BUYING THIS BOOK WILL HELP TREAT PEOPLE WITH HIV IN AFRICA!!

BUYING THIS BOOK WILL HELP TREAT PEOPLE WITH HIV IN AFRICA!!
Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy

Seeking Stories of AIDS Denialism

Have you or someone you know been harmed by AIDS Denialism? If you, or someone you care about, have been advised to stop taking HIV meds, ignore HIV test results, purchase a 'natural' cure etc., please email me.

aidsandbehavior@yahoo.com

All information will be kept confidential.

Saturday, May 9, 2009

Court Jester: Celia Farber’s New Libel Suit Against Treatment Action Group





Published in New York Post, May 9, 2009

UPDATE: also see Courthouse News Service, includes the time stamped County Clerk summons.

AFTER years of being attacked by a faction of the AIDS pharmaceutical/research community, journalist Celia Farber is fighting back with a libel suit. Farber's lawyers filed a 21-page libel complaint this week in Manhattan Supreme Court accusing Richard Jefferys, of the Treatment Action Group, of orchestrating a campaign against her last May when she was given the Semmelweis Clean Hands Award for Outstanding Investigative Journalism for an article she wrote in Harper's in 2006, "AIDS and the Corruption of Medical Science."


The Harpers article gave credence to the work of Peter Duesberg, who believes HIV is a harmless "passenger" virus and not the cause of AIDS, and questioned the value of expensive antiretroviral drugs. Jefferys and his team blitzed the Semmelweis Society with e-mails claiming Farber had altered quotes and falsely misrepresented scientific papers.

The Semmelweis Society, in turn, launched its own investigation, and concluded the AIDS industry itself has all the characteristics of a multibillion-dollar criminal enterprise that desperately needed whistleblowers. Farber, the daughter of talk legend Barry Farber, kept her award, though the battle to rescind it garnered fresh attacks, in which she was likened to Pol Pot, Stalin, Mengele, David Irving, David Duke and O.J. Simpson.

The former Spin columnist recently launched a new literary Web site called the Truth Barrier, with former New York Press editor John Strausbaugh. In appreciation for her work on AIDS, the artist Robert Crumb submitted an original drawing and a hand-written three-page letter expressing his despair over what he believes is the distortion of the AIDS story.

"Actually, Crumb's letter was too true even for the Truth Barrier," says Farber. "I redacted it. I don't want these pharma-bullies attacking him next."

61 comments:

  1. Well now we know why she is begging for donations at her Truth Barrier site!
    What a joke! Here is another example of the lack of realism in the lives of these denialists!
    The orthodox needs to take her example and file a lawsuit against Duesberg and Re-Thinking AIDS for their role in persuading Mbeki to kill 300,000 of his own people!
    JTD

    ReplyDelete
  2. Celia Farber is a piece of work.
    JTD, Duesberg and Rasnick are linked to Mbeki's HIV testing and treatment policies. Watch for efforts to bring them up on charges of crimes against humanity in the International Court. Stay tuned.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "The orthodox needs to take her example and file a lawsuit against Duesberg and Re-Thinking AIDS for their role in persuading Mbeki to kill 300,000 of his own people!"

    Good luck! Such a case would require that Mbeki was proven to have killed even a single person. Just how did he or Dr. Duesberg kill them? Through a conspiracy of Mind control?

    After all, there is not even a single hiv drug that has ever been verified to save even a single life because none have ever been compared to placebo along with actual treatments for any actual presented disease. But all of the fast tracked, FDA black labeled, so far approved drugs are verified

    As every one of the aids drugs are verified to be connected to fatal events, a world court finding might just end up backfiring, and aligning Mbeki and Duesberg to recieving international awards for having saved many lives from being poisoned by verified to often be toxic aids drugs.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Any proof that Hitler actually personally killed anyone? Did Jim Jones kill anyone? Did George Bush water-board a single person? Common Michael, Mbeki is responsible for those 350,000 senseless deaths, and the 30,000 needlessly infected babies. I was there. I saw. If you want more detail on how Duesberg and his henchmen as well as the Perthians directly influenced Mbeki and Manto read Nicoli Nattrass’ book “Mortal Combat” and a new book by Kerry Cullinan “The Virus, Vitamins, and Vegetables”. No shortage of documentation and evidence for these crimes against humanity.

    And Michael, do I even have to say that there are thousands of antiretroviral clinical trials that have compared various regimens, with some demonstrating greater clinical benefits than others. Drug comparison designs are stronger than placebo designs, especially when greater efficacy is observed in the comparison. Please stop spitting out the same old tired denialist garbage. It insults our intelligence.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Seth,
    Do you now see the difference b/w the Real Geiger above (note lack of humor; drone like tendency of spouting nonsense), as opposed to the fake Geiger on the other thread? The other Geiger has a sense of humor...not a very good one, but a sense of humor non-the-less.
    JTD

    ReplyDelete
  6. JTD, the problem with the Internet is anyone can pose as anyone. We already know that David Crowe has never been proven to exist. How can you trust that anyone is who they say they are? Ask Henry Bauer about it.

    But here is the thing.

    Who cares?

    The AIDS Denialists might as well all be one person because they have no original ideas. Everything they say is all as old as Peter Duesberg, and I can tell you that we are talking pretty crusty.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Hitler actually personally killed anyone? Did Jim Jones kill anyone? Did George Bush water-board a single person?"

    Seems to me to be a bit of difference in the cases you use. Hitler gave direct orders to kill. So did Jim Jones. So did George Bush.

    Mbeki is easily off the hook because his own intentions were to "save lives", regardless of whether his decisions were correct or incorrect.

    And as for your: "Common Michael, Mbeki is responsible for those 350,000 senseless deaths, and the 30,000 needlessly infected babies", the only evidence is the statistics study done by assumptions of guilt, not by direct evidence, orchestrated by Max Essex who stated the conclusions of his study as if it were a fact.

    Considering that Max Essex is known for attempts to discredit Peter Duesberg, since long before the words HIV or AIDS were in existence, we have nothing but full evidence here of the study being nothing more than wishful thinking and twisted statistics used by Essex in his 30 year old campaign to discredit Peter Duesberg. Though it may be useful as propaganda to stir up anti-Duesberg sentiments, whose name is prominently mentioned in the study, lending further evidence to what I have just written. The piece by Essex is hardly anything that could be used as court evidence, now is it?

    And as for Max Essex, did you know he was the one to first promote that a retrovirus was the cause of AIDS?

    Did you know that he invented, patented, and made quite a fortune from a vaccination to protect cats from a retrovirus?

    Strange, how after the millions his lab has gone through in 25 years, he has been unable to create a simple vaccine for human retrovirus! Or is it strange, and not simply a pattern of deception by Max Essex, the veterinarian turned leading hiv researcher, next to importance in hiv research to Bob Gallo. Yet the name Essex is barely known to most, because he himself has yet to produce any science. No wonder, he has been far too busy slandering, libeling, and attempting to discredit Peter Duesberg.

    Perhaps there are more court cases to come. Though it may surprise you they will most likely not be against Peter Duesberg nor Thabo Mbeki.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I_Question_My_Own_ExistenceMay 9, 2009 at 7:08 PM

    Mr. Kalichman stated, "Mbeki is responsible for those 350,000 senseless deaths, and the 30,000 needlessly infected babies. I was there. I saw." Wow, this just gets better every time I log on. Since my random statitsics-generator is on the fritz, do you mind if I just borrow yours for a moment. Beep! OK, yea 350,000 deaths sure does seem real, especially now that I know you SAW it! And you SAW babies specifically infected by Mbeki? Does he get around or what? Man, what a stud. When you were there, did you also see any OTHER reasons why people might exhibit the symptoms of immunosuppression? Dirty water, TB, Malaria, malnutrition perhaps? Did you convince them that all of their health problems are caused by a lack of toxic medications which can be easily remedied if they just convince Bono to get the everyone to hold a worldwide, Big-Pharma Bake Sale™? Then, when they started taking the drugs that you profit from, did they suddenly have clean water to drink and nutritious food to eat? Wait for it....BEEP! Yep, my random statistics-generator agrees!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Wow, who let the nuts out?

    “Seems to me to be a bit of difference in the cases you use. Hitler gave direct orders to kill. So did Jim Jones. So did George Bush.”

    So did Thabo Mbeki.

    Ever meet Manto? I did. No one has ever called her a woman of strong will. More than a couple misfiring pistons in there, bless her heart. How can anyone deny that Mbeki called the shots on his Denialist policies?

    With the ANC apologizing for Mbeki, the South African epidemic spinning out of control, no love from current President Zuma to protect records, and the ground swell of anger in South Africa, watch for an indictment soon.

    One of my favorite AIDS Denialist hits is when you deny the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa. You make it so that a 6 year can understand the similarities between you and Holocaust Deniers.

    Keep em coming!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Again this highlights the danger of group think.

    The Rethunking AIDS response to the errors in the Harpers' piece is a barrel of laughs.

    http://www.rethinkingaids.com/GalloRebuttal/Farber-Gallo-38.html

    Farber started with the false claim that AZT is a DNA chain terminator that indiscriminately kills all cells.

    The RA response (that supposedly shows that Farber is correct) alleges that AZT is not triphosphorylated and thus can't possibly indiscriminately kill all cells.

    Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This is what David Crowe said directly to me about AZT not being triphosphorylated.

    He did not say AZT does not indiscriminately kills cells. He said it cannot insert itself into the DNA chain. Well, maybe not cell DNA buy probably mitochondria DNA.

    I think if you take his statement apart bit by bit you will see why Mr. Crowe is so smart he can tear down PhDs and MDs without ever having advanced beyond his own BA in Science/Math. When you as smart as Crowe you don’t need an education.


    David Crowe: "Essentially the problem is that nucleoside analogs, such as AZT, which are the backbone of antiretroviral therapy, are not ready to be inserted into the DNA chain, they are nucleosides, not nucleotides.

    A nucleotide has a single phosphate attached to it, but to be inserted into the DNA chain, three phosphates (hence triphosphorylation) must be attached, of which two are recovered.

    So if AZT is to be effective, then it must be triphosphorylated. The problem is that the evidence is that only a tiny fraction (less than 1/100th) is triphosphorylated. This means that AZT CANNOT be effective by its proposed means of action?

    Does this mean that AZT cannot be toxic? No, because toxicity may be by means other than its supposed means of therapeutic action, such as by depleting the available pool of phosphates in the cell. You see, AZT is reasonably efficiently mono-phosphorylated, meaning that a whole bunch of molecules will be sucking up phosphates, the energy currency of the cell, like a sponge.

    Plus, even a small amount of DNA disruption may be damaging, especially to the mitochondria that have their own DNA and lack the DNA repair mechanisms of the nucleus."

    ReplyDelete
  12. Nobel, Seth, et al,

    If antiretrovirals for AZT are so wonderful at suppressing and ending the mighty terror of HIV, could you explain to me why they are not used for any other viral treatments?

    I mean, come-on, how come these supposedly very potent drugs are not prescribed for:

    flu, herpes, adenovirus, chicken pox, common cold, conjunctivitis, cocksackle (not cocksuckle, Todd) virus, creutzfeld Jakob, Croup, Cytomegalovirus Infections, Dengue, Ebola, Encephalitis, Epstein-Barr Virus, Fifth Disease, Foot (Hoof) and Mouth Disease, Hand, Foot and Mouth Disease, Hantavirus, Hemorrhagic Fevers, Hepatitis, Herpes, Human Papillomavirus, Influenza(Flu), La Crosse Encephalitis, Lassa Fever, Marburg Hemorrhagic Fever, Measles, Meningitis, Monkeypox, Mononucleosis, Mumps, Norwalk Virus, Orchitis, Poliomelitis, Progressive Multifocal Leukoencephalopathy, Rabies, Respiratory Syncytial Virus, Rift Valley Fever, Ross River Fever, Rotavirus, Rubella, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Shingles (Herpes Zoster), Smallpox, St. Louis Encephalitis, Viral Hemorrhagic Fevers, Viral Pneumonia, West Nile Encephalitis, Western Equine Encephalitis, or even Yellow Fever?

    ReplyDelete
  13. This is really sad, and I am not being sarcastic.

    This has to be a joke. AIDS Denialists know the basics of HIV/AIDS and use this information to embed their nutty ideas. That is what the Crowe piece that Joe posted so clearly illustrates.

    Your question is so basic and absurd it must be a trap. You cannot be serious? Why not use anti-retrovirals to treat DNA and RNA viruses?

    Seriously?

    Reverse transcriptase inhibitors work on reverse transcriptase. Protease inhibitors work on protease. Only retroviruses have these essential enzyles that serve as the point of action for antiretrovirals. None of the viral infections you note have anything to do with thee enzymes.

    The question is like asking “If airplanes are so damn good at transportation why aren’t they used for undersea travel?

    Or, “if coronary bypass is so effective at treating heart disease, why not use it to cure diabetes?”

    You must be kidding, right? I am waiting for your gotcha reply…. Make me laugh so I can stop feel so damn bad for you.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I just love it when these scientific illiterates get going.
    Here are two quickies I caught of Geigers':
    "Strange, how after the millions his lab has gone through in 25 years, he has been unable to create a simple vaccine for human retrovirus!"
    How about just virus' in general? How many have a vaccine? How long did the vaccine take? Let's look at Polio. 40 years? That's right! So, if we don't have an HIV Vaccine in 15 more years, then you can say "I told you so"
    Second, Geirger, I give you credit for TRYING to have a sense of humor. But above, where you tried to jab me (put on a condom on first, God knows what you have) with the "cocksackle" virus, I think you mean "coxsackievirus"! Oh, yeah, and I love how you try to name every cute little virus you ever heard of, but you just look like a bigger idiot to us scientists. For instance, Hand, Foot and Mouth Disease which you listed twice, with a slight variation, ARE types of coxsackievirus'! Also, hemorrhagic conjunctivitis and encephalitis are ALSO types of coxsackievirus'! (Which are all part of the enterovirus family NOT retrovirus) So that right there explains why most of the HIV meds are specific for HIV, which is a retrovirus and therefore not utilized with coxsackievirus!
    Oh, but I am not done you pathetic wannabe. You also grouped other causative agents together in your (as I am pointing out) MEANINGLESS diatribe. Epstein Barr Virus is the causative agent of Infectious Mononucleosis and (eventhough you did not list it) of Burkitts Lymphoma, with is caused by EBV, and yet is a lymphoma and again NOT a disease to be treated with medications specific for HIV which, again, is a retrovirus!
    Now how about SARS. You know SARS because it has been in the news lately, huh little one?
    Well, it is actually a coronavirus. Coronavirus almost always affect animals only! Only about four, maybe five affect humans and this little fellow is not all that dangerous. Again, not a retrovirus and therefore, HIV meds are not used to treat nor as prophylaxis.
    Last and BEST, is Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (which you almost spelled correctly). However, NOT a virus. Or at least MOST scientists do not believe it to be. It does not act like a virus and does not appear to contain any genetic info in the form of DNA or RNA. Therefore HIV drugs, which many utilize the enzyme Reverse Transcriptase as a killing mechanism for HIV would not work on C-J Disease since it has NO RNA and NO DNA!!!!
    God, Geiger, do your homework you sorry excuse for a human being, much less a scientist!
    How did you like that ass-whoopin'?
    JTD

    ReplyDelete
  15. Michael, The main reason anti-retrovirals don't work on most of the viruses you mentioned is that they're not retroviruses.

    Actually, the reverse transcriptase inhibitor lamivudine (3TC) is also used in the treatment of a different virus, hepatitis B (which also has a reverse transcriptase enzyme, just not the same one as HIV's). By coincidence, lamivudine works on the RT enzymes of both viruses. Most RT inhibitors, though, are specific to retroviral RT.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamivudine

    Seth, I'm not exactly sure that Michael is really this dumb - I think he might just be trolling with stupid questions to get a rise out of us. Could be wrong, though.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Snout and JTD, I know Geiger cannot be as dumb as that question. But his thinking is prone to distortion. I am trying to figure out if his CA State disability is HIV/AIDS related to psychiatric. If he is on an AIDS Disability he collects a check from the state for a disease that does not exist.

    He is probably trolling. Nevertheless, I love crap like that on my blog for people who stumble here and see what AIDS Denialists have to say.

    One thing I like about my blog is that it is sort of a Zoo of AIDS Denialists. People can come here and look at them without getting to close.

    Plus, it will be useful for the Treatment Action Group attorneys to get a sense for some of Celia’s star witnesses!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Back to Celia... I think the comparison to David Irving is apt. Didn't he try to sue someone for calling him a "denialist"? How did that go?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Lipstadt

    I'd be very surprised if this legal adventure is entirely Celia's idea. She certainly doesn't have the street smarts or mental toughness to make a go of it - a halfway competent attorney would make mincemeat of her on the witness stand within about 10 minutes. *sucks in air through his teeth*

    Unfortunately, the nature of cults is they continually reinforce their own delusions, and I doubt Farber has any insight into how ridiculous she is going to be made to appear. Her RA "friends" will have seen to that.

    She's pretty obviously a sacrificial lamb for the sociopaths of Rethinking AIDS who will stop at nothing to generate publicity, no matter what the personal cost to the individuals they use. Their strategies have been transparent for quite some time. Ugly.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Very astute Snout.

    Smells like RA.

    Rasnick is about as litigious as they come. His paranoid conspiracy thinking is not a put on. He is pushing law suits against hospitals and doctors who administer AZT to avert HIV infections (PEP).

    RA also has legal beagles on the team. David Steele is lawyer who won the Rethinkers Sarah (or whatever) award.

    Crowe likes to muddle with law as we have seen with the failure to disclose cases.

    The financiers of Duesberg’s Aneuploidy lab and various denialist movies are connected to the legal backing.

    We may not agree entirely though... Farber is right up there next to Maggiore in the death toll Hall of Shame.

    As I wrote at the end of Denying AIDS, this is when I start to worry about myself. I see conspiracies among the conspiracy theorists. Too weird.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anthony Liversidge wrote (2 hours after the NY Post article came online):

    "Whether the suit has a chance of success or not, it just might attract the interest of people who are not involved in the politics and science of AIDS, which is without doubt the sewer of science."

    Which seems pretty transparent to me. I wonder if Celia really knows what her backers think about her chances of success.

    http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/celia-farber-fights-back.htm

    (Ignore the candid pic of myself illustrating Liversidge's words - it was snapped just as I was reading Michael's offer on the other thread to come to Australia and shack up with me.)

    ReplyDelete
  20. Lisa and Snout
    I should tell you that I do not publish everything that comes in on these comments. Yep, I censor the Denialists when they start to take over my blog trolling for a debate or just get so incoherent they become a distraction.
    You may have noticed that SadOne has disappeared and that could be why. Let me know if you see him pouting in some Berlin Café…his getting out would be a sign of improvement.
    I only posted the Gagger from Geiger because I like to have some florid psychopathology for readers to see. I almost did not post his last and most insane rant because, well, it was a most insane rant.
    I can easily remove it. Just tell if you want me to push the button that or any denialist comment. This blog is for AIDS Realists, not AIDS Denialists.
    When hateful comments come in at any thread I defer them to my Fan Mail posting. I almost put the Gagger in there.
    What the AIDS Denialists have failed to realize is that Denying AIDS and this blog are about them, not about AIDS or HIV causing AIDS. AIDSTruth has that ground covered quite nicely. I am interested in exposing AIDS Denialism for what it is, and it is nice to have a live specimen to observe every now and then.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Snout
    Thanks for directing us to Science Guardian. Great to have the complaint that was filed. AIDS Deniers are quite litigious. Comes with the spectrum. I think their muddling in legal realms is fascinating. I just read a bit on the Perthies failure to be recognized as experts in Australian courts. Did you know that Gallo called them ‘Delusional’ in the stand? Man, and that was even before Denying AIDS came off press! The account was in a Chapter essentially on Anthony Brink (did someone say delusional?) in a new book 'The Virus, Vitamins, and Vegetables" [see display -->]

    I hope Treatment Action is not foolish enough to settle. This jester should go right to court. Let’s get Duesberg and Rasnick on the stand. Tickets to that show will be hotter than U2 in Dublin!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hi Seth. I will clarify why I disappeared, don't worry. First I gotta catch up with all the comments though.

    Regarding Farber's Libel Suit, I think she has a pretty good chance of success actually. And I believe she's doing it primarily for herself, for her career, and not for any cause. It's basically about how certain people's actions affected her career as a journalist and it's not so much about "AIDS science". So believing that some people from Rethinking AIDS manipulated her to do this for publicity is what's really delusional in my opinion. Probably other rethinkers influenced her mostly by encouraging her to do this for herself, if at all. In other words I find the attempted comparison of RA to a cult silly. That's all I have to say on this.

    ReplyDelete
  23. SadUne Please do not explain where you have been. really, do not bother.

    And Please do not send a laundry list of comments. This is not a make-up exam.

    You are right, who the knows what motivates Celia Farber… a mystery to me.

    Can someone please tell me what a freelance journalist is? Is that like a Professor Emeritus, Visiting Professor, full-time consultant…another name for the unemployed?

    Why is it that AIDS Denialists are ‘freelance journalists’? – Sheff, Crowe, Farber… How come employed journalists are not so heavy into denialism?

    Don’t answer...I know… they would be censored because Big Pharma controls the media…they would be fired, and yes they would then be freelance journalists.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I have now had time [10 minutes] to analyze the basis for the posted law suit against the Treatment Action Group.

    I should say up front I am not an Attorney. I am an autodidactic Legal Scholar. I have never attended law school, but I am well versed and can speak to these issues. My legal education comes from the Internet, where all truth is equally accessible and not tainted by special interest groups, like Trial Lawyers of America. I have never missed an episode of any Law and Order allowing me to specialize in New York Law and I have viewed the ‘Retro Episode 3 times a day, every day, since October 28, 2008, which gives me expertise on matters of Peter Duesberg.


    In the matter of SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, CELIA FARBER, Plaintiff, -against - RICHARD JEFFERYS, KEVIN D. KURITZKY and JAMES J. MURTAGH MD, Defendants.
    I have determined the case has merit and should move forward as it appears to have. With a witness list like this, how can she lose?
    Peter Duesberg; Gil Mileikowsky MD (President, Alliance for Patient Safety); Shirley Pigott MD (Semmelweis Society International); Patrick Campbell MD; Roland Chalifoux DO (Semmelweis Society International President); Michael Geiger (Advocate); David Steele (attorney); Clark Baker (Private Investigator); Richard Schneider MD; George Holmes PhD (Semmelweis Society International Treasurer);

    ANALYSIS

    10. Plaintiff Farber began her work as a print journalist in high school in her native Sweden and continued as a print journalist while attending college in New York, starting to write for the US rock magazine SPIN in 1986. Her first “beat” was AIDS, a subject she reported on between 1986 and 1994. [writing Spin certainly qualifies Ms. Farber as a journalist, regardless of her relationship with Guccione Media; Her qualifications as a journalist will surely be stipulated.]

    11. Dr. Duesberg, one of the youngest members ever voted into the National Academy of Sciences (“NAS”) at age 50, mapped the genetic structure of retroviruses and identified the first putative onco-gene (cancer gene) in the 1970s…..[Duesberg will surely be rejected as a credible scientist; 1975 extends beyond the statutes of limitations in NY. Fortunately for Ms. Farber Duesberg is fringe to this case…right in his comfort zone.]

    12. Plaintiff Farber, after leaving SPIN in 1995 and becoming a free-lance journalist [As asked above, “What the hell is a Freelance Journalist?”] … obtain a story about recently acquitted O.J. Simpson’s post trial life. [Ms. Farber’s work on non-sensational cases such as this will surely be an asset to her case]

    13. Plaintiff Farber…. (“AAAS”) on a panel that included Nobel Laureate Dr. Kary Mullis [While on LSD?]… co-produced a documentary film for BBC [with Liam?]

    16. “56 Errors”, which purports to identify errors in the Harpers article by Plaintiff Farber [careful analysis shows Gallo et al. were dead wrong. There were 57 errors]

    19. The Semmelweis Society International is a non-profit corporation organized under the law of Tennessee…Nashville [Home to House of Denialism] The Semmelweis Society International is dedicated to ending the practice of “sham peer review” [They should start at home, where sham peer review is Editorial Policy at the American Journal of Physicians and Surgeons, publishing articles by such scientists as Rebecca Culshaw, Henry Bauer, and what’s his name Kaufman]

    26. Defendant Kuritzky falsely represented himself as a student of Dr. Duesberg. [Aren’t we all students of Dr. Duesberg’s?]
    Dr. Duesberg “has indirectly killed many human beings through his complicity in South Africa’s limits on antiretroviral medications given to pregnant women,” that Dr. Duesberg was run out of South Africa “as a murderer,” that Dr. Duesberg’s positions were “sick” like anti-Semitism [these events are under separate investigation]

    30. Roger D. Hodge, said: “The fact that she’s been covering this story does not make her a crackpot, it makes her a journalist.” [No such thing as a crackpot journalist?]

    38. (c) The aforesaid factual accusations are defamatory per se against Plaintiff Farber in her capacity as a journalist, as such behavior would…deprive the person of friendly intercourse in society [Ok, that is it! If she is now only subject to unfriendly intercourse, they should settle the case]

    ReplyDelete
  25. F. Lee
    You make fun, but the whole affair at the Whistle Blowers Awards in DC was serious. Beth Ely provided this inside look as the events unfolded. I think you can plainly see what was going on with Celia and Dr. Duesberg, even before arrived.


    Report to the PR Task Force, as loosely defined (but please do not send to other lists):


    As you most likely already know, Peter Duesberg, Celia Farber and Beth Ely have traveled to Washington at least until Wednesday, to participate in the "Clean Hands" awards, as part of "Whistleblower Week in Washington." We all got here somewhat on time, the hotel is fine, and the events are better organized than they have seemed. We met with Dr. Gil Mileikowsky and Dr. Roland Chalifoux, the presidents of the Alliance for Patient Safety and the Semmelweis Society, in a meeting of all 19 award recipients. Also in attendance was the Rev. Fauntroy, whom I sat right next to. Rev. Fauntroy is a retired congressman from Washington D.C., a pastor, a former associate of Martin Luther King Jr. and the designated "chief justice" of the "No FEAR Tribunal."

    And guess who else showed up? Michael Geiger. He's here with a car, willingness to help, and good cheer.

    In going over the order of awards, the group got hung up on Celia and Peter. Uh-oh. One of the doctors in the group was worried that a patient he had invited to fly in from California, a gay man who had lost many friends to "AIDS," might leave in disgust if Duesberg was allowed to speak. And so the games began. . . .

    First off, I acknowledged his concerns. (Peter and Celia had not yet arrived, and I had encouraged Celia to take her time as she was delayed getting in from a stressful cab ride and I wanted to take stock of the meeting first.) It was not a question of whether the anger was right or wrong, but that it would indeed be an issue. This seemed to defuse the situation so that at least we could discuss this intelligently. Actually, after hearing, especially from Celia (who appeared just as this discussion was underway), of all the ways that Duesberg's testimony could be framed, this doctor actually resolved to talk to his patient in advance and explain that progress in science depends on all views being considered. He even seemed enthusiastic about doing this.

    However, the issue still hung there like old cigar smoke: What to do about the controversy? Most agreed that the point of the "tribunal" and awards was to bring positive media attention to the problems of whistleblowers, and that Duesberg's presence wasn't going to help. But eventually, as we framed things in terms of patient safety, how Duesberg was now proved right on AZT, and such, even the most skeptical of the group seemed sympathetic -- even if they didn't seem exactly convinced of the science. (What was most refreshing about this crowd of doctors, nurses and lawyers was their openness to other views as a matter of scientific integrity.) It even seemed for a short time -- at Celia's humble insistence -- that Celia, not Peter, was the "radioactive" presence because of the Harper's article.

    But then the discussion took an unexpected turn. As dinner was about to be served and we took a break, Michael Geiger walked in to say hello. I encouraged him to pull up a chair next to Rev. Fauntroy, and he proceeded to chat with him while I talked with some others. Dr. Mileikowsky eventually asked me to ask him to leave, which was, admittedly, a good idea, and Michael didn't seem insulted. It was just that it was a private meeting on sensitive political matters. But then, when I took my seat again next to Fauntroy, he seemed especially open to discussing "this issue" as he called it. He even told me, in front of Celia and Peter, that he had worked with Thabo Mbeki when Mbeki was ANC representative to Washington in the early '60s and was insulted when Mbeki was dismissed as a nut for suggesting that we send food instead of AZT. I had already stressed to him the "hysteric" nature of the whole debate, and he seemed to get that, too.

    So then when we convened the discussion again, Fauntroy was invited to address us before leaving. He left us with quite an impression of depth, political skill and wisdom. He very much wanted to pursue the AIDS issue, he said, but this event was not the time and place. However, he had already invited me privately, and now he publicly invited the three of us to pursue "the science of politics" on the matter. He offered to introduce us to decisionmakers in Congress, chiefly on the Committee for Science and Technology. He even said he could help me to network with the black community in Washington. I consider this a huge opportunity -- and let's face it, we now have a lot of books to sell and no events from which to sell them. An impromptu church event or two would put us over the top.

    Celia made a very good point that many people within government know that they've hit a wall with AIDS science and are looking for a way out. The problem is, no one has hit on exactly the right way to make way out this happen without huge political fallout -- hence the resistance to it happening at all. Meanwhile, TAC is up to its old tricks. One of these guys sent an e-mail to the organizers earlier today protesting Celia's award, and Gil and Roland got so paranoid about it that they mistakenly thought that a later call from Anthony Liversidge was some South African asking hostile questions. (They gave him some good quotes.)

    Gil and Roland met with us after the main meeting and told us what we must do with the rest of our trip. Subject to board approval, Celia and Peter will probably still receive the awards -- they just won't show up at the awards ceremonies and other events. We're going to stay away while not announcing that we're doing that.

    Instead, we are going to spend tomorrow calling a couple of people, letting Roland call some key lobbyists with the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Government Accountability Project, and get ready to meet with some congressional staffers who are looking for witnesses to testify in favor of strengthening the whistleblower laws. I'm also going to use tomorrow to call Fauntroy and network locally. We probably won't get to visit congressional offices until Wednesday anyway. We will write up one-page summaries of Duesberg's and Celia's experiences as whistleblowers, and I will ask Michael Geiger to finish making copies of some of the materials Celia brought -- her article about Duesberg, etc. I also have 50 copies on glossy paper of the Discover profile of Duesberg.

    As for the money issues, I assured Gil that we were not indeed counting every penny of the money Celia had raised for this, but that I fully expected them to be generous in reimbursing her and Peter out of that money for their expenses on this trip. (By the way, I am here on RA's dime, not theirs.) They are handling this by having us submit our receipts later. I'll take charge of collecting receipts, and keep Michael Geiger alert to this as well.

    I hope I reported everything accurately -- and of course it isn't everything -- but things are going well here, we are having a good time, and these people aren't as bad as their phone manners would have us believe. They're intelligent, concerned, and open-minded. Clark Baker especially is impressive as their communications director. He is also a private investigator doing pro bono work in Los Angeles on behalf of people railroaded by the system.

    Thanks so much for reading to the bottom of this!

    Beth at 2 a.m.

    ReplyDelete
  26. From what I ascertain from the lawsuit, Farber claims that hateful emails harmed her career. I have found a link that used to be at AIDSTruth.org, in which Farber offers justification of Harvey Bialy and Claus Jensen
    sending out not only hateful, homophobic comments, but also comments threatening physical violence. (Farber posted a "review" by Jensen of "Denying AIDS" at her Shit Barrier site, which proves they are still close friends)
    This link illustrates that Farber is a hypocrit by claiming that emails hurt her professional reputation and NOT that sensationalistic pack of lies published by Harpers, all the while offering justification to others who not only write verbally hateful emails, but also emails with direct threats of physical violence.
    http://www.aidstruth.org/documents/RA-dis.pdf
    J. Todd DeShong

    ReplyDelete
  27. I cannot believe you people.
    How can you take this so lightly?
    I fear for Celia. A law suit is so stressful she could succumb to the stress and develop AIDS. That is what happened to poor Christina. That Law & Order episode did her in. Please stop pushing her on this or you will have stressed-blood on your hands!

    ReplyDelete
  28. Naah, leave Michael's comment. It was gross, but not obviously malicious. I've actually copy-pasted it in case he rereads it and deletes it himself. It deserves to be kept somewhere on permanent record.

    Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off for a spot of friendly intercourse (the best kind, in my experience).

    ReplyDelete
  29. She is a piece of work

    ReplyDelete
  30. the only woman geiger would go straight forMay 10, 2009 at 10:05 PM

    Definitely leave the Gieger rant… I just don’t care what denialists say about me. Second, talking about AIDS realists is time spent not pushing their cause, third, I realize that denialists have slim pickings when it comes to “rallying up the troops”, but seriously, some of these people are just so out of their minds, it demonstrates that they’ll accept anyone with a pulse, and fourth, it allows for someone who has been misled by denialists to see the mental instability up close.

    ReplyDelete
  31. If Miss Farber was the dangerous reporter the defendants made her out to be, one wonders why the pharmaceutical industry hasn’t brought their complaints to court before, and why operatives like Seth Kalichman are now recoiling like vampires at dawn. Kalichman’s employer relies on millions of dollars to study South Africa’s virtually non-existent HIV mortality.

    http://exlibhollywood.blogspot.com/2009/05/investigative-reporter-files-lawsuit.html

    ReplyDelete
  32. My take on Farber's comments about R. Crumb is that he may be a new source of funding for the denialists.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Thanks Clark Baker – Ex-Liberal - for commenting

    Now Clark, if you read my book you would know that I have never taken pharmaceutical company money for my research. Not that it would make me an evil researcher, just that I am funded by the NIH. If you need a copy of my book, ask David Crowe for an illegal pirated e-copy.

    I guess you mean the NIH research grants I get to prevent HIV infections in Africa. I know you believe HIV is a hoax in Africa. So tell me, when was the last time you were in Africa? How often do you go? What countries have you been to? It is easiest to deny what you have not seen. Sort of like those Holocaust Deniers who were never in a concentration camp.

    ReplyDelete
  34. It is no secret that the rethunkers are using court cases to pursue their agenda.

    http://rethinkingaids.info/garlan/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=27

    They managed to convince the family of Andre Parenzee that they had a hope in hell of getting him off with by claiming that HIV doesn't exist (sorry I mean there is no evidence for the existence of an exogenous retrovirus labelled HIV). They were quite clearly not acting in Parenzee's best interests. Offering remorse and pleading ignorance would have had a much better chance of success.

    I strongly doubt that Farber would proceed if she did not have the encouragement of the rethunkers. Who else is going to stand up in court and testify that Farber isn't really selectively misquoting and misrepresenting the science?

    Real scientists do real research published in real peer reviewed journals and try to convince other scientists. Rethunkers write books and magazine articles targetting lay-audiences and pursue sham court cases.

    If the libel cases ends badly for Farber (this is almost certain) then will any of the rethunkers rethunk their position? Farber will have to demonstrate that she doesn't misrepresent the science. This will be extremely difficult for her because she does do exactly that.

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

    http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/02/hivs_dover.php#comment-349709

    ReplyDelete
  35. My favorite quote from Celia Farber I am not denying anything

    ReplyDelete
  36. If Miss Farber was the dangerous reporter the defendants made her out to be, one wonders why the pharmaceutical industry hasn’t brought their complaints to court before...If you are going to entertain fanciful conspiracy theories then at least get them right. The best way for the pharmaceutical industry to make more money is if HIV spreads. HIV Denialism is good for the pharmaceutical industry.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Chris,

    Full disclosure: I am not on your team. But I am genuinely interested in your understanding of this libel suit. Surely you have read it and know that this is not so much about
    "misrepresenting the science". It is not about whether the judge agrees that Farber has it all wrong. It is not about whether HIV causes AIDS.

    It is about whether Farber is systematically and intentionally lying and using fraud, sex and other female viles to get around external fact-checking processes. It is about whether she really does falsify evidence on a significant scale. It is about whether she really is systematically transgressing against and corrupting all journalistic principles. It is about whether she really does deserve to be put up there with Hitler.

    Do you understand that it is up to Jefferys et al to prove their case, not the other way round? And that the case is not proven by nitpicking here and there about trisphosphorylation of AZT, citing a quote or two which you think are out of context, or BY stating your disagreement with the alternative interpretations of publicly available scientific data she conveys through her stories?

    Do you understand that it is not necessarily so easy to lean on the judge in a free speech case like this, as it was, for example, to intimidate the BBC into their wishy-washy appeasing statement about the (lack of) objectivity of some documentary?

    if you do, please tell me again why you think Farber stands almost no chance of winning the suit. What do you know that I don't?

    ReplyDelete
  38. She wins it means big time cash, not just Crumbs.

    She loses, she get to keep playing the victim.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Yeah, corrector, they've really got their work cut out.

    http://aras.ab.ca/articles/popular/200706-FarberHIVAlive.pdf

    “…the drugs are no longer universally seen as lifesaving. A paper published in 2006 in The Lancet reported the results of a large study that tracked 22,000 HIV positive people between 1995 and 2003. It found that the drug therapy that they received, known as HAART (highly active anti-retroviral therapy), did not ‘translate into a decrease in mortality.’”

    “The JAMA study found, however, that HIV-positive status does not correlate strongly with or cause depleted CD4 counts.”

    “Tests inserts concede that neither the ELISA nor most Western Blot HIV tests are FDA-approved to diagnose HIV infection.”

    “more than 70 non-HIV related blood conditions can cause a false reaction.”

    http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/03/0080961

    “a majority of HIV-positive tests, when retested, come back indeterminate or negative. In many cases, different results emerge from the same blood tested in different labs.”

    “in Africa, where an HIV test is not even required as part of an AIDS diagnosis.”

    “In 1994 the definition was updated to suggest the use of HIV tests, but in practice they are prohibitively expensive.”

    “Canada rejected nevirapine twice, once in 1996 and again in 1998, after the drug showed no effect on so-called surrogate markers (HIV viral load and CD4 counts) and was alarmingly toxic.”

    “Although HIVNET was designed to be a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, Phase III trial of 1,500 mother/infant pairs, it wound up being a no-placebo, neither double- nor even single-blind Phase II trial of 626 mother/infant pairs”

    “A 1994 study, for example, that gave vitamin A to pregnant HIV-positive mothers in Malawi reported that those with the highest levels of Vitamin A transmitted HIV at a rate of only 7.2 percent.”

    “AZT, which was developed as a chemotherapeutic agent in 1964 but shelved because of its extreme toxicity, is a DNA chain terminator, which means that it brings DNA synthesis to a halt. It is therefore an extremely efficient cell killer…AZT prevents the replication of HIV by killing infected T-cells; unfortunately, it kills all dividing cells indiscriminately, whether they are infected with a retrovirus or not, and will very quickly decimate even a healthy person's immune system.”

    “His exhaustive analysis of the peer-reviewed scientific literature has revealed more than 4,000 documented AIDS cases in which there is no trace of HIV or HIV antibodies. This number is significant, because there are strong institutional forces deterring such descriptions and because the vast majority of AIDS cases are never described in formal scientific papers. In fact, most AIDS patients have no active HIV in their systems, because the virus has been neutralized by antibodies. (With all other viral diseases, by the way, the presence of antibodies signals immunity from the disease. Why this is not the case with HIV has never been demonstrated.)”

    “Viral load, one of the clinical markers for HIV, is not a measurement of actual, live virus in the body but the amplified fragments of DNA left over from an infection that has been suppressed by antibodies.”

    “Some researchers claim that HIV exploits special receptors on human T-cells that, due to a hypothetical genetic mutation, many “Caucasian Europeans” lack, but most Africans have. What's interesting is that many gay men also seem to possess these mysterious receptors, as do intravenous drug users and transfusion recipients.”

    “HIV does not sicken or kill chimpanzees”

    “no one has ever demonstrated how a sexually transmitted virus can manage to restrict itself overwhelmingly to gay men and other AIDS risk groups instead of spreading randomly through the population, as do all other infectious diseases.”

    “Given that the evidence for HIV is coincidental”

    “AIDS researchers have failed to demonstrate, using large-scale controlled studies, that the incidence of AIDS-defining diseases is higher among individuals infected with HIV than among the general uninfected population.”

    “This hypothesis would tend to explain the fact that the estimated number of HIV-positive Americans has remained constant at about 1 million since 1985.”

    “Nor have large-scale controlled studies been carried out to directly test the AIDS-drug hypothesis, which holds that many cases of AIDS are the consequence of heavy drug use, both recreational (poppers, cocaine, methamphetamines, etc.) and medical (AZT, etc.). Nor have controlled studies been carried out to prove that hemophiliacs infected with HIV die sooner than those who are not infected.”

    “There is ample statistical and epidemiological evidence linking the rise of mass drug abuse in the late Sixties and Seventies with the sudden appearance of AIDS. The overwhelming majority of AIDS patients with Karposi's sarcoma, for example, have been heavy users of nitrate inhalers, or ‘poppers.’”

    “Nor is Duesberg alone in dissenting from AIDS orthodoxy. More than 2,300 people, mostly scientists and doctors, including Nobelists in chemistry and medicine, have signed the petition of the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis, which calls for a more independent and skeptical approach to the question of AIDS causality.”

    ReplyDelete
  40. I almost did not post the response from IP, but I could not resist. It provides a pretty extensive list of the most common Denialist tactics. They have picked more cherries than Washington state!

    Single sentences selected out of context, complete ignorance of the accumulation of science, and misuse of research for rhetoric are an affront to our intelligence. It is exactly what makes Peter Duesberg a pariah in the sciences, one reason why she could never win that law suit is that she has propagated pseudoscience at the cost of lives.

    It is absolutely senseless to debate with AIDS Denialists. So I will not allow it here. But I did not want rob Chris the chance to laugh and Snout the opportunity to fill in a few Bingo Cards…. See AIDS Denialist Bingo™ and the DenierList™ http://snoutworld.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  41. While working on Denying AIDS I spent a little time fact checking Celia Farber. I was particularly interested in her account of the events at the Amsterdam AIDS Conference in 1992. I talked with several people there and obtained copies of talks that she says were changed in response to the ‘Amsterdam Surprise”. The account is stranger than fiction. One example….She wrote “ the tiny but illuminating fact that Michael Merson, director of the WHO Global Health Program on AIDS, upon learning of the mysterious cases, deleted a reassuring statement that HIV was the cause of AIDS from his opening speech at the conference”. Never happened. I have the speech and I discussed it with Merson. Never Happened.

    Here is the sad part of the law suit. It will preoccupy good people and take their time away from helping people living with HIV/AIDS . It will cost money to prove that the suit is baseless. For an example of this type of waste read Ben Goldacre’s account of the suit waged by Matthias Rath against the Guardian Newspaper. I am not sure if it is more of a shame or more of a sham.

    ReplyDelete
  42. In addition to Richard Jefferys, two (former?) members of the Semmelweis Society are named in Farber's suit. One is alleged to have referred to her an "attention seeking whore" in emails. Yet even before the papers could be served, she'd gone to the NY Post's Page Six for publicity. Isn't the truth an absolute defense against libel?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Do you understand that it is up to Jefferys et al to prove their case, not the other way round?It is trivially easy to demonstrate that Farber systematically misrepresents the scientific literature. Her Harper's piece is a perfect example of cherry picking , misrepresentation combined with a few outright lies.

    Farber has been corrected many, many times in the past and yet she continues to spread the same lies. This is deliberate dishonesty.

    I'm glad you are in favour of free speech. When somebody publishes bullshit and lies then we are entitled to call it bullshit and lies. Oh, you mean only Denialists are entitled to free speech?

    ReplyDelete
  44. And that the case is not proven by nitpicking here and there about trisphosphorylation of AZT...You aren't at all worried that when one of the errors/lies in Farber's Harper's article is pointed out that the rethunker intelligentsia come to her defense by agreeeing that she is wrong but that it doesn't matter because if we think really hard we can imagine a completely different way that AZT is bad. With expert witnesses like that who needs enemies?

    Farber's assertion that AZT indiscriminately kills all cells is an outright lie. The rethunkers know it is a lie. She knows it is a lie.

    You can weasel all you want by now claiming that it is only a minor point but it is still a prime example of Farber's dishonesty.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Seth, I think the post by "IP" wasn't by a denialist supporter of Celia's. I think he/she was showing how easy it will be to demonstrate a consistent pattern of misrepresentation of scientific data and of misleading statements in Farber's work on HIV/AIDS. (The alleged) David Crowe makes this child's play by gathering up much of her nonsense all in one convenient package of concentrated Stupid.

    The crux of Farber's claim is that she did not misrepresent the science, and that it was defamatory to say so. The rest of her claim looks to me like self-righteous pouting by a princess, but I'm no lawyer: perhaps she might be able to make hay out of it, but I doubt it, given that her central claims are manifestly ridiculous.

    Not a single one of these public claims by Farber listed by IP above have a snowflake's chance of standing up in court, particularly against the testimony of expert witnesses qualified to give opinions on those matters.

    It seems the denialists have not learned from Parenzee. Courts tend to be biased toward finding the truth, not giving equal weight to "alternative" viewpoints for the sole reason such views exist. There are some journalists who don't seem to "get" this.

    It's easy to get away with spouting denialist bullshit on the net or even in print in popular magazines, but quite a different matter to defend the indefensible in court under cross examination.

    I think she would be very foolish to attempt to do so. It'll end in tears.

    ReplyDelete
  46. As for Clark Baker, that Ex-LA Police Officer who was sued for Police Brutality and LOST and was forced to retire, has 0% credibility on ANY subject. I also love the way he trolls to get people to read his lies at his blog.
    Oh, by the way, the link to his blog, is the subject of MY most recent blog. I point out no less than 7 direct lies in Baker's Blog. Where is MY blog? Well, glad you asked to that I do not have to troll like Baker....
    http://dissidents4dumbees.blogspot.com/2009/05/clark-baker-lying-100-in-latest-blog.html
    JTD

    ReplyDelete
  47. Haha, I think you are right Snout. I misread IP. My mistake. I am sure Henry Bauer will write a post at his Blog “Kalichman Bungles Despite Being in the Pocket of AID$ inc.”

    I think that Jeanne has it right. There are no merits for her case to stand on.

    I would like to know how Harpers fact checked? Gotta wonder.

    I emailed the Berkeley new age publisher of Rebecca Culshaw’s book and asked if it had been peer reviewed. The correspondence gives some sense of how denialists fact check:
    Question: Was the book reviewed for scientific accuracy prior to publication? If so, are the names of the reviewers available?
    Drew at North Atlantic Books answers: “We are not an academic publisher and do not publish in an academic context, so the answer is no. So far as I know, there are no objective parties in this dispute to referee individual books. People believe either one side or the other, and they build their arguments on their belief systems rather than the other way around. Ms. Culshaw has attempted to reason out the logic of both her viewpoint and the opposing one which, of course, at one time was her viewpoint too. I know many scientists have read her material, but I am pretty sure that those who reviewed it for her share her perspective. She can correct me if I am wrong."

    Speaking of Culshaw, have you seen the NEW Press Release at Rethinking AIDS? It states, “Moore bragged he was responsible for the firing of Dr. Rebecca Culshaw who after spending ten years in AIDS research as a grad student and post doc realized there was no science behind current AIDS theory. She quit AIDS research and wrote the book 'Science Sold Out.' A campaign initiated by Moore resulted in her termination from her job as an assistant prof at University of Texas.”

    Strange. Culshaw was terminated? Not what her husband says. He told me she just had their second child and decided to be a stay home Mom. I am sure she was advised not to seek Tenure…she had not published but 1 peer reviewed paper since grad school. All she had was the denialist book and a denialist paper in a sham journal… no respected department could advance her with tenure.

    The point is that AIDS denialists twist and turn to spin a complex web of lies. That is what Denialism is all about. Why would we expect anything else?

    ReplyDelete
  48. The Corrector said:Do you understand that it is up to Jefferys et al to prove their case, not the other way round?Umm… actually no. This case is being filed in New York, USA, not York, UK. The burden of proof is with the plaintiff. It is up to Farber to prove that she was libeled, not for Jefferys and others to prove she wasn’t.

    It is about whether Farber is systematically and intentionally lying and using fraud, sex and other female viles to get around external fact-checking processes. It is about whether she really does falsify evidence on a significant scale.Utter garbage. No one gives a toss how it came about that Farber was given the opportunity to publish her incompetent crap. Who she chooses to have “friendly intercourse” with is her no-one’s business but her own. If Farber wants to prove her claim of libel she is going to have to stand up like a grown-up and answer the accusation that she misrepresents and falsifies evidence, and that she actually has a reputation as a responsible, credible and truthful journalist that could be impugned. Neither of these have anything to do with her gender.

    Oh, and your term “Female viles” [sic] cannot be explained away as a typo. The “V” key and the “W” key are widely separated on a standard keyboard. Please seek urgent assistance from a psychoanalyst. Your (Freudian) slip is showing.


    I just read the article she wrote for “Alive” magazine that IP linked.

    If she climbs into the witness box and tries to stake her reputation as a journalist on unmitigated shit like that, she will be crucified.

    If she climbs into the witness box, she won’t have a choice. I think her best chance is to quietly walk away, or to have the case dismissed as frivolous.

    But personally, I don’t care. I just don’t want to have to put up with her whining on and on for the next 20 years about how she was set up by people with their own agendas who gave her rotten advice, and that *sob* no one warned her.

    ReplyDelete
  49. ... I'm also curious about what readers of this thread think about the Corrector's characterisation of "intentionally lying and using fraud [and] sex" as distinctly "female viles". That seems a teensy bit... umm...well, sexist to me.

    And what, exactly, are the other "female viles" we need to be aware of?

    Do tell.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Hey Snout and Chris,

    Oh noble defenders of the HIV faithful from Down Under, speaking of lies and liars, here is an interesting one for you to ponder.

    Just how was anyone diagnosed as AIDS before HIV tests were accessible to the public in 1985?

    Look at this hillarious rewriting of history from Australia’s first and largest AIDS Advocacy Group, the Bobby Goldsmith Foundation as it describes the 1983 diagnosing and 1984 death of Bobby Goldsmith himself:

    http://www.bgf.org.au/site/index.php?pageID=181

    The piece says he was diagnosed with HIV in 1983! How could he have been diagnosed with HIV when it was not identified until April of 1984? It says he died of “AIDS related illness” in June of 84. What does that mean? Most likely means that he had been put into chronic stress by his diagnosis, which alone caused his immune system to be suppressed, and it is likely that he died of good old fashioned pneumonia or some other common cause of death.

    I'll tell you how Bobby was diagnosed. He was a prominent gay, and any gay coming down ill with anything in 1983 would be diagnosed as having AIDS simply because of his sexuality collided with paranoia and homophobia.

    No wonder you defenders of HIV theory from Australia, such as Chris Noble and Snout are so easily offended by us dissidents. You have a lot of historical falsehoods to defend.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Gee Snout and Chris, I'm not sure what paying jobs you have, but it seems Michael Geiger has just appointed you two as defenders of history!
    WOW!! What an appointment!! Michael Geiger must be very impressed by your obvious intelligence, knowledge and ability to see thru Geiger's own bullshit! Congratulations!
    JTD

    ReplyDelete
  52. I have spent the past week really researching Celia Farber and the (possible) lies in her reporting when I had some free time. I wonder how many people have actually read the Harper's piece and the 56 errors? I have and am more than amazed that even a person's with Down's Syndrome would consider Farber to be credible.
    What I find really interesting is the way TAC organized the errors. There are not 56 blatant lies which Re Thinking AIDS as well as the "lawsuit" implies. The errors are broken down right from the document, which is linked below:
    http://www.tac.org.za/Documents/ErrorsInFarberArticle.pdf
    in the following categories:
    Misleading: 16
    False: 25
    Fairness (including implications of sinister motives): 10
    Bias (by neglecting key facts): 5
    Each error is pasted directly from the Harper's article and corresponding supporting facts that prove the errors are real. This document is awesome and any refutation by the Farber Camp should have been an lawsuit in and of itself from TAC!!
    Seriously, Celia Farber is more than an HIV Denialist. She, as well as those who support her, are mentally unhinged from all reality!!
    J. Todd DeShong

    ReplyDelete
  53. Thank God, Farber is finally doing something to stop these moron doctors who poison our veterans. Our government owes our hero soldiers a lot better. How can I help? I am new to this group, and I'm just finding out how to use facebook. Everyone in the country needs to support Farber!

    Who are these morons over at the doctors group? What is this all about? Can't anyone see that these doctors are criminal for taking pharmaceutical money? I work with a lot of doctors at the veterans hospital. Can I help you?

    Please let me know, and God bless you for your work

    ReplyDelete
  54. Umm , Maria Agnes, I see you are new to this. You are not in Facebook. You posted to a blog on AIDS denialism.

    I guess I am with the Moron Doctors you are so outraged about. The doctors who advocate for HIV treatments that are saving lives and improving the health of people living with HIV/AIDS.

    I posted your oddly misplaced note for my readers to see that AIDS denialists can be found everywhere, including VA hospitals. Denialists wworking in hospitals are far more dangerous than attention seeking pseudo-journalists.

    The goal of this blog is to reveal how dangerous mindless denialists are. So thank you for your help.

    Please, Maria Agnes, find a different job. Why not work in a vitamin store or for a chiropractor or something. Remember, do no harm.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Who are you? Why are you attacking me? My husband is being treated as a guinea pig, less than a dog, by government doctors who give him incredible dangerous drugs. WHere is your humanity? Why are you picking on me?

    I do have a facebook site. Why are you lying? Why don't you go to facebook and find out what I'm about, and why. http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1834082245&ref=name

    I want to take down the government doctors who do this. Is that too much to ask? Why doesn't someone help me?

    Thank God for Celia Farber. She is the truth, the way and the light.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Thank god for Celia Farber indeed... she should have her own tagline:

    "Making denialists look dumb since 1986"

    ReplyDelete
  57. God, Kalichman, can't you read? The reason you can't find Maria on Facebook, is you have misspelled her last name!!
    It is strange that all of a sudden this new person is posting any and everywhere, taking up for Farber and Clark Baker. If she is so new to this, how has she had the chance to research all the players and lay her allegiance with liars and felons?
    Also, I wonder if she is so aligned with VA doctors, is she aware that recently it came to light that VA Hospital was not sterilizing the colonoscopy equipment for days at a time and now many soldiers have come up with Hepatitis and HIV! I hate to break it to Maria, but the VA has had a history of very poor quality healthcare and I find it funny that all of a sudden she thinks they are part of some conspiracy of the VA to shove HIV meds down soldiers' throats!!
    JTD

    ReplyDelete
  58. It's not "denying AIDS" it's denying the claim that one virus, a dead lifeless particle 1 million times smaller than a human hair, is capable of bringing an entire immune system down. There are too many other causes involved in immune system problems for it to be accurately pinned on a mere virus particle, especially one in the retro category. Alcohol is a much greater immune deficiency cause than viral particles and for some reason some well meaning people in the medical industry don't understand the significance of multiple causes, and the well proven theories that alcohol consumption routinely damages cells by the billions as it is a poison. I am not saying "alcohol is the cause". There are many greater "causes" than a dead virus that can hardly be seen anywhere in the blood. Duesberg's public statements way back in 1987 saved some friends from ingesting AZT, and they are alive today whereas the others I knew are all gone now. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what's causing what here.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Yeah - commenter above - your logic makes total sense. I mean, the polio virus which is so tiny- that can't wreak havoc on your nervous system, right? It is too tiny and cute. Oh, the rabies virus - completely harmless. A conspiracy by the raccoon haters. Oh, and the Ebola virus - definitely harmless because cigarettes harm lungs and therefore are clearly much more powerful than a tiny little virus that in no way causes anything like hemorrhaging. Your logic is superb. Bravo!

    ReplyDelete
  60. Celia Farber on her O.J. coverage:

    http://deanesmay.com/2010/08/19/icky-blog-scam/#comments

    "For the record, here is my track record on that story: I have written two cover stories, one for Esquire (“Whistling In The Dark,” 1998) and one for Rolling Stone (“O.J. Inc, 2000) and two books: “How I Helped O.J. Get Away With Murder,” by Mike Gilbert, Regnery, 2008) and “The Murder Business” by Mark Fuhrman, Regnery, 2009.)"

    Am I right in reading this as a claim to have written two books that were credited to other people? It also seems interesting that both of these books were published by the conservative publisher Regnery, the same people who published Duesberg's "Inventing the AIDS Virus."

    ReplyDelete