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---

Times sets Mbeki straight

Anonymous editorial writer redraws the picture in HIV∫AIDS to NIAID specs

But who will step up and contradict at this stage?

lion.jpegNot content with an almost perfect record over the last two decades in promoting the HIV∫AIDS paradigm as if it was invested in it in some as yet unrevealed way, the Times has stepped forward today to put the lionhearted Mbeki in his place for getting rid of the presumptuous and scientifically ignorant deputy health minister, Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge, who has been peddling the John P. Moore brand of nonsense about the AIDS challenge in Africa for too long.

But this is hardly surprising, of course, since the Times itself and its reporters, led by CDC grad Larry Altman, has been playing precisely the same uninformed role ever since it began reporting on the HIV∫AIDS paradigm and its social consequences twenty years ago.

Presumably the financial squeeze at the Times, which recently resulted in the cutting down of the spread of its pages from a magisterial 27 inches to a more modern and unassuming 24 inches to fit the Procustian bed of overriding financial considerations in the Web-Murdoch era, has the reporters of the greatest newspaper in the world on short rations, and prevents any of them at long last bothering to read the debunking scientific literature on the disputed, in fact blatantly incredible theory of HIV∫AIDS. But surely they might spend an hour or two with one of the 25 or so popular introductions to the issue in book form that have come from well informed authors on the invalidity of the paradigm, most recently Bialy, Farber, Culshaw and Bauer.

Of course, the editorialist who wrote this backwards pointing screed is not to blame for mouthing what has always been the party line at the Times, if he/she is surrounded by reporters such as Nicholas Wade and Larry Altman who simply ignore Duesberg and the dissent. Small wonder he/she thinks that the alternative view of AIDS from a highly productive scientist and long time National Academy member supported by many thousands of working professional level minds is “crackpot”.

The Times’ own survival is at stake, if it remains thoughtless

But one would think that a newspaper which by now must have got the message from the Web and its blogs, which so often tend to know better than newspaper reporters these days because they can draw on so many more individual minds, many of which are well read and even expert in the fields they cover, that the only way for it to survive is to be more professionally well informed and researched and fact checked than ever before, and for its reporters and editors to apply their professional minds to the material they cover, rather than just process it from the In basket to the Out basket, would do a better job at understanding just what is going on in South Africa, and why Mbeki is resisting being steamrollered.

Do they really expect the President to roll over like the media lapdogs of the AIDS press around the world led by the New York Times when faced with the mediocre scientists who lead this bandwagon, and the lynch mob emotionalism of the ignorant activists, when the health of his people is at stake, and when he – unlike the reporters and editors of the Times – actually informs himself of the alternative view, which he has done ever since he called together the South African panel to investigate the matter before the Durban AIDS Conference at the beginning of this century, which had the very clear outcome of showing that the objections of the dissenters had no scientific rebuttal?

The degree of irresponsibility shown by the Times in this affair will be its ever lasting embarrassment and shame, and the shame of the media world that follows its lead every day, when the scientific literature it daily ignores is finally brought to the attention of the public and politicians, as every buried truth sooner or later is.

But whether that is soon, or much delayed, depends on the courage and commitment of the very few people in the world who are prepared to fight this battle, and no doubt to the great delight of John P. Moore, it looks as if there are fewer and fewer that have the inclination and resources to do so.

How many of them are prepared to write to the Times to complain, and write an expert and persuasive Op-Ed to counter this kind of thing, and answer in public John P. Moore’s misleading diatribe last year? How many are prepared to expose themselves to public ridicule, and perhaps endanger their employment and finances?

Very few, we imagine.

The rope awaits – is your neck ready?

noose.jpegIn a world where even Mbeki has to take into account the ignorant counter attacks of the Times editorial page, and even the perceptive and principled editor of Harpers cannot afford to back up his writer in the affair for very long, and where even a distinguished scientist with the Nobel in hand who has long been a major player in science cannot afford to invest his reputation any more in speaking up for sense in HIV∫AIDS, and where even Celia Farber, the most successful and literate reporter on dissent in the field, has taken a sabbatical, and where even an independent scholar with a very fine mind who wrote an irrefutable inside account of the twisted science politics of this affair can find himself separated from a scholarly institution in another country on account of his fight for scientific integrity in this field, and where even one of the finest scientists of our generation has been cut off from public funding for more than two decades for his leadership stand for scientific sense in the face of what has become a universally credited fairy tale, what hope is there that there is still a voice somewhere that is willing to speak up and persuade the Times to give him or her a platform which if credited by its readers will bring its own record into grave disrepute?

Anybody else willing to put their head in a noose?

August 14, 2007
New York Times Editorial
Firing an AIDS Fighter

What is it about South Africa’s devastating AIDS epidemic that President Thabo Mbeki just doesn’t want to understand? Mr. Mbeki has catastrophically failed to face up to his country’s greatest challenge.

For years, he associated himself with crackpot theories that disputed the demonstrable fact that AIDS was transmitted by a treatable virus. He also insisted that he knew nobody with AIDS, even though nearly 20 percent of South Africa’s adult population are estimated to be living with H.I.V. And he suggested that antiretroviral drugs were toxic, and he encouraged useless herbal folk remedies instead. As a result, thousands of South Africans have needlessly sickened and died.

Now Mr. Mbeki has fired one of the few effective AIDS fighters in his administration, Deputy Health Minister Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge.

Ms. Madlala-Routledge provided a brief interlude of sanity and seriousness after the health minister — who recommended beetroot and garlic therapy — fell ill last fall. Over the next nine months, Ms. Madlala-Routledge promoted an ambitious but attainable goal of cutting the number of new H.I.V. infections in half and treating 80 percent of people in need by 2011.

But after her boss, the beetroot and garlic advocate, returned to work early this summer, that new seriousness was shoved aside. And, last week, so was the woman responsible for it.

The official explanation for Ms. Madlala-Routledge’s firing was that she did not have official approval for a trip she made to Spain to attend an AIDS conference. The more likely reason was the visit she made to Frere Hospital in the Eastern Cape Province in July where, ever outspoken, she condemned the abominable conditions there as a national emergency.

Unlike other African countries, South Africa has the financial resources and the medical talent to successfully take on its H.I.V./AIDS epidemic. What it lacks is a president who cares enough about his people’s suffering to provide serious leadership. Only two more years remain in Mr. Mbeki’s presidential term. Unless he finally starts listening to sensible advice on AIDS, he will leave a tragic legacy of junk science and unnecessary death.

40 Responses to “Times sets Mbeki straight”

  1. hhbauer Says:

    I drafted a Letter to the Editor, looked up how to send it, saw that they limit letters to 150 words. That makes a substantive response impossible.

    But I was cheered this morning by finding the following:

    “Marcus Low’s Health Watch
    http://marcuslow.wordpress.com/2007/08/14/mbeki-and-how-science-works/

    Mbeki and how science works

    In a week when South Africa’s fight against HIV/Aids took a serious knock with the bizarre sacking of deputy minister of health, Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge, it seems that we are once again returning to that dark age of Aids denial.

    It seems that at bottom we are still dealing with a radical clash of ideologies – science on the one end, and vitamin quackery and denial on the other.

    I contend that we are in essence dealing with an inability by Mbeki to understand how science works. For, it seems blatantly obvious that a man of his intelligence, when sufficiently informed, would necessarily change his mind about HIV/Aids.

    That is to say that, only when someone is ignorant of how science works and progresses, does it become possible for him to fall for vitamin quackery, denialism and the like. How else can we explain a reasonable man opting for unproven ideas over proven ones?

    In fact, I’d go so far as to say that if Mr Mbeki read a book like Henry Bauer’s Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method, it may have a major impact on the kinds of things he says and decisions he makes regarding HIV/Aids.

    Without a proper understanding of how science works scientific arguments so easily slips into “he says, she says” logic. It is a similar lack of understanding that has allowed the denial of a human contribution to climate change to survive as long as it has.

    And finally, it is worth pointing out that like democracy, the scientific method is certainly not perfect, but it is undoubtedly the best we have.

    So, to anyone with the president’s ear, please do urge him to try and understand how science works, rather than continuing this absurd ignorance.

    This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 14th, 2007 at 10:20 pm and is filed under science. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.”

    I sent a comment to the effect that Henry Bauer’s latest book happens to support President Mbeki.

    :-)==

  2. Truthseeker Says:

    We are about to post a longish recommendation of your masterwork, Henry, which was forwarded to us finally after weeks of delay, since it is a very informative work, as we have already noted. But we hope that you read your sources for it more closely than the item you quote. Or do we have to polish our own glasses? Seems that the gentleman blogger has the usual reflex idea that beetroot is a laughable antidote to immune weakness and that Mbeki has been visiting witchdoctors. Perhaps he didn’t read your book with as much attention as he should, even though he has the right idea about exploring another view on HIV/AIDS. Mbeki has plenty of respect for science, this is precisely what makes him unique among notable political leaders. He has more respect than Clinton the Rhodes scholar, as far as we can judge from the available imnformation.

  3. hhbauer Says:

    I had to polish my own glasses to take in that the blogger was praising my 1992 book, “Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method”. That was indeed well received, chapters have been reprinted in other works, it has been used as a text in science studies courses, and the “knowledge filter” depiction of how science works has been widely cited.

    I found it ironic that the blogger recommended this book to set Mbeki straight, when the recommended book’s author happens to agree with–or even go further than–Mbeki in denying the HIV=AIDS connection

  4. Truthseeker Says:

    A nice irony indeed. But a Comment on his blog is in order to recommend your latest and greatest work. Why not give him an exciting day by so posting?

  5. hhbauer Says:

    I did. Water off a duck’s back.

  6. Truthseeker Says:

    Water off a duck’s back.

    Aha. Alas, there are only a certain number of groups in the possible readers of such a masterwork, one which demonstrates that a widespread belief is certainly wrong, and few of them are the kind that will make a big difference, perhaps. This one is not one of those. He is Group 2 below:

    1. Readers who already know and like what you have to say and buy it to read for the same reason that everyone who chooses an camera or a cell phone reads the ads for the same model to confirm that they made the right choice. Percentage of readers: 89% Percentage of population: .0001%.

    2. Readers who imagine they know and like what you have to say and skim the book never noticing you say exactly the opposite in the conclusion which they never get to. Percentage of readers: 6%. Percentage of population: .00005%

    3. Readers who buy it to find out what you say and find it only confirms what they have already decided, which is that they were right all the time in thinking the opposite of the author, who is a scoundrel. Percentage of readers: 3% percentage of population: 89%.

    4. Readers who buy it out of a genuine interest in the topic which they never knew had any other angle than the standard conventional idea which is the theme of mainstream news coverage in every paper they have read, and are excited, delighted and grateful to find that you have taught them some entirely new truth which explains all the nonsense they detected in the conventional wisdom, and will recommend the author for a MacArthur Foundation grant if they have a chance. Percentage of readers: 1% Percentage of population: 1%

    5. Readers who buy the book simply because it disagrees with the conventional wisdom which they are convinced is as always the propaganda of the establishment which has secretly perpetrated another scam which proves that all those in power are constantly exploiting their advantage, and find it very satisfactory because it entirely confirms their prejudice of a secret cabal or conspiracy even though they really don’t understand the data or the arguments in it. Percentage of readers: 1% Percentage of population: 10%

    Hope this is not too depressing a truth spoken in jest.

  7. MacDonald Says:

    Having never benefitted from playing at numbers in one of those old world imperial institutions where learning is still pursued, it is rumoured, for its own sake, I am, I confess, baffled by the immediately preceding mathematical wizardry.

    As with HIV, I shall not presume to inquire into where the author of the analysis got his alternatively reviewed data, merely ask by what private calculus 89% of Bauer’s readership can be extrapolated into a statistically invisible .0001% of the entire population?

    The initial confusion is reinforced upon exercising one’s own, admittedly atrophied arithmetical musculature, to find that the total percentage of Bauer’s readers unto themselves is, from bottom up,

    1% + 1% + 3% + 6% + 89% = an orderly 100%

    whereas total percentage of the general population on the same terms is,

    10% + 1% + 89% + .00005 + .0001% = an awkward 100.00015%

    This would suggest that no less than 2 categories out of 5, constituting a grand total of 95% of Bauer’s readers, are so innumerous that statistically speaking they are in fact non-existent in the general population; and yet, there they are figuring prominently in an otherwise impeccable statistical calculation.

  8. MacDonald Says:

    mmm… Maybe I was not entirely clear, but here’s the conundrum in a nutshell: Most of Bauer’s readers, on the above analysis, are not part of the population.

  9. Michael Says:

    Well Henry, I posted a couple of posts on his blog, that are sure to knock his blogsocks off. Be sure to check ’em out!

    http://marcuslow.wordpress.com/2007/08/14/mbeki-and-how-science-works/

    I think that between the two of us, it was a great one-two punch, and I am certain that at this point slowMarcus is down for the count and seeing stars. He will eventually recover, but it may take a little time for the reality to settle in.

    Be sure to also check out his well written first post that was just prior to the Mbeki piece. It was a perfect lead-in for his very own wake-up call!

  10. MacDonald Says:

    Some obscure fellow has posted this left hook to Slow’s jaw which, according to the sweet science, should always follow the basic one-two punch when possible. At the moments it is pending peer review, but I see no reason why it shouldn’t pass Marcus’ Health Watch filter

    Hmm… Marcus Low. When you you decide that Mbeki does not understand how science works, I guess it entails you do?

    I don’t know what you think is so hard to grasp about science filters such as peer review that a university educated economist and president of a country should have trouble understanding it. But it does look like you haven’t grasped the full meaning of the concept of a “filter”. You say:

    “Bauer admits that science has a significant social dimension. This
    basically has to do with the fact that you have to offer proof of your
    claims, and then others need to be able to double-check and so on.
    Peer-review is another part of this.

    He has this model of science working as a filter.”

    Mr. Low, here’s another aspect of the social/political dimension of science filters taken from an abstract of one of Henry Bauer’s essays available on his website. Now tell me if this is all new and surprising to you, because if it is, maybe you had better ask president Mbeki for a few basic lessons in the reality of scientific research:

    “Minority views on technical issues are largely absent from the public arena. Increasingly corporate organization of science has led to knowledge monopolies, which, with the unwitting help of uncritical mass media, effect a kind of censorship. Since corporate scientific organizations also control the funding of research, by denying funds for unorthodox work they function as research cartels as well as knowledge monopolies. A related aspect of contemporary science is commercialization. Science is now altogether different from the traditional disinterested search, by self-motivated individuals, to understand the world. What national andinternational organizations publicly proclaim as scientific information is not safeguarded by the traditional process of peer review. Society needs new arrangements to ensure that public information about matters of science will be trustworthy.”

  11. hhbauer Says:

    Michael: THANK YOU for the fine posts at lowMarcus. I also liked (naturally!) what Karl posted there.

    Truthseeker: Though you rounded off percentages to only 6 significant figures (according to Mac), I think your analysis is spot on. I get the giggles whenever I read of the educationists’ and others’ lectures and courses on “critical thinking” and the like. It is a sadly minuscule proportion of people who are genuinely curious and interested to learn; and I’m not sure that the proportion is greater among scientists and journalists than among the hoi polloi. It may in fact be lower, if you’ll forgive this depressing probable truth spoken somewhat in jest.

  12. Truthseeker Says:

    Though you rounded off percentages to only 6 significant figures (according to Mac), I think your analysis is spot on.

    Sorry about that, but we were having to use a slide rule, since our abacus went AWOL (we prefer traditional methods proven over time).

    The proportion of people who actually think for themselves and even enjoy it does seem small, but it is such a pleasure to meet them (eg the distinguished contributors to this blog) one can easily get carried away and think all people except for the very timid are like this! Alas the percentage does seem small. Seems that education has not much to do with it, which is the big surprise. You point this out, Henry, but it is always a shock to encounter it in the form of eg Harvard graduates whose thinking skills consist of the ability to soak up the accepted wisdom and regurgitate it to all comers. But then, Harvard probably doesn’t apply a filter yet to weed out the teacher’s pets from their application crowd. It is high time they did so. The only guarantee of excellent mental performance is total freedom, and this kind of thing boxes people’s brains in cardboard cartons and shelves them.

    Maybe the simple paradox is that teaching cannot teach processes which mainly consist of not swallowing what is served up to you without examining it afresh and improving it.

  13. Truthseeker Says:

    For the record here is the Marcus Low page so far, just in case it vanishes for some reason. Needs permanent recording somewhere as a nice example of the massive confusion the paradigm meme leads to in the slow moving brains of otherwise worthy supporters of good science. Unfortunately the drug funded apologist Richard Jefferys has already begun to muddy the waters, except in this case he has shot himself in the foot pulling his gun for hire out of its holster too fast. He draws attention to the fact that lower doses of AZT resulted in better outcome for patients, just as Michael noted (and there is the temporary benefit of poison and its effect on parasites and their drag on the immune system., of course, not to mention some trace element benefit as we have explained) even though the rest of the cocktail causes problems for the liver and kidneys, sometimes fatal, and he has also quoted a “Danish study” saying that a 25 year old HIV positive can now expect to live with the latest concoctions another 39 years.

    Hey Richard, the lower the toxicity of the drugs the longer people live, surprise, surprise. Not that the Danish study doesn’t need close examination to find out just how well selected the group was, as in the past.

    Marcus Low’s HealthWatch
    Bringing sanity to the crazy world of medicine
    « Here we go
    Mbeki and how science works

    In a week when South Africa’s fight against HIV/Aids took a serious knock with the bizarre sacking of deputy minister of health, Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge, it seems that we are once again returning to that dark age of Aids denial.

    It seems that at bottom we are still dealing with a radical clash of ideologies – science on the one end, and vitamin quackery and denial on the other.

    I contend that we are in essence dealing with an inability by Mbeki to understand how science works. For, it seems blatantly obvious that a man of his intelligence, when sufficiently informed, would necessarily change his mind about HIV/Aids.

    That is to say that, only when someone is ignorant of how science works and progresses, does it become possible for him to fall for vitamin quackery, denialism and the like. How else can we explain a reasonable man opting for unproven ideas over proven ones?

    In fact, I’d go so far as to say that if Mr Mbeki read a book like Henry Bauer’s Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method, it may have a major impact on the kinds of things he says and decisions he makes regarding HIV/Aids.

    Without a proper understanding of how science works scientific arguments so easily slips into “he says, she says” logic. It is a similar lack of understanding that has allowed the denial of a human contribution to climate change to survive as long as it has.

    And finally, it is worth pointing out that like democracy, the scientific method is certainly not perfect, but it is undoubtedly the best we have.

    So, to anyone with the president’s ear, please do urge him to try and understand how science works, rather than continuing this absurd ignorance.

    This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 14th, 2007 at 10:20 pm and is filed under science. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
    9 Responses to “Mbeki and how science works”

    1. Henry H. Bauer Says:
    August 15th, 2007 at 4:01 pm

    Henry Bauer’s latest book shows that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS–see .
    The book uses Bauer’s understanding of science to explain how medical science went so badly wrong. President Mbeki would be pleased to find that Henry Bauer agrees with him.
    2. marcuslow Says:
    August 15th, 2007 at 7:30 pm

    I have not read Bauer’s latest book, so I am not in a position to
    respond to that. Anyway, my concern is not with Bauer, but with what he writes in Scientific literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method.

    Maybe to clarify a bit:

    Bauer admits that science has a significant social dimension. This
    basically has to do with the fact that you have to offer proof of your
    claims, and then others need to be able to double-check and so on.
    Peer-review is another part of this.

    He has this model of science working as a filter.

    Now, Matthias Rath’s claim’s has clearly not passed through the filter.
    He has not managed to convince other researchers that he is correct
    and neither has he produced any results showing why we should believe
    him. Thus his claims are not reliable.

    By contrast, there is by now very strong evidence supporting the use of ARVs. We are talking about multiple studies published in peer-reviewed journals. Thus, we are dealing with much more reliable information. In Bauer’s terms, it would be claims that have passed further through the scientific filter.

    My point is that Mbeki does not seem to understand the importance of producing evidence for scientific claims. And because of this, it is possible for him to take nonsense claims about vitamins seriously.
    3. What are you talking about? Says:
    August 16th, 2007 at 3:56 am

    Dear Marcu sLow,

    Dr. Henry Bauer, whose book you recommend to ’set Mbeki straight’, has just posted above. I am not sure you get it yet. Dr. Henry Bauer has also just released a book VERIFYING THAT MBEKI IS CORRECT, and that YOU and the ORTHODOX HIV-aholic believers, are proven to be in error in continuing to promote that HIV is the cause of AIDS.

    Bauers latest book shows you to perhaps be brainwashed by having heard the slogan: “HIV, The Virus That Causes AIDS” perhaps one too many times, without having bothered to educate yourself as to the many and horrendous flaws in believing such.

    Now it is not MY JOB to educate you as to the reasons why you are still of the mistaken belief that HIV is the cause of AIDS. It is YOUR JOB to educate yourself. For this very reason, Dr. Bauer has written a NEW BOOK, that just came out about four months ago, titled “The Origins, Persistence, and FAILINGS of HIV/AIDS”.

    Undoubtedly Mbeki has read this one as well as some of the other 30 books that have been written by scientists, including leading Nobel Laureates and Mathematicians, showing over and over and over that the belief that HIV is the cause of AIDS is WRONG. Is there some part of that that YOU do not understand? Is there some intelligent reason that YOU HAVE FAILED to educate yourself as to what the thousands of dissident scientists and doctors have said, and WHY they say it?

    Mbeki is the ONLY leader of state to have fully educated himself on both sides of the issue. Mandela is the ONLY national health department director to have educated herself on the issue. And while you and many others are quite welcome to remain ignorant of the dissident evidence, and you are quite welcome to believe anything you like, that does not mean that the very educated people are wrong, who happen to believe other than what you and the other uneducated masses believe.

    I am a gay man. I have been out in the gay community since 1978. I know the American AIDS affected. I know what they died from. It was not from HIV. And for your information sir, the vast majority of American AIDS deaths were from 1987 to 1995. The very same years of High Dosage AZT Monotherapy. Those taking this poison lived an average of 8 months to 1-1/2 years.

    Now you might tell me that the newer drugs are better. They are NOT BETTER sir. They simply kill more slowly. The leading cause of death in American HIV positives since AZT monotherapy ended in 95, has been liver failure directly related to those who take the more current drugs. Liver failure is NOT due to a virus, but due to toxins. This had been verified in 2002 by Dr. Amy Justice, who looked at 5700 American HIV positive deaths to find out the leading cause of death. She found it to be LIVER FAILURE ever since the new drugs came out. She presented this at the 2002 Barcelona AIDS conference, and it was promptly ignored and swept under the table.

    May I ask if you sir, are a homophobe, in that you do not think the poisoning of more than 300,000 gay men by AZT is newsworthy or of any importance?

    And you wonder why Mbeki did NOT WANT his people taking it? Are you rascist as well, in that you would like to see the uneducated blacks in Africa taking this poison?

    I find it most ironic that YOU, the blogger who recommended Henry Bauers book to set Mbeki straight, when the recommended book’s author happens to agree with–or even go further than–Mbeki in denying the HIV=AIDS connection!
    4. What are you talking about? Says:
    August 16th, 2007 at 4:37 am

    Marcus, Please remember what you were just telling your readers in your own last post:

    “The world of medicine and health is rife with vested interests – sometimes it is personal, some times it is cultural, and almost always it is financial”.

    Perhaps you might consider repeating your own words to yourself over again until you understand how they apply to HIV/AIDS and all of the fast tracked HIV drugs that have been sped through with almost zero oversight due to the hype and hysteria of the words “Global epidemic”.

    And just to que you in, on what it is you think you know about HIV/AIDS:

    Perhaps you do not recall the years just before AIDS. Anita Bryant began to rouse the heterosexual community in her rants against gays. Millions supported her. Shortly thereafter, Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell and the entire “moral majority” joined in. By the late 70’s, the hatred for homos was picking up a lot of steam. College students were wearing shirts saying “kill a queer” and “bury a fairy”. There was even a movement to instill the death penalty for homosexuals that gained a lot of backers.

    Well, as a gay man, I, and every other young gay, got the message quite clearly. I was seen by the hetero majority as less than, and as a thing to be despised. Many gays came from these homophobic families. And many thousands were disowned by their families for simply being gay. And these men suffered extreme emotional problems. Depression, drug and sex addiction to escape from the emotional pain and depression of anxiety, self loathing, shame, guilt, and fear. Drugs and sex and more drugs to escape the painful feelings of being gay in a world that hated gays. Followed by std’s and lots of antibiotics.

    Eventually a lot of these gays sickened physically. Not from HIV, but from the result of intense emotional stress and from depression, and drug addiction, poor diets, and antibiotics overuse, shame, guilt, and fear, and most of all from the broken hearts suffered by many many thousands who found themselves rejected by their own families, friends, churches, and society. Many thousands even eventually had serious death wishes from all of the stress.

    And of course, the greatest stressor of ALL is the diagnosis of HIV or AIDS in and of itself. The very diagnosis is so stressful that many of the diagnosed needed to be carried out of the doctors office upon receiving this death hex of a diagnosis. The intense panic and fear and neverending hysteria that many are subjected to in such a diagnosis, puts their bodies immediately into a state of greatly lowered immune function due to the stress and panic alone.

    Now, Marcus. Now you know what AIDS is. It is stress. It is internalized homophobia and a desire for self destruction. It is the physical result of stress causing the lowering of the function of the thymus gland which oversees immune function.

    In Africa, the population has doubled every 25 years since 1950. It doubled from 1950 to 1975, and doubled again right through the AIDS “epidemic”. The population explosion in these undeveloped countries is LETHAL. There are vast slums where millions live in hopeless and helpless poverty. Poor nutrition, dirty water, poor hygiene, and lives of perceived hopelessness and helplessness. The leading cause of death is Tuberculosis, which is 80 percent of reportable illness in Mbeki’s South Africa. It is the leading cause of death for the last 50 years. TB is also WELL KNOWN and PROVEN to cause HIV tests to show positive. Furthermore, in Africa only a single Elisa test is given to diagnose HIV. This alone would get an American doctor disbarred from practicing medicine were he to apply this standard to Americans. That is not to say the other HIV tests are accurate, because they are not. There are more than 60 factors that are known, and proven, and listed in science journals as causing false positives on ALL HIV tests. This, Marcus, is the reality of AIDS in Africa. It is a direct result of the stresses involved in living there in such helpless hopeless Africa.

    Mbeki knows this full well, even if YOU and ALL of America and All of the west choose to ignore it or remain uneducated and complacent over it. However, even if the entire world goes on ignoring it, their ignorance does NOT change the facts.

    Yours,
    Michael A Geiger
    Board of Directors
    HEAL San Diego
    5. Karl Says:
    August 16th, 2007 at 12:42 pm

    Hmm… Marcus Low. When you you decide that Mbeki does not understand how science works, I guess it entails you do?

    I don’t know what you think is so hard to grasp about scinece filters such as peer review that a university educated economist and president of a country should have trouble understanding it. But it does look like you haven’t grasped the full meaning of the concept of a “filter”. You say:

    “Bauer admits that science has a significant social dimension. This
    basically has to do with the fact that you have to offer proof of your
    claims, and then others need to be able to double-check and so on.
    Peer-review is another part of this.

    He has this model of science working as a filter.”

    Mr. Low, here’s another aspect of the social/political dimension of science filters taken from an abstract of one of Henry Bauer’s essays available on his website. Now tell me if this is all new and surprising to you, because if it is, maybe you had better ask president Mbeki for a few basic lessons in the reality of scientific research:

    “Minority views on technical issues are largely absent from the
    public arena. Increasingly corporate organization of science has led to
    knowledge monopolies, which, with the unwitting help of uncritical mass
    media, effect a kind of censorship. Since corporate scientific organizations also control the funding of research, by denying funds for unorthodox work they function as research cartels as well as knowledge monopolies. A related aspect of contemporary science is commercialization.”
    6. Karl Says:
    August 16th, 2007 at 12:50 pm

    oopss the last quote got cut short, sorry. Notice what it says about peer review in the new bit:
    “Minority views on technical issues are largely absent from the
    public arena. Increasingly corporate organization of science has led to
    knowledge monopolies, which, with the unwitting help of uncritical mass
    media, effect a kind of censorship. Since corporate scientific organizations also control the funding of research, by denying funds for unorthodox work they function as research cartels as well as knowledge monopolies. A related aspect of contemporary science is commercialization.
    Science is now altogether different from the traditional disinterested search, by self-motivated individuals, to understand the world. What national andinternational organizations publicly proclaim as scientific information is not safeguarded by the traditional process of peer review. Society needs new arrangements to ensure that public information about matters of science will be trustworthy.”
    7. marcuslow Says:
    August 16th, 2007 at 8:22 pm

    There are a few things to respond to here, so I’ll take it from the top:

    The fact that I find Bauer’s book Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method to be a very good and very insightful book certainly does not mean I automatically agree with anything else he says. Neither does it mean he has a monopoly on certain ideas on how science works.

    I will however try to get hold of his new book and post a review of it on this site.

    On the question of vested interests, I admit that pharmaceutical companies do have great influence, at times possibly even inappropriate influence over government or international organizations. But exactly the same could be said for certain vitamin salesman.

    I suspect that a key difference in how we see things has to do with the extent to which we trust institutions like the FDA, peer reviewed journals, etc to remain sufficiently immune to these influences.

    And, even though there have been some legitimate questions over the FDA’s independence over the last few years, I contend that the FDA as well as most leading journals nevertheless do a reasonable job of weeding out bad science. Consider e.g. the way in which Vioxx was forced from the US market at enormous cost to Merck.

    That is not to say that the system works perfectly, but there are enough such examples to suggest that it is working reasonably well. I would however agree that a more independent FDA and an increase in publicly funded research would be desirable.

    As I said earlier, the system certainly is not perfect, but it is undoubtedly the best we have.

    To believe that HIV does not cause Aids, is not only to reject the overwhelming majority of research that is out there, it is also to postulate a kind of mass conspiracy, or at the very least, to suggest that most leading researchers at reputable institutions are either incompetent or ignorant. Put another way, it would be to believe that the filter is broken.

    The filter may not be perfect, but it certainly isn’t broken.
    8. Karl Says:
    August 16th, 2007 at 9:28 pm

    Marcus,

    Here’s your argument:

    1. Hugely powerful pharmaceutical “research cartels” (Bauer) might at times have inappropriate influence over political decison making, but one could allege the same about, say, one vitamin salesman, so that probably evens out in the end. Ergo the science filter is working. . .

    2. If there are no scandals a la Vioxx, it means the science filter is working. If there are plenty scandals like Vioxx it means the science filter is working and busy self-correcting. Ergo nothing would prove to you the science filter isn’t working. . . (Read Bauer will ya: irrepressably many deaths and/or lawsuits is what weeds out stuff like Vioxx, not the FDA. The FDA screwed its repsonsibility in allowing it onto the market in the first place.)

    3. The last one you cribbed from Moore and Wainberg, which makes one wonder. . . Anyway, science is a long history of mistakes and mistaken beliefs. Why would this particular one be different and necessarily involving large scale conspiracy? Other than that you simply restate your belief expressed in 1. and 2. with an empty, wishy-washy “the system is not perfect but it isn’t broken”. Just listen to yourself Marcus:

    “I admit that pharmaceutical companies do have great influence, at times possibly even inappropriate influence over government or international organizations” (. . .) there have been some legitimate questions over the FDA’s independence over the last few years”. . . but the fllter isn’t broken, HIV causes AIDS, and anti-retrovirals is the sine qua non in dealing with immune deficiency.

    So, Marcus, why not get your hands dirty and show us exactly what is wrong and unscientific about Mbeki’s or Duesberg’s criticism of the HIV/AIDS construct, apart from the self-evident fact that they “reject (the premisses/conclusions of) most of the research in the area”. That is, as you would know, merely the definition of any dissident position, hardly constitutive of an argument against it – unless you want to say that being in opposition to the majority automatically disqualifies Mbeki’s position.
    Is that what you want to say?
    9. Richard Jefferys Says:
    August 16th, 2007 at 10:35 pm

    Hi Marcus, I’m afraid you’re learning that while peer review does a reasonable job of filtering the work of fraudulent cranks from the scientific literature, it sure can’t keep them away from blogs. Michael Geiger claims high dose AZT was used until 1995 (or 1997, depending what mood he’s in). In fact, the dose was reduced from 1500mg to 600mg at the beginning of 1990 when the FDA changed the labeling. Geiger then has to explain why people receiving AZT and two other drugs do better clinically and survive far longer than people receiving the same dose of AZT monotherapy – he can’t, of course. People receiving more drugs should do worse, according to the denialists. According to a recent Danish population-based study, someone infected with HIV at 25 can now expect to live another 39 years:

    http://jac.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/60/3/461

    Geiger’s organization, HEAL San Diego, has at least two testimonials on their web site from denialists who have since died, including Scott Zanetti who died in 2002.

  14. MacDonald Says:

    Y’all have to excuse Karl who keeps asking me to double post his mail to Low Blow Marcus here. He says it’s because he keeps being put on “awaiting moderation” hold, and if some of yous are gonna compose in the meantime, it would be better to know what’s already said.
    Karl says that if the blog host deletes these mesages from him as soon as they go up at Marcus’, or when the blog host himself publishes the whole thread here for reference, he shall not hear a single unkind word about censorship or anything else.

    To Jefferys, Marcus:

    “The [WHO 2006] recommended AZT dose for African infants and small children is the same per kg of body weight as the original high-dose AZT that is widely acknowledged to have killed an entire generation of grown men”.

    http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/2007/01/the_whos_bluepr_1.html

    As for Mr. Marcus, who still prefers to let others speak for him while he confines himself yet again to pointing out that HIV=AIDS is a minority position as if this were an argument in itself, I’ll return the favor and link the rebuttals to his NIAID link:

    http://healtoronto.com/nih/

  15. Truthseeker Says:

    Karl says that if the blog host deletes these mesages from him as soon as they go up at Marcus’, or when the blog host himself publishes the whole thread here for reference, he shall not hear a single unkind word about censorship or anything else.

    The blog host cannot fathom this instruction completely without two more cups of coffee, so we simply state that as far as we are concerned, the more widely such bullseye points are published the better. In fact let’s state the first one in plain English. The level of AZT that evidently polished off 300,000 or some large number of terrified, masochistic, sheeplike gays in the US in the late eighties is to be fed into the mouths of babes in Africa, so that the paradigm can be promulgated and all can collect their slice of the $30 billion pie that Bush has baked to redeem his otherwise discredited Presidency, etc.

    For fear of alienating readers by sounding too sensationalist and extreme, all we can say is that this sounds somewhat uncalled for.

  16. MacDonald Says:

    Fair enough, fair enough. The readers can always skip a certain post if they think they’ve seen it before I guess.

    But isn’t it a little harsh to say that all who fell for the HIV/AIDS propaganda back in the eighties were sheepish? They could after all not know as much, or have as much access (internet etc.) as we do now.

  17. Truthseeker Says:

    Your good points bear repetition repetition repetition – the more the better. Especially to the sheep.

    Is it harsh to wish that those whose lives are at stake would have listened to those who go out of their way to alert them to double check the treatment their doctors advise?

    There is something masochistic and fatalistic and thus self condemning about such deafness in at least some people who were otherwise so proud of themselves and their uninformed opinions. They were so busy emphasizing their new found freedom to think for themselves and live according to their own lights that they forgot to do it to save themselves.

    But yes one blames the leaders who assumed the role of thinking for them and led them over the brink. Larry Kramer comes to mind. Then there was the numbskull Tony something who wrote “Angels in America”. And on and on. Ending with Jefferys and Noble, possibly, though perhaps they are too obviously sold out mouthpieces to have any leadership status.

    One would think that the dynamic and mentally alert gay community were the last crowd to sell a bill of goods to, but apparently pride cometh before a fall – into the grave.

  18. MacDonald Says:

    It seems the thread has disappeared for good over at Marcus Low Blow, so it was after all wise of Karl and the harsh blog host to preserve it to the last letter here.
    I can only assume that reading about WHO’s health plans for African children was too much even for Marcus’ and Jefferys’ iron stomachs. The legendary erstwhile executive editor of YBYL did prefix following warning to the heroic souls determined on skimming this Necronomicon of modern medicine.

    I will warn the brave of heart and strong of stomach, however, that you are about to enter a world of bureaucratic language hell that puts George Orwell to shame. A hell in which some of the most toxic drugs ever legally synthesized are authoritatively touted as life prolonging medicines

  19. Truthseeker Says:

    Oh dear are we still counted as harsh? Well, maybe you are right to discount the culpability of the sheeplike walk into the AZT chambers of the 300,000 as understandable in the circumstances, since there was so much propaganda from the officials and scientists in charge that it would be hard to flout their authority or even think it worthwhile to double check it amid the one-sided cacophony. But there were plenty who fought better advice as if they were defending their fathers or priests.

    And now we see censorship extends even to an uninformed blogger, though perhaps he is reassessing privately. The real problem is the Wikipedia, which according to Dean Esmay who is a fully paid up editor there with a thousand corrections to his credit, it is useless to try and correct the AIDS entries since there are numerous paid goons including presumably Jefferys and Noble who take out any improvement in a flash. That’s the raison d’etre of the AIDS Wiki, a beacon of illuminating truth and accuracy in a world of bent information.

  20. Michael Says:

    TS, I do understand the feelings of anger due to apathetic frustration from the inability to “wake up the walking dead” that lie beneath and within the labeling of these people as “sheep”.

    I myself have felt that way so many times. The only thing that gets me beyond it, is my own understanding and experience as a gay man that has shown me how easy it is to become one of the sheepish.

    And I do think that only by understanding the extenuating circumstances, can we go beyond our anger and apathy, to a place of tolerance and acceptance and understanding. As I have myself grown from having been one of those sheep, to become more of a shepherd of the flock, I am able to give a more complete understanding to those interested in such.

    To fully understand, one must look back at human history. Back thousands of years when it had been written in the “Book of Leviticus” that any man who sleeps with another man as he would with a woman is an abomination unto God, and should be stoned to death.

    Herein lies the ancient beginnings of the programming of society to condemn gays to death. And do remember that in the early life of most gay men, there was often a child who was programmed to believe that the words of the Bible are the words of their creator, and therefore are Ultimate Truth. So a child exposed to such religiosity and ancient dogma, who grew up to find himself gay, must therefore condemn himself to death. Certainly, the societal precursors to the gay epidemic of death, put the fuel to the fire and set it alight. Gays were just beginning to seek equal rights and freedom from persecution in the few short years before the Concept of Death by AIDS began. The religious right and “moral majority” made a huge societal impact in stirring up hatred and loathing for gays, and further stirred self hatred and self loathing in the gays themselves. Every Sunday for many years you could tune in any of the evangelists on your 3 channels of television, and hear for yourself the condemnation of homosexuals.

    This condemnation became internalized. Homosexual sex was something to be deeply ashamed of. The struggle for self acceptance of gays for their very own selves was exceedingly painful for many. The result was drug and sex addiction as well as acceptance of the ancient curse of death for a few of the most deeply shame based gays.

    And there you have it. People programmed for death, until they awaken to the highest truth, as we ALL hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    And the struggle to attain these truths continues through-out the world to this day. And the struggle is not always with others in the external aspects of ones world, but more often, is a deeply personal struggle within ones very own soul and within ones very own sense of being.

  21. cervantes Says:

    Dear Fellow Contributors, It may be informative and useful to all if I point out a few checkable references that over the last 3 years I have supplied to Dr. Harvey Bialy (whence his inclusion on Barnesworld), Barrister Anthony Brink (hopefully helpful to his World Court Case), David Crowe (Head of Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society & new director at Rethinking Aids), and others – having spent much time digging the documents out of their cubby holes that the establishment had published but not really thought about regard content or consequences. To wit:

    1) WHO 2006 Antiretroviral Therapy of HIV Infection in Infants and Children in Resource Limited Settings; This (chilling) document cites the equivalent-adult AZT doses to infants and children of 1,500 to 2,000 mgs per day of AZT, nonstop forever (of course, this then is self-limiting to a few months). I might add this same dosage is still officially (astoundingly) advocated in U.S. protocols, and could be why the U.S. still has 50+ infants dying each year of “AIDS” whereas most all other Western countries are basically at zero infant AIDS mortality as they are much more cautious in this regard. My best educated guess is that U.S. caregivers, in fact, mainly eshew the official dose recommendations after hard, tragic experience.

    2) Dr Nicolei Lohse et al. in their Danish Study published by University of Southern Denmark, MOPE0310 AIDS 2006, not only states that “late-HAART” drugs (being changed and less toxic than “early-HAART” drugs (exemplified by Dr. Amy Justice et al. in her study showing 50% liver failure deaths due to early HAART) allow 39 years of continued life to a HIV+ 25 year old. Lohse also has in his study that a “No HAART” cohort resulted in even a lower mortality rate (MR) than those expected to live 39 years. This is downright stupifying, and I am in contact with Dr. Lohse to see if he will give clarification of this statistic (not amplified or explained) that is tantilizingly included, not hidden, nor commented upon. Check it out everybody. And, hold your breath.

    3) Regarding an earlier comment the FDA labeled AZT in 300 mg doses in 1990 and this was translated immediately into lower doses in practice; this I think is irrelevant as dose amounts allowed per pill have not much to do with the doctor’s actual prescribed amount per day (made up of one or many pills of 300 mgs each). More telling were two studies published NJM, Oct. 1990, by Dr. AC Collier et al., and Dr. MA Fischl et al., respectively citing that lowered-down AZT dosing, per day respectively, of 300 mg/day and 600 mg.day were “effective” at controlling HIV markers, and clearly were less toxic than the 1,500 mg/day. I submit, with many others, that it takes a few years for inertia to allow dose study awareness to get to the practicing doctors, and further, when the CDC expanded the definition of AIDS in 1993 to anybody who was HIV-antibody+ along with a low white blood cell count under 200 cells/microliter, the doubled numbers of potential patients now given even lowered-dose AZT kept the mortality (iatrogenic, of course) increasing for a few more years to about 1994-95, as data shows.

    Hopefully, this bit of data is useful for all concerned — Cervantes

  22. Michael Says:

    Well, this came as a surprise. I just found out that Marcus Low’s blog site is a South African site! I am glad we were able to help out Mbeki and hopefully all give this SA healthwriter something more to think about! It had to come as quite a blow that Henry Bauer just wrote a dissident book!

  23. Truthseeker Says:

    TS, I do understand the feelings of anger due to apathetic frustration from the inability to “wake up the walking dead” that lie beneath and within the labeling of these people as “sheep”.

    I myself have felt that way so many times. The only thing that gets me beyond it, is my own understanding and experience as a gay man that has shown me how easy it is to become one of the sheepish.

    And I do think that only by understanding the extenuating circumstances, can we go beyond our anger and apathy, to a place of tolerance and acceptance and understanding.

    Michael, well said. You have the only explanation for so many walking to their deaths against all the signs and efforts of some to enlighten them that we know of. How otherwise to explain that 300,000 people switched off their minds and committed suicide?

    However, let’s just say that while we appreciate your spiritually and philosophically Buddhist level of tolerance for humanity’s mistakes, and the fact that they usually seem to be based on and justified by arguments that this large bunch of suicidally authority-supine gays shouldn’t be picked on because gays need special understanding, and you show us why this is so, you have us a little wrong. We are not punishingly angry at these gays for behaving so self-defeatingly like arrogant sheep, and do not think they deserved to die because of it. But nor do we feel apathetic, which means to us lack of interest and response. We just feel annoyed at all these people who rejected the quite loud and well publicized counterpropaganda of Duesberg and his helpers. We have met some of the same type who take the currents “meds” and they are a fatheaded pain to deal with.

    We didn’t think they needed a special pass because they were gay, but you seem to explain why they do. It seemed to us that this was just human behavior which anyone can suffer from except the small proportion of people not born to be sheep. Most people are followers, and bow to authority in matters of technical expertise, especially medical. Gayness had nothing to do with our objection to their determined deafness, since we didn’t think that these guys as vulnerable and trusting patients were any different from straights that fell for it, gayness wasn’t involved except for the possibly (we think probably) anti gay feelings of this who perpetrated this poison on them. We only made a general observation in passing that gays we would expect to be less prone to sheeplike Kool-Aid drinking behavior than other groups in society because we imagine they would be usually more alert to social dangers emanating from the hidden interiors of other minds than most people are.

    If that is wrong you can correct us, we don’t know what a serious objective study might reveal, we were merely offering it as a reasonable possibility which fits with many gays we have dealt with in New York. Possibly others in the rest of America are less mentally alive than the Manhattan norm or those we have been exposed to, all that is mere speculation and journalistic generality as far as we are concerned and you may contradict it with your own experience, especially since you yourself are obviously an example of a gay who is a lot more alert to the dangers pf HIV∫AIDS fallacies than nearly all gays we have met here. Very few exceptions.

    But our perceived harsh attitude towards the gays who marched like automatons to their death with high doses of AZT that they swallowed in the belief that doctors were on top of the issue and that scientists were not misleading the media and the public as well as the medical community had nothing to do with the fact they were gay. In our view they were men who didn’t take responsibility for their own welfare presumably out of fright and panic and understandably put themselves in the hands of their misinformed doctors. We actually only blame them for not listening to people like Duesberg who sacrificed so much to tell them the truth, when only a few people like yourself did wake up and smell the coffee.

    However you point out how people who are battered internally by societal attitudes that punish them with shame and self loathing are in no condition to escape such paralysis from new and huge external pressures visited upon them by the HIV∫AIDS grim reaper fantasy and it seems to us that you have the only way of explaining how so many intelligent people were and are taken in. So that certainly makes the issue of being gay very relevant, yes. But it is still difficult to forgive them for being so disastrously agreed on how the drugs were going to save them and how Duesberg et al were not people to be listened to. After all we are not talking about children, so at some point one would hope people would take responsibility for what they believe and not strongly reject considering alternatives if their lives were at stake.

    But it seems to us that you are right and we are wrong, for you have the only explanation for this amazingly lemming like behavior among so many people. Not that we are sure of that 300,000 figure. It may be too high. But high or not the phenomenon of group suicide was so large – and still is – that we have no doubt your analysis of the internal damage that left so many so vulnerable must be right.

    Hopefully, this bit of data is useful for all concerned — Cervantes

    Wow, you are saying that they are feeding AZT to American babes too? Certainly relevant, Crevantes. Are we wrong to presume that most of these are black, too? Meanwhile that Lohse study nees to be examined to see how selective it was. Interesting if it has a group of HIV+ people without HAART that are doing so well they suggest HIV is inert.

  24. MacDonald Says:

    Cervantes,

    I link here to the Lohse et al. study. If you have a link to a freely accessible English version please post it.

    http://www.ugeskriftforlaeger.dk/LF/UFL/2007/26/pdf/VP51697.pdf

    The relevant part is the table shown on page 2. I’ll give some translations to help people through it:

    “Mortalitetsrate pr. 1.000 personÃ¥r Median restlevetid efter alderen 25 Ã¥r (95% konfidensintervaller)” [mortality rates per 1.000 person years median life expectancy after age 25 (95% confidence intervals)]

    “PersonÃ¥r” [person years] “Dødsfald” [deaths] “kvinder” [women] “mænd” [men]

    “HAART-periode” [HAART period] “ingen HAART” [no HAART] “Ã¥r” [years]

    “Tid siden diagnose” [time since diagnosis]

    “Hiv-patienter observeret i perioden” [patients observed in the period]

    Now the crux seems to be if the “ingen HAART” [no HAART] represents an independen cohort enrolled along with the rest, choosing to stay off the meds regardless of clinical status and observed for an equal length of time as the HAART group.

    If that is the case, is that group’s number of deaths supposed to be compared with the cumulative numbers for the next 4 columns to get the HAART vs. No HAART ratio?

    This is all obscure to me, especially since there doesn’t seem to be made allowance for any on and off the drugs individuals. It is highly unlikely that all these people either went on the drugs or stayed off them consistently.

    Furthermore, in the “Tid siden diagnose” [time since diagnosis] section all have been lumped together again, so it is impossible to see who was put on HAART immediately and who wasn’t and how it affected mortality.

    What say our professional stat readers TS and RH, before I pronounce this a deliberately obscure farma handjob designed to attribute all positive developments to
    the healing effects of HAART – which also shows no increase in deaths from side effect and drug resistance with time since commencement of drug treatment!

  25. MacDonald Says:

    Here are some further clues from the paper. The study,

    includes patients treated in one out of eight Danish HIV centers – whatever “treated” is supposed to mean.

    Further, We found no change in mortality from first to tenth year after the HIV diagnosis. In the late HAART period (2000-2005) the mortality rate was 26 (CI: 19-34) in the first two years after the diagnosis, 17 (CI: 12-24) in third and fourth year, 18 (CI: 13-25) in fifth and sixth year, 21 (CI: 15-29) in seventh and eighth year, 17 (CI 11-25 in ninth and tenth year after diagnosis.

    In other words, it seems if patients survive the initial shock of their HIV+ diagnosis they stand a better chance of survival. Notice also there is no increase or other signs of a bell shaped curve of mortality. One stands the very same chance of surviving the tenth year as the third into one’s HIV diagnosis. So there goes the progressive decline of health (HIV disease) theory of AIDS.

    The very next paragraph:

    Among patients treated with HAART mortality was highest in the first year of treatment, 48 (CI: 40-57), decreasing to 27 (CI: 22-32) in second and third year to 26 (CI: 21-32) in fourth and fifth year, and 26 (CI: 21-31) from sixth year onwards on HAART) Mortality was even lower among certain sub-groups receiving treatment in the late HAART period (2000-2005).

    We can add to the above observations that patients seem to stand a better chance of survival if they get past the initial shock of the diagnosis AND the initial shock of being put on drugs (maybe they learn to flush them).

    Since we cannot know exactly when the patients are put on HAART, how many interrupt the treatment, or how many stay off them altogether, it’s impossible to say if the standard Chris Noble objection that patients are only put on drugs when they reach the “advanced AIDS” stage and therefore naturally would have a much higher mortality, would have any legs here. So back to the table on p. 2 o professional stats readers.

  26. cervantes Says:

    The “late-HAART” dose constituents that have changed from the early-HAART seem to me to be the key to grasping what is happening. Early-HAART included Combivir (600 mg/day AZT and 300 mg/day of 3TC, plus 2,400 mg/day of protease inhibitors – all combining to cause high mortality rather quickly if patients were compliant, and as Amy Justice et al. documented 2002 at Barcelona with her stating 50% deaths due to liver/etc. failure, not “AIDS.” By the way the new one-a-day ATRIPLA totals only 1,100 mgs of various NNRTI’s and NRTI’s with no AZT at all, and no protease inhibitors; so the total failure of HAART has now been quietly swept under the rug by Fauci et al.

    Reading Lohse, the clues seem to indicate entirely different drugs, perhaps no AZT NRTI at all, and further, compliance is also not clarified as mentioned above. All in all, a rather uncontrolled study, yet without doubt pointing to less medication equals less mortality, and the No HAART mention stats even further revealing if this can be explained better.

  27. hhbauer Says:

    That Danish paper may be the same as they published in English:

    “Ann Intern Med. 2007 Jan 16;146(2):87-95.
    Links
    Summary for patients in:
    Ann Intern Med. 2007 Jan 16;146(2):I39.
    Survival of persons with and without HIV infection in Denmark, 1995-2005.
    Lohse N, Hansen AB, Pedersen G, Kronborg G, Gerstoft J, Sørensen HT, Vaeth M, Obel N.

    Department of Infectious Diseases, Odense University Hospital and University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. nl@dce.au.dk

    BACKGROUND: The expected survival of HIV-infected patients is of major public health interest. OBJECTIVE: To estimate survival time and age-specific mortality rates of an HIV-infected population compared with that of the general population. DESIGN: Population-based cohort study. SETTING: All HIV-infected persons receiving care in Denmark from 1995 to 2005. PATIENTS: Each member of the nationwide Danish HIV Cohort Study was matched with as many as 99 persons from the general population according to sex, date of birth, and municipality of residence. MEASUREMENTS: The authors computed Kaplan-Meier life tables with age as the time scale to estimate survival from age 25 years. Patients with HIV infection and corresponding persons from the general population were observed from the date of the patient’s HIV diagnosis until death, emigration, or 1 May 2005. RESULTS: 3990 HIV-infected patients and 379,872 persons from the general population were included in the study, yielding 22,744 (median, 5.8 y/person) and 2,689,287 (median, 8.4 years/person) person-years of observation. Three percent of participants were lost to follow-up. From age 25 years, the median survival was 19.9 years (95% CI, 18.5 to 21.3) among patients with HIV infection and 51.1 years (CI, 50.9 to 51.5) among the general population. For HIV-infected patients, survival increased to 32.5 years (CI, 29.4 to 34.7) during the 2000 to 2005 period. In the subgroup that excluded persons with known hepatitis C coinfection (16%), median survival was 38.9 years (CI, 35.4 to 40.1) during this same period. The relative mortality rates for patients with HIV infection compared with those for the general population decreased with increasing age, whereas the excess mortality rate increased with increasing age. LIMITATIONS: The observed mortality rates are assumed to apply beyond the current maximum observation time of 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: The estimated median survival is more than 35 years for a young person diagnosed with HIV infection in the late highly active antiretroviral therapy era. However, an ongoing effort is still needed to further reduce mortality rates for these persons compared with the general population.

    PMID: 17227932 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]”

    Their Table 3 for all cases shows higher mortality without HAART; however, for just 2000-2005 cases, it shows less mortality without HAART. It isn’t clear whether some “non-HAART” people may have been on AZT earlier.

    In any case, all the data are consonant with the Perth-Group-type interpretation that “HIV-positive” is a non-specific marker of exposure to some sort of health challenge rather than the presence of an illness-CAUSING virus

  28. yello Says:

    “It seems the thread has disappeared for good over at Marcus Low Blow”

    Cowardly rat-bastard….Not that I expect anything less from the real HIV/AIDS “denialists”.
    I’ve had my share of rebuttals and links “accidently” sent down the memory hole.

    “so it was after all wise of Karl and the harsh blog host to preserve it to the last letter here.”

    Thank you folks, I did see the original thread, why I didn’t save it….(bangs head against keyboard)

    “I can only assume that reading about WHO’s health plans for African children was too much even for Marcus’ and Jefferys’ iron stomachs.”

    Yeah, having that lickle tidbit posted on a pro HIV=AIDS paradigm site might be construed as a bit…disconcerning for the evil taxpayer-dollar frittering, .gov tit-sucking whores.Rat-bastards all.

    “The legendary erstwhile executive editor of YBYL did prefix following warning to the heroic souls determined on skimming this Necronomicon of modern medicine.”

    To the said warning and subsequent perusing I could only weep as I did with Liam Schiff’s expose of Incarnation.

  29. MacDonald Says:

    Dr. Bauer,

    It is the same paper. However the table given in the, apparently shortened (secondary), version I’ve been looking at is numbered 1. I don’t know if it is identical with table 3. in the English (primary) version.

    In any event, can you tell us how you read it? I see the number of No HAART deaths is greater than any of the following 4 HAART columns. However those columns are HAART deaths split up into 4 groups whereas No HAART is simply one column.

  30. hhbauer Says:

    I’m not sure I understand the protocols enough to be sure. But significant points seem to me:

    1. The mortality observed during 1995-96 was 124, for 1997-9 38, and 2000-5 25. Question: Had the 1996-7 group, and perhaps some of the 1997-9, been on AZT previously? Or on other ARVs?

    2. Of 22,000+, most (13,000+) were in the latest period. So the numbers in the first part of the table seem disproportionately influenced by the 1996-7 group’s mortality

    3. Among those, “No HAART” had a mortality rate of 22, much less than in 1st year HAART (43) and somewhat less–probably statistically not significant– than later years of HAART as well, namely 23, 24, 26.

    I can’t interpret the numbers for years after diagnosis because of apparent lack of info about what non-HAART treatments might have been adminstered

  31. hhbauer Says:

    P.S. I’ll be glad to send a copy of the pdf of the paper to anyone who requests it. I wasn’t able to copy the table into the Comment space as an image, and as a text table the formatting disappeared

  32. Michael Says:

    Regarding the Lohse study. Here is the greatest flaw in the study. It says:

    Among persons not co-infected with the hepatitis C virus (HCV), the median remaining lifetime in 2000–05 was 39 years (95% CI: 35–40 years), similar to that of a young person with diabetes.

    Well, boys and girls. Here’s the deal. Duesberg has often said that HCV is just as suspicious as HIV. Reasons: HCV seems to be in the exact same category as HIV, as a supposed virus that does not pass Kochs postulates, is not isolated, that is only found via a test similar to HIV tests, that health care workers NEVER get from their patients, wives NEVER GET from their husbands, and that ALWAYS affects those whose livers are intoxicated by substances. And health care workers get lots of Hep A and Hep B from patients, but for some mysterious reason, do not get Hep C!

    The HCV diagnosis simply seems to be picking up the factors of a liver that is deteriorating from toxicities.

    So back to the study. The study is simply ELIMINATING those whose livers have been toxed by the AIDS drugs. By eliminating these people, HAART can be looked at as very successful because the ones destroyed by HAART induced liver failure, are simply removed from the study and classified as HCV “infected”.

    What a brilliant way to keep from admitting that they poisoned the patients!

  33. Michael Says:

    Above, I meant to say: Duesberg has often said that Hepatitis C Virus is just as suspicious as HIV.

  34. cervantes Says:

    Thanks to all for having an interest in Lohse.

    The Lohse et al. study has tremendous ramifications, for several reasons from my viewpoint. First, is that Lohse actually has a no-drug category compared to those taking antiretroviral drugs (at what compliance who knows?). This, by itself, is stunning as it goes against all NIAID (read Fauci) and Pharma and FDA drug tests/trials the last 15-20 years, since Fauci’s world only comparably tests drug combinations (virtually all terribly toxic, no aspirin here), and long ago cast aside true placebos. Of course, their rationale is that since “HIV is invariably going to get you” then any testing with an innocuous placebo is immoral and unethical.

    Well, they have sold this Brooklyn Bridge successfully for 20+ years now, and it’s still selling I’m sorry to say. For instance, Dr. Joel Gallant et al. (Johns Hopkins doc, but a paid consultant to Gilead and GlaxoSmithKline) compared his ATRIPLA (the one-a-day) drugs to existing AZT-HAART, thus concluding ATRIPLA was less toxic, and now taken since July, 2006 as the prescription of choice here in the U.S. Of course, anything is/was less toxic than AZT-HAART, so gee, what a surprise. We can be sure Dr. Gallant is a bit compromised, but who’s paying attention at FDA and NIAID, or cares?

    Secondly, the fact that Lohse actually printed this No HAART group (as compared to doing it, and then not citing it, but keeping it under Fauci wraps), may indicate they are getting skeptical on the efficacy of any HAART regimens (more on this later).

    Third, it is super that there is interest on this blog in interpreting all the Lohse data/Charts, but I think Lohse Table 1 cuts to the chase, the Table 1 being MR (Mortality Rate) per 100 PYR (Person Years).

    Table 1 cites Males and Females in different Observed Groups, and cites all their MR’s. For Males, the “No HAART” number is 26 which is generally less/equal to the Drug-taking figure; but, even more striking is the Female “No HAART” MR stat of 15 that is significantly lower than all the other Female MR stats that are in the lower-20’s.

    Thus male mortality (MR) is not too different between late-HAART and No HAART, but female mortality is dramatically different, favoring the No-HAART.

    To put the icing on the cake, Lohse proceeds to conclude (let’s not ignore his conclusion because it is vital to showing HIV positivity is no longer fatal – and most never was as per the vast cast making this case, Duesberg et al.) that uncontrolled late-HAART participation (an excellent bet it being sporadic and “non-compliant”) allows 39 years of life to a 25 year old. AND, that those HIV-positives in this No HAART category have an MR either equal for males and strongly lower for females.

    It opens the door to “why take drugs that even their advocates print pages of toxic/fatal reactions?” – not to mention a life of 39 years of vomiting, malaise, jaundice, wasting, headaches – all a direct consequence of even the late-HAART drugs in Denmark?

    As an aside but pertinent, the latest issue of Physician’s Assistant cites a case in the U.S. of a sick emigrant “HIV positive” male given HAART drugs (per all the Fauci criteria), YET, none of the drugs included either AZT or protease inhibitors. So, this is again an excellent example of the medical world now knowing (but not admitting) all the lethality of the AZT and Early-HAART years comprising the immense dosing (including AZT in Combivir) I and others have cited earlier on this Blog (and that most others have known I’m sure, but it doesn’t hurt to put down actual milligram date, etc.)

  35. cervantes Says:

    Michael comments on Hepatitis C are spot on. Almost certainly a fabrication based on biological “markers” that are not a consequence of any actual virus, but from toxicity of other sorts, and thus bring about conditions that elicit a HEP-C positivity test, a test constructed to match a bell-curve created by Pharma chemists. Well, that’s their job.

  36. Truthseeker Says:

    The Lohse study is an excellent thing, because it contains – at last! – a control group. What does that control group tell us? That HAART doubled the fatalities! \

    Presumably Fauci at NIAID is asking top priority that the author of the study be gotten on the phone for a good talking to as soon as possible. This Dane appears not to have heard that the whole deal in HIV/AIDS studies is NEVER to have a control group, for fear of the inevitable embarrassment of showing just such a result.

    What’s wrong with this guy that he doesn’t know this? Must be buried in honest research circles away from real science at conferences etc.

  37. cervantes Says:

    The crux of the problem is: Gaining acceptance of “HIV-antibody positivity” (or high numbers of PCR-generated “hiv” rna” or a p24 antigen count) being indicative of biological conditions that MAY, or MAY NOT, be indicative of poor health (as pointed out by other bloggers here citing The Perth Group), or nothing at all, or just fabricated markers that are an enigma with so many having these test results being in perfect health. Thus the bizarre stretch and reach for some obscure event 5 – 15 years ago to tie someone to being “positive,” such an operation, or one-night stand at the Class Reunion, etc., that ties them to ‘exposure to Hiv.’

    Publicity of the falsity of ‘HIV-positivity’ being a fatal condition should rest on the shoulders of medical journals picking up the bones of the Lohse study, but only if any medical journals have guts to confront the Paradigm, thus far they have not. Anyway, would a second-rank journal be listened to, since NEJM*, JAMA*, and Nature* are also happily/blindly allied with Fauci? It sure won’t be the Pharmas putting out press releases, it sure won’t be NIAID, it sure won’t be CDC, for sure it won’t be Altman/New York Times or the Washington Post, and all the other papers who are in Fauci’s hip pocket.

    Harpers/Farber gave it the old college try 16 months ago and broached the whole ball of wax citing Duesberg’s positions, and maybe they are the ones to try again. Otherwise, a major U.S. newspaper seems to me to be the only entity to go to bat, but what top editor has the guts, relying on an expanded Lohse combined with the wealth of studies such as Padian, Gray et al. in Rakai, the deSouza pediatric study in Florida documenting a rare control group compared to AZT-takers (with AZT-takers resulting in 5-6 fold infant deaths compared to no AZT).

    So, can Truthseeker be the one with enough clout to have Harpers follow up their first article? Who has an “in” to Harpers? It would be a damn shame if only this Blog (and obscure others) stays aware of Lohse – without getting the word out.

    *Times and players change, of course, so maybe these journals have some new blood that is sick and tired of all the gigantic falsities of the HIV world, and would break ranks. Nobody I know, as I toil away in the obscure land of patents relating to medical technology.

  38. cervantes Says:

    Pardon everybody, but I am still laughing at my last entry after reviewing it, and all its cliches. What the hell, they are appropriate regardless!

  39. Truthseeker Says:

    Pardon everybody, but I am still laughing at my last entry after reviewing it, and all its cliches. What the hell, they are appropriate regardless!

    Pardon us, Cervantes, but we are baffled by this meta remark – your exemplary comment is not spoiled by cliches at all. Of course this is because the cliches are apt, the whole point is that we have been reiterating the utterly obvious and routine based on unchangeable human nature for years in the face of voluntary myopia, induced by the Fauci meme which paralyzes the intellectual retina into a kind of blindness when presented with the obvious eg antibodies get rid of agents, so they are not going to transmit via infection, so of course HIV antibody positivity cannot transmit, so cannot be causing a pandemic, epidemic or any other -emic except maybe a chemic and a memic ie the spread of the meme itself, and there can be no reason for censorship and no reason for neglecting control groups and no reason for J.P. Moore to call up university administrators and try to get honest professors fired for reviewing HIV and no reason for everyone to fail to support Duesberg’s NIH grant applications for two decades except one reason and one reason only, and that is we are dealing with panic politics protecting a putrid but profitable paradigm.

    As we announced to a surprisingly receptive audience at a Park Avenue dinner tonight when the topic of scientific ethics and David Baltimore came up this is the Worldcom of science just as oncogenes are the Enron of science, arising from the systematization of vocational science into a lying machine that subverts the truth to such an extent that even familiar objects look alien and those who like to write original descriptions are reduced to cliches because there is nothing clever or original about what we are dealing with, it is just lying wrapped up in nonsense transparent to the least tutored newspaper reader if only he/she thinks about what he/she is swallowing – namely, a world pandemic of antibodies.

    Are we exaggerating? Anyhow, no sweat, we will write a post and otherwise exploit Lohse to the hilt. How amusing that the drug money funded Jefferys drew our attention to this sublime work which illuminates the dark corners of the real scene like a burst of flares above the desert sand at night.

  40. Baby Pong Says:

    Michael, your insight about the Hep C being used by the researchers to siphon off ARV liver damage cases, is really brilliant. Now it might be a good exercise to revisit other similar studies to see if the same or other deceptions have been used before.

    The problem with using this as a sledgehammer to pummel the Aids religionists, however, is that it all comes back to the “discredited” scientist Duesberg. He is the one who claims that Hep C doesn’t exist (maybe there are others who agree, too?) and so it will be easy for them to just ridicule the claim as another of Duesberg’s crackpot ideas and shout “conspiracy theory!” (Or the sardonic variation, “Yes, it’s all a big conspiracy!”)

    In that case, the question can be raised, but why are you controlling for Hep C cases but not other diseases? Do studies on other diseases use the same convenient method to mask unfavorable results? I rather suspect that they do, because all of medical research is corrupt, not just the Aids part.

    Anyway, great insight. They should give out prizes for lightbulbs like that.

    Now the medical researchers just need to come up with a heart attack virus that ARV users can be co-infected with. Then ARVs can be demonstrated to be even more effective at extending life.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Bad Behavior has blocked 1246 access attempts in the last 7 days.