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.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

On the Brink of Denialism: Why Peter Duesberg is Wrong and David Crowe is a Liar

Here is a real gem.

Onnie Mary Phuthe, an HIV+ woman from Botswana, wrote to South African AIDS Denialist Anthony Brink to ask about the organization Rethinking AIDS. The exchange is posted at AIDS Myth Exposed.

Brink’s response reminds me of a conversation I had with him while he was in Berlin attending an AIDS Dissident's Conference. I asked Brink about Peter Duesberg and he replied that Duesberg was washed up – old hat. The new ideas in AIDS dissidence were coming from contemporary scientists like Etienne de Harven. That seemed remarkable seeing as Peter Duesberg is 73 years old and de Harven is even older at age 81! Ah, the new ideas of AIDS Denialism.

Yet, I often wondered what Anthony Brink felt deep down about Rethinking AIDS and the people I had come to know as North America’s leading AIDS Deniers. Brink after all is responsible for feeding AIDS Denialism to the suspicious intellectual and former South African President Thabo Mbeki – ultimately bringing 300,000 of his fellow countrymen and 30,000 babies to their unnecessary deaths. Now Anthony Brink gives us some insight through his reply to Onnie. It
humoursly shows the infighting among AIDS Deniers, especially the Perth People and Duesbergians. This is worth a read. But be ready, Anthony Brink is not thrifty with words.



UPDATE: AIDS Myth Exposed has a thread to Defend David Crowe from Anthony The Brink of Disaster. Too funny. "If nothing else, it just makes it plain that Brink, and now Knoll are pushing to create a situation no matter what anyone thinks.I will say this though, I have corresponded with Dr. Bauer and he mentioned that Brink has no support from the Board to become RA President. I assume that goes no matter what happens to David. Brink will not ever be President of RA. Why on earth would he go out of his way to harm a terrific and effective dissident? Why would he brush aside the reasoned and caring pleas of a friend like Michael Geiger?
UPDATE: Is David Crowe a liar? Is he a fraud? Anthony Brink is not alone in making these claims against our favorite wannabe scientist AIDS Denialist. As posted at AIDS Myth Exposed...
"I am curious. Is this the same David Crowe who has been a long time executive in the Green Party of Alberta? If you go to the Facebook Group called Greens in Alberta you will find a great deal of information in some of the discussion groups that show how Crowe has operated in the past, and that Crowe and his friends fled the Green Party AGM and tried to hold a secret meeting in the parking lot (unbeknownst to hundreds inside the hall),. Now it is my understanding that he may be under investigation for extortion, fraud, forgery and submitting false documents."
UPDATE: David Crowe will not take Brink's abuse. What kind of denialist would not deny what an AIDS denier alleges! Not David Crowe. Read how David Crowe claims that it is Anthony Brink that is lying. The Snakes are getting rather vicious.
UPDATE: Anthony Brink (Junior Member at AIDS Myth Exposed) shares a string of emails that offer a glimpse into the snake pit. Thank Snout for this one.

From: Onnie Mary Phuthe
Sent: 22 July 2009 10:13 PM
To: arbrink@iafrica.com
Subject: Rethinking Aids

I came across the Rethinking Aids web.

I contacted Mr. David Crowe [David.Crowe@aras.ab.ca] since I wanted to attend he conference for 2009 Nov 4 but have no money.

I have huge interest in HIV and Aids; I have lived with HIV since 1994. I have seen for myself many things that truly support rethinking aids.

I really wish to be in contact with people who think in line with the rethink aids group since I am already living rethink aids. I really feel deceived by all the info being pushed by big pharma and crooked scientists, most of all I really feel pity for all the people who have believed what they heard with no question.

I am the kind of person who does not believe anything until I can also prove it myself. I don’t have a college education only form 4 but learn more at ke fodile, wena? (still under construction). The end of it will make me more enemies than friends about myself. Nevertheless, one thing I have personally witnessed is that most of the lies have come with 99% of the drug pushing diagnoses that are made on humans. It seems very important to treat people at the expense of their lives, health, and financial stability, and worst of all, a devastated mental state in the name of profit.

I truly thought I was in denial or crazy since I questioned everything and I did not believe all I heard. One thing I believe is that food, herbs, water, sunlight, unrefined sea salt, and others are the missing link between the human being of today and the past generations.

All disease that are identified come with a huge profit margin, and second they also comes with a huge cost for the humans involved. The question is animals are in the wild but manage well without vets. Whereas humans because they know and can buy are never fully treated, but rather are always lead to believe what is not true about their bodies.

Disappointing enough, but how can we trust scientists and their discoveries? I know what genuine research looks like.

It looks like this: all the board members, scientists, founders, directors and all others of Rethinking AIDS > Home ( DNN 4.3.5 ) and all their associates. I wish to learn with more clarity the puzzle that I am also putting together; I am missing some pieces here.

I really need to talk to other people who might think similar thoughts. When I talk to others in my country, I already see a threat of people fearing to tell the truth in favour of the funding they get from the spear-headers of the lies of the century.

I have made an ad at the link below. I do not want funding from the same people who got us in the mess, except those who want to deal with me will pay for themselves for the herbs I personally use. I get them fresh and prepare them raw. I am afraid to verbalize all that I know, because maybe I will be caught, I don’t know, but the thing is, does anyone else know what the truth is? If they know, why are we still being told the same lie over and over again, that is why I am afraid. There is something in it for those who choose to conceal the facts.

The challenge is that when it’s been almost thirty years of lies then it’s a challenge to make a statement to a brainwashed society (the world), plus the businesses would collapse if people knew and accepted the truth as it is.

Onnie Mary Phuthe
Botswana

Anthony Brink's reply

From: Anthony Brink [mailto:arbrink@iafrica.com]
Sent: 23 July 2009 03:33 PM
To: (Onnie)
Subject: RE: Rethinking Aids
Importance: High

Dear Onnie

Thanks for your email.

Very nice hearing from you.

We see things in much the same way.

As a fellow African, a pale African in my case, you need to know a few things about 'Rethinking AIDS', and you might want to share this information with your friends and family in Botswana so that they are not also misled about what this organization is.

'Rethinking AIDS' is basically a support group for Professor Peter Duesberg at the University of California, Berkeley, California in America, to promote and defend his scientific views on AIDS.

To see this you only have to go to 'About RA': About RA

Apart from reading about him there, and even finding a link to his website, you'll also read there an account of how and why 'The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis' was originally formed and its past activities.

Nowhere in the 'About RA' page is there any mention of the generally recognized scientific leaders of the AIDS dissident movement: the Australian physicist Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and her colleagues (the Perth Group), who even before the publication of Duesberg's critique of the HIV theory of AIDS in 1987, on the basis that 'retroviruses' are always harmless, were already onto the real, more basic reason why the theory is wrong: 'HIV' has never been proven to exist.

You ask in your email, 'how can we trust scientists and their discoveries? I know what genuine research looks like.'

What you need to do is satisfy yourself about this by reading into the matter yourself.

You mustn't take things on authority. Like one of the Rethinking AIDS board members, a very senior member of the board, who says more or less: 'Duesberg's clever and experienced so I just go with what he says.'

It may interest you to know that to the best of my knowledge nobody who has read Duesberg's and the Perth Group's respective papers, and particularly their debate on whether 'HIV' exists, has come away with the conclusion that Duesberg is right that 'HIV' has been proved to exist, and that the Perth Group is wrong to claim that in truth and in fact 'HIV' has never been proved to exist.

Everyone who has studied the scientific disagreement between them has concluded that Duesberg is wrong.

This includes former South African Presidents Mbeki and Motlanthe (the latter currently Deputy President under President Zuma).

All of us feel rather embarrassed about this.

But it's awkward to say something like: 'My father, you need to take a bath, you really do. Everyone around you is noticing and saying so.'

It's so much easier just to pinch our noses and say nothing.


By the early years of our new century, 'The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis' had disintegrated.

It was dead.

In 2006 a Canadian businessman called David Crowe decided to form a new organization under his control.

He collected around him a handful of AIDS dissidents that he knew wouldn't give him any problems, and he formed a 'board of directors', most of whom are either active Duesberg partisans or 'sleepers' in the sense that they don't actively conduct themselves as directors should and do not express any disagreement with Mr Crowe (when one tries, we'll read below, Mr Crowe fixes him.)

This makes it easy for Mr Crowe to run things pretty much on his own along American lines.

It's a bit like the Treatment Action Campaign here in South Africa, which although it has many formal office bearers, is completely dominated and controlled by Zackie Achmat. Everyone knows this.

Now Mr Crowe needs to keep things running on American lines, because as usual that's where the money is.

Isn't it always so, Onnie? Don't we feel it over here in Africa all the time?!

Rethinking AIDS is funded by the same rich person who funds Duesberg, and do you know this same person even sits on the board of Rethinking AIDS, meaning he has the clout to govern its scientific policy? Can you believe such a thing, Onnie?

When one of the Rethinking AIDS board members tries breaking ranks and privately challenges Mr Crowe recently in a small closed internet forum about the things he says and does, whether in his opinion they're right or wrong, true or false, do you know that Mr Crowe sends him a demand by email that he should shut his mouth and in future submit any communications to that forum for him for prior censorship, just to make sure that the disobedient board member doesn't challenge Mr Crowe ever again? Can you believe your ears, Onnie?!

All of this makes it possible for Mr Crowe to run his show the way he wants it unaccountably to the international AIDS dissident community, and to pretend to the outside world that the little organization he formed in 2006 speaks for us all.

Obviously Mr Crowe made his move to form Rethinking AIDS in 2006 behind the scenes without telling the rest of us.

He did not contact every dissident on the list of those who'd signed their support for our basic cause that the HIV-AIDS hypothesis should be re-examined (see About RA page) and announce, 'I reckon it's a good idea to form a new AIDS dissident organization, what do you think? Please nominate yourself if you like and/or some other dissidents for election to a provisional representative body to discuss purpose and direction, scientific policy and operating strategy.'

That's not the way Mr Crowe works!

Behind the scenes is the way he works!

He wanted to make sure that Rethinking AIDS doesn't do any rethinking about anything important, anything really important such as whether 'HIV', which is at the core of the 'HIV-AIDS' construct, even exists.

No, we can't have that, Onnie!

We must stay off that matter!

This is why Mr Crowe made a point of snubbing the Perth Group and rejecting their request for representation on the board when they got to hear what he was up to behind the scenes.

Appropriating the name of the Group's former bulletin, Mr Crowe called his new organization Rethinking AIDS.

From this name and to read 'About RA' on his website, you get the impression that Rethinking AIDS is much the same scientific initiative as the Group.

People who don't know the real history will be deceived by this, but that's the whole idea!

In fact Rethinking AIDS is in no sense a representative organization, and it doesn't speak for the vast majority of AIDS dissidents who reject Duesberg's claim it promotes that 'HIV' has been shown to exist as childish scientific nonsense.

These structural, organizational and legitimacy issues aside, the main problem with Mr Crowe's Rethinking AIDS organization is that it promotes the lie that 'HIV' exists, just as the drug-pushing AIDS doctors, activists, journalists and academics say, only Rethinking AIDS says it's harmless.

This is like telling a child terrified by a noise outside his or her bedroom at night:

'Don't worry, my child, it's only a tokoloshe, it's definitely a tokoloshe. Never mind what everyone believes and tells you, the tokoloshe lurking outside your window won't come in and harm you. Just go back to sleep.'

You say this to the child knowing it's a lie, but you tell the lie to the child anyway because you think it's best to tell lies, maybe because telling lies comes naturally to you in your daily life and in your business dealings and you have a habit of telling lies and responding to what people say with emotive and disingenuous half-truths, and so you're comfortable with lies and half-truths, and/or because you think the child can't cope with the simple truth that tokoloshes exist only in the human imagination.

So it's better to tell the child a lie. The lie that tokoloshes really do exist. Even though it's quite easy to show they haven’t ever been proven to exist by the generally accepted procedure for proving things like this. And if anyone else comes into the room who has heard the child's cries, and says, 'There's no need to worry, my child, there's no tokoloshe outside, there are no tokoloshes', you say: 'Get out! Be quiet! You mustn't say this. It's too complicated for children to be told things like this. It will only confuse them.'

That's the approach to the problem of 'HIV-AIDS' taken by Mr Crowe's Rethinking AIDS organization.

This is how Mr Crowe thinks the myth of HIV-AIDS will be resolved.

He thinks the myth of HIV-AIDS will be resolved with lies.


But when you raise this matter with him, he says, 'But I have been questioning the existence of tokoloshes for many years.'

He doesn't say, 'I agree there are no tokoloshes in the real world.'

He says, 'I have been questioning the existence of tokoloshes for many years.'

Of course this is the kind of thing successful scheming politicians say, because it's evasive, self-serving, convenient and basically dishonest.

I mean successful in getting to be where they want to be for themselves.

I don't mean successful in serving the constituency they claim to represent.

Mr Crowe never says anything as directly truthful as 'There are no tokoloshes in the real world', because that would make it difficult for him as the self-appointed king of the tiny little country he's formed that's cut off from the rest of the world, which no one in the rest of the world recognizes, like Transkei and Bophuthatswana in apartheid South Africa, advised by a witchdoctor who says tokoloshes are very, very real, but are harmless.

What he worries about most is being king of his little country.

Like Ian Smith and his Rhodesian Front, claiming in 1965 to be the Prime Minister of all of Zimbabwe (then named Rhodesia after the businessman who stole the country). When actually he was representing only the tiniest minority of very foolish people.

We know all about people like this over here in Africa, don't we Onnie?

But Mr Crowe likes the feeling of being the king; it's almost as nice as the feeling one gets from being the president of a Rotary Club in a little town in the middle of nowhere that no one wants to go to.

Sorry, I should have said President, President with a capital P, because Mr Crowe always announces himself with a capital P.

He realizes that to deal with the underlying problems caused by his witchdoctor whose views about tokoloshes he promotes, even though deep inside he knows that they're lies, and the problems he causes us by the way he runs things in doing everything possible to prevent a proper ventilation of these lies, would mean the end of his reign as king with the crown he put on his own head, or asked a couple of his friends to put on his head. And he'd have to give up being the king, the king he likes being so much, either by abdicating in disgrace or being kicked out in disgrace with a hard boot up his arse for the tremendous harm he's caused our AIDS dissident movement, and remembered forever for the tremendous harm he's caused our AIDS dissident movement.

Particularly in the big case held by the elders in the shade of the big tree in the centre of the village concerning whether a certain man was causing the tokoloshe to come riding in on a hyena in the middle of the night when everyone was asleep to visit his neighbour and cause his cow to die and his mother to hurt her leg in a fall and his cousin to fail his exams.

In that case, the man accused had expert witnesses to explain to the court that he couldn't have done what he was being accused of having done because tokoloshes have never been proved to exist. And right in the middle of the case when it was going very well for the accused man and his expert witnesses, and everyone was noticing and commenting on how impressed the court was by the scientific evidence and arguments being presented, the President comes along, and behind the scenes he furtively tells the lawyer 'You're going to lose the case doing it this way, it's much better to tell the court that tokoloshes do exist, only they're harmless.' And not being a very bright lawyer, who also hasn't really had enough time to appreciate what's wrong with this kind of defence, and why the first and second defences are not complementary or alternative but must necessarily be mutually destructive, the lawyer thinks the President is right, why, he's the President of all the AIDS dissidents in the world, and he changes the defence strategy right in the middle of the case, when it was going very well as I said, and with that the case is on its way to hell, so that the unfortunate accused man ends up severely punished for calling out tokoloshes to visit and cause his neighbour's cow to die and his mother to hurt her leg in a fall and his cousin to fail his exams, and the historical opportunity is lost, the historical opportunity to show in court that despite what nearly everyone thinks and all the witchdoctors claim, actually tokoloshes have never been shown to exist.

And when it's all over the President doesn't even say I'm very sorry about the calamity I caused, I'm terribly sorry, I was only trying to help. I realize now that it's been pointed out to me that I made the most horrendous mistake. I feel sick to my stomach over what I have done.

No, he says, What are you complaining about? I did exactly the right thing going behind your backs and telling the lawyer to change his fundamental defence strategy right in the middle of the case and introduce a new defence that contradicts the original one.

He says, Go and jump in the lake, you and your complaints against me and what I did. You were going to lose the case anyway. I'd do it again!

So you see, Onnie, it would be better to avoid Rethinking AIDS for information about so-called HIV-AIDS.

It's always best to avoid taking advice from people who tell lies and behave in the way I've told you about.

You can get honest, reliable information about the basic trouble with the HIV theory of AIDS from the The Perth Group HIV-AIDS Debate Website.

My TIG Position Statement on 'HIV' will put you fully in the picture.

All the best

Anthony
Cape Town

64 comments:

  1. I would like to fund a prize much like Continuum did. I will give $100.00 (sorry, I was a student for the past two years) to anyone who can read an entire passage by Anthony Brink!
    JEEZ, no wonder this dissidents are all at odds with each other. Of course, they have never come to a consensus about anything regarding HIV/AIDS. It's really sad and hypocritical...and more than a little funny!
    JTD

    ReplyDelete
  2. JTD
    When what you believe is based on delusions and magical thinking it is impossible to achieve consensus. Denialists have nothing to anchor their beliefs on but words. They line up behind their gurus more like disciples than dissidents.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dear seth Kalichman alias Joe Newton (or should I say Isaac?),

    Please tell me where and when I have, to this date, ever published a paper in Medical Hypotheses, as you state above on July 11, 2009.

    Yours,

    Peter Duesberg

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well Professor Duesberg, welcome to my Blog.
    I stand corrected.
    I was mistaken.
    I believe your first publication in the non-peer reviewed fringe journal Medical Hypotheses indeed comes this year. Noteworthy is that you are now not only publishing with David Rasnick but also with Henry Bauer the acclaimed pseudoscientist of Loch Ness fame. I suppose it has gotten that bad.
    My mistake about Medical Hypotheses stems from so many articles being grounded in your sad ideas. Such as Parris, Clinically significant cancer evolves from transient mutated and/or aneuploid neoplasia by cell fusion to form unstable syncytia that give rise to ecologically viable parasite species. Med Hypotheses. 2005;65(5):846-50, which follows ‘the idea of Duesberg and Rasnick.’ And Papadopulos-Eleopulos E. Reappraisal of AIDS: is the oxidation caused by the risk factors the primary cause? Med Hypotheses 1988;25:151–62 and Broxmeyer, Is AIDS really caused by a virus? Medical Hypotheses (2003) 60(5), 671-688.

    Still, as insane as these papers are, they are not yours and I stand corrected. When I am wrong I am pleased to be corrected. No denying that. So thank you.

    And thanks for the memories. Hope to see you in November.

    ReplyDelete
  5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19619953

    Med Hypotheses. 2009 Jul 18. [Epub ahead of print]

    HIV-AIDS hypothesis out of touch with South African AIDS - A new perspective.

    Duesberg PH, Nicholson JM, Rasnick D, Fiala C, Bauer HH.
    Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, Donner Laboratory, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA.

    A recent study by Chigwedere et al., "Estimating the lost benefits of antiretroviral drug use in South Africa", claims that during the period from 2000 to 2005 about 330,000 South African AIDS-deaths were caused by the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) per year that could have been prevented by available anti-HIV drugs. The study blamed those who question the hypothesis that HIV is the cause of AIDS, particularly former South African President Thabo Mbeki and one of us, for not preventing these deaths by anti-HIV treatments such as the DNA chain-terminator AZT and the HIV DNA inhibitor Nevirapine. Here we ask, (1) What evidence exists for the huge losses of South African lives from HIV claimed by the Chigwedere study? (2) What evidence exists that South Africans would have benefited from anti-HIV drugs? We found that vital statistics from South Africa reported only 1 "HIV-death" per 1000 HIV antibody-positives per year (or 12,000 per 12 million HIV antibody-positives) between 2000 and 2005, whereas Chigwedere et al. estimated losses of around 330,000 lives from HIV per year. Moreover, the US Census Bureau and South Africa reported that the South African population had increased by 3 million during the period from 2000 to 2005 instead of suffering losses, growing from 44.5 to 47.5 million, even though 25% to 30% were positive for antibodies against HIV. A similar discrepancy was found between claims for a reportedly devastating HIV epidemic in Uganda and a simultaneous massive growth of the Ugandan population. Likewise, the total Sub-Saharan population doubled from 400 millions in 1980 to 800 millions in 2007 during the African HIV epidemics. We conclude that the claims that HIV has caused huge losses of African lives are unconfirmed and that HIV is not sufficient or even necessary to cause the previously known diseases, now called AIDS in the presence of antibody against HIV. Further we call into question the claim that HIV antibody-positives would benefit from anti-HIV drugs, because these drugs are inevitably toxic and because there is as yet no proof that HIV causes AIDS.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dr. Duesberg,
    As I checked in to our mouse colony room this morning at the lab I thought to myself "Poodles, don't forget to decontaminate yourself lest you bring in or spread Murine Leukemia Virus or Mouse Mammary Tumor Virus". But then, thanks to you, I realized that such viruses couldn't possibly exist since viruses can't cause cancer! Thanks for saving me 10 minutes every day! Now I can work faster than ever...if only our mice didn't keep dying of cancer-like diseases...

    Sarcastically yours,
    Poodles!

    ReplyDelete
  7. This new Medical Hypotheses article by Duesberg, Bauer and others sets a new benchmark for gross incompetence and mind-blowing ignorance by HIV/AIDS denialists. The really sad thing about it is the second author: young Josh Nicholson is a 22 year old student who Duesberg has obviously been grooming. I suspect that when he grows up he will have substantial grounds for suing Berkeley for failing in their duty of care to their young students.

    Highlights from Duesbauer's drivel include:

    South Africa had 12 million HIV positives in 2000-2005, or 25-30%. Oops, no that that's the percentage among antenatal clinic attenders: the whole population prevalence was about 10.8%, or around 5 million.

    SA's HIV prevalence has remained stable at 25-30% since 1985 (and they provide a graph, figure 1b). Oops, figure 1b shows near zero prevalence in 1990, rising steeply year by year to peak at 30% in 2005, before falling slightly to around 28% in 2007. Oh, and it's antenatal attenders, not the whole population.

    South African statistics record an average of 12,000 HIV deaths per 12 million HIV positives per year. Well, yeah it's true that not many HIV deaths are recorded as such: HIV is not a notifiable infection, and as Stats SA makes abundantly clear, most HIV related deaths are recorded according to the fatal opportunistic disease, not its underlying cause:

    "HIV death rates have a distinctive pattern by age in which there is an increase to a given age and then a rapid decline at older ages. This peak occurs at 30-34 for females and at 35-39 for males. Many HIV deaths are registered as being due to some other cause of death. This problem is aggravated by the fact that HIV is not a reportable disease in South Africa, unlike some other communicable diseases. Based on the age pattern of death rates by sex, it is likely that a high proportion of deaths registered as due to parasitic diseases, parasitic opportunistic infections, certain disorders of the immune mechanism and maternal conditions (females only) are actually caused by HIV. Some registered causes of death rise to a peak with age but then decline at older ages more slowly than HIV, especially for males. For these registered causes of death, some of the deaths are likely actually due to HIV, but some of the deaths are likely due to something other than HIV. These causes of death include all infectious diseases, tuberculosis, malaria and nutritional deficiencies." http://www.statssa.gov.za/PublicationsHTML/Report-03-09-052004/html/Report-03-09-052004.html

    South African statistics provide no evidence for the huge losses of South African lives from HIV during 200-2005. Ummm, except for the total increase in deaths from 317,000 in 1997 to 607,000 in 2006. While part of this was due to overall population increase, there was a doubling of the death rates in young to middle aged males, a tripling in young to middle aged females, and a doubling among infants under 5. No evidence?

    Among other gems we discover that pathogenic viruses spread exponentially and then decline exponentially within a few months due to antiviral immunity... err, like herpes simplex or hep B or hep C;

    that HIV DNA synthesis has never been detected in HIV positive people because replication is suppressed in the presence of antibody against HIV... even though HIV is in fact never virologically latent in chronic HIV infection;

    that AZT is used against cancer...

    I could go on, but the really interesting thing for a Bauer fan like myself is seeing his name as an author on a paper that declares: "In sum, we conclude that HIV is a passenger virus."

    In the light of the coming Great Denialist Civil War (or Tard Fight as ERV would describe it) it's fascinating to see Bauer finally put his name to whether HIV actually exists or not.

    ReplyDelete
  8. We're not the Judean People's Front, we're the People's Front of Judea! http://youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE

    ReplyDelete
  9. CaliforniaDreamerJuly 25, 2009 at 5:12 PM

    What is the deal?
    Is Anthony Brink jealous that Rasnick and Duesberg are getting all the credit for killing hundreds of thousands of South Africans? After all, was it not Brink who brought Rasnick to Mbeki? Did he not hold Duesberg up as a scientist?

    Does Anthony feel slighted that Peter and David chose to include Henry Bauer on the paper and ignoring him? Did Peter miss the opportunity to include a South African in his crazy paper, and if there is a crazy South African to call on would it not be Brink?

    Poor Anthony. Slighted by Rath, betrayed by his former ‘friend’ Ronald Suresh Roberts, and ignored by Mbeki. Now this. What is poor Anthony to do.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anyone know where to find the cheapest air tickets for travel from Melbourne (MEL) to San Francisco (SFO) in early November?

    And will I need rabies shots?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Rabies is a lie perpetrated by the man in order to make a costly vaccine! Don't buy into the lie!!! *runs off and makes foil helmet*

    ReplyDelete
  12. The real mystery in the paper is how a HIV prevalence of 0.7% in 1990 in South African antenatal clinics rose to 30.2% in 2005 through mother-to-child-transmission. Yes, Duesberg and Bauer are claiming that the graph supports the argument that HIV is a passenger virus spread primarily through MTCT. I'd like to see Bauer explain that one with his personal version of epidemiology. Perhaps he might need Darin Brown's assistance.

    My hypothesis is that Duesberg and Bauer are delusional fools. Can I get this published in Medical Hypotheses?

    Seriously, can any "rethinker" explain how it is possible to get from 0.7% prevalence to 30.2% prevalence in 15 years through MTCT? Anyone? Anyone?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Oops! I forgot about crank magnetism. That's the think about nutcase woo beliefs - you just can't stop at one. Speaking of which, check this out:

    Dear Liam,

    I have just come back from speaking to a crowded meeting in London combining parents concerned about vaccination, HIV positive people, Heal London people, Arnica parents group people [that's homeopathy cranks] – talking about fear and basic virology, focussing on what makes cells sick. In all virology experiments, cells especially produced viruses when poisoned.. So – we have logically to address poisons – and fear as it too causes immune suppression.

    We spoke about drug trials too – on vaccines – and of the atrocities in New York children’s homes, we spoke also of the HIV positive mothers now fleeing from the UK to Europe so their new born are not poisoned with antiretrovirals…

    But for me what was particularly exciting was seeing the unity growing between people worried about HIV and those generally concerned about viruses and vaccines…. for the latter are part of a rapidly growing movement – increasingly determined on civil disobedience if vaccines are enforced…

    AND – what just happened in London is precisely what I have been recently told in emails is inappropriate for the RA conference! Both Prof Etienne de Harven and David Crowe recently wrote to me to say that discussions of the basic ‘principles of virology’ (like that which just happened in London) are inappropriate for the RA conference.. and that people might not come if this widening of the debate were to be scheduled…

    I think this tragic – This year I have initiated the letter to Science -perhaps the first formal call to the journal for the withdrawal of the Gallo papers – and published Maria’s book Goodbye AIDs – and now am engaged in a building movement that unites AIDS dissidence and the anti vaccine movement – and my work is not for discussion… I am explicitly told my topics are too “divisive” for RA this year – yet RA sells my book from its website in which such issues are raised – a book that unites all concerned about viruses and the pharmaceutical industries..

    Janine Roberts – author of Fear of the Invisible"


    http://reducetheburden.org/?p=2102#comment-391

    ReplyDelete
  14. Oh my, oh my!! I finally got to a computer from which I am not banned to view the AME site! Jeepers, that is some funny shit!
    You have Rod Knoll pushing Brian Carter aside in the moderation of this one. At first I thought well, Mr. Knoll does not believe Carter can handle this emotional onslaught. Then it just became painfully (because my side hurt from laughing so hard) that it is Mr. Knoll who is the emotional invalid! He is ranting at any and everyone, especially Elizabeth Ely who sounds like she just smoked a big doobie and "just wants everyone to get along!" But old man Knoll is having none of it.
    It's a riot. I can't tell who the players are (and where their loyalties lie) without a program...or a score card. I think SNOUT needs to come up with a new scoring system for this Denialist Fight!
    I would love to write a blog about it but it's just too confusing!
    Ok, gotta run. I'm missing the fun!
    JTD

    ReplyDelete
  15. What is the big deal?
    Brink has been all over Crowe and Duesberg inc. ever since the Parenzee circus. A clash of delusions! Our old buddy SadunKal has helped fan the flames... no pun intended Sadun!
    See http://www.tig.org.za/DavidCroweApril-7-2009.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  16. Joshua Nicholson is a fine HIV scientist, indeed:
    http://www.cityonahillpress.com/2007/05/10/is-hiv-truly-the-cause-of-aids/

    Such in-depth reporting is simply amazing.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Yes, indeed Dr Duke, unlike yourself, Josh Nicholson is a fine scientist.

    Duke wrote a book, now several years old, called “The AIDS-ET Connection.” According to Dr. Duke, HIV and AIDS have a most interesting origin: they were created in the 1940s by aliens for use as a biological weapon. In a ‘press release’ for his book, Dr. Duke contends, “HIVs are… alien created ideal Biological Warfare agents of mass human destruction.”

    As for Duke, it would since he can't explain the failings and idiocies of HIV origins and beliefs, he simply attributes them to space aliens, instead of seeking to understand what dissidents have evidenced that show the entirety of hiv research and science to be misguided. In case you don't understand plain english, Duke, like Seth and the rest of his HIV believing followers, is just as looney on the subject as all other orthodox believers in HIV.

    As for myself, and as any good and sensible aids dissident would, I much prefer the evidences of Professor Henry Bauer along with his love for the lore of Nessie, than I do for the beliefs of your HIV believer and space alien inspired compadre above, Dr. Phillip S. Duke.

    ReplyDelete
  18. UHM, I do believe "Dr. Duke" is an ironic pseudonym! Get it, Anonymous?
    JTD

    ReplyDelete
  19. I am certainly hoping that once this dispute among the AIDS denialist cognoscenti over whether HIV exists has been resolved by public and open debate that they will continue the tradition, and address other such crucial but unresolved issues.

    Such as whether AIDS is caused by syphilis as Margulis and others are proposing, or whether it cannot possibly be related to any sexually transmissible agent, the central plank of Henry Bauer's theory.

    I suspect one such issue to follow on once Eleni "Anytime"-Papadopulos' followers have successfully executed their current e-coup will be whether any viruses at all exist. No doubt, Janine Roberts will bring her extensive knowledge of molecular biology to bear on the discussion. Unfortunately, I suspect that David Crowe will be too on the nose following his appointment as Official Scapegoat for the Parenzee fiasco to be able to offer her much assistance.

    Other so-far silenced issues in the broader dissident community include whether HIV was created to control the population in a US government lab (and Peter Duesberg's precise role in this). And once this has been clarified we can move on to the AIDS-ET connection as outlined by Dr Philip S. Duke. (Readers can find out more about this amazing theory and indeed quite a number of startling and original viewpoints by clicking on the website link of "Dr Duke" above, as "Anonymous" obviously has).

    While some good and sensible aids dissidents have been distressed by the recent discord, they will of course recognise the long-term benefits of giving all dissident viewpoints the full, frank, open and respectful hearing they deserve. After all, they wouldn't like to be seen as silencing important voices, would they?

    ReplyDelete
  20. So the Duesberg Mafia Orthodoxy is under attack. I see some cracks in Denialism. It is just a matter of time before it collapses and Duesberg-Rasnick-Bauer will be left with an empty theory. And what will Farber and Crowe blog about? They are running scared and are out of time. Best to cut bait and join the Birthers.

    ReplyDelete
  21. New to this but I'm impressed by the amount of name-calling and the lack of scientific evidence for your views. Perhaps you could answer a question for me:
    What did Gallo do to show that testing positive on an antibody test in 1984 meant for sure that you were "infected" with and not "immune to" HIV?

    Please provide the reference of the journal article.

    Please try and answer without suggesting I'm stupid/deny the moon is in the sky/ and all the other epithets you are so good at.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hi New Anonymous
    Welcome to my blog.

    Some of the people you are reading here do resort to name calling, often out of frustration. Denialism can get under your skin. There is no evidence that will satisfy AIDS Deniers because it is not about evidence. It is about living in a bubble.

    I appreciate your question. My view is that the early 1980s are not the best place to look for sound AIDS science. Very little was known about HIV/AIDS in 1984. What if we disregard those early years all together. Say we throw out Gallo’s papers and everything published on HTLV/HIV/AIDS before, lets say 1990. Would that matter?

    Not to me.

    Research on AIDS advances each year and looking before 2000 is actually foolish. In my book Denying AIDS I discuss how AIDS Denialists are stuck in the 1980’s. Who cares about Gallo’s 1984 papers other than Historians and AIDS Deniers?

    If you want to understand how HIV tests work and what their sensitivities and specificities are then I can direct you to the current knowledge base. If you want to debate about the virtues of Robert Gallo you will be disappointed with this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Querido Anonymous:
    I have seen your name many times, so it is a pleasure to finally address you! Here is my simple understanding. Someone with more expertise might offer a correction. If there is such a thing as "immune to HIV," such a person would not produce antibodies without being exposed to the virus. So Gallo knew for sure that antibodies meant virus. This is based on basic immunology, not any specific study of HIV.
    In 1984 it was still conceivable that an immune response could clear the virus, so it may have been thought possible to detect antibodies in someone who had just cleared the virus. But in the years since, this has never happened. The only exception is in newborns who received the antibodies from HIV+ mothers but are not infected. It is very easy to rule out HIV infection in these cases.
    Of course there are false positives, much rarer with today's tests than in 1984. But these are positive tests when there really are no antibodies present, not accurate detection of antibodies when there is no infection.
    Abrazos,
    Fulano de Tal

    ReplyDelete
  24. Your answer to my question about why a positive HIV test says someone is infected rather than immune does not give me the answer I seek. All science has its seminal studies and that is the one I want. We never start inquiries from "now" but look to where things began. For example, we have Boyle's Law as a basis and that was formed centuries ago.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anthony Brink is now sinking the boot in to David Crowe on AIDS Myth Exposed. He quotes correspondence from Janine Roberts:

    "30 July 2009 08:45 PM

    Dear RA and Rethinking Activists,

    A few days ago David Crowe put up a public webpage distorting my words, removing their context and saying that I was misleading people..."


    http://forums.aidsmythexposed.com/main-forum/5783-rethinking-rethinking-aids-11.html

    Well, I'm shocked, Janine. You mean you are accusing Crowe of... Quote Mining?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anonymous (please select a name to help us differentiate you from other anonymous),

    Your example is a bit inappropriate in that Boyle's law is a simple and fairly easily measurable mathematical property. HIV is more than simple math with a few measurements. HIV biology, like the biology of any infectious disease, noninfectious disease, functions of genes in general and pretty much anything else in biology is rarely (if ever) answered in a single "seminal" paper.

    Observations must be duplicated, genomes sequenced, experiments built upon preceding experiments. It is far more complicated than simply measuring of pressure and volume.

    For example, take the case of HHV8, the causative agent in Kaposi Sarcoma. The seminal studies suggesting that the causative agent was a virus came out in the 1950s. However, it wasn't until the 1980s that a viral-like structure was observed using electron microscopy. HHV8 viral sequences were first identified in 1995. If I asked you to show me evidence from the seminal papers that HHV8 was a virus what would I get? If I asked you to prove it was the causative agent of KS from the same papers what would I find? Rather, HIV biology, like any biology is best seen through the entire history of its research. I hope this makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Who is Anthony Brink? I have been reading RA for years and I have never heard of him?

    ReplyDelete
  28. In respect to your question on why it was suspected that a positive antibody test meant infection not immunity, I would give the following two reasons:

    1) In the seminal paper on HIV (here) Montagnier showed not only that a previously unidentified retrovirus could be cultured from the patient's blood, but also that they concurrently had antibodies to it (while the blood of a healthy donor did not react to it), indicating that the presence of antibodies did not necessarily indicate neutralization.

    2) The virus in question was a retrovirus. Retroviruses have a history of being able to maintain infection while evading the immune system, despite the production of antibodies. Other examples of such cases would be HTLV-I and II (humans), Murine Leukemia Virus and Mouse Mamary Tumor Virus (mice obviously), FIV (cats of various sorts), EIAV (horse) and many, many others. Please note that this ability while common in retroviruses is not unique to them. Other viruses, bacteria and parasites can evade the immune system as well.

    These are only two reasons and I can find more if you want. Another example (albeit 7 later after the first paper on HIV) is the Jackson paper which detected virus by a variety of means (culturing, PCR, ect...) in 100% of the 409 antibody-positive adults they tested. Of those 409, 56 had symptomatic AIDS, 88 patients had AIDS-related complex, and 265 were asymptomatic. Thus, it is a safe bet that symptomatic patients had been infected long enough ago that if antibodies meant immunity no virus should be detected (although I make this is a simplistic conclusion only for the sake of answering your question. Immunity is more complex than just antibody=immunity). I hope you find this helpful.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Poodle Stomper…
    Your point about assessing the entirety of an area in science is so critical to understanding the central flaws of denialist arguments.

    Everything from cherry picking to Gallo obsessions falls within this one key fault.

    The sheer number of citations from the 1980s that AIDS Deniers rely on says it all.

    I like to think of it this way…


    In the beginning there was Gallo and Duesberg.

    Today there are tens of thousands of scientists dedicated to AIDS research.

    And there is still just Duesberg.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Am I mistaken or wasn't Christine Maggiore involved in RA?
    I find it quite telling that we are not hearing from people like Farber and Clark Baker on this one. Perhaps they are awaiting the official "winner" to be announced so they can, in good conscience, declare their loyalties to him...er, them...I mean those?
    Help me out here, please....
    JTD

    ReplyDelete
  31. In all seriousness, this sounds to me like they are now realizing just how stupid they looked to the entire scientific community for writing and signing that letter to SCIENCE to retract those old Gallo papers!! Now they are trying to throw blame at others instead of TAKING RESPONSIBILITY for a very bad, stupid idea that got them nothing but laughed at!
    Hey Denialists, here is a new concept, try acting like grown up adults and take some responsibility for the lies and deception you so arrogantly and proudly spread.
    JTD

    ReplyDelete
  32. Julia,

    Anthony Brink used to be a lawyer in South Africa.

    Together with Anita Allen, a "journalist", he was instrumental in introducing President Mbeki to the HIV/AIDS denialist position in the 1990s. His particular specialty was misinterpreting the medical literature to claim that AZT is toxic and ineffective, as are other antiretrovirals.

    With the collapse of denialism at an official level following the ousting of Mbeki and his batty health minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, Brink is now directing his considerable charms toward RA, and is backing a couple of Australian nutcases who call themselves the "Perth Group" in their quest for World Domination of the Denialist Cause.

    Dislodging the current RA president David Crowe is part of the bloodletting process.

    The current plan is to make him the scapegoat for the failings of the Perthians at the Parenzee hearing. Apparently Val Turner and Eleni "Anytime" Papadopulos failed not because they were obvious kooks trying to advance a nutcase agenda by abusing the South Australian legal system, but because Crowe interfered with their strategy.

    Similarly, Janine Roberts' Letter to the Editor of Science demanding the retraction of the 1984 Gallo papers failed to get published not because it was complete and utter nonsense, but because of something David Crowe did.

    http://moonflake.wordpress.com/2006/06/07/midweek-cuckoo-dissenting-opinions/

    http://homepage.mac.com/zoe.flood/oforum/issue_01_2005/of_01_2005_p2427.htm

    ReplyDelete
  33. Although I pressed Anon, my name is Karen. My boyfriend has found out he's HIV positive so I'm trying to learn more. Found this site but I am not learning much as everyone seems to be hung up on what other people think. It's like going to church to learn about christianity and having the congretation deride muslims all the time.

    What is this site for? Need to know if I am going to continue.

    Thank you Poodle Stomper for answering my question. Could you tell me how a retrovirus is isolated?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Karen
    I established this blog to expose people who say that HIV does not cause AIDS and that HIV medications are poison. They would say your boyfriend should ignore his test result and that you should not worry about getting infected if you two are sexually active. They would also tell him to reduce his stress and not take HIV treatments. These people are pretty much nuts and do great harm. They are like people who deny the history of the Holocaust, only worse. Denialists distort facts and hand pick sentences to suite their warp needs and agendas.
    This site also serves as my Author’s blog for people who read my book Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy [all the royalties are donated to buy HIV meds in Africa] and want to keep up with AIDS Denial.
    So this site is about AIDS Deniers, it is not about HIV/ AIDS facts.
    This site is not about educating people about the science and medical realities of HIV infection. There are some excellent site that I have linked to the right under the heading “learn more about AIDS”. They are all quality information sites, but I like thebody.com as a place to start.
    Asking how a retrovirus is isolated is a bit off topic for someone who wants to learn about her boyfriend’s HIV infection. There is a lot of basic information that I hope you have before getting into the most technical issues. But if that is what you need, you can find it at http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/ and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez
    If you want to learn more about AIDS Denialism I have linked to those sites too. Start with the Alive and Well site. It was started by AIDS Denier Christine Maggiore whose baby died of AIDS that could have been prevented and she herself died of AIDS sooner than she probably would have if she accepted treatment. One of the sadder stories in AIDS Denial – it is the Human Tragedy part.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Karen,
    As Seth mentioned this site is more about the phenomenon known as AIDS denialism. If your BF just found out he is HIV positive my advice for you would be to go get tested yourself and speak with either a doctor or counselor regarding the best ways to prevent transmission to yourself and what he needs to do to care for his own health. The internet, while useful at times, is not the most reliable place to do so as, quite honestly, anyone with a connection can give their opinion, be it right or wrong.

    As for your question about isolation, there different ways to isolate retroviruses. One method is through centrifugation (high speed spinning) in a density gradient of sucrose. Another method is molecular cloning (getting a DNA copy of the viral genome). The cloned DNA can then be inserted into cells and new, infectious viruses can be produced. An example of this being done directly from uncultured cells of an AIDS patient. A third method involves iodixanol density gradient followed by immuoprecipitation of non-viral cell vesicles, yielding an extremely pure HIV sample. And there are other ways as well which can be found in this compilation here.

    I suspect you are aware of the claims made by various denialists regarding the need for a sample free of cell proteins/material. This is a BS claim. First the membrane surrounding HIV which is acquired during budding is of cellular origin and thus it will contain cell proteins normally found in the cell membrane in addition to the HIV protein. This holds true for all membrane bound viruses I’ve looked up. I won’t say it holds true for 100% of them because in my experience when one makes an absolute statement an exception will be found just to spite them. In any case, to demand such a standard would require the person to be extremely limited in their knowledge of virology. Limited enough that they should not be considered a reliable source of information. Secondly, certain cell vesicles can sediment at a similar density to retroviruses. To virologists this isn’t often a problem as there are distinct differences between cell vesicles and retroviruses.

    As for the insults you observed previously in an above post, I myself am guilty of when the people about to be insulted demonstrate a preference to maintaining their denial rather than take the time to learn something new. Many of us here are scientists. I personally am a molecular biologist, meaning that I deal with techniques such as PCR, RT-PCR, ect… on a daily basis. It get a bit irritating to have someone with no background at all tell you that you are wrong all because they read someone saying so on a message board. I make no apologies for insulting people like this and reserve the right to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Ooops, two things. First, the link to the third method should have been this. Second, I apologise for my many gramatical mistakes. I was very distracted when writting the previous post.

    -Poodles

    ReplyDelete
  37. You have to admire the critical thinking of super skeptic David Crowe.

    "Null claims to have a PhD. That’s good enough for me."

    It turns out that it was Crowe's idea to get Gary Null and homeopathist Robert Scott Bell to sign the letter to Science demanding the retraction of Gallo's 1984 series of papers.

    Pure comedy. I guess Null and Bell will boycott Science and submit their groundbreaking research to Medical Hypotheses now.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Seth,

    You are so transparent, yet too arrogant to see it. You are the lying vicious snake. All ANYONE has to do is look at your outrageous ridiculous non-sense bully-blog to see who you truly are, just like the snakes at aidstruth.org and the pit of vipers you call friends, "Poodle Stomper," John P. Moore PhD, "Snout," J Todd DeShong, and Mark Wainberg PhD to name just a few. I know you don't believe in God or you would know that you will answer for your crimes against humanity in the next life, if not this one. And although I believe in a loving God, lucky for you that doesn't include hell, but it does include the opposite of everlasting life - everlasting death. As an ex-agnostic I guess it's pointless to tell you that because you don't believe in life after death anyway. How sad is that?

    Sincerely, John Hankins

    ReplyDelete
  39. Typical...LOL Mark my words.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Well alrighty then... All I can say John is... Mark Wainberg has an MD. Now go take your medication and get some rest.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I'm alive and well for over 23 years with an "HIV+" diagnosis as living proof that HIV does not equal AIDS because I didn't take the toxic AZT "medication" that everyone in the gay community and every infectious disease doctor I've ever had knows killed over 300,000 gay men from 1987 to 1997. People like you will have to answer to charges of complicity in the largest fraud in human history resulting in crimes against humanity and genocide.

    "I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. That is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant." Martin Luther King, Jr.

    "I have all along believed that what is possible for one is possible for all, my experiments have not been conducted in the closet, but in the open" Gandhi

    "Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and steadily reflection is occupied with them: the starry heaven above me and the moral law within me." Immanuel Kant, Critique of Practical Reason

    "The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." John Locke, The Second Treatise of Civil Government

    "The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.” Einstein

    "How to stay in business while killing people - deny, and when you can't deny, confuse." Unknown Author

    "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" Voltaire'

    ReplyDelete
  42. "I'm alive and well for over 23 years with an "HIV+" diagnosis as living proof that HIV does not equal AIDS because I didn't take the toxic AZT "medication" that everyone in the gay community and every infectious disease doctor I've ever had knows killed over 300,000 gay men from 1987 to 1997."

    While I have no way of verifying your claim (no evidence if you will) by your apparent standard of "proof" Maggiore and the many other drug- and med-free HIV+ denialists who have died of AIDS are proof that HIV does AIDS. Science has not ignored the existence of long term nonprogressors. Such phenomena exist for most viral and bacterial diseases as well as non-viral/bacterial. For example, the black plague, caused by the bacteria Y. pestis. Not everyone exposed to it died. Some, made full recoveries, some showed very few symptoms. Should one conclude that the bacteria is harmless or doesn't exist? What about cancer? Not everyone who develops cancer dies of it. Some, for unknown reasons, go into remission. Should we ignore cancer then and pretend it is harmless based on those few? Should cancerous cells be ignored as harmless and incapable of killing?

    The problem with biology is that it is extremely complex and many lay people have trouble understanding it. Thus, they become easy prey for denialist groups (be it HIV, cancer, or whatnot).

    ReplyDelete
  43. "The problem with biology is that it is extremely complex and many lay people have trouble understanding it. Thus, they become easy prey for denialist groups (be it HIV, cancer, or whatnot)."

    The problem with ignorant bullies is that they have no clue what they are talking about. I had straight A's in math through calculus, and in biology and genetics, but us little "lay" people aren't intelligent enough to see through your non-sense? Unfortunately, you're the one in denial, get a clue "poodle stomper." Sometimes a name says it all!

    ReplyDelete
  44. Johnny,
    "The problem with ignorant bullies is that they have no clue what they are talking about. I had straight A's in math through calculus, and in biology and genetics, but us little "lay" people aren't intelligent enough to see through your non-sense?"

    Again I have no evidence of your claims other than your say so. If you truly understand genetics so well (I wonder how long ago was it you took said classes?) then it certainly does not show in your reasoning. But then I am not surprised.

    So, following your very flawed reasoning, here is a list of other diseases that cannot be real:

    -Rabies (one person survived exposure without treatment, showing beyond a doubt that the virus is harmless)
    -Herpes (not all infected individuals have outward signs, meaning that cold sores must be due to something other that HSV)
    -Polio (Many people survived before the vaccine without medical intervention, meaning that the virus must be harmless to all)
    -The black plague (explained above)
    -Genital warts (not all people with HPV break out with visible symptoms, meaning it cannot possibly be the cause of warts)
    -ect, ect... Get the point? Using the existance of long term survivors, while it does show the effect of human genetic variation, does not disprove HIV or other diseases. Rather it supports it.

    "Unfortunately, you're the one in denial, get a clue "poodle stomper.""

    I fail to see how my holy vendetta against the common poodle has any bearing on HIV, sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  45. First, Poodles, could you please have Sadunkal interpret The Retrovirus Protocol book for me? Thanks.
    Second, Nobel, well of course Bell and Null had to sign the letter to SCIENCE demanding the Gallo papers retraction. How else do you think they would have accomplished their goal without those two signatories....OH, wait, that's right, they were NOT successful! My bad.
    Third, Mr. Hankins, are you also known as "wherestheproof"? Also, where did you get that statistic you quoted above about 300K gay men b/w '87 & '97 killed by HIV Meds? I have been taking HIV Meds consistently for 15 years and I am alive, well and never had a side effect nor a lasting ill effect. I do believe I am the rule and you are the exception. (Of course I am the one who is EXCEPTIONAL! hehe) Lastly, what are we to glean from the quote mining of Voltaire/Einstein/Ghandi/Kant? Is it that you also made straight A's in Literature? Bully for you. Now how about making a cohesive statement that pulls together all your quaint, little virtues? I'm giddy with anticipation.
    JTD

    ReplyDelete
  46. Mr. Hankins,

    If you got A's in biology and genetics at a good university, you should be able to understand papers such as this:

    Accurate reconstruction of a known HIV-1 transmission history by phylogenetic tree analysis.
    Leitner T, Escanilla D, Franzén C, Uhlén M, Albert J.
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996 Oct 1;93(20):10864-9.
    PMID: 8855273

    Which prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that HIV is a sexually transmissible, exogenous lentivirus.

    You should also understand that no virus kills 100% of the individuals it infects (with the various strains of rabies viruses being a near exception). So one or more people infected with HIV and not dying, does not prove that HIV is harmless, any more than one or more people infected with the 1918 pandemic influenza A virus (H1N1) proves that this virus did not kill some 20 million people between 1918 and 1919.

    ReplyDelete
  47. John
    Now you sound like David Crowe – a Shmendrik with two Bachelor’s Degrees in Math and Science who knows more than every virologist and infectious disease physician in the world.

    You were good in math and science, so you know everything.

    And who is arrogant?

    ReplyDelete
  48. All anyone has to do is look at the writing above and all their posts on http://dissidents4dumbees.blogspot.com/, http://snoutworld.blogspot.com/ and watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Crvm9x2mN94 to see who the arrogant bullies are. Then there's the infamous John P. Moore bullying and ID fraud which I and others have proof of. I have also filed an FBI and police report outlining his crimes. You are all delusional. I sincerely hope you find the Truth before it's too late.

    Mr. DeShong, if you've been taking the meds for 15 years your days are numbered, but I guess we all must die sometime.

    ReplyDelete
  49. John, I just watched that video clip you linked.

    It was Robin Scovill interviewing Mark Wainberg for his 2004 documentary The Other Side of AIDS.

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

    In the film, Scovill featured his wife, Christine Maggiore, who was HIV-positive, and claimed that she and their two children were healthy despite not taking anti-HIV medications.

    In 2005, the year after he made that film, Robin Scovill suffered the almost unbearable pain of losing a much loved daughter from a largely preventable cause, AIDS.

    Three years later his wife Christine died as well from the same condition. I will not pretend to comprehend the pain he and his surviving son are dealing with.

    Wainberg does not seem arrogant to me. He looks like a guy who has been caught on camera suddenly realising that he is being interviewed by someone who is in deep denial of an avoidable coming personal horror, and is hell bent on drawing others into it.

    I felt Wainberg's horror and outrage in that moment, particularly with the hindsight that neither he or Scovill had at the time. I'm not sure if I agree with Wainberg's legalistic response to Scovill's "journalism", but I can understand why he said what he said at that moment.

    I don't think Wainberg was a bully. I think he was right.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I don't believe for one second that either Christine or her daughter died of AIDS and If you think for one moment your patronizing attempt to act like you care about other people's feelings and tragedies with an ALIAS like "Snout," and all your prior writings on your blog that demonstrate child-like contempt and bullying directed at anyone who disagrees with you then you are truly delusional.

    ReplyDelete
  51. From Karen.

    Thank you Poodle for a straight answer. However, this is not the site for me. I grew up years ago and left the "yardy yardy yardy" of the elementary school play ground behind when I entered high school. I suspect that 99% of the contributors to this list are male? The listings demonstrate why the world, run by males, is in the state it is in.

    I took courses in basic sciences which is why I am interested in lab tests and such. I still can't see why the presence of antibodies, which in every other condition signifies immunity, signifies infection in HIV.

    Seth says this list is to attack "AIDS denialists". I have looked at their sites and conclude that very well qualified people do not deny that AIDS exists, they just don't think it's caused by a virus.

    When I took my science courses we learned of several disputes but these were conducted by the presentation of evidence, not by personal abuse so ably demonstrated on this list. Can you imagine this sort of interchange occurring over whether cholesterol contributes to heart disease?

    Thus, I conclude thou dost protest too much and I wonder what your motives are. I have just read a fascinating book called The Flat Earth News - a book about the media and the PR companies that support corporations. I suspect that this list is a PR front for Big Pharma. After all someone is making a lot of money from HIV tests and drugs.

    So I say farewell and I'm off to read Virus Myth articles. They are at least polite to each other even though your unruly mob hurls their taunts and insults.

    Karen

    ReplyDelete
  52. Amen to that Karen. I knew other people could see through their agenda to the core of the way they operate and treat others with brutal contempt and passive agressive statements. It's apparent to anyone with even a modicum of discernment that they are child-like bullies in grown mens bodies, the sign of a true coward. I'm done playing in their sand box as well. Have a good day boys, see you in court!

    ReplyDelete
  53. Karen,
    "So I say farewell and I'm off to read Virus Myth articles. They are at least polite to each other even though your unruly mob hurls their taunts and insults."

    I must say I'm a bit confused. I thought my response to you was very polite without even a hint of any sort of sarcasm or whatnot. I would be more than happy to explain more in depth the antibody/immunity topic if you wish.

    Johnny,
    "I don't believe for one second that either Christine or her daughter died of AIDS"

    The question is not WHAT you believe but rather what is the evidence to support it. Pray tell what evidence you have to suggest that there was something else that caused Christine's very characteristic signs of severe immune-suppression? If you have said evidence then please share. Until then, ask yourself whether you believe that she didn't die of AIDS because there is good evidence to support such an idea or simply because you would like it to be true.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Karen,
    "I still can't see why the presence of antibodies, which in every other condition signifies immunity, signifies infection in HIV."

    I will say this to you in hopes that you (or anyone else with the same question as you had):

    The reason for your confusion seems to stem from this part of your statement: "which in every other condition signifies immunity".

    This is not the case. There are in fact many other diseases in which presence of antibody does not necessarily indicate immunity. I have listed a few below:

    -Herpes Simplex Virus-1 and -2 (humans)
    -Hepatitis B (humans)
    -Hepatitis C (humans)
    -Syphilis (humans)
    -HPV (humans)
    -Murine Leukemia Virus (mice)
    -Mouse Mammary Tumor Virus (mice)
    -EIAV (horse)
    -FIV (cats)
    -BIV (cows)
    -SIV (monkeys)
    -and many more. Simply ask and I would be more than happy to name a few more.

    ReplyDelete
  55. John
    I want to thank you for posting here.
    You help readers see exactly why we should be concerned about AIDS Denialism. I am always pleased to interact with a long time survivor living with HIV/AIDS. And the fact that you have chosen to stop treatment is your choice. You do not need to be in denial over your decision to stop treatment. Just do what you think is right for yourself. Listen to yourself and not the likes of Gary Null. You can live the myth without pulling others in with.
    Thanks again

    ReplyDelete
  56. John I'm curious about your HIV medication use history. How long have you been off of them (Seth said you stopped taking them)?

    ReplyDelete
  57. PoodleStomper
    I went back to get you the link and found that I was mistaken. Gary Null (and void) posted a running list with run on sentences, better known as Null Word Salad, with John in the leadoff. It was actually another victim of denialism that I misattributed to John. Here is the passage…
    Edward Lieb has been HIV positive for 30 years -from the hep-B vaccines given in the gay bath houses in the 70's. He was tested in 1987 & given 2 years to live, without early medical intervention; he never sought treatment & hadn't suffered from any AIDS defining diseases for over 28 years. Last year he was hospitalized due to a head injury; he was tested for HIV against his will & forced to take AZT, followed by Atripla; http://tiny.cc/zLTLX
    So I do not know if John was ever on ARVs. My mistake, not that it matters.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Seth,
    No problem. Thanks for the self-correction.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Have you noticed that the AME thread on RA has been closed "due to possible legal issues"???
    Interesting!
    JTD

    ReplyDelete
  60. JTD
    I have to admit the soap opera at AME boars the crap out of me. Watching Crowe and Brink fight for the leadership of RA is like watching two turds swirling around the bowl to see which goes down the tank first. Can anything be more insignificant than being the President of Rethinking AIDS Society?

    The entertainment value was high until they stopped the juicy stuff out fear of looking ‘crazy’. Who would have thought?

    ReplyDelete
  61. So there Anthony Brink!! Rethinking AIDS, right back at ya!
    Nanny-Nanny Boo-Boo
    Posted at Rethinking AIDS

    August 12, 2009
    A Response to Critics
    The Board of Directors of Rethinking AIDS reaffirms its complete confidence in our president David Crowe. Allegations and rumors to the contrary are groundless and completely false. The Board finds no fault with Mr. Crowe's handling of such issues as the 2008 letter to Science or providing assistance to the defense attorney in the 2006 Parenzee case. The recent baseless, ad hominem sniping on the Internet serves no constructive purpose other than to re-affirm the lack of intellectual rigor and equanimity of individual posters. Personal attacks detract from RA's efforts to undermine the toxic HIV/AIDS paradigm. The Board is always receptive to courteously framed suggestions and constructive scientific debate, but in future will ignore unbridled obscenity-laden untruths broadcast on the Internet.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Thank you Karen for your comments, as you are actually trying to help a person in need, while others here are just trying to impress you with their medical degrees. I find that when people are actually HIV positive, or trying to help someone who is, they think more clearly because they don't trip on their degrees.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Anonymous,
    I completely agree. This applies to all areas of science, not just HIV biology. For example, I am lobbying to have journalists and ESP researchers run the Large Hadron Collider. I for one am sick of those PhD physicists tripping all over their degrees when they run it. Will you join my cause?

    ReplyDelete
  64. Anonymous, your comments are only partially correct, depending on if they are giving advice based on their experience or information and facts that they know to be true based on peer reviewed documents and work experience.
    I have both.
    However, even when people give advice based on their experience as Karri Stokely has been doing all over the world (via internet) that her "story" is the rule and not the exception and urges others to follow her example, that's when I get pissed.
    It's one thing to tell your story, but when you try to make others think your experience is reality, then I think they are doing much more harm than good. So people need to weigh advice with how it is given, who is giving it and what underlying agenda that person may be promoting.
    JTD

    ReplyDelete