn’t write like the one where I am supposedly convincing Noreen that HIV is “harmless” and thus driving her to her death. Total fabrication but who gives a shit about accuracy on this blog, eh? I was labelled “denialist” here by some cellar-dwelling biped and since then I could be writing about my new CreaBeton floor and, as sure as the sun rises, there will be a troll saying something nasty about me being a “like” a creationist and how I perhaps could need concrete loafers instead. When I first mentioned the problems of Schubladendenken some while back I instantly had Adele on saying “that sounds Nazi like”. I hear Duesberg and Bialy are homophobes but apparently only because Bialy refers to JP Moore as a “faggot”. In England that is a burnt cigarette, I think but who cares. Moore replies “bigot” It is clear that neither one of them fits their given descriptions. They HATE eachother. Their animosity is well documented and runs very deep. Apparently this behavior is a common trait in many scientists and this blog is perhaps an extention of that animosity, played out mostly by the protagonists’ “lab dogs”. Tonight on Scienceblogs: “FlameWarriors” light wheight “lab dog” championships: Tara Smith versuuuus MAAAniiiiiiOOOtiiiiiiiiiiiisss! I have been fascinated by the trap ever since and I admit to sometimes poking just to provoke it so I can wonder at it in awe just one more time.

-“Will, how many times must I ask you to call me Elizabeth ?”
-“At least once more, Miss Swann , as always.”

Posted by: pat | November 12, 2007 2:34 PM

“Noreen – still standing”. AIDS scientists do not ever “debate” with AIDS denialists. We provide factual information, but we will never “debate” or “discuss” it, for reasons that the hard core denialists are well aware of. Besides, your mask is slipping and you are revealing your true nature/colors now, so I’ll not respond to any further posts of yours (or pat’s, mec’s and the other hard core denialists on this site).”

When the patient becomes the enemy…at the first hard ball.

Do you read this Jorg: “so I’ll not respond to any further posts of yours (or pat’s, mec’s and the other hard core denialists on this site).”

Now I am “hardcore denialist”. thats new. The invectives grow in direct relation to the number of objections.

I think four questions and a pouting lip gets you a “hardcore denialist” grade.

Posted by: pat | November 12, 2007 3:00 PM

What I treat this thread is. The Scientific Community’s admiral ship Ms “Prof John Pee Moore” has been blown out of the water by Noreen still standing so fiercely upright. Some last bubbles surface where debris of the ship went under:

Besides, your mask is slipping and you are revealing your true nature/colors now, so I’ll not respond to any further posts of yours

Yeah, true colors. The colors of untouchable truth. Exit Pee Moore who “Will not respond anymore”. Some hours ago he was still fiercely playing the Newly Clothed Emperor. Now only his lackeys pretend they don’t see his naked ass.

Posted by: jspreen | November 12, 2007 3:43 PM

John Moore: “Noreen – still standing”. AIDS scientists do not ever “debate” with AIDS denialists. We provide factual information, but we will never “debate” or “discuss” it, for reasons that the hard core denialists are well aware of. Besides, your mask is slipping and you are revealing your true nature/colors now, so I’ll not respond to any further posts of yours (or pat’s, mec’s and the other hard core denialists on this site).

Translation: if you dont submit to death by toxic drugs, then I will take my basketaball and go home.

Noreen is standing testimony to the failure of a flawed HIV causes AIDS, toxic drug treatment dogma, which is no longer considered seriously by anyone with the ability to think. Dear john p moore and all the other doctor wannabees, please take your basketball, go home and fabricate some more “factual information”.

Posted by: takemybasketballandgohome | November 12, 2007 4:51 PM

Moore has no time for science! See the extraordinarily disenguous letter below. As Mr. Moore notes, “the number of hours in a day is finite and unchanging….”

Indeed. But Moore seems to have endless hours for blogging, emailing, and egging on AIDS “denialists”.

Good thing he has tenure.

Science 9 November 2007:
Vol. 318. no. 5852, p. 913
DOI: 10.1126/science.318.5852.913b

Letters
Speaking Out About U.S. Science Output
I was amazed by J. Mervis’s News of the Week story “U.S. output flattens, and NSF wonders why” (3 August, p. 582). Not by the conclusion that U.S. science productivity is flattening out, but because apparently nobody interviewed by the NSF could identify the reason. Had the question been posed of almost any working scientist I know, the simple and accurate answer would have been that the number of papers that are written is diminishing because scientists are able to spend less time writing papers! Instead, we spend ever-more time on the increasingly burdensome administrative requirements of conducting science legally, and on writing, rewriting, and re-rewriting grant applications as the NIH’s pay line drops to catastrophically low levels. As the number of hours in a day is finite and unchanging, something has to give. If I didn’t have to spend the rest of this month ignoring various half-complete manuscripts and rewriting a grant application, I’d be able to explain in more detail.

John P. Moore
Department of Microbiology and Immunology
Weill Medical College
Cornell University
New York, NY 10065, USA

Posted by: A Carricci | November 12, 2007 4:52 PM

This level of denialism is painful to watch.

In other news, long-time evolution opponent Ray Bohlin is in Liberia, telling the Liberians they need to spray a lot more DDT around to get rid of malaria. Never mind that the war decimated the Liberian health care system,never mind that DDT doesn’t work, etc., etc., etc.

Posted by: Ed Darrell | November 12, 2007 5:23 PM

Jorg, Jorg, Jorg, you gave them a web site to piss all over? See, if you don’t get a lot of hits, it means that what you have to say has no merit, don’t you know.

BTW, is there independent verification of noreen’s claims of her condition? Could be made up; after all, she gets a lot of attention from both sides for it. I’m just sayin’…

Those of you who stay the course and try to argue the science; I admire your tenacity, and I guess someone has to do it. However, I don’t think it’s a matter of the science, but of the midndset that many people have.

Is it uniquely American to say “I’m no [specialist in this field], but…” and then have no compunctions arguing with the very specialists who spent years of study and research to become experts in these fields?

I follow science blogs and comment threads on AGW, 9/11, vaccines, and ID, among others. I don’t pretend to be a climatologist, immunologist, epidemiologist, structural engineer, biologist or any other expert you would need to be to be good at evaluating the studies and data presented for the theories proposed. However, I do have a science background, and I try to evaluate the information in terms of how the scientific method works.

So, I read for patterns, and trends. When I see that old data or studies are re-hashed, totally ignoring new data, when too much emphasis is placed on one study, or person, or when people start demanding certainties (“show me the one conclusive study…” or “I’ll wait until all the science is in…”,) then I know it’s not about science.

I have seen noreen post “… they are sex crazed in Africa? Don’t Americans and other nations of the world have as much sex? I have yet to hear a logical explanation of why the majority of AIDS (not HIV) cases are in the gay, male population?” or words to that effect many times, but never see her address the explanations when they are presented, and then I know it’s not about science.

Reminds me of “how could Arabs living in caves pull this off” argument from the 9/11 truth movement. Good sound bite, but means nothing. Like “sex-crazed” – makes somebody sound racist.

What is it about, then? Is it about fear? Is it about wanting to win the debate at all costs? Is it the anonymity of the internet? (Sort of like road rage?)

I don’t know, but I’ll keep reading…

Posted by: ildi | November 12, 2007 5:33 PM

ildi,
It is all about fear. People believe in HIV because they are socially self-hypnotized to do so.

“It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”
-Jonathan Swift

Posted by: Carter | November 12, 2007 6:02 PM

It is not about the purity of the science, it is about the corruption that tags along. For this you need no certifications. This is something that concerns us all. Some just can’t seem to grasp that, when you are talking about Mbeki, you are talking politics but everytime the going gets rough some hide behind intelligible sciencespeak and tells the rest to shut up. If science wants to make policy then the onus is on the science to make itself understandable to those who make policy.

Posted by: pat | November 12, 2007 6:21 PM

“socially self-hypnotized”? WTF?

The Swift quote is perfect! It sums up one of the challenges that scientists face when communicating with the layperson, and what I mean about this debate not being about science. You should really take it to heart.

“believe in” is one of those buzz phrases I look for. (Like “do you believe in evolution”.)

Thanks for playing!

Posted by: ildi | November 12, 2007 6:31 PM

Carter says:

It is all about fear. People believe in HIV because they are socially self-hypnotized to do so.

No Carter, scientists believe that HIV causes AIDS because of the evidence.

On the other hand, many denialists believe that HIV is harmless because they or someone close to them is infected with HIV, and, faced with the frightening prospect of AIDS, they deal with their fear with a defense mechanism known as Denial.

Here’s Michael Geiger’s thoughts about how the prospect that his lover tested positive on a test for HIV infection “was certain proof that there was something wrong with HIV tests:”

However, it wasn’t until I was directly confronted with the HIV issue from my own lover in 2001, that I decided to fully educate myself and get to the bottom of it all and find out the truth. He was certain proof to me that there was absolutely something wrong with the HIV tests, and there was something wrong with the entire belief system.

His lover was found to be infected by HIV and he interprets that as “certain proof” that the HIV tests are invalid.

Sometimes it’s just easier to bury one’s head in the sand thatn to face reality.

Posted by: franklin | November 12, 2007 6:31 PM

I am real and I would give you my doctors names but they wouldn’t comment due to legal issue. However, I can link you to the following newpaper article, which was from last year and a story will probably run again this year. If Tara would permit, I would send a new picture so many of you can see if I am dying of AIDS. http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/gyrobase/PrintFriendly?oid=oid%3A20543

Posted by: Noreen – Still Standing | November 12, 2007 6:46 PM

On the other hand, many denialists believe that HIV is harmless because they or someone close to them is infected with HIV, and, faced with the frightening prospect of AIDS, they deal with their fear with a defense mechanism known as Denial.

Or in Mbeki’s case he was faced with a major health crisis with no easy or cheap solutions. Providing antiretrovirals to all HIV infected people who needed them was goping to be very, very expensive. Pretending that HIV wasn’t real and that it was all some racist CIA plot to destabilize South Africa was obviously very attractive.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 12, 2007 7:05 PM

ildi,
When someone is able to drown out the unbelieveable noise and chatter from the AIDS pulpit and start to think clearly and for themselves, meaning; Think outside that little box, which HIV causes AIDS, AIDS is always fatal, and poison can prolong your life, then one can truly see that there is a dyer need for a complete rethinking on the subject and an urgent need to stop people from marching right on up to take fradulent HIV tests. It’s not all about science, because if it was we’d have results from the likes of this failed camp, death and dying cult created by the likes of Gallo et al. onward called HIV/AIDS

Posted by: carter | November 12, 2007 8:43 PM

You’ve made it clear, carter, that for you it’s not about teh science.

I’ll put you down for one in the fear category.

Posted by: ildi | November 12, 2007 10:20 PM

I will join any of you, pat/christine included, in pointing fingers at those who try to keep medicine away from people who need it.

The stark reality is that South Africa ranks lower than many other countries in the world in terms of percentage of AIDS patients who receive antivirals. This cannot be due entirely to Western greed and evil pharmaceutical giants, since in some other African countries, ARVs are dispensed at three times the rate per AIDS patient in South Africa. Unless christine/pat can prove that pharma and Western governments reserve a special form of racism and colonialism for South Africa (over, say, Uganda), it follows that Mbeki and other elements of HIV/AIDS denial in SA government have contributed to the relative lack of access to drugs.

Posted by: ElkMountainMan | November 12, 2007 10:53 PM

ildi,
What science what are you talking about?
hundereds of chimps infected not one has died after 20 years.
no original papers printed between 1983-1985 that prove hiv causes AIDS using kochs postulates.

the virus is only in 1/1000 blood tcells or so

Not one study seeing if people w/o any other risk factors such as azt, mycoplasmas, severe stress/fear of death/drug abuse get aids vs matched controls.

when no one got sick they extended the window period by years, up to 10-12 now.

Maybe hiv does cause AIDS but I need more evidence than people babbling about siv infected macaque monkeys and 3 random anecdotal lab workers we know nothing about. Its surely is a debatable issue, many experts will say anything like they did in germany and russia, they have a tendancy to be servents to power.

You guys just cant stand it when most intelligent people hear both sides of the argument they start having doubts, thats why moore inc love censorship.

Posted by: cooler | November 12, 2007 11:47 PM

cooler,

See, this is yet another shining example of your cherry-picking and eliminating large amounts of evidence you disagree with.

You first ask for a study…

…seeing if people w/o any other risk factors such as azt, mycoplasmas, severe stress/fear of death/drug abuse get aids vs matched controls.

Do you understand how this epidemiological research is carried out? We don’t travel around with the people we’re studying. We don’t document their every move to see if they’re lying to us. Research subjects fill out questionnaires, perhaps provide biological samples to be tested, and we largely take them at their word. So these studies you’re looking for use the same type of evidence you dismiss as:

3 random anecdotal lab workers we know nothing about.

–they’re just ramped up to collectively look at a hundred or a thousand “random” study subjects “we know nothing about” besides what they’ve told us–the same as the evidence about the lab workers which you dismiss. Why is one OK but not the other, cooler?

Posted by: Tara C. Smith | November 13, 2007 12:03 AM

Im not saying hiv does not cause aids, just that it is a debatable issue, and people who dissent are not “kool aid drinkers”

Im not aware of one study designed by independent scientists to see if hiv positive people with no risk factors I mentioned above even get aids, which is what you need when most every animal does not get aids. All the epidemilogical studies assumed hiv to be the cause of aids, which is the very question at issue, so they did little to control for confounding factors.

I never wanted to enter into this debate, I was a happy kid with my whole life ahead of me when I became sick with strange infectious like symptoms that slowly worsened over years, they included memory loss diarrea etc. Try living for years without a diagnosis and see how much you trust the medical establishment.

I find it totally disgusting that Fauci sabotaged shyh ching Lo’s research when he clearly proved that mycoplasma incognitus/penetrans was pathenogenic to humans. He inoculated mice /monkeys/chimps/embryos and they all sickened and died. He did not find it in one control, he ruled it to be the cause of death in 6 healthy people who died of mysterious infections within 1-7 weeks., he saw it by electron microscopy in sick patients tissues, what more can you do to prove pathenogenicity in humans? all references posted above.

Why was I not made aware of this when I saw the doctors for years? Why? because its all about money and politics and not science. HPV, Hep c do zilch in animals but they make big money for drug companies. Garth nicolson is finding this horrible microbe in many cfs patients etc. by pcr, antibody testing is unrelaible, when are you scientists going to stop this genocide from occuring? Its about informed consent, and as a scientist you seem to be completely obesqious to the CDC for forming your scientific beleifs, if its not supported by the CDC or big Pharma it cant be true, and anyone that digresses from thier dogma and propaganda is a “kool aid drinker.” Thats not science.

Posted by: cooler | November 13, 2007 12:28 AM

cooler, you didn’t answer my question. Why do you trust self reports in one type of study, but not another? Why do you lend weight to one over the other?

Im not aware of one study designed by independent scientists to see if hiv positive people with no risk factors I mentioned above even get aids, which is what you need when most every animal does not get aids. All the epidemilogical studies assumed hiv to be the cause of aids, which is the very question at issue, so they did little to control for confounding factors.

I don’t think you understand quite what you’re talking about here. The early studies–and even contemporary studies–do indeed control for just these confounders, and indeed, these things needed to be controlled for in order to bring the suggestion that HIV caused AIDS beyond more than just a speculation by one lab group. Additionally, while sure, it’s now common knowledge that HIV causes AIDS, the data are what they are, regardless of presumptions of the researchers. If, for example, AIDS cases sorted randomly amongst a population under study, rather than by HIV status, that would suggest something was wrong with the underlying assumption that HIV caused AIDS. That would have to be addressed by the researcher, regardless of his or her personal beliefs coming into the research. To believe that every AIDS researcher out there either is too stupid to recognize this or too incompetent to see such a gross anomaly in their data just strains the limits of my credulity, to put it mildly.

Additionally, you claim:

HPV, Hep c do zilch in animals but they make big money for drug companies.

cooler, after posting about how miserable you were and how your own doctors failed you, isn’t that rather callous of you to then write off viruses that kill thousands every year? If your beef is with doctors, the CDC, and pharmaceutical companies, why minimize the suffering of other patients who, like yourself, simply want an accurate diagnosis, and treatment for their infection?

Posted by: Tara C. Smith | November 13, 2007 1:11 AM

I’m not minimizing other people from recieving treatment, I want everybody to have informed consent, and that maybe young girls before they get knocked up with 3 hpv vaccines they hear from scientists like Duesberg and Maniotis to see how hpv flunks every one of kochs postulates.

They then can hear the other side of the story and go to the CDC’s website and then proceed with informed consent. Why do you want them not to not hear certain info that might make merck lose some money? Information that many intelligent people would find compelling?

Why do I trust self reports in some studies and not others, I really dont know what your talking about, its not that hard, in order to prove a species specific microbe is pathenogenic in humans, especially one with a decade long window period, you need a study that would read like this.

“because of the long window period with hiv and the lack of a reliable animal model we are going to follow hiv positive people with no other possible risk factors such as azt, mycoplasmas drug abuse stress etc to confirm Gallo’s preliminary hypothesis”

please send me the reference for this study if you claim it exists.

Your claim that scientists would blow the whistle if their unproperly designed studies didnt pan out, I doubt they would want to end up like Duesberg, secondly they are so heavily brainwashed by the propaganda campaign its much easier for them to make ad hoc conclusions to subconciously save the hypothesis thats deeply embedded in thier psyches. ie LNTP’ers have special genes, Theres no direct cell killing bc not enough cells are infected so it must be an immune reponse. etc etc

Its always been throughout history that free thinking scientific minorities have been the ones that were right, such as in nazi germany or Russia, where the majority of experts just went along with the governments propaganda, as they do now. Many experts have spoken out though like Margulis, Pollack, duesberg, strohman, rubin, Lo was a skeptic in 1990 who knows how many more there are who are on the verge of speaking out, who are getting tired of the intimidation. How many more experts are there that are not even aware of the dissidents arguments bc of the heavy censorship? Manufactured consent

Its all about informed consent, once people heard all the sides of the arguments they’d stop all this madness and start demanding some real evidence, not drug company and CDC propaganda.

Posted by: cooler | November 13, 2007 1:47 AM

ildi: yes, honesty does not seem to be the best of policies on occasion…;)

Pat: re the lack of logic in (some) comments on this thread, do I have to point out some of the offenders? I am not used to screaming loudly while clapping my ears shut like some “rethinkers” (I still say “denialists”) appear to do. All the classic signs of pseudo-science are here: persecution mania, wilful ignorance, utter contempt for any evidence that does not fit in with their preconceived notions…and they tell us we don’t understand scientific method? My creationist aside may have been a bit too strong, but only a bit: the similarity between thought processes (and debating styles) of some of these people is precisely the same as that of creationist bozos.

Oh well. It’s night time; I’ve got to get some work done…;)

Posted by: Jorg | November 13, 2007 4:04 AM

It’s curious, the comparison of Aids-denialism with creationism. The foundation of creationism is dogmatic reasoning like “The Bible is the Word of God thus everything written in the Bible is the Truth thus the Earth was created in six days.” Etc. Etc.
Now, if one thumbs through the uncountable pages of Aids apologist vs. denialist discussion with this in mind, where do we find dogma? You got it! Of course, on the apologists side exclusively, “professor” John Pee Moore being a great example of reincarnated Holy Inquisition fanatism.

*** HIV, the virus that causes Aids *** What does that phrase reflect? The result of years of scientific research? Not at all. Being formulated when it all began, some 25 years ago, this phrase is not a final result but an initial hypothesis. A hypothesis that has been promoted to absolute certainty through the years, not because of some scientific demonstration, but because the holy mantra has been recited 9876546546987654323213654654654 times.

– “HIV, the virus that causes Aids”

– What are you talking about, it’s nonsense!

– Repeat after me: “HIV, the virus that causes Aids”

– “HIV, the virus that causes Aids” … “HIV, the virus that causes Aids” … “HIV, the virus that causes Aids” … “HIV, the virus that causes Aids” …”HIV, the virus that causes Aids” … “HIV, the virus that causes Aids” …”HIV, the virus that causes Aids” … “HIV, the virus that causes Aids” …”HIV, the virus that causes Aids” … “HIV, the virus that causes Aids” …”HIV, the virus that causes Aids” … “HIV, the virus that causes Aids” … .. .. Hey! I see the light. It’s true: “HIV, the virus that causes Aids” !!!!!! Halleluja, Halleluja …..

“HIV, the virus that causes Aids” … Hey, Mr Pee Moore, ever thought of composing a gospel song?

Posted by: jspreen | November 13, 2007 5:41 AM

Pat,

Your answer on TAC as “an agent for the pharmaceutical industry” was a distraction. How can you maintain that when you reported that they struggled for access to cheap/ generics drugs ?

You should be more balanced in your analysis, and dont figure the world only in black and white.

Posted by: Braganza | November 13, 2007 8:17 AM

“Pat,

Your answer on TAC as “an agent for the pharmaceutical industry” was a distraction. How can you maintain that when you reported that they struggled for access to cheap/ generics drugs ?”

I don’t remeber calling TAC an “agent” for the pharmaceuticals; that was maybe someone else?. I did say they formed a united front with SA until Mbeki started having doubts. Zachie achmat is a very militant character? I doesnt take much to get on his bad side and have him hanging from your ass.

To whoever wrote this:

“Unless christine/pat can prove that pharma and Western governments reserve a special form of racism and colonialism for South Africa (over, say, Uganda), it follows that Mbeki and other elements of HIV/AIDS denial in SA government have contributed to the relative lack of access to drugs.”

You do know that Uganda, although it dispenses ARV’s for free and only sisnce 2004, certainly doesn’t get them for free. Uganda simply went further into debt to pay for the scheme. And all this while the world babbles on incoherently about “debt relief”.
We attack one new disaster by exacerbating another very old one. Racist, colonialist? probably? Bullshit? most definitly.

Posted by: pat | November 13, 2007 9:28 AM

“My creationist aside may have been a bit too strong, but only a bit: the similarity between thought processes (and debating styles) of some of these people is precisely the same as that of creationist bozos.”

I know what you are trying to say but it is not “the similarities with creationist arguments” that anoy you. What annoys you is the internet discussion. Go and see how egyptologists talk to eachother and you’ll find the same thing there.

Posted by: pat | November 13, 2007 9:33 AM

“You should be more balanced in your analysis, and dont figure the world only in black and white.”

I don’t know whay you tell me that. That is advice for those who would like to pin it all on the “Mbeki boggeyman” theory. My world is plenty complex and this is what I wrote about it:

“SA but when you consider the magnitude of the actual disaster in all of Africa, it becomes clear that Mbeki is just another fall guy, another distraction for the actual world bank’s and general foreign policy boondoggle of neglect and outright theft. Mbeki only satisfies the hunger of those obsessed with the “boggeyman theory” of human conflict. They fail to see that the boggeyman is a mechanism; not a particular dude or even a network of particular ”

not as black and white as the “Mbeki/AIDS” theory.

Posted by: pat | November 13, 2007 10:09 AM

Pat,

Sorry that I cannot understand you.

Can you translate this to simple, easy to grasp concepts, and related them to the AIDS in Africa problem ?

(..) actual world bank’s and general foreign policy boondoggle of neglect and outright theft. Mbeki only satisfies the hunger of those obsessed with the “boggeyman theory” of human conflict. They fail to see that the boggeyman is a mechanism; not a particular dude or even a network of particular (..) “.

What should have been the WB policies ? what are the critical aspects of the “mechanism” ?

Thanks for your time.

P.S. On the Uganda question dont worry about the debt, Ugandese government know that they are not going to pay anyway, as these are the new rules of the game. Debt is to be forgiven in the future.

Posted by: Braganza | November 13, 2007 12:34 PM

I have to think a lot of this behavior is due to the anonymity of the internet. Can you imagine jspreen going to Cornell and ranting in this bizarre fashion directly to Dr. Moore? Or, calling his phone and leaving a voice-mail like this? In any other venue it would be a sign of a fairly disturbed mind. Somehow in a comment thread this seems acceptable, however.

If you go to jspreen’s web page, you see that the commonality with Noreen and cooler is that they all appear to be people with no prior medical or scientific training who have become ill or had family become ill and been let down by the medical community in various ways. From jspreen’s web page:

“two dramatic events forced me to become aware of what badly ill people go through during classical cancer treatment. My confidence in the medical know-how used to be complete, but when things got worse for two very close family members, I started to ask the concerned specialists some basic questions like “What is cancer?” and “What are its causes?”. The bewildering answer was “We don’t really know, but it is not important. The only important thing is to strike fast.” It finally did not take long before the evidence hit me in the face: “They have really no idea of what they are doing!”

I guess this is a way of gaining back some measure of control.

Posted by: ildi | November 13, 2007 1:31 PM

Dear ildi. Re your comment:

Can you imagine jspreen going to Cornell and ranting in this bizarre fashion directly to Dr. Moore? Or, calling his phone and leaving a voice-mail like this?

Well, various AIDS denialists have indeed left rambling, disturbed and vaguely threatening voice mails on my phone, usually during the night when they know I won’t be there. I don’t think any of them are from jspreen as none of the speakers had a Dutch accent. Various denialists are also in the habit of sending abusive, almost invariably anonymous screeds (emails or letters) full of references to toilets, lavatory paper, monkey genitals and related irrelevancies to other scientists and administrators at the College, presumably in the belief that this sort of reasoned approach (sic) will cause me to be dismissed or disciplined. It’s the same kind of “thinking” that caused at least one AIDS denialist to write to the U of Iowa to try to get Tara fired for daring to operate this Aetiology site.

All I can say is that it takes a lot more than the abuse I receive from these people, on this Blog or elsewhere, to intidimate me.

Posted by: John Moore | November 13, 2007 1:59 PM

Braganza,

Africa as a whole is dealing with very complex problems and very little money. Alot of the reality on the field today is a direct result of European and American plunder and neglect over the centuries. These words are harsh but Africa IS harsh. To name a few:
Hundreds of years of slavetrade-related social and cultural destruction. Over a hundred years of colonial goverment exploitation of resourses and neglect of the people. After the end of colonialism we see nothing but the same plunder. The only difference is that it is done today by proxy and not by direct occupaton. The World Bank under the auspices of western nations led by the USA are the direct offenders.
These re-inforce poverty through unfair trade practices and the corruption of African governments to support them. The Blood that flowed (and still flows) is the red in the flag. The natural resources that were plundered (and are still plundered) is represented by the yellow in the flag. I am sorry if these sound commie or leftie or whatnot but this is what I see when I look closely. Look closely at the actions of the World Bank on the African continent and you will quickly see that something is going terribly wrong and you don’t need any kind of certification whatsoever to comprehend the sheer problem that Africa faces to this day.
A quick example off the top of my head would be Cameroon I believe. WB cleans up the books and effectively put them under supervision (WB calls the shots). The new policy was a drastic attempt at social engineering led by nothing more than a bunch of bean counters and one of their first ideas was to streamline the workforce. The moto was that “they should do what they do best and import the rest”. So they did away with rice farmers for example and took away some of that land to make way for foreign owned open pit mines. The idea was that the newly dispossessed rice farmers (and all kinds of other farmers) would then be employed at the mines and the rice would come from an “efficient” rice producing country such as …Thailand. In the meantime hardly any locals work at the mines, most moved to the cities in search of jobs further exacerbating the infrastructure and to top it all off the rice is imported from…the USA. I cant recall the price. This is a few years back; search the BBC archives, it is amazing what you will find there.
These are just a few examples of who is meddling in Africa nowadays, of the “mechanism”. The critical aspect of the mechanism is that although it has claimed the moral high ground, it does nothing to defend it, let alone promote it. So when I hear simplistic “lapdog” attacks on a single guy like Mbeki for causing a national health crises, I can’t help myself but to chuckle at the innocense of such a position. Of course it also enrages me because it is a good distraction from all those that are out there cashing in on African disarray. It also enrages me that people would usurp the moral high ground to launch cheap personal attacks based on half-truths and a reductionist revision of history. It is historical record that although the ability to deliver “life saving” drugs was always within the power and ability of western nations, the political will was never there to make it hapen and this well past that fatefull day in 2000 when Mbeki said “what the f..k?” It is clear though, as you say , that in the future debt relief will be a reality but not because of the generosity of the west but simply because of the sheer impossibility to ever recoup it. I do wonder what kind of obligations are going to be imposed on Uganda or Africa as a whole for the privilage of defaulting by reason of reality?

Posted by: pat | November 13, 2007 2:13 PM

“”Well, various AIDS denialists have indeed left rambling, disturbed and vaguely threatening voice mails on my phone, usually during…”

Maggiore appears to have a very similar personal tale of crank phone calls, abusive anonymous e-mails
and whatnot. You have more in common than you think.

Posted by: pat | November 13, 2007 2:17 PM

www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKjgCYRHhzk
for example…as a starter.

Posted by: pat | November 13, 2007 3:18 PM

All I can say is that it takes a lot more than the abuse I receive from these people, on this Blog or elsewhere, to intidimate me.

Dear John,

you may not be “intidimated” by this, but you know very well you’re intimidated by everything from bad typing to your own shadow, which seems to be one and the same thing in this case. But I do appreciate your machismo in the face of such fearsome odds: grieving mothers old gay hippies, people living on other continents…

Really Johnnie Who are you kidding? Nobody can be bothered calling you, night or day, because you’re a weirdo… one of those nerdy, unsexy weirdos. Nobody likes you, not even your pet macaque – you know the one out of the lot that survived all your vaginal challenges. But what the hell, since you have now shared your fantasies with us, I’ll help you with this as well as all your other shortcomings. Just publish your phone number and office hours, and I’ll arrange for some groaners to call you free of charge – yes I know you’re a cheap bugger too – and tell you how big and brave you are. State your preferences but please be advised we don’t do simians.

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 13, 2007 3:21 PM

Can you imagine jspreen going to Cornell and ranting in this bizarre fashion directly to Dr. Moore? Or, calling his phone and leaving a voice-mail like this?

Why should I do that? I have nothing to say to Mr Pee Moore in private. If I send a contribution here every once in a while, it’s not to address naked assed Emperor Moore and his lackeys, but to attract some attention of people who are looking for a way to gain back some measure of control. Somebody gave me some new ideas a couple of years ago which set me on my way, now it is my duty to pass on the information.

You went over to my site and came back with some phrases you quoted here. I have good hope that someone, somewhere, reads that quote, starts to dig deeper and finally also gets away from the deadly “scientific community” indoctrination.

Posted by: jspreen | November 13, 2007 3:51 PM

Pat,

If the deaths in South Africa are unrelated to the policies of the Mbeki government but, instead, are due to the exploitation of Africa by the West–exploitation that has occurred for centuries–why did the epidemic of AIDS only take off in South Africa in the 1990’s?

Posted by: franklin | November 13, 2007 4:37 PM

Tara, I appreciate your showing up at this stage of the thread.

Seriously love, this is not a denialist trick; there are published EM’s of mycoplasma that are indistinguishable from the particles in the Gallo EMs of May, 1984.

Gene

Posted by: Mr. Natural | November 13, 2007 5:10 PM

why did the epidemic of AIDS only take off in South Africa in the 1990’s?

Because that’s when the World Hype Organizations decided to count people who were ill (or sometimes not even) as Aids-patient according to all kinds of wild criteria.

Posted by: jspreen | November 13, 2007 5:14 PM

epidemic of AIDS only take off in South Africa in the 1990’s?

Hows about looking into massive expanse of malnutrition, hunger and poverty to begin with?

Mbeki wants something better than drug interventions based on a vague virus theroy. How about food?

Posted by: carter | November 13, 2007 5:20 PM

“If the deaths in South Africa are unrelated to the policies of the Mbeki government but, instead, are due to the exploitation of Africa by the West–exploitation that has occurred for centuries–why did the epidemic of AIDS only take off in South Africa in the 1990’s?”

Not an easy question to answer. You are trying to force a pick between two extremes. It is not either or. Mbeki may not be very helpful in your fight against HIV but nor is the international community very helpfull either. The deaths in S. Africa are related to complex political manoeuverings happening in every corner of the planet. One of which is the very real reluctance of the west to deliver medicines (that we can well afford) with or without Mbeki in power. And, besides, the deaths are all due to disease. Policies may exacerbate a disease but it is never the cause of disease. The political smear campaign against Mbeki exacerbates the situation for all S Africans. He is the elected leader of SA, it is WITH him the world should work, not against.

“why did the epidemic of AIDS only take off in South Africa in the 1990’s?”

That is a very interesting question. Maybe it is a new disease that just popped up. It is notable though that HIV had the decency to wait until the end of apartheid to wreak havoc there. It really is hard to support or refute the HIV numbers in SA due to the disinterest white SA showed towards their black fellow countrymen during their rule. But many studies (one noted above by MEC) show that the theoretical death toll of the HIV/AIDS epidemic taking place there is at odds with many counter observations. Like MEC pointed out: the population growth model of SA “without AIDS” is closer to the latest SA population estimates than the population model “with AIDS”. This leads me to wonder how high off the ground this epidemic really got and if all the hype and all the hate is rational.

Posted by: pat | November 13, 2007 5:41 PM

What study did MEC cite?

Posted by: franklin | November 13, 2007 6:05 PM

Don’t get me wrong, I am not denying that people are dying faster there today than ever before but this increased mortality also corrolates with the decaying economic situation on the continent, and some people, in my humble opinion, underestimate the significance of this and too readily interpret any deaths as AIDS deaths. It use to be that poverty was the greatest sourse of human distress and ill health and somewhere along the line it became obfuscated by the phenomena of HIV causing poverty and wreaking economic destruction. HIV may worsen an already dire situation but all the ARV’s sold on credit in the world will not ever change anything for those suffering until there is a real and functioning health care system set up. it is a sad reality though that Aid funds are incompetently allocated. ARV’s are not pills really, politically they are a “bandaid”. Uganda has 1 health worker for every 22’000 citizens. The 70’000’000 credit they were given for their free ARV project, to last them until 2010 or so, already suffered its first set-back 4 months into the roll-out. The set back was a disruption on the supply side of the deal. There were no ARV’s ready for Uganda. A perfect opportunity for that TeennageMutantNinjaVirus to “morph” into something deadlier. The money the west spends in a week of war could build a nice little health system there but that does not happen; there is no political will. Mbeki or not, ARV’s distribution is always going to be adhoc there, just like the health care system, at least until we change our political will and identify the true threat to international security- Poverty.

Posted by: pat | November 13, 2007 6:13 PM

And economic inequality justifies the president of South Africa ignoring the evidence that HIV infection is a serious health problem facing his nation?

Posted by: franklin | November 13, 2007 7:03 PM

he quoted the US sensus bureau and statistics SA

here’s the SA sensus 2007

www.statssa.gov.za/Publications/CS2007Basic/CS2007Basic.pdf

2007: 48’502’063

the following is an obviously outdated and mistaken page opining about the opposite.
http://www.prcdc.org/summaries/aidsinafrica/aidsinafrica.html

“By 2003, there will be negative population growth in Botswana, South Africa and Zimbabwe. Negative population growth has never before been projected in a developing country; it is caused by a combination of high HIV prevalence and declining relatively low fertility.”

It is 2007 and they have seen a population growth of 8% since the last cencus of 2001.

ask MEC to dig out the US cencus bureau stuff..

Posted by: pat | November 13, 2007 7:07 PM

“And economic inequality justifies the president of South Africa ignoring the evidence that HIV infection is a serious health problem facing his nation?”

not economic inequality, economic inability perhaps, coupled with doubts about the west’s true intentions. We didn’t give them ARV’s when they were screaming for them, do remember that.

Posted by: pat | November 13, 2007 7:17 PM

The CIA thinks S Africa has only 43,997,828 people as of 2007.
But we all know the CIA couldn’t tell a WMD if it hit them in the face.
They are off by 5’000’000 people. Maybe it is little wonder people think the country is being decimated.

Posted by: pat | November 13, 2007 7:30 PM

Mbeki wants something better than drug interventions based on a vague virus theroy. How about food?

Over the last two decades the gross domestic product per capita has been steadily rising.

If poverty is increasing it is only because there is a growing inequality in the distribution of wealth that occurred during the ANC government.

Mbeki needs to find another scapegoat for the failure of their health system. Conspiracies involving the CIA and pharmaceutical companies are not credible.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 13, 2007 7:39 PM

“Over the last two decades the gross domestic product per capita has been steadily rising”

this flies right in the face of economic predictors when computing for the HIV/AIDS epidemic. We are used to faulty HIV models in the meantime though.

“If poverty is increasing it is only because there is a growing inequality in the distribution of wealth that occurred during the ANC government.”

You have found a phenomena that is reproduced around the world and is not unique to ANC policies. We wont even mention the inequalities under apartheid, right.

“Mbeki needs to find another scapegoat for the failure of their health system”

No, you need to find another scapegoat for the failures of our AID programmes and lopsided trade rules.

“Conspiracies involving the CIA and pharmaceutical companies are not credible.”

Do you see that Jorg? I mention the CIA getting their data backwards and Chris Noble busts out with increadible CIA conspiracy theories. It is fascinating, Chris. You are like a pavlovian attack dog. I am starting to believe you are a spambot that reacts to specific letter combinations.

Posted by: pat | November 13, 2007 8:01 PM

Mbeki says CIA had role in HIV/AIDS conspiracy

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 13, 2007 8:33 PM

“If you go to jspreen’s web page, you see that the commonality with Noreen and cooler is that they all appear to be people with no prior medical or scientific training who have become ill or had family become ill and been let down by the medical community in various ways. From jspreen’s web page:”

Ildi,
Wrong, I cite experts all the time like Garth and nancy nicolson phd’s, Dr. joel baseman from the NIH and Dr. Shyh Ching Lo md phd from the Army, I mean I posted a long excerpt from Lo’s pathology study above thats more solid than anything Ive ever read proving a microbes pathenogenicity in humans.

Even after Baseman said how impressed they were with Lo’s work, inducing disease in mice/monkeys, seeing the mycoplasma in the tissues with the EM, and reccomended further funding, Fauci the murderer refused to provide a penny. Baseman said it could be involved in many other diseases. This was 1990, god knows how many people have it now and are being misdiagnosed with depression etc.

What about all the “deniers” that are not sick like math professsor and future noble laurete Darin Brown, Serge lange etc etc, your aims at psychoanylsis are pretty weak, stick to debating the science.

Posted by: cooler | November 13, 2007 9:26 PM

Pat,

Are you arguing that there is no AIDS crisis in S. Africa (only 14,000 deaths in 2004) or that the AIDS crisis is due to pharmaceutical companies setting antiretroviral prices out of reach of S. Africa’s health care budget (“the failures of our AID programmes and lopsided trade rules”).

Posted by: franklin | November 13, 2007 10:29 PM

Cooler,

You mostly cite Project Day Lily–a work of fiction.

Posted by: franklin | November 13, 2007 10:32 PM

its actually a true story thats slightly fictionilized to stay out of court, too bad so many scientists disagree with you, read the reviews, including a nobel laurete, its mostly based on Lo’s work that is far from fiction, the only microbe discovered to kill/sicken every animal injected

PRESS RELEASE
Huntington Beach, CA
May 27, 2006 http://www.projectdaylily.com/

The Institute for Molecular Medicine announces that its recently self-published book Project Day Lily, is already the No. 3 quarterly royalty earning book published by Xlibris Corporation, a subsidiary of Random House. Project Day Lily is based on the events surrounding “Gulf War Syndrome” suffered by over 150,000 veterans (and tens of thousands dead) without proper acknowledgment or treatment to keep secret the origin of their illnesses.

This is the true story of the discovery of a biological agent in veterans’ blood by two American scientists as part of a massive testing program in the military and prisons and how various academic and government employees did everything in their power to keep this information secret, including murder.

Their discovery has allowed patients with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Fibromyalgia Syndrome, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Multiple Sclerosis and other fatiguing and autoimmune diseases to finally find an effective treatment for their conditions.

The events described are true, and the scientific principles discussed in the book and have been documented in the authors’ publications, reports and sworn testimony to Presidential Commissions and committees of the U. S. Congress.

Some comments on the book:

Being a health professional for 40 years, I have always held scientific research and discovery in respect. However, since personally experiencing the ravages of a chronic Mycoplasma infection, receiving help and guidance from the Nicolsons over the past 10 years and in turn helping others, I now have a slightly different perspective. The Nicolsons are great storytellers of intrigue and menace in the scientific research world. Breaking the mold of traditional suspense novels, Project Day Lily is based on fact–many facts of which I can attest. The book is simultaneously intelligent and believable. It is intricately layered with remarkable research and detail from the opening pages to the conclusion. It is a fascinating, absorbing, eye-opening page-turner. Project Day Lily has alerted me of the danger that public policy could easily become the captive of the scientific technologically elite. I suspect that it may be happening more than any of us would want to know. And God help those of us who are unsuspecting victims!
Sharon Briggs, M.S.N., R.N., Mycoplasma Support, Shasta CFIDS

In “Project Day Lily” the Nicolsons tell their personal saga that is intertwined with major events and forces in recent American history. This linear narrative testifies about the strength of authors’ perceptions and convictions. It is also a story of transformation of a couple of scientists into advocates for causes that they believe in so deeply.
Stanimir Vuk-Pavlovic, Ph.D., Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Mayo Clinic Graduate School

This book is very compelling – pointing out the corruption of the university–governmental complex coupled with Mafia money. Every conscientious physician and scientist needs to know that following the “green” is essential to know in order to develop information that is reliable to help their research and in helping their patients.
William J. Rea, M.D., F.A.C.S., F.A.A.E.M., Environmental Health Center – Dallas

A great read, complex and convoluted but compulsive. Science and politics are intricately intertwined in this chonologue. The world of scientific research is shown in its reality: academic altruism and isolation of the scientists on the one hand and the political gamesmanship, enterprise and exploitiveness that is often used to achieve the funding to allow the work to continue on the other.
Tim Roberts, Ph.D., Acting ProVice-Chancellor, Assistant Dean International, Assistant Dean Postgraduate Coursework, Faculty of Science and Information Technology
University of Newcastle (Australia)

I received the very first draft and read it with increasing amazement as I was going along. I knew Garth Nicolson from his days at the Salk Institute and knew he was (is) of sound mind. The implications, medical and political, of what is revealed in “Project Day Lily” are major. If you are interested in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Fibromyalgia, or the problems of our Veterans with Gulf War Syndrome, you will want to read this book, think, and wonder.
Roger Guillemin, M.D., Ph.D., Distinguished Professor, Nobel Laureate in Medicine, The Salk Institute

This is a saga of two researchers in pursuit of the truth who were pulled into the black hole of treacherous global affairs and politics and their excruciating struggles for survival. How many more Galileos and Darwins will have to suffer? Their chronicle keeps a reader in suspense from the beginning to the end. I cannot wait for a film version of it.
Tae H. Ji, Ph.D., Professor of Chemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Kentucky

Project Day Lily shatters the composed façade of academic science, exposing societal turbulence as malevolent and violent as any time in the Cold War or since. The pages seem to turn themselves. This story illustrates a time of crisis and tragedy for individuals and country so thoroughly frightening despondency and despair seem the only refuge. Yet the evil is overshadowed by the transcendent courage and steadfast determination of the main characters to push forward. Their commitment to family and integrity is inspiring and makes the battle worth fighting.
John Casey, President and Co-Founder, Nutritional Therapeutics, Inc.

During the first Gulf Conflict, Operation Desert Storm, nearly every level of government, the military, and the American people assumed that Iraq had completely failed to deploy or initiate the use of biological weapons. Leading up to the war, I directed the military component of a joint biological detection project with scientists from Stanford Research Institute. At the conclusion of the combat, even after being presented with evidence that suggested biological agents had indeed found their way to the battlefield, I dismissed the reports of Gulf War Illness. That is, until soldiers in my command and their families developed illnesses that could only be attributed to their service in the Gulf or their association with people and material that had been returned from Iraq. In my search for the truth, I met Dr. Garth Nicolson. He was a lone, and much maligned, voice in the quest for a cure. Project Day Lily is a riveting and profound essay on what really happened. It’s time the public knew the truth.
Gerald Schumacher, Colonel, U.S. Army Special Forces (ret)

I received a draft of the book Project Day Lily, and I was deeply impressed by the courage of Professor Garth Nicolson and his wife Dr. Nancy Nicolson, who were determined to uncover the mystery of the “Gulf War Syndrome”. Professor Nicolson, who is a prominent scientist, provided evidence, that the “Syndrome”, was not due to psychological effects, which caused the suffering of more than 150,000 veterans, but was the result of infection with a Mycoplasma strain, which was apparently modified genetically. As this approach contradicted the official version, the two scientists were attacked mentally and physically and had to leave their positions and to establish a new Institute–The Institute for Molecular Medicine–where they could continue their studies without interference. This book provides an interesting insight into the relationship of science and politics in the United States. It describes the experience of two devoted scientists, who did not hesitate to tell the true story about the Gulf War Syndrome. I am sure that every reader will be deeply impressed.
Uriel Bachrach, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Hebrew Hadassah University, Jerusalem

Posted by: cooler | November 13, 2007 10:56 PM

So you think you’ve been debating the science, cooler? I don’t think that phrase means what you think it does. Citing experts all the time does not the scientific dialog make.

No, like I said in my first comment, I read all these fascinating threads to figure out what makes people like you tick. You get a lot of folk wasting quite a few brain cells on you on these threads (like poor franklin); that’s got to be a big motivation.

jspreen even admits to this: “I have nothing to say to Mr Pee Moore in private. If I send a contribution here every once in a while, it’s not to address naked assed Emperor Moore and his lackeys, but to attract some attention of people…”

[ok, ok, that was a spot of quote-mining. jspreen actually selflessly wants save others from the evil medical baby-killing cabal. Think of the children…!]

Posted by: ildi | November 13, 2007 11:02 PM

Pat,

One factor contributing to the remarkably low number of deaths attributed to HIV in the Stats South Africa report is discussed on page 5 of the report, under the heading: “Classification of the Causes of Death.”

In terms of the Stats SA coding procedures and guidelines, immunosuppression was not coded as HIV, but as immunodeficiency, which has a separate ICD-10 code. There is no code for immunosuppression in the ICD-10 manuals. However, certifying officials sometimes reported the underlying cause of death as ‘acquired immune suppression’. There is no code in the ICD-10 for ‘acquired immune suppression’. In terms of the Stats SA coding procedures, this term was interpreted as HIV disease and given an HIV code (group B20-B24). If HIV was written on the form this was also coded in the HIV group, as required by the ICD-10.

So if “immune suppression” was listed as the cause of death the case was listed as a primary immune disorder. This category of diseases includes things like congenital immune deficiencies, etc., and turns out to be the 7th leading cause of death in 2004 and 2005.

Hmmm, what do you think? An epidemic of Di George Syndrome or maybe Adenine Deaminase Deficiency?

Well, I guess not, because on page 45 they break down the 16,171 deaths due to “Certain Disorders Involving the Immune Mechanism,” and 98.8% are classified as “Other Immunodeficiencies” (with an additional 0.3% classified as “Other Disorders Involving the Immune Mechanism; Not Elsewhere Classified”).

Together, the categories of HIV plus “Certain Disorders Involving the Immune Mechanism” account for more than 30,000 deaths and would constitute the third leading cause of death in 2005.

And that still wouldn’t take into account the cases of TB in AIDS patients coded simply as TB.

The authors of the Statistics SA report recognize that HIV is under-reported on death registrations and in the Introduction (page 2) they state that:

This release covers mortality and causes of death broadly, and hence does not focus specifically on HIV and AIDS. It does, however, provide indirect evidence that HIV may be contributing to the increase in the level of mortality for prime-aged adults, given the increase in the number of deaths due to associated diseases.

Posted by: franklin | November 13, 2007 11:17 PM

November 13, 2007: U.S. Sets Record in Sexual Transmitted Diseases

This can’t be good.

ATLANTA (AP) – More than 1 million cases of chlamydia were reported in the United States last year – the most ever reported for a sexually transmitted disease, federal health officials said Tuesday.

“A new U.S. record,” said Dr. John M. Douglas Jr. of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

More bad news: Gonorrhea rates are jumping again after hitting a record low, and an increasing number of cases are caused by a “superbug” version resistant to common antibiotics, federal officials said Tuesday.

Syphilis is rising, too. The rate of congenital syphilis – which can deform or kill babies – rose for the first time in 15 years.

So, chlamydia is up
So, Gonorrhea is up
So, Syphilis is up

Record levels — germs are everywhere — kids are humping like rabbits.

And, yet, total, complete, deafening silence on ……HIV.

Not a solitary word. As if it didn’t exist.

Posted by: John Givens | November 13, 2007 11:30 PM

See, cooler, what franklin is doing is what debating the science looks like. Well organized, clearly makes the point, appears to be properly cited… in case you were wondering.

Posted by: ildi | November 13, 2007 11:31 PM

Really could have fooled me, scroll back and read Lo’s cited pathology studies and learn something, instead of being a crank. Learn from a real scientist, not a fraud like yourself.

Posted by: cooler | November 13, 2007 11:37 PM

Fraud? Now, that’s not nice, I’ve never said I was a real scientist, and I don’t even pretend to play one on TV, like you do. But back to franklin’s points; you don’t think that is debating the science? Pity, because I thought it was very cogent and made some excellent points.

Posted by: ildi | November 13, 2007 11:45 PM

Mbeki needs to find another scapegoat for the failure of their health system. Conspiracies involving the CIA and pharmaceutical companies are not credible.

Dr. Noble, you haven’t really answered the question, so one more time, Mr. Foreign Policy Expert: why would it be incredible that the CIA is/has been involved in undermining Thabo Mbeki? I’m not saying they are, but why would it be so incredible? If somebody were to say that Prof. Moore et al in concert with forces within South Africa are trying to undermine Mbeki is that also an incredible conspiracy theory? If so maybe you can explain why the good prof. himself believes he is part of covert activities that targets “framers and shapers of events”? Is it just the Thorazine kicking in you think?

…You’re a lightweight in the denialists’ ranks, a mere gadfly, a commentator on events, not a framer and shaper of them. We take others seriously, but not you – you, we just laugh at in your “retirement” (…)
… We don’t care; nobody who matters takes your site seriously. But note that the information flow is one way, we won’t be revealing our plans, targets and activities to you. You’ll find out after the fact. We don’t issue warnings…….. (John M007e)

http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/2007/03/the_sad_song_of.html

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 13, 2007 11:52 PM

Cooler,
what exactly are your credentials and why would they lead us to believe you have any competency in “debating” scientific matters?

Posted by: Jim | November 14, 2007 12:03 AM

The scientists supporting the HIV/AIDS paradigm have failed as scientists.
Here’s how…

The scientists supporting the paradigm have ignored their responsibility to
explain and demonstrate the theory to the those who question it. From day one
there were experts objecting to the theory. These issues were never settled.
Today, with an increasing number of experts who are not convinced, the
scientists still do not try to justify their theory.

Another point.

What is evidence? Data is not evidence. Evidence gives or suggests proof
of something. If experts are not convinced that certain data constitute
evidence then more work needs to be done. A scientist supporting a theory
must explain how the data makes something evident to other scientists. If
data is not evidence to other scientists and these scientists say so, they
are not deniers of evidence, rather they are scientists for saying so.

John MOORE-

I don’t understand why you do not try to convince people that the theory is
correct. Why not gather more data? For what reasons do you not gather data
that would convince nonconvinced experts, and then the public. I do not see
how you can claim that you care about people at large while you neglect this
important responsibility. I do not understand, for example, why you do not
continue to try to convince Duesberg or try to understand his reasoning
better. Can you explain? Given what you know how could you write to Noreen as
you did? There are people who are healthy, people who have not died, despite
the predictions of the model. Noreen went from sick to healthy. Here you
have an example that the model does not predict. So, how come then do you
forecast her future health with the predictions of a model that has already
failed to predict her current health? Rather than tell her that she is in
grave danger of death how come you did not tell her that there are others
who, inexplicably, too have become healthy and have remained so? You could
have wished her well yet you forecast her death and then you say that your
forecast is about saving a life. Do you realize the terrible psychological
impact these words could have on Noreen? That those words alone could cause
her health to go from good to bad? Please explain your thinking on these
points.

Posted by: notsofast | November 14, 2007 12:05 AM

John Givens quotes from an article on STD’s and says:

So, chlamydia is up So, Gonorrhea is up So, Syphilis is up

Record levels — germs are everywhere — kids are humping like rabbits.

And, yet, total, complete, deafening silence on ……HIV.

Not a solitary word. As if it didn’t exist.

Let’s see, why doesn’t the aticle mention HIV?

Oh, you fogot to quote this sentence:

The CDC releases a report each year on chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis, three diseases caused by sexually transmitted bacteria.

So the article doesn’t mention HIV because it’ based on a CDC report that covers chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis.

HIV get its own report, John. All to itself:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2005report

Posted by: franklin | November 14, 2007 12:09 AM

Notsofast,

Do you have any evidence that John Moore’s “words alone could cause
her health to go from good to bad?”

Posted by: franklin | November 14, 2007 12:13 AM

jim, its because I’ve got the big balls and the big heart. Experts will say anything, they used to say smoking was good for you. Besides, the science is so simple, kochs postulates etc, nevermind that many experts agree with me because I’ve got the big balls and the big heart.

How big are your balls?

Posted by: cooler | November 14, 2007 12:15 AM

Dr. Noble, you haven’t really answered the question, so one more time, Mr. Foreign Policy Expert: why would it be incredible that the CIA is/has been involved in undermining Thabo Mbeki?

The idea that not only do the pharmceutical companies have a stranglehold on the goverment sposored research in every single country in the world (apart from South Africa) but they also control the CIA is ridiculous. Unless your name is Matthias Rath!

Why Sarkozy and Bush Need World War III

Nope, no frothing at the mouth conspiracy theorists!

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 14, 2007 12:19 AM

Cooler,
your answer stating “none” is noted.

Posted by: Jim | November 14, 2007 12:28 AM

youve just admitted you dont have any balls.

Posted by: cooler | November 14, 2007 12:31 AM

“The scientists supporting the paradigm have ignored their responsibility to
explain and demonstrate the theory to the those who question it.”

No they haven’t, notsofast. Scientists have continued to research HIV and publish their results in the literature. They’ve continued to report their results at meetings and respond to criticisisms voices at said meetings and in said literature. It is not up to scientists to convince the few hold outs who cling to their own past glory. Once a person has proven themselves resistant to the conclusions reached through data collection without providing their own contradicting data, there is no longer an obligation to take those people seriously.

“From day one
there were experts objecting to the theory. These issues were never settled.
Today, with an increasing number of experts who are not convinced, the
scientists still do not try to justify their theory.”

Every paper published justifies and supports the theory. The issues were settled a long time ago and doubts settled by real scientists doing real research. Refuting an accepted theory requires contradictory data from those questioning the supporting data, a point that seems to be lost on denialists. I’d also like to know who’s joining the denialist’s ranks to make them continually say things like “an increasing number of experts who are not convinced” because I only see the same tired, refuted washed up “experts” cited time after time.

Posted by: Jim | November 14, 2007 12:42 AM

Ball size aside, cooler, the science is far from “simple.” Even Koch’s postulates aren’t as simple as you try to play them off as. Indeed, as I and others have pointed out to you multiple times, Koch himself realized his own examples couldn’t live up to his postulates 100% of the time, and cautioned that the totality of the evidence be considered, and not his postulates alone.

Posted by: Tara C. Smith | November 14, 2007 12:43 AM

And does Mbeki say the pharmaceuticals control the CIA?

I don’t know why you feel you use such strong wording as “pharmceutical companies have a stranglehold on the goverment sposored research in every single country in the world”.

Do you not believe industries like medicine, oil, weapons have a lot of power to influence governments all over the world? Do you not believe hat if a number of these global players should happen to have shared interests it would be very difficult for any country to oppose them?

Do you not believe that foreign aid, including medical aid is tied to the donor country’s foreign policy aims?

Could I get a real analysis Dr. Foreign Policy Expert?

And would you like to explain why John Moore thinks he is part of something infinitely more powerful and influential than the so called denialists, or are you just going to keep dragging in more side issues you don’t understand? either?

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 14, 2007 12:44 AM

How old are you Cooler, 15? I’m sure you giggled like a little girl the entire time it took you to typed that response. Again, your response stating “none” is noted.

Posted by: Jim | November 14, 2007 12:51 AM

And does Mbeki say the pharmaceuticals control the CIA?

He says the pharmacetical companies are behind the conspiracy and the CIA is involved. Maybe they are just subcontracted. Maybe both the CIA and the pharmaceutical companies are controlled by the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds as Matthias Rath thinks.

I don’t know why you feel you use such strong wording as “pharmceutical companies have a stranglehold on the goverment sposored research in every single country in the world”.

If HIV and AIDS is all just a plot by the pharmaceutical companies to sell drugs to poor Africans then they somehow managed to subvert government sponsored research in countries across the world including Russia and China.

That’s the problem with these conspiracy theories. You have to explain why government funded scientists all across the world are all in on it, even in China. If HIV and AIDS aren’t real then why did China eventually confront the crisis? Why not just ignore it? If it isn’t real then it should go away. Maybe China is controlled by the pharmaceutical companies too!

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 14, 2007 1:14 AM

From day one there were experts objecting to the theory. These issues were never settled. Today, with an increasing number of experts who are not convinced, the scientists still do not try to justify their theory

There isn’t an increasing number of experts who are not convinced. There is a inverse relationship between the number of people signing the denialist list and their relevant expertise in the field.

The list is padded out with quacks like Hulda Clark and homeopaths, acupuncturists and orgone therapists etc.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 14, 2007 1:19 AM

I’d also like to know who’s joining the denialist’s ranks to make them continually say things like “an increasing number of experts who are not convinced” because I only see the same tired, refuted washed up “experts” cited time after time.

They have their own list just like the scientists that dissent from Darwin, the scientists that think 911 was a conspiracy by the Bush government, the scientists that think that vaccines are evil etc.

Their latest addition is a videographer. Not exactly an expert! And by the sound of it he is a “wild-eyed conspiracy theorist” despite the claims on the website.

Like I told Stephen, what other lies have we been dealt???

9/11??? Probably. Apollo Moon Landings? Very possible. Hell even FDR knew that Japan was going to attack Pearl Harbor. But nothing was done. Now is our time to stand up and not only protect our future but protect our rights as a human being. We have the right to exist whenever, whenever and HOW EVER we choose.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 14, 2007 2:01 AM

the exceptions to Kochs postulates are quite easy to understand as well, some microbes can be species specific. I understand that, therefore the only way to make a distiction between a harmless passenger virus and a species specific pathenogenic microbe is a carefully controlled long term study that rules out confounding factors, for example with hepatitis C you would follow people with the virus with no other risk factors such as drugs and alcohol and see if this 1/1000 cell no animal model microbe can really do what Chiron said it could do, the drug company that gave us hepatitis C, or if it was just a money making scam they created, when the true cause of hep c is just drugs and alcohol.

If there is that long term study with hep c that rules out these confounding factors please let me know.

Another way to see if your species specific microbe is not a passenger virus is to see it in large quantities with the EM. etc etc.

Jim you see you can learn alot from me and my sidekick dr. shyh ching lo md phd, the military’s most decorated infectious disease pathologist, we dont need to do all these things, because mycoplasma incognitus/penetrans induces disease/ death in every animal inoculated, is visible in dying patients tissues by EM, and is found in no healthy controls. So please bow your head to your scientific elder, how many people lives have been ruined because of this microbe because of people like you, people with no balls and heart, who are mesmerized and stupified by drug company propaganda. Bow your head once again!
eternal hugs,
cooler

Posted by: cooler | November 14, 2007 3:16 AM

noble,
theres margulis, pollack, maniotis, over 200 architects and engineers that are questioning 9/11 and hiv, perhaps you need to start BOWING YOUR HEAD TO YOUR SCIENTIFIC ELDERS.

Please visit the architects for truth site to get some real intelligence in your life, not eternal woo. Please start bowing your head to your elders, and stop believing in crazy conspiracies. Loony tune.

Posted by: cooler | November 14, 2007 3:39 AM

“Pat,

Are you arguing that there is no AIDS crisis in S. Africa (only 14,000 deaths in 2004)”

No, 30’000 is still a far cry from 356’000 but I suppose 300’000 can still be squeezed in if I start making wilder assumptions too.

“or that the AIDS crisis is due to pharmaceutical companies setting antiretroviral prices out of reach of S. Africa’s health care budget (“the failures of our AID programmes and lopsided trade rules”). ”

Wether there is the crisis you are talking about or not, eitherway, yes. That has done more damage overall than Mbeki in his wildest dreams.

Posted by: pat | November 14, 2007 4:04 AM

“JOHANNESBURG, Oct 6 (UPI) — South Africa’s President Thabo Mbeki has accused the Central Intelligence Agency of being part of a “conspiracy to promote the view that HIV causes AIDS,” The Mail & Guardian reported Friday.”

I didn’t know about this but I do find it odd that the CIA would NOT update its website and undeercount SA population by 5 million.

Posted by: pat | November 14, 2007 4:08 AM

cooler: I must say I am a bit surprised to see Lynn Margulis on that list, but, after all, nobody has a perfect record. The number of homeopaths and lawyers there is a bit bothersome; but I really enjoyed your reference to “architects and engineers”. Those are overrepresented on the dissent from Darwin lists, too. Back when I was an undergrad, architects were generally considered to be the second lowest form of life. Who were the lowest? Well….engineers! 😉 (My apologies to architects and engineers reading this: we all know that stereotypes do not apply to individuals…or do we?)

MEC: So far the only people I see screaming and insulting others here are the deniers. Perhaps the rest of us are holding on to a wrong opinion (I doubt it), but they haven’t provided any evidence for it and ignored any evidence undermining their views. That is precisely the behaviour of a quack.

I am sure that by saying this I open myself to a stream of invective, but whatever.

Pat: I am well familiar with the rules of internet debate (or lack of them), having cut my teeth in the various Usenet groups–what?–15 years ago or so. I hated the idiots then; I still do. I do not happen to believe that random insults are productive at all, and I do believe that politeness in a debate can carry you quite a long way. Besides which, the rude ones seldom provide any useful information; my humble opinion is that they disqualify themselves from the get-go: I have problems listening to somebody when they are shrilling incoherently, and that kind of behaviour does not inspire me with respect for them as individuals or their POVs.

That said, I have been known to tell miscellaneous assholes to fuck off–both online and in real life; but I would not do this in an online discussion unless I was ready to do so in reality. It takes quite a bit to piss me off. Creationists did it. Moon-landing hoaxers did it. American Maoists, global warming deniers, etc did it. HIV deniers are well on their way after my first encounter with them.

Posted by: Jorg | November 14, 2007 4:19 AM

I must say I am a bit surprised to see Lynn Margulis on that list, but, after all, nobody has a perfect record. The number of homeopaths and lawyers there is a bit bothersome; but I really enjoyed your reference to “architects and engineers”. Those are overrepresented on the dissent from Darwin lists, too.

Margulis is also on the fluoride “rethinkers” list.

End Fluoridation

There is an amazing degree of overlap between the names on these various lists. I recognised several HIV “rethinkers” on the antifluoridation list.

Several people are on the HIV “rethinkers” and Dissent from Darwin list most notably Phillip Johnson, the father of ID, and Johnathon Wells.

Is there a scientists that dissent from vaccination list out there?

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 14, 2007 4:47 AM

He says the pharmacetical companies are behind the conspiracy and the CIA is involved. Maybe they are just subcontracted. Maybe both the CIA and the pharmaceutical companies are controlled by the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds as Matthias Rath thinks

Is that your sophisticated analysis, Dr. Noble, of how colonialism, “free” market capitalism, multinational corp. incessant war etc. arise, interact and influence things globally?

If you’d rather want to talk about Matthias Rath than Mbeki, why don’t you ask Tara to do a Matthias Rath thread? I’m sure she’ll be happy to oblige since it’s well known that inspiration has a hard time striking her.

In the meantime, can I just get a straight answer without your rather pathetic attempts at squeezing the word “conspiracy theory” into every sentence; why is it incredible that CIA would be working to undermine Mbeki?

That’s the problem with these conspiracy theories. You have to explain why government funded scientists all across the world are all in on it, even in China.

No you’re the conspiracy theorist, Dr. Noble, not me. You have to explain why I need anymore than a few basic undisputed facts such as drug companies want to sell drugs, they’re not in the business of telling people to stay off the meds or spend the resources on sanitation and food.

likewise, since you’ve mentioned it, the Bush admin and its party is not in the business of telling us not to be afraid of terrorists and terroristic germs. Do you think every intelligence analyst, every member of congress, the media, the telecom industry, the weapons manufacturers, the vaccine producers, Halliburton and their ilk, the generals, the soldiers, the whole “coalition of the willing” have been working closely together on a conspiracy to lie about WMDs and make a mess of Iraq? – Did it happen anyway?

Do the vaccine producers get special legal exemptions and guaranteed profits under the new bio-terror laws and the on and off H5N1 fright? Do the tele companies get equally sweet deals and legal amnesty for breaking the law because of the war on terror? etc. etc. etc. etc….

Why would I need a “conspiracy theory” to explain what’s happening with HIV, when it’s plainly not needed to explain many similar and undisputed occurrences in the world of politics and business?

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 14, 2007 4:57 AM

What Chris noble calls conspiracy theories other know as “business as usual”. For an indepth look at the magnitude of “business as usual” I recommend “The Assault on Reason” as a startig point.

Posted by: pat | November 14, 2007 5:32 AM

“So far the only people I see screaming and insulting others here are the deniers.”

funny, I see way more. Maybe my screen resolution is better than yours.

“Perhaps the rest of us are holding on to a wrong opinion (I doubt it), but they haven’t provided any evidence for it and ignored any evidence undermining their views. That is precisely the behaviour of a quack.”

You doubt? That is good but why are other doubters quacks. I doubt and I am a quack. How does that work? You are actually defining quacks as “people I disagree with”. If this is your first brush with “denialists”; how much do you actually think you KNOW?
I venture you are picking sides by he arbitrary use of who’s a “denialist” and who isn’t. Like they even agree amongst themselves.

Posted by: pat | November 14, 2007 5:45 AM

“There is an amazing degree of overlap between the names on these various lists. I recognised several HIV “rethinkers” on the antifluoridation list.

Several people are on the HIV “rethinkers” and Dissent from Darwin list most notably Phillip Johnson, the father of ID, and Johnathon Wells.

Is there a scientists that dissent from vaccination list out there?”

Chris has discovered “overlap”.

Posted by: pat | November 14, 2007 5:54 AM

In the meantime, can I just get a straight answer without your rather pathetic attempts at squeezing the word “conspiracy theory” into every sentence; why is it incredible that CIA would be working to undermine Mbeki?

What is believable about the idea? Why would the CIA want to undermine Mbeki? To increase the profits of the pharmaceutical companies?

What connection is there between the CIA and the pharmaceutical companies?

Anthrax Attacks Linked to CIA and Drug Industry?

What exactly was the CIA supposed to have done anyway? Infected ANC members with HIV via stealth darts? Put mind control drugs in the water at the presidential office?

Mbeki never makes it clear exactly what the CIA was supposedly doing except that they were working together with the WTO, international financial organizations and the drug companies to undermine him. If this doesn’t sound like a classic paranoid conspiracy theory then I don’t know what does.

On a side note Rasnick apparently thinks that SARS was a Bush invention to tackle the growing Chinese economy.

SARS as economic warfare

Bush is preoccupied with war, terrorism, and getting re-elected. I don’t think he has either the inclination or the talent to deal with economic issues. Lacking the energy and imagination to rebuild the US economy, I think the Bush administration invented SARS in order to cool down the rapidly growing Asian economies–especially China.

But remember the HIV “rethinkers” are not wild-eyed conspiracy theorists!

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 14, 2007 7:24 AM

Dr. Tara Smith,

This particular thread caught my eye because in it I came to be aware of the so-called denialist movement. Until very recently, I never thought that such estabilished fact such as HIV being the cause of AIDS could be subject of so much dissent.
Being a chemist, and thus, a scientist, and thus, with a natural curiosity over all things amazing, I also read what the denialist has to say about this. Though you consistently accuse them of cherry-picking and denialism, they do raise some valid points. One of which is the usefulness of the highly sensitive HIV ELISA tests.
Being a layman in terms of medical science knowledge, say immunology, I don’t really know much about the technique of immunoassays, namely ELISA. So I used the quickest tool of readily-available source of knowledge: The WIKIPEDIA.
I searched ELISA and antibody definitions. This is what I found on how to perform such test.

“Performing an ELISA involves at least one antibody with specificity for a particular antigen. The sample with an unknown amount of antigen is immobilized on a solid support (usually a polystyrene microtiter plate) either non-specifically (via adsorption to the surface) or specifically (via capture by another antibody specific to the same antigen, in a “sandwich” ELISA). After the antigen is immobilized the detection antibody is added, forming a complex with the antigen. The detection antibody can be covalently linked to an enzyme, or can itself be detected by a secondary antibody which is linked to an enzyme through bioconjugation. Between each step the plate is typically washed with a mild detergent solution to remove any proteins or antibodies that are not specifically bound. After the final wash step the plate is developed by adding an enzymatic substrate to produce a visible signal, which indicates the quantity of antigen in the sample. Older ELISAs utilize chromogenic substrates, though newer assays employ fluorogenic substrates with much higher sensitivity.”
“Because the ELISA can be performed to evaluate either the presence of antigen or the presence of antibody in a sample, it is a useful tool both for determining serum antibody concentrations (such as with the HIV test[1] or West Nile Virus) and also for detecting the presence of antigen. It has also found applications in the food industry in detecting potential food allergens such as milk, peanuts, walnuts, almonds, and eggs. The ELISA test, or the enzyme immunoassay (EIA), was the first screening test commonly employed for HIV. It has a high sensitivity.In an ELISA test, a person’s serum is diluted 400-fold and applied to a plate to which HIV antigens have been attached. If antibodies to HIV are present in the serum, they may bind to these HIV antigens. The plate is then washed to remove all other components of the serum. A specially prepared “secondary antibody” — an antibody that binds to human antibodies — is then applied to the plate, followed by another wash. This secondary antibody is chemically linked in advance to an enzyme. Thus the plate will contain enzyme in proportion to the amount of secondary antibody bound to the plate. A substrate for the enzyme is applied, and catalysis by the enzyme leads to a change in color or fluorescence. ELISA results are reported as a number; the most controversial aspect of this test is determining the “cut-off” point between a positive and negative result.”

And now for the antibody definitions.

“Antibodies (also known as immunoglobulins) are proteins that are found in blood or other bodily fluids of vertebrates, and are used by the immune system to identify and neutralize foreign objects, such as bacteria and viruses. They are made of a few basic structural units called chains; each antibody has two large heavy chains and two small light chains. Antibodies are produced by a kind of white blood cell called a B cell. There are several different types of antibody heavy chain, and several different kinds of antibodies, which are grouped into different isotypes based on which heavy chain they possess. Five different antibody isotypes are known in mammals, which perform different roles, and help direct the appropriate immune response for each different type of foreign object they encounter.”

What I want is the composition of the binding section of the antibody:

“Although the general structure of all antibodies is very similar, a small region at the tip of the protein is extremely variable, allowing millions of antibodies with slightly different tip structures to exist. Each of these variants can bind to a different target, known as an antigen.”
“This region of the antibody is called the Fab (fragment, antigen binding) region. It is composed of one constant and one variable domain from each heavy and light chain of the antibody. The paratope is shaped at the amino terminal end of the antibody monomer by the variable domains from the heavy and light chains.”

And finally I searched for antigen:

“Antigens are usually proteins or polysaccharides. This includes parts (coats, capsules, cell walls, flagella, fimbrae, and toxins) of bacteria, viruses, and other microorganisms. Lipids and nucleic acids are antigenic only when combined with proteins and polysaccharides. Non-microbial exogenous (non-self) antigens can include pollen, egg white, and proteins from transplanted tissues and organs or on the surface of transfused blood cells.”

This is where I ask you, Dr. Smith, the following:

The technique:

(1)-“Between each step the plate is typically washed with a mild detergent solution to remove any proteins or antibodies that are not specifically bound. After the final wash step the plate is developed by adding an enzymatic substrate to produce a visible signal, which indicates the quantity of antigen in the sample.”

So this mild detergent recognizes the desired anti-hiv/hiv-antigen complex intact, and removes unwanted complexes like anti-flu/hiv-antigen for example? How is that possible?

(2)-“In an ELISA test, a person’s serum is diluted 400-fold and applied to a plate to which HIV antigens have been attached.”

To dilute 400-fold an already and naturally diluted sample is increasing the effect of associated error to any given reading. In such small concentrations, any contaminant can have a dramatic effect. And being a very sensitive technique doen’t help any further. It just just makes it a little too prone to erroneous readings, don’t you think? And who sets the limit for HIV-positive readings? Is it arbitrary? Or is there a single verified standard value?

As for the chemical aspect of selectivity:

(1)- “This region of the antibody is called the Fab (fragment, antigen binding) region. It is composed of one constant and one variable domain from each heavy and light chain of the antibody. The paratope is shaped at the amino terminal end of the antibody monomer by the variable domains from the heavy and light chains.”
“Antigens are usually proteins or polysaccharides.”

The amino terminal end is usually R-NH2. These can condense with terminal RCOOH of proteins, RCOH or RCOR’ of glycosides. Any organic chemist knows that primary and secondary amines react readily with aldehydes and ketones to yield schiff bases (RR’C=NR”R”’). In fact, this is why sugars are so damaging to diabetic people. Can you tell me then, how does an antibody tells the difference from flu or hiv antigen terminal ends? I know that there is some specificity to antibodies, this is why normal cells are safe. Mainly because they lack the terminal ends that react with home-made antibodies. But to which degree is there specificity to any given antigen?

(2)- Few simple questions really. If HIV evades the immune system (mutates and changes envelope), why are people tested with the same constant viral glycoproteins?
If HIV evades the immune system (mutates and changes envelope), shouldn’t all tests be negative in the first place (inability to recognize invader?).
If HIV evades the immune system (mutates and changes envelope), and a positive test means that not does only the virus maintains certain glycoproteins constants and the body is able to recognize the invader, shouldn’t it be considered a sign of protection, as in any other disease?
And being a recognizable invader ( thus disposable of) why does it still succeed in evading and destroying the immune system that can clearly see that hostile invader?

I thank you in advance for for explaining me these set of doubts.

Regards,
Adão (Rezaf).

Posted by: Rezaf | November 14, 2007 7:50 AM

“But remember the HIV “rethinkers” are not wild-eyed conspiracy theorists!”

We know by now that you are a simpleton and your modus is to find a real nut and superimpose them over everyone else.

“Mbeki never makes it clear exactly what the CIA was supposedly doing”

Only the CIA knows exactly what they are doing. Do you know what they are doing? You scoff at Mbeki but bring no evidence whatsoever. The CIA believes the population of SA stands today at 43 million. That is 5 million bellow fact. Somebody ought to correct those denialists. The CIA have given us plenty of insanity in the past. For you to brush all off as “nutty conspiracy” with a flick ouf your wrist demonstrates extreme naivete…but then again you are paid to spread such nonsense.

Do read “The Assault on Reason”. What you dismiss as unbelievable “conspiracy” theories is in fact business as usual. Read about Bush’s health plan and how the pharma industry designed it and then tell me they are not capable of wrongdoing in Africa and it is all unbelievable.

Posted by: pat | November 14, 2007 8:56 AM

“What exactly was the CIA supposed to have done anyway? Infected ANC members with HIV via stealth darts? Put mind control drugs in the water at the presidential office?”

you read too much sci-fi. It takes much less to “undermine” Mbeki. All it takes is a few assholes like you and a propaganda machine and the rest is history. Sorry to bring this up but how do you think Nazis got the ball rolling? With mind control drugs or spiked umbrella tips? No, just one little lie after another. This is how easy a conspiracy is in Goerings own words

“It is natural for the common people to not want war but, after all, it is a country’s leaders who determine policy and it is an easy matter to convince the people. Whether they have a voice or not, the people can always be made to do what their rulers wish. It’s easy. All you have to do is tell them they are under attack and condemn the pacifists for their lack of patriotism and for exposing their country to danger”

Posted by: pat | November 14, 2007 9:14 AM

Unfortunately, the number one enemy to society is complaency. It is too easy to soak information in via our tv sets and newspapers without ever having to think for ourself. We listen to news organizations who are slanted to right and to the left, yet they skim over the real stories due to political correctness. I bet if a poll was taken about HIV, it would be sad what the average person on the street believes. They think that it is a boogyman dealing death at every turn. They invision the “look” of Rock Hudson and are scared of it, that’s why it has been so easy to sway people into believing HIV causes AIDS without one epidemiology study.

P.S. You might want to look up the health effects of fluoride.

Posted by: noreen | November 14, 2007 9:38 AM

I’m sure you can tell us all about how easy it is to soak up misinformation noreen. I do recall you pasting a whole ton of complete lies from denialist websites here under the assumption it was valid.

Bill Clinton pardoned Gallo
ARVs attack OIs

off the top of my head

Posted by: apy | November 14, 2007 10:45 AM

“that’s why it has been so easy to sway people into believing HIV causes AIDS without one epidemiology study.”

This is blatantly untrue Noreen. Numerous studies have been posted here studying a variety of cohorts in a variety of locations. Do you read them? Do you even read other peoples posts? Or do you just come here, type something (usually the same refuted lies over and over) and ignore the rest?

Posted by: Jim | November 14, 2007 12:04 PM

Pat wrote: ‘You are actually defining quacks as “people I disagree with”‘

Huh? I said those that ignore the evidence thrown at them and do not provide any of their own besides wild assertions. I am sorry, but all the points raised *against* HIV as the causative agent have been dealt with and refuted; the number of studies supporting the HIV “hypothesis” is quite large; and all the opponents can say about them is either that this isn’t “real” evidence or mutter darkly about conspiracies, conflicts of interest and such. That is exactly quackery, anti-science and precisely the tactics of creationists (and moon-landing, 9/11 etc hoaxers).

Granted, several of the “mainstream” people on this thread have not been exactly gracious. Is it because they have dealt with you before? As I have mentioned, eventually one gets tired of unrelenting illogic and lack of real argument. You may claim that that is exactly how you feel too, but I repeat, I haven’t seen anything that would support your point of view in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And none of the “mainstreamers’ even approach the levels of rhetoric and insult of the likes of Geiger or MEC.

Posted by: Jorg | November 14, 2007 12:41 PM

Jorg, when you say re the denilaists “Is it because they (HIV/AIDS scientists) have dealt with you before? As I have mentioned, eventually one gets tired of unrelenting illogic and lack of real argument.” you summarize the situation very well.

The denialists invariably have no understanding whatsoever of the science on which they attempt to comment and question (one has only to go back through some of the howlers on this string, errors and misconceptions that would shame a High School student to see how laughable their knowledge is: “TB is the recovery phase of lung cancer”; SIV is a much larger organism than HIV”; an E.M. of mycoplasma looks exactly the same as one of a retrovirus, etc, etc).

Whenever properly scientists such as Chris Noble take the trouble to make informed postings on the underlying science, the denialists simply refuse to take what is said seriously. Instead, they dismiss the science as the product of a conspiracy, or they focus down and in on some trivial error in a paper, or a minor inconsistency with another study, and use their “discoveries” to assert that the entire peer-reviewed scientific literature on HIV/AIDS is flawed (and of course is part of a gigantic conspiracy). This is a tactic akin to saying that because Shakespeare made a spelling mistake in “As you like it”, the entire body of his collected works is meaningless rubbish that was paid for by Queen Elizabeth I as part of a system intended to control the peasantry and enrich her courtiers.

The denialists then ask the same questions over and over again, or repeat the same lies ad nauseam, in a parody of the classic “American in Paris” approach to communication. If you don’t understand, just shout louder.

The denialists are also absurdly over-simplistic. They invariably clog up strings like this with demands like: Tell me what single paper proves HIV causes AIDS. That would be akin to asking a NASA scientist for the “single paper that tells me how to make a space rocket that can fly me to the moon”.

The denialists then resort to abuse and threats, libels and general nastiness whenever anyone stands up to them.

Oh, and did I say they are all conspiracy theorists who believe that scientists and physicians are part of some gigantic governmental system aimed at controlling theor lives?

This would all be laughable, except for one central point: AIDS denialism does actually kill real people in the real world (see www.AIDSTruth.org for just a few examples). The moon-landing nuts, the 9/11 conspiracy loonies, the ID/creationism zealots differ from the AIDS denialists in this critical regard. This is why some of us fight AIDS denialists, not on the Blogs, but in the real world, to destroy their ability to cause yet more deaths in South Africa and elsewhere. And it’s why we never “debate” them, because to do so would acknowledge that their position has any intellectual or moral merit. It doesn’t, it’s merely ‘Deadly Quackery’, as my colleague Nicoli Nattrass and I wrote in the New York Times last year (of course, the denialists took the publication of that article as yet more evidence of a massive conspiracy, this one involving the media as well).

Posted by: John Moore | November 14, 2007 1:57 PM

Franklin, re your question about whether “Notsofast” has any evidence for his comment: “Do you realize the terrible psychological impact these words could have on Noreen? That those words alone could cause her health to go from good to bad?”

Note that this silly comment fits the denialists’ standard modus operandi of blaming every illness or death among them as being caused by something other than AIDS (see the dead denialists list on www.aidstruth.org for some classic examples of personal denial in practice). So I think we can expect to see the denialists ascribing any future decline in Noreen’s health to what was written on a Blog. In a similar vein, Celia Farber has written words to the effect that Christine Maggiore is now suffering from a voodoo hex put upon her by me and other AIDS professionals, so any future decline in her health will have that as its causation. This kind of nonsense is of course entirely consistent with Jan Spreen’s rejection of the germ theory of disease. There are no pathogenic organisms in the world of the AIDS denialists, disease and death is all down to AIDS scientists sticking pins in clay figurines and casting them into the stove.

Is it any wonder that AIDS professionals don’t take these people seriously, other than in our attempts to stop them killing other people via dissemination of their pseudoscientific, conspiracy theory-riddled nonsense?

Posted by: John Moore | November 14, 2007 2:11 PM

The turkey of the millenium is back,no evidence, just a pathetic attempt at psychoanaylisis as usual.

He claims to prove a microbe patheongenicity in humans you cant do it in a serious original papers, koch did it, Shyh ching Lo did it, and if you claim you microbe is species specific, not visible by EM, and want to keep extending your window period to 12 years when no one gets sick, you NEED conduct a long term study looking at people that rules out confounding factors such as drugs, alcohol, mycoplasmas, severe mental illness, azt. to see if they get sick, or else any harmless passenger virus can be said to cause disease.

Please send me these studies for hiv, hpv and heptitis c. I guess they dont exist, because I cant find it on AIDS truth.

The people that do this shouldnt be conspiracy wackjobs that think the government can’t tell a lie, but by independent scientists not tied to the industry. So Moore’s “rocket ship” analogy makes no sense, but what else would you expect from a scientific quackjob?

Posted by: cooler | November 14, 2007 2:55 PM

“That is exactly quackery, anti-science and precisely the tactics of creationists (and moon-landing, 9/11 etc hoaxers).”

I am none of these things

“As I have mentioned, eventually one gets tired of unrelenting illogic and lack of real argument”

That I can understand coming from people who are not in the business of education but I regret that trait in scientists who practically all double as university professors. I can understand that Chris doesn’t believe he can convince Maggiore of anything but that is NOT THE POINT (and that is my point). In all debates, wether you’re tired of it or not, there is an audience waiting and the audience is never the same. I have never seen a math teacher flip out at his students for asking questions about formula that was settled 2000 years ago. They still patiently teach day in day out. I fear that with this attitude of “been there been that” doesn’t help anyone who is new to the problem. Someone has to step up and do the education. Maybe it is my fault and thought that Tara and the likes would be more interested on maintaining informative sites instead of sites where the only postings that gather interest are “denialist” threads that attack the integrity of individuals instead of their faulty ideas. Tara is a professor for god’s sake! oh, no, she’s “only” an assistant. Well, whatever. In the meantime Maggiore is out there in the public organizing meetings and whatnotelse and no one is offering counter evidence…because they are tired.

“Is it because they have dealt with you before? ”

Oh, yes they have. They even have names for me:

-Ueberpat (for saying “Schubladendenken”)
-fucking moron (for mistaking one of my posts for medical advice)
-scumbag (for supposedly murdering Noreen by thought infection)
-Christine Maggiore (JP Moore,or someone just as immature it appears, planted that bit of misinformation while posting under MEC’s moniker in the hopes of provoking more disgust towards me than would otherwise be the case).
-murderer (again for murdering Noreen by thought infection),
etc..

and finally the must have,

-denialist

“And none of the “mainstreamers’ even approach the levels of rhetoric and insult of the likes of Geiger or MEC.”

Perhaps but nasty-stupid-immature is not a beauty contest I want to see scientists getting down with. It belittles the trust we MUST have in them. I am one that bases most of his doubts on the behavior of our leading HIV/AIDS public relations officers, you know, Moore-Bergman-Weinberg etc… I don’t need to know anything about what’s going on beyond my door to worry about the following statements these three stooges made:

-Some AIDS denialists work in bona fide universities. Some even teach students. If this happens in your neighborhood ask the university authorities why they allow this and then write about it” (3).- Moore (chills questioning in all sciences)

-“Science and health journalists should talk to the editorial desk and letters editors and vice versa to ensure that AIDS denialist letters are spotted on arrival and spiked, not published” (3).- Moore (censorship; that Moore is insulting this Moore’s intelligence and that of everyone else in the public)

-“A few of the AIDS denialists are scientists whose careers fizzled out; but others are zealots with extreme political views (both on the far-right and the far-left) who find AIDS denialism politically convenient; and some are deeply troubled individuals with disturbing behavior patterns who deserve pity and professional help “-Moore (he means contempt. Again treating his audience as stupid goats).

-“AIDS science is indeed in a war with the AIDS denialists, and the denialist leadership is indeed being targeted, not by violence or by threats of violence, but by legal and moral methods intended to destroy their ability to influence vulnerable people who have been persuaded to make choices that damage their health and the health of others. It will take time to defeat all the denialist leadership, but it’s being done (as some of them have already found out) and, in the end, science and morality will crush pseudoscience and evil.”-Moore (there is just no taking this seriously. People who have never heard of “HIV deniers” will be baffled by the absurdity of this statement, with the exception of the white House War Mongers Club perhaps. Seriously.)

-“we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender.” (this he knows not to do. This belittles a real war)

-“Our lawmakers need to enact legislation to put appropriate limits on such irresponsible expression and to counter the ongoing damage perpetrated by denialists.”- Weinberg, Moore (again advocating vague but scary sensorship)

-“As far as I’m concerned, and I hope this view is adequately
represented, those who attempt to dispel the notion that HIV is the cause of AIDS
are perpetrators of death. And I would very much for one like to see the
Constitution of the United States and similar countries have some means in place
that we can charge people who are responsible for endangering public health
with charges of endangerment and bring them up on trial. I think that people like
Peter Duesberg belong in jail.”-Wainberg (self-explaning no-no)

-“This fact and all the other available evidence strongly indicate that Maggiore was never infected with HIV, and she herself emphasizes the term “positive” and avoids saying she is infected or has the virus, allowing others to draw that erroneous conclusion. Most people would be thrilled to learn they were uninfected, but Maggiore was unwilling to give up the spotlight. This HIV pretender twisted her good health and the marginal incidence of false positives into a lucrative new racket–selling HIV denialism and bragging about her good life “without pharmaceutical treatments or fear of AIDS.” But of course Maggiore has no “fear of AIDS”–she doesn’t have HIV.”
– Bergmann (obviously gratuitous slander in light of recent developments).

I don’t care how much venom, nonsense and out right fabrications come out of the mouths or off the keyboards of “trolls” or whatever they are called but I do very much mind when the people I should be differing to, make such obviously crazy, slanderous, and politically dangerous statements. My family comes from the craziest dictatorship the world has ever seen and I twitch in horror and anger when I hear people toss around such dangerous ideas so they can temporarily relieve their emotional imbalances and professional frustrations.

The funny thing is they can’t figure out what I am in denial of; they just hope people ASS-U-ME I am denying HIV/AIDS, gravity, creationism, holocaust…and therefore AM by default all those things listed.

Although I personally think it is lame, perhaps a disclaimer is in order.

…naaah, fukkit. I don’t have to prove that I am not in denial of whatever it is people want me to be in denial of.

Posted by: pat | November 14, 2007 2:55 PM

“Oh, and did I say they are all conspiracy theorists who believe that scientists and physicians are part of some gigantic governmental system aimed at controlling theor lives?”- Moore

Funny you’d say that, I was just writing about your side-kick Wainberg. Here it is again:

“-“As far as I’m concerned, and I hope this view is adequately
represented, those who attempt to dispel the notion that HIV is the cause of AIDS
are perpetrators of death. And I would very much for one like to see the
Constitution of the United States and similar countries have some means in place
that we can charge people who are responsible for endangering public health
with charges of endangerment and bring them up on trial. I think that people like
Peter Duesberg belong in jail.”-Wainberg

Posted by: pat | November 14, 2007 2:59 PM

“And it’s why we never “debate” them, because to do so would acknowledge that their position has any intellectual or moral merit”

No, no, no Mr Moore. All this does is deny the audience any intellectual or moral merit.

And you teach…

Posted by: pat | November 14, 2007 3:04 PM

Funny you idiots mock Margulis for opposing fluoride, theres another science blogger named the angrytoxicologist that wrote me a long message what a sham flouride is, of all the bloggers, hes the most qualified on the subject, and as usual all you quacks do is resort to name calling, this is what he wrote me on his blog
Yes , I spent some time looking for the original scientific paper that said toothpaste w/ fluoride was much more effective than ordinary toothpaste w/o flouride, does this paper exist?

the lack of of original papers proving some things that everyone believes to be true is strange. Its like when nobel prize winner Kary Mullis Kept asking people for a reference for the statement “hiv causes aids” and no one could give it to him. Where are the original scientific papers from the 30’s that showed it was ok to take thimerosol?

Im not saying these things are not true, about hiv/fluoride/thimerosols safety but you have to wonder the reason everyone beleives something has much less to do with science and a lot more to do with groupthink and thought control.

Posted by: cooler | July 26, 2007 11:58 PM

Cooler, you hit upon a rather sensitive subject. The original trial is the Newburgh trial (1956 published in the Journal of the American Dental association). It has since been found to have many problems that largely make the trial invalid. More interesting about the history of that study was that many of the people involved with the study have some shady pasts (a lot of this was revealed in the 90s when a lot of DoD papers from the WWII period were released). A man largely behind it all Harold Hodge (generally considered the dean of toxicology in the US) was working with the Manhattan project to keep it going. A big problem with producing all the aluminum and the uranium that was needed for the war and the manhattan project was that it produced massive amounts of fluoride contamination. The first problems were in NJ where the peach crops starting dying and then the cows got crippled. The farmers starting getting sick and it turned out they had blood F levels about 31X what the average person has. They waited till the war was over (for patriotic reasons? I’m not sure), then they sued DuPont and the Manhattan project for the pollution. One of main things that they used as evidence was the mottling of their teeth (fluorosis). Hodge was dispatched by the Manhattan project to take care of it. He concluded that the mottleing could be due to natural fluoride in the water and therefore the farmers couldn’t say it was the war project. The FDA was about to ban food from NJ due to high fluoride content and DuPont and the DoD were very worried about the public realations problem this would cause (A manhattan project captian talked to the FDA food guy and nothing was banned). Not wrongly worried either, their ability to produce uranium would have been severly hampered if they had to make sure they weren’t spewing HF in the air (judge this how ever you like but during war time many decisions are made that may have seemed like good risk/benefit ratios that no longer applied once the war is over but it was too hard to back out and say this is no longer right). Hodge wrote a Colonel in the program “Would there be any use in making attempts to counter act the fear of fluoride…through lectures on F toxicology and perhaps the usefulness of F in tooth heath?” This is darkly funny in a way since one of they main complaints was tooth mottleing (still under debate as to whether this can be called an ‘adverse’ effect; the NRC does not consider it to be adverse, only cosmetic).

The conference that thought up the study was supported by Manhattan Project (secretly at the time) money and concieved to see if there were non-dental health effects with the exposure to fluoride (participants were not told of the purpose). It has been suggested that they also censored the data but it’s hard to find out because a 1994 presidental commission couldn’t get the secret cold war documents (I know, crazy, huh?). Also interestingly, one of the Drs (Joe Howland) that drew the blood from the Rochester residents was a chief of Manhattan Project investigations for information on the health effects of bomb project materials. He had dosed at least one person with plutonium to see the effects (the guy was chosen at random in a Oak Ridge hospital – he had gotten in a car accident that landed him in the hospital and wasn’t told what was being done to him). This human experimentation also came out in the 90s papers.

Not that this says much about the science of the safety of fluoride but it does leave an awful bad taste in ones mouth.

How did Hodge get the idea to talk about the good effects of F on teeth? In 1948 a paper performed by the Manhattan project at the suggestion of Hodge was published in the Journal of the American Dental Association showing that workers who worked with fluoride had less cavaties. Original versions of the studies were found in the files of the Manhattan Project’s Medical Section concluded that fluoride did not prevent cavaties and in addition the “teeth seemed to be deteriorating”. A second study on workers in Cleveland (where two workers had died due to fluoride and the pollution was so bad the FBI was called in) was the one published. A look at the secret version shows how the paper could say there were less caries; the men exposed to fluoride hardly had any teeth. Almost sad enough to be funny.

Posted by: angrytoxicologist | July 27, 2007 9:52 AM

Posted by: cooler | November 14, 2007 3:05 PM

I have never seen a math teacher flip out at his students for asking questions about formula that was settled 2000 years ago. They still patiently teach day in day out.

Not analagous. A better scene would be a student arguing with the teacher about a calculus problem that was settled years ago, when the student only has a 5th grade education in math and isn’t concerned about learning more–just asking for the “one paper” where this was all settled. Oh, and then telling the math teacher that there is a list of hundreds of others who disagree with him, even though many of those have no background in math either. And then calling the math teacher homophobic and racist because he teaches math the way he does. Oh, and then having that student call the principal and try to get the teacher fired.

Yes, I can’t imagine why such a person would ever lose patience.

I fear that with this attitude of “been there been that” doesn’t help anyone who is new to the problem. Someone has to step up and do the education.

pat, that’s been done. Again, a difference with your scenario is that the math teacher has a small classroom of students he’s responsible for, whereas you’re asking HIV researchers to be responsible for answering every question from, well, everyone everywhere. It’s not possible. That’s why they’ve put together fact sheets such as this one to answer the most basic questions people have–yet you get responses like Geiger’s arguing that it’s “not peer-reviewed” and therefore dismissing it with a wave.

As for me, I’m happy to discuss the issues with anyone, but I also wouldn’t take a stage with Maggiore (or Dembski, or Behe, etc.) to suggest to the audience there’s any “debate” about HIV science or evolutionary biology. If people really want answers, a debate format isn’t the way to get them.

Posted by: Tara C. Smith | November 14, 2007 3:14 PM

Tar,

You run your blog the way you like and if readers here get their dose of crass commentary the need then fine. I just fear you end up insulting quite a few of your readers “in transit”.

“Oh, and then having that student call the principal and try to get the teacher fired.”

I know, Bialy tried that one with you and Moore tries that one on everyone as a matter of stated policy (see above). In the outside world we recognize that behavior as idiotic.

“And then calling the math teacher homophobic and racist because he teaches math the way he does”

I know what you mean, Moore was called a faggot and Moore wished Bialy a happy death.

In the outside world we call that babbling old fruit.

“That’s why they’ve put together fact sheets such as this one”

In the outside world we call that a flier.

“As for me, I’m happy to discuss the issues with anyone, but I also wouldn’t take a stage with Maggiore (or Dembski, or Behe, etc.) to suggest to the audience there’s any “debate” about HIV science or evolutionary biology. If people really want answers, a debate format isn’t the way to get them.”

I am afraid you don’t get it either. Would you take a stage with Duesberg? I am sorry but if Duesberg showed up and no one elde did on the grounds that there is “nothing to debate”, I would take personal offense at that and I would stick around and listen to the one guy who had the decency to stay and not devalue my “intellectual and moral merits”.

“If people really want answers, a debate format isn’t the way to get them.”

Are you implying the format is the flyer? That is fine by me but in the meantime these people are out there spreading their “misinformation” unchallenged. “War on Denial” is your baby not mine and it is dead on arrival just like “War on Drugs” was. Ditto “War on Poverty”, “War on Obesity”, “War on Crime” and the mother of all still-births “War on Terror”.

Posted by: pat | November 14, 2007 3:54 PM

*TarA, typo…not stealth ad hominem

Posted by: pat | November 14, 2007 3:56 PM

“Yes, I can’t imagine why such a person would ever lose patience.”

The math scenario is stil salvagable. I would be sitting in the back of the class somewhere and I would be observing it all. I would see the retarded pupil and then watch in utter amazement as my professor self destructs in uncontrolable rage, screaming for security and a noose. I would go home and say: “dad, I want to go to another school, these people freak me out!”

Posted by: pat | November 14, 2007 4:05 PM

“Series of original papers”, mild correction to my brillaint post above

Posted by: cooler | November 14, 2007 4:13 PM

Pat, as usual, has his facts wrong when he (or she) states: “Moore was called a faggot and Moore wished Bialy a happy death”. Neither sub-clause is true. Bialy never called me “a faggot” (at least I don’t think he did, he called me so many things that I may have forgotten some of the list of diatribes). What Bialy did do was call an HIV-infected gay man who disagreed with him on his Blog “a faggot” (inter alia). And I have never “wished Bialy a happy death”, I merely noted recently that his Blog went inactive soon after he announced to his fellow AIDS denialists that he had terminal kidney cancer (or words to that effect). Stating the facts is what scientists do; twisting them is what the denialists do.

Posted by: John Moore | November 14, 2007 4:28 PM

Pat,

I don’t see Chris Noble, John Moore, or anyone else self destructing in uncontrollable rage at one innocent question. Quite the contrary, they display unusual patience at refuting the same tired lies over and over.

Posted by: Brian Foley | November 14, 2007 4:41 PM

Sorry to keep on and on but it keeps on giving and giving.

“She [Maggiore] has since had two children, now three and seven years old, whom she boasted to Scheff “have never been tested. … They don’t take AIDS drugs. And they’re not in the least bit sick.” But of course Maggiore didn’t want them to be tested: she knows that they are not at risk and that their being uninfected would lead people to question her own status. And of course they don’t take “AIDS drugs”–they don’t have HIV or AIDS.
Christine Maggiore isn’t living proof that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS; she’s just another lying AIDS profiteer, exploiting the real fears of those who actually are infected with HIV and the real suffering of those living with AIDS to get public attention, sell books and pick up well-paid speaking gigs. This might matter less if she wasn’t telling parents and caregivers of children who really are HIV-infected to take the kids off difficult but life-saving antivirals. Maggiore has never had to make agonizing treatment decisions for herself or for her children.” -Bergman

Could a leading health advocate get it this ass-backwards and equally slanderous?

YES! She is co- editor of…hold tight…aidsTHRUTH!
Dr. Jeanne Bergman, The Center for HIV Law and Policy in New York City
www.aidstruth.org/about.php

It is insane the flip-flopping this Bergman gets away with and I am supposed to differ to this medical authority? I opt out. You can fight this insane denial war however you like. I for one won’t and cannot cover for it. Not at this cost. In the mean time I am only too happy supporting the individual rights of families like Maggiore’s against invasions orchestrated by such fanatical lunatics that would have us surrender our basic rights without a question allowed.

Posted by: pat | November 14, 2007 4:55 PM

Brian Foley

You can keep bergman and moore and wainberg, they make you look real smart and “balanced”.

Posted by: pat | November 14, 2007 4:57 PM

John Moore

It does NOT matter WHICH invectives are thrown about; you and your esteemed collegue Bialy, who blazed a similar professional trail online you have now embarked on, are “babbling old fruit”.

“Stating the facts is what scientists do; twisting them is what the denialists do.”

act your age

Posted by: pat | November 14, 2007 5:07 PM

Oh dear, oh dear, Pat has just displayed the classic “American in Paris” characteristic; i.e., if in doubt, shout the same thing only LOUDER. It’s already been stated on this and/or earlier threads that Jeanne Bergman made those comments at a time before Ms Maggiore’s daughter died of AIDS, thereby proving that Ms Maggiore is herself HIV-infected (unless Pat chooses to believe that the stork or the tooth fairy, and not the mother, infected the child). At the time of Jeanne’s comments, Ms Maggiore was in one of her periodic flip-flops in her public statements about her HIV-infection status, claiming (at that particular time) to be HIV-negative and a victim of the (allegedly) flawed HIV diagnostic assays (no doubt as a result of listening to her buddy, the technologically-challenged technologist Roberto Giraldo who has no understanding of how immunoassays work). The death of her daughter from AIDS provides the hard facts that reveal Ms Maggiore’s previous posturings for what they were; the politics of the AIDS denialist movement. Pat seems very keen to support the “rights” of Ms Maggiore’s family. Some might argue that the rights of her daughter to a prolonged and healthy life are also rather relevant here. Those basic human rights were taken away from her by her mother, who used AIDS denialist pseudoscience as a basis for her decisions to not protect her child from HIV-infection by using ARVs prophylactically, and to not have her daughter trtested and treated for HIV infection, actions that would have lengthened and improved her life substantially. This unnecessary death is yet another one that is attributable to the actions of the AIDS denialists en masse. It’s the need to protect other mothers from listening to Ms Maggiore and her AIDS denialist friends that underpins why AIDS scientists fight this fight. Pat will never understand this, he or she will merely now parrot what he or she has said before, only LOUDER.

Posted by: John Moore | November 14, 2007 5:16 PM

Brian,

I just showed you how Jeanne Bergman self destructed her credibility with her overly-emotional editorial rubbish and to top it off she was basing her conclusions on scientific “evidence”.

“False-negative HIV tests are extremely rare, while false positives are much more common, though infrequent. This fact and all the other available evidence strongly indicate that Maggiore was never infected with HIV, and she herself emphasizes the term “positive” and avoids saying she is infected or has the virus, allowing others to draw that erroneous conclusion”.

I’ll start caring again once the real quacks, decievers and fabricators are done away with.

Posted by: pat | November 14, 2007 5:25 PM

John,

Each and ever word spewed from your above post is a complete and utter fucking lie and you know it.

Isn’t your time more valuable somewhere else. Why dont you make some more videos with you and Bergman saying HIV causes Aids. Those are always entertaining.

Posted by: carter | November 14, 2007 5:34 PM

“Maggiore’s daughter died of AIDS, thereby proving that Ms Maggiore is herself HIV-infected ”

Apparently the relevant documents are still not available and it appears the authorities are working with fake or missing slides and no one here, including yourself cares to inform them”. Obstruction of justice? no, hardly but perhaps a hint of dishonesty in the claim.

“At the time of Jeanne’s comments, Ms Maggiore was in one of her periodic flip-flops in her public statements about her HIV-infection status, claiming (at that particular time) to be HIV-negative and a victim of the (allegedly) flawed HIV diagnostic assays (no doubt as a result of listening to her buddy, the technologically-challenged technologist Roberto Giraldo who has no understanding of how immunoassays work).”

If the tests are highly specific, why the inconsistancies. You need to establish that she DIDN’T have conflicting tests results. Your claim that she is lying about the inconsistancies in the tests rests entirely on your word and if you are going to play reporter and make wild allegations, it usually is a good idea to check your FACTS. Did Bergman ever call Maggiore for an interview for the article? Did she ask to see the results? I doesn’t look like it but that didn’t stop her from opining loudly in the press for all to read about how ugly a woman Maggiore is and how she profiteers from lying about her HIV status. I don’t know if she is or isn’t but I won’t take your deranged word for it.

“The death of her daughter from AIDS provides the hard facts that reveal Ms Maggiore’s previous posturings for what they were; the politics of the AIDS denialist movement”

When she was negative she was a profiteer and now that she is positive she remains a profiteer. Go figure? Your accusations against Maggiore rest on nothing but heresay and slander because the one thing you cannot put into words is HOW Moggiore profits from all this?

Of course you are also the bottom feeder that would deny Maggiore any motherly instincts and claim that she would purposefully harm her kids for profit. You, the Gift from God, would have been a better parent to those kids. No “evidence” needed here. This is not science, this is politics and heresay is plenty fine for what you need her for , is that so? Is that your modus operandi. Don’t deny it John, you are one of those who would blame the victime. You do so very readily with Maggiore and have done the same now to Noreen. Both these people have been diagnosed with HIV…and not at times… If you can’t reach them, it is in my eyes a failure of medicine to persuade and that is all it ever will be. Stop dreaming of laws to pick up were you let off.

Posted by: pat | November 14, 2007 5:52 PM

Thank you, Carter, for so clearly proving the point that underlies Jorg’s comment below

none of the “mainstreamers’ even approach the levels of rhetoric and insult of the likes of Geiger or MEC.

Posted by: Jorg | November 14, 2007 12:41 PM

to which I responded earlier.

Posted by: John Moore | November 14, 2007 5:54 PM

Doesn’t matter professor Moore, a lie, is a lie, is a lie.

Posted by: carter | November 14, 2007 6:23 PM

Brian, I just showed you how Jeanne Bergman self destructed her credibility with her overly-emotional editorial rubbish and to top it off she was basing her conclusions on scientific “evidence”. “False-negative HIV tests are extremely rare, while false positives are much more common, though infrequent. This fact and all the other available evidence strongly indicate that Maggiore was never infected with HIV, and she herself emphasizes the term “positive” and avoids saying she is infected or has the virus, allowing others to draw that erroneous conclusion”.I’ll start caring again once the real quacks, deceivers and fabricators are done away with. carter

The really dangerous quacks are those, such as a well known cornel phd and his lawyer sidekick, who advocate deadly drugs based on a flawed hypothesis.

People now know the truth. A “positive for HIV antibodies” test (whatever that means) is regarded very differently from the automatic death sentence of two decades ago. In retrospect we now know that this death sentence was death by AZT.

People who know the adverse side effects of the toxic drug cocktails are avoiding them and living normal life spans.

There are many message boards and web sites on the internet where notes can be shared and information gathered.

The stranglehold of government censorship of the media has been broken by the free information of the internet. Our society will never be the same.

Our society WILL NEVER AGAIN allow domination by the oppressive lies of the science establishment or the political establishment. We have entered a new age of hope, liberty and freedom unprecedented in the history of mankind.

The death of the flawed “HIV causes AIDS hypothesis” after 20 years of lies, represents a giant step for one hiv man, and a giant leap for all mankind.

The truth has become obvious to the beholder.

HIV/AIDS is no longer recognized as science. It is, and always was, politics.

Posted by: nevere-a-peen | November 14, 2007 6:35 PM

What a sophisticated, analytical response that was from Carter, a well known and long standing AIDS denialist who epitomizes the entire, sad genre. Carter doesn’t like what he reads, so he simply states that the poster is “a liar”. This, of course, is precisely why scientists don’t “debate” or “discuss” science with AIDS denialists; the denialists don’t understand the science, and don’t like the facts, so they just say “you’re a liar” and go all pouty. It’s rather pathetic, but of course this Blog is full of such conduct, as Jorg and others have noticed.

Posted by: John Moore | November 14, 2007 6:43 PM

“Our society WILL NEVER AGAIN allow domination by the oppressive lies of the science establishment or the political establishment. We have entered a new age of hope, liberty and freedom unprecedented in the history of mankind.”

That sounds rather like something Hitler might have said at a Nuremberg rally. Typical AIDS denialist rhetoric.

Posted by: John Moore | November 14, 2007 6:48 PM

Apparently the relevant documents are still not available and it appears the authorities are working with fake or missing slides and no one here, including yourself cares to inform them”. Obstruction of justice? no, hardly but perhaps a hint of dishonesty in the claim.

What is it that you fail to explain. The authorities are not working with fake or missing slides. The coroner has GMS stained slides of Eliza Jane’s lung tissue showing PC organisms in foamy exudates characteristic and diagnostic for PCP. Christine Maggiore was shown these slides on Primetime by Ribe. The authorities do not need to be informed of anything.

That Maggiore appears to believe that these slides are not important says more about her than the authorities.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 14, 2007 6:54 PM

Incidentally, why is it that Anthony “Tony Baloney” Liversidge of the New AIDS Review is so ashamed of what he writes on this Blog that he has to do so only under the disguise of the pseudonym “Pat”? He makes ridiculous postings under his own name on the NAR, so what’s stopping him from putting his name under the same quality of material here? I guess there’s no fool like an old, gutless fool.

Posted by: Truthseeker | November 14, 2007 7:11 PM

John,

I see that you have posted a new article, written by Nicoli Nattrass ,on your Aidstruth website.
In the article she states, Gallo was the discoverer of retroviruses.Even you can’t claim that to be true.
So how many other blatant lies are in the article.

.Robert Gallo, the discoverer of retroviruses, devoted ten pages of his book on discovering HIV to demolishing Deusberg’s speculations. (AFP Photo/Roland Magunia [Photo via Newscom])

Posted by: kyle | November 14, 2007 7:14 PM

Pat,

When you claim that

Apparently the relevant documents are still not available and it appears the authorities are working with fake or missing slides and no one here, including yourself cares to inform them

you reveal just how full of it you really are.

The “authorities”–the Coroner’s Office for Los Angeles–sampled the dead child’s lungs for histology and demonstrated Pneumocystis pneumonia. Maggiore was shown the diagnostic material as part of an interview that was televised nationally.

She now claims that:

From what I understand, her lungs show no pneumonia of any kind

and supports this claim with photomicrographs posted on her web page.

Hmmmm, I wonder why she doesn’t post the photomicrographs taken by the Coroner. You know, the the ones that demonstrate the Pneumocystis pneumonia? The ones she viewed as part of a national television broadcast?

Do you really think that anyone has to inform the LA Coroner’s Office that they have slides demonstrating Pneumocystis and that the pictures Maggiore has posted on her web page are not representative of the lesions found in her daughter’s lungs?

You think the Coroner doesn’t already know that?

Posted by: franklin | November 14, 2007 7:19 PM

Noble, Franklin and that other chickenshit who complains it’s unfair rethinkers write better than him – Moore or whatever his name is:

Please board he plane, all expenses paid, and show Maagiore and Al-Bayati where they are wrong about the “fake lung slides”. What’s the matter with all you he-men, is meeting Maggiore and exposing her directly thereby saving countless lives too scary a prospect for you?

Brave Sir John, how about it if we promise in advance we won’t use our superior rethoric against poor you? Wait I feel a song coming on. . .

Brave Sir John ran away – No!
Bravely ran away, away – I didn’t!
When danger reared its ugly head
He bravely turned his tail and fled – No!
Yes, brave Sir John turned about
And gallantly he chickened out
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat
Bravest of the brave, Sir John

Btw, Harvey Bialy called you a “maricone”, which is very close to “faggot”, which in turn means means someone who is bitchy, cowardly and overly theatrical, so Pat is right you were called by that name you have earned so well many times over.

Posted by: Moleclar Entry Claw | November 14, 2007 7:40 PM

“(at least since Harvey Bialy wandered off the scene to die of his kidney cancer)” John moore

Does sure sound like you got your jolly’s off a scientist who’s dying. But what else would you expect from someone that cant defend his views publicly and is losing more and more respect from the scientific community everyday.

Moore is an enemy of free speech and informed consent, he does not want any intelligent person to hear an argument they’d find compelling, just like a corrupt prosecutor would do everything to keep a jury from hearing a solid defense. He has hinted that he wants to abolish the first amendment, he’s really losing it now, having delusions of grandeur comparing himself to Churchill!

Rethinkers and real scientists want people to have informed consent when it comes to mercury, hiv, mycoplasma incognitus , fluoride etc.

Stalinist drug company hacks like Moore only want you to hear their propaganda, and we know its all propaganda because real scientists with good arguments dont care if people are exposed other arguments that are fallacious, they very fact that Moore is so scared about people learning about Duesberg’s argument says it all.

Imagine if a defense lawyer told a jury “you cant hear that argument because you might beleive it” You people are murderers and liars, start learning from real scientists like Shyh ching Lo, hacks like Moore are respsonsible for the spread of this microbe mycoplasma incognitus through the population, the only microbe that kills every animal inoculated. Good work John. Thanks for the genocide. Read Lo’s pathology studies above to really prove how a microbe is pathenogenic in humans, the militarys most distinguished infectious disease pathologist, shyh ching lo md phd, learn from a more competent and ethical scientist who doesnt name call and censor all day long.

Posted by: cooler | November 14, 2007 7:42 PM

Please board he plane, all expenses paid, and show Maagiore and Al-Bayati where they are wrong about the “fake lung slides”.

I really have troouble deciding whether you are being deliberately obtuse in an attempt to provoke an angry response or whether you are as dense and incapable of reading as you appear.

The slides that Al-Bayati and Maggiore have been posting on the internet are not fake. However, they are not the GMS stained slides that provide incontrovertible evidence that Eliza Jane had PCP.

The only remaining question is why Maggiore and Al-Bayati do not post the GMS stained slides on the internet for everybody to see or at least show them to an independent anatomical pathologist for evaluation.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 14, 2007 7:48 PM

Chris,

Then I wonder why the henchmen are repeatedly jumping the gun when the investigation isn’t wrapped up. I wonder what you were opining before EJ died. Did you speculate about her lying about her positive status to cash in on the AIDS scare as well? That was a dumb question, you always believed that.

Nevere-a peen, you are quoting me not carter. These people are confused enough about who said what.

Truthseeker,

These people have dug themselves a hopelessly confusing hole here with who’s who. It started with a fake entry maliciously attributed to MEC. Since then I have been a few more things and reincarnations. J Moore thinks I am he/she/ Christine.

Posted by: pat | November 14, 2007 7:51 PM

Then I wonder why the henchmen are repeatedly jumping the gun when the investigation isn’t wrapped up.

What do you mean the investigation isn’t wrapped up?
Do you mean that Maggiore and Al-Bayati are yet to be convinced?
In that case the investigation will never be wrapped up.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 14, 2007 7:58 PM

Sorry Pat,

I missed your response.

Do you really think we have a moral obligation to inform the Coroner about what his autopsy report says were found in the lung slides?

Posted by: franklin | November 14, 2007 8:28 PM

This is the song that never ends
It just goes on and on my friends
Some people started singing it not knowing what it was
And they’ll continue singing it forever just because –
This is the song that never ends…

(repeat ad nauseam, ad infinitum, forever and ever amen.)

Pat, I think the entries confusingly attributed to Mountain Man were muddying the waters at about the same time that things went astray with MEC.

Truthseeker, Pat is actually John Moore. Also, Chris Noble is bdkeller, franklin, and jspreen, cooler is Carter, I am Adele and Tara, and Christine Maggiore is Michael Geiger. We switch off who is Braganza on alternate Thursdays, and we rotate through different usernames like Molecular Entry Claw, kyle, and truthseeker to confuse matters further. Also, we are all Spartacus. Plus, Keyser Soze was Kane’s childhood sled and a symbol of innocence lost.

Posted by: jen_m | November 14, 2007 8:42 PM

“Hmmmm, I wonder why she doesn’t post the photomicrographs taken by the Coroner. You know, the the ones that demonstrate the Pneumocystis pneumonia? The ones she viewed as part of a national television broadcast?”

I wonder why I can’t find them anywhere in cyberspace. Were the ones on TV authentic? Tell me, I am wide open; where is this stuff? I don’t watch TV.
What was the result of Ribe’s latest trial? Is the verdict out yet?

Posted by: pat | November 14, 2007 8:48 PM

Dr. Robert Gallo is the acknowledged discoverer of human retroviruses, not retroviruses per se. If Kyle had any understanding of the publishing process, he, she or it would realize that single word errors and omissions often creep into articles undetected. The existence of a minor typographical error in an article does not mean that the entire article is flawed, except of course to people like Kyle who choose to focus on minutiae as they lack the ability to see the bigger picture. This was a stupid post from a stupid person, but pretty typical of what gets onto this Blog.

Posted by: Kyleresponder | November 14, 2007 8:48 PM

Thank you Dr Moore for responding so quickly.
That’s why Gallo won the Nobel prize or did he?
He must really hate being the discoverer of
the cause of the greatest plague known to man and not getting the Nobel prize for it.
I wonder why he was never given it , such a prestigious scientist, he should have won the prize hands down.

Posted by: kyle | November 14, 2007 9:03 PM

“Do you really think we have a moral obligation to inform the Coroner about what his autopsy report says were found in the lung slides?”

Thats funny..though I do think we have a moral obligation, in respect to human decency and dignity , to presume innocence until proof of guilt. Ribe is being sued and investigated it appears, and I wouldn’t put too much weight on him for the moment. You are welcome to put all your money on him and your TV show. I will wait.

Posted by: pat | November 14, 2007 9:19 PM

yep, the guy who said retroviruses cause cancer, well Gallo and levy, you idiots, Cancer isnt contagious, but then came AIDS, and a similar retrovirus jumped to be the cause of aids, jeez what a coincidence!

Gallo announced a plaugue to the world with no animal model, a partial correlation where he only found hiv in 1 of 1000 cells, didnt even publish till a week later, and to this day there isnt one long term study to confirm his hypothesis, not one study that dared question his hypothesis, for you had to beleive it or youd end up like duesberg. They just kept on extending the window period when no one got sick.

If there is a study that was designed to test his hypothesis, let me know, a long term study that controls for mycoplasmas, azt, drugs and severe stress by honest scientists, until then this hiv dissidency is going to get to be as big as the 9/11 conspiracy movement and you guys are going to have to debate the dissidents sooner or later, youve already lost South Africa.

Maybe hiv does cause AIDS but the case is far from closed.

Posted by: cooler | November 14, 2007 9:21 PM

“Pat, I think the entries confusingly attributed to Mountain Man were muddying the waters at about the same time that things went astray with MEC.”

Well considering JP Moore re-wrote Bialy’s Wikipeadia entry once I think we both have our usual suspects. Those bloody old farts.

“Truthseeker, Pat is actually John Moore. Also, Chris Noble is bdkeller, franklin, and jspreen, cooler is Carter, I am Adele and Tara, and Christine Maggiore is Michael Geiger. We switch off who is Braganza on alternate Thursdays, and we rotate through different usernames like Molecular Entry Claw, kyle, and truthseeker to confuse matters further. Also, we are all Spartacus. Plus, Keyser Soze was Kane’s childhood sled and a symbol of innocence lost.”

I guess that means the fat lady is singing……….(no, not you)

Posted by: pat | November 14, 2007 9:36 PM

Funny how not one chimpanzee has died of AIDS after hundereds were inoculated 20 years ago, another act of hiv woo?

Posted by: cooler | November 14, 2007 9:37 PM

Pat,

Maggiore claims that her lawyers “ordered” the autopsy slides from the Coroner.

If the Coroner was ordered to provide the autopsy slides as part of the discovery process in a legal action, all of the slides must be provided. They could probably also obtain any photomicrographs the Coroner has made of the slides, including the ones shown on PrimeTime.

I do not know of any site on the web that has these photos freely available.

You may be able to purchase a video of the PrimeTime episode from ABC.

Posted by: franklin | November 14, 2007 9:56 PM

Tara wrote: “A better scene would be a student arguing with the teacher about a calculus problem that was settled years ago, when the student only has a 5th grade education in math and isn’t concerned about learning more–just asking for the “one paper” where this was all settled”

Thank you, just about the words I was looking for. We do not debate creationists for the same reason, and “teaching the controversy” is an idiotic nonstarter for the same reason.

Posted by: Jorg | November 14, 2007 10:01 PM

Pat Says:

I do think we have a moral obligation, in respect to human decency and dignity , to presume innocence until proof of guilt. Ribe is being sued and investigated it appears, and I wouldn’t put too much weight on him for the moment.

You do understand that “presuming innocence” applies to the defendant–the one being sued–in this case, Dr. Ribe.

If you feel a moral obligation to presume innocence until proof of guilt, why does the lawsuit lead you to assume that the defendant’s word should carry little weight?

Posted by: franklin | November 14, 2007 10:10 PM

As this string is clearly degenerating in the same way the previous one did, with claims and counter claims about who is what and why, it’s worth repeating the Spartacus post below.

Incidentally, for those posters on this thread who don’t actually know who Pat/Anthony Liversidge/Tony Baloney is, and why would you, he’s an elderly Englishman living in New York who runs a puerile Blog, New AIDS Review, devoted to AIDS denialism and other related conspiracy theories. His deadly rival, a person he loathes more than he hates any AIDS scientist, is Harvey Bialy, whose own Blog was much more popular and better written then his own. Pat/Liversidge/Baloney likes to think of himself as some kind of civilized, Anglo aristo type, but in reality he’s just Bialy-lite, posting the same material only with less humor and even sillier scientific content. He reserves a special place of hatred in his heart for the AIDS Truthies, because they listed Bialy and not him on their “Who are the denialists page”. He took this to be a huge personal slight. Pathetic when you stop to think about it – the price of a big ego attached to a small brain I guess.

I am Spartacus

Refers to a scene in the movie “Spartacus” starring Kirk Douglas as Spartacus. After the army of former Roman slaves led by Spartacus is defeated in battle by legions of the Roman army, a Roman general stands before the captured surviving members of the slave army and demands that they turn over Spartacus, or else all of the former slaves will be executed. Upon hearing this and not wanting his friends to be executed, Spartacus stands up and says “I am Spartacus.” However, the loyalty of his friends is so great that each of them stands forward in succession, shouting “I am Spartacus!” until the shouts dissolve into a cacophony of thousands of former slaves each insisting “I am Spartacus!” Bewildered and still not knowing which of them is Spartacus, but impressed by the loyalty he inspires in his army, the Roman general has all of the slaves crucified in a miles-long display alongside the Appian Way leading back to Rome.

Thus the phrase “I am Spartacus!” is often used to humorously start a chorus of responses of “No, I am Spartacus” among a group.

Person enters chat room and types “I am Spartacus.”

100 other people in the chat room then respond with “No, I am Spartacus!”, “I am Spartacus!”, etc.

Posted by: Molecular Spartacus Claw | November 14, 2007 10:14 PM

cooler wrote: “Cancer isnt contagious”

Sorry to disappooint you, cooler, but there are indeed cancers that are quite contagious, even though that fact may have little to do with the conversation at hand.

Posted by: Jorg | November 14, 2007 10:14 PM

I wonder why I can’t find them anywhere in cyberspace. Were the ones on TV authentic? Tell me, I am wide open; where is this stuff? I don’t watch TV.

well that proves it doesn’t it. If you can’t find it in cyberspace then it can’t be real!

You’d better inform the authorities that the GMS stained slides in the coroner’s report are fake – your proof being that you don’t watch TV and you can’t find them in cyberspace.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 14, 2007 10:30 PM

“You do understand that “presuming innocence” applies to the defendant–the one being sued–in this case, Dr. Ribe.”

Yes, thank you for reminding me of the obvious. I will wait for his day in court too but until that day I see no obligation to “take his word on anything” in Maggiore’s case. He does have a track record that should even make you wonder about him.

“If you feel a moral obligation to presume innocence until proof of guilt, why does the lawsuit lead you to assume that the defendant’s word should carry little weight?”

I am not assuming his word carries little weight in HIS defense case and you know damn well I am talking about the entire case mounted against Maggiore and it is HIS trial for professional sloppiness that throws the entire report on EJ’s autopsy in doubt. That shouldn’t be too much to understand? Where can I find the slides Ribe showed on “primetime”?

Posted by: pat | November 14, 2007 10:32 PM

Pat: “I would see the retarded pupil and then watch in utter amazement as my professor self destructs in uncontrolable rage, screaming for security and a noose.”

I love analogies!;)

But seriously, in real world, a mentally challenged student would be attending special classes, with instructors trained to deal with her specific requirements (here, read introductory biology and basics of scientific method). The situation on this thread is more akin to retarded (you used the word first; do you think it bodes well for deniers?;)) students crashing a university class and yelling at the top of their lungs that the teacher is wrong about everything, disrupting the debate and refusing to shut up until removed by force!
(Wait! Isn’t it what certain protesters did to E.O. Wilson back in the early ages of sociobiology?)

Hmmm, it seems to me that this isn’t an analogy per se, but a rather close and proper reading of the situation obtaining on this thread…
except for who is going to be the removing force? (In fact, I think Tara shows amazing restraint in not banning some people outright. Or was Geiger banned?) Of course I am sure that any attempt to disemvowel the more egregious idiots, PZ style, would result in howls decrying oppression and censorship.

Posted by: Jorg | November 14, 2007 10:53 PM

Where can I find the slides Ribe showed on “primetime”?

Ask Christine.

It’s been over two years since she was shown the slides on national TV. It beggars belief that she has shown no interest in this evidence.

From what I understand, these are more or less close ups of what the regular slides show and don’t offer much in the way of new evidence to consider. Do you think these special stains might reveal something not found in the regular slides? If so, could you please explain?

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 14, 2007 10:53 PM

MSC wrote: “Thus the phrase “I am Spartacus!” is often used to humorously start a chorus of responses of “No, I am Spartacus” among a group”

I am sorry, but I am most definitely *not* Spartacus. I am Brian!:)

Posted by: Jorg | November 14, 2007 10:58 PM

“Thank you, just about the words I was looking for. We do not debate creationists for the same reason, and “teaching the controversy” is an idiotic nonstarter for the same reason.”

I guess then a hearty welcome to the “war” is in order jorg. You might as well dig a trench early and not budge either or maybe just stay home away from this truely idiotic “war”.

Tell me, what is the point in starting a political thread about Mbeki and then say “we don’t debate”?

Posted by: pat | November 14, 2007 11:00 PM

“Ask Christine.

It’s been over two years since she was shown the slides on national TV. It beggars belief that she has shown no interest in this evidence.”

Let’s recap, we have been waiting for 2 years for Christine to provide copies of slides she was shown on prime time by the coroner who is under investigation for professional sloppiness in similar cases involving infant death resulting in wrongful convictions, that prove EJ died of AIDS-related pneumonia.

Am I getting close?

Posted by: pat | November 14, 2007 11:14 PM

“Incidentally, for those posters on this thread who don’t actually know who Pat/Anthony Liversidge/Tony Baloney is, and why would you, he’s an elderly Englishman living in New York”

Now I am an Englishman in New York

Posted by: pat | November 14, 2007 11:22 PM

“Am I getting close?”

No, you are not.

It’s been almost 2 years since Ms. Maggiore appeared on national television reviewing the pathological slides that showed her daughter died of Pneumocystis pneumonia, but on August 10, 2007, she claimed the following:

from what I understand, her lungs show no pneumonia of any kind

Posted by: franklin | November 14, 2007 11:27 PM

Sorry jorg, but it seems as though your lack of scientific pedigree is showing. HPV fails all of kochs postulates, but you have to make money for merck, your master.

The real problem here is your lack you and your idols lack of balls, heart and scientific pedigree.

You dont have Maniotis’s balls heart or Harvard pedigree

you dont have shyh ching Lo’s md phd’s pedigree or balls either, he was considered a scientific genius in China, which is why he Army made him their lead pathologist to protect us in a war.

He’s the only scientist to discover a microbe that killed every animal inoculated, mycoplasma incognitus, read his pathology study above to get some balls, the Read Project Day lily to find out how it was part of the bioweapons program.

You dont have Duesbergs california scientist of the year national academy of science pedigree, or his balls and heart neither.

You lack margulis’s big heart etc etc. I could go on and and on about the lack of pedigree and balls in your science.

Instead of worshipping real scientists, you worship frauds like Gallo, gaduseck, and levy. Gaduseck was so desperate to have an animal model he drilled holes in monkeys head to make try and make them sick with his failed virus.

These fools gave us viruses with no animal models, that were in 1 in a thousand cells and caused no symptoms for 10 years, aka they had no balls, heart or pedigree, like you john and jim.

Posted by: cooler | November 14, 2007 11:31 PM

I really have troouble deciding whether you are being deliberately obtuse in an attempt to provoke an angry response or whether you are as dense and incapable of reading as you appear.
The slides that Al-Bayati and Maggiore have been posting on the internet are not fake. However, they are not the GMS stained slides that provide incontrovertible evidence that Eliza Jane had PCP.
The only remaining question is why Maggiore and Al-Bayati do not post the GMS stained slides on the internet for everybody to see or at least show them to an independent anatomical pathologist for evaluation.

Ah, Dr. Noble at his very best, and this was just the beginning of his implosion.but The rest Pat has unravelled and summarized admirably just above.

Forunately, Dr. Noble, I don’t have to wonder if you are dense or obtuse on purpose since we all know that’s the qualities you’re being paid for. The only remaining question is when you or some other cyber chickenshit will bring along an “independent pathologist” of your choice to go and sort out the mess: provide the right section of the right slides at the right resolution at the right magnification and get paid for it to boot.

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 14, 2007 11:33 PM

he drilled holes in monkeys heads to try and make them sick with his failed virus.

PS
get some balls

Posted by: cooler | November 14, 2007 11:35 PM

With all the silliness that now pervades this thread, I feel the need to presage this post with the statement “I am John Moore and I endorse this message – on the grounds that I wrote it”.

Earlier today, in response to Jorg, I wrote that the denialists “focus down and in on some trivial error in a paper, or a minor inconsistency with another study, and use their “discoveries” to assert that the entire peer-reviewed scientific literature on HIV/AIDS is flawed”.

Within hours, mere hours, “Kyle” posted a classic example of exactly this point, by highlighting a single word omission in Nicoli Nattrass’s outstanding “Skeptical Enquirer” article on denialism, and then extrapolating from this editing error to say that the entire article must therefore be full of “lies” (or words to that effect; the intent of Kyle’s post is clear enough).

Wikipedia states “A lie is a type of deception in the form of an untruthful statement with the intention to deceive…”

An error is not a lie.

This is one of the several reasons why AIDS scientists don’t get into interchanges (debates/discussions) with the denialists concerning the scientific literature. The denialists don’t care about understanding the science, they seek only to reinforce their preconceived personal and political agendas. The finding of an error, a missing semi-colon, a misplaced superscript, whatever, anything, is considered sufficient of a triumphant discovery as to negate the entire body of peer-reviewed literature on HIV/AIDS.

How would it go in such a “debate”?

“Mr Scientist, you just mis-spoke. You are therefore a liar. Everything you have ever said therefore cannot be believed. This means that HIV does not exist. QED. We win”.

Sadly, this is not just an idle parody, it is how it goes with these people. There is no middle ground, there is science and pseudoscience, and ne’er the twain shall meet. The denialists believe what they believe as a quasi-religious dogma, akin to the Religious Right’s belief in creationism. And, as Tara has written, the AIDS denialists and the creationists use exactly the same anti-science tactics to promote their “arguments”.

On another subject, “Molecular Spartacus Claw” speculated about why Anthony Liversidge is not listed on AIDS Truth’s “Who are the denialists page”. We never for a moment considering adding him. Although he resembles Bialy in running a conspiracy theory/AIDS denialist Blog, it’s not particularly influential even in denialist circles. Moreover, Liversidge has no scientific training (accounting for the asinine content of what he posts), unlike Bialy who was able to use his degrees to persuade a few gullible journalists that he knew what he was talking about. Recording the reality about Bialy on AIDS Truth was therefore useful to show journalists who in fact they were dealing with; that situation would never arise with Liversidge. After all, if we listed Liversidge, we’d pretty much also have to list Michael Geiger…… One has to draw a line somewhere!

Posted by: John Moore | November 14, 2007 11:53 PM

john,
you need to get some balls big time, you also need to get laid, have you ever considered hiring a prositute?

Posted by: cooler | November 14, 2007 11:58 PM

john,
Would you buck a really hot girl that was a denialist? 100 bucks says you would.

Posted by: cooler | November 15, 2007 12:01 AM

Oh, not again with the getting-laid thing. And now apparently only people with balls are real people. Nice.

Posted by: jen_m | November 15, 2007 12:03 AM

Let’s recap, we have been waiting for 2 years for Christine to provide copies of slides she was shown on prime time by the coroner who is under investigation for professional sloppiness in similar cases involving infant death resulting in wrongful convictions, that prove EJ died of AIDS-related pneumonia.

You don’t find it the least bit strange that Maggiore isn’t even interested in looking at the evidence?

from what I understand, her lungs show no pneumonia of any kind

This may be technically correct – it just places upper bounds on her understanding, or perhaps her willingness to understand.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 15, 2007 12:07 AM

Jen,
Balls are a metaphor for being a free thinker in a world of government run science gone out of control, For example Margulis has big balls for standing up for hiv and 9/11 truth.
your welcome,

cooler

see hiv fact or fraud
read project day lily

Posted by: cooler | November 15, 2007 12:12 AM

Hey John Moore:

You ducked out of the last debate when I asked you to come to Los Angeles on my dime for a public discussion on where you see evidence of pneumonia in my daughter’s lung tissue slides. Now here you are on a new thread spouting off the same charges you apparently can’t substantiate.

Where do you see evidence of the AIDS-related pneumonia (or any kind of pneumonia) that supposedly took my daughter’s life in the photos of the slides from the coroner’s office?

On what basis do you claim to know my daughter’s HIV status when our family and our attorneys still have not received laboratory evidence of her HIV status from the coroner’s office? Or are you now taking the indirect evidence that she must be HIV positive because I test that way?

If that’s how you come to the conclusion about my daughter, using your same illogic, perhaps you can explain why my husband and partner of 11 years tests HIV negative, and why my son, conceived, born and raised in the exact same manner as Eliza Jane, tests HIV negative?

And what’s up with this new spin on your tall tales, trying to cover Jean Bergmann’s assanine remarks about me being “an HIV pretender” by claiming I “was in one of [my] periodic flip-flops…claiming (at that particular time) to be HIV-negative and a victim of the (allegedly) flawed HIV diagnostic assays?” Where is evidence for that ridiculous charge? You got a quote for that from somewhere other than your wishful thinking file?

You want to talk about me and my family? Come here to Los Angeles and let’s face off in public. Come here and show m the evidence for pneumonia other than in the claims of a mendacious coroner who, the year before my daughter died, falsely accused Jose and Rocio Gonzalez and another poor hispanic couple of starving their children to death only to admit he was wrong when confronted by outside medical experts.

The same coroner who concluded that Destiny Jacobo was sexually abused by her parents when there is no physical evidence for this in her autopsy report.

The same coroner who changed multiple autopsy conclusions to fit the forced murder confession of David Allen Jones, a mentally retarded black man found innocent on appeal after serving seven years of a life sentence for crimes he didn’t commit.

If this unethical, unprofessional coroner was atypically correct in our case, how come the Medical Board of California failed to charge Dr. Fleiss with gross negligence for EJ’s death? How come the Medical Board of Colorado just dropped their investigation into the last pediatrician to see her, Dr. Incao? And how come the board is now investigating the coroner?

Fulfill on your AIDS Truth superhero motto to do anything to stop denialism: Come here and show me the evidence for your claims.

Unless you’re willing to face off with me and cough up some answers, I suggest you find someone else’s dead child to pick on.

Awaiting you in Los Angeles,

Christine Maggiore

Posted by: Christine Maggiore | November 15, 2007 12:21 AM

cooler; I was going to bypass your whole tirade as being so asinine as not to even be wrong…you didn’t miss me, you were shooting at yourself, methinks. One remark of yours, however, deserves a little bit of attention.

You said, “Instead of worshipping real scientists, you worship
frauds…” (etc).

Sorry, bud. I do not worship anyone, scientists, actors, frauds, magicians, gods or politicians. I am a good atheist, and my area of training is not virology, but, rather, physical science and philosophy. As if that mattered…

In any case, i do keep an open mind; but just as I am not ready to keep it open to flat-Earthers and Moon landing deniers, I am not going to keep it open to other ridiculous ignorance.

“An open mind is a good thing, but if it is too open, your brains are going to fall out.”–was that Sagan? Memory fails right now…

Posted by: Jorg | November 15, 2007 12:54 AM

On what basis do you claim to know my daughter’s HIV status when our family and our attorneys still have not received laboratory evidence of her HIV status from the coroner’s office?

Ms. Maggiore,

While being interviewed for a nationally broadcast television show you were shown photomicrographs demonstrating HIV infection of your daughter’s brain.

Did your attorneys request those slides from the Coroner’s office?

If so, have they been received?

Posted by: franklin | November 15, 2007 12:56 AM

Pat: We can argue and talk past each other, when the fit is on us and when we have time. I’ve been known to spend evenings over pints of beer arguing evolutionary theory with creationist nitwits who were probably lobotomized at birth, and I was only mildly pissed off (beer makes me benevolent). When I say “no to debating” I mean a public debate, an affair that legitimizes both points of view. i will point my finger and laugh at flat-earthers, but if they ask me for proofs that the earth is not flat—in a private conversation—I’ll be glad to proivide those (at least once or twice; my patience does have limits, after all). What I *will* not do is appear on public access TV channel (prime time is probably beyond my means…;)) and publicly debate with them as if their beliefs were not a bad joke they really are.

Of course, that said, I doubt I can have any real friends who are creationists or conspiracy theorists; just as I was never able to stay in a relationship with someone religious or, for lack of a better term, New-agey.

Posted by: Jorg | November 15, 2007 1:34 AM

Jorg, I’m intrigued and touched by your explanation for why you cannot be friends with a Flat Earther, although you don’t mind having a beer with him. I will therefore refrain from expressing my first impulse upon reading your composition – being “who gives a shit?” Suffice to say that we people from the Draft For The War On AIDS Resistance Movement have only friends and no enemies. To show that our hearts are in the right place, we’ll also dedicate the next song, originally an homage to Ronald Reagan, to John Moore, professor at Weill Medical College:

Drug Store Truck Driving Man

Chorus:
He’s a drug store truck drivin’ man
He’s the head of the Ku Klux Klan
When summer comes rollin’ around
We’ll be lucky to get out of town

Verse 1:
He’s been like a father to me
He’s like the only DJ you can hear after three
I’m an all night singer in a country band
And if he don’t like me he don’t understand

Chorus

Verse 2:
He’s got him a house on the hill
And he can play country records till you’ve had your fill
And he’s a law man’s friend he’s an all night DJ
Sure don’t think much like the records he plays

Chorus

Verse 3:
He don’t like resistance I know
And he said it last night on a big TV show
He’s got him a medal that he won in the war
Weighs 500 pounds and it sleeps by the door

Chorus e repete:


iZO8

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 15, 2007 2:37 AM

Posted by: MEC | November 15, 2007 2:44 AM

“When I say “no to debating” I mean a public debate, an affair that legitimizes both points of view”

This is our main disagreement. I think debate legitimizes the audience not the speakers, but thats just me. Do you think Moore’s OpEd piece about Maggiore legitimizes the science behind AIDS? Do you think Bergman’s cruel and misleading writing legitimizes the science of AIDS? Do you think promoting the virtues of sensorship legitimizes the science of AIDS?

“(beer makes me benevolent)”.

drink more beer.

I have never met a flat earther.

Posted by: pat | November 15, 2007 6:46 AM

“It’s been almost 2 years since Ms. Maggiore appeared on national television reviewing the pathological slides that showed her daughter died of Pneumocystis pneumonia, but on August 10, 2007, she claimed the following:

from what I understand, her lungs show no pneumonia of any kind”

Slides from a pathologist facing accusations of being a pathological fudger. A TV show. The “evidence” is rock-solid.

Posted by: pat | November 15, 2007 6:53 AM

Slides from a pathologist facing accusations of being a pathological fudger. A TV show. The “evidence” is rock-solid.

The major accusation against Ribe appears to be that he changes his opinion when new evidence is presented to him. I’m not sure whether this is a virtue or a fault. If he doesn’t obtain evidence when he should have then I would agree that it is a fault.

In this case the evidence has been obtained. There are GMS stained slides showing PC. If you have objections then attack the evidence not the person holding the slides.

Your jibe about a TV show is a red herring. The evidence doesn’t become tainted because it was shown on a TV show. The important thing is that we know Maggiore has been shown the evidence.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 15, 2007 7:18 AM

“The major accusation against Ribe appears to be that he changes his opinion when new evidence is presented to him. I’m not sure whether this is a virtue or a fault.”- Chris.

It is a fault. Either the coroner makes observations on a body or doesn’t.

“During cross-examination, Ribe admitted that he revised his opinion based on the courtroom testimony of another prosecution witness”

“Ribe disavowed his earlier testimony as “just ridiculous,” arguing “I had zero time to prepare.””

Posted by: pat | November 15, 2007 7:34 AM

I have never met a flat earther.

Hehe… Pat, you obviously hang out with the wrong crowd. Perhaps Moore et al. can introduce you to a few of their drinking buddies.

Dr. Noble we are waiting for you to show the rest of us the evidence. Who is “we” btw? Are you also fantasizing about working for the CIA?

Your jibe about a TV show is a red herring. The evidence doesn’t become tainted because it was shown on a TV show. The important thing is that we know Maggiore has been shown the evidence. (Noble)

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 15, 2007 7:34 AM

“In this case the evidence has been obtained. There are GMS stained slides showing PC. If you have objections then attack the evidence not the person holding the slides.”

the evidence you brag about is not available, I attack the evidence; you attack Maggiore. It was seen once on low rez television. Everyone, including Maggiore and yourself are waiting for the release of this “evidence”. The lawyers asked for it and are waiting to this day for it. Stop parading american TV as “evidence”. You sound like a clown saying that.

Posted by: pat | November 15, 2007 7:42 AM

the evidence you brag about is not available, I attack the evidence; you attack Maggiore. It was seen once on low rez television. Everyone, including Maggiore and yourself are waiting for the release of this “evidence”. The lawyers asked for it and are waiting to this day for it. Stop parading american TV as “evidence”. You sound like a clown saying that.

On what basis do you assume that “the lawyers are waiting to this day” for the GMS-stained slides and the slides demonstrating the HIV infection of the brain?

To my knowledge Ms. Maggiore has never claimed that the GMS-stained slides wren’t provided to her lawyers, she just claims ignorance of their significance.

Ms. Maggiore claims that she wanted to get a second opinion on the cause of her daughter’s death, so to review the autopsy slides, she turns to a Toxicologist with no training, certification, or license to practice Anatomic Pathology–and you defend this approach.

Who looks like a clown?

If your car’s clutch was acting up, would you ask a Trek Mountain Bike Repairman to look under the hood?

Posted by: ranklin | November 15, 2007 8:32 AM

“On what basis do you assume that “the lawyers are waiting to this day” for the GMS-stained slides and the slides demonstrating the HIV infection of the brain?”

That is her claim and that of her lawyers. The claim she has them, is yours. The hIV test is also something they are waiting for.

Cosidering the lack of available evidence, the false reporting by Bergman, the threats of forced removal for the remaining child and documented testimonial flip-flopping by the coroner, I choose “in dubio pro reo”.

Posted by: pat | November 15, 2007 8:54 AM

“Ms. Maggiore claims that she wanted to get a second opinion on the cause of her daughter’s death, so to review the autopsy slides, she turns to a Toxicologist with no training, certification, or license to practice Anatomic Pathology–and you defend this approach.”

apparently this man does review autopsy reports for a living and the courts in LA don’t seem to have a problem with his certification. Maybe you should point out to the courts that Al-Bayati is not qualified for what he has been retained for.

Posted by: pat | November 15, 2007 8:58 AM

Franklin, we are still waiting for the AIDStruth Cyber Chickenshit Crusaders to bring along their own independent trained, certified and licensed anatomic pathologist to expose the denialist lung slide conspiracy.

All expenses will be paid.

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 15, 2007 10:37 AM

Pat wrote: “I think debate legitimizes the audience not the speakers”

Firstly, I am not talking about legitimizing the speakers but their points of view. Your existence as an individual (not to mention as a speaker) is legitimate enough and needs no confirmation or approval from anyone.

Second, if “the people” are interested in learning the subject at hand they can take some classes, read some research (and yes, even consensus!) papers and generally make an effort to educate themselves. (And I by that I emphatically do *not* mean surfing the internet looking for pages that support their preconceptions. But judging by the tone of the conversation here, asking certain individuals to abide by scientific method would be too much, since they would not be able to recognize said method if it ran them over).
Debates are only fun if they are between two legitimate alternatives. Otherwise they are boring, misleading, and useless.

BTW, the ability to change one’s mind is a *great* quality in a scientist, something a lot of non-scientists do not realize. In a coroner—I have to agree with Chris:mdash;I am not sure if it is a virtue or a fault. Perhaps a bit of both.

Posted by: Jorg | November 15, 2007 11:41 AM

Thank you Jorg,

It appears as usual as though everyone has lost track of the original topic. The original topic here is Mbeki. This requires no medical degree or any capacity to understand the scientific method or the science behind HIV. This is the politics of AIDS and if you think it is frustrated by people misconcepions then the onus is on science to be more understandable. It a failure of communication when scientists must resort cohersion to get their views across.

“BTW, the ability to change one’s mind is a *great* quality in a scientist, something a lot of non-scientists do not realize.”

Are you refering to Jeanne Bergman? Her great qualities as a scientist are shown in her ability to change her mind? That may be true of, say …Duesberg but Jeanne Bergman did not change her mind. Her agenda is still to discredit Maggiore. What did change however was the scientific evidence in support of her personal attacks against the integrity of Maggiore. Bergman, it is clear, does not care one iota about the emotional roller coaster people like Maggiore are thrust through. As someone who has never had to make tough personal descisions with regards to a positive HIV diagnosis, Bergman shows complete contempt for the reality of Maggiore’s very real dilemas.

“Maggiore has never had to make agonizing treatment decisions for herself or for her children.”

This must rank as one of the most pathetic attempts at assumption in the anals of AIDS politics.

Posted by: pat | November 15, 2007 1:31 PM

oops…annals

Posted by: pat | November 15, 2007 1:33 PM

I have an idea on how JP Moore can win his “war” on denialism over night and it requires only one or two small redefinitions in the strategy.

He should stop defining “enemies” and stop defining “war” and the truth will be unmistakeable. Let the rock solid evidence speak for itself. Rock solid evidence does not need a guy with a paper hat on his head crusading around the world, playing Churchill and crushing the evil enemies of science. No truth and no righteous science ever needed to be delivered at gun point or with a threat of sanctions by a naked guy with a paper hat. JP Moore is a proponent of undemocratic tools and even a smuck like me knows where the moral highground truely lies. His behavior along with that of his buddies in ideology throw the entire integrity of science itself into disrepute. You need to back off or be replaced. You are a political menace.

My humble opinion.

Posted by: pat | November 15, 2007 2:16 PM

One’s opinion on Mbeki’s actions is inextricably bound with one’s stance on HIV. If the scientific consensus is correct (and I, for one, am convinced of that), then Mbeki’s actions are simply criminal.

There is a problem with “making science more understandable”. Some aspects of it just do not lend themselves to an easy understanding. I am not saying that virology is necessarily one of them (although I think that biochemistry makes my inflationary cosmology seminars look like a piece of cake, but that’s just me), but there is only so much simplification a subject can take before losing all useful content. I firmly believe that in order to appreciate and understand a particular literature one must learn at least the rudiments of the language that literature is written in. Demanding easy, abriged translations just doesn’t work, and in order to appreciate the beauty of say, a Hamiltonian, and understanding how it applies to the world at large you must suffer through a bit of calculus…

Posted by: Jorg | November 15, 2007 2:56 PM

“One’s opinion on Mbeki’s actions is inextricably bound with one’s stance on HIV. If the scientific consensus is correct (and I, for one, am convinced of that), then Mbeki’s actions are simply criminal.”

You guys can keep that opinion in your very exclusive club if that is where you wish to keep it and I pray Moore, Wainberg and Co never make legislation. I can’t imagine them getting very far with their antics though; their ideology is not very popular.

Posted by: pat | November 15, 2007 3:10 PM

Why? If a leader of a country denied antibiotics to her people for some ill-specified reason, and said people were dying because they did not have access to medicine, would that leader’s actions not be considered criminal? You may disagree with the premisses, but I see no logical way to disagree with the conclusions, given the premisses are correct. And that is what I mean by “inextricably bound”

Posted by: Jorg | November 15, 2007 3:16 PM

Just like other potentially terminal diseases (including TB and cancer)

I know that very few people today can listen to this, but one day it will be common knowledge that TB does not exist without a preceding cancer. That day the “potentially terminal” adjective will cease to be cast upon the millions by the armies of almighty yet totally ignorant medical doctors. Which day might that be? Easy! It will be the day when Dr Ryke Geerd Hamer’s New Medicine has finally reached the masses.

– Oh come on Jan, cut it out! Don’t you understand that you’re becoming one of the topmost trolls on the Internet?

– Yeah, I know. So what? Some people very much appreciate what I write and I have good hope that others will become curious little by little, start to read here and there and finally come to understand what Hamer’s New Medicine has to offer.

– You’re an incurable optimist! Nobody ever changed his mind on those Web logs and Internet forums. Just look at the everlasting discussions raging here.

– I don’t care a shit about big mouthed empty headed scientists and their yahoo lackeys who have nothing to do but do some herd-keeping on the Internet. I address the silent readers, the ones who are big enough to make up their own mind about what they read.

– (sigh)

Posted by: jspreen | November 15, 2007 3:31 PM

Hamer was a quack,I read up on a little, please in a few sentances if you can convince me otherwise, you like some of the other posters on this site need some shyh ching lo, duesberg, nicolsons, baseman in your life with some Project Day lily to boot, the greatest book and most shocking of all time, on the mycoplamsa incognitus biowarfare program, the only microbe to kill every animal inoculated as Lo showed, when is Tara going to do a blog on Lo’s and Nicolsons work?…………….waiting………Read Lo’s pathology above to see how to prove a microbe is pathenogenic in humans.

Afterall she does blogs on some pretty dumb topics, like chocolate and the gut, people are slowly dying, thank god Dr. maniotis is mentioning it in his new book, cares about humanity and wants people to have informed consent. After all its the only microbe out of hiv, hpv, hep c to cause death and disease in monkeys/mice, shouldnt people with mysterious infection like symptoms be tested and made aware of this?

Posted by: cooler | November 15, 2007 3:43 PM

Looks like this thread has now completely degenerated into the random warblings of the crazy, sex-obsessed, conspiracy theorist, Lo-life cooler, the mad “there’s no such thing as a pathogen” Jan Spreen and Anthony (“call me Pat”) Liversidge, with only Jorg now posting as a voice of sanity and reason. What a waste of time it’s all become.

By the way, anyone doubting that Pat is Tony Baloney Liversidge should read what he posts on his own Blog, NAR, where he admits to posting on this Aetiology string using multiple pseudonyms. Gee, what a surprise.

Posted by: Truthseeker | November 15, 2007 3:53 PM

too bad ive got the facts on my side, and the university of California pedigree, youre probably a janitor, or an online degree recipient, lol loser.

Posted by: cooler | November 15, 2007 3:59 PM

the mad “there’s no such thing as a pathogen” Jan Spreen

Ha, Ha, Ha!!!! Show me where I wrote that! Pathogen simply means A disease producer. Nothing else. Disease exist, I wouldn’t deny that one can feel very “dis-eased” thus disease producers must also exist. So many things can produce disease!

What? That’s not what you meant? Ah, you were talking about germs! Okay then, true enough, the germ theory of diseases, of course, that all nonsense to me….

Posted by: jspreen | November 15, 2007 4:46 PM

Hamer was a quack, I read up on a little, please in a few sentances if you can convince me otherwise,

The core of Hamer’s New Medicine holds on half a page A4. But to grab it’s meaning, it takes a lot of time and unless you can see through the hate propaganda against Hamer, I think his findings are completely out of reach for you. For you and so many others who, when it comes to a different approach of something about which they already made up their mind, firmly stick to their ideas and try to beat the heretic with the stick of main stream propaganda.

Posted by: jspreen | November 15, 2007 5:05 PM

hamer beleives that all illneses are caused by a very stressful event in childhood, and that all illnesses like cancer, aids are the result?

Posted by: cooler | November 15, 2007 5:09 PM

“Why? If a leader of a country denied antibiotics to her people for some ill-specified reason, and said people were dying because they did not have access to medicine, would that leader’s actions not be considered criminal? You may disagree with the premisses, but I see no logical way to disagree with the conclusions, given the premisses are correct. And that is what I mean by “inextricably bound”

Why do you use an antibiotic analogy when you can say ARV’s? Again. I thank the stars that scientists aren’t the only ones with a right to vote. Misguided? perhaps but criminal is to take the extrem position and most won’t follow you there. We can agree to disagree however.

Posted by: pat | November 15, 2007 5:38 PM

“Looks like this thread has now completely degenerated into the random warblings of the crazy, sex-obsessed, conspiracy theorist, Lo-life cooler, the mad “there’s no such thing as a pathogen” Jan Spreen and Anthony (“call me Pat”) Liversidge, with only Jorg now posting as a voice of sanity and reason. What a waste of time it’s all become.

By the way, anyone doubting that Pat is Tony Baloney Liversidge should read what he posts on his own Blog, NAR, where he admits to posting on this Aetiology string using multiple pseudonyms. Gee, what a surprise.

Posted by: Truthseeker | November 15, 2007 3:53 PM”

Now I know this is not from Anthony Liversidge AKA “truthseeker”. Who could this well be…mmm

Posted by: pat | November 15, 2007 5:42 PM

“By the way, anyone doubting that Pat is Tony Baloney Liversidge should read what he posts on his own Blog, NAR, where he admits to posting on this Aetiology string using multiple pseudonyms. Gee, what a surprise.”

you are welcome to advertise your arch enemy.

Posted by: pat | November 15, 2007 5:43 PM

hamer beleives that all illneses are caused by a very stressful event in childhood, and that all illnesses like cancer, aids are the result?

No, that’s not the right way to put it. Stressful event, yes, childhood, no. BTW, the actual concept of Aids is about the worst possible explanation of what really happens and as such Aids is merely the result of scientific nonsense thinking.

The major discovery of Hamer is not only the idea of a stressfull event provoking a biological conflict, but also the revolutionary notion that all diseases come by the pair. To which we must add the fabulous ontogenetic system of diseases and germs.

Posted by: jspreen | November 15, 2007 5:44 PM

I couldn’t very well use ARVs as an analogy to themselves, could I? Again, a leader that knowingly slaughters her people is criminal. i think we agree on that. A leader that is misguided may not be strictly speaking a criminal, but a.as we all know, ignorance of the law is no excuse, and b.when many have attempted to point out exactly where the leader’s point of view is wrong and s/he still ignores the evidence, her actions are beginning to cross the border of criminal behaviour.

We can only censure a (hypothetical?) leader like that; nobody is advocating invasion, war, assassination and/or prison. Unless the people of the country abused choose to do so, of course.

Posted by: Jorg | November 15, 2007 5:53 PM

Truthseeker:

Thanks for the kind words. 🙂

However, your comment made me realize that actually posting on this thread goes beyond the most liberal definition of sanity and reason, and I am doing that probably just to get the last word in…Screw it. I stop. Now!

Posted by: Jorg | November 15, 2007 6:49 PM

By the way, anyone doubting that Pat is Tony Baloney Liversidge should read what he posts on his own Blog, NAR, where he admits to posting on this Aetiology string using multiple pseudonyms. Gee, what a surprise.

I suspect that Pat really is Pat. Some of the Denialists do use multiple pseudonyms but not all.

Liversidge posted under the pseudonym “Truthseeker” above in the thread. I don’t know if he has used other pseudonyms.

I gave up trying to guess who was who after making mistakes. In the end it doesn’t matter much.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 15, 2007 6:51 PM

“On what basis do you assume that “the lawyers are waiting to this day” for the GMS-stained slides and the slides demonstrating the HIV infection of the brain?”

That is her claim and that of her lawyers. The claim she has them, is yours. The hIV test is also something they are waiting for.

When did Ms. Maggiore claim that neither she nor her lawyers have received the GMS-stained slides or the brain slides from the Coroner’s Office?

Posted by: franklin | November 15, 2007 6:52 PM

the evidence you brag about is not available, I attack the evidence; you attack Maggiore. It was seen once on low rez television. Everyone, including Maggiore and yourself are waiting for the release of this “evidence”. The lawyers asked for it and are waiting to this day for it. Stop parading american TV as “evidence”. You sound like a clown saying that.

Why do you claim it is not available?
It was in the Coroner’s report. It was shown personally to Maggiore.
Are you telling me that Maggiore has requested the slides and has not received them?
That isn’t what she says.

From what I understand, these are more or less close ups of what the regular slides show and don’t offer much in the way of new evidence to consider. Do you think these special stains might reveal something not found in the regular slides? If so, could you please explain?

Maggiore has been shown the evidence. We know this because it was broadcast on national television.

The television show is not the evidence. You are being deliberately obtuse by suggesting that this is the case. The slides are the evidence.

If you think the slides that Maggiore was shown are fakes then you had better inform the authorities.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 15, 2007 7:00 PM

“It’s been almost 2 years since Ms. Maggiore appeared on national television reviewing the pathological slides that showed her daughter died of Pneumocystis pneumonia, but on August 10, 2007, she claimed the following:from what I understand, her lungs show no pneumonia of any kind” Slides from a pathologist facing accusations of being a pathological fudger. A TV show. The “evidence” is rock-solid.

Take a look at the slides yourself. There is no pneumonia. The lung alveoli are clear.

Fig 1A page 6 Photograph of Eliza Jane Scovill’s H & E stained lung section shows normal structures of the lung. Note that the alveolar spaces are free of exudates and the alveolar walls are free of inflammation and fibrosis.

Posted by: no_new_moan_yeah | November 15, 2007 7:02 PM

Hey no_new_moan_yeah,

What makes you think that photomicrograph is representative of the pathological changes in Eliza Jane Scovill’s lungs?

Posted by: franklin | November 15, 2007 7:07 PM

“I couldn’t very well use ARVs as an analogy to themselves, could I?”

no, that is contrary to the rules of the english language but you didn’t need an analogy.

Posted by: pat | November 15, 2007 7:16 PM

“Again, a leader that knowingly slaughters her people is criminal.”

This is precisely the crux of it all. You cannot argue he is “slaughtering” his people without being histerical. You use the language of hysteria when you yourself, believably are not. Visit Rwanda or Theresienstadt and educate yourself as to the meaning of the word “slaughter”.
Mbeki is not a “slaughterer”. Orac calls it the Hitler Zombie. Making a wrong and hateful comparison in order to discredit. It is a weak intellectual fart.

Posted by: pat | November 15, 2007 7:32 PM

Tara,
All Things aside, perhaps it is time for a web programme that limits Usernames to one per verifyiable e-mail address.

This would greatly reduce the mischievous activities of the less mature trolls on this and future threads.

Posted by: pat | November 15, 2007 7:36 PM

“I suspect that Pat really is Pat. Some of the Denialists do use multiple pseudonyms but not all.

Thank you and I take you at noble value too but stop being so lop-sided in your views. You know damn well old farts across science extend to this day their stupid fraternity jokes like the one JP Moore pulled off on Bialy’s wiki entry and all the dumb shit Bialy pulled too.

Your world is so simple. I envy you.

Posted by: pat | November 15, 2007 7:44 PM

Hey but Carter is Carter.

And Hilary mixes AIDS CHURCH religion and politics quite nicely. So now it’s not enough to spend the gazillions of taxpayers dollars – lets raid the church coiffeurs too.

click on carter —->

Posted by: Carter | November 15, 2007 7:50 PM

You know damn well old farts across science extend to this day their stupid fraternity jokes like the one JP Moore pulled off on Bialy’s wiki entry and all the dumb shit Bialy pulled too.

How do you know it was John that altered Bialy’s wiki entry. He’s hardly the only person in the world that Bialy has pissed off. From what I have seen John always uses his real name.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 15, 2007 7:52 PM

Pat, I suspect ScienceBlogs doesn’t want to require registration to comment, which is required to do the one-on-one mapping of username to e-mail. That decision might be the purview of the individual blogger, but I suspect not. Besides, it’s a hassle to have to register just because a few people are irritating, not to mention what the reaction would be from certain paranoids around here who think they’re being censored every time Dr. Smith takes a few hours to review the held-for-moderation queue.

Posted by: jen_m | November 15, 2007 7:58 PM

Excuse me,

I am the Rob you are referring to and for the record, I am Jewish. My last name is Schwartz which is a Jewish last name and if you had any sense of humor whatsoever or knew anything about being Jewish, you would realize that I was joking about that. In fact, I was the creator of the group exposing experimentation on children. The remark I made was in response to a joke my friend Seth had made on the wall of the group and playing along with the joke I made an antisemitic joke, knowing that anyone with half a brain knows that Schwartz is a Jewish last and therefore it was a joke. Sometimes people use humor to deal with tragedy, get over yourself.

Posted by: Rob Schwartz | November 15, 2007 8:05 PM

“When did Ms. Maggiore claim that neither she nor her lawyers have received the GMS-stained slides or the brain slides from the Coroner’s Office?”

She claims to have all the slides and the TV slides were not among them. She asks in her letters Chris links to what the significance of those slides are and there is no evidence that she recieved a reply. www.rethinkingaids.com/challenges/Maggiore-Flegg.html

I have no evidence of the existance of those slides outside the broadcast TV report Chris harps on about.

Posted by: pat | November 15, 2007 8:14 PM

“Besides, it’s a hassle to have to register just because a few people are irritating, not to mention what the reaction would be from certain paranoids around here who think they’re being censored every time Dr. Smith takes a few hours to review the held-for-moderation queue.”

I understand the hassle but the reality is no one knows who’s who anymore and all those “fake” posts went unfiltered. Screw the paranoids, something needs tweaking to ensure at least a moderately meaningless flame “war”.

Posted by: pat | November 15, 2007 8:20 PM

“From what I have seen John always uses his real name.”

Maybe…we won’t as long as people can post as “whatever”

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz7_3n7xyDg

Posted by: pat | November 15, 2007 8:26 PM

Rob, that was a week ago. It would have made your point more effectively if you’d actually linked to the relevant comment – most people around here have NO idea what you’re talking about. (It’s here: http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/11/mbeki_still_in_denial.php#comment-630748 )

Pat, sure it would make things more comprehensible, but if Dr. Smith was going to require registration, I think she would have done it around the time that people were threatening each other with bodily harm. Merely being unable to tell what the hell is going on in the comments is par for the course. For me, anyway. I don’t even try to guess who’s who, because it doesn’t really matter.

Posted by: jen_m | November 15, 2007 8:27 PM

Pat, I suspect ScienceBlogs doesn’t want to require registration to comment, which is required to do the one-on-one mapping of username to e-mail. That decision might be the purview of the individual blogger, but I suspect not.

It’s not. I could force everyone to use TypeKey, but that’s a real pain in the ass, and all anyone would have to do to get around it is register twice anyway as it doesn’t limit by IP address. I’ve asked people before to stick to one pseudonym but you can see how well they follow that.

Posted by: Tara C. Smith | November 15, 2007 8:32 PM

Hey rob,
its me from facebook, im the one that sent you that message, its a girl named Adele that accuses us and that whole group of being anti semitic, she usualy posts here everyday, she nuts! all she does is call people anti jewish all day, without any evidence

Posted by: cooler | November 15, 2007 8:40 PM

I’m no authority on compoooters but I’ve seen plenty of websites with username reservation and it wasn’t a hassle to register

“I think she would have done it around the time that people were threatening each other with bodily harm.”

relax. It’s hysterical. But the verdict is in. These threads are not worth following for anyone and I concur.

“For me, anyway. I don’t even try to guess who’s who, because it doesn’t really matter.”.-jen_m

“I’ve asked people before to stick to one pseudonym but you can see how well they follow that.”-Tara

Chris,

“How do you know it was John that altered Bialy’s wiki entry. He’s hardly the only person in the world that Bialy has pissed off. From what I have seen John always uses his real name.”

How do you know that multiple-pseudonym syndrom is specific to “denialist” infection of thought?

Posted by: pat | November 15, 2007 8:53 PM

pat: (breaking my own word to myself! obviously, you cannot trust a scientist!)

Having grown up in the USSR, I am quite familiar with the meaning of the word “slaughter”, even though I am too young to have witnessed it myself. Memories run deep (or at least they used to; nowadays many of the school-kids do not know anything about the War or Stalin’s purges, etc…but I digress).

I used a hypothetical conditional, and therefore the word slaughter. The word “if” was very important in that context. However, if anybody even *contributes* to the deaths of thousands of people, is that person not responsible? I use criminal not in the legal sense of the word but rather in an ethical sense. In any case, as I have said above, the culpability depends on whether or not you accept the premisses. I happen to do so; I assume that you do not, hence charges of negligence contributing to (many) wrongful deaths do not apply and you can talk about the complexities of political settings.

I have no marshmallows in this fire in any case (besides thinking that denying the connection between HIV and AIDS is rather silly while not at all being funny), and originally posted only to comment on the particular behaviours of particular people in this particular thread, I am afraid.

Posted by: Jorg | November 15, 2007 9:10 PM

I have no evidence of the existance of those slides outside the broadcast TV report Chris harps on about.

Try reading the autopsy report (page 16 has the histology results).

Posted by: franklin | November 15, 2007 10:17 PM

apparently this man does review autopsy reports for a living

I guess so:

Al-Bayati reviewed Eliza Jane’s medical records but did not perform an autopsy or look at the coroner’s pathology slides. He told The Times his customary charge for such a review is $22,000, but he probably would give Maggiore a discount and hadn’t yet sent her a bill. (Maggiore said she had expected the review would be free.)

Posted by: franklin | November 15, 2007 10:31 PM

Look at you losers, weve got the best scientists on our side

World Renowned Scientist, Lynn Margulis, Ph.D.
National Academy of Sciences Member
Calls for New 9/11 Investigation
Official Explanation a Fraud
27aug2007

World renowned scientist, Lynn Margulis, Ph.D., today severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation, “I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken.”

One of America’s most prominent scientists, Dr. Margulis is Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts – Amherst. She was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1983 and served as Chairman of the Academy’s Space Science Board Committee on Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution. In 1999, President Bill Clinton presented Dr. Margulis with the National Medal of Science, America’s highest honor for scientific achievement, “for her outstanding contributions to understanding of the development, structure, and evolution of living things, for inspiring new research in the biological, climatological, geological and planetary sciences, and for her extraordinary abilities as a teacher and communicator of science to the public.”

In her statement on PatriotsQuestion911.com [Below], Dr. Margulis referred to 9/11 as “this new false-flag operation, which has been used to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as unprecedented assaults on research, education, and civil liberties”. She compared 9/11 to several self-inflicted attacks that had been used in the past to arouse people’s fear and hatred and justify war, including the sinking of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor, the Reichstag Fire, and Operation Himmler, which Germany used to justify the invasion of Poland, the trigger for World War II.

Dr. Margulis credited “the research and clear writing by David Ray Griffin in his fabulous books about 9/11” for providing much of the information that formed her opinion about 9/11. She specifically lauded The New Pearl Harbor and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, “which provides overwhelming evidence that the official story is contradictory, incomplete, and unbelievable.”

Internationally acclaimed for her ground-breaking scientific work, Dr. Margulis is an elected member of The World Academy of Art and Science, an organization of 500 of the world¹s leading thinkers, chosen for eminence in art, the natural and social sciences, and the humanities. And in 2006, she was selected as one of “The 20th Century’s 100 Most Important Inspirational Leaders” by the editors of Resurgence magazine.

source: email 26aug2007

——————————————————————————–

BIO

Posted by: cooler | November 15, 2007 10:49 PM

Cooler says:

Hamer was a quack,I read up on a little, please in a few sentances if you can convince me otherwise, you like some of the other posters on this site need some shyh ching lo, duesberg, nicolsons, baseman in your life with some Project Day lily to boot, the greatest book and most shocking of all time, on the mycoplamsa incognitus biowarfare program

I tried to tell you back on October 10th that you were missing an opportunity to plug your favorite work of fiction:

I’m just letting you know that jspeen, who you totally agree with, doesn’t beleive that Mycoplasma fermentans (incognitius strain) causes disease. There may be a work of fiction that you might be interested in recommending to him.

Posted by: franklin | November 15, 2007 10:58 PM

Franklin, did you buy your degree at wal mart or target? damn loser barely passed high school, probably went to a ghetto college and flunked out, now hes a full time science blogger. I hate stupid uneducated people!

Posted by: cooler | November 15, 2007 11:09 PM

She claims to have all the slides and the TV slides were not among them. She asks in her letters Chris links to what the significance of those slides are and there is no evidence that she recieved a reply.

www.rethinkingaids.com/challenges/Maggiore-Flegg.html

No. She specifically states that she does not have the special [GMS] stained slides. Maggiore has been advised by Al-Bayati so I find it strange that she is still ignorant about the importance of the GMS stained slides. It’s a diagnostic test for PCP. How could they not be relevant to the issue.

I have no evidence of the existance of those slides outside the broadcast TV report Chris harps on about.

They are directly referred to in the Coroner’s report. If you think they don’t exist then you had better inform the authorities. Maggore has seen the slides. Does she claim they are fake?

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 15, 2007 11:31 PM

“What makes you think that photomicrograph is representative of the pathological changes in Eliza Jane Scovill’s lungs?”

Posted by: franklin

Franklin, what’s wrong with you, apart from being a chickenshit who is scared to go directly to Christine Maggiore? How would Pat know all these things? He is not sitting with the slides in front of him; neither is he sitting inside Maggiore’s head in spite of what the idiots here who can’t recognize very characteristic writing styles may think.

The notion that you can show select sections of select slides to a lay person during a TV show and use this as proof that she has had a chance to examine the evidence is beyond desperate even for you guys.

Here’s what Maggiore has to say about that TV show and the presentation of the slides – and yes the top bozo of all you bozos in the war on Christine Maggiore, the one Niccoli Nattras references in his FINE Sceptical Enquirer article advertized by brave Sir John up above, DID declare the Maggiore slides fake. But they weren’t fake, which means that you guys’ hero paediatrican, molecular biologist, PhD, MD, was unable to make anything but the most moronic of statements on background of that TV show, and yet you keep referencing it as if it were the paper that proves HIV causes AIDS.

Nick Bennett complains the slides aren’t real because they don’t look like what he thinks he saw on the TV show. Boo hoo. What he saw on TV was an enlarged area of a slide and a mendacious coroner pointing to some black dots and making unsupportable claims.
If you and Bennet and all those who hopped on the Ribe bandwagon had seen the full Ribe interview for PrimeTime (the stuff they played for us on a monitor that we commented on), you’d be running as far as you could from this guy. He makes stuff up and gets caught doing it ALL THE TIME but thus far, has picked on poor Latinos, homeless black people, drug addicts and prostitutes–people who are unable to hold him accountable for his acts. He strayed outside the usual group in our case, hopefully to his severe detriment.

There you bave it chickenshits. Now take Bennett and whoever else makes you feels safe and brave with you, go to LA and explain to Christine Maggiore how those “black dots” in the “enlarged area” is so obviously PCP that Bennett was able to diagnose it from his intellectual jerk off couch with such certainty that he can even spot “fake” slides on this background.

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 15, 2007 11:32 PM

How do you know that multiple-pseudonym syndrom is specific to “denialist” infection of thought?

I never said it was. I just missed the leap of logic where John Moore was identified as the person who altered Bialy’s wiki page. The only evidence appears to be Bialy’s paranoia.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 15, 2007 11:53 PM

Nick Bennett complains the slides aren’t real because they don’t look like what he thinks he saw on the TV show.

Nick has never claimed that any slides are fake. There is a very simple point. The slides that Maggiore was shown were the GMS stained slides. These are not the same slides that Al-Bayati used in his “report”.

The GMS stains are in the Coroner’s report. If you or anyone thinks that the GMS stains are fake or that they don’t really show PC organisms then you had better inform the authorities of these crimes.

All this blather about fake slides and television shows appears to be a pathetic attempt to avoid dealing with the evidence which is the GMS stained slides.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 16, 2007 12:07 AM

MEC writes in his or her post above:

“…. the one Niccoli Nattras references in his FINE Sceptical Enquirer article”

Nicoli Nattrass (not Niccoli Nattras) is in fact a woman. This is hardly a state secret, because the article in the Sceptical Enquirer contains a rather charming photograph of its author, the unquestionably female Dr. Nattrass.

It couldn’t possibly be the case that an AIDS denialist like MEC is commenting on an article’s contents without actually reading it, could it? Surely not, perish the thought, nobody would actually do anything like that, would they? Well, no scientist would, but of course the standards are rather different for the likes of MEC, hiding away under his pseudonym, along with “pat”.

This thread would indeed be easier to follow if everyone did what I’m doing by posting under my own name. But of course the standards are rather different for the likes of MEC, hiding away under his pseudonym, along with “pat” (oh, did I already say that….).

Posted by: John Moore | November 16, 2007 12:20 AM

Chris Noble is quite correct on two counts:

1) “I just missed the leap of logic where John Moore was identified as the person who altered Bialy’s wiki page. The only evidence appears to be Bialy’s paranoia.”

Bialy is indeed paranoid, amongst other things.

2) “Nick (Bennett) has never claimed that any slides are fake.”

To my knowledge, that is true. I have never heard or read Nick making that claim.

This issue of the pathology slides and what they allegedly do and do not show will not be settled by internet gossip. If Ms. Maggiore is foolish enough to continue with her legal action against the LA Coroner’s office, the truth will be revealed in a court of law (actually, it already has been, in the official Coroner’s report). Believing that Coroners fake documents like this report is akin to believing that the moon landings were filmed in New Mexico, or that 9/11 was an inside-job by the CIA (oh, hang on, a lot of the AIDS denialists do have those beliefs, silly me for forgetting!)

Posted by: John Moore | November 16, 2007 12:31 AM

I’m pretty sure that Pat really is Pat.

Claus Jensen referred to him in his rant email: SOME GUYS LIKE MICHAEL GEIGER AND PAT MANAGE THAT YOU KNOW, JUST BEING BROTHERS IN ARMS ,BROTHERS! WITHOUT LETTING THEIR ASSES TAKE OVER THEIR PERSONALITY.

Geiger and a couple of others appear to be behind most of the sock-puppetry.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 16, 2007 12:34 AM

John,
read lynn murgulis’s pedigree above, and compare it to yours………….(just collapsed in complete laughter)

Posted by: cooler | November 16, 2007 12:37 AM

Margulis that is………………(just collapsed in complete laughter again)

Whats johns greatest scientific acomplishment,taking grants from drug company hacks, failed microbicides, maybe hell get the nobel prize for trying to get professors fired all day?

Posted by: cooler | November 16, 2007 12:40 AM

“By the way, anyone doubting that Pat is Tony Baloney Liversidge should read what he posts on his own Blog, NAR, where he admits to posting on this Aetiology string using multiple pseudonyms. Gee, what a surprise.”

Tara, this witless inanity is entirely false, if anyone cares. I have only posted once on this exciting thread.

Posted by: Truthsseker | November 16, 2007 12:46 AM

You guys need to listen to your scientific elder DR. richard Strohman, professor emeritus of MCB from Cal. Bow your head and learn moore.

“The last four pages of this review were devoted to HIV and its role in AIDS. It appeared to Peter that many of the same contradictions that appeared in the retrovirus/cancer hypothesis also appeared in the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. He systematically began to discuss the weaknesses in HIV as a retrovirus causing immunodeficiency. Included in his criticism back in 1987 were the following crucial points that stand against the hypothesis and that remain completely unanswered by the scientific orthodoxy in charge of AIDS research:

There is HIV infection and low or no risk of AIDS; therefore, something other than HIV must be involved.
The long latent period between infection and clinical disease is inconsistent with the short generation time of retroviruses which is only 24­48 hours and with everything known about experimental retroviral disease. AIDS remains as the only claimed retroviral disease outside of the laboratory!
The levels of actual HIV found in the blood of AIDS patients is too low to account for observed loss of immune function.
There is no animal model for AIDS.
HIV is not directly cytocidal; it does not kill T cells.
All of these points were then, and are now, defended by a close analysis of available data, as you will see. As the reader goes through this collection, it will become clear how steady are these points and how they remain critical and unanswered. The last point is of special interest since, in 1995, eight years later, we find in Nature, arguably the leading science weekly journal in the world, the commentary that, at the same time (a) confirms Peter Duesbereg’s contention (point number 5, above) that the evidence could never have supported direct viral killing; and (b) shifts the standard hypothesis around 180 degrees. The Nature commentary, in an article dealing with HIV, said that: “… an intrinsic cytopathic effect of the virus is no longer credible.” (Wain-Hobson, S. Nature, 373: 102, 1995).

What very few people realize, including most professors of molecular biology that I know, is that this shift has occurred: that the orthodox view of HIV as a direct killer of human immune cells has been thrown out. This is a crucial issue since the experiments surrounding this new view, while they have received wide acclaim by the AIDS orthodoxy, are seen to be flawed by many other experts (see Nature, Scientific Correspondence 375: 193­198, 1995).

The new view is that the source of trouble is not direct killing by HIV but rather a cell-mediated killing of HIV-infected cells by the immune system itself (Wei, et al., and Ho, et al. Nature 373: 117­126, 1995). This turn-around was necessitated by the fact that Duesberg’s third point (above) was also true. How could HIV kill so many T cells if one could not detect significant numbers of free HIV in a patient’s blood? This question has remained unanswered until these recent reports. Using new amplification methods to detect HIV, Wei and Ho conclude that, indeed, free virus is found after all. However, as Duesberg and Bialy, have pointed out (see Chapter Twelve), the new method (PCR) does not measure free virus but only highly amplified amounts of viral RNA. This method amplifies an original HIV-RNA signal by many thousand times so that error becomes a major problem in quantitation. That is, it is extremely difficult to know with any precision exactly what the level of starting material might have been. It is one of the problems in HIV/AIDS and other disease research that highly sophisticated molecular measurements are used as surrogate markers for infectious virus units, the only significant units in biological measurements of this kind.

Kary Mullis, the inventor of PCR, takes a dim view of using PCR in the above manner indicating that it is a very poor substitute for identifying “live” virus (replicating virus) in the blood of an AIDS patient. Most people, including most biologists, do not know that it is almost impossible to isolate live virus from AIDS patients; a crucial point that Duesberg has been making for almost ten years.

A careful reading of Dr. Duesberg’s criticisms, and the papers themselves, reveals that when one establishes standards to convert PCR results to actual viral numbers, those numbers reflect the same old low levels of infectious HIV (Duesberg and Bialy, see above). That is, there are still no valid measurements that lead one to the conclusion that AIDS patients have high levels even of infectious HIV. But let us suppose the PCR studies are correct and that AIDS patients actually harbor high levels of infectious HIV and that a war of attrition against the immune system, after ten years, finally takes its toll. But it is precisely because of the fact of latency-Duesberg’s second point, above-that such a war is so unlikely. With the high (PCR) viral numbers reported (100,000 HIV per ml blood) every cell in the body would soon be infected. But with this level of infection it becomes impossible to explain the lag period; such an infected person would surely be dead within days or weeks if HIV truly caused AIDS. This is just one of many contradictions present in the latest claims from Nature that the critics of the HIV hypothesis have finally been silenced. In fact, the editor of Nature has, in a flagrant act of censorship, called for Peter Duesberg to quit his role as critic, and he has stealthily used his power as editor to enforce Duesberg’s silence in the journal (“Has Duesberg a right of reply?,” Nature 363: 109, 1993)

This new research, together with its contradictions and false claims, are just surfacing as the Duesberg collection goes to press. But the reader will get some accurate sense of the state of confusion generated by this research from the recent “Scientific Correspondence” in Nature (375: 193­198, 1995) and from a full discussion of the HIV numbers game by Duesberg and Bialy in Genetica (Supplement, in press,1995), reprinted in Chapter Twelve in this volume.

This change of purported mechanism of AIDS causality is just the latest example of flip-flopping by the HIV/AIDS research orthodoxy where the emphasis on direct HIV killing needs to be modified in order to accommodate the reality of AIDS natural history. The other most recent “shift” in emphasis involved discarding what was the earliest and most telling characteristic of AIDS, Kaposi’s sarcoma. Kaposi’s sarcoma is no longer considered to be caused by HIV (see Chapter Ten). But very few people take note. Few have the time to follow even the highlights of this enormous literature. Of course, we also are reminded by Dr. Duesberg that the definition of AIDS is completely circular and makes a mockery of its scientific pursuit. If you had Kaposi’s sarcoma, or any other AIDS disease, but no HIV, then you would not receive a diagnosis of AIDS. You would simply enter the hospital record book as a patient with Kaposi’s sarcoma, or with whatever other disease you actually had. No HIV, no AIDS … very simple, but also impossibly irrational since causality is built into the definition”

Posted by: cooler | November 16, 2007 12:53 AM

The last four pages of this review were devoted to HIV and its role in AIDS. It appeared to Peter that many of the same contradictions that appeared in the retrovirus/cancer hypothesis also appeared in the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. He systematically began to discuss the weaknesses in HIV as a retrovirus causing immunodeficiency. Included in his criticism back in 1987 were the following crucial points that stand against the hypothesis and that remain completely unanswered by the scientific orthodoxy in charge of AIDS research:

There is HIV infection and low or no risk of AIDS; therefore, something other than HIV must be involved.
The long latent period between infection and clinical disease is inconsistent with the short generation time of retroviruses which is only 24­48 hours and with everything known about experimental retroviral disease. AIDS remains as the only claimed retroviral disease outside of the laboratory!
The levels of actual HIV found in the blood of AIDS patients is too low to account for observed loss of immune function.
There is no animal model for AIDS.
HIV is not directly cytocidal; it does not kill T cells.
All of these points were then, and are now, defended by a close analysis of available data, as you will see. As the reader goes through this collection, it will become clear how steady are these points and how they remain critical and unanswered. The last point is of special interest since, in 1995, eight years later, we find in Nature, arguably the leading science weekly journal in the world, the commentary that, at the same time (a) confirms Peter Duesbereg’s contention (point number 5, above) that the evidence could never have supported direct viral killing; and (b) shifts the standard hypothesis around 180 degrees. The Nature commentary, in an article dealing with HIV, said that: “… an intrinsic cytopathic effect of the virus is no longer credible.” (Wain-Hobson, S. Nature, 373: 102, 1995).

What very few people realize, including most professors of molecular biology that I know, is that this shift has occurred: that the orthodox view of HIV as a direct killer of human immune cells has been thrown out. This is a crucial issue since the experiments surrounding this new view, while they have received wide acclaim by the AIDS orthodoxy, are seen to be flawed by many other experts (see Nature, Scientific Correspondence 375: 193­198, 1995).

The new view is that the source of trouble is not direct killing by HIV but rather a cell-mediated killing of HIV-infected cells by the immune system itself (Wei, et al., and Ho, et al. Nature 373: 117­126, 1995). This turn-around was necessitated by the fact that Duesberg’s third point (above) was also true. How could HIV kill so many T cells if one could not detect significant numbers of free HIV in a patient’s blood? This question has remained unanswered until these recent reports. Using new amplification methods to detect HIV, Wei and Ho conclude that, indeed, free virus is found after all. However, as Duesberg and Bialy, have pointed out (see Chapter Twelve), the new method (PCR) does not measure free virus but only highly amplified amounts of viral RNA. This method amplifies an original HIV-RNA signal by many thousand times so that error becomes a major problem in quantitation. That is, it is extremely difficult to know with any precision exactly what the level of starting material might have been. It is one of the problems in HIV/AIDS and other disease research that highly sophisticated molecular measurements are used as surrogate markers for infectious virus units, the only significant units in biological measurements of this kind.

Kary Mullis, the inventor of PCR, takes a dim view of using PCR in the above manner indicating that it is a very poor substitute for identifying “live” virus (replicating virus) in the blood of an AIDS patient. Most people, including most biologists, do not know that it is almost impossible to isolate live virus from AIDS patients; a crucial point that Duesberg has been making for almost ten years.

A careful reading of Dr. Duesberg’s criticisms, and the papers themselves, reveals that when one establishes standards to convert PCR results to actual viral numbers, those numbers reflect the same old low levels of infectious HIV (Duesberg and Bialy, see above). That is, there are still no valid measurements that lead one to the conclusion that AIDS patients have high levels even of infectious HIV. But let us suppose the PCR studies are correct and that AIDS patients actually harbor high levels of infectious HIV and that a war of attrition against the immune system, after ten years, finally takes its toll. But it is precisely because of the fact of latency-Duesberg’s second point, above-that such a war is so unlikely. With the high (PCR) viral numbers reported (100,000 HIV per ml blood) every cell in the body would soon be infected. But with this level of infection it becomes impossible to explain the lag period; such an infected person would surely be dead within days or weeks if HIV truly caused AIDS. This is just one of many contradictions present in the latest claims from Nature that the critics of the HIV hypothesis have finally been silenced. In fact, the editor of Nature has, in a flagrant act of censorship, called for Peter Duesberg to quit his role as critic, and he has stealthily used his power as editor to enforce Duesberg’s silence in the journal (“Has Duesberg a right of reply?,” Nature 363: 109, 1993)

This new research, together with its contradictions and false claims, are just surfacing as the Duesberg collection goes to press. But the reader will get some accurate sense of the state of confusion generated by this research from the recent “Scientific Correspondence” in Nature (375: 193­198, 1995) and from a full discussion of the HIV numbers game by Duesberg and Bialy in Genetica (Supplement, in press,1995), reprinted in Chapter Twelve in this volume.

This change of purported mechanism of AIDS causality is just the latest example of flip-flopping by the HIV/AIDS research orthodoxy where the emphasis on direct HIV killing needs to be modified in order to accommodate the reality of AIDS natural history. The other most recent “shift” in emphasis involved discarding what was the earliest and most telling characteristic of AIDS, Kaposi’s sarcoma. Kaposi’s sarcoma is no longer considered to be caused by HIV (see Chapter Ten). But very few people take note. Few have the time to follow even the highlights of this enormous literature. Of course, we also are reminded by Dr. Duesberg that the definition of AIDS is completely circular and makes a mockery of its scientific pursuit. If you had Kaposi’s sarcoma, or any other AIDS disease, but no HIV, then you would not receive a diagnosis of AIDS. You would simply enter the hospital record book as a patient with Kaposi’s sarcoma, or with whatever other disease you actually had. No HIV, no AIDS … very simple, but also impossibly irrational since causality is built into the definition

Richard Strohman PHD UCB MCB professor emeritus, your scientific father

Posted by: cooler | November 16, 2007 12:54 AM

Gramercy Sir John, you’re killing me!!

One thing can be said for you, when you do post, it is only the strongest and most pertinent arguments you select for publication.

If you’d care to scroll back to the last “denialist” thread in which you made such an illustrious appearance, you’ll see I have read that Nattrass article so well that I was the first to point out several errors and peculiarities in it and offer to edit it for you in the interest of AIDS Truth. I even tried to engage you in a chitchat about HIV specific reverse
transcriptase/transcription and Gallo’s Parenzee testimony on background of the Nattrass article, but that was apparently too scientific a topic for your taste.

When somebody else here repated one of the mistakes I had pointed out about Gallo being the discoverer of retroviruses, your answer, at great length and repetition, was that it was unscientifc to dismiss an article because of trivial errors in the text. You have now chosen to dodge my last post because you suspect I have omitted to look at the attached picture of the author of an article I refer to tangentially?! Well argued, Sir John. Well argued as always. Maybe Harvey, like yourself, is a bit of a looney, but he is still able to manage two consecutive arguments that don’t contradict each other.

Ok Dr. Noble, let me see you do what you do best, tell us in the face of direct evidence that this from Bennett is not either incoherent nonsense or a suggestion that the slides Al-Bayati “IS CLAIMING COME FROM EJ” aren’t from EJ. My interpretation is that it is an incoherent nonsensical suggestion that Bayati’s slides aren’t from EJ:

It’s ludicrous – on the Primetime live program with Ms Maggiore they showed the slides that Al-Bayati is claiming to have possession of, and they looked nothing like the slides he is claiming come from EJ. He is simply a brazen deluded fool for trying to convince anyone otherwise.

http://www.rethinkingaids.com/challenges/bennett-cohen-ejreport.html

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 16, 2007 1:03 AM

This issue of the pathology slides and what they allegedly do and do not show will not be settled by internet gossip (Moore)

Brave Sir Moore, you are killing me once again! That is a particularly rich coming from YOU of all people. can I have a buck for every time you’ve peddled internet gossip about Christine Maggiore?

Let me repeat,

“There you have it chickenshits. Now take Bennett and whoever else makes you feel safe and brave with you, go to LA and explain to Christine Maggiore how those “black dots” in the “enlarged area” is so obviously PCP”

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 16, 2007 1:30 AM

Ok Dr. Noble, let me see you do what you do best, tell us in the face of direct evidence that this from Bennett is not either incoherent nonsense or a suggestion that the slides Al-Bayati “IS CLAIMING COME FROM EJ” aren’t from EJ. My interpretation is that it is an incoherent nonsensical suggestion that Bayati’s slides aren’t from EJ.

Nick Bennett was naturally very skeptical because for some reason that is still beyond comprehension Al-Bayati chose not to use the GMS stained slides. Nick is entirely correct. The slides that were shown to Maggiore on Primetime were not the same ones that appear in Al-Bayati’s reports.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 16, 2007 1:45 AM

Now take Bennett and whoever else makes you feel safe and brave with you, go to LA and explain to Christine Maggiore how those “black dots” in the “enlarged area” is so obviously PCP

If Maggiore were actually interested in the truth she would have shown the GMS stained slides to an independent certified human pathologist and asked for an opinion as to what they mean.

Al-Bayati and Maniotis are neither certified pathologists nor independent.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 16, 2007 1:56 AM

Dr. Noble, “Nick” is suggesting the slides are not from EJ at all. Is he entirely correct?

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 16, 2007 4:34 AM

“This thread would indeed be easier to follow if everyone did what I’m doing by posting under my own name. But of course the standards are rather different for the likes of MEC, hiding away under his pseudonym, along with “pat” (oh, did I already say that….).”

It applies only to MEC and pat. All others excepted.

Posted by: pat | November 16, 2007 5:07 AM

” I use criminal not in the legal sense of the word but rather in an ethical sense. In any case, as I have said above, the culpability depends on whether or not you accept the premisses.”

Obfuscation of language is very much part of the problem. If you want to use the word “criminal” in the ethical sense than the word you are looking for in UNETHICAL.

People are welcome to use any language they deem necessary but when people start making contrived connections with slaughter, murder and whatnot they loose a sizable chunk of their credibility.

Posted by: pat | November 16, 2007 7:44 AM

Franklin,
which one of the slides listed in the autopsy report are the slides that were shown on prime time?

Posted by: pat | November 16, 2007 7:46 AM

From the autopsy report (page 16):

Slides RUL, RML, RLL , LUL, LLL show the formalin-inflated lungs sectioned lobe by lobe. All lobes show pink foamy casts in the alveoli with no inflammatory response. GMS stains show teacup-shaped microorganisms in the foamy material in the alveoli.

A GMS-stained slide of the lung was shown on PrimeTime.

Posted by: franklin | November 16, 2007 9:17 AM

The slide issue is analagous to this:
I have agonizing pain in my left leg following a fall.
X-rays are taken of both lower legs.
One X-ray, of the left lower leg, clearly shows a spiral break in the tibia (that’s the shin bone, Cooler).
The other X-ray, of the right lower leg, shows perfectly intact tibia and fibula–no break.
My mom loves me and doesn’t want me to have a broken leg, so she hires a pathologist who looks at the X-rays and says the X-ray of the right leg proves I don’t have a broken leg.
My mom goes on TV and is shown the X-ray of the left lower leg with the clearly visible fracture, but she still insists that I don’t have a broken leg.
Both X-rays are really of my legs.
I am still really hurt and in need of treatment.

Posted by: Redeye | November 16, 2007 9:25 AM

Read the above post by duesberg and strohman, two UCB MCB professors to see the flaws in the hiv hypothesis, learn from your scientific masters.

Posted by: cooler | November 16, 2007 9:30 AM

Hey MEC,

It seems that an another Anatomic Pathologist has reviewed the autopsy slides, although apparently not at the request of Ms. Maggiore.

On her web page, Ms. Maggiore quotes Benjamin Ryan as telling her:

Benjamin Ryan: “Dr Harry Vinters reviewed the autopsy and he told me that he found the pathological finding ‘very well described’ and that it was ‘a very thorough report.’ He also said ‘the HIV encephalitis was extremely severe and the PCP was extremely severe as well.'”

So according to MEC, Maggiore characterizes the histological evidence for Pneumocystis pneumonia as nothing more than “a mendacious coroner pointing to some black dots and making unsupportable claims,” but a well-respected Anatomic Pathologist characterizes the autopsy slides as showing that the Pneumocystis pneumonia “was extremely severe.”

If Maggiore is right, why doesn’t she seek the opinion of a licensed physician who is certified in Anatomic Pathology?

Posted by: franklin | November 16, 2007 9:39 AM

But dearest Frankie, what IS wrong with you?! If you would but read on you will see that Christine Maggiore was very interested in the opinion of Dr. Harry Vinters. Unfortunately Dr. Harry Vinters was not the least bit interested in accounting for, expanding on, or explaining his opinion. For some reason his interest in a grieving mother’s search for answers seems to have vanished as soon as the interview with Benjamin Ryan was concluded:

“Dear Dr. Vinters,

I am contacting you with regard to an interview you gave to Benjamin Ryan of Gay.com this past December on the subject of the death of my daughter Eliza Jane Scovill.

I would very much appreciate clarification of some remarks attributed to you in that interview in order to better understand your interpretation of my daughter’s autopsy report.

Currently, a transcript of the interview is posted online and contains a note that I called your office back in December seeking clarification but to date have received no response. I’m hoping email is a more effective way to reach you and that you will take a moment to reply to the three questions below. The answers are of interest to me personally, and I would also like to post them online. Below please find your quotes and my questions.

Benjamin Ryan: “Dr Harry Vinters reviewed the autopsy and he told me that he found the pathological finding ‘very well described’ and that it was ‘a very thorough report.’ He also said ‘the HIV encephalitis was extremely severe and the PCP was extremely severe as well.'”

Approximately how much time did you spent reviewing my daughter’s autopsy report?
To what do you refer as evidence of “extremely severe” PCP? My understanding of the autopsy report is that there was no inflammation of the lungs and there is only microscopic evidence of PC rather than evidence of a fulminate case of PC pneumonia, and no evidence of death by asphyxiation.
On the same topic, Benjamin Ryan states: “Vinters said it’s possible to have a low amount of inflammation but still have PCP.” In my daughter’s case, however there was *no* inflammation noted in the autopsy report. Were you correctly quoted by Ryan?

To what evidence do you refer in your statement that “the HIV encephalitis was extremely severe?” My daughter’s spinal fluid was clear at the ER and remained clear after many weeks of attempts to grow any microbe in culture. A CAT scan performed at the ER shows no swelling of her brain and medical records show no symptoms that would correspond with “extremely severe” encephalitis such as high fever, head pain, or loss of mental acuity.
I look forward to receiving your reply.

With appreciation for your time and cooperation,

Christine Maggiore

As of today, no reply has been received”

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 16, 2007 10:05 AM

Perhaps Vinters was listening that day in Medical School when they tuaght that it is impossible to talk someone out of a delusion by using logic

Posted by: franklin | November 16, 2007 10:18 AM

“the autopsy slides as showing that the Pneumocystis pneumonia “was extremely severe.”

How could all the docs at the time have missed severed PCP? Why did it take Ribe 4 month to detect something “severe”

Flegg thinks it is not a “classical” case of PCP:

“EJs acute deterioration was not particularly typical of PCP and may have been caused by some other factor or intercurrent infection”.

this doesn’t sound like he is considering it “extremely severe”

How common is “severe PCP” with no inflamation?

Quick quote by JP Moore:

“I agree completely with Mark Wainberg, an outstanding scientist for whom I have immense personal respect for his stand against AIDS denialists. As you’re obviously one yourself, I have nothing further to say to you, other than to note that I very much hope that Maggiore is prosecuted, convicted and punished for her conduct over the death of her daughter.
John Moore”

Needless to say NO charges were ever filed.

Posted by: pat | November 16, 2007 10:31 AM

“Perhaps Vinters was listening that day in Medical School when they tuaght that it is impossible to talk someone out of a delusion by using logic”

I doubt very much that that they teach “impossible”.

what logic are you referring to? The one which allows Maggiore to be HIV- poseur for profit one day and then an HIV+ profiteer and murderer of her daughter the next? The one that allows a highly specific test to contradict itself repeatedly? The one that allows a failed journalist and HIV authority, who never had to make agonizing treatment decisions for herself or her kids, to write the following tasteless lie: “Maggiore has never had to make agonizing treatment decisions for herself or for her children.”

What logic were you taught in medical school?

Posted by: pat | November 16, 2007 10:45 AM

How common is “severe PCP” with no inflamation?

As I’ve already explained on the Intro to HIV Denial Thread, although Al-Bayati and Ms. Maggiore interpret the Coroner’s report as indicating that no inflammation was present in the lungs, from the brief description of the lung histology in the report it seems that the lack of inflammation may refer to the foamy casts within the alveoli and not necessarily to the entire lung:

Slides RUL, RML, RLL , LUL, LLL show the formalin-inflated lungs sectioned lobe by lobe. All lobes show pink foamy casts in the alveoli with no inflammatory response. GMS stains show teacup-shaped microorganisms in the foamy material in the alveoli.

So is it the “foamy casts in the alveoli” that have no inflammatory response or is it “all lobes” that have no inflammaotry response?

Perhaps we will find out if the case ever comes to court, but the significance of noting that the casts found in the alveoli lack an inflammatory response is that it is a “pertinent negative”–the lack of intra-alveolar inflammation argues against the working clinical diagnosis at the time of death, namely of sepsis caused by a community-acquired pneumonia.

Such a pneumonia leading to sepsis would almost certainly be a bacterial pneumonia and the intra-alveolar exudates would be expected to contain numerous acute inflammatory cells.

Noting that those acute inflammatory cells are not present within the alveoli is what physicians do as part of a “differential diagnosis,” when they are showing that the initial diagnosis is not surported by the histolgical findings.

Instead the foamy casts that lack inflammation are typical for Pneumosystis pneumonia and the GMS stains confirm the diagnosis.

It sounds very straightforward.

Posted by: franklin | November 16, 2007 11:00 AM

Perhaps Vinters was listening that day in Medical School when they tuaght that it is impossible to talk someone out of a delusion by using logic

Sometimes when you’re running out of things to say it’s better not to say anything Frankie. There is only one school that teaches its students to avoid any personal contact with the people it smears; that teaches its students not to answer any questions from the people it smears; that teaches its students to wish death and eternal hell on the people it smears rather than answer a few simple questions. That school is run by John Moore to disseminate the moral Truth of AIDS.

Christine Maggiore asked a few questions for the record. If Dr. Vinter’s felt confident, he could simply have answered her and let the people reading her website decide for themselves.

He turned out to be an irresponsible, heartless chickenshit like the rest of you.

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 16, 2007 11:03 AM

“Dr Harry Vinters reviewed the autopsy and he told me that he found the pathological finding ‘very well described’ and that it was ‘a very thorough report” (Vinters)

“So is it the “foamy casts in the alveoli” that have no inflammatory response or is it “all lobes” that have no inflammaotry response?

Perhaps we will find out if the case ever comes to court”
(Franklin)

If it was so well described why do we have to wait for a court hearing to find out? If it was so well described, why didn’t it describe the inflamation elsewhere that would have supported the PCP diagnosis?

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 16, 2007 11:11 AM

To MEC: My point was that “Kyle” made a post in which he or she stated that because the Nicoli Nattrass Skeptical Enquirer article contained a photograph caption from which a sub-editor had omitted the word “human” before “retroviruses”, then this meant that:

1) Nicoli Nattrass was “a liar”;
2) The entire article was “a lie”.

Yet when you made an error by stating that the author was a male, when the photographic evidence in the article shows her to be female, you say it’s just an error (or words to that effect).

By “Kyle’s” logic, then you are “a liar” and everything you have ever posted is “a lie”.

Of course I don’t personally agree with Kyle’s “logic”, but then I’m not an AIDS denialist.

And of course I won’t respond to any questions you pose. That would involve debating or discussing science with an AIDS denialist, and our policies on never doing that are widely known.

Posted by: John Moore | November 16, 2007 2:47 PM

Oh please. Can you guys get out of the mid 90s, yet?
cooler posts yet another old rant with info that was known wrong even then

“There is HIV infection and low or no risk of AIDS; therefore, something other than HIV must be involved.”
Many, many, many disease organisms have cases of infection with no clinical disease,a dn varaitin int eh degree. This is NORMAL for disease organisms. There is, among other things, genetic variability, and we are learning some of the genetic correlates and causative factors for LTNPs. By definition, a disease that make opportunistic infection possible, as HIV/AIDS does, has cofactors – those opportunistic infections. So what?

“The long latent period between infection and clinical disease is inconsistent with the short generation time of retroviruses which is only 24­48 hours and with everything known about experimental retroviral disease. AIDS remains as the only claimed retroviral disease outside of the laboratory!”
oh, good crap!! In humans, there are four known retroviruses, HTLV1, which causes T-cell leukemias and lymphomas, HTLV-2, with no known pathology, the virus associated with human spastic paraparesis, and HIV1, and 2 which cause AIDS. In animals there are many known retroviral diseases, causing variously tumours, wasting and auto-immune diseases, immunodeficiency syndromes and aplastic and haemolytic anaemias.
HIV causes immediate disease symptoms – from flu-like symptoms with high blood-born viral levels on initial infection, to active lymph infection with low-level escape of virus into the blood through the so-called “latent phase’ with increase t-cell turnover and very often swollen glands, to final immune collapse. NOTHING in this is inconsistent with a rapid viral replication time.

“The levels of actual HIV found in the blood of AIDS patients is too low to account for observed loss of immune function.”
This is a straw man – during the so-called ‘latent phase’ the active infection is in the lymph nodes, not in the circulating blood. This has been known since the mid 1990s.

There is no animal model for AIDS.
So there is species-specificity in the ability of HIV to cause active disease. How on earth does this cast doubt on whether HIV can cause disease in the species where it causes disease?

HIV is not directly cytocidal; it does not kill T cells.
No, it is **indirectly** ‘cytocidal.’ It triggers a central and well-known function of the immune system – to destroy infected cells displaying foreign proteins. We learned that as we learned more about HIV and retroviruses. So what?

Posted by: Lee | November 16, 2007 3:05 PM

“And of course I won’t respond to any questions you pose. That would involve debating or discussing science with an AIDS denialist, and our policies on never doing that are widely known.”

Would you answer questions relating to the POLITICS of AIDS.

Posted by: pat | November 16, 2007 3:53 PM

Of course not, “pat”. We do not answer any questions posed by AIDS denialists like you, because that would be to dignify your position.

Posted by: John Moore | November 16, 2007 4:08 PM

These seemingly interminable discussions of the pathology slides all rather miss the point that there would not BE any pathology slides to discuss had the mother taken the correct steps to prevent the poor child from becoming HIV-infected and dying of AIDS three years later. Here’s two relevant papers from this week’s journals, additions to the hundreds/thousands of peer-reviewed papers in this subject area, dating back many years.

This was yet another preventable AIDS death, the central point.

Jourdain G, et al. 2007. Risk factors for in utero or intrapartum mother-to-child transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 in Thailand. J Inf Dis 196, 1629-1636.

Chung MH, ……… John-Stewart GC. 2007. Independent effects of nevirapine prophylaxis and HIV-1 RNA suppression in breast milk on early perinatal HIV-1 transmission. J Acq Immune Def Synd 46, 472-478.

Posted by: John Moore | November 16, 2007 4:15 PM

“Of course not, “pat”. We do not answer any questions posed by AIDS denialists like you, because that would be to dignify your position.”

Who told you I deny AIDS??? My position is that your political views are undemocratic and somewhat fascist in nature. I understand that no one likes to be told that.

“These seemingly interminable discussions of the pathology slides all rather miss the point that there would not BE any pathology slides to discuss had the mother taken the correct steps to prevent the poor child from becoming HIV-infected and dying of AIDS three years later.”

But how could Maggiore know her status? Even leading AIDS activists thought that she was lying about her HIV+ status. If science can’t determine her health status, how can she make treatment decisions? You said it yourself, her HIV status is known only because EJ died, as you claim, from AIDS. Btw, Years of AIDS awareness has taught me that people don’t die of AIDS but of the opportunistic infections. Has something changed in the definition yet again?

Posted by: pat | November 16, 2007 5:06 PM

This was yet another preventable AIDS death, the central point.

Once again this goddamn mother sucker Pee Moore dares to write his shit arguments all over my screen.
He’s like the cancer cartel vultures, who never miss an occasion to spread the merits of their chemo poisoning and, when the patient finally dies after innumerable sufferings, blame some uncontrollable cell mutation for the fatal issue. However, in case the patient got away from his cancer without their mortal X-rays and chemicals, we’re told that the initial diagnose was wrong and that the mutated cells were in fact never really there. To top it all, if ever a patient, who, after having seen the light between two hospital torture sessions, has dared to turn his back on the troops of almighty oncologists & consorts to bravely bet on some alternative horse instead, if ever that patient dies, his case is immediately and invariably transferred to the preventable cancer deaths folder.

I’ve written it before, and I write it again because you keep asking for it: John Pee Moore, you’re a sucker of Satan’s cock and I sincerely hope that you’ll live to the day when some Devine inspiration will finally enable you to recognize the HIV=Aids=Death equation as a deadly scam, go down on your knees and beg Christine Maggiore for mercy.

Posted by: jspreen | November 16, 2007 5:14 PM

To MEC: My point was…

Yes thank you very much, I know what your point is; it is as you say “widely known”.

Nicoli Natrass IS a liar

Now grow up!

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 16, 2007 5:33 PM

“No, it is **indirectly** ‘cytocidal.’ It triggers a central and well-known function of the immune system – to destroy infected cells displaying foreign proteins. We learned that as we learned more about HIV and retroviruses. So what?”

You are welcome to ignore what I have to write; JP is convinced I deny AIDS but, in the off chance you choose not to:

Thank you for that ground-breaking observation on how the immune system functions but I do believe this phenomena was understood before the advent of HIV. I have a few more questions to which it is nigh impossible to find someone with knowledge who is also willing to the answers. So in the off-chance you might answer them.

You say HIV is “indirectly” cytocidal. I hear most of science is now on that same page because years of research have failed to find any “direct” mechanism. Science says only somewhere between 1-500 to 1-1000 cells are infected with HIV thus the “indirect cytocidal” thesis(do I have that right so far?) But then you explain the immune system does this:

“It triggers a central and well-known function of the immune system – to destroy infected cells displaying foreign proteins”

What do you mean by “infected”? If they are not infected with HIV, what are the cells “infected” with that would make them display foreign protein earmarkers?

Posted by: pat | November 16, 2007 5:39 PM

You’ve become so eloquent and mature in your old age jspreen.

Posted by: apy | November 16, 2007 5:52 PM

“Science says only somewhere between 1-500 to 1-1000 cells are infected with HIV ”
Which cells. Which kinds of cells. Where? Free in blood, lymph or in glands, or in tissues?

BTW, the fraction of cells that are infected is essentially irrelevant. The rate of loss of the cells is the relevant number – if infected cells are rapidly removed from the pool, there will only ever be a small percentage of extant cells that are infected, but the loss can still be substantial.

Posted by: Lee | November 16, 2007 5:57 PM

BTW, pat,

We did not know that the mechanism by which HIV kills cells is indirectly through immune system targeting, before we knew about HIV. We learned the mechanisms by which HIV kills cells as we studied HIV, which kinda by definition was after we learned about HIV.

Posted by: Lee | November 16, 2007 6:00 PM

I have a few more questions to which it is nigh impossible to find someone with knowledge who is also willing to the answers. So in the off-chance you might answer them. You say HIV is “indirectly” cytocidal. I hear most of science is now on that same page because years of research have failed to find any “direct” mechanism. Science says only somewhere between 1-500 to 1-1000 cells are infected with HIV thus the “indirect cytocidal” thesis(do I have that right so far?)

No, you don’t have that right.

I can understand how hard it is for you to find this information, since it is only available in immunology textbooks, medicine textbooks, pathology textbooks, and a freely accessible web-based resource that has been maintained by the NIH since September 1995.

Posted by: franklin | November 16, 2007 6:02 PM

Actually I may have to retract that about Natrass being a liar. I guess she is no more a liar than Harvey Bialy’s parakeet, although even that bird brained creature hasn’t been reduced to quoting Bennett as the ultimate authority on the EJ case, Chris Noble and Peter Flegg as expert on “denialist debate tactics”, and George on the merits of Padian’s Waffle. “Info-ganda” btw was an original term used by my humble self, not “George” or Culshaw, to describe the Padian Waffle, but the Natrass piece is so riddled with error I couldn’t be bothered pointing it out earlier.

Although Natrass piece is shameless as well as brainless parroting of AIDStruth info-ganda, there is one waffling passage that you’d perhaps deign to discuss, Prof. Moore, seeing that your prime motivator is that lofty ideal, the “moral Truth” of Aids:

The pharmaceutical industry is, of course, far from angelic. There are documented cases where drug companies have designed trials in ways to promote sales of particular products rather than to test the best possible treatments; where clinical trials in poor countries have been unethical; where early research indicating dangerous side effects has been ignored for too long; where patent law has been abused to prevent low-cost competition; where too many resources have been spent on marketing “me-too” drugs (that is, drugs that are only marginally different from existing products) rather than investing in innovative drug development; and where unethical financial inducements have been made to doctors, researchers, and politicians (Goozner 2004; Angell 2005). However, what such cases suggest is that the pharmaceutical industry (and industry-funded research) needs to be carefully scrutinized and regulated. It does not imply that the entire industry and associated medical science are harmful to humans. As Cohen (2006) argues, the problem with the new pharmanoia is that it has put “Big Pharma” on a par with “Big Tobacco” and, through wild exaggeration, has turned “shades of moral grey into black.”

Could you, Prof. Mooral, whose world otherwise seems to be dominated by absolute polarity, explain to us what “shades of moral grey” means, and what place this concept has in the noble, disinterested, life saving science of medicine? cold you tell us, in your professorial opinion, at what point shades of grey turn into black?

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 16, 2007 6:12 PM

and since pat doesn’t seem to be able to do basic research himself:

Curse of HIV disease – post “a” which is onset, with self-limiting mononucleosis-like symptoms in about 50% fo patients.


b) A strong cell-mediated and humoral anti-HIV immune defense

Cytotoxic B and T lymphocytes mount a strong defense and virus largely disappears from the circulation (figure 4). After the increased cell-mediated immune response, there is a rise in humoral antibodies. During this period of strong immune response to the virus, more than 10 billion new HIV particles are produced each day but they are rapidly cleared by the immune system and have a half life of only 5 to 6 hours (some estimates show a half life of minutes). Although there can be up to 108 virus particles per ml of blood, the number of infectious virus particles is much lower indicating that much of the plasma virus is defective or neutralized. At this stage, most of this virus is coming from recently infected proliferating CD4+ cells (figure 5). The infected cells that are producing this virus are destroyed either by the immune system or by the virus and have a half life about 1 day. However, the rate of production of CD4+ cells can compensate for the loss of cells and a steady state is set up in which most CD4 cells are uninfected. Although infected, activated T4 cells are destroyed by the immune system, a small fraction of the productively infected cells may survive long enough to revert back to the resting memory state (as do non-infected CD4+ memory cells). The resting memory cells do not express viral antigens but do carry a copy of the HIV genome which remains latent until the cells are reactivated by antigen. These memory cells may survive many years and constitute a reservoir that may be very important in drug-based therapy.

The virus disseminates to other regions including to lymphoid and nervous tissue. This is the most infectious phase of the disease.

c) A latent reservoir. As a result of the strong immune defense, the number of viral particles in the blood stream declines and the patient enters clinical latency (figure 4). Little virus can now be found in the bloodstream or in peripheral blood lymphocytes and, initially, the number of blood CD4+ cells is only slightly decreased. Nevertheless, the virus persists elsewhere, particularly in lymph nodes and here viral replication continues as follicular dendritic cells interact with more T4 cells that become infected. The virus is also replicated by macrophages.

Although the number of HIV particles in the bloodstream is much reduced during clinical latency, the virus is detectable. After the initial peak of virus, the virus reaches a “set point” during latency. This set point predicts the time of onset of clinical disease. With less than 1000 copies/ml of blood, disease will probably occur with a latency period of more than 10 years. With less than 200 copies/ml, disease does not appear to occur at all. Most patients with more than 100,000 copies per ml, lose their CD4+ cells more rapidly and progress to AIDS before 10 years. Most untreated patients have between 10,000 and 100,000 copies per ml in the clinical latency phase (See below).

d) Loss of CD4+ cells and abortion of the immune response. One reason that the immune system fails to control HIV infection is that the CD4+ T helper cells are the target of the virus. Also follicular dendritic cells can be infected with HIV and these also diminish in number over time. Moreover, dendritic cells present antigen to CD4+ cells and may bring the virus into contact with these cells at the time that they are stimulated to proliferate by antigen.

During the course of infection, there is a profound loss of the specific immune response to HIV because:

i) responding CD4+ cells become infected. Thus there is clonal deletion leading to tolerance. The cells that proliferate to respond to the virus are infected and killed by it;
ii) epitope variation (see below) can lead to escape of HIV from the immune response;
iii) activated T cells are susceptible to apoptosis. Spontaneous apoptosis of uninfected CD4+ and CD8+ T cells occurs in HIV-infected patients. Also there appears to be specific apoptosis of HIV-specific CD8+ cells;
iv) the number of follicular dendritic cells falls over time, resulting in diminished capacity to stimulate CD4+ cells

There is thus a relentless decline of CD4+ cells with especially a loss of those specific to HIV. This occurs from the very beginning of infection and is permanent (unless chemotherapy intervenes). Near the end stage of AIDS, CD8+ cells also decline precipitously. It is nevertheless the case that during the course of HIV infection, most CD4+ cells are never actually infected by the virus but die from some other means (see below).

e) Onset of AIDS. The period of clinical latency varies in length from as little as 1 to 2 years to more than 15 years. Onset of AIDS is rare in less than 3 years except in children. But, eventually, the virus can no longer be controlled as helper CD4+ (T4) cells are destroyed (figure 4). Ironically, the killer cells needed to control HIV also damage the helper T cells that they need to function efficiently. With the lack of CD4+ cells, new cytotoxic T cell responses cannot occur as helper cells are lacking and such new responses are required as the virus mutates. As the T4 cells fall below 200 per cu mm, virus titers rise rapidly and immune activity drops precipitously. It is the loss of immune competence that enables normally benign opportunistic parasites such as viruses, fungi or protozoa to cause infections (figure 6A and B). Once AIDS develops, patients rarely survive more than two years without chemotherapeutic intervention. (See anti-HIV chemotherapy section). There is considerable variability at this stage. Some patients with clinical AIDS do survive for several years while others who appear relatively healthy can suddenly succumb to a major opportunistic infection. It is the onset of HIV-associated neoplasms and opportunistic infections that defines AIDS proper. At this stage, also, syncytium-inducing HIV appear in many (about half) AIDS patients (see below). These are more CD4+ cell tropic than the initially infecting HIV and this contributes to the rapid loss of CD4+ cells in later stages of the disease.

http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/lecture/HIV3.htm

Posted by: Lee | November 16, 2007 6:13 PM

reasons fro CD4-cell loss:

WHY IS THERE A PROGRESSIVE LOSS OF CD4+ HELPER T CELL?

WHY DO CD8+ KILLER T CELLS DISAPPEAR IN THE LATER STAGES OF THE DISEASE?

Why, when only 1 in 10,000 (early) or 1 in 40 (later) cells show productive infection, do all of the T4 cells disappear? It is still unclear why the CD4+ cells all disappear but there are a number of possibilities:

a) In an activated, infected CD4 cell, huge numbers of virions are synthesized. These bud from the cell and result in punctured membranes (figure 27). But the cell needs to be infected for this to happen and most CD4 cells are not infected.

b) Since the membrane of HIV fuses with the membrane of the cell to be infected by a pH-independent mechanism, syncytia formation can occur leading to the spread of virus to uninfected cells (figure 27). But syncytia are not very common.

c) Infected cells that are producing viral proteins (but not those in the latent state) will present those proteins on the cell surface in association with class I MHC histocompatibility antigens. The infected cell, like other virally-infected cells, will be destroyed by cytotoxic T cells (figure 27). Again this only happens in cells that are infected by HIV.

d) Gp120 is linked to the Gp41 on the virus surface by non-covalent interactions and is frequently shed from infected cells or from virus particles. This binds to uninfected cells via CD4 antigen. As a result, they appear to be infected and destroyed by the immune system.

e) There have been reports of AIDS-related cytotoxic antibodies in infected patients that may react with a specific antigen on the surface of activated but uninfected T4 cells.

apo1.jpg (184145 bytes) Binding of cytokine induces TNF alpha expression in macrophage and receptor expression in CD8+ T cell

apo2.jpg (158829 bytes) The cells contact one-another and TNF-alpha and the receptor interact. Apoptosis ensues

apo3.jpg (112831 bytes) Macrophages internalize T cell

Figure 28 – Induction of apoptosis in T8 cells

f) AIDS may have an auto-immune component. In a normal antigenic response carried out by T4 cells, CD4 antigen interacts with MHC type II histocompatibility antigens. Since Gp120 also binds to CD4, the Gp120 can mimic MHC class II antigens since both have a CD4-binding site; indeed, there appear to be regions of similar sequence in the two proteins. Thus anti-Gp120 antibodies may turn out to be anti-MHC antibodies as well. (This might spell trouble for vaccine production).

g) It is possible that HIV might infect a subset of T4 cells that is vital to propagation of entire population of T4 cells

h) HIV proteins may alter T4 cell function. There is some evidence for this.

i) Presently, the most actively studied possibility for the loss of the entire CD4+ and CD8+ cell population is that HIV initiates apoptosis in these cells (Such apoptosis is a normal process in T4 cells to overcome autoimmunity and to terminate an immune response) (figure 28). This is now thought to be a major factor in the loss of CD4 cells during the progression of the disease

http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/lecture/hiv10.htm

Posted by: Lee | November 16, 2007 6:15 PM

Why do CD8+ cells die late in infection?

CD8+ cells are not infected by HIV (because they do not have the CD4 receptor) and their numbers remain high during the course of the disease for many years. And then, until recently inexplicably, they rapidly die off. It appears that some of the HIV subtypes that occur late in infection prompt a mass apoptosis of CD8 cells. Although CD8 cells are CD4-, they do have CXCR4 co-receptor and HIV can bind to this (only the later syncytium-inducing strains of HIV do this). Since no CD4 antigen is present there is no infection but binding to CXCR4 sends a signal to the cell, the signal for apoptosis and mass CD8+ cell suicide ensues. Interestingly, the CD8 cells only die when macrophages are present.

How does this happen? It is now known that binding of strains of HIV that arise later in infection to the CXCR4 receptor sets in motion the tumor necrosis-alpha death transducing pathway (figure 28). In macrophages, binding of a ligand to CXCR4 receptor on the cell surface induces the expression of TNF-alpha. In CD8+ T cells, the same binding triggers the expression of TNF-alpha receptor II.

When such a macrophage and CD8+ T cell come in contact, the TNF-alpha on the macrophage binds to the TNF-alpha receptor on the CD8+ T cell. This triggers an apoptosis signal in the CD8+ T cell resulting in the vesiculation of the CD8+ T cell (figure 28). Macrophages then phagocytose the remains of the T cell. This explains why macrophages have to be present for the CD8+ cells to die. Why would this happen naturally? Why do chemokines act as death signals for CD8+ T cells? These cells are killer cells and may cause serious trouble if they end up in the wrong place. It is thought that chemokines direct CD8+ T cells to the fate of macrophage-mediated death unless they reach their appropriate location.

Posted by: Lee | November 16, 2007 6:17 PM

To MEC (who does not appear to be able to read and/or comprehend simple sentences), I repeat my earlier answer to “Pat”.

“We do not answer any questions posed by AIDS denialists like you, because that would be to dignify your position.”

For a fuller version of this answer, go to http://www.AIDSTruth.org, a website full of useful and accurate information on the science of HIV/AIDS, and on the denialists (at least, the ones we consider worth writing about).

Posted by: John Moore | November 16, 2007 6:38 PM

Franklin and Lee,

You are absolutely right, Pat is just silly and ignorant.
Here Pat let me help you understand:

HIV kills in vitro except for the immortal cell lines. Lentivirus systems may explain the progressive loss of CD4 cells. Evidence suggests. . . i n addition to direct mechanisms indirect mechanisms may result in the death of uninfected CD4+ T cells: Syncytia in vitro – free gp 120 likewise, although as the illustrious prof. Moore has pointed out in a review the in vitro effect is largely an artifact produced by ridiculoualy high amounts sprinkled onto cell soups with no immune system. A number of investigators have suggested that superantigens, either encoded by HIV or derived from unrelated agents, may trigger massive stimulation and expansion of CD4+ T cells, ultimately leading to depletion or anergy of these cells. The untimely induction of a form of programmed cell death called apoptosis has been proposed as an additional mechanism. It has also been observed that HIV infects precursors of CD4+ T cells in the bone marrow and thymus and damages the microenvironment of these organs necessary for the optimal sustenance and maturation of progenitor cells (Schnittman et al., 1990b; Stanley et al., 1992). These findings may help explain the lack of regeneration of the CD4+ T cell pool in patients with AIDS.
Other data suggest- although no mathematical model has been forthcoming that woul make sense of the suggestion – that HIV infection is sustained by a dynamic process involving continuous rounds of new viral infection and the destruction and replacement of over 1 billion CD4+ T cells per day.

So you see Pat, if we just lump all of the above together, “these studies strongly suggest that HIV has a central role in the pathogenesis of AIDS”. What’s so difficult to understand about all this hard science? Is it the fact that all these methods, and many more to come I’m sure, of cell killing were all invented and employed only by the uniquely cunning HIV?

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 16, 2007 6:50 PM

Ah Prof. Moore, I see. If one has been labelled a “denialist” you will answer no questions at all, not only the one’s about science, none at all. Except you do nothing but come on here and repeat yourself every time
we yank your chain.

Grow up!

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 16, 2007 7:11 PM

Prof. Moore,

Don’t answer for me, please answer for everyone”

Why do you think the Merck v520 vaccine failed? You know the one which was so highly anticipated to be a huge success, now only to find the ones participating in the study are more likely to acquire HIV, the one dropped like a hot potato in the phase II trials…

Posted by: Carter | November 16, 2007 7:18 PM

Lee, I am a full-blown AIDS patient who is almost at the two year mark without antiretroviral drugs. I can assure you that HIV isn’t harming me. Other rethinkers have tossed thier drugs and are living normal lives too. You might want to read some of thier stories at livingwithouthivdrugs.com

Posted by: noreeen – Still Standing | November 16, 2007 7:30 PM

Wow it is amazing how one has to fight to get a simple answer to a simple question. What will always amaze me is how there is always a statement alluding to the obvious tagged as if it were an insult

“You are absolutely right, Pat is just silly and ignorant.
Here Pat let me help you understand”

Of course I am silly and ignorant at least in respect to HIV science. Just for your information Mr. Moore, I am not a scientist so of course I don’t understand the sciencespeak and that is what perhaps you can slowly start to understand yourself and realise where it is in the information chain you stand.

“Here Pat let me help you understand”

looks though as though the door has been opened a little tiny crack though. Thank you, I think it was well worth breaking my skull over.

“the killer cells needed to control HIV also damage the helper T cells that they need to function efficiently”

what does this mean? Thank you for your time.

PS: The only thing I deny is that you are aware of your autocratic impulses.

Posted by: pat | November 16, 2007 8:44 PM

I noticed like MEC points out the many adjectives qualifying low probabilities.

Posted by: pat | November 16, 2007 8:48 PM

verbal auxilary rather.

Posted by: pat | November 16, 2007 9:08 PM

john, we dont want you to answer our questions, we dont respect you anyways as a scientist, why should we care what you think when far more credible scientists like Margulis, Duesberg and shyh ching Lo agree with us?

We dont care about a hack who hasnt accomplished one thing in his sorry scientific career. Sooner or later you guys will exposed for the frauds that you are, thats why censorship is your best friend, the sign of a coward is one who wants to prevent intelligent people from hearing a more compelling argument, just like a megalomanicial prosecuter would do everything to stop a a jury from hearing a compelling defense.

See hiv fact or fraud google it, hell go to the aidstruth site as well, its about informed consent, and you are an enemy of free speech and academic freedom.

Posted by: cooler | November 16, 2007 9:12 PM

cooler, how in the hell does refusing to dignify your idiocy be responding to it, constitute censorship of your idiocy? I don’t see anyone stopping you from displaying your stupidity all over these threads.

But it’s of a piece: yelling ” you wont respond to me, and that is censorship” is perfectly in line with the logic you display in all your other writing.

Posted by: Lee | November 16, 2007 9:30 PM

I posted an overview of the proposed mechanisms of CD4 depletion by HIV, and I note that you conspicuously avoided apoptosis in your response.
CD4 cells can be induced to “suicide” by binding of HIV GP120/GP4 to CD4 receptors. Thsi works even if the gp120/gp41 are free of the virus – free proteins from teh virus can kill CD44 cells.

The mechanism of CD4 depletion is not perfectly understood – its been a mystery for a while, and has been hard to solve. So what? WE know the depletion happens, we know that is is associated with HIV viral loads, we know that HIV kills ÇÎ4 cells via several mechanisms, and we know that the mechanisms under consideration can account for the depletion. lack of full understanding is NOT evidence that HIV doesn’t kill CD4 cells – it certainly does not overturn all the observational evidence about HIV infection and CD4 depletion.

AIDS and Apoptosis
Infection of CD4+ T cell cultures with HIV is associated with a cytopathic effect of the virus, manifested by ballooning of cells and formation of syncytia leading to cell death by apoptosis of both infected and non-infected cells. CD4+ T cell destruction can be mediated directly by HIV replication as a consequence of viral gene expression, such as gp120-gp41, or indirectly through priming of uninfected cells to apoptosis.
Expression of the viral envelope gp120-gp41 complex in infected cells mediates onset of apoptosis of both infected and non-infected cells. Thus chronically HIV-infected cells can serve as effector cells to induce apoptosis in uninfected target CD4+ T cells.
Peripheral T lymphocytes from HIV-infected subjects are prematurely primed for apoptosis, this means that those cells are obviously more sensitive to the induction of apoptosis in response to various stimuli than T lymphocytes from uninfected controls. Interestingly, not only T cells of the CD4 subset but also of the CD8 subset are primed for apoptosis. It also was observed that not only T cells but all blood mononuclear cells, including B cells, T cells, NK cells, granulocytes and monocytes, show increased sensitivity to apoptosis.
The central paradox of HIV pathogenesis is that the viral burden, either free or cellular, seems too low to deplete the CD4+ population by direct killing. The observation that an important fraction of T cells are prematurely primed for apoptosis in HIV-infected subjects prompted the hypothesis that some indirect mechanisms are responsible for inappropriate cell death and significantly contribute to CD4+ T cell depletion as well as to CD8+ destruction in AIDS. Indeed, it has been observed that apoptotic T cells in lymph nodes of HIV-infected individuals contained many apoptotic but uninfected bystander cells whereas infected cells were not found to be apoptotic.
See review by Gougeon in “Apoptosis and its Modulation by Drugs”, Springer, 2000.

http://celldeath.de/encyclo/misc/immunol.htm

Posted by: Lee | November 16, 2007 9:42 PM

noreen, you have previously said that your T count is very low. Your immune system is compromised – a critical component is severely depleted. Isn’t that harm?. HIV hasn’t killed you – that does not mean it has not harmed you. Yo keep talking about LDN as having kept yo alive – doesn’t that mean that something has harmed you to the point where you need therapy to stay alive?

Perhaps you are a rare variant who can live with low t cells and high viral load. Or perhaps you’re just lucky so far – I’ll pray that continues.

Posted by: Lee | November 16, 2007 9:47 PM

Perhaps you are a rare variant who can live with low t cells and high viral load.

What a typical nitwit. Let me give you a hint, Lee — symptoms, actual physical symptoms matter. All these bogus surrogate markers and inaccurate tests, don’t matter. Get a frickin’ clue.

Noreen, any bozo purporting to give you medical advice over the internet on a blog, no less, deserves to be ignored. They do not live in the real medical world.

Posted by: John Givens | November 16, 2007 11:01 PM

MEC has pointed out qualifiers used in the NIH summary for mechanisms of CD4 T-cell depletion. For the most part, these mechanisms of cell killing have been observed in cell culture experiments, and the qualifiers apply to what role(s) these mechanisms play in the patient.

To test the role of any of these mechanisms, one must perform an experiment that specifically interferes with that individual mechanism and not the others, and then determine the outcome for CD4 T-cell killing. Such experiments are very difficult to perform in human subjects, and they won’t necessarily lead to effective therapies.

The approach that has been successful has been to identify inhibitors of enzymes encoded by the virus that are necessary for the viral life cycle. By interfering with viral replication, these inhibitors interfere with essentially all of the proposed mechanisms for HIV-induced CD4 T-cell killing, and they have been shown to be effective at preventing CD4 T-cell loss in HIV-infected patients.

Likewise, they have been shown to be effective at preventing opportunistic infections and death in AIDS patients.

So therapies that inhibit HIV replication prevent CD4 T-cell loss and are of proven clinical benefit to HIV-infected patients, but this inhibition occurs at points of the viral life cycle that are fundamental to multiple proposed mechanisms of HIV-induced cell death.

So even though the therapeutic benefits of antiretroviral therapy show that HIV replication is important for CD4 T-cell killing, the therapies do not distinguish which of the proposed mechanisms of HIV pathogenesis are most important for the CD4 T-cell loss observed in patients..

Posted by: franklin | November 16, 2007 11:09 PM

Dear Lee, Don’t be too hard on “cooler”. He’s done AIDS science/truth a very considerable service over the past few days, without of course intending to do so, and without knowing what he’s done and why it’s so useful to us. The situation’s a bit like how Dave Crowe’s idiotic press release helped us win the fight over the Liam Scheff-inspired BBC documentary on the ICC – the law of unanticipated consequences in action, driven by an unstructured, illogical mind. We may or may not eventually expose how and why “cooler” was so helpful, depending on how we feel about it at the right time. In the mean time, thanks “cooler”, keep those crazy posts coming!

Also, Lee, good luck with trying to explain the science of HIV/AIDS to the trolls on this site. They won’t, of course, understand a word of it in any meaningful way, because their attitude to real science is much the same as that of the ID/creationism believers to Darwinian evolution – it doesn’t fit into their faith/belief system, so they reject it automatically.

Posted by: John Moore | November 16, 2007 11:10 PM

yep I’ll keep those crazy posts coming

hundereds of chimps injected, all were supposed to die of AIDS , not one did. Lets make hiv species specific to save the hypothesis.

Most viruses cause disease before antibody protection, not ten years later, if theres ever a vaccine well all test positive!

The amount of blood tcell is so low, like 1 in a 1000 lets imagineer it with the PCR, got any EM pictures of these high viral Loads from patients? of course not.

Mycoplasma incognitus kills/sickens every animal inoculated, as shyh ching lo showed, lets just create genocide and forget about that and only worry about microbes that do zilch in animals, just keep extending the window period to 40 years, like with HPV, make some good money for merck.

Got a study by honest scientists that rules out other risk factors to see if hiv positive people without mycoplamas, AZT, severe drug abuse/stress get AIDS, which is the only way to prove a species specific microbe with such a long window period is pathenogenic?…………….of course not, any one that questions gallo’s cancer virus that turned into the aids virus overnight is a holocaust denier!

Posted by: cooler | November 16, 2007 11:27 PM

Lee,
I suppose that lengthy post was a reply to me?

” I note that you conspicuously avoided apoptosis in your response.”

I “conspicuously” avoided? Am I by now at least “conspicuous” enough in my ignorance that it becomes self-evident that I am no scientist and make no claims as to what does or doesn’t cause your pet theory and therefore I possibly don’t know enough about apoptosis to even know WHY I should avoid it. But I understand why you’d think so. You think I deny AIDS or HIV or both and possibly even evolublahblahblah…and so you think all questions from me are roadside bombs. When you are at war for too long, you start to see enemies everywhere, so be careful, you don’t want to start gunning down people wildly; it makes for bad press. If I were you, I’d ditch the chief; it’s his war after all.
I am starting to understand now that the new politics of AIDS as defined by Mr Moore requires exclusive membership in order to argue, defend and/or strip individuals of their rights. The ordinary man and woman are now excluded from any social policy descision concerning HIV and what else in the future. If Mr. Moore had his way I perhaps would end up in prison. I certainly know Maggiore would, Moore said no less than exactly that.

Personally I don’t think I need to now diddly about HIV to know that what Moore proposes is naked zealotry and it is socially destructive madness. The clue was a very simple one: Moore shows no concerns for the future of a Charlie with parents in Jail. Moore shows a serious lack of understanding when it comes to the shortcomings and pitfalls of foster care. JPMoore shows serious disregard for the consequences his ideology would have. Imagine that! He hasn’t even considered Charlie!

“the killer cells needed to control HIV also damage the helper T cells that they need to function efficiently”

what does this mean? Thank you for your time.

“we know that HIV kills ÇÎ4 cells via several mechanisms, and we know that the mechanisms under consideration can account for the depletion.”

Can?Ok but what if they don’t?

“lack of full understanding is NOT evidence that HIV doesn’t kill CD4 cells – it certainly does not overturn all the observational evidence about HIV infection and CD4 depletion.”

I never gave such evidence but to complete your exercise in logic: …nor is a lack of full understanding evidence that HIV does kill CD4 cells. I think we agree.

Posted by: pat | November 16, 2007 11:31 PM

“Ironically, the killer cells needed to control HIV also damage the helper T cells that they need to function efficiently. With the lack of CD4+ cells, new cytotoxic T cell responses cannot occur as helper cells are lacking and such new responses are required as the virus mutates.”

Pat asks about the meaning of the above.

It refers to one of the central problems of AIDS, namely that the primary cell target of the virus is a key cell type involved in the regulation of the immune response at multiple levels.

CD4 T-cells are important regulators of the cytotoxic CD8 T-cells that kill virally infected cells. As the CD4 T-cells die off, they become unavailable to regulate the CD8 T-cells needed to respond to the continuing viral infection.

Posted by: franklin | November 16, 2007 11:35 PM

yeah john i know what your going to do, your going to take some joke I made about balls, ignore every other noble prize worthy prose ive written and put it on your stupid site, like I care, cherry pick statements and then ignore the science, just shows how desperate you are, you would never post everything I say entirely because your are that much of a mendacious hack. Dont cherry pick, thats the sign of a coward who cant defend his arguments.

As far as the stuff about balls and getting laid, I think its hilarious. This blog has gotten so pathetic with name calling, “denialists’ so I learned it from you idiots, none of whom have the university of california pedigree, or the big balls and the big heart! Why should i not joke around a little when you guys are such narrow minded idiotic hacks that are oblivious to reason and civil debate.

Posted by: cooler | November 16, 2007 11:53 PM

Let me get this straight.

Against medical advice, the parents made a conscious choice to expose their children to the risk of HIV infection in utero and for several years of breast feeding while taking no steps to mitigate that risk because they have decided that HIV is harmless;

one of their children died of AIDS;

after the death of the child, the LA Times reported that the mother “said she continues to counsel HIV-positive parents around the country about how to keep from using anti-retroviral drugs during childbirth and from giving medications to children who have tested positive for the virus;”(http://www.aegis.com/news/Lt/2005/LT051205.html)

and Pat is outraged because he feels that John Moore “hasn’t even considered Charlie.”

Posted by: franklin | November 16, 2007 11:56 PM

by the way, this site is copywrited by seed, so you cant even cherry pick my john cleese/sacha baronesque cohen comic genius even if you wanted to! Fuck yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Posted by: cooler | November 16, 2007 11:59 PM

I’m wondering if the John Moore of this online diary at Salon is the same nutball posting here.

Well, being a scientist is a bit like being in the military. As one rises up the food chain, other people do one’s dirty work. There aren’t many generals who get strung out on the barbed wire in front of a machine-gun nest, are there? Rankwise, I am now somewhere around a colonel, judging from the uniforms my friends in the Army’s AIDS program sometimes wear (I always give them a vigorous salute, the nature of which is conditional upon the contents of their last research paper).

* * *

So, like many of my peer group, I am just an overpaid two-fingered typist, with no white coat but with acid-holed sweat shirts.

Man, this stuff is embarrassing and unreadable. Who are these delusional knuckleheads, and why is the NIH funding them?

Posted by: John Givens | November 17, 2007 12:02 AM

I have a feeling the seed execs are so impressed with my combination of delicious wit and solid science they are going to be offering me my own blog here, Im a hot commodity.

Posted by: cooler | November 17, 2007 12:12 AM

Cooler tells us “this site is copywrited by seed.”

Can someone please point that out to Andrew Maniotis.

Back in August he ended one of his typical blogarrhea posts on the Intro to Denial thread with the following threat:

It will need to be published in a book, which you guys have been helping me edit.

Maybe if his publisher finds out that Andrew has been “editing” his “book” by posting it on a blog that is owned by Seed they will have second thoughts and we can save several forests.

Posted by: franklin | November 17, 2007 12:17 AM

Sorry Pat, couldn’t help pulling another snowjob on you for fun. Of course it was all the “we’re groping in the dark” adjectives and adverbs that were the point. But hey, as Lee says, “So what? WE know the depletion happens”. The rest is just a matter of heaping “plausible mechanisms” on top of each other until the world of phenomena fits the phenomal microbe and our prophetic knowledge of it

Mr. Lee, I don’t know who you are talking about avoided anything, but heaping gobbledygook on gobbledygook doesn’t dignify anybody, so there at least you let action follow words.

The passage starts,

Expression of the viral envelope gp120-gp41 complex in infected cells mediates onset of apoptosis of both infected and non-infected cells. Thus chronically HIV-infected cells can serve as effector cells to induce apoptosis in uninfected target CD4+ T cells.

and ends,

Indeed, it has been observed that apoptotic T cells in lymph nodes of HIV-infected individuals contained many apoptotic but uninfected bystander cells whereas infected cells were not found to be apoptotic.

Thus elegant is the process of science: we start out with the problem that normally only infected cells kill themselves, and just a paragraph or two further down, via a simple process of introducing the notion of “priming” and repeating the word over and over, the problem has now been reversed and apparently fully solved. It is now the uninfected cells that get suicidal, “primed” by the infected but no longer suicidal cells. A single mystical word made he whole difference betweeen ignorance and knowledge.

It is thus the well known psychological mechanism of displacement or transference of the suicidal impulse which accounts for the anomaly – that and probably the fact that most infected cells are catholic and therefore not too happy about killing themselves, whereas the uninfected cells are mostly muslim which would account rather neatly for their tendency to blow themselves up.

As for free gp120 binding to receptors, closet denialist Prof. J.P. Moore has held it forth as a classic example of the dangers of drawing conclusions from in vitro
observations:

We do not argue that gp120 could never have a biological effect on cells in vivo via receptor-mediated interactions. Nor is it impossible that virions could influence cellular processes in vivo independently of receptor-mediated fusion events.
We do, however, argue that it is not an adequate mimic of in vivo biology simply to add free gp120 (or virions) to target cells in vitro in amounts that are apparently several orders of magnitude greater than in body fluids…(The two decade-old) papers are not consistent with each other, and the more frequently cited study, by Oh et al, has serious design flaws that may cast doubt on the gp120 concentrations it promulgates. The much lower gp120 concentrations recorded by Gilbert et al (2003) are likely to be closer to true levels. And the presence of plasma anti-gp120 Abs that block receptor binding should inform the design of in vitro experiments…. Some of these considerations apply, of course, to other studies of similar design that use high concentrations of other HIV-1 proteins, such as Tat and Vpr, in vitro, in the hope that this is relevant to pathogenesis.
Virology, 323 (2004) pp1-8

Relish if you will the eminent encapsulation of the essence of HIV research in those beautiful closing words,

in the hope that this is relevant to pathogenesis

It is the fact that Moore can write such reviews which wins him the respect as a solid scientist he may not have won for his human qualities, whereas you, Mr. Lee, have so far only shown yourself as another cut and paste parakeet, the very thing you loathe so much in the unscientific
“denialists”.

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 17, 2007 12:17 AM

Good luck with that one franklin, his book is totally original, and the publisher agrees with the message, doubtful theyd be any copyright infringments so youll have to resort to debating him, instead of abolishing the first amendment.

Posted by: cooler | November 17, 2007 12:28 AM

But Cooler,

You just told us that Seed holds the copyright to the Blog. Maniotis indicated that he has been posting excerpts from his “book” on the Blog so that we would inadvertently edit it for him.

Doesn’t that cause a problem for the publisher, if Seed holds a copyright on the portions that Maniotis may have already published on Tara’s Blog?

Posted by: franklin | November 17, 2007 12:32 AM

So even though the therapeutic benefits of antiretroviral therapy show that HIV replication is important for CD4 T-cell killing, the therapies do not distinguish which of the proposed mechanisms of HIV pathogenesis are most important for the CD4 T-cell loss observed in patients..

Aha Frankie, so we’re back to “we don’t really know what the f… is happening but the drugs must be peddled so HIV causes AIDS.”

Cooler, sink me if Pater John has not just dignified you and exalted you above all other denialists! In terms of the AIDS colonel John Givens mentioned, it’s the military strategy of going for the soft targets when the harder ones are… well are too hard.

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 17, 2007 12:35 AM

why dont you call a lawyer and ask him/her how far youd get with that…………

Posted by: cooler | November 17, 2007 12:36 AM

MEC,
I know I just finished college, and im already one of johns top targets, wow, all because i saw a video hiv fact or fraud in college and we all found it compelling!!! I must be put in a stalinist gulag, Im not allowed to think and speak, unless I think and speak only what john wants me to!

Posted by: cooler | November 17, 2007 12:41 AM

Cooler, I think it was all the talk about getting laid that made John take an interest in you.

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 17, 2007 1:02 AM

Maybe Lonely Boy needs to get a life and learn all about it, then he would have better things to do than to argue with rethinkers on a blog.

Posted by: noreeen – Still Standing | November 17, 2007 6:31 AM

“Let me get this straight.

Against medical advice, the parents made a conscious choice to expose their children to the risk of HIV infection in utero and for several years of breast feeding while taking no steps to mitigate that risk because they have decided that HIV is harmless.”- franklin.

You fail to grasp over and over the simple fact that she has conflicting HIV tests. What is the medical advice when this happens? What is the best course action? SHE had to make A descision. Not you, not Moore and certainly not Bergman who has never had to make tough health descisions for herself or her kids. I am disgusted at Moore’s and Bergman’s self-rightuous attitude that somehow they would be better parents.

Posted by: pat | November 17, 2007 7:19 AM

You fail to grasp over and over the simple fact that she has conflicting HIV tests. What is the medical advice when this happens?

From interviews that Maggiore has given over the years, it seems pretty clear what medical advice she received concerning the risk of transmitting HIV to her children.

From an interview Maggiore gave in 2001:

Chung [over footage of Scovill and Maggiore at baby shower]: They had made a decision to play Russian roulette with their own lives. But would they be willing to gamble with their baby’s life as well? Doctors warned that there was a 25 percent chance that Maggiore would transmit the deadly virus to her unborn child unless she took powerful anti-HIV drugs like AZT. Maggiore refused.

Maggiore [to Chung]: I did not want to expose my growing child to toxins during pregnancy.
ABC News 20/20 24 Aug. 2001

From an interview Maggiore gave in 2007:

Christine is married to award-winning filmmaker, Robin Scovill, who remains HIV negative after over ten years of latex-free sex. When she was pregnant with their first child, Charlie, now nine, she went to several OBs and was either turned away or told she had to take AZT and have a cesarean birth.

The Motherhood, Summer 2007, Issue #2.

Posted by: franklin | November 17, 2007 9:55 AM

So Frankie, was that advice given after the positive, negative or indeterminate test result?

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 17, 2007 10:15 AM

It seems the advice was given during her pregnancy.

Posted by: franklin | November 17, 2007 10:56 AM

The OBs obviously don’t consider AZT russian roulette.

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 17, 2007 11:13 AM

Interesting Q&A with U.S. AIDS Czar, Mark Dybul:

MARK DYBUL: I would be happy to answer any questions.

STAFF: Please identify yourself and your affiliation.

Q Lambros Papantoniou, Greek correspondent for the Greek daily newspaper, Elettheros Typos, Athens. Ambassador Dybul, have you seen the HIV virus in a laboratory?

MR. DYBUL: I’ve seen – under a microscope, yes, I’ve seen electron micrographs of the virus, yes.

Q Where and when?

MR. DYBUL: Oh, they’re all over the place. They’re published in virtually ever journal. I have a picture of one in my office.

Q Do you have to report any progress on cure of this deadly disease?

MR. DYBUL: Unfortunately not. Cure is a word we don’t use in HIV/AIDS. We use treatment, life-long treatment. Like many diseases, chronic diseases, we’re not able to cure, whether it’s diabetes, hypertension. This is a chronic infectious disease which we can treat. We hope life-long; we don’t know for sure yet, but we hope life-long so that people live normal life spans. And in the clinics I actually still attend up at our National Institutes of Health, we’re actually dealing with regular diseases now as people are living very long times, 10, 15 years with antiretroviral therapy, but we don’t have a cure.

When we have a cure for HIV, it is quite likely that we’ll cure cancer, because HIV is a retrovirus that puts itself into the – our own human cells. Many infectious diseases live outside of cells and so we can get – access them relatively easily. To get rid of HIV, you actually have to kill human cells, much like cancer. So when we cure HIV and when we – we will, at some point, have such a scientific advance – we’ll be able to cure a lot of other things as well.

Run that by me again? To get rid of HIV, you actually have to kill human cells, much like cancer.

You have to kill the cells to kill the virus? So, because HIV is deadly (it kills cd4 cells) we have to treat it with drugs that…..kill cd4 cells.

Does this sound a little bit like the debacle in Vietnam — in order to save the village from Communists, we had to burn the village.

Posted by: John Givens | November 17, 2007 12:14 PM

“It seems the advice was given during her pregnancy.”

Franklin-straight forward question- What was her known health status during her pregnancies? Was she KNOWN to be positive? was she KNOWN to be negative? or was she KNOWN to be indeterminate …or all three?

If I test pos, neg and indeterminate, What am I ? Am I a pickup truck or am I the victim of confusion?

Posted by: pat | November 17, 2007 12:40 PM

Pat,

Regarding what was known about her health status during her pregnancies:

“From an interview Maggiore gave in 2001:”

“Doctors warned that there was a 25 percent chance that Maggiore would transmit the deadly virus to her unborn child unless she took powerful anti-HIV drugs like AZT. Maggiore refused.”

How’d that work out for her? The child?

Posted by: Roy Hinkley | November 17, 2007 2:14 PM

“cooler” writes:

“yeah john i know what your going to do, your going to take some joke I made about balls, ignore every other noble prize worthy prose ive written and put it on your stupid site,”

No “cooler”, you do not know what we’re going to do, but we are most certainly NOT going to post anything you have written on AIDS Truth. I’m afraid that, like Michael Geiger and Anthony Liversidge, you’re not significant enough to make it onto our site. So all your ramblings about “copyright” are completely irrelevant.

But I’ll think you again for the service you so unwittingly did us via one of your earlier posts. It really was very much appreciated!

Posted by: John Moore | November 17, 2007 2:40 PM

John,

Can you not just grow up?!

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 17, 2007 3:01 PM

pat says:
“You fail to grasp over and over the simple fact that she has conflicting HIV tests. What is the medical advice when this happens? What is the best course action? SHE had to make A descision. Not you, not Moore and certainly not Bergman who has never had to make tough health descisions for herself or her kids. I am disgusted at Moore’s and Bergman’s self-rightuous attitude that somehow they would be better parents.”

Pat… you fail to grasp the central argument. Maggiore continues to insist that HIV does not cause aids, despite the fact that she was told that if she did not accept treatment there was a chance that she would transmit HIV to her child and he would die of aids, and then subsequently she did transmit HIV to her child and that child died of AIDS.

For the HIV/AIDS point, it is irelevant what anyone thinks of her parenting decision. What rmatters is that this is an example OF transmission of HIV followed by a death from AIDS, precisely as predicted by her doctors. For people to use Maggiore as a case study for the argument against HIV causing AIDS is simply absurd.

Posted by: Lee | November 17, 2007 3:22 PM

Pat,

You originally asked what the medical advice would be in her situation.

I directed you to publicly available information–interviews in which Ms. Maggiore participated–that provide some insight into the medical advice her physicians provided.

You now ask me: “What was her known health status during her pregnancies? ”

If you would like more detailed information about Ms. Maggiore’s health status at any given point in time, I suggest you direct your questions to her.

Posted by: franklin | November 17, 2007 3:49 PM

Regarding what was known about her health status during her pregnancies:
“From an interview Maggiore gave in 2001:”

“Doctors warned that there was a 25 percent chance that Maggiore would transmit the deadly virus to her unborn child unless she took powerful anti-HIV drugs like AZT. Maggiore refused.”
How’d that work out for her? The child?

Roy, you are just a (aspiring) scientist, so maybe we shouldn’t expect too much of you, Franklin or Lee the parakeet, but try to grasp that restating the premise over and over will not yield the conclusion.

1. It is not Christine Maggiore neither her doctor speaking in these quotes. It is a narrator teling us the odds of transmission IF (the premise) the mother is positive. Nothing more. I would very much hope the doctors had more to say than that, and that the OBs did more than simply turn Maggiore away at sight.

This is one of the interviews Bergman would have read “researching” her article on Maggiore in which she concluded and publicly stated Maggiore was an HIV negative poseur. How is that possible?

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 17, 2007 3:56 PM

“But I’ll think you again for the service you so unwittingly did us via one of your earlier posts. It really was very much appreciated!”

Seriously, youd think hed have something better to do than argue endlessly on a blog, Im slowly recovering from an illness, thats the only reason im here, hopefully ill be recovered soon and be able to stay away from these blogs for good.

Posted by: cooler | November 17, 2007 4:16 PM

Cooler,

“He” is not arguing. He is desperately trying to portray himself as a winner by resorting ot these mysterious unanswerable hints. Actually he is portraing himself as God, who in his wisdom and splendour makes everybody serve his unknowable purposes. It’s nothing new, I’ve got at least a dozen similar quotes from him directed at different people on YBYL. That’s why we call him johnnie One-Note. You’ll get used to it.

http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/2007/03/the_sad_song_of.html

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 17, 2007 4:33 PM

MEC of course is being characteristically obtuse when trying to make the case that Maggiore is HIV-negative. As recorded in the LA Coroner’s report, her daughter died of AIDS (PCP pneumonia, HIV encephalitis) as a result of acquiring HIV-infection from her mother (unless MEC ascribes to the stork or tooth fairy model of HIV vertical transmission). This is the central fact of the case, as is the high probability that the infection of the daughter would have been avoided had the mother taken AZT or similar ARVs at around the time of delivery, and then avoided the additional risk factor of breast-feeding the child. MEC, “pat” and others can squirm all they like to try to find a way around those central verities, but their efforts on Maggiore’s behalf change absolutely nothing. The facts are the facts.

Posted by: John Moore | November 17, 2007 5:03 PM

MEC,

The prediction: “…25 percent chance that Maggiore would transmit the deadly virus to her unborn child…”

is born out by the child who died of the deadly virus, because her mother did nothing to protect her.

Look at the evidence, make a prediction, collect data, does the data support the hypothesis…

How am I doing so far MEC?

Posted by: Roy Hinkley | November 17, 2007 5:08 PM

Dr Moore

Seeing you are so adamant that Eliza Jane died of a AIDS related illness, I presume that, when it is proven she did not, you will renounce your position as the self appointed HIV?AIDS defender, give up your job at Cornell and never be heard of in scientific circles again.

This would be the least you could do, because your credibility would be shot to pieces.

Kyle ( male by the way John)

Posted by: kyle | November 17, 2007 5:21 PM

Roy,

You and Prof. Moore are still doing splendidly so far as restating the premise (HIV infection) goes. We will have to wait and see, I guess, if it is identical with the conclusion. I do not pretend to hold the answer.

One thing is for sure, it will be the end of Johnnie One Note if the outcome should be different than anticipated. Tell me something Prof. Moore, do you have access to information regarding EJ’s HIV test that her mother doesn’t? Upon the answer depends whatever is left from the Guinea Pig Kids affair of your humanity.

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 17, 2007 5:53 PM

It seems that an another Anatomic Pathologist has reviewed the autopsy slides, although apparently not at the request of Ms. Maggiore.

The LA Times and the ABC both consulted independent experts in anatomical pathology. They both agreed that the diagnosis of PCP was incontrovertible.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 17, 2007 7:05 PM

“They both agreed that the diagnosis of PCP was incontrovertible.”

Are the pathologists claiming PCP wasn’t present looking at slides showing healthy lung tissue and ignoring the rest? I’m not familiar with the case and am not a pathologist, so I don’t know what PCP tissue slides would look like. But it seems to me that there is either pathology or there isn’t and if not PCP than what are the others claiming as the cause of the pathology?

Posted by: Jim | November 17, 2007 7:26 PM

MEC,

Collecting evidence that confirms a hypothesis is not restating the premise.

You sound like a creationist spewing that “survival of the fittest is a tautology…” nonsense.

Posted by: Roy Hinkley | November 17, 2007 7:32 PM

But Roy, you sound just like an AIDStruth Crusader, spewing that “you sound like a creationist” nonsense.

Maybe it’s just lack off scientific understanding on my part, but what is the “evidence” you have been collecting, and which hypothesis have you been confirming? Is it evidence that Christine Maggiore was not confused and thrown into agonizing doubt by her conflicting test results? Results that were apparently tricky enough to fool the astute Jeanne Bergman.

Or is it evidence that EJ really, really died of PCP? If that is the case, could Dr. Noble make the slides available that the LA Times’ and ABC’s experts were looking at; or failing that, their specific answers to Maggiore’s and AL-Bayati’s specific questions?

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 17, 2007 10:59 PM

Are the pathologists claiming PCP wasn’t present looking at slides showing healthy lung tissue and ignoring the rest?

Franklin has already gone through the evidence here

I am also not a pathologist. My understanding is that the H&E stained slides are useful for demonstrating changes in the gross morphology of the tissue and an inflammatory response. Al-Bayati seems to have seized upun the words “no inflammatory” response and equated this to no pneumonia. As Franklin has shown above, in HIV infected immunosuppressed patients it is common if not expected that there is relatively little inflammatory response with PCP.

Al-Bayatis has largely side stepped the GMS stained slides. GMS is a stain commonly used for the detection of the PC organisms. According to the Coroner’s report and the description of the slides shown to Maggiore on national television these slides showed an abundance of PC organisms with their characteristic teacup morphology. This represents the direct detection of PC in a quantity that is consistent only with PC pneumonia.

I’ve heard some objections that PC is ubiquitous. That is true to the extent that somewhere of the order of 90% of the popualtion is exposed to the organism. PCR detection does not necessarily mean PCP. In this case it was not molecular evidence but direct visualization of the organism. It does not show up in stains unless there is a lot of it.

It is all really very bizarre considering the typical “rethinker” critiques of HIV. They want electron micrographs of HIV rather than antibody or molecular detection. They argue that HIV can’t possibly cause AIDS because it is not present in quantities that they believe are necessary to do anything. They argue that the only way that HIV can possibly cause disease is by direct cell killing and any mechanisms involving the host response to HIV cannot be important. Yet, here there is direct evidence for PC in a more than sufficient quantity and they ignore it. They seem to be fixated on the host response rather than the PC organism that causes the disease.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 18, 2007 12:19 AM

Haha, Dr Noble, that was one of your better spins in the last paragraph above, so I’ll let you have it to yourself for once while we focus on EJ.

Regardless of HIV cell killing methods, in EJ’s case we would of course like to see some “host response”. A “fulminate”, “severe”, deadly PCP is supposed to show equally severe and deadly damage. This is the same as with HIV; the mere presence of particles or its “molecular signature” is not sufficient to kill somebody.

I do not think the presence of PC is in dispute, only the evidence that it had developed into severe, or fulminate pneumonia (PCP). That evidence may or may not be there. Is it too much to ask to suspend judgment until we are able to see for ourselves?

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 18, 2007 4:30 AM

I’m out, the level of the troll jacking has reached a ludicrous level.
On a good note, Nelson Mandela’s concert (the 46664 concert) which benefits HIV/AIDS programs is currently running adverts on TV and Radio. Madiba himself is on the ads saying that HIV/AIDS is no longer just a health issue, but is a human rights issue.
And Madiba still has a lot of influence here as well as the rest of the world, so this should help.

Posted by: scienceteacherinexile | November 18, 2007 5:33 AM

MEC,

If you weren’t arguing with scientists, and doctors, about terms and concepts you clearly don’t understand the meaning of, then you might not sound so much like a creationist.

Posted by: Roy Hinkley | November 18, 2007 9:15 AM

What I really like is the argument that it wasn’t pneumonia because there was no evident inflammation associated with the PC-containing pink foamy casts in her edamatous lungs.

Posted by: Lee | November 18, 2007 10:25 AM

To remind everyone, this is a summary of Al-Bayati’s statements of what the coroner’s report says:

1. Pneumocystis carinii was found in Eliza Jane’s lungs by Gomori methenamine silver staining in association with pink foamy casts in the alveoli. The lungs were also edematous (water-logged).
2. Eliza Jane was mildly neutropenic (low neutrophil–a type of white blood cell–count) and profoundly anemic (low red blood cell count)
3. Eliza Jane’s brain contained throughout its white matter with relative sparing of cortex a number of variable-sized microglial nodules characterized by multinucleate giant cells associated with moderate pallor and myelination, occasional macrophages, and and angiocentric pattern. These lesions stained positive by immunohistochemistry (IHC) for the HIV core p24 protein, a finding consistent with HIV encephalitis.
4. There was atrophy of the spleen and thymus

5. There was enlargement of the liver with fatty infiltrate of the cells (steatosis) and ascites

Posted by: Lee | November 18, 2007 10:32 AM

“Pat… you fail to grasp the central argument. Maggiore continues to insist that HIV does not cause aids, despite the fact that she was told that if she did not accept treatment there was a chance that she would transmit HIV to her child and he would die of aids, and then subsequently she did transmit HIV to her child and that child died of
For the HIV/AIDS point, it is irelevant what anyone thinks of her parenting decision. What rmatters is that this is an example OF transmission of HIV followed by a death from AIDS, precisely as predicted by her doctors. For people to use Maggiore as a case study for the argument against HIV causing AIDS is simply absurd.”

Why are you trying to convince me of something I am not even arguing against. That is all ok wih me what you say but what I am discussing is Maggiore’s apparent “culpabitlity”. Moore and co here maintain that she is guilty of negligence and should go to jail inspite of the FACT the no chrages were ever filed. Should Maggiore have followed the advice of the doctor who gave her a positive diagnosis or the one that gave her the negative diagnosis? Considering the “fact” that HIV tests are highly specific and accurate she had to make a choice based on her highly specific and accurate status as HIV +-+ indeterminate and what not.
I am not discussing wether HIV causes AIDS or not so please stop telling me Maggiore is proof of it

“If you would like more detailed information about Ms. Maggiore’s health status at any given point in time, I suggest you direct your questions to her.”

But it is ok for YOU to speculate about it and insist she was negligent.

Posted by: pat | November 18, 2007 11:22 AM

“Doctors warned that there was a 25 percent chance that Maggiore would transmit the deadly virus to her unborn child unless she took powerful anti-HIV drugs like AZT. Maggiore refused.”

How’d that work out for her? The child?”

Which doctor told her that? The one that found HIV or the one that didn’t or the one that just said “gee I donno”

Posted by: pat | November 18, 2007 11:25 AM

Which doctor told her that? The one that found HIV or the one that didn’t or the one that just said “gee I donno”

Apparently a doctor that was concerned for her child’s health.

Remember, you’re supposedly outraged at Moore because he “hasn’t even considered Charlie.”

According to interviews given by Ms. Maggiore, the physicians she consulted when pregnant did consider her children–but she chose to ignore their advice.

Posted by: franklin | November 18, 2007 11:48 AM

“Apparently a doctor that was concerned for her child’s health.”

That is the one who said she was dying, what about the one that said she was fine?
Jesus H Christ. Were you to test positive, negative, indeterminate, what would you do? Would you gobble pills “in the offchance”? Would you risk potentially serious side effects “just in case”?

Posted by: pat | November 18, 2007 11:54 AM

“According to interviews given by Ms. Maggiore, the physicians she consulted when pregnant did consider her children–but she chose to ignore their advice.”

When you have conflicting advice, WHAT DO YOU DO????

Posted by: pat | November 18, 2007 11:55 AM

Should Maggiore have followed the advice of the doctor who gave her a positive diagnosis or the one that gave her the negative diagnosis?

To what advice do you refer?

What advice are you claiming that Ms. Maggiore received from “the one that gave her the negative diagnosis”?

Posted by: franklin | November 18, 2007 11:56 AM

“What advice are you claiming that Ms. Maggiore received from “the one that gave her the negative diagnosis”?

I suspect she got no advice from them. My last test was negative and there was no following advice. My doc just said: “you’re fine”

Are you suggesting Maggiore is lying to us about her conflicting test results? Do you have any evidence of this?

Posted by: pat | November 18, 2007 12:16 PM

pat, said:

“I am not discussing whether HIV causes AIDS or not so please stop telling me Maggiore is proof of it”

Maggiore is a prominent HIV denier, and the focus of this thread has become the denier ‘arguments.’ So, lets get this on the record, pat. Do you accept that HIV is the causative factor for AIDS? That is my only interest in this thread, and it seems to me that you are on the denier side. If not, if yo accept that HIV causes AIDS, could you please make that clear?

Posted by: Lee | November 18, 2007 12:17 PM

“When you have conflicting advice, WHAT DO YOU DO????”

If one side of that conflicting advice said I am at risk of dying, and perhaps more troubling, that actions I am contemplating put my children at risk of dying, then I certainly don’t simply pretend there is no risk and continue as usual.

Posted by: Lee | November 18, 2007 12:30 PM

“So, lets get this on the record, pat. Do you accept that HIV is the causative factor for AIDS?”

Thank you for finally asking and a penalty for JP Moore for foul language based on nothing but his very own prejudice.

Do I have a choice? Do you think I can falsify HIV/AIDS? I have to accept what I am told. I am told by some that HIV is the SOLE causative agent in AIDS while others are saying HIV is not sufficient and none of this comes from any “denialist” sources. If JP Moore says HIV causes AIDS than I must accept it but I do not understand why I MUST be an “AIDS denialist” for defending Maggiore’s rights as a parent. Do YOU understand that logic?

“That is my only interest in this thread, and it seems to me that you are on the denier side.”

If that is your sole interest than why are you writing to me? My sole interest is the POLITICS of AIDS and the gros misrepresentation of what constitutes “murder” and “crime”. I worry about legal “over-reach”. I worry about loosing my rights to question everything and anything I am fed. If people like Duesberg end up in jail for “scientific dissent” I also wonder where that leaves “the scientific method”. If Duesberg ends up in jail, he cannot contribute to cancer either and that would be stupid considering his already recognised contributions in that field. He denies HIV as a causative role in AIDS, so what? Why does JP Moore think he must protect me from Duesber’s ideas? Why does JP Moore insult me like that? Every great scientist dissents somewhere so if we were to put “dissenters” in jail there would be no more scientists and no more science. Also, who is going to protect me the day a liar comes around and sells me something I cannot legally say no to, what then?

If you do not want to discuss anything outside the “science of AIDS” than there is no point in talking to me because I am solely interested in the politics of it.

Posted by: pat | November 18, 2007 12:45 PM

Pat says:

When you have conflicting advice, WHAT DO YOU DO????

When asked what advice she received that conflicted with the published interviews indicating that she was advised to take steps to prevent transmission of HIV to her children, Pat replies:

I suspect she got no advice from them

So, Pat has no evidence that she received conflicting advice regarding the management of her pregnancy.

In fact, Pat suspects that she received no such conflicting advice about the management of her pregnancy.

Let’s see if we understnd Pat’s position:

Against medical advice, the parents made a conscious choice to expose their children to the risk of HIV infection in utero and for several years of breast feeding while taking no steps to mitigate that risk because they have decided that HIV is harmless;

Pat suspects that the parents received no conflicting advice from their physicians regarding these risks;

one of their children died of AIDS;

after the death of the child, the LA Times reported that the mother “said she continues to counsel HIV-positive parents around the country about how to keep from using anti-retroviral drugs during childbirth and from giving medications to children who have tested positive for the virus;”(http://www.aegis.com/news/Lt/2005/LT051205.html)

and Pat is outraged because he feels that John Moore “hasn’t even considered Charlie.”

Posted by: franklin | November 18, 2007 12:50 PM

“If one side of that conflicting advice said I am at risk of dying, and perhaps more troubling, that actions I am contemplating put my children at risk of dying, then I certainly don’t simply pretend there is no risk and continue as usual.”

So you would take life long treatment for HIV “in the off chance” you might have it. I am not sure how smart that is considering I have a friend who is about to loose his liver due to the side effects of those drugs and that is the professional opinion of his AIDS doctor 12 years into his treatment. I also know someone who died 2 years ago of liver failure caused by too much medication (that was the opinion of the treating doctors at the hospital, not my observation)and it is not pretty at all either so I am not sure which is preferable.

Life long arv’s sounds very drastic for an “off-chance”.

Posted by: pat | November 18, 2007 12:54 PM

“Pat suspects that the parents received no conflicting advice from their physicians regarding these risks”

That is incorrect. I strongly suspect she recieved conflicting advice seeing she recieved conflicting diagnoses

Posted by: pat | November 18, 2007 12:55 PM

“I suspect she got no advice from them. My last test was negative and there was no following advice. My doc just said: “you’re fine”

You copy and pate an incomplete sentence of mine. This is the complete sentence. The “no advice” I refer to is the advice that she must have gotten about being “fine”

Posted by: pat | November 18, 2007 12:58 PM

Here is the Analysis of causes that led to Eliza Jane Scovill’s cardiac arrest and death M.A. Al-Bayati/Medical Veritas 2 (2005) 567-581 567.

EJ had a cardiac arrest after the fourth dose of Amoxicillin. The autopsy showed acute pericardial effusion suggesting pericardial tamponade was the cause of the hypotension and cardiac arrest. This is not a typical clinical course for PCP pneumonia in an AIDS patient. PCP fungal pneumonia does not present with cardiac arrest, it has a fairly characteristic clinical course, and causes chronic hypoxia which presents gradually and is frequently treated with mechanical ventilation which keeps the patient alive for a while with a 50% chance of recovery with various treatments. Pericardial, and pleural fluid was present indicating an acute allergic reaction to the amoxicillin. PCP pneumonia produces pulmonary infiltrates, and does not cause pericardial and pleural effusions.

PCP pneumonia produces cysts in the lungs, hence the term pneumocystis. This was not a feature of EJ’s lungs as reported. In order to produce hypoxia, the alveoli must be made nonfunctional by filling up with exudate. No exudates were described in EJ’s reports.

In terms of the brain findings of Microglial nodules are not specific for HIV infection and may be present with neoplasia, traumatic focal necrosis, or infection from viral, protozoal or bacterial organisms.

Regarding the P24 in the post mortem brain tissue, Western blot positive requires detection of two or more antibodies to HIV; p24, Gp41, Gp 120/160. Presence of P24 only, without the Gp41 or Gp120/160 is a false positive. There were no western blot blood tests antemortem which is the usual method for diagnosis of HIV.

HIV encephalitis and Aids dementia is characterized by progressive cognitive dysfunction. None of these symptoms were present in EJ who had normal cognition, making the diagnosis of HIV encephalitis highly unlikely.

It is clear that the LA coroners delayed autopsy report was politically motivated and in error.

Needless to point out, this same LA coroner has been found guilty of errors and outright misconduct on other cases as well.

Posted by: never_a_peen | November 18, 2007 1:07 PM

I think what a lot of people who post on this thread, particularly those who support Ms Maggiore, are forgetting (or deliberately overlooking) is that there is no available evidence that Ms Maggiore has a history of “indeterminate” or “contradictory” diagnostic tests for HIV infection; there is only her word for it, and her statements have not been consistent over the decade or more that she has been making them. Given what happened to her daughter, an awful lot of weight is being placed by her supporters nowadays on Ms. Maggiore’s uncorroborated statements.

Given the outstanding precision and sensitivity of HIV diagnostic assays, particularly since the later-generation tests were developed a few years after the first ones in the mid-1980’s (tests which were, quite literally, “emergency measures” that were adequate but not perfect), this entire issue could be resolved very easily. All Ms. Maggiore has to do is to have a comprehensive set of blood tests performed blind by independent, qualified diagnostic laboratories and then reveal the full results, with all relevant details, publicly. Tests could also be performed on any archival blood samples that remain.

It’s extremely rare for HIV-infected people not to seroconvert to HIV antigens, and those rare cases either involve people with genetic abnormalities in their humoral immune system, or people with highly aggressive HIV-infection that leads to death within a year or two. Clearly the latter scenario does not apply here.

So, let’s see the facts if Ms. Maggiore’s supporters truly do want to claim that she thought she was HIV-negative at the time when she made the critical decision (not to take preventive measures) that led to the death of her daughter from AIDS.

Posted by: John Moore | November 18, 2007 1:09 PM

“Let’s see if we understnd Pat’s position”

No, let me explain my position yet again.

She cannot determine her own status because the precise testing techniques categorically diagnosed her as +-+ indeterminate etc… She must now make a descision based on the rock solid evidence that she is all those things. She weighed the risks of side effects against the risks of infecting her children “with HIV” and “no HIV” and “maybe HIV but maybe not”. It appears she made the wrong descision and hindsight is always 20/20 so shame on all those who would say “I told you so” because nobody “knew so” at the time, not even Jeanne Bergman. Remember her? the HIV/AIDS authority trying to convince the world and Maggiore that she is HIV NEGATIVE!
I perhaps am the only person that doesn’t “deny anything” that can also support Maggiore and her rights and obligations to make the final health descisions for herself and her kids. Everybody got it wrong right up to the point EJ died. I perhaps am also the only person who can understand why she is totally confused about what probably does and doesn’t cause AIDS. If I had the testing history Maggiore has, I probably wouldn’t write a book about it but I certainly wouldn’t have a clue about my status and I would probably just walk home hopelessly confused and not really inclined to take lifelong chemotherapy.

To all those who WANT guilt and public executions; Good luck.

In dubio pro reo. end

Posted by: pat | November 18, 2007 1:33 PM

A challenge to Mr Moore

“And of course I won’t respond to any questions you pose. That would involve debating or discussing science with an AIDS denialist, and our policies on never doing that are widely known.” – John P. Moore, Weill Cornell HIV=AIDS microbicide researcher, recipient of handy $500,000 grant from a drug company, and frequent analyst of fundamental flaws and omissions in the HIV=AIDS hypothesis.

John, you seem blithely unaware of the fact that every time you make this avowal you are signalling that you lack answers. Is this wise?

Moreover, the irony is that you yourself have raised many of the most pertinent questions as to the sense and quality of the work of HIV=AIDS researchers.

Would you like us to give you a list of the papers in which you have made remarkable admissions of this kind?

We have already dealt with one (and will shortly add more) on our modest blog ScienceGuardian/New AIDS Review in the posts John P. Moore Brings Down The AIDS Paradigm (Part 2)

To quote from the introduction

“To put it bluntly, John P. Moore Ph.D. has written a paper which tears out the thumping heart of his entire campaign in defense of the beleaguered paradigm and throws it to the paradigm attack dogs he is usually occupied with trying to kick as hard as he possibly can.

The title of this quietly seminal work is a question: “Is there enough gp120 in the body fluids of HIV-1 infected individuals to have biologically significant effects?”

The minireview can be found in Virology, 323 (2004) pp1-8, and is written with P. J. Klasse, who is also at the Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, 1300 York Avenue, W-805, New York NY 10021 (Fax 212 746 8340 jpm2003@med.cornell.edu).”

Perhaps you wish to claim this is misinterpreted, but there is no comment registered by you since it was put up on May 30th. Do you have some problem in contradicting yourself? Perhaps you should ask Nancy Padian for advice on this predicament.

Or possibly you wish to claim that your inability to reply is part of your policy of not replying to “denialists”, but again, this only signals to all thinking people that you are hiding.

So tell us, why should onlookers credit a scientist who declines to try and answer any questions about their work?

Can we credit him with confidence in his work?

Can we credit him with pride in his work?

Can we credit him with a sense of public responsibility?

Can we credit him with a sense of responsibility towards those affected by his work?

Sorry, we forgot that you refuse to respond to “denialists” (although as we have often pointed out to you we at Science Guardian/New AIDS Review are not suggesting any “conspiracy theory” and our role is merely to ask questions, as good journalists do, so that you may deny “denialists”, if you wish).

Alas! Given your silence, we will have to judge all these points for ourselves, it seems.

But will you accept our nomination for the Nobel, or at least the Lasker, for your many contributions to demonstrating the emptiness of the paradigm claim HIV=AIDS?

Posted by: Truthseeker | November 18, 2007 1:41 PM

Remember that standard care after HIV diagnosis uses ongoing qPCR viral load analysis, which in itself constitutes an independent diagnostic test for HIV infection. To repeat, standard o care requires ongoing monitoring of HIV levels, via a test different from that used to diagnose.

Posted by: Lee | November 18, 2007 1:44 PM

“I think what a lot of people who post on this thread, particularly those who support Ms Maggiore, are forgetting (or deliberately overlooking) is that there is no available evidence that Ms Maggiore has a history of “indeterminate” or “contradictory” diagnostic tests for HIV infection; there is only her word for it, and her statements have not been consistent over the decade or more that she has been making them. Given what happened to her daughter, an awful lot of weight is being placed by her supporters nowadays on Ms. Maggiore’s uncorroborated statements.”

To argue she is concocting all of this so she could profit from AIDS denialism at the expense of her children’s health is simply too much of a stretch to explain her sudden shift. Remember that she was a good “trooper” at firt. Her health testimony is consistent with her sudden about face and nicely explains it too without having to strain the imagination with wild conspiracy theories.

Posted by: pat | November 18, 2007 1:55 PM

“So, let’s see the facts if Ms. Maggiore’s supporters truly do want to claim that she thought she was HIV-negative at the time when she made the critical decision (not to take preventive measures) that led to the death of her daughter from AIDS.”

Mr Moore, you are the one who wants to put her in jail. You are the one portraying her as a predator. If you make wild conspiracy theories about Maggiore, is the onus not on you to bring evidence?

Posted by: pat | November 18, 2007 1:59 PM

Also, I never made the claim that she thought she was NEGATIVE during her pregnancies. I simply say I don’t BLAME her for the discisions she took. If her health statements are accurate than she must have thought she was pos, neg AND indeterminate during her pregnancies which translates into into english as…”not having a fucking clue”.

Posted by: pat | November 18, 2007 2:04 PM

“However, given the known and unknown risks of antiretroviral use in pregnancy, the National Institutes of Health guidelines state that the final decision regarding their use “should be made by the woman after discussion with her health care provider about the known and unknown benefits and risks of therapy” in a “noncoercive” environment”

Is Moore not creating a coercive environmemt by demanding prison for Maggiore?
The law is clear and so are NIH guidelines.

Posted by: pat | November 18, 2007 2:42 PM

Pat says that he strongly suspects that Ms. Maggiore received conflicting advice from her physicians regarding her risk of transmitting HIV to her children in utero or by breastfeeding “because she recieved conflicting diagnoses.”

He points to his own experience:

My last test was negative and there was no following advice. My doc just said: “you’re fine”

He seems to accept that some of Ms. Maggiore’s physicians counseled her that she was at risk of transmitting HIV to her children but he adds that this advice came from:

the one who said she was dying, what about the one that said she was fine?

Here’s what Ms. Maggiore reports about her HIV testing on the Alive and Well web page:

In 1992, I took what is commonly referred to as an HIV test. I had no symptoms of illness, no particular risks or fears, just a new doctor who insisted the test should be part of a regular medical exam. What began as a simple check up turned from routine to life altering when my results came back HIV positive.

Putting aside my shock and shame, I immediately sought out an AIDS specialist. This doctor declared that my test was not positive, not enough to be considered conclusive, anyway. Frightened and confused but hopeful, I followed his recommendations to take the test again along with other lab work to evaluate everything from my cholesterol to T cells.

According to the specialist, the results of this second HIV test were indisputably positive and my progression from somewhat positive to conclusively positive indicated a recent infection with HIV.

She continues:

But then a year or so into my diagnosis and public service, and after interviewing half a dozen AIDS doctors whose recommendations ranged from immediate drug therapy to world travel, I found an anomaly among AIDS specialists–a doctor who didn’t routinely fill people with toxic pharmaceuticals and lethal predictions. She treated me as an individual rather than an impending statistic, and in doing so noticed my good health. She said I didn’t fit the profile of an AIDS patient, and urged me to take another HIV test. Afraid to raise my hopes, at first I refused. When I finally found the courage to retest, the result was inconclusive. Further testing produced a series of unsettling, contradictory diagnoses: a positive, followed by a negative, followed by another positive.

I seem to have missed the part that Pat seems to assume must have occurred–the part where her physician told her “you’re fine.”

As far as I can tell, in or around 1992, two HIV tests in a row were reported as “positive,” and about a year later one test was reported as “inconclusive,” followed by a test that was reported as “positive,” followed by a test that was reported as “negative,” and a final test that was reported as “positive.”

Contrary to Pat’s assumption based upon his own experience, Ms. Maggiore provides no information indicating that any physician ever advised her that she “was fine” with respect to her HIV infection–and she reports consulting 9 physicians.

Instead, from her statement, it seems that her physicians went to great lengths to document her HIV infection.

Likewise, the interviews with Ms. Maggiore that we have already disussed indicate that when she was pregnant, the physicians she consulted advised her that she was at risk of transmitting HIV to her children and to take steps to mitigate that risk.

Ms. Maggiore chose to ignore that advice.

There is no evidence that I know of to indicate that Ms. Maggiore received contradictory advice from her physicians concerning the risks of HIV transmission to her children.

An autopsy has shown that one of her children died of AIDS, yet the LA Times reports that Ms. Maggiore “said she continues to counsel HIV-positive parents around the country about how to keep from using anti-retroviral drugs during childbirth and from giving medications to children who have tested positive for the virus;” (http://www.aegis.com/news/Lt/2005/LT051205.html)

But Pat is outraged because he feels that John Moore “hasn’t even considered Charlie.”

Posted by: franklin | November 18, 2007 3:28 PM

I think what a lot of people who post on this thread, particularly those who support Ms Maggiore, are forgetting (or deliberately overlooking) is that there is no available evidence that Ms Maggiore has a history of “indeterminate” or “contradictory” diagnostic tests for HIV infection; there is only her word for it, and her statements have not been consistent over the decade or more that she has been making them. Given what happened to her daughter, an awful lot of weight is being placed by her supporters nowadays on Ms. Maggiore’s uncorroborated statements.
Given the outstanding precision and sensitivity of HIV diagnostic assays, particularly since the later-generation tests were developed a few years after the first ones in the mid-1980’s (tests which were, quite
literally, “emergency measures” that were adequate but not perfect), this entire issue could be resolved very
easily

Of course the onus is on Prof Moore to bring evidence – Pat nails it once again.

May I remind you, Sir John of the Short Memory, that when it suited you and Bergie to call Christine Maggiore a false-positive profiteer, there was not a word out of you about the infallibility of the tests or the fallacy of taking Maggiore’s words about her test results at face value. Does the term “hoisted on your own petard” ring a bell? I am still waiting for you to make two consecutive arguments that don’t contradict each other, Prof Moore.

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 18, 2007 3:36 PM

There is no evidence that I know of to indicate that Ms. Maggiore received contradictory advice from her physicians concerning the risks of HIV transmission to her children.

Franklin you are really getting tiresome now. The general advice about HIV transmission hopefully remained the same. The diagnosis didn’t. Doubt was sown in Maggiore’s mind about the validity of the diagnosis. Choices had to be made on that backgound.

There is no doubt most doctors will tell you to take the meds regardless; nobody is arguing otherwise. However, conversations with at least some doctors do still consist in more than “take the meds yes or no, tick the appropriate box”.

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 18, 2007 3:48 PM

“There is no evidence that I know of to indicate that Ms. Maggiore received contradictory advice from her physicians concerning the risks of HIV transmission to her children. ”

But the one you cut and paste says:

“She treated me as an individual rather than an impending statistic, and in doing so noticed my GOOD HEALTH.”

Did this doctor counsel her to take ARV’s? Do doctors counsel their patients to take ARV’s and AZT “just in case”?

“But Pat is outraged because he feels that John Moore “hasn’t even considered Charlie.”

Franklin feels Maggiore is guilty. Franklin would you put charlie’s mother in jail. Franklin also thinks putting mothers in jail for making the wrong descision is creating “an uncoercive evironment”.
Franklin thinks NIH guidelines are just for laughs.

Posted by: pat | November 18, 2007 4:50 PM

“She treated me as an individual rather than an impending statistic, and in doing so noticed my GOOD HEALTH.”

Did this doctor counsel her to take ARV’s? Do doctors counsel their patients to take ARV’s and AZT “just in case”?

No, Ms Maggiore tells us that the doctor counseled her to repeat the testing.

She also tells us that the repeat test came back as “inconclusive,” and then additional repeat tests came back as “positive,” and then “negative,” and finally as “positive.”

Ms. Maggiore does not tell us what the physician counseled her to do when all of the test results were available.

Nor, indeed, does she tell us what types of tests were performed nor what the actual results of the testing were.

She only gives us her report of the interpretation of those results, but tells of nothing about the basis for that interpretation.

At any rate, those tests were apparently performed years before she became pregnant.

By the time she was pregnant, Ms. Maggiore tells us in her writings and interviews that she was unable to find a physician willing to attend at her delivery unless she agreed to take steps to mitigate the risk of transmission of HIV to the baby.

She ignored their advice and one of her children subsequently died of AIDS.

Pat keeps claiming that Ms. Maggiore made her choices because she was uncertain as to whether or not she was infected by HIV, but it appears that all of the physicians she consulted at the time she was pregnant counseled her otherwise.

Her own writings seem to indicate that the reason she took no steps to mitigate the risk of transmission of HIV to her children was not because of “conflicting advice” from her physicians about how best to manage her pregnancy, but that it was because she does not believe that HIV infection causes AIDS, :

If I thought for a moment that HIV caused AIDS and I would need to spend my life on harsh pharmaceuticals with toxicities incorporated into my DNA, that my own breast milk was lethal, and that I wouldn’t be around to see my children grow up, I never would have had a family. [http://www.awarenessmag.com/novdec2/ND2_QUESTIONING_AIDS.HTML]

There is no evidence that I know of to indicate that Ms. Maggiore received contradictory advice from her physicians concerning the risks of HIV transmission to her children.

Even after one of her children died of AIDS, the LA Times reports that Ms. Maggiore “said she continues to counsel HIV-positive parents around the country about how to keep from using anti-retroviral drugs during childbirth and from giving medications to children who have tested positive for the virus.” (http://www.aegis.com/news/Lt/2005/LT051205.html)

But Pat is outraged because he feels that John Moore “hasn’t even considered Charlie.”

Sorry if you find that information to be tiresome, MEC. I know how much energy you must need to expend to keep reading and posting on this blog while burying your head so deeply in the sand.

Posted by: franklin | November 18, 2007 5:45 PM

MOORE is a “useful idiot” for the denialists

Mr. Moore, you do no one any favors by engaging these people.

The very fact that a scientist from a major U.S. university considers it worth responding (over and over and over) to denialist viewpoints gives them credibility they do not deserve.

You are just egging them on. And your hubris in quoting Churchill is beyond belief.

You, sir, have turned into an internet troll.

A. Carricci

Posted by: A Carricci | November 18, 2007 6:50 PM

Answer these questions if you please Franklin:

Do you believe that sentenses of jail for dissent, as advocated by Moore and Wainberg, are consistant with creating an “uncoercive environment” for the rest of us?

Do you believe Bergman’s wild and absurd opining about an “obvious” negative status and Maggiore’s “alleged” criminal motive’s is consistant with creating a “uncoercive environment” for the rest of us?

I feel these following questions are important to me and many others who are not “yet” affected by these policies. The consistant demonizing of a victim of HIV, the threats of profesional isolation towards academics for “dissent in science”, this absurd “war” on “denialists” where “they” are seen as “perpetrators of death” and every other stupid “war” tactic, do everything thing to waken the naturally skeptical mind of human beings and promotes nothing more than resistance, polarization and ultimately tragedy.

Posted by: pat | November 18, 2007 7:13 PM

I second Carricci’s assesment of Mr. Moore

Posted by: pat | November 18, 2007 7:16 PM

Clearly John Moore is unaware of the literature on false positive HIV tests. Luckily I have prepared a detailed summary of the scientific literature at http://aras.ab.ca/test.html and especially at htthttp://aras.ab.ca/test-false-positive.html

Just one of the things Moore is forgetting is that factors that can cause a false positive test may vary over time. So someone might be tested 100 times at once and all tests be consistent, but a month or a year later, may have a different status.

He’s also forgetting that the status called ‘indeterminate’ exists, and what does that mean except that ELISA tests are flawed? And what if the WB was done first and ELISA used for confirmation? Then we’d have to consider ELISA tests perfect, operationally, because otherwise we might end up in an infinite loop of testing.

Furthermore, John Moore is forgetting that there are at least 10 documented different standards for interpretation of western blots, so it’s quite easy to be positive in one country and indeterminate in another, or even indeterminate based on testing in a different lab.

Furthermore, John Moore is ignoring the fact that prejudice plays a role, at least in some jurisdictions. In Ontario, for example, there is a different sequence of testing for someone in a ‘risk group’. And whether someone is in a risk group is prejudicial. Would Christine be considered to be in a risk group just because they’d like the test to stand a greater chance of being positive?

Posted by: David Crowe | November 18, 2007 7:28 PM

Never-a-brain writes:

No exudates were described in EJ’s reports.

It’s hard to no whether you are just an idiot, a liar or ignorant. Foamy casts are exudates and are detailed in the Coroner’s report.

All lobes show pink foamy casts in the alveoli with no inflammatory response.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 18, 2007 7:55 PM

Pat,

What do you believe scientists and physicians should do when individuals make pseudoscientific arguments to promote the points of view that HIV is harmless and that HIV-infected women should take no steps to prevent transmission to their children?

What responsibility do you believe scientists and physicians have to counter the misinformation promulgated by HIV-infected patients who have been seduced by the delusion that HIV is harmless?

. . . or to counter the misinformation promulgated by academics who distort the work of others to convince HIV-infected people that the virus is harmless?

Check out Tara’s thread on Smallpox and the Intro to Denial thread to see some of the lies and distortions posted by Maniotis and cited from Duesberg’s writings–lies and distortions pepetrated in an effort to convince the gullible that HIV is harmless.

Or check out the absurd lengths to which Michael Geiger will distort scientific findings which he seems completely incapable of understanding–all in an effort to convince the gullible that HIV is harmless.

The actions of these individuals is reprehensible.

Think about the effect these people have had on AIDS mortality in S. Africa.

Even after her child died of AIDS, the LA Times reports that Ms. Maggiore “said she continues to counsel HIV-positive parents around the country about how to keep from using anti-retroviral drugs during childbirth and from giving medications to children who have tested positive for the virus.” (http://www.aegis.com/news/Lt/2005/LT051205.html)

What do you think the role of scientists and physicians should be to counter these activities.

Posted by: franklin | November 18, 2007 9:42 PM

some ignoble hairbrain wrote: Foamy casts are exudates and are detailed in the Coroner’s report.

No, foamy casts are not exudates. AL Bayati’s report makes this distinction and mentions that the ME did not report exudates.

http://www.justiceforej.com/ej-medveritas.pdf

Pneumonia is a term that refers to inflammation and consolidation of the pulmonary parenchyma [3; pp566]. The microscopic examination of Eliza Jane’s lungs revealed no inflammation.

The ME did not observe any inflammatory response in the alveoli or in the interstitial tissue to justify a diagnosis of Pneumocystis carinii Pneumonia (PCP) or any other form of pneumonia.

The lesions of PCP usually comprise an interstitial infiltrate of plasma cells and lymphocytes; an interstitial fibrosis; an interstitial diffuse alveolar damage; and hyperplasia of type II pneumocytes; the alveoli are filled with characteristic foamy exudates [3, 4].

For example, Chen et al. examined lung biopsies from twenty-three individuals who developed PCP using electron and light microscopes. Their examination showed alveolar exudate, inflammation in interstitium and alveolar space, interstitial fibrosis, and alveolar epithelial damage in all patients [4]. The ME observed none of these lesions in Eliza Jane’s case.

The presence of pericardial and pleural effusions suggests acute allergic reaction with pericardial tamponade as the cause of death. The HIV evidence was concocted after a delay of 4 months by a corrupt ME for political purposes.

Posted by: never_a_peen | November 18, 2007 9:52 PM

Never-a-brain writes

No, foamy casts are not exudates. AL Bayati’s report makes this distinction and mentions that the ME did not report exudates.

Now you have switched from ignorance to lying.

Foamy alveolar casts are exudates.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 18, 2007 10:29 PM

Pat, What do you believe scientists and physicians should do when individuals make pseudoscientific arguments to promote the points of view that HIV is harmless and that HIV-infected women should take no steps to prevent transmission to their children? What responsibility do you believe scientists and physicians have to counter the misinformation promulgated by HIV-infected patients who have been seduced by the delusion that HIV is harmless?
. . . or to counter the misinformation promulgated by academics who distort the work of others to convince HIV-infected people that the virus is harmless? Check out Tara’s thread on Smallpox and the Intro to Denial thread to see some of the lies and distortions posted by Maniotis and cited from Duesberg’s writings–lies and distortions pepetrated in an effort to convince the gullible that HIV is harmless. The actions of these individuals is reprehensible.What do you think the role of scientists and physicians should be to counter these activities.

The responsibility of scientists and physicians is to honestly inform the public that

1) toxic drugs can never eradicate a retrovirus encoded into the human genome.

2)HIV drugs have serious side effects including death.

3)The HIV patient has the final decision concerning what treatment they wish to use, whether toxic, nontoxic, or no treatment.

4) that the HIV causes AIDS hypothesis is in serious doubt 20 years after it was proposed with no animal model, no mechanism, no vaccine and no reasonable treatment. HIV science is actually pseudo-science and is in a shambles.

5) That the HIV/Aids is more a political issue than a medical science one.

6) That many HIV antibody positives do quite well for many years without toxic drugs

7)That AZT killed tens of thousands over a decade in the 1985-95 era. Why would anyone believe the medical system now?

useful books include:

Inventing the AIDs Virus by Peter Duesberg
Science Sold Out by Rebecca Culshaw
The Origin, Persistence, and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory by Henry Bauer

useful web site: reviewingaids dot org

Posted by: hazy_tea | November 18, 2007 10:42 PM

Can you please answer my questions too? While you formulate them
I will answer yours.

“What do you think the role of scientists and physicians should be to counter these activities.”

I can tell you what the role of scientists shouldn’t be. It shouldn’t attempt to usurp people’s right to make final medical descisions for themselves and their families no matter what scientific facts they may possess. So much is simply certain in my mind. There is no better and more efficient institution for such descision making than the “family”. To believe one can regulate to perfection the descision making precess must be one of the top 10 Utopias. To believe this is to believe in one’s own unique perfection and infalliability. If ordinary people can get it wrong so can science and I think it is beyond dispute that mistakes are human. You make far too much out of the “lies and distortions” and far too little of the intelligence of the general public. I am under the impression that you vastly under-estimate the dangers of a regulated descision making process. I would argue that history is full of examples of such legislated disasters.

One thing they CAN do is to continue cementing the foothills of that K-2 of medical evidence and let the damn thing stand on its own without the imaginary and polarizing crutches of a “war on denial”.

The NIH promotes and supports the principal of an “uncoercive environment”, alas it seems some are intent on operating outside this principle and on the outer fringes of ethical behavior by pretending there IS a “war” on thought infection and promoting a medical mini version of 1984 where all individual medical treatment can be dictated from outside the family by complete strangers.

Posted by: pat | November 18, 2007 10:49 PM

An ignoble hairbrain said Now you have switched from ignorance to lying. Foamy alveolar casts are exudates.

Cant you read?

Al Bayati’s report says ” PCP pneumonia produces alveolar exudate, inflammation in interstitium and alveolar space, interstitial fibrosis, and alveolar epithelial damage in all patients. The ME observed none of these lesions in Eliza Jane’s case.”

According to Al Bayati, although the ME reported foamy alveolar casts, they did not report “alveolar exudate, inflammation in interstitium and alveolar space, interstitial fibrosis, and alveolar epithelial damage” and therefore the pathology was unlikely to be indicative of PCP.

Posted by: never_a_peen | November 18, 2007 11:09 PM

But he’s a dog pathologist.

Posted by: Mckiernan | November 18, 2007 11:32 PM

Never-a-brain wrote:

Cant you read?

Yes, I can. Can you.

You said that the Coroner did not report exudates. He did.

Pink foamy alveolar casts are exudates that are characteristic for PCP. The GMS stained slides showed that these foamy exudates were full of PC organisms.

What Al-Bayati says is of little relevance. The man invents fantastic stories that confirm whatever his clients want to hear.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 18, 2007 11:45 PM

Correction.
Thank goodness no one ever let Al Bayati near a dog. Unfortnately, he has worked extensively with rats. I mean the little white guys in cages. Please, keep Al Bayati away from dogs!
I think I will go with the LA ME report on the Scovill baby.

Posted by: Seth Kalichman | November 18, 2007 11:49 PM

he’s a dog pathologist – which makes his title one word longer than yours.

And Noble, spare us your libelous shite, just for once will ya? Weall know who is on trial for inventing diagnoses to serve the shifting needs of the prosecutor and it ain’t Al-Bayati. No amount of AIDStruth spin can obscure that FACT!

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 19, 2007 2:08 AM

Sonce David Crowe’s fine Comment got held up in Tara’s denialist filterTM, I’ll post it once more for those in the back rows:

Clearly John Moore is unaware of the literature on false positive HIV tests. Luckily I have prepared a detailed summary of the scientific literature at http://aras.ab.ca/test.html and especially at htthttp://aras.ab.ca/test-false-positive.html

Just one of the things Moore is forgetting is that factors that can cause a false positive test may vary over time. So someone might be tested 100 times at once and all tests be consistent, but a month or a year later, may have a different status.

He’s also forgetting that the status called ‘indeterminate’ exists, and what does that mean except that ELISA tests are flawed? And what if the WB was done first and ELISA used for confirmation? Then we’d have to consider ELISA tests perfect, operationally, because otherwise we might end up in an infinite loop of testing.

Furthermore, John Moore is forgetting that there are at least 10 documented different standards for interpretation of western blots, so it’s quite easy to be positive in one country and indeterminate in another, or even indeterminate based on testing in a different lab.

Furthermore, John Moore is ignoring the fact that prejudice plays a role, at least in some jurisdictions. In Ontario, for example, there is a different sequence of testing for someone in a ‘risk group’. And whether someone is in a risk group is prejudicial. Would Christine be considered to be in a risk group just because they’d like the test to stand a greater chance of being positive?

Posted by: David Crowe | November 18, 2007 7:28 PM

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 19, 2007 2:12 AM

And Noble, spare us your libelous shite, just for once will ya?

What happened to Al-Bayati’s fantastical parvovirus story? Where did he pull that one from? Any serology to back up his “differential diagnosis”?

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 19, 2007 2:55 AM

Look at this fantastical story that Al-Bayati invented.

The inhalation of ‘poppers’ at sufficient amounts causes methemoglobinemia and severe headaches, which is then treated with aspirin. The heavy use of aspirin and alcohol cause thrombocytopenia. As well, AZT and proteases inhibitors also cause thrombocytopnea, peripheral neuropathy, and bone marrow depression. Thrombocytopenia, peripheral neuropathy are classified by the United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as an AIDS indicator, which is also treated with high doses of glucocorticoids that cause AIDS [1-4,7].

Poppers cause headaches. ->
Take aspirin for headaches ->
Aspirin cause thrombocytopenia. ->
Take glucocorticoids for thrombocytopenia ->
Glucocorticoids cause AIDS.

I’ve never heard such a convoluted and unbelieveable story.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 19, 2007 3:05 AM

What happened to Al-Bayati’s fantastical parvovirus story? Where did he pull that one from? Any serology to back up his “differential diagnosis”?

Fair question (for once). It looks like speculation to me as well. However, there wasn’t any serology simply because the ME wasn’t interested in pursuing this possibility, especuailly not when he had the equally fantastical HIV to blame for it all

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 19, 2007 3:29 AM

I think what a lot of people who post on this thread, particularly those who support Ms Maggiore, are forgetting (or deliberately overlooking) is that there is no available evidence that Ms Maggiore has a history of “indeterminate” or “contradictory” diagnostic tests for HIV infection;

That’s what they forget, you say? Wrong, Johnny boy. The only people who forget something are you and your creepy little helpers. You all forget that a caring mother is infinitely more entitled to decide what’s good for her daughter and what not, than a bunch of drug pushers desperately trying to save their business from hell.

Let go John, don’t play that Faustian role. It may seem profitable right now, but after a while, you must pay back. Eternally. Eternity lasts a long time, broffer.

Posted by: jspreen | November 19, 2007 6:54 AM

Franklin,

Any thoughts on coercive environments?

Posted by: pat | November 19, 2007 9:22 AM

So, in summary: The denialists on this Blog accept as completely true and accurate Ms. Maggiore’s uncorroborated (and often contradictory) statements about her HIV-infection status, without having access to any evidence that her statements are true and accurate. But they will not accept that the hard, scientific facts in the LA Coroner’s report are true and accurate, despite the evidence being available for inspection. The reason for this dichotomy has nothing to do with science and medicine, it represents the denialists’ quasi-religious dogma about HIV/AIDS. The denialists operate a belief system (“Ms. Maggiore is our friend, so we believe her”), akin to the creationists in their rejection of Darwinian evolution (“God is our saviour, he speaks, we obey”), allied to conspiracy theories (“the LA Coroner works for ‘the system’, so he must be corrupt”). The absurdities of the denialists’ position is why HIV/AIDS scientists will never ‘debate’ them; it’s why our efforts go into minimizing the damage they cause to the lives and health of other people. Sometimes, the material posted on these Blogs can help in this regard.

Posted by: John Moore | November 19, 2007 12:18 PM

it represents the denialists’ quasi-religious dogma about HIV/AIDS

The fact that you have never ever showed even the slightest consideration for a mother who lost her child clearly indicates that the only religious dogma about HIV/Aids are in your own sick brain.

You and your goddamn war. Where did you get that idea in the first place, man? War? On what? For what? To serve whom? Who are you to think you have even the slightest clue about some absolute Truth?
Get away from that computer and all those people you call denialists and who keep you awake at night, John. Go for a walk in the woods, get some good fresh air and embrace a tree. That will make your day, I swear it will.

BTW, I think you respond far too much to the people you keep saying you don’t want to speak with.

Posted by: jspreen | November 19, 2007 12:50 PM

MOORE is a “useful idiot” for the denialists

Mr. Moore, you do no one any favors by engaging these people. The very fact that a scientist from a major U.S. university considers it worth responding (over and over and over) to denialist viewpoints gives them credibility they do not deserve. You are just egging them on. And your hubris in quoting Churchill is beyond belief. You, sir, have turned into an internet troll.

A. Carricci

Please. Do not discourage the incorrigible incredible Mr Moore from posting copiously here, since as noted in our challenge to him above (A Challenge to Mr Moore, held up by Tara for 12 hours till safely buried in the sequence) he has been most helpful in publishing many papers pointing out fatal flaws in the established HIV=AIDS paradigm.

We support Mr Moore fully in his strenuous publicizing of the fact that he not only has no answers to the “denialist” cliams but actually supports them in his papers.

Now that Harvey Bialy has retired from the fray, we count Mr Moore the leading denialist in HIV=AIDS. Not only does he deny that the “denialists” have a case, he denies that the paradigm makes sense.

In other words, Mr Moore is a brave man – a closet dissident who tells his secret in the light of day. That is why he deserves the Lasker, if not the Nobel.

Posted by: Truthseeker | November 19, 2007 1:33 PM

> Stell dir vor es ist Krieg, und keiner geht hin

Literally translates to: Imagine it is war and nobody shows up. This was the rallying cry of the German peace movement in the eighties.
The quote was often attributed to a poem written by Berthold Brecht, for Brecht was the most famous German poet of the 20th century, and dropping his name sounded important. In reality it is really a – rather vague – German translation of this sentence from Carl Sandburg’s epic poem “The People,Yes”:”Sometime they’ll give a war and nobody will come.”

The real Brecht poem is very different:
Wer zu Hause bleibt, wenn der Kampf beginnt, und läßt andere kämpfen für seine Sache, der muß sich vorsehen: Denn wer den Kampf nicht geteilt hat, der wird teilen die Niederlage. Nicht einmal Kampf vermeidet, wer den Kampf vermeiden will, denn er wird kämpfen für die Sache des Feindes, wer für seine eigene Sache nicht gekämpft hat.”

Translation:
Who stays at home, when the fighting begins, and relies on others to fight for his cause, should beware: Because who has not shared the fight will share the defeat. The one who wants to avoid the fight will not even avoid fighting, because the one who doesn’t fight for his own cause will end up fighting for the enemy.
(Forgive my less than perfect translation; my English is not as good as Brecht’s German.)
This is the exact opposite of pacifism, it is a call to arms, an outcry against appeasement.

That the deniers (ab)use quotes by turning their meaning into its opposite and by manipulating a text by inserting false quotes says a lot about their mentality.

Posted by: johannes | November 19, 2007 1:46 PM

No Mr Moore,

Your quasi-religious dogma about who “denialists” are is at the root of your nonsensical tirades. Maggiore may very well have HIV, EJ may very well have died of AIDS but such is not MY point.

You dogmatically hold on to the belief that Maggiore is criminally profiting from HIV/AIDS at the expense of her children. You bring ZERO evidence of “profiteering” and you bring ZERO evidence that Maggiore even fits the profile of such a predator. You indeed deliver a perfect conspiracy theory yourself that strains belief.
Also you publicly stated Maggiore should go to jail for her descisions and you refuse to answer whether this lives up to the principal of an “uncoercive environment”.

Muttering such threats and fabricating webs of lies about a private individual’s integrity in effect nullify our perception of our freedom of choice by limiting the very definition of what we have a “right” to choose. Choose right or go straight to jail?

Inspite of all the evidence given by neighbours, community workers, teachers and health professionals attesting to her sterling qualifications as a caring mother and ignoring the fact that no charges of neglect ever materialised, you choose to continue peddling your half truths and discredited conspiracy theories for obvious political reasons. Maggiore is not proof HIV causes AIDS nor is it proof it doesn’t. Arguments along those lines are obviously pointless. Maggiore is living proof of the dangers of politico-scientific over-reach into the private lives and legal rights of individuals at large.

Your gratuitous definition of “denialist” is as accurate as the definition of “mother fucker”.

Posted by: pat | November 19, 2007 2:00 PM

Stell dir vor es ist Krieg, und keiner geht hin.

Thank you Johannes for your insightfull historical presentation of the “origines” of “the quote”.

The problem is that looking too far for “meaning” will make one overlook the simple truth that is actualy delivered in the form of these very simple words as they are presented, “devoid” of constructed context.

“Stell dir vor es ist Krieg, und keiner geht hin”

the peace cry is unmistakeable.

I am sorry you fell for the actual war cry though and inadvertantly (or not) fired a full broadside charge of “denialist” grape shot onto my decks without bothering to indentify who you are shooting at. What am I denying again?

Posted by: pat | November 19, 2007 2:25 PM

I can’t believe this thread is still active!

For those who are stilling following along with their score cards, here is a good summary of what constitutes pseudoscience:

1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.
2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.
3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.
4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.
6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.
7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.

pat, jspreen MEC, any of those ring a bell?

Then, there are those who have big balls and are pedigreed! (You know who you are!)

Posted by: ildi | November 19, 2007 4:04 PM

But they will not accept that the hard, scientific facts in the LA Coroner’s report are true and accurate, despite the evidence being available for inspection.

Silly little and diminishing by the minute homunculus, what ARE you talking about? Who does not accept the hard facts in the coroner’s report? The hard facts are, presence of teacup shaped organisms, ZERO evidence of fulminating or severe pneumonia.

But if the evidence is available for inspection, maybe you, Prof. Moore, can provide a link to the GMS stained slides, which I’m sure you have examined minutely?

Btw. when are you going to write two consecutive sentences – forget about whole arguments – that don’t contradict each other, or at a minimum don’t contain at least one lie?

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 19, 2007 4:36 PM

“For those who are stilling following along with their score cards, here is a good summary of what constitutes pseudoscience:

1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.
2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.
3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.
4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.
6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.
7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.

pat, jspreen MEC, any of those ring a bell?”

What pseudoscience are you talking about? Do you even know what my disagreement is?

Posted by: pat | November 19, 2007 6:01 PM

Pat,

You asked me if I feel that the response to Ms. Maggiore has led to a “coercive” environment for health care decisions.

To my knowledge, Ms. Maggiore has never sought medical care from Drs. Moore, Bergman, or Wainberg. I know of no Doctor-Patient Relationship that exists between any of these individuals and Ms. Maggiore.

To my knowledge, nothing that these individuals say publicly or privately about Ms. Maggiore can be construed as having anything to do with the relationships that exist between Ms. Maggiore and her chosen health care providers.

Whether the conditions under which Ms. Maggiore receives medical advice from her physicians are “coercive” or “non-coercive” has nothing to do with the publicly stated opinions of private citizens.

It’s not as if these individuals are picketing outside the clinic where Ms. Maggiore receives her health care.

Ms. Maggiore chose to publicly discuss her health issues and to promote the views that HIV is not the cause of AIDS and that antiretroviral therapies are ineffective and dangerous, especially with respect to preventing perinatal transmission of the infection.

As I previously explained to Cooler on another thread:

I am a firm believer in free speech. I think people should be free to speak their minds. But if individuals use lies and distortions rather than honest arguments based on sound logic, they shouldn’t scream censorship when mainstream society ignores them. And when they use their lies and distortions to attempt to influence important personal, financial, or medical decisions of others, they should expect to be harshly criticized.

Based upon your earlier post, you seem to think that the only appropriate response to AIDS denialism by scientists and physicians is to:

continue cementing the foothills of that K-2 of medical evidence and let the damn thing stand on its own without the imaginary and polarizing crutches of a “war on denial”.

Pat, no amount of scientific evidence will ever convince the HIV denialists to stop spreading their dangerous lies–their position is not based on scientific evidence nor is it subject to correction by experiment. To simply retreat to the lab or to the clinic would be to shirk our responsibility to counter the false information that HIV denialists are feeding to the public.

As Chomsky stated:

It is the responsibility of individuals to speak the truth and to expose lies.

You seem to think that because Ms. Maggiore is infected with HIV or because her daughter died of AIDS that physicians and scientists should turn a blind eye to her promotion of pseudoscientific views that endanger the public health. You imply that because it is unseemly to criticize a grieving mother, Ms. Maggiore’s views and actions should not be criticized.

I feel that Ms. Maggiore’s story is a prime example of why scientists and physicians need to counter the pseudoscientific advice of HIV denialists. I have read that Ms. Maggiore’s views were strongly influenced by a conversation she had with Dr. Duesberg in the mid-1990’s. The death of Ms. Maggiore’s daughter provides a graphic illustration of the duty physicians and scientists have to vigorously oppose the flawed and dangerous views of HIV denialists such as Dr. Duesberg.

According to the LA Times, even after her daughter died of AIDS, Ms. Maggiore “said she continues to counsel HIV-positive parents around the country about how to keep from using anti-retroviral drugs during childbirth and from giving medications to children who have tested positive for the virus.” (http://www.aegis.com/news/Lt/2005/LT051205.html)

You do not seem to have any issue with people counseling pregnant women that HIV is harmless and they shouldn’t worry about passing the infection on to their children.

I disagree. I disagree even when the advice is given by an HIV-infected woman whose daughter died of AIDS.

Posted by: franklin | November 19, 2007 6:58 PM

Silly little and diminishing by the minute homunculus, what ARE you talking about? Who does not accept the hard facts in the coroner’s report? The hard facts are, presence of teacup shaped organisms, ZERO evidence of fulminating or severe pneumonia.M/blockquote>

What exactly do you think “pink foamy alveolar casts” are?

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 19, 2007 6:59 PM

Franklin,
You ask what are scientists to do but here you don’t even explain what it is you do. You vaguely describe your activities as “opposing dangerous views”.

“According to the LA Times, even after her daughter died of AIDS, Ms. Maggiore “said she continues to counsel HIV-positive parents around the country about how to keep from using anti-retroviral drugs during childbirth and from giving medications to children who have tested positive for the virus.” (http://www.aegis.com/news/Lt/2005/LT051205.html)

You do not seem to have any issue with people counseling pregnant women that HIV is harmless and they shouldn’t worry about passing the infection on to their children.”

Why do you quote the NY times so often when you can’t even discern from the text what it is she does (supposedly):
The NY times says she counsels on how to keep from using drugs. You translate that as counseling that HIV is harmless. That is a misrepresentation. I have never been to one of her meetings nor have you. There are many people who opt not to take the medicines and it is their right; it is enshrined in the law. It is their right to weight the known and unknown risks of side effects against the known and unknown risks of transmission and it is their right to recieve all information on all treatment options and non-treatment options in an uncoercive environment. These extra curricular activities that you so vaguely describe do nothing to instill a sense of professionalism and at their worst create the false impression that people do not have full discretion when weighing treatement “options” and that their descisions are somehow prescribed by law. This is false. It is implied coersion.

“I feel that Ms. Maggiore’s story is a prime example of why scientists and physicians need to counter the pseudoscientific advice of HIV denialists”

The only counter evidence needed is K-2. We don’t need fabrications about dark profit motives so obviously false.

why don’t you sneak into one of her meetings and catch her in flagranti giving medical advice. That should settle it.

Posted by: pat | November 19, 2007 8:45 PM

Pat,

Do you think that patients have a right to receive accurate information?

Or do you condone the practice of using false or misleading information to influence other people’s health decisions?

Posted by: franklin | November 19, 2007 10:37 PM

What exactly do you think “pink foamy alveolar casts” are?

I was rather hoping you would produce the evidence, which is freely available according to John Moore, and explain it to me.

Whether the conditions under which Ms. Maggiore receives medical advice from her physicians are “coercive” or “non-coercive” has nothing to do with the publicly stated opinions of private citizens.

Whether HIV+ people choose to follow the advice of their health care providers or not has nothing to do with the publicly stated opinions of private citizens such a Christine Maggiore, Pat or myself, so what’s your problem Franklin? Would it be the problem of stringing two arguments together that are not mutually contradicting?

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 19, 2007 10:40 PM

Pat,

Here is a typical argument from Ms. Maggiore:

Prior to beginning AZT treatment, Kimberly [Bergalis] was not seriously ill. She had a yeast infection-a common occurrence possibly caused in her case by antibiotics taken after dental work, and pneumonia. Some 30,000 HIV negative Americans die each year from pneumonia-pneumonia happens and is not uncommon among college age people like Kimberly who often “burn the candle at both endsÓ through study, work, partying, lack of adequate sleep and nutrition.

Once Kimberly started taking daily doses of AZT chemotherapy, she wasted away like a typical chemotherapy recipient. She lost weight, muscle mass, her hair and her appetite; she developed rashes, acne and neuropathy to the degree she could hardly walk. If you check a medical dictionary or the Merck Manual, you will find Kimberly Bergalis suffering described most succinctly as side effects of DNA chain terminating chemotherapy treatment.
http://www.aliveandwell.org/html/rethinking/rethinkfaqkimberg.html

Do you endorse that argument?

Do you think that physicians and scientists should remain silent when an individual makes such arguments in support of the thesis that HIV is harmless and that pregnant women should take no steps to prevent transmission of the virus to their babies?

Posted by: franklin | November 19, 2007 11:09 PM

Sorry MEC,

I don’t see what your argument has to do with mine:

Whether the conditions under which Ms. Maggiore receives medical advice from her physicians are “coercive” or “non-coercive” has nothing to do with the publicly stated opinions of private citizens. [Franklin]

Whether HIV+ people choose to follow the advice of their health care providers or not has nothing to do with the publicly stated opinions of private citizens such a Christine Maggiore, Pat or myself, so what’s your problem Franklin? Would it be the problem of stringing two arguments together that are not mutually contradicting? [MEC]

Posted by: franklin | November 19, 2007 11:13 PM

Hey MEC,

I know it must be hard for you to read with your head buried so deeply in the sand, but if you’re interested in the relationship between the intra-alveolar exudates and intra-alveolar casts of PCP you might want to check out this site:

Respiratory Cytopathology–Infections (By: Mark Stevens CFIAC, Principal Medical Scientist,Institute of Medical and Veterinary Science, Adelaide, Australia 5000)

He shows some pictures illustrating the cytopathology of PCP, and describes the intra-alveolar exudate:

The intra-alveolar exudate associated with the organism is an important aid to diagnosis.
This exudate appears as a three dimensional cast with a honeycomb appearance. The casts have smooth borders and are usually packed with organisms.

So “exudates” and “casts” are synonyms for the hyaline intra-alveolar material that is characteristic of PCP, just like Chris Noble tried to explain to ne’er_a_peen.

He also mentions that the “cup-shaped cysts of P. carinii are best demonstrated with GMS,” precisely the stain used by the Coroner in the Scovill autopsy.

I know that you probably aren’t surprised by your own ignorance of this basic knowledge–but doesn’t it make you wonder about Al-Bayati, the so-called “expert” that Ms. Maggiore asked to review the pathology report and slides?

If the intra-alveolar exudate of PCP “appears as a three dimensional cast,” and the Coroner reported that “all lobes show pink foamy casts in the alveoli,” how could Al-Bayati report that the “the ME observed none of these lesions in Eliza Jane’s case?”

Could it be that he knows as little about the pathology of PCP as you do?

Perhaps he simply has his head buried as deeply in the sand as you do, although he may be more well-compensated for the inconvenience.

Maybe you could start charging $22,000 for reading an autopsy report.

Posted by: franklin | November 20, 2007 12:13 AM

He also mentions that the “cup-shaped cysts of P. carinii are best demonstrated with GMS,” precisely the stain used by the Coroner in the Scovill autopsy.

And more importantly he states Cysts and trophozoites are not demonstrated with the H & E or the PAP stain.

So when Al-Bayati shows the H&E stained slides and says there is no evidence of PCP he is being deliberately deceptive.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 20, 2007 12:29 AM

It should also be pointed out that th every reference textbook that Al-Bayati cites in his Medical UnVeritas article has nice micrographs of PC stained with an appropriate stain.

Pathology. Second edition, edited by Rubin E and Farber JL. J.B. Lippincott Company, Philadelphia, Pensylvania, 1994.

It is hard to put down Al-Bayati’s errors to ignorance. It has to be willful deception.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 20, 2007 12:34 AM

Do you think that physicians and scientists should remain silent when an individual makes such arguments in support of the thesis that HIV is harmless and that pregnant women should take no steps to prevent transmission of the virus to their babies?

No, they should not remain silent. They should very seriously take the arguments in account and, instead of behaving in some superior “You stupid denialist, I won’t neither listen nor talk to you because that would only dignify your position” manner, see if they hold. And of course they hold. So many patients have had the same reaction “Hey! I fell ill only after I started to take the drugs”, to remain silent and ignore them is plain stupid and even more: To do it now, in the year 2007, after twenty years of growing opposition to the official HIV=Aids version, is criminal.

Posted by: jspreen | November 20, 2007 2:26 AM

“Do you endorse that argument?

“Do you think that physicians and scientists should remain silent when an individual makes such arguments in support of the thesis that HIV is harmless and that pregnant women should take no steps to prevent transmission of the virus to their babies?”

Again Franklin, you cannot read the words presented to you; that is an argument in support of the argument that these drugs have toxic side effects. Is the war so close to being lost that you can’t counter with facts anymore? You need to counter with a fabricated charge of AIDS profiteering and child neglect, eh?

Posted by: pat | November 20, 2007 4:33 AM

“Pat,

Do you think that patients have a right to receive accurate information?”

Didn’t I just say so?

“Or do you condone the practice of using false or misleading information to influence other people’s health decisions?”

Do you have evidence Maggiore is coercing people into not getting a second opinion?

Posted by: pat | November 20, 2007 4:36 AM

While on the topic of African AIDS estimates…

U.N. to Cut Estimate Of AIDS Epidemic
Population With Virus Overstated by Millions

By Craig Timberg
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, November 20, 2007; A01

JOHANNESBURG, Nov. 19 — The United Nations’ top AIDS scientists plan to acknowledge this week that they have long overestimated both the size and the course of the epidemic, which they now believe has been slowing for nearly a decade, according to U.N. documents prepared for the announcement.

AIDS remains a devastating public health crisis in the most heavily affected areas of sub-Saharan Africa. But the far-reaching revisions amount to at least a partial acknowledgment of criticisms long leveled by outside researchers who disputed the U.N. portrayal of an ever-expanding global epidemic.

The latest estimates, due to be released publicly Wednesday, put the number of annual new HIV infections at 2.5 million, a cut of more than 40 percent from last year’s estimate, documents show. The worldwide total of people infected with HIV — estimated a year ago at nearly 40 million and rising — now will be reported as 33 million.

Posted by: pat | November 20, 2007 5:00 AM

A. Carricci,

Your attack against Prof. Moore (and the readers of this blog) is unjustified. It just show that you are against public understanding of AIDS/HIV science.

To don’t have any more the disgust to see AIDS/HIV science explained to laymen, I strongly suggest that you switch off your computer and stay in your ivory tower.

Posted by: Braganza | November 20, 2007 5:23 AM

“exudates” and “casts” are synonyms for the hyaline intra-alveolar material that is characteristic of PCP, just like Chris Noble tried to explain to ne’er_a_peen . . . If the intra-alveolar exudate of PCP “appears as a three dimensional cast,” and the Coroner reported that “all lobes show pink foamy casts in the alveoli,” how could Al-Bayati report that the “the ME observed none of these lesions in Eliza Jane’s case?”
Could it be that he knows as little about the pathology of PCP as you do? (Franklin)

It is hard to put down Al-Bayati’s errors to ignorance. It has to be willful deception (Noble)

I can see you are mighty impressed with yourselves gentlemen. Unfortunately the distinction to be made is not between “cast” and “exudate” but between “foamy exudate” and “lesion”. In this case the simplest hypothesis – the one science teaches us to explore first – is that the problem arises as usual because of your exceptionally poor reading skills. Here is what Al-Bayati refers to as
“lesions”:

The lesions of PCP usually comprise an interstitial infiltrate of plasma cells and lymphocytes; an interstitial fibrosis; an interstitial diffuse alveolar damage; and hyperplasia of type II pneumocytes.

He speaks in the same context about the alveolar exudate separated from the enumeration of the (other) lesions lesion by a mere semicolon instead of a full stop, which might be sufficient to confuse inexpert readers such as yourselves. But elsewhere Al-Bayati clearly states that the ME DID find this, but ONLY this, indication of PCP:

The ME stated that all lobes show pink foamy casts in the alveoli with no inflammatory response. The ME’s observation clearly indicate that Eliza Jane did not suffer from pneumonia.

Al-Bayati very, very clearly does not contest the ME’s observations about the pink foamy casts, only his conclusions. Here again he states what was NOT found – note “foamy exudates” or “casts” are NOT among the things mentioned as NOT found:

The microscopic examination of Eliza Jane’s lungs revealed no inflammation. The ME did not observe any inflammatory response in the alveoli or in the interstitial tissue to justify a diagnosis of Pneumocystis carinii Pneumonia (PCP) or any other form of pneumonia.

So to sum up what AL-Bayati calls “lesions” are those given in the first quote above, foamy exudate being excepted.

I am not going to accuse eiher of you of wilfully misleading us, though, since there’s plenty evidence you are simply illiterate morons.

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 20, 2007 8:44 AM

Do you think that patients have a right to receive accurate information?

I think everybody agrees on that. The problem is though that the people who think they have accurate information more often than not know next to nothing about disease. Which is why the best thing they can do is just shut up, unless, of course, they have good news to share.

Posted by: jspreen | November 20, 2007 9:15 AM

I can see you are mighty impressed with yourselves gentlemen. Unfortunately the distinction to be made is not between “cast” and “exudate” but between “foamy exudate” and “lesion”.

Up above you (or whoever goes by the moniker Never-a-brain) said that the Coroner’s report did not mention exudates. You specifically referred to exudates. Now rather than admitting to being wrong you launch into another fruitless mindnumbing word game with logic that is only apparent to yourself.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 20, 2007 6:14 PM

Dr. Noble,

The fact that by your logic “denialists” are all the same doesn’t make me never-a-peen. Or expressed in a language you science geniuses might be able to read, there is no known homology between never-a-peen and myself, thus no basis for this illegitimate template switching in your attempts to cover up the fact you can’t read everyday prose.

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 20, 2007 6:46 PM

Al-Bayati very, very clearly does not contest the ME’s observations about the pink foamy casts, only his conclusions. Here again he states what was NOT found – note “foamy exudates” or “casts” are NOT among the things mentioned as NOT found:

Thank you MEC for clarifying the above description, elevating the discussion above the moronic level of the ignoble one (aka the illiterate moron). The clinical course decribed was that of sudden cardiac arrest after amoxicillin. The pulmonary findings were not sufficient to cause hypoxia and/or cardiac arrest. Rather the pericadial and pleural effusion represented a sudden fluid shift from an allergic reaction to the administered drug, as suggested by Al Bayati.

Posted by: nevere-a-peen | November 20, 2007 7:27 PM

What were those various comments from AIDS denialists like MEC and his/her buddies, earlier on the thread, criticizing non-physicians for allegedly offering medical advice to Noreen over the internet (advice like “consult a qualified physician”)? So now we have the sad and sorry spectacle of non-pathologists like MEC and never-a-brain offering their views over the internet on complex issues of medical science (pathology, and disease pathogenesis) on which they know nothing, and on which they are not qualified to have a meaningful opinion. That the likes of MEC and never-a-brain seem to think that they can second-guess a trained, qualified, government-certified pathologist and medical examiner (and his colleagues) who prepared the official Coroner’s report is hubris on a staggering scale. But of course AIDS denialists live in a fantasy world of conspiracy theories and cover-ups, a world in which they can pretend to be significant experts on important scientific issues. The REAL world, fortunately, is a very different place, and it is a world in which the AIDS denialists always lose what passes for their “arguments”. Which is what will happen, once again, when AIDS denialists appear in court in Ms. Maggiore’s legal action. Of course, this assume that the judge doesn’t just toss the lawsuit out at some stage, on the grounds of its inherent frivolity. This is what happened in the Silvah case, of course, a case in which I had the privilege of assisting the defense as an expert witness, and in which the ludicrous nature of Duesberg’s deposition was of great assistance to the judge in his decision to throw the case out before it went any further. Incidentally, the denialists might like to know that the legal fees paid to the defense’s expert witnesses were spent, in large part, on purchasing Nevirapine for distribution to South African, HIV-infected, pregnant women. Thus, something good did come of the Silvah case after all. If the same thing happens again, in the Maggiore case, it would provide the perfect, and notably ironic, closure – the AIDS death of one poor child helping to save many others from the same fate.

Posted by: John Moore | November 20, 2007 8:26 PM

LOL! Why am I not surprised the illustrious Prof Moore considers himself the distributor of Poetic Justice, a wholly theological concept?

I don’t now if even Chris Noble was fooled by Moore’s introduction: I am second-guessing neither Ribe nor Al-Bayati, merely helping those in sore need understand the plain words of the latter.

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 20, 2007 8:46 PM

“criticizing non-physicians for allegedly offering medical advice to Noreen over the internet (advice like “consult a qualified physician”)?”

You were criticited for making death prophecies and you know that.

Why don’t you post Duesberg’s testimony?

“when AIDS denialists appear in court in Ms. Maggiore’s legal action.”

What legal action?

Posted by: pat | November 20, 2007 9:16 PM

Dr Moore,

I have just read your statement in the Silvah case.
In paragraph 7 you give the UN aids figs as an example of how destructive HIV?AIDS is , now that the UN has re stated those figs, I presume you will now retract that statement.

You have given a statement to the court that was obviously false.

Also you have not replied to my question of what you will do
when it his proven that Eliza did not die of an AIDS condiiton.

Posted by: kyle | November 20, 2007 9:52 PM

Dear Kylie Minogue, given the time difference between here and where you live in Australia, you must have missed my earlier general statement on this thread to the effect that I do not ever answer any questions asked of me by any AIDS denialist. That particularly applies to you, as your posts rank alongside “cooler’s’s in respect of their extreme silliness.

Posted by: John Moore | November 20, 2007 10:36 PM

at least I have big balls and the big heart.
John youve repeateatdly debated with denialists like Noreen on this blog so youve broken your oath, so youve lost your honor.

Duesberg , Lo, mullis, strohman, these are the real people history will anoint them as galileo’s, especially shyh ching Lo md phd the militarys most distingushed infectious disease pathologist, the only scientist since Koch to discover a microbe mycoplasma incognitus/penetrans that killed/sickened every animal injected (mice, monkeys, chimps embryos, and didnt find it in one healthy control. My question to you and Tara is why do you deny this and not raise more awareness about this infection that can masqeurade as many illnesses?

Dont tell me it was a contaminant, contaminents dont cause fatal wasting diseases in mice/monkeys and contaminents are not visible in patients tissues by the EM, as Lo saw it in tissues with the EM. Researchers at the university of alabama concluded it was a novel strain when they inoculated in the trachea of rats and found it to be very invasive vs the ordinary strain of MF.

Dont tell me about antibody testing either, the monkeys that died only had a weak antibody response when near death. Nicolson has found it by PCR in many cases misdiagnosed as CFS etc…………as you people always blame us for being denialists that cost lives, I hearby call out Tara and JP moore etc as denialists as well, for not raising more awareness of lo and nicolsons work, they are mycoplasma denialists that are costing peoples lives, all we rethinkers want is full informed consent for patients, not only hearing drug company and CDC propaganda.

All refrences provided above. Project day lily google it

Posted by: cooler | November 20, 2007 11:13 PM

Prof Moore,

I have noticed something rather disturbing: denialist status has nothing to do with one’s belief but solely with the subjects one asks questions about. Thus Kyle gets no answer about the revised UN stats simply because they are revised downwards.

Prof. Moore, my mum knows nothing about HIV/AIDS, doesn’t give shit one way or the other either. She is completely apolitical. If I get her to post my questions would she be a denialist as well?

Switching. . . .

Hi Prof Moore, I am Molecular Entry Claw’s mother. I don’t really understand what is going on but my son tells me it has long been well known that pregnancy is one of the main causes of false positive HIV tests and that you should know that. Why then are you lending your authority as a scientist to national statistics calculated on basis of test results from pregnant women:

India, once believed to have the largest HIV-positive population of any country in the world, today announced that new, more accurate surveillance data suggest India has about 2.5 million people living with HIV – about half the number estimated by UNAIDS based on previous surveys of HIV prevalence among pregnant women.

http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/C216549D-65B8-483D-8C84-D513A22900B6.asp

PS. I see you react to a Commenter named Kyle by calling him Kylie Minogue, then announces that HE is silly. . .

Please grow up.

Best wishes

MEC’s Mum

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 21, 2007 4:01 AM

Dear MEC’s mother.

The denialists like to quote a letter from A. Voevodin Lancet. 1992;339:1548 as evidence that HIV tests are very inaccurate.

In 1991 29.4 million HIV tests were done of which approximately 7.4 million were pregant women. The number of false positives in pregant women from a single ELISA was 8000 (note none of these women were diagnosed HIV positive on the basis of a single ELISA). That still gives a specificity of about 99.89% compared to 99.90% for the general population. If pregnancy causes false positives it does so at a very low rate.

I would advise you to closely monitor your son’s internet activities. Perhaps you could install some netnanny software.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 21, 2007 6:24 AM

Dear Dr. Noble,

Is it just the case then that pregnant women are all HIV positive? I mean if they are positive, their husbands, boyfriends and children must be as well I should think. So how could the test results from this group cause such gigantic errors in the HIV stats?

In fact, and this goes to the nice Prof. Moore as well, I’ve been following Dr. Noble’s advice, and am shocked to see that I as a monogamous married woman am at greatest risk of all of acquiring HIV infection. I am quite shocked, so I hope you have advice for me. Should I go on chemo-prophylaxis?

“BANGKOK (AFP) – Married people accounted for more than 40 percent of all new cases of HIV/AIDS in Thailand last year, the country’s health ministry said Thursday, despite an overall decrease in infections” (Google Alert, 12 October 2007).

“UN warns of Thai housewife HIV/AIDS crisis”, Apiradee Treerutkuarkul www.bangkokpost.com/News/21Aug2007_news12.php
“In Thailand, up to 40% of the 18,000 new cases found each year are housewives, which was previously identified as a low-risk group. . . . The number was high compared to so-called high-risk groups, such as men having sex with men (28%) and sex workers (10%)…. the situation has worsened in Papua New Guinea, where half of new AIDS cases are housewives. Housewives also account for at least 46% of all new cases in Cambodia”

“Press Release: Secretariat of The Pacific Community – SPC
SPC headquarters, Noumea, New Caledonia, Thursday May 31, 2007: Women are most at risk of contracting HIV from the men they should trust the most – their husbands….
This was the sobering message delivered to delegates at the 10th Triennial of Pacific Women, being held at Secretariat of the Pacific Community headquarters in New Caledonia.”

“‘Uganda: Rising HIV infection – where did we lose it?'”, by Dr. Chris Baryomunsi, New Vision (Kampala), 12 December 2006; http://allafrica.com/stories/200612130724.html
[Earlier, government programs had led to] significant behaviour change, especially among the young generation, by delaying sex, reducing the number of sexual partners, using condoms, testing for their HIV status and seeking improved health services. . . . The 2005 HIV survey by the Ministry of Health shows . . . married couples and rich women . . . to be at high risk.”

“‘Married couples top HIV infection rates in Uganda’, Kampala, 4 December 2006 (Xinhua);
www.chinaview.cn 2006-12-04 19:19:03
Apuuli Kihumuro, the director general of the Uganda AIDS Commission said . . . [that] between 1996 and 2005, 42 percent of the 130,000 HIV new infections occurred within wedlock. . . . [presumably] caused by unawareness of their HIV status, engaging in sex with multiple partners and their reluctance to use condoms. [Whereas] ‘The low rates of infection among the youth and unmarried people according to the findings are ascribed to their vigilance in having protected sex'”.

“New Vision (Kampala) 3 July 2007, reported by Fred Ouma
A detailed analysis of the 2004/05 Uganda HIV/AIDS Sero-Behaviourial Survey revealed the need to refocus HIV preventive measures to married people. . . . According to the survey, from an estimated 1.1 million Ugandans living with HIV/AIDS, married people were identified as the most risky group…. Contrary to the common perception that young people were at the greatest risk of HIV infection, the report shows an unprecedented shift, with 74% of new infection among people above 25 years of age. Only 10% of new infections were recorded among single people during the period of the study. New infections were highest (66%) among married, followed by 20% in widowed or divorced.”

” ‘A look at HIV – where are we now?’ Sabin Russell, San Francisco Chronicle, 13 August 2006;
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/13/MNGSNKHMRQ1.DTL
In India, for example, 80 percent of women infected with HIV are monogamous married women. ‘The fastest rates of infection are among housewives and young women, because the men who go to sex workers also go home'”

“For a growing number of women in rural Mexico – and around the world – marital sex represents their single greatest risk for HIV infection. . . . because marital infidelity by men is so deeply ingrained across many cultures . . . . These findings are published in the June 2007 issue of the American Journal of Public Health. . . . The article’s lead author, Jennifer S. Hirsch, PhD, associate professor of Sociomedical Sciences at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, is principal investigator on a large comparative study showing that the inevitability of men’s infidelity in marriage is true across cultures. . . . in rural Mexico . . . in rural New Guinea and southeastern Nigeria” (http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/marital-sex-biggest-hiv-risk-women-around-world-13170.html)

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw’s Mum | November 21, 2007 7:02 AM

Dear Dr. Noble,

Is it just the case then that pregnant women are all HIV positive? I mean if they are positive, their husbands, boyfriends and children must be as well I should think. So how could the test results from this group cause such gigantic errors in the HIV stats?

In fact, and this goes to the nice Prof. Moore as well, I’ve been following Dr. Noble’s advice and checked up on my useless son’s internet activities. I must say I was shocked when I found that I, as a monogamous married woman, am at greatest risk of all of acquiring HIV infection. I hope you have advice for me, Prof Moore. Should I go on chemoprophylaxis?

“BANGKOK (AFP) – Married people accounted for more than 40 percent of all new cases of HIV/AIDS in Thailand last year, the country’s health ministry said Thursday, despite an overall decrease in infections” (Google Alert, 12 October 2007).

“UN warns of Thai housewife HIV/AIDS crisis”, Apiradee Treerutkuarkul “In Thailand, up to 40% of the 18,000 new cases found each year are housewives, which was previously identified as a low-risk group. . . . The number was high compared to so-called high-risk groups, such as men having sex with men (28%) and sex workers (10%)…. the situation has worsened in Papua New Guinea, where half of new AIDS cases are housewives. Housewives also account for at least 46% of all new cases in Cambodia”

“Press Release: Secretariat of The Pacific Community – SPC
SPC headquarters, Noumea, New Caledonia, Thursday May 31, 2007: Women are most at risk of contracting HIV from the men they should trust the most – their husbands….
This was the sobering message delivered to delegates at the 10th Triennial of Pacific Women, being held at Secretariat of the Pacific Community headquarters in New Caledonia.”

“‘Uganda: Rising HIV infection – where did we lose it?'”, by Dr. Chris Baryomunsi, New Vision (Kampala), 12 December 2006; [Earlier, government programs had led to] significant behaviour change, especially among the young generation, by delaying sex, reducing the number of sexual partners, using condoms, testing for their HIV status and seeking improved health services. . . . The 2005 HIV survey by the Ministry of Health shows . . . married couples and rich women . . . to be at high risk.”

“‘Married couples top HIV infection rates in Uganda’, Kampala, 4 December 2006 (Xinhua);
www.chinaview.cn 2006-12-04 19:19:03
Apuuli Kihumuro, the director general of the Uganda AIDS Commission said . . . [that] between 1996 and 2005, 42 percent of the 130,000 HIV new infections occurred within wedlock. . . . [presumably] caused by unawareness of their HIV status, engaging in sex with multiple partners and their reluctance to use condoms. [Whereas] ‘The low rates of infection among the youth and unmarried people according to the findings are ascribed to their vigilance in having protected sex'”.

“New Vision (Kampala) 3 July 2007, reported by Fred Ouma
A detailed analysis of the 2004/05 Uganda HIV/AIDS Sero-Behaviourial Survey revealed the need to refocus HIV preventive measures to married people. . . . According to the survey, from an estimated 1.1 million Ugandans living with HIV/AIDS, married people were identified as the most risky group…. Contrary to the common perception that young people were at the greatest risk of HIV infection, the report shows an unprecedented shift, with 74% of new infection among people above 25 years of age. Only 10% of new infections were recorded among single people during the period of the study. New infections were highest (66%) among married, followed by 20% in widowed or divorced.”

” ‘A look at HIV – where are we now?’ Sabin Russell, San Francisco Chronicle, 13 August 2006;

In India, for example, 80 percent of women infected with HIV are monogamous married women. ‘The fastest rates of infection are among housewives and young women, because the men who go to sex workers also go home'”

“For a growing number of women in rural Mexico – and around the world – marital sex represents their single greatest risk for HIV infection. . . . because marital infidelity by men is so deeply ingrained across many cultures . . . . These findings are published in the June 2007 issue of the American Journal of Public Health. . . . The article’s lead author, Jennifer S. Hirsch, PhD, associate professor of Sociomedical Sciences at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, is principal investigator on a large comparative study showing that the inevitability of men’s infidelity in marriage is true across cultures. . . . in rural Mexico . . . in rural New Guinea and southeastern Nigeria”

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw’s Mum | November 21, 2007 7:07 AM

“Dear Kylie Minogue, given the time difference between here and where you live in Australia, you must have missed my earlier general statement on this thread to the effect that I do not ever answer any questions asked of me by any AIDS denialist. That particularly applies to you, as your posts rank alongside “cooler’s’s in respect of their extreme silliness.

Posted by: John Moore | November 20, 2007 10:36 PM ”

Can someone count how often JP Moore came along just to repeat that he won’t explain himself?

Play it again Sam!

Posted by: pat | November 21, 2007 7:59 AM

My husband recently had his fourth HIV test, the last three were for insurance reasons and all of his tests are HIV-Negative. Surely, if I have 100,000 viral load then he in theory should be in danger. But in reality I don’t have anywhere near that number due to it being hyped-up by a math formula. Another attempt to “scare” the public into believing that HIV is deadly. John Boy, we rethinkers live in reality and to all of the inconsistencies of the HIV theory. We at least acknowledge them where most of you bury your head in the sand and try to beat your drums louder to drown us out.

Posted by: noreeen – Still Standing | November 21, 2007 8:00 AM

Sexual mores are assumed based on HIV test results? Who woulda thunk!

Posted by: pat | November 21, 2007 8:10 AM

That the likes of MEC and never-a-brain seem to think that they can second-guess a trained, qualified, government-certified pathologist and medical examiner (and his colleagues) who prepared the offou areicial Coroner’s report is hubris on a staggering scale.

Dear who-ever-you-are,

The pericardial and pleural effusions were described by the ME, so there is no second guessing here. The clinical course was also described by the ME and Al Bayati. No second guessing here. The ME concluded PCP and HIV. Al Bayati concluded allergic reaction to Amoxicillin with shock and cardiovascular collapse.

The pleural and pericardial fluid described by the ME supports Al BAyati’s conclusion. Acute Pericardial Tamponade was probably the cause of hypotension and cardiac arrest. The pulmonary findings were insufficient to produce cardiovascular collapse. This is not wild speculation or conspiracy thoery. Its common sense.

Of course, the good professor has no medical training so cannot understand any of it.

By the way, you really hurt my feelings. My name is never-a-peen which rhymes with nevirapine, not never-a-brain which doesn’t rhyme with anything. Try something that rhymes with deadly toxic hiv drug.

If you want names, we can call you a few. But its already been done, and all the names are out there, so why bother?

Posted by: never_a_peen | November 21, 2007 8:19 AM

“You must have missed my earlier general statement on this thread to the effect that I do not ever answer any questions asked of me by any AIDS denialist.”

Professor Moore, you really are a lot of fun. I mean being so predictable and everything. As Truthseeker has so astutely pointed out, you’re the denialists’ best friend! And thanks to our gracious host Tara – who’s nice enough not to shut us down – we compile on the world wide web the substantive questions you refuse to answer.

Here’s another one from a student puzzled by a biochemical paradox. How can quasispecies hypercycles according to Eigen be reconciled with lentiviruses according to Foley?

Posted by: Mr. Natural | November 21, 2007 9:43 AM

From a letter to Clinton (4/3/00), we can see how Mbeki anticipated this very thread.

EXCERPTS: … It is obvious that whatever lessons we have to and may draw from the West about the grave issue of HIV/AIDS, a simple superimposition of Western experience on African reality would be absurd and illogical.

Such proceeding would constitute a criminal betrayal of our responsibility to our own people. It was for this reason that I spoke as I did in our parliament, in the manner in which I have indicated.

I am convinced that our urgent task is to respond to the specific threat that faces us as Africans. We will not eschew this obligation in favour of the comfort of the recitation of a catechism that may very well be a correct response to the specific manifestation of AIDS in the West.

We will not, ourselves, condemn our own people to death by giving up the search for specific and targeted responses to the specifically African incidence of HIV/AIDS.

I make these comments because our search for these specific and targeted responses is being stridently condemned by some in our country and the rest of the world as constituting a criminal abandonment of the fight against HIV/AIDS.

Some elements of this orchestrated campaign of condemnation worry me very deeply.

It is suggested, for instance, that there are some scientists who are “dangerous and discredited” with whom nobody, including ourselves, should communicate or interact.

In an earlier period of human history, these would be burnt at the stake!

( . . . )

The scientists we are supposed to put into scientific quarantine include Nobel Prize winners, Members of Academies of Science and Emeritus Professors of various disciplines of medicine!

Scientists, in the name of science, are demanding that we should cooperate with them to freeze scientific discourse on HIV/AIDS at the specific point this discourse had reached in the West in 1984.

People who otherwise would fight very hard to defend the critically important rights of freedom of thought and speech occupy, with regard to the HIV/AIDS issue, the frontline in the campaign of intellectual intimidation and terrorism which argues that the only freedom we have is to agree with what they decree to be established scientific truths.

Some agitate for these extraordinary propositions with a religious fervor born by a degree of fanaticism, which is truly frightening.

( . . . )

It is most strange that all of us seem ready to serve the cause of the fanatics by deciding to stand and wait.

Posted by: Mr. Natural | November 21, 2007 9:52 AM

Master, Slave and Outlaw

Some time ago a person got very angry with me. My short story Twenty-first Century Love hadn’t pleased her at all and she had decided that I belonged to the very wrong, the very lost and the very dangerous. How dare I question the established Aids truth without ever questioning myself? A day or so later she allowed me to surface from the abyss of miserable shame and sent me the answer to her devastating question: I suffered from what is called in French a “délire hyper-logique”. From her message I learned many things. For example, a “Hyper-logic delirium” is a systemized delirium, meaning that the fool’s craziness is not senseless but, on the contrary, very coherent and logical. It may even convince perfectly normal people. Which implies that today a person who provides formal proof for just about anything can be persecuted as a dangerous dissident for being too logical. The trick is just to consider the initial idea as delirious.

Dissidents of all sorts, behold! Say you watch a 9/11 video. You see a building with a very small hole caused by a very big aircraft. The aircraft has left no trace whatsoever. You want to say something to the person next to you. Like: “Hey! It’s insane! The approach is impossible! The hole is far too small! I can’t se no plane debris, it’s a lie, there never was a Boeing-752!” Don’t. Hyper-logic delirium. You’ll be called a conspiracy theorist and you may end up in an asylum.
Although, the conspiracy theorists item, if you really give it a closer look, you must admit that it’s not that simple. As a matter of fact, very few conspiracy theorists really end up in an asylum. Did you ever wonder why so few of them are ever severely persecuted? No? You should. You did? Never found an answer, did you? But I have figured it all out, listen.

HIV, the virus that causes Aids. The 9/11 commission report. The unavoidable “Don’t ask if, ask when” avian flu pandemic. The invasion of Iraq. The hype against Iran. You name it. Conspiracies? Let me laugh. They’re a joke compared to the one and only superior and ultimate conspiracy, code name GPS-GPS. Global Population Survey using the Global Positioning System. There you have the real thing.
But the guys behind the scene must be absolutely sure before they can pull the trigger. Sure of what? Sure not only of the fact that people will believe anything they’re told, but also that all subjects will unconditionally hang on to their beliefs and continue to listen to the same voices that taught them what to believe and what to do, whatever happens. Make people believe a lie is very simple. Make them believe the lie even when someone else tells them it is a lie is a lot trickier. But the real state of the art consists of anchoring the believe so thoroughly that the indoctrinated will treat dissidents as dangerous psychopaths.

Let me illustrate the basic idea with a small example. We need to stage three persons. One who teaches. One who learns. One who questions. Let’s call them the Master, the Slave and the Outlaw.

Step one: Will Slave believe Master?

Master — In Texas, where there’s much oil in the soil, frogs living underground developed small caps on their head.
Slave — Why did they develop caps, Master?
Master — So they don’t get oil in their eyes.
Slave — How intelligent nature is. And again we witness: Survival of the fittest! One more proof that Darwin was right.

Step two: Will Slave believe Master unconditionally?

Slave — In Texas, where there’s much oil in the soil, frogs living underground wear small caps on the head.
Outlaw — That’s not true at all. What a silly idea! I lived in Texas for twenty years and I can tell you that there’s nothing special with the frogs over there. AND that they don’t live underground.
Slave — I don’t believe you. My master knows.

Generally these two steps are enough to be pretty sure whether yes or no a slave will follow his master like a dog. But in certain extreme cases a third step is essential to be absolutely sure the slave will never ever even think of mutiny.

Step three: Will Slave stand up against Outlaw if needed?

Outlaw — If you have a master then you’re a slave. If you believe any joke your master tells you, then you belong to the herds of lazy brain cattle easily exploited by a greedy sheepherder.
Slave — Conspiracy theorist! Guru! Terrorist! Psychopath!

Now we are sure: this slave is ready to follow his master anywhere, whatever happens. Got the idea? OK. Now let’s see if the approach is applicable.

Step one: Will Slave believe Master?

Slave — There’s a starving man over there. Shall we provide him with food and water?
Master — That man is not starving. That would have been his condition 30 years ago. Today he has Aids.
Slave — What can we do to relieve his sufferings?
Master — Give him AZT and ARVs, our life-saving killer drugs. They are toxic and may not help much, but they are the best we have.

Step two: Will Slave believe Master unconditionally?

Outlaw — There’s a starving man over there. Let’s give him food and water.
Slave — That man is not starving. That would have been his condition 30 years ago. Today he has Aids.
Outlaw — What’s in a name? Call it what you want but I tell you, that man needs food and water.
Slave — No, we must give him those life-saving killer drugs. They are toxic and may not help much, but it’s the best we have. Food and water are not absolutely essential, life-saving drugs are.

Step three: Will Slave stand up against Outlaw if needed?

Outlaw — What are you, a dumb guy? I tell you that man is starving! Give him apples, rice, meat, bread and water. Poison is the last thing a starving man needs!
Slave — My master taught me our life-saving killer drugs are vital. He knows a thousand times better than you and me together.
Outlaw — Tell your master he’s a dirty scumbag to make money over the back of the starving poor.
Slave — Conspiracy theorist! Guru! Terrorist! Psychopath!

This slave will follow his master to hell and back.

Now, look around the world in which we live. What do we see? Hundreds of millions behave like the slave painted above, a handful of dissident outlaws here and there trying to convince the others they got it all wrong. But the slaves don’t listen and the masters are assured that the sheep will hang on to their beliefs whatever happens. Any topic, 9/11, Aids, the war on Iraq, the debate isn’t getting anywhere. For instance, Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, they admitted it was all a lie, but the liars were reelected.

Today GPS phase one, the Global Population Survey, practically touches its end. The masters are perfectly sure now the slaves will blindly follow and pretty soon GPS phase two will be activated through the Global Positioning System.
Now you understand, don’t you? Beg your pardon? No, you still have no idea what I’m after… Sigh… Okay, I’ll tell you.

A guy is driving a car equipped with a GPS connected to an inboard computer system. A metal voice gives some indications.

“Turn left!” The driver turns left.
“Turn right!” The driver turns right.

Does the guy driving the car ever take an opposite turn to see what happens? No, never. He obeys. And always will.

There are too many of us. The poor will be taken care of with life-saving killer drugs against Aids, Avian flu and the like. They are of no concern, they don’t have access to the Internet and nobody will go to them and tell them it’s all a lie. And the rich, you ask? The rich drive their fancy cars. It’s only a question of time. The inboard computer knows. “Turn right!” The driver turns right. Straight into the ravine.

It’s all so logical. It’s hyper-logical.

Posted by: jspreen | November 21, 2007 10:16 AM

Tara, showing a typical disregard for the truth posters on your exciting thread here who support the orthodoxy (these two things go together, it seems) have added some shocking calumny which brings into disrepute my humble but accurate blog, Science Guardian/New AIDS Review, and besmirches my name with misleading statements.

I know you will allow factual correction of this small stain on your otherwise great blogging achievement of hosting a no-holds-barred debate on this vexed topic of whether AIDS is a retroviral disease or a drug/conventional disease/nutrition problem.:

Incidentally, for those posters on this thread who don’t actually know who Pat/Anthony Liversidge/Tony Baloney is, and why would you, he’s an elderly Englishman living in New York who runs a puerile Blog, New AIDS Review, devoted to AIDS denialism and other related conspiracy theories. His deadly rival, a person he loathes more than he hates any AIDS scientist, is Harvey Bialy, whose own Blog was much more popular and better written then his own. Pat/Liversidge/Baloney likes to think of himself as some kind of civilized, Anglo aristo type, but in reality he’s just Bialy-lite, posting the same material only with less humor and even sillier scientific content. He reserves a special place of hatred in his heart for the AIDS Truthies, because they listed Bialy and not him on their “Who are the denialists page”. He took this to be a huge personal slight. Pathetic when you stop to think about it – the price of a big ego attached to a small brain I guess.

Molecular Spartacus Claw

This is all subjective commentary (presumably by a Moore cohort, judging from the style) and not for us to contradict, but for the allegation that we detest the estimable Dr Harvey Bialy, when in fact we admire Harvey Bialy’s honesty, integrity, courage, intellectual acuity, careful vocabulary, scientific purity, and wicked sense of humor, including his explosive email hand grenades, as long as they are applied to other victims who deserve it, such as the incorrigibly disrespectful scientist, the self-celebrated John P. Moore, who by the way was eviscerated by Bialy’s dangerous literary antics only when he very rudely declined to debate Bialy in public, as is his evasive and telling wont (he also refused to have lunch with the enquiring editor from NAR, me, who applied to record his reasons for believing that HIV causes AIDS, which he has never dared detail, for some reason).

Our single disagreement was over whether we deserved it when Dr Bialy gave us the same treatment. We hold him in great esteem. If only the establishment truth-denialists had half his brainpower and zeal for truth.

On another subject, “Molecular Spartacus Claw” speculated about why Anthony Liversidge is not listed on AIDS Truth’s “Who are the denialists page”. We never for a moment considering adding him. Although he resembles Bialy in running a conspiracy theory/AIDS denialist Blog, it’s not particularly influential even in denialist circles. Moreover, Liversidge has no scientific training (accounting for the asinine content of what he posts), unlike Bialy who was able to use his degrees to persuade a few gullible journalists that he knew what he was talking about. Recording the reality about Bialy on AIDS Truth was therefore useful to show journalists who in fact they were dealing with; that situation would never arise with Liversidge. After all, if we listed Liversidge, we’d pretty much also have to list Michael Geiger…… One has to draw a line somewhere!….

No “cooler”, you do not know what we’re going to do, but we are most certainly NOT going to post anything you have written on AIDS Truth. I’m afraid that, like Michael Geiger and Anthony Liversidge, you’re not significant enough to make it onto our site. So all your ramblings about “copyright” are completely irrelevant.

John Moore

Contrary to his shortsighted expectations, we thank God and the distinguished John Moore for his kind decision not to include us on his misleading, shamefully disrespectful, emotionally grotesque, intellectually denialist and antisocial site AIDSTruth.org since we are not at all scientific denialists, as he is.

In fact we believe that the first principle of good science is that good scientists debate the truth with enthusiasm and respect for any person who raises a question in order to understand their science better, while politically driven and theoretically vulnerable scientists do neither.

We are however, proud to be linked to the inimitable Michael Geiger, whose unrestrained passion for the truth results in often glorious prose whose ringing tones are literary music compared to the raspberries visited upon all truthseekers by the renowned John P. Moore, whose refusal to enlighten all of us with debate with “denialists” is not very convincing when he comments on what they say so copiously and is their best publicist.

There is also the fact that he makes many of their points for them in his papers which as promised we will shortly be enumerating on the blog as a Thanksgiving present for the redoubtable Moore in exchange for his evident support of our position that the scientific literature of the field must remain the touchstone of truth for both scientists and laymen, including journalists.

As to Tony/baloney having no scientific training, that’s an advantage in many ways. Being an outsider to science is an excellent qualification for seeing the Emperor has no clothes. Many advances in specialist fields come from outsiders, because they take less for granted. Journalists are outsiders trained to ask good questions on behalf of the public, and review the answers. Does Mr Moore or his goon object to this process?

Let’s note that the flaws in HIV=AIDS are so obvious and clear that outsiders with no previous experience of science whatsoever can see through it, once they pay attention. Could this clarity be why Mr Moore prefers not to engage “denialists” directly? Surely not.

We also enjoy and admire “cooler’s” ability to give Moore more than a run for his money. Right on, dog!

By the way, Science Guardian is not a conspiracy theory blog, since we do not think there was ever an explicit plan to peddle the (even now still) unproven theory HIV=AIDS to government and public. But we have to say that the pr campaign to promote it and the behind the scenes bureaucratic response to dissent could count as a conspiracy, since it has been effectively coordinated by Fauci and his explicit censorship, according to memos that found their way into the public sphere.

But in general we don’t allege any conspiracy and to say that we do is just the usual Moore ploy, an attempt to stain our reputation by association with 9/11 nuts, just as the word “denialist” tries to imply that dissent is not rational and not based on the published, peer-reviewed literature, as all comment at New AIDS Review is.

Ands could it be that Mr Moore declines to publicise our humble blog for fear of what it says? Surely not.

But how odd that a scientist who pretends to have all the science on his side is reduced to ad hominem disrespect as his only reply to our writings. What does that tell you?

It tells us that the inarticulate Mr Moore is the dissenters’ best friend, a scientist who cannot lie, a secret ally to be cherished for his Fauci-flouting personal drive towards scientific reality which in this superb scientific mind cannot be gainsayed, even by 500,000 dollar bills.

Posted by: Truthseeker | November 21, 2007 2:16 PM

As to Tony/baloney having no scientific training, that’s an advantage in many ways.

Ignorance is an advantage? How so?

Let’s note that the flaws in HIV=AIDS are so obvious and clear that outsiders with no previous experience of science whatsoever can see through it, once they pay attention.

It’s not so amazing that there is a very neat inverse relationship between the level of scientific training and the ability to find “flaws” in HIV/AIDS theory.

The same phenomenom is seen in evolution denial. The simple truth is that the people doing the “rethinking” do not understand the science that they are attempting to critique. The “flaws” that they find are simply reflections of their own ignorance and confusion.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 21, 2007 7:59 PM

“The same phenomenom is seen in evolution denial. The simple truth is that the people doing the “rethinking” do not understand the science that they are attempting to critique. The “flaws” that they find are simply reflections of their own ignorance and confusion.”

Chris Noble intellectually surrenders.

Posted by: pat | November 21, 2007 8:22 PM

Truthseeker, aka Anthony Liversedge, posts his usual pretentious drivel to try to advertize his own blog which is remarkable only for the stupidity of the discussions about science that take place there. But Truthseeker does make one interesting comment when he writes

” But in general we don’t allege any conspiracy and to say that we do is just the usual Moore ploy, an attempt to stain our reputation by association with 9/11 nuts”

It appears then that Truthseeker is condemning Andrew Maniotis, Lynn Margulis and Henry Bauer as “nuts”, because all of these AIDS denialists have also publicly joined the ranks of 9/11 conspiracy theorists. They are of course nuts, because the basis for 9/11 denial is as stupid and unscientific as the basis for denying that HIV causes AIDS. The statements made by Maniotis, Margulis and Bauer that they are both AIDS and 9/11 denialists therefore expose them to the world as cranks, cuckoos, flakes and nuts, and act to show AIDS denialism for the silliness that it truly is. It’s good to see that Anthony Truthseeker Liversidge is therefore of the same opinion – these people truly are “nuts”. Thanks Anthony for this little gem of wisdom among the dross of your postings here and on your own blog!

Posted by: Liedetector | November 21, 2007 9:16 PM

yep, the 911 truth community now includes over 200 architects and engineers, 2 swiss structural engineers that say building 7 collapsed with explosives, former CIA official and writer of the award winning movie “Syriana”
And millions of other highly educated people around the world.

Planes dont dissepear into thin air while terrorists passports and red bandanas survive like in shankesville

buildings dont have all 81 columns fail at the same time without explosives, fire and damage has never caused a rapid symetrical collpase, or even a collapse for that matter.

Please cite me evidence for your conspiracy theory? the fatty bin laden tape? Or the passport that flew on the streets of manhattan of satam al saqiumi, glad that passport survived, funny how they never found the black boxes at ground zero.

funny how dumb you people are, you claim to be scientists, but scientists dont dismiss theories out of hand, they discuss theories in terms of evidence, and the very fact they do dismiss these theories shows how ignorant they air. “oh my government could never do that WELL THEY KILLED 3 MILLION IN VIETNAM, IRAQ ARE YA STUPID? They put plans on paper to commit acts of terrorism agaisnt americans and blame it on Cuba, operation northwoods, but of course, government atrocity apologists dont even know this info, ie they are the same types of people in germany that could never belive hitler could do evil, or the people in russia that would never beileve that he would torture dissidents in gulags. Youd call those people conspiracy theorists as well if you lived in those societies

Architects for truth google it
loose change the most watched movie ever online, the final cut is even better. Buy it.

Posted by: cooler | November 21, 2007 9:49 PM

Here’s another one from a student puzzled by a biochemical paradox. How can quasispecies hypercycles according to Eigen be reconciled with lentiviruses according to Foley?

Are you pretending to be Duesberg’s grad student again Gene?

Your confusion is entirely of your own making and has nothing to do with any supposed paradoxes.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 21, 2007 10:42 PM

I’m grateful to Liedetecter for bring Liversidge’s post to my attention, as I never bothered reading what Liversidge wrote (for much the same reason as I don’t feel the need to stick my finger into a pile of manure to know what it is). So I would have missed that little gem in which he (rightly, for once) dismisses 9/11 conspiracy theorists as “nuts” (exemplified by the likes of “cooler”, who proves the point rather nicely above).

No scientist can be an AIDS denialist without automatically losing all his or her professional credibility, because to be an AIDS denialist is to display that one has no ability to properly understand and judge the contents of the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Similarly, no scientist/engineer can be a 9/11 conspiracy theorist without automatically losing all his or her professional credibility, for much the same reasons.

It therefore is no surprise that there is overlap between the AIDS denialists and the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, since both groups attract people with much the same mindset, people who lack the judgement or insight to recognize the absurdity of what they believe in. The additional loss of scientific credibility incurred by being in both camps reflects synergy in action. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde: “To believe in one conspiracy theory may be regarded as merely silly; to believe in both looks like insanity”.

It would not surprise me to learn that AIDS denialists also believe in the Loch Ness Monster and Alien-created Crop Circles (oh, hang on that’s exactly what Henry Bauer DOES believe in….). How long it will be before one or more AIDS denialist proposes that Elvis Presley is alive, busy filming the next installment of the re-enactment of the moon landings in the deserts of New Mexico, while discussing with Marilyn Monroe how they combined to shoot JFK from the Grassy Knoll? There’s no difference between the mindset required to believe that statement is true, that required to believe the CIA was responsible for 9/11, and that required to believe that HIV either does not exist or that it does not cause AIDS. Each of these views is equally absurd, and equally unjustified by the facts.

So, I for one welcome the linkage that’s becoming apparent now between AIDS denialists and 9/11 conspiracy theorists, as it shows up AIDS denialism for what it truly is – the realm of the “nuts”, to re-use Anthony Liversidge’s word.

Happy Thanksgiving to all the sensible, non-conspiracy-theorist people who have posted on this site (Chris Noble, Franklin, Lee, Braganza, Adele, Tara, ElkMountainMan and a few others). At these peoples’ Thanksgiving Dinners, the only turkeys present will be the ones on the plate.

Posted by: John Moore | November 22, 2007 12:10 AM

The statements made by Maniotis, Margulis and Bauer that they are both AIDS and 9/11 denialists therefore expose them to the world as cranks, cuckoos, flakes and nuts, and act to show AIDS denialism for the silliness that it truly is. It’s good to see that Anthony Truthseeker Liversidge is therefore of the same opinion – these people truly are “nuts”. Thanks Anthony for this little gem of wisdom among the dross of your postings here and on your own blog!

Posted by: Liedetector | November 21, 2007 9:16 PM

Thank you kindly, LieDetector//Moore-goony for your humorous opinion of what we wrote above, spelling and logic challenged though you appear to be in the post.

Apparently your litmus test as to whether what we wrote is “pretentious drivel” or “gems of wisdom” is whether it fits your fixed preconceptions. Is this enough? We daresay it is not, for reasons to do with scientific research on the framing of data as it enters what passes for your brain, a phenomenon which is fully explained on our humble blog, but seems to have passed right over your head.

Prising your death grip from what you think you already know may be impossible, but we are willing to give it a try. Perhaps you should mull over the following questions if you can spare any time from licking the distinguished Mr Moore’s polished boots:

1) Is saying that one feels stained by association with “9/11 nuts” the same thing as saying that all those who take a second look at the official story of 9/11 are nuts?

We support anyone who takes a second look at any notion which is supported automatically by the sheep of society who feel that in order to graze the meadow they have to all point in the same direction as the head sheep, apparently a tendency with which you are personally familiar.

2) Is it true that people who are wrong to question one notion are therefore wrong to question another, unrelated belief?

Skepticism is a useful frame of mind, but its results depend on studying the data, surely. In the case of HIV=AIDS only the irrational, uninformed, and scientifically illiterate still conclude that the paradigm is airborne. All intelligent observers whose minds are in gear and who read the scientific literature can see that, theoretically speaking, it long ago crashed into the trees at the end of the runway without ever lifting one inch into the air, in spite of having enormous afterburners attached fueled by billions of dollars worth of Federal funding since it started rolling 23 years ago.

Yes, at present the little I know of 9/11 conspiracy theory seems to me to be as prima facie silly as the current AIDS paradigm obviously is, but my opinion is as worthless as yours is in AIDS until I study the data and the reasoning of the people you mention, who have certainlly proved themselves worthy skeptics in HIV=AIDS, as you have not, it seems.

3) We both have a duty to respect judgements and conclusions different from ours until we have thoroughly studied the data and reasoning involved, do we not?

4)We both have a duty to respect those who have different opinions, also, do we not?

5) Is the phrasing (“drivel” “dross” etc) you use respectful?

6) If not, should we respect your opinion, since your ears are obviously closed to different views from people you do not respect, who have written extensive books about the topic, or in my case, a blog amounting to two books and counting?

Since you may lose your way in following these 6 questions, here are the answers: No. No. Yes. Yes. No. No.

For further assistance, please refer to Science Guardian, which exists to brief data challenged clever people at the top of science and society such as yourself.

Posted by: Truthseeker | November 22, 2007 12:20 AM

200 architects, 100 million views on the internet of movies that are being beleived by millions of far more intelligent people than the drug company hacks on these blogs, movies like Loose change, 9/11 mysteries and Zeitgeist, Former cia officials like Ray Mcgovern, and robert baer, author of the award winning movie syriana.

Heres a message from robert baer for you conspiracy nuts, could you imagine fools like John moore/liedetector etc being able to author novels as compelling as his? Id be laughing my off………Maniotis bauer and Margulis have nothing to be ashamed of for exposing both the hiv fraud and 9/11. Just bc the government tells you something doesnt make it true, its about the evidence. Listen to your master Robert Baer, far more qualified than anyone else to show us the light.

Posted by: cooler | November 22, 2007 12:21 AM

look at this idiot moore, as usual he offers no evidence, just psychoanylisis, but what else would you beleive from a government atrocity apoligist whod piss in his pants in fear if hed have to debate real scholars like Noam Chomsky or David Ray griffin. This troll psuedoscientist moore proably still beleives they are WMD’s in Iraq, but what else would you expect from a fool that offers zero evidence for his theories, just a pathetic attempt at being a psychologist.

Debunk this, back and to the left, idiot, the shot came from the front you idiot, even cyril wecht the worlds leading forensic scientists says so, you have to be an idiot to beleive the warren commision. Its so obvious that youre just a hack that doesnt believe your government can tell a lie. Its like living in Orwells 1984.

Sorry, one of the leading explosive experts in the world says world trade center 7 was brought down with explosives, here is testimony.

See zeitgeist, loose change and 9/11 mysteries on google video now.

millions of views, people I know that are far more intelligent than moore, and have graduated from far better universities than moore inc are seeing the truth.

Posted by: cooler | November 22, 2007 12:37 AM

Here’s another one from a student puzzled by a biochemical paradox. How can quasispecies hypercycles according to Eigen be reconciled with lentiviruses according to Foley?
Are you pretending to be Duesberg’s grad student again Gene?

Your confusion is entirely of your own making and has nothing to do with any supposed paradoxes.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 21, 2007 10:42 PM

Why Chris, I do believe you forgot to actually answer the question. What’s the matter, don’t you feel your science credentials are quite up to it? You were rather better in the BMJ debate. Maybe you could draw on some ofyour helpers from that occasion?

Ok, let me give you a softer one to warm up on: how do you distinguish a lentivirus from a “conventional” virus? Which genetic or biological characteristics make a virus “lenti”?

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 22, 2007 12:37 AM

Here is the link for loose change, the most watched movie ever in the internet for those that want a primer on 9/11 conspiracy theories.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501

Posted by: cooler | November 22, 2007 12:43 AM

Prof. Moore,

I have now read a little further on the internet as Dr. Noble advised I do. I’ved discovered you think my son is part of a worldwide AIDS Denialist Conspiracy. This has me worried my son might get in trouble. Could you please elaborate on your AIDS Denialist Conspiracy theories, so I can make an informed decision as to whether I have to confiscate MEC’s computer or possibly turn him over to the FBI?

Thank you for your reply

MEC’s Mum.

PS. Why didn’t you reply to my previous request? I’m still not sure if I should go on chemoprophylaxis since according to the infallible HIV tests, as a monogamous married woman I seem to be in greaster danger of contracting HIV than if I were an IV drug using prostitute.

http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/11/mbeki_still_in_denial.php#comment-646540

MM

PPS. Prof. Moore, how have you discovered Prof. Bauer is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist? Could you plesae provide your references. I am interested in this topic but I could’t find anything written by Prof Bauer on it. So far the only conspiracy theories I have been able to find are your own. That’s why I lke reading your stuff, it’s not anything like the ususal dry and boring science.

Posted by: MEC’s Mum | November 22, 2007 1:02 AM

So, I for one welcome the linkage that’s becoming apparent now between AIDS denialists and 9/11 conspiracy theorists, as it shows up AIDS denialism for what it truly is – the realm of the “nuts”, to re-use Anthony Liversidge’s word.

Happy Thanksgiving to all the sensible, non-conspiracy-theorist people who have posted on this site (Chris Noble, Franklin, Lee, Braganza, Adele, Tara, ElkMountainMan and a few others). At these peoples’ Thanksgiving Dinners, the only turkeys present will be the ones on the plate.

Darn it, we foolishly decided not to use the turkey crack in the screed we just posted, since it seemed too obvious, and here the wit challenged John “I am a secret HIV dissident” Moore uses it without any respect for the intelligence of his readers at all… wait! he is addressing his faithful following, so that would be appropriate after all.

Regarding the association of 9/11 nuts with AIDS critics, we agree with John “My support of HIV=AIDS is political and ad hominem, for the science please see my dissident papers in exclusive insider journals where I prepare my way for when the paradigm crumbles” Moore that this stains the reputation of HIV/AIDS critics.

But as noted above, when lives are at stake it behooves people to study the data and the reasoning involved, not to judge with prejudice, conformity or other lazy emotional motivations. These distort science, and there are plenty of them – in fact at Science Guardian our blog logo lists too many of them to count.

John deals in at least a dozen of them in defending his tattered pardigm against the debunking of critics who rather amazingly include himself, as our next post on New AIDS Review will show.

Exactly how this superb mind and sensitive psyche can live with this intellectual and emotional inner conflict is not for us to say, but it is kinda cute that it shows so explicitly, or would be if his style wasn’t so wearyingly nasty. Noblesse oblige, John! Graduates even of Downing College should have more gentlemanly manners in public debate. It is embarrassing for other English expats to read these excesses.

No scientist can be an AIDS denialist without automatically losing all his or her professional credibility, because to be an AIDS denialist is to display that one has no ability to properly understand and judge the contents of the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Substitute “believer” for “denialist” and this would be a very accurate statement, at least among the elite of the field. What readers must understand, however, is that it is very improbable that Moore doesn’t know this. Not only does he make many admissions to this effect in his papers, if you know where to find them (coming up, folks, when the more interesting side of life permits) but he is a smart cookie, as his brilliant posts on this thread show.

What elevated genius he shows in his wordplay in so brilliantly characterizing what we write as “manure”, especially when he never read it! This man is a genius, as well as too honest to conceal from his peers the flaws in his working (read ‘fundraising’) hypothesis.

Once again we nominate Moore for the Lasker, at least. Why is no one here supporting this?

By the way, John, since we at Science Guardian are not 9/11 conspiracy theorists, as you have now acknowledged, what remaining reason can you possibly have for ignoring our admiring posts on the subject of your brilliant scientific comments on the flaws in the paradigm?

Your desire to cannibalize turkey today is no excuse. Please let us know how you wish to disagree with your very own self.

Posted by: Truthseeker | November 22, 2007 1:02 AM

moore does not understand that the official story about 9/11 is a conspiracy theory, so therefore he is a conspiracy theorist. He’s so ignorant the names he calls people can easily be applied to himself.

another great 9/11 film. 9/11 mysteries.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003

Posted by: cooler | November 22, 2007 1:03 AM

Why Chris, I do believe you forgot to actually answer the question. What’s the matter, don’t you feel your science credentials are quite up to it? You were rather better in the BMJ debate. Maybe you could draw on some ofyour helpers from that occasion?

»Ein Narr fragt viel, worauf kein Weiser antwortet.«

Gene likes to use words that he doesn’t understand in a vain attempt to convince people that he really has a clue what he is talking about.

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 22, 2007 2:37 AM

They are of course nuts, because the basis for 9/11 denial is as stupid and unscientific as the basis for denying that HIV causes AIDS.

Now, how stupid and unscientific is it to doubt that a Boeing completely disappeared through a hole some 20 feet across? What? The hole was in fact over 80 feet wide but large parts of it were hidden by smoke? LMAO !
What did you say? The B-757 body is only 12 feet 4inch wide and 13 feet 6inch high and thus perfectly fits in the small hole? Yeah, sure. The wings and engins and all were made of ice cream and candy sugar, and instantly evaporated at the impact.

Man, I swear that now I’ve seen the light, I truly can’t believe anymore how totaly unscientific I was when questionning the 9/11 commission report.

HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHA HA !!!!!!

Posted by: jspreen | November 22, 2007 4:11 AM

an attempt to stain our reputation by association with 9/11 nuts

Wake up, truthseeker. If you really seek what your name announces, you should open your eyes now to see that the only 9/11 nuts are the ones who swallowed the 9/11 commission report hook, line and sinker. Your reputation cannot be stained more than by being associated with them.

Posted by: jspreen | November 22, 2007 4:57 AM

“»Ein Narr fragt viel, worauf kein Weiser antwortet.«

Der Narr hält sich für weise, aber der Weise weiss, dass er ein Narr ist.

Posted by: pat | November 22, 2007 9:24 AM

Evolution is always brought up, and is a straw man argument. The language of science and the language of religion are describing quite different things in very different worlds. The major criticism of evolution is that it frequently serves as religion for the common man who is better served by some form of a real religion.

By now, after the discovery channel ran a debunking 9/11 conspiracy program which featured all the top 9/11 truth people presenting their arguments in a very convincing manner, everyone knows about it, and this is the major reason for the the demise of the repuglican party in every election since november. This is the reason why even mickey mouse, minnie mouse or donald duck can run for president on the dem ticket, and win. The dems will sweep it. The American people have wised up to the ways of the current admministration, ie pre-emptive warfare as an instrument of foreign policy, and curtailment of civil liberty at home, a formula we have seen in previous fascist governments thoughout history.

Ditto for the Hiv=Aids Fraud which is rapidly becoming common knowledge. This fraud was previously maintained by heavy govenment censorship of the media, and heavy drug advertising by big pharma. This is now ending thanks to openly available information on the internet at places like The New Aids Review, Barnes World You Bet Your Life, and Reviewing Aids.

The drug company shills and reps like moore et al who derive their income from HIV=Aids will moan and groan, but HIV gravy days are coming to an end, so enjoy your turkey day, your last HIV gravy could be on your turkey plate.

Posted by: never_a_peen | November 22, 2007 9:50 AM

“»Ein Narr fragt viel, worauf kein Weiser antwortet.«
(Noble)

Der Narr hält sich für weise, aber der Weise weiss, dass er ein Narr ist. (Pat)

And only a fool, Dr. Noble, answers when he doesn’t have an answer.

Posted by: Molecular Entry CLaw | November 22, 2007 10:14 AM

Wake up, truthseeker. If you really seek what your name announces, you should open your eyes now to see that the only 9/11 nuts are the ones who swallowed the 9/11 commission report hook, line and sinker.

Oh please.

1) AIDS is caused by an infectious virus, and is not a relabeled drug/conventional disease/nutritional deficit problem. If you have antibodies to it as indicated by the “AIDS test” you will die very soon, unless you pay attention to John “I am not a macaque, I am a respected scientist” Moore and take expensive ARV’s.

2) The Pentagon and the WTC 7 were blown up by the Bushies in a plot to justify invading Iraq.

These two statements have the same probability.

Zero.

Posted by: Truthseeker | November 22, 2007 12:20 PM

These two statements have the same probability.

I don’t recall having mentioned dummy “Double You” Bush anywhere…

The question to ask is, if you really insist upon using statistics and probability calculation:

What’s the probability a Boeing-757 completely disappeared into the Pentagon through a hole some 20 feet across and leaving no trace behind?

You really must wake up and open your eyes, truth seeker, or you won’t find anything at all.

Posted by: jspreen | November 22, 2007 12:37 PM

Nobody is saying “bush” knocked down the towers, it seems that these intelligence agencies that recieve millions in funding with no oversight need to be investigated.

Its now well known that the CIA overthrew democratically elected Mossedeq in 1953 because he wanted to throw out american/british oil companies, leading to chaos murder and death.

its maintream news that the joint cheifs of staff put plans on paper to commit acts of terrorism against americans and blame it on cuba, operation northwoods.

Its an established fact that the CIA instigated the war in vietnam, invaded and overthrew the regime in south vietnam and set up a puppett regime, an started commmiting acts of war against north vietnam, starting a conflict that killed 60k americans and 3 million vietnamese. This all happened before the staged gulf of tonkin. If these criminals would drag is into an illegal war that they started, why is so hard to believe they wouldnt kill 3,000 americans, when theyve killed millions of innocents before?

Anyone that doubts this should read up on noam chomsky

Posted by: cooler | November 22, 2007 1:00 PM

Chomsky doesnt buy the 9-11 demolition conspiracy.

To put things back on track:

Mbeki is partially vindicated by the UN’s latest downward revision of the AIDS epidemic.

So far HIV/AIDS is about falsifying its own estimates.

Posted by: pat | November 22, 2007 1:11 PM

Yes , but equally or more distinguished scholars do, like david ray griffin phd, Howard zinn, Robert baer, like most they thought the idea was absurd at first, but once they looked into the evidence they concluded it surely was at least a viable lead that neeeded to be investigated.
over 200 architects, and engineers growing every day
http://www.ae911truth.org/

Posted by: cooler | November 22, 2007 2:48 PM

Der Narr hält sich für weise, aber der Weise weiss, dass er ein Narr ist.

Another good citation but it is actaully applicable to Gene not me.

I am fully aware of the limits of my knowledge and understanding and I am careful not to overstep this boundary. Denialists on the other hand delude themselves that they understand complex scientific subjects better than the scientists that have spent decades studying this science.

Anthony Liversidge even goes so far to claim that his total lack of scientific training somehow puts him in a better position to understand the science than people who do have extensive training and research experience. Somehow ignorance becomes a virtue. The hubris is staggering.

This total inability to accurately judge ones own skills and understanding has come to be known as the Kruger-Dunning effect

Posted by: Chris Noble | November 22, 2007 5:41 PM

Denialists on the other hand delude themselves that they understand complex scientific subjects better than the scientists that have spent decades studying this science.

Wrong. HIV=Aids denialists have no pretention at all to understand complex scientific subjects. The only pretention they have is to look through the bullshit smoke screens caused by scientific nerd brains set on fire due to overheating while trying to find a way out of dogmatic thinking.

Posted by: jspreen | November 22, 2007 5:56 PM

Dear Chris, what a marvellous paper you’ve steered me to in that last link. The title says it all, and so much of the rest of it is directly applicable to the personal pathologies that underlie much of HIV/AIDS denialism (I exclude the minority subset who are nothing but shameless profiteers, seeking to peddle quack remedies in place of the prove, safe and effective use of ARVs). But the majority of the HIV/AIDS denialists are merely living embodiments of the old adage “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”. They know a little about science (actually, in Liversidge’s case, next to nothing) and think that means they are qualified to understand research publications and comment on them. It’s ludicrous of course, pathetically so. But unlike the harmless buffoonery of the 9/11 conspiracy nutters, the dangerous consequence of the AID