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.

Friday, December 11, 2009

HIV, AIDS, and One Year Later: No Rest for Christne Maggiore

There is apparently no rest for Christine Maggiore. Exploited by AIDS Denialists throughout her bout with HIV infection, the manipulation of facts and twisting of reality continues one year after her sad death. Christine Maggiore tested HIV positive in 1992, as proven by her HIV positive test results shown in the film House of Numbers. Christine died of pneumonia and disseminated herpes (an AIDS defining condition) as shown on her Death Certificate.

Now we see an autopsy summary that includes her having another AIDS defining condition, Pneumocystis jiroveci (carinii) pneumonia (PCP) - although the actual autopsy report is unavailable and her Death Certificate shows no autopsy was conducted. Yet, the report states that Christine Maggiore did not die of AIDS. Rather, she died of antibiotic poisoning.

Coincidentally(?), we are to believe that her baby Eliza Jane Scovill also died of antibiotics despite the official report by the Los Angeles Coroner that ruled she died from complications of AIDS. At first, AIDS Denialists claimed that Christine Maggiore died from a ‘bad detox’. Then there was speculation that she died from the stress caused by the Law and Order SVU television episode that portrayed her AIDS Denial. Now it seems Law and Order is off the hook and antibiotics killed Christine.


The report of Christine Maggiore’s death is offered by Dr. Mohammed Ali Al-Bayati, who received his Bachelors of Science from the University of Baghdad, College of Veterinary Medicine in 1975. His training then took him to the University of Cairo where he completed his Masters Thesis titled “Histopathological and histochemical changes in the adrenal glands of the Egyptian Buffalo with follicular cysts and inactive ovaries.” Al-Bayati received his doctorate from the University of California Davis in Human Pathology, Toxicology, Immunology, and Biochmestry.

Al-Bayati is a consultant on adverse reactions to pharmaceuticals, including the evils of vaccines. The limited research he has published has been nearly exclusively on rats and mice. He has never conducted research on HIV or on humans. Still, he claims that HIV is harmless and that everything from crack cocaine, alkyl nitrites, malnutrition, AZT, protease inhibitors and of course antibiotics cause AIDS.

Al-Bayati is most notorious for his critique of the Los Angeles County coroner’s report for Eliza Jane Scovill, Christine Maggiore’s three-year-old daughter who died of AIDS. In one of the more obscene Internet postings in HIV/AIDS denialism, Al-Bayati has exploited the deaths of children by printing their autopsy reports in a dubious journal and posting the reports online. The obscenities continue with this new ‘report’ on Christine Maggiore’s death.

I have excerpted the first sections and the final conclusion from Mohammed Ali Al-Bayati’s report “Analysis of causes that led to Christine Maggiore’s acute renal and cardiac failure, pulmonary edema, and death” which is available at Rethinking AIDS website, where the exploitation of Christine Maggiore continues.

Analysis of causes that led to Christine Maggiore’s acute renal and cardiac failure, pulmonary edema, and death

Mohammed Ali Al-Bayati Ph.D., DABT, DABVT

Christine Maggiore was diagnosed with pneumonia on December 18, 2008 and was treated with antibiotics (Gentamicin, Rocephin, Azithromycin), Acyclovir, Fluconazole and corticosteroids. She also received Meyer’s cocktail, vitamin C, and calcium IV. She died on December 27,2008. She was 52 years of age.

Christine suffered fatal renal failure caused by antibiotics, antiviral, and calcium received during the 9 days prior to her death. The microscopic examination of the H & E stained sections of her kidneys revealed the presence of changes consistent with acute tubular necrosis. There were also changes consistent with mild nephrosclerosis.

Christine’s acute renal failure led to development of acute left ventricular heart failure, pulmonary congestion, and pulmonary edema. Christine’s pericardial sac and left chest cavity contained 100 mL and 200 mL of clear light brown serious fluid, respectively. Christine’s right and left lungs weighted 1319 and 1307 g, respectively. Her total lung weight was 2626 g, which is 750% of the average normal lung weight. The autopsy, pathology, and the clinical data and observation described in this report show clearly that Christine did not suffer from any AIDS indicator illness during the 2 years prior to her death or at the time of her death.

The gross and microscopic examination of Christine lymphoid organs and bone marrow appeared normal. The growth of P. jiroveci observed in Christine’s lungs and other tissues resulted from her treatment with corticosteroids during the 9 days prior to her death.

Dr. David M. Posey performed the autopsy in Christine’s case and his gross autopsy examination was completed on January 12, 2009. He stated that Christine was a well-developed and well-nourished Caucasian woman who appeared younger than her age of 52 years. She measured 66 inches in length and weighed 145 pounds.

Examination of Christine’s chest and abdominal cavities revealed that her organs were normally placed with no adhesions in these cavities noted. Her pericardial sac and left chest cavity contained 100 mL and 200 mL of clear light brown serous fluid, respectively.

Dr. Posey’s gross examination of Christine’s lungs revealed severe pulmonary edema and congestion. Christine’s right and left lungs weighted 1319 and 1307 g, respectively. His microscopic examinations of H & E stained sections of her lungs demonstrated severe congestion and edema. There was marked alveolar distention by frothy eosinophilic proteinaceous exudates. Diffuse alveolar damage was noted in both lungs. There was also proliferation of type 2 pneumocytes with modest infiltrates of acute and chronic inflammatory cells.

Posey’s microscopic examination of Christine’s organs revealed the following abnormalities in her kidneys, heart, liver, and thyroid gland: a) The presence of changes consistent with acute tubular necrosis in both kidneys. There were also changes consistent with mild nephrosclerosis; b) mild interstitial edema in the heart; c) benign focal nodular hyperplasia in the liver; and d) microscopic benign follicular adenoma in the thyroid gland.

In addition, growth of Pneumocystis jiroveci (carinii) was observed on the H & E stained sections of lungs, liver, pancreas, spleen, kidneys, and bone marrow and confirmed on the Gomori methenamine silver (GMS) preparation. The gross and microscopic examinations of Christine’s brain, thymus, spleen, lymph node, bone marrow, brain, and other organs were unremarkable.

Christine’s husband and his attorney requested that I evaluate the medical evidence in Christine’s case and give my opinion concerning the likely causes that led to her illness and sudden death. I am a toxicologist and pathologist with over 20 years experience in these fields. I have evaluated many cases of children and adults who died suddenly from unexplained causes and cases of children and adults who suffered from acute and/or chronic illnesses. I was able to explain the causes of illnesses and death in these cases using differential diagnosis.

I have also served as an expert witness in many medical-legal cases involving children and adults. I have published over 45 articles in medical and scientific journals.

I evaluated Christine’s medical records, autopsy report, and the pertinent articles cited in this report using differential diagnosis. My investigation in this case reveals the following: 1) Christine suffered fatal renal failure caused by the medications received during the 9 days prior to her death as indicated by the clinical and medical studies described in Section IV of this report.

For the full ‘report’ click here

Conclusions

Christine did not suffer from any AIDS indicator illness during the 2 years prior to her death and at the time of her death. It has been reported that Christine’s serum was tested positive for HIV with subsequent testing indeterminate in the 1990s. The clinical findings in Christine clearly challenge the clinical and the scientific validity of her HIV test.

138 comments:

  1. Why didn't Christine Maggiore's family release the autopsy report prepared by Dr. Posey, who performed the autopsy (and is qualified and licensed to do so, unlike al-Bayati)? What did that report say?

    Why did it take 11 months to prepare this "summary"? Denialists have slammed the LA coroner's office for taking only 4 months to issue Maggiore's daughter's autopsy report, and they suggested that that delay indicated dishonesty.

    Maggiore's death certificate states that no autopsy was performed, so Celia Farber can perhaps understand why people thought no autopsy was performed. Was the fact of the autopsy intentionally concealed?

    Since an autopsy *was* performed, a new death certificate must be issued, with the cause of death listed. That will be what Dr. Posey determined to be the CoD, not what al-Bayati made up. When can we expect to see that?

    Why, given Maggiore's famous rejection of HIV treatment, was she on antivirals? And what health conditions led her doctor to prescribe all those and all the other meds?

    Will Maggiore's family sue her quack doctor (whom Maggiore said shared her view of HIV) for malpractice and wrongful death? Will they sue the alternative practitioner who administered the infamous cleanse?

    This report seems to raise more questions than it answers.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is outrageous!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Has Al-Bayati ever done a "differential diagnosis" where he did not find that the death was caused by pharmaceutical drugs or "toxins"?

    How amazing that his findings are always 100% consistent with his preconceived ideas.

    Maggiore had also been heading "The Shaken Justice Project" which supported parents who had been accused of killing their babies. One of Al-Bayati's specialities was finding that babies who looked like they had been shaken to death really died from other things such as vaccination.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I would like some serious discussion on this thread of my theory that Jackie Kennedy used AZT to fatally poison JFK, BEFORE he got in the car that fateful day in Dallas. She then arranged for half his head to be blown off by Lyndon Johnson, firing from the Grassy Knoll. This was done so that, in the subsequent furor, the pathologists would forget to carry out toxicology screens and simply jump to the obvious (but wrong!) conclusion that the bullet in his head was the cause of death. I have hired Mohammed Ali Al-Bayati to review the medical evidence that was published in the Warren Commission Report and prove to the world that I am right and that Jackie was an evil murderer.

    Satire aside, it's very telling that Christine Maggiore's family won't release the REAL autopsy report, only a commentary on it by their tame "rent-a-quack" pseudo-pathologist. That tactic just REEKS of yet another cover up. They must be really scared of showing just what the REAL report said!

    Christine Maggiore died of AIDS. Specifically, by the PCP pneumonia, disseminated herpes and other OIs, caused by the immunodeficiency that was the end result of her 15+ years of HIV infection. She transmitted her HIV infection to her daughter, who also died of AIDS, without ever having the chance to make her own decisions. It's for allowing the unnecessary death of her child that Maggiore is most remembered, that and the other babies she killed by her anti-MTCT campaign.

    What her family and friends are now doing is deceptive and stupid, but that's nothing new. They should release the proper, authentic autopsy report and have done with this sick farce.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The saga rolls on, as the denialists try to pull off yet another ill-conceived publicity stunt destined to blow up in their faces (Celia Farber's and Clark Baker's obvious close involvement in this pretty much guarantees this).

    If the denialists are claiming that the autopsy report demonstrates that Maggiore didn't have AIDS when she died, why don't they release it?

    Why are they trying pass off Al-Bayati's spin as the equivalent of the actual report? Did they think no-one would notice? Do they seriously think anyone would find Al-Bayati convincing, especially given his past form and his direct personal interest in the case?

    No doubt the real report will surface in due course. Al-Bayati makes some serious allegations that I'm sure will be appropriately investigated by the LA Coroner and the Californian Medical Board.

    I doubt there will be any closure for years. I feel sorry for the surviving kid. Hell of a thing to have to grow up with.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There was one small detail in Maggiore's autopsy report that was overlooked or ignored by Al-Bayati. He claims one of the causes of death was renal failure caused by medications she was given. He also states in his report that her BUN and creatinine weren't checked during the week leading up to her death. However these lab tests were preformed on her urine at autopsy. Both her BUN and Creatinine were completely in the normal range for normal renal function.

      Her kidneys may have showed very early microscopic changes but at the time of her death they were functioning fine.

      I'm sure Al-Bayati felt this finding would be overlooked. And he could push his bogus cause of death.
      Claire

      Delete
  6. Noble states, "How amazing that his findings are always 100% consistent with his preconceived ideas." As if you could not OBVIOUSLY say this same thing about the people who's pre-conceived notions cloud every discussion of Christine Maggiore (and many other people labeled as "positive"). The five of you who read this website have pre-conceived notions thicker than the bricks in your heads.

    Your fearless leader stated, "Coincidentally(?), we are to believe that her baby Eliza Jane Scovill also died of antibiotics despite the official report by the Los Angeles Coroner that ruled she died from complications of AIDS. " As if it is not LIKELY that the two would have similar bad reactions to similar bad antibiotics. Is there no end to your lack of logic?
    Can all five readers of this blog please pick a new book to read for next month's meeting? Thanks.

    onecleverkid

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow onenotsocleverkid, You smell of dishonest quackery just like the other denialists that come here to argue with real scientific proof that both of these people died from AIDS. I don't get how the bricks in your head allow any oxygen in, Seriously man you are nothing more than a snotty little bastard, I will give you one, it is possible that the mother and child sure could have the same reaction to similar medications, but in this case they just had similar deaths from their similar disease, (AIDS), and the sad thing is, That little girl didn't have the chance to make her own decision regarding treatment, instead the two people that were suppose to protect this kid only let the kid down and it's because of their denial that their daughter is dead. It's sad to say but it's true, Suck on that.

      Delete
  7. I doubt there will be any closure for years. I feel sorry for the surviving kid. Hell of a thing to have to grow up with.

    You don't feel sorry for the kid, Snot. You've enjoyed trampeling on his mother's grave -- via pseudonyms via comments on the internet for close to a year now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Spoken like a true asshole, As if anyone that knows HIV and AIDS are killers, and knows how this mother and daughter actually died would wish any harm on the remaining kid, you are a sick evil bastard man. seriously sick.

      Delete
  8. Ceteris Paribus: Rule number 1. AIDS Denialists are insane, so do not try to impose rational thinking on them. As the great Philosopher Joe Walsh once said, You Cannot Argue with a Sick Mind.

    I find the Al-Bayati 'report' somewhat comforting. It is good to know that someone was trying to help this poor misguided woman....with disseminated Herpes she should have been getting antivirals. Obviously too little too late. If her so called friends had their way she would have gotten a coffee enema and whatever the hell else a radical detox involves.

    Chris: A better question... "What the hell is a differential diagnosis from an autopsy report? Anyone who paid for this crap is nuttier than we can imagine.

    Anonymous: I would not expect to see that autopsy report any time soon. And it is no joke that this mischief has a lot of hands on it. Clarkie Baker the Stokely's were chatting about it weeks ago. Rethinking AIDS posted it 5 Days after it is dated. Obviously a group effort.

    Snout: Easy answers to all of you questions...
    Dumb asses, Dumb asses, Dumb asses.

    Lets first show her HIV+ test result from 1992 in House of Morons and then state that she had PCP, and then we can conclude that she did not have AIDS.

    How anyone in their right mind could ever listen to these people is beyond me. Hell, I bet some of them even believe in monsters lurking about Scottish waters.

    One(not so)cleverkid: I posted your comment. You're welcome.

    Bill: " trampeling on his mother's grave"

    F#@k off. You accuse us of grave dancing while Al-Bayati, Baker, Stokely, Crowe, Farber and the gang post this obscenity? Where are the pictures of her lung tissue, after all she allowed Al-Bayati to post those of her dead child's? Ask any normal human being about that and see what they say.

    And remember Bill, every other comment...or so.

    ReplyDelete
  9. F#@k off. You accuse us of grave dancing while Al-Bayati, Baker, Stokely, Crowe, Farber and the gang post this obscenity?

    An autopsy report and analysis is not an obscenity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When someone buy's and pays for it yes it is.
      And that's what's happened here, The real cause of death here is the OI's due to AIDS. and it's sad as hell

      Delete
  10. It really is appalling the depths to which the RA group has sunk over this affair. There truly seems to be no limit to their immorality. It's no wonder that even the Perth Group despises them. The Perth Group are fools, but I doubt that even they would behave quite as shamefully as Maggiore's friends in arranging for this sickening pseudo-autopsy and using it to try to alter the facts. Well, it won't succeed, because no rational "real world" person will be conned by the subterfuge and deception on show here.

    Maggiore died of AIDS. Her daughter died of AIDS. What Al-Bayati says on the subject is of no relevance. And on that subject, can we have a full disclosure of what the man was paid for re-writing the autopsy report? Scientists disclose funding sources when preparing professional documents and are accused by the denialists of writing only what the sponsors want to hear. So, what was Al-Bayati paid to come up with his report, and what was the role of the funding source in the preparation of the document?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Maggiore died of AIDS. Her daughter died of AIDS

    That's not true. Neither of them were diagnosed with AIDS during their lives. Maggiore's autopsy demonstrates HIGH white blood cell counts and no AIDS-defining diseases.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They would have been diagnosed had either of them went to a real god damn doctor, And by the way The daughter was diagnosed with AIDS during the autopsy retard.

      Delete
  12. What autopsy report? Let me know when the people that love her so much stick that on the internet.

    Al-Bayati's document is no more an autopsy report than a coffee enema is medical care.

    And, Bill, please please tell me you are not that ignorant of HIV disease. I am sure she did have a high CD8 and NK count...White blood cells, really!

    ReplyDelete
  13. True, Dr. Posey did the autopsy -- Al Bayati analyzed the findings.

    The problem is that you jerks wanted her to die of AIDS. You need that conclusion to fit your pre-written narrative.

    Maggiore was never diagnosed with AIDS in her life, and you know that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She did die of AIDS. She had severe Pneumocystis pneumonia, which adults only get if they have AIDS (or have no bone marrow due to some other really bad condition-- not the case here).

      "There was marked alveolar distention by frothy eosinophilic proteinaceous exudates." That's a description of her congested lungs. Along with Pneumocystis organisms, that's diagnostic of Pneumocystis pneumonia. That means it's classic and nothing else looks like it.

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC464808/

      "Infection with Pneumocystis carinii typically results in a pneumonia which histologically is seen to consist of an eosinophilic foamy alveolar exudate associated with a mild plasma cell interstitial infiltrate."

      That's the first line of the abstract of a paper on pneumocystis in AIDS lungs. The vet tox pathologist Al-Bayati seems to think that this is consistent with congestive heart failure (CHF) from fluid overload from renal failure. One wonders how many lungs from animals with CHF he's seen. It is elementary medicine that CHF doesn't cause proteinacious esosinphilic exudates in alveoli, or inflammatory cells. That's not only pneumonia, but an odd type of pneumonia. In fact it is Pneumocystis pneumonia, most likely, even if you can't see the organism (which you could here, as it was found all over her body, including liver pancreas, spleen, kidneys and bone marrow) CHF causes extra type II pneumatocyte (macrophage) cells (seen here also) but that's a generic effect of alveolar distention from any cause.

      The idea that this woman had Pneumocystis in her lungs from being on just a week of 8 mg a day of methylpredisolone plus a steroid inhaler, is nonsense. These are low doses of steroids, far less than the average COPD or asthma patient gets for a severe attack, and they do not cause Pneumocystis.

      http://www.cwbpi.com/AIDS/reports/Maggiore-AlBayati.pdf

      The steroids are above. A quote:

      "All sections from both lungs showed marked alveolar distention by frothy eosinophilic proteinaceous exudates. Pulmonary
      edema has been reported in individuals are suffering from heart failure."

      Our veterinary expert is apparently unaware that not all pulmonary edemas are alike. This woman's lungs weighed more than 7 times normal from the fluid and they must have looked like liver rather than lungs. Being treated at home, she apparently got massive IV vitamin C from her alternative doc, but her idiot doctor forget to check her oxygen saturation or give her any oxygen. And she died. Surprise.

      Now, it's not as though she didn't start out with real pneumonia clinically, as she had bilateral middle and lower lobe patchy infiltrates on X-ray, plus fever and malaise. So one wonders why the consultant is working so hard to give her CHF. Well, it's because the real and severe pneumonia in the lungs seen on autopsy means she died of pneumonia and nobody bothered to send her to a hospital or check her oxygen. Wups.

      The reason why the renal failure theory doesn't fly has been noted. It's not compatible with normal urine BUN and creatinine. But without blood values we can't tell for sure. Renal failure is a clinical as well as lab diagnosis, and no doctor nvolved in this case bothered to look for it, apparently.

      Speaking of which, the noted gentamicin dose of 600 mg a day for a week would be malpractice alone if it is true, but I don't believe it. Gentamicin comes only in 40 and 80 mg ampules, and that tips you off if you are trying to give 7 of these or something. No nurse would do that. Probably this is an error for 60 mg. If it was the higher dose, it could have caused renal failure, but the lab evidence is against it, and of course the lung pathology also.

      In short, the woman died of classic AIDS (plus really bad medical care). Get used to it.

      Steve Harris, MD











      Delete
    2. She did die of AIDS. She had severe Pneumocystis pneumonia, which adults only get if they have AIDS (or have no bone marrow due to some other really bad condition-- not the case here).

      "There was marked alveolar distention by frothy eosinophilic proteinaceous exudates." That's a description of her congested lungs. Along with Pneumocystis organisms, that's diagnostic of Pneumocystis pneumonia. That means it's classic and nothing else looks like it.

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC464808/

      "Infection with Pneumocystis carinii typically results in a pneumonia which histologically is seen to consist of an eosinophilic foamy alveolar exudate associated with a mild plasma cell interstitial infiltrate."

      That's the first line of the abstract of a paper on pneumocystis in AIDS lungs. The vet tox pathologist Al-Bayati seems to think that this is consistent with congestive heart failure (CHF) from fluid overload from renal failure. One wonders how many lungs from animals with CHF he's seen. It is elementary medicine that CHF doesn't cause proteinacious esosinphilic exudates in alveoli, or inflammatory cells. That's not only pneumonia, but an odd type of pneumonia. In fact it is Pneumocystis pneumonia, most likely, even if you can't see the organism (which you could here, as it was found all over her body, including liver pancreas, spleen, kidneys and bone marrow) CHF causes extra type II pneumatocyte (macrophage) cells (seen here also) but that's a generic effect of alveolar distention from any cause.

      The idea that this woman had Pneumocystis in her lungs from being on just a week of 8 mg a day of methylpredisolone plus a steroid inhaler, is nonsense. These are low doses of steroids, far less than the average COPD or asthma patient gets for a severe attack, and they do not cause Pneumocystis.

      http://www.cwbpi.com/AIDS/reports/Maggiore-AlBayati.pdf

      The steroids are above. A quote:

      "All sections from both lungs showed marked alveolar distention by frothy eosinophilic proteinaceous exudates. Pulmonary edema has been reported in individuals are suffering from heart failure."

      Our veterinary expert is apparently unaware that not all pulmonary edemas are alike. This woman's lungs weighed more than 7 times normal from the fluid and they must have looked like liver rather than lungs. Being treated at home, she apparently got massive IV vitamin C from her alternative doc, but her idiot doctor forget to check her oxygen saturation or give her any oxygen. And she died. Surprise.

      Now, it's not as though she didn't start out with real pneumonia clinically, as she had bilateral middle and lower lobe patchy infiltrates on X-ray, plus fever and malaise. So one wonders why the consultant is working so hard to give her CHF. Well, it's because the real and severe pneumonia in the lungs seen on autopsy means she died of pneumonia and nobody bothered to send her to a hospital or check her oxygen. Wups.

      The reason why the renal failure theory doesn't fly has been noted. It's not compatible with normal urine BUN and creatinine. But without blood values we can't tell for sure. Renal failure is a clinical as well as lab diagnosis, and no doctor nvolved in this case bothered to look for it, apparently.

      Speaking of which, the noted gentamicin dose of 600 mg a day for a week would be malpractice alone if it is true, but I don't believe it. Gentamicin comes only in 40 and 80 mg ampules, and that tips you off if you are trying to give 7 of these or something. No nurse would do that. Probably this is an error for 60 mg. If it was the higher dose, it could have caused renal failure, but the lab evidence is against it, and of course the lung pathology also.

      In short, the woman died of classic AIDS (plus really bad medical care). Get used to it.

      Steve Harris, MD

      Delete
  14. Seth is hopelessly projecting.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Maggiore's autopsy demonstrates HIGH white blood cell counts...

    According to Al-Bayati, Maggiore's last recorded haematology was in November 2007, over a year before she died. In fact her total white cell count then was a little low. But this tells us nothing about her CD4+ count.

    However, the differential was remarkable:

    Neutrophils 79.6%
    Lymphocytes 21.4%
    Monocytes 10.9%
    Eosinophils 8.6%
    Basophils 1.2%

    Total: umm...121.7%

    Al-Bayati can't even add up.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Snout
    AIDS Denialists probably think that having a total white count with components over 100% proves that she had a healthy immune system.

    Seriously, it does not surprise me that Al-Bayati and Baker cannot add, But I am disappointed in Crowe, he is usually a stickler for details.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Despite the horrible seriousness of this, Seth, you gotta laugh at how incompetent the denialists are.

    Al-Bayati's idiot piece of disinformation was endlessly workshopped for 10 or 11 months by the team of geniuses at RA before they released it on to the world wide web (or did it just escape when no one was looking?)

    They're trying to claim that Maggiore was not immunosuppressed when she died, based on a total white cell count and differential from over a year before.

    Even after all that intensive workshopping, no one noticed that the claimed figures (that in fact tell us next to nothing about Maggiore's immune status) don't even add up.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Good GOD - where is the PROOF.

    And don't march a bunch of sick people out, it means nothing. You are shitting on the wisdom of the ages with your perversions of modern science, and it's not even in your interest - this will lead the world further into ignorance, corruption, repression, misery and war.

    Surely the economic irresponsibility of the past few years has given you a clue as to where this is taking us? If the world was in such a delicate balance that YOUR seemingly insignificant life decisions and actions would tip the scale one way or the other, WHICH WAY WOULD IT FALL?

    Anyone with a post secondary education can see the major flaws in this hypothesis, and watching Gallo be stripped of his 'discovery' in US Congressional Hearings is MORE than enough to demand OPEN PUBLIC DISCUSSION AND INVESTIGATION OF THE TRUTH.

    When this is met with arrogant and scornful dismissals of these wholly relevant concerns, and then inflammatory accusations of risking people lives and killing them (talk about libel!), then it is clear that there is no interest in debate.

    I hope this works out for you - but cynicism and lies never do. You'll end up a victim of the very medico cult you now pledge allegiance to.

    Good luck with that.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Adam C needs to read Michael Specter's wonderful book "Denialism" to see the answers to all his pro-denialist "arguments". If the world ever tipped properly towards science and rationalism and away from all the new-age, luvvy-duvvy, happy-clappy garbage that stands to ruin it, we'd all be far better off. For one thing, science is all about facts, and Adam C wouldn't know one if it danced a tattoo on his forehead singing "Hello, I'm an item of accurate information". Gallo, for example, was never "stripped of his discovery" by the US Congress or anyone else - clearly, Adam C's sources of information are AIDS denialist web sites, which contain everything BUT the facts. Oh, and by the way, Adam, the reason there's no debate with the AIDS denialists is that there are no uncertainties TO debate. That these morons lack the capacity to understand the facts does mean we have an obligation to educate them in a "debate"; our duty is to stop them killing yet more people via their pseudoscientific and evil disinformation campaign. And it's certainly not libelous to state the truth, at least not over here in the US.

    ReplyDelete
  20. This is really baffling to me. I just do not understand the logic of not only releasing this 11 months down the road, but to release a report OF the report makes zero sense! Why not release the original report? The denialist logic!
    Also, Adam C's writing style is ethereal and whacky and meandering...reminiscent of Farber's supposed style!
    UHM?
    JTD

    ReplyDelete
  21. Mr. Moore sensibly writes:

    "For one thing, science is all about facts,"

    I heartily agree.

    Fact 1: In 1981, The first 41 cases of AIDS in New York, were all gay men with Kaposi Sarcoma, who mostly used amyl nitrates, and had no sex whatsoever with each other.

    Source: Ny Times, Rare Cancer Seen in 41 Homosexuals, 7/3/81.

    Fact 2: In 1983, Jaffe of the CDC reported that 96% of gay men used amyl nitrates.

    Source: Jaffe, Annals of Internal Medicine, 99: 145 - 151, see table 2.)

    Fact 3: In 1987, Jaffee of the CDC reported that 90% of all AIDS cases were gay men and druggies, and that heterosexuals almost never got AIDS.

    Source: Ny Times, AIDS Expert Sees No Sign of Heterosexual Outbreak, 6/5/87.

    Fact 4: In 1991, only 1 out of 25 gay HIV+ men had detectable HIV in their semen.

    Source: van Voorhis et el, Fertil. Steril. 55: 588–594 (1991).

    Fact 5: In 1997, the longest study of heterosexual couples, where one partner was HIV+, showed no seroconversions after 6 years of sex.

    Source: Padian et al, Am J Epidemiol 146, 350-357 (1997).

    Those are 5 scientific facts You can try to spin your way out of them all you want. But they undeniably show:

    1. Only gay men used poppers.
    2. Mostly gay men got AIDS.
    3. Almost no heterosexual men get AIDS.
    4. No Lesbians get AIDS.
    5. Almost no traight women get AIDS.
    6. Almost no HIV isfound in the semen of HIV+ gay men.

    AIDS is certainly not a heterosexual disease, but it's also not a gay disease either. If rich slutty college girls fell into the popper fad, they would have gotten AIDS. If old Lesbians, fell into the popper fad, they would have gotten AIDS. If Republican country-clubbers started doing poppers on the golf course, they would have gotten AIDS.

    It has nothing to do with sex.

    It's the drugs, stupid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you are an idiot, This poppers shit is old as hell man, for one thing poppers DOES NOT cause KS, HHV8 causes KS, look that shit up, and not on an aids denialist website either,

      Delete
  22. Bill says:

    Those are 5 scientific facts You can try to spin your way out of them all you want. But they undeniably show:

    1. Only gay men used poppers.
    2. Mostly gay men got AIDS.
    3. Almost no heterosexual men get AIDS.
    4. No Lesbians get AIDS.
    5. Almost no traight women get AIDS.
    6. Almost no HIV isfound in the semen of HIV+ gay men.

    Every one of those "facts" is, in fact, not a fact, but either a falsehood or an irrelevant observation that adds nothing to current knowledge. They "undeniably show" that Bill is such a moron he's probably Michael Geiger writing under a different name.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. almost no straight women get aids? The fasting growing part of the population getting AIDS are African American WOMEN, retard, jesus christ, all you do is blame the gays, blame poppers, blame this blame that, oh and btw there HAD to be sporadic cases of this somewhere before 1981. Just because it wasn't reported doesn't mean it didn't happen.

      Delete
  23. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  24. @Snout: as an interested and somewhat informed observer, my observation is this: you call Al-Bayati’s report “spin”, but he is a published toxicologist and pathologist, which makes him infinitely more credible to me than anonymous tempter tantrums. Toxicology is where we are finally going to find some answers, not only to AIDS but to all most of what plagues us today. And if you want credibility, why don’t you start with a real name? Seriously, the only thing that holds any weight here are the rational comments of those who chimed in calling for civil discussion and providing some facts. The rest is skimmed, and dismissed as absurd and immature.

    ReplyDelete
  25. OK I've been on JT's blog more recently but I had to come here to say this:

    Bill says: "Fact 4: In 1991, only 1 out of 25 gay HIV+ men had detectable HIV in their semen. Source: van Voorhis et el, Fertil. Steril. 55: 588–594 (1991)."

    Bill, in case you have not read when Mikey tried the same misquoting, that is NOT what the paper said at all! You have done nothing more than illustrate that you simply copy and paste quote mining from RA of some other dipshit organization without reading the paper or understanding the subject.

    Again, van Voorhis et el did not say HIV was undetectable in all but 1 of 25 gay men Only someone who never read the paper would claim this. Case in point, Bill.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Oh the hell with it, I'm gonna just go ahead and comment on Billie's whole post.
    Bill here are your fail points for your last post:

    From the following claims, Bill concludes that "It has nothing to do with sex. It's the drugs, stupid."


    Fact 1: In 1981, The first 41 cases of AIDS in New York, were all gay men with Kaposi Sarcoma, who mostly used amyl nitrates, and had no sex whatsoever with each other.

    FAIL. Just because the first 41 cases did not have sex with each other does not mean that they were not part of an extended sexual network. These were also the FIRST REPORTS. Much more research and data has accumulated since then.


    Fact 2: In 1983, Jaffe of the CDC reported that 96% of gay men used amyl nitrates.

    FAIL. 96% of gay men polled may have used amyl nitrates but that doesn't even begin to account for AIDS in hemophilliacs, children of HIV+ women, and heterosexual people. Amyl nitrates was a main characteristic of only ONE of the original risk groups.


    "Fact 3: In 1987, Jaffee of the CDC reported that 90% of all AIDS cases were gay men and druggies, and that heterosexuals almost never got AIDS."

    FAIL. Early reports are not the same as the current statistics where African American heterosexual women are the highest rising HIV and AIDS category. Sexually transmitted diseases tend to stay in sexual networks but eventually they do tend to break out. Get out of the 80s man.

    "Fact 4: In 1991, only 1 out of 25 gay HIV+ men had detectable HIV in their semen. van Voorhis et el, Fertil. Steril. 55: 588–594 (1991)."

    UltraSuperFrickin Fail!!! Van Voorhis found that HIV DNA was not detected in the semen 24/25 gay men. This is NOT the same as saying that HIV was not present. HIV is in DNA form in cells after reverse transcription. Van Voorhis was looking for infected spermatozoa, not infectious HIV particles, which would require looking for HIV RNA. DOUBLE, TRIPLE, and QUADRUPLE FAIL points to Billie for being too fucking stupid to understand the difference between DNA and RNA, even though this was rehashed with Mikey not too long ago on this same blog. You get another FAIL point for not understanding the HIV life cycle. You get another FAIL for still pretending to be an expert on the subject.


    "Fact 5: In 1997, the longest study of heterosexual couples, where one partner was HIV+, showed no seroconversions after 6 years of sex."

    FAIL. The Padien paper was about modifying high risk behaviors in order to reduce the risk of transmission. The partners were not followed for 6 years. The longest follow time was 6 years but most were much less. Just as with the Van Voorhis paper, I seriously doubt you read this one.

    You get one final FAIL for not realizing that there are multiple studies that have exonerated drugs as the cause of AIDS.

    So there you go Bill. For you 5 "facts" you have accrued 11 FAIL points. I'd give you another 10 just for the Van Voorhis paper alone because you made your ignorance so obvious but I don't want to run out of points before your next big post.

    *Bark*

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. awesome reply man, you kicked his ass there! I really enjoyed reading this, and like I've tried to nail into this asshole's head, KS isn't caused by poppers or drugs, it's caused by HHV8

      Delete
  27. Well done Poodle Stomper. I could not have written a better response to "Bill" had I been bothered enough to spend the time rebutting someone who has probably never read any scientific papers, merely scanned the (incorrect) summaries of them on the denialist Blogs. Your knowledge of the real literature is VERY impressive, as are your analytical and writing skills. Nice job!

    I completely fail to understand the various points "Connie" is making. How can she criticize Snout for not using a real name, when there's no evidence that hers (or his) is actually "Connie". Connie what? Connie Farber perhaps?

    Connie's statement that Al-Bayati is credible is not consistent with the facts of his career and with the errors and omissions in a report he and his RA friends re-wrote based on SOMEONE ELSE'S autopsy work (see previous posts).

    Re: "Toxicology is where we are finally going to find some answers". Actually, serology tests would be more revealing, as a complete pathology work up on Maggiore's blood would include HIV diagnostic assays - so why was this information omitted from Al-Bayati's (RA's) report? Dr Posey would surely have had these assayd done as part of his post-mortem, as a failure to do so under the circumstances of Maggiore's death would be incompetent and unprofessional. And why is there no explanation in Al-Bayati's report of why Maggiore was receiving Acyclovir, a drug used to treat herpes virus infections. Is Al-Bayati seriously implying that Maggiore's physician gave her Acyclovir for NO REASON? Is the real reason behind the Al-Bayati report an attempt to bring a malpractice suit against Maggiore's family physician, a person chosen for her use of mostly unconventional medicines? What a spectacle such a court case would be! The massive elephant in the court room would be the HIV infection that neither the patient nor the physician would treat, and that was the REAL cause of both her death and, of course, the daughter she transmitted the infection to.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Yawn.

    Poodles, There's a reason you're a junior varsity scientist, without any portfolio or meaningful publications, prancing around the internet with a juvenile name. You don't understand what a fact is.

    It's the drugs, Stupid, not the sex.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Hey Connie,

    Be careful here. You're dealing with mind-numb robots who worship AIDS. It's a strange cult. Some of them make a lot of research money off it, some are simply unwitting dupes.

    The bottom line is that AIDS is a totally artificial construct. Yes, there are people who are sick and dying, but AIDS is a mere reclassification of these people. And, most importantly, the cause is not some new retrovirus that descended to earth in 1981. It's a multi-factoral syndrome.

    Go see House of Numbers to see how these chumps contradict each other at every turn.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Really, how stupid can you be PoodleStomper.
    Its drugs not sex.

    Ryan White was crack head.

    Christine Maggiore was doing Meth.

    Maggiore's daughter Eliza Jane was heavy into poppers.

    Bill, why can't you just face your HIV infection head on and deal with it? It is fine that you choose not to take antiretrovirals.... a perfectly legitimate choice when informed by current medicine. You do not need to pretend HIV is harmless.

    On a different topic, has anyone heard from Noreen Martin lately? She dropped off a thread a while back. Was she at the Rethinking AIDS Conference? It would be great if we could resume that discussion seeing as this one with Bill has just ended.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Seth, I think you should get your own psychosis looked at.

    ReplyDelete
  32. It is true. I agree.
    I must be psychotic to spend this much time answering AIDS Denialist questions, trying to help the hopeless deniers like Bill, arguing about 1984 Gallo with Geiger, trying fix the broken record called David Crowe, wondering into the fantasy world of Henry Bauer and his Nessies....
    What is the Natural Home Remedy for psychosis anyway, coffee nose drops?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Bill, you are as stupid as Clark Baker, Liam Scheff, Celia Farber, David Crowe, Henry Bauer...perhaps you all share the same single brain cell!
    Come on, Bill. Learn from Poodle and surprise the others when you give the brain cell to one of them. Just imagine how suprised and happy they will be to have learned something!! It really is a wonderful feeling to stop spreading ignorance and actually learn! Try it, you might like it and you might be surprised to see that others around you actually respect you for it!
    JTD

    ReplyDelete
  34. Darn it, Seth, You're right! How could I be so stupid! I mean study after study has shown that drugs are NOT the cause. Choa et al (2008), Ascher et. al (1993) showed that HIV+ drug users and NON-DRUG Users both had T-cell decline while HIV- drug users and NON-DRUG USERS did not. Kaslow et al (1989) and Coates et al (1990) showed no link either. What was I thinking. It must be a conspiracy and only Bill was smart enough to figure this out!

    When Lombardo told Duesberg that he didn't do drugs and then died of AIDS he must have been lying (according to Duesberg)! Maggiore was on crack and bottle-feeding her daughter heroine-laced formula! All those people with AIDS from HIV-tainted transfusions were secretly crack-whores (all the crack coincidentally stopped when HIV tests virtually eliminated HIV from the US blood supply, of course)! Babies (too young to even have sex) who contract HIV from their mothers and die of AIDS are all smoking meth!

    How could we all (except Bill of course) have been so stupid!

    Oh hell what do I know!? I don't have any meaningful publications (false) and am simply a "mind numb robot" for being able to use critical thinking and weigh out evidence rather than making stupid mistakes like not knowing RNA from DNA (looking at you Bill) and pretending to be an expert when I have no background in the field (again looking at you Bill).

    ReplyDelete
  35. Regarding the conversation with Noreen, i don't think she was truly interested in learning the answer to her question. As I posted in the other thread, it turns out that her error in the use of that article was pointed out 3 years ago and she was still going around repeating it. I don't truly think she wanted to know the truth and it would likely have turned into more quote mining a la Bill.

    [My previous post contents below]

    So I was doing some looking online and found that Noreen had cited this particular article before and was given the same answer as here as was given here. Specifically she was told:
    And good to see you reading the abstracts, although you appear to have missed a key point in this one. Note that the study you've cited deals with changes in treatment response and short-term prognosis for subjects grouped into seven cohorts by the time (1995-6 to 2002-3) of starting HAART.
    The study does not compare those on HAART with the untreated or otherwise-treated.

    This begs the question, why make the same claim/mistake again (albeit 3 years later)?

    ReplyDelete
  36. If Bill had one more functioning neuron he'd be able to have the infamous "denialist debate" ....... with a daffodil.

    Noreen Martin and Kim Bannon are two more AIDS denialists who are dying of AIDS, about to be killed by the selfish and egocentric HIV-negative denialists who have rammed deadly thoughts into their heads, just as happened to Lambros P. Are Noreen and Kim users of Poppers, Bill? Was Lambros P on crack? I don't think so......... The one thing these people have in common, and share with Christine Maggiore, is their HIV infection, an infection that will, or did, kill them.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Thank you Seth for your efforts in exposing the dangers of HIV/AIDS denialism.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Dr. Kalichman, the famed psycho-babbler, writes for the second time:

    Bill, why can't you just face your HIV infection head on and deal with it?

    Umm, I don't have an HIV infection. Neither an Elisa Test, nor a Western Blot actually detect virus.

    John Moore writes:

    Well done Poodle Stomper. I could not have written a better response to "Bill"

    Once, you were working with Dr. David Ho, Time's Man of the Year, now you are consorting with 3rd rate, anonymous internet trolls named "Poodle Stomper" on obscure blogs. Wow, how the mighty have fallen.

    It's not the sex, it's the drugs, Stupid!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ya it's so 3rd rate and shitty that you have found your way here, What's more laughable your comment about this blog, or you coming here to fight about your denialist cult.
      I think the joke is on you lol

      Delete
  39. "Once, you were working with Dr. David Ho, Time's Man of the Year, now you are consorting with 3rd rate, anonymous internet trolls named "Poodle Stomper" on obscure blogs. Wow, how the mighty have fallen."

    Any yet this "3rd rate, anonymous internet troll" is more than capable of continually pointing out your stupidities with ease. And what do you do instead? You change the subject. Congratulations, Billie, you are truly a stereotype of denial.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Seth writes sarcastically:

    Ryan White was crack head.

    No, he was a poor little boy with hemophilia, who was killed by AZT.

    Christine Maggiore was doing Meth.

    No, she was a courageous heterosexual woman, who died of renal failure from polypharmacy.

    Maggiore's daughter Eliza Jane was heavy into poppers.

    No, she was a poor little girl, who had an allergic reaction to amoxicillin.

    Why do you chumps focus on outliers, instead of Fact No. 3 above:

    Fact 3: In 1987, Jaffee of the CDC reported that 90% of all AIDS cases were gay men and druggies, and that heterosexuals almost never got AIDS."

    ReplyDelete
  41. Bill

    1987. Really? Please.

    Strange how Ryan White, Christine Maggiore, and Baby Eliza Jane all had those same non-specific antibodies that you deny resulting in your HIV+ test Bill. So what was your CD4 count last time you checked? Noreen is happy to share her labs, which is why some are concerned about how she is doing now.
    How about you Bill?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Poodle Stomper is not a "3rd rate anonymous internet troll", he is a fine young scientist with a promising career ahead of him. His knowledge, ability and passion will carry him a long way. It's an honor for me to interact with him, on and off this site. He remains anonymous to avoid AIDS denialist attacks on him at the respected institution where he works. And that's sensible of him.

    "Bill", on the other hand, is the living embodiment of a "3rd rate anonymous internet troll". He must also be a masochist considering that every time he posts on anything remotely "sciencey", he is hammered into oblivion by knowledgeable, intelligent people like Stomper and Seth. "Bill" merely fools himself while making a fool of himself. Typical AIDS denialist...... focused in the past, knows nothing of the subjects he posts on, fails to read the literature he cites, doesn't understand the underlying science, errs, stumbles, bumbles and screws up. Like I say, a typical AIDS denialist...... I suspect that Seth only his posts to continue to give the rest of us some light relief from the sadder, more serious topics discussed on this site.

    ReplyDelete
  43. How fragile Maggiore must have been. I can understand not being able to deal with an HIV+ test. I can see why her husband would also be in denial. I get that.

    But at some point you have to come around and take control. How could they give up control to Duesberg and the denialists? Even after her baby died they could not come to terms with reality? Is that a mental illness? And if it is, how is that they both, Maggiore and Scovill, had the same illness?

    Bill, if you really tested HIV+, how can Maggiore's death not affect you?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Anonymous,
    You must realize that Bill, like most denialists, does not practice critical thinking. Look how quickly he has already bought the idea that Maggiore died from "renal failure from polypharmacy". It is funny how quickly her massive disseminated herpes (a clear sign of immune failure) is forgotten in order to accommodate the latest attempt to keep his faith afloat.

    A person with critical thinking would ask why her own doctor (who from Maggiore's own words was a denialist) would list disseminated herpes but not renal failure.

    A person with critical thinking ability would ask why the same veterinarian would be called in over and over to rationalize their deaths.

    A person with critical thinking ability would ask WHY they need to rewrite history over and over when time after time evidence seems to go AGAINST what they believe.

    Bill is not such a person. All he can do is blindly repeat the errors of others. So please, don't expect too much from him.

    ReplyDelete
  45. @Connie, You have just joined a long list of denialists who seem to be unable to deal with the substantive issues under discussion, and can only respond with "Who are you really?".

    I don't give a toss who you are. I prefer to judge the value of what anyone says on a blog thread by whether it is accurate and makes sense, not by who the author might claim to be. This seems to be a foreign concept to you.

    The facts in this case are that:

    1. The denialists are claiming that an autopsy conducted by a licensed pathologist demonstrates that Christine Maggiore did not have AIDS when she died.

    2. They have not produced the actual autopsy report, but instead are trying to pass off an "analysis" by Mohammed Al-Bayati in its place.

    3. Al-Bayati has a history of producing "analyses" of actual autopsy reports that directly conflict with the findings in the original, and which in at least one case no qualified physician or MD pathologist has ever accepted as competent or valid.

    4. Al-Bayati has a direct personal stake in this case which would disqualify him from offering an independent expert opinion, even if he were qualified and competent.

    The obvious question here is why Al-Bayati's "analysis" has been released instead of the real pathology report, if the latter supposedly demonstrates that Maggiore did not have AIDS when she died.

    Don't you think that's a teensy bit odd?

    ReplyDelete
  46. This is some really interesting psychology here. What does my personal situation have to do with anything?

    Seth asks:

    So what was your CD4 count last time you checked? Noreen is happy to share her labs, which is why some are concerned about how she is doing now. How about you Bill?

    "Noreen" is free to share her labs. Last time I checked my CD4 count was about 250 - 300/ml. My CD3 count was about the same. My CD7 count was hovering at 430/mm. I didn't get straight counts for my CD12, CD13, CD14 or other "Clusters of Differentiation"

    Anonymous asks:

    Bill, if you really tested HIV+, how can Maggiore's death not affect you?

    Maggiore's death did affect me. She seemed a courageous woman, which is why I cannot imagine how she coped with losing her 3-year old daughter, and having Dr. Moore trash her in the NY Times or have Law & Order trash her on T.V.

    Now, you guys are trampeling on her grave. Very psychologically disturbing behavior.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. nobody is trampling on her grave, moron, The only people doing that are the idiots over at RA, They would have done better not to release anything for christ sake, but no they go to a 3rd rate Vet. for a report on an autopsy report. hmmm that's quite funny, a report on a report, The reason he should not be taken seriously at all is he is on the board of Christine's little denialist group, Alive and Well, so of course he has an interest in making sure that people think she didn't die from AIDS when we all know damn well she did

      Delete
  47. You gotta read the comments at Dean Esmay's blog where Farber "unleashed" this fake autopsy report. Most all of the comments are from people not in either HIV/AIDS "camps" and they all see right thru this tactic. And, more importantly, they all see right thru Al~Bayatti!
    You gotta check it out! It's glorious!
    It just proves, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all of the time!!
    JTD

    ReplyDelete
  48. Onecleverkid.

    If you look at the cases that Al-Bayati has 'investigated' you'll find that when babies die with signs of physical trauma consistent with being shaken that Al-Bayati manages to come up with surreal convoluted alternative explanations which usually involve pharmaceuticals or vaccines.

    Take this example
    http://misdiagnosedcases.blogspot.com/2009/04/evan-vaughn.html

    The man suspected of killing the child has now confessed.
    http://www.newschannel10.com/Global/story.asp?S=11427582

    So much for Al-Bayati's 'differential diagnosis'.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Chris Noble,

    First of all, the Amarillo newspaper headline got it wrong. Garrard did NOT plead guilty to killing the child:

    After more than 2 years of incarceration while awaiting his trial, and while having no resources other than a public defender with no funds to conduct a proper defense against the well funded prosecution, Garrard did NOT plead guilty to killing the child, but only after being threatened with life imprisonment if he was found guilty, and in hopes and expectations of getting a very short sentence based only on 'child endangerment' (because he called the child's mother instead of directly calling 911), Garrard ONLY pled guilty to child endangerment, and he DID NOT plead guilty to the murder of the child.

    He had no idea that the Texas judge would give him 20 years for pleading guilty to child endangerment, but once sentenced, Garrard could not take back his plea.

    The lack of perspective in the always vengeful Texas style of dispensing justice is always a source of never-ending wonder.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Thanks, JTDeShong, for the steer towards Esmay's Blog (not something I would normally read). Yes, it's a very entertaining thread, and I was most amused to read how various people are taking apart Celia Farber's pretentious, pompous posts. As usual, Celia is way, way out of her depth on anything remotely medical or scientific, and my, how it shows! You would think she would have learned over the years to keep her ignorance and lack of analytical skills well under wraps. But no........

    The denialists have the most marvelous and encouraging capacity for shooting themselves in the feet with both barrels blazing. I'm still shaking my head in wonderment (but also pleasure) at their stupidity in bringing in Al-Bayati again. It's a mistake to ever try to imagine what "logic" might underpin anything the AIDS denialists ever do, as the word doesn't really apply to these people. But relying on Al-Bayati is such a massive blunder that one's eyes roll at the sheer folly of it all. I suppose their reasoning must be that he's a known quantity and that he can be relied upon to give them what they want. But for the REAL world of RATIONAL people, the dynamics are different, and in that world Al-Bayati's track record ensures that what he says carries no weight (indeed, the contrary - the fact that he's brought in is telling in its own right).

    Added to the mind-boggling folly is the denialists' refusal to release the ACTUAL autopsy report, the one from Dr Posey. To cover-up the Posey report while releasing Al-Bayati's version of the report is such an obvious indicator that the Posey report contains information that the denialists find, shall we say, "inconvenient".

    What's so truly amazing though is that the denialists actually believe that their "strategy" is beneficial to their cause. It's not, it's in fact laughably counter-productive. With friends like these, who needs enemies like us?

    So, what will happen next? Will there be a wrongful death suit against the family physician? That would be quite an entertaining spectacle in which the only real winner would be our side. In any trial, the FULL facts would come at, not just the Al-Bayati version of events.

    What's the phrase? Sometime it's better to let sleeping dogs lie. Well, now that the denialists have opened Pandora's Box, watching the winds dissipate will be interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Henry Bauer's StudentDecember 14, 2009 at 2:06 PM

    Bill... you say that we "are trampeling on her grave"....

    If we are trampling on Maggiore's grave, Al-Bayati must be pissing on it with that grotesque sack of lies in his so called 'report'.
    Bill, what the hell is wrong with you?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Michael I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one. Newspapers do get it wrong.

    Al-Bayati's 'differential diagnoses' remain laughable. Surely anybody with an ounce of skepticism will wonder about signs of severe physical trauma, such as retinal bleeding and broken bones are routinely 'explained away' as vaccine damage and other dubious convoluted contortions. The only people who find Al-Bayati credible are AIDS denialists and people accused of murdering babies.

    If Al-Bayati is so well respected then why wasn't Garrard acquitted?

    ReplyDelete
  53. Hey Geiger, I bet what really caused Garrard to confess was STRESS!! That's the root cause of EVERYTHING, remember, Geiger?
    Too bad Garrard did not know all he needed to do was crawl inside a box and shine light "the frequency of pure love" on himself!!
    JTD

    ReplyDelete
  54. Chris, I have no idea why Garrard did not follow through to the trial. I would love to ask him though.

    JT, please do us all a favor, and stuff your typical Texas nasty and smart-ass remarks up your own love box.

    And as for you, my dearest friend, JP Moore, I am so very surprised that you are not emailing (or should I say harassing and threatening and denigrating) Dr. Posey directly yourself for the autopsey. What's the matter, JP? Are you loosing your touch, or are you just scared to call Posey and ask him directly for a copy yourself? Are you afraid of what it says? Are you afraid Posey's irrefutable reputation for his autopsies might verify you to be a windbag of lunacy? Perhaps the joke is once again on you, JP, as you have already been found out as having falsely proclaimed that she had been cremated without any autopsy. Haste makes waste, my friend. Calm down with all of your wishful thinking or you will never get anything right. As it is, I can't wait to see how the history books will look upon you and your legacy, Dear John. I truly can't wait!

    ReplyDelete
  55. hey there JTD, nice post man! yeah, "the frequency of pure love" is a good one. it's what celia farber uses to de-stress isn't it? what an idiot. she'll be going to a sweat lodge next and frying her brains (are there any?) in a new age ritual. well, it's darwin in action against these idiots as they all kill themselves with their coffee enemas.

    and what's with this "michael" guy? does he really think that anyone could write to a professional pathologist and ask him for a copy of a confidential medical document? there's laws on the confidentiality of medical information, a privacy act. the maggiore family paid for the report and only they can release it. posey can't, not without the family's permission or under a sub poena.

    now why won't the family release the report, we all wonder? first, the family announce that there WAS NO autopsy, then a death certificate is released saying there WAS NO autopsy, and now we hear there actually WAS an autopsy after all, only it was conducted in SECRET and the results are being BURIED? suspicious or what? this all sucks and it smells of a cover up.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Michael, do you have any evidence for your claims about Garrard. It just seems a bit strange that every news that I could find article says that he confessed to killing the child.

    I also find it hard to believe that intracranial bleeding and multiple bruises on different parts of the childs body in different stages of healing can be caused by 'vaccine damage'.

    There are also legal constraints on Posey regarding whether he can make the autopsy public. However, if Maggiore's 'friends' and family want to they can release it. Obviously they do not want to and not for any ethical reason.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Shocked and Appalled!December 14, 2009 at 10:36 PM

    Dear Doctor Moore,

    Perhaps you are yet in shock yet, sir, over the autopsy results, though I do certainly hope that you are planning to correct the errors that are now clearly littering your "AIDSTRUTH website. Your site still claims the following:

    "Unfortunately, no autopsy was performed on Maggiore's body, and she was cremated. Presumably, her family made these decisions. AIDS denialists often claim that they are victims of conspiracies and cover-ups. But they have been anything but transparent in the way they have handled the horrible and unnecessary death from HIV/AIDS of Christine Maggiore. Christine Maggiore's name has been added to AIDStruth.org's list of Denialists who have Died of AIDS."

    You are planning on removing this, aren't you? Or do you prefer giving those damned AIDS Realists even more ammunition in their claims to the public that your aidstruth website is anything but truth?

    ReplyDelete
  58. Chris, I suggest you make a simple call the Amarillo courthouse for the facts.

    As for the bruises, etc, the only thing that would not make sense about "intracranial bleeding" and bruises to me, is that there were no obvious hand or fist caused bruises on the childs head, or anywhere near that proved such, and that the hospital staff itself originally reported 8 bodily bruises, particularly on the childs legs, while the coroner reported that the 8 had increased to 17, or an additional 9 bruises seemingly gained while under hospital doctors care. How is this discrepancy to be explained?

    And even the 8 original bruises do not necessarily mean they were inflicted by physical abuse. A dear, but granted not overly bright young mother I recently met had quite recently left her own 3 month old infant on her sofa for just a moment and walked across the room to get the kids bottle. The kid rolled right over, fell on the floor, and got a bloody nose and facial bruises. I grant you it was ignorant of this young and inexperienced mother to leave her child as such, even for a moment. But nonetheless, she did.

    And as far as a guy looking after the safety of a 14 month old infant? Good luck! What do most guys know about looking after any infants? I wouldn't even trust most guys I know of to look after my dog. Perhaps the mother should have had her head examined or been charged for even considering leaving the infant in the care of an inexperienced or foolish male caretaker, but maybe he was the only one available to her at the time. So, I really don't know what happened.

    I also do know that people get caught up in their beliefs of abuse, and go too far with such fears, particularly with such as child or sexual abuse, and such beliefs often go too far with the general public and courts and media, and people en masse begin to imagine intentional harms and and think they see perpetrators and victims everywhere they look.

    We had a rash of that going on here in the states a few years ago. Prosecutors, whipped up by a frenzy in the press, imagined they saw child molesters everywhere they looked such as the Dale Akiki case (simply because the guy LOOKED like a freak) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z10cTHEif3o

    and all of the Day Care sex abuse hysteria of the 80s and 90s that resulted in the McMartin Preschool trial and several others. Later, these cases were overturned or thrown out, or found to have ridiculously wrong and agressive prosecutions that ignored blatant evidence that disproved their cases. And look at the recent case of the 5 east coast college kids who were being prosecuted for rape of a black girl even though the prosecutor had clear evidence that the charges were false. This just happened last year, and the public brouhaha over it resulted in the prosecutor resigning.

    I don't know how it is down under, but here in the states our prosecutorial system is in need of a major overhaul as prosecutors themselves are cannot be prosecuted for their own blatant misdeeds, and are fast becoming a major threat to the public at large. And a large number of these cases are in Texas. One such case was recently before our supreme court just a couple of weeks ago that was attempting to hold prosecutors liable.

    Also as per the childs bruises in the Garrard case, I have also known a couple of people with either conditions or taking meds that caused them to very easily bruise even when barely being touched, but otherwise, I don't know how to explain the discrepancies, and I doubt anyone else does either. I myself think that unless someone actually witnessed the event, all anyone can really do is to guess, and beware of agressive prosecutors that are now littering our American courts while attempting to show how tough they are on crime, or attempting to get re-elected.

    ReplyDelete
  59. The AIDStruth website posts Christine Maggiore's death certificate, which states clearly that there was no autopsy and that her body was cremated. Until an actual autopsy report is made public, the death certificate remains the only piece of available information issued by a credible source, and it was on this document that the text the previous poster mentions was based.

    John Moore is not listed as a member of the group that manages AIDStruth.org, and so presumably he could not change anything on that website. But as yet there seems to be no reason to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Henry Bauer's Student asks me:

    Bill... you say that we "are trampeling on her grave"....

    Bill, what the hell is wrong with you?

    Yes, that is correct. You lowlifes are trampeling on Christine Maggiore's grave.

    As for what is wrong with me, that is simple:

    I find it appalling that a group of clueless virus hunters (like Gallo) capitalized on a small minority of gay men, who were wrecking their own lives with poppers and drugs, persuaded them that it was a new "virus" killing them, enlisted Burroughs-Welcome to take AZT off the shelf, and finish them off -- all the while scaring the crap out of the general public, wasting billions in taxpayer money and falsely stigmatizing folks as "HIV Positive" from an unreliable, non-specific antibody screening test.

    By the way, Dr. Moore, how are your microbicides doing?

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE5BD0MB20091214?type=swissMktRpt

    I smell further failure!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You know what man, F*ck you, it's not like she's a damn hero anyway, Her daughter is DEAD because of HER actions, 330,000 extra people are DEAD in South Africa because of her and duesberg, To hell with her and her grave. She hasn't done anything to EARN respect from anyone here or anywhere else.

      Delete
  61. Perhaps you are yet in shock yet, sir, over the autopsy results,...

    Can you show us the actual autopsy report? You know the one written by the person who actually did the autopsy.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Well said, Chris Noble. AIDS denialists like Michael (Geiger) have absolutely no understanding of medical ethics (or any other form of professional ethics), which is why they make so many errors in their posts.

    "Shocked and appalled" is just Geiger writing under a pseudonym. He's once more so ignorant of the facts that he refers to AIDS Truth as "my" website, when it's no such thing. The good folks who DO operate AIDS Truth will no doubt act as they see fit. At the time of writing, that post was 100% accurate, as the official death certificate records that there was no autopsy and that remains the definitive legal statement on the cause of Maggiore's death (from PCP pneumonia, disseminated herpes and other OIs). If the AIDS denialists want Maggiore's death certificate altered, they are going to have provide hard evidence to the LA Coroner's office to justify doing so. That's the appropriate legal procedure. And the hard evidence certainly wouldn't be Al-Bayati's report and material posted on AIDS denialist Blogs. The law, and medical ethics, have higher standards than that, fortunately.

    If Dr Posey did indeed conduct an autopsy, and that report is ever released for public inspection, my personal view is that a minor change to the first sentence of the AIDS Truth posting would be justified (re "no autopsy"). But it would not be justifiable to alter a website renowned for its truth and accuracy merely because AIDS denialists SAY there was an autopsy and release an error-ridden document written by Al-Bayati (with obvious input from the RA group). After all, AIDS denialist Blogs and Al-Bayati's report hardly constitute definitive, accurate, believable statements on anything. But, as I say, the people who run the AIDS Truth website will make their own decisions as to what is posted there.

    Geiger and his friends are terrified of the impact that the AIDS Truth site has had in the fight against the AIDS denialist cult of death. And they spend a great deal of time carefully reading everything posted there. It's just a shame they, unlike the general public, refuse to learn anything from the factual material AIDS Truth contains.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Al-Bayati is like Bauer.

    For every ounce of potential credibility that Duesberg and Mullis bring, the 'crazies' (Peter Duesberg's word) add pounds of absurdity.

    Like Bauer, Al-Bayati is a fake expert. All forms of Denialism have fake experts and these guys are AIDS Denialism's. Why anyone would believe what Al-Bayati writes on a human disease is way beyond me. He claims 45 publications. Please identify one, just one, in a credible journal that is relevant to HIV/AIDS.

    I understand how hard it is to break the denial. But anti-antibiotic conspiracies and Loch Ness Monsters? Please. The boundaries of stupidity among those who buy into Bauer and Al-Bayati seems endless.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Bill makes yet another moronic post (what's new?).

    By the way, Dr. Moore, how are your microbicides doing?
    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE5BD0MB20091214?type=swissMktRpt

    What is referred to in that story is not "my microbicides". I have nothing to do with the product that was tested in that trial (PRO-2000) and I am, in fact, on the record in the scientific literature as predicting that this category of compounds would fail in efficacy trials.

    R.M.Grant, D.Hamer, T.Hope, R.Johnston, J.Lange, M.M.Lederman, J.Lieberman, C.J.Miller, J.P.Moore, D.E.Mosier, D.D.Richman, R.T.Schooley, M.S.Springer, R.S.Veazey and M.A.Wainberg. (2008). Whither or wither microbicides? Science 321, 532-534.

    What's more, there is no such thing as "my microbicide". I do not own a product, I am not developing a product, I have no financial stake in a product, and I have no association with any company that is developing a product. What I do is conduct NIH-funded research on some types of microbicide (amongst other things), supported by Bill's taxes (thanks Bill!).

    I say this merely to expose Bill, yet again, as having no idea about the real facts behind what he posts on this site, which provides yet another reason to ignore everything he says. He's no more knowledgeable on any subject than, say, Geiger.

    ReplyDelete
  65. John, JTD, Chris, PoodleStomper, Snout...

    I sometimes think that we lose sight of who we are dealing with.

    AIDS Denialists are not mentally well. We often impose logic and rational thinking on what is anything but rational.

    In the case of Maggiore, Stokely, Bill etc., we are dealing with malignant denial.

    Unlike Duesberg, Rasnick, Bauer, Al-Bayati, who are a garden variety of psychos, narcissists, and con artists... not a homogeneous group.

    So John, when Bill says you have a microbicide,

    When Baker says I am in the pocket of Big Pharama,

    We say 'you have no facts, no evidence..'

    Of course not, they are denialists. They do not live a world of facts and objective reality.

    Let us not forget who we are dealing with.

    This week I am presenting on AIDS Denialism to the Community Psychiatry Dept. at Yale Med School. If only Liz Eli would stop by to provide a demonstration.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I may have to agree with Geiger on one point....ew, I just threw up a little in my own mouth...but as far as Texas' "God, Guns and Guts", don't forget, Texas executes an average of 2 people EVERY MONTH!!
    So Geiger, you might wanna watch what you say about Texas, these gun totin' good ol' boy nuts might come after you!
    OOPS, hope that doesn't cause you too much stress!
    JTD

    ReplyDelete
  67. JTD, as you know I have family ties to Texas.

    Your comment to Michael is insightful. Texas is so intolerant... well I mean other than Houston (nice Mayor election). Oh all right, and Austin. And everyone knows that the Dallas Gay Community is oppressed and San Diego is soooo progressive.

    But CA Must be more tolerant than Texas. Right? I mean look at Berkeley. Do you think that Duesberg would have been dumped by UT?

    Nope. Consider VA Tech and Bauer.

    ReplyDelete
  68. So, which prominent and garrulous AIDS denialist, New York resident, and self-avowed close personal friend of the late Christine Maggiore, announced today by email that the reason Dr. Posey's autopsy report wasn't being released and couldn't be relied on (sic) was because Dr.Posey "insisted on taking into account Christine's HIV+ status when conducting the autopsy".

    Well, the chatty lady just blew the whistle on the RA group's entire "strategy" by confirming that Dr.Posey conducted an honest and professional autopsy that had to be buried by the RA group and then countermanded by that "expert" and "neutral" pseudo-pathologist, Mohammed Al-Bayati.

    So, thanks, ma'am, just keep those outraged sounding, hysterical (in all sense of the word) and very helpful emails coming! It's not the first time you've done us all a favor.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Well I sure hope that email gets published. Of course it would be much more helpful to have the actually autopsy report. I wonder how many denialists have even bothered to consider why the facts consistently contradict their beliefs. I mean how many autopsies need to be re-written, how many causes of death rationalized, how many conspiracy theories invoked before one realizes it is just all a crock and that the simplest answer (although perhaps the least pleasant) is simply that they are wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  70. The fact that an explanation for a physical reality is new (and clearly poorly understood by some) does not make it in any way invalid or part of a conspiracy. That Dr. Al-Bayati has a fresh and unorthodox explanation of what Dr. Posey found does not make him a “pseudo-pathologist”. Everything we know, everything, was once explained differently. That’s what science is about. Orthodox thinking belongs in the realm of religious matters, not scientific ones.

    Again, watching these comments, it struck me that those defending the AIDS orthodoxy sound like religious fanatics. They become less and less credible with every mean-spirited comment. The facts are that nothing about AIDS has been satisfactorily resolved, neither cause nor treatment, and that for science to dig itself out of the very deep commercial rut it has fallen into will likely take a miracle. The only thing that is certain is that blogs like this one will disappear with time, just as religious fundamentalism will.

    p.s. @John Moore: No, I’m not Connie Farber, I’m Connie Howard.
    p.s. @Snout: It’s not at all odd that the autopsy hasn’t been made public, are you kidding? In a case as public and cruel and political as this? After what they’ve already been through, with all the misinformation disseminated about Eliza Jane? You’re not so lacking in intelligence that you can’t figure that out. What’s odd to me is that nobody’s asking just why a doctor signed a death certificate stating disseminated herpes as the cause of death when Dr. Posey found absolutely no evidence of it.
    p.s. @ Seth: I’m not sure what you mean by denialist, but it sounds to me like it’s the other side of this argument that’s not mentally well. And if by denialist you mean those who know the verifiable potentially-deadly adverse effects of drugs such as the ones given Christine, than all those who have contributed to that body of knowledge in the literature are denialists.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Connie says: "What’s odd to me is that nobody’s asking just why a doctor signed a death certificate stating disseminated herpes as the cause of death when Dr. Posey found absolutely no evidence of it."

    How do you know that Dr Posey "found absolutely no evidence" of disseminated herpes? Have you spoken to him? Have you read his autopsy report? Just because AL-BAYATI makes no mention of herpes doesn't mean a damn thing! But even Al-Bayati notes that Maggiore was receiving acyclovir, which is a drug used to treat herpes virus infections.........

    Connie is remarkably naive. She accepts everything the RA group says as being factual and accurate, which is always a mistake. But she's right on one thing, the AIDS deaths of Maggiore and her daughter are indeed "public and cruel and political". Now why is that? It's because the FAMILY and their supporters (and Maggiore herself before her death) made her personal life, and her health, a public matter with a public agenda. Maggiore's decision to go public on her HIV status was HER decision; Maggiore's decision to use her naked, pregnant belly (containing the daughter who later died of AIDS) as part of a media campaign against ARVs was HER decision; the release of the Al-Bayati report was her husband's decision. All throughout her life, and since her death, Maggiore and her friends CHOSE to live in the public spotlight, and manipulated her celebrity status to promote a sickening agenda. Those were HER decisions, Connie, so cut out the hypocrisy and humbug and find a way to enter the real world.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Aw, don't be so mean about Liz Ely, Seth, she's one of our greatest assets :)

    John Moore

    PS Did you hear about her follies at a Manhattan book signing event for Michael Specter's "Denialism" recently? Very droll and bizarre behavior that rather made the author's point for him. (It's a great book, by the way, on a par with yours, Ben Goldacre's and Paul Offit's as my personal 'Books of the Year').

    ReplyDelete
  73. John, do you think if I paid her train ticket I could get Liz to come to the Yale talk? She is such a great specimen.

    ReplyDelete
  74. @anonymous Why I say Dr. Posey found no evidence of herpes is because Dr. Al-Bayati has said so, and I can't think of a reason why he would lie when I'm pretty sure his report is going to have to stand up in a court of law. I'm not sure how that's being naive.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Hello Seth and Dr. Moore. I am inquiring as to whether the two of you would be so kind as to share your own personal opinions of Dr. Luc Montagnier's statement:

    "We can be exposed to HIV many times without being chronically infected. Our immune system can get rid of the virus in a few weeks, if you have a good immune system."

    I would like, and I am sure many others would as well, to know if you personally agree or disagree with Dr. Montagnier on this matter, and why or why not?

    ReplyDelete
  76. Thank you Michael!
    Without the concocted context of Meister Leung, Montagnier's statement is perfectly sensible. See Snout, Poodlestomper, Chris, Moore, JTD's etc comments above on this thread.

    Montagnier said...
    "We can be exposed to HIV many times without being chronically infected. Our immune system can get rid of the virus in a few weeks, if you have a good immune system."

    I agree. Of course. He is speaking of exposures.

    You know Michael, actually I believe you know quite well, that people are exposed to HIV and do not become infected. This is especially true for sexual transmission.

    There are protective mechanisms in tissue that clear pathogens. That is why HIV transmission is more likely during anal than vaginal intercourse, and why both are more likely to confer transmission than oral intercourse.

    Disruption of those protective mechanisms is why Herpes and other ulcers increase transmission risks.

    If I could get my hands on House of Morons, I would remix to remove Brent and the other denialists who create the context to confuse people. What you would see is that Montagnier, Moore, Curran, Fauci, and yes even the Evil Dr. Gallo say nothing that is inconsistent with the well established facts of HIV/AIDS.

    So great question Michael! Dr. Moore, anything to add?

    ReplyDelete
  77. Why I say Dr. Posey found no evidence of herpes is because Dr. Al-Bayati has said so, and I can't think of a reason why he would lie when I'm pretty sure his report is going to have to stand up in a court of law. I'm not sure how that's being naive.

    Yes, that is being naive.

    This is what Al-Bayati said in an interview

    http://www.mercola.com/2001/jul/11/aids.htm

    "Dr. Al-Bayati: My investigation was focused on finding the causes of AIDS and the link between HIV and AIDS. When I found that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, then the issue of the HIV test became unimportant. In fact, I have found that the majority of people who participated in the major four AZT clinical trials that were conducted in the USA between 1986-1992 were HIV-negative prior to their treatment with AZT and their diagnoses were based only on clinical symptoms."


    "The four published clinical trials are (1) Fischl et al., The New England Journal of Medicine 317 (4): 185-191 (1987); (2) Fischl et al., The New England Journal of Medicine 323 (15): 1009-1014 (1990); (3)
    Volberding et al., The New England Journal of Medicine 322 (14): 941-949 (1990); and (4) Hamilton et al., The New England Journal of Medicine 326(7): 437-443 (1992). Briefly, a total of 2,482 patients participated in these studies, and only 22% were HIV-positive prior to
    their treatment with AZT and the rest of the subjects were HIV-negative (62%) and untested (16%)."


    I have read all of these papers and they clearly state that all patients were HIV positive. This is clearly stated in the selection criteria.

    Al-Bayati has a long history of misrepresenting the literature. You simply cannot trust anything he says.

    He's even prepared to lie about articles that anyone can read for themselves. His response when I challenged him on his misrepresentation was "I am the expert". He also said that he was willing to stand by his statements. A willingness to lie in court does not make someone credible.

    ReplyDelete
  78. @Connie, I don't find it odd that Maggiore's family and supporters withheld the real autopsy report. They clearly didn't like its findings, so of course they don't want it on the public record.

    What's odd, though, is that instead of keeping quiet about it they have drawn everyone's attention to its existence, including the LA coroner and the Californian Medical Board, both of whom have subpoena powers. That seems to me to suggest a certain lack of judgement.

    Even more bizarrely, they entrusted the public release of Al-Bayati's "analysis" to Celia Farber and Clark Baker. Farber has now made two posts on the subject on Dean Esmay's blog and was politely excoriated in the comments. Predictably, both posts were taken down after some increasingly unhinged ranting on Celia's part.

    That's what I find odd.

    "Rethinking AIDS" is a public relations group that organises stunts and traffics in disinformation. Their message is lethally stupid, but fortunately they are utterly incompetent.

    ReplyDelete
  79. No Seth, I don't trade words with the likes of Michael Geiger, as he's not a significant individual in the world of denialism. Who cares what he posts? Besides, as you noted yourself, all that needs to be said was said earlier on this thread; if Geiger can't be bothered to read them, that's his problem.
    John Moore

    ReplyDelete
  80. I'm afraid, Connie, you are naive.

    "Dr. Al-Bayati has said so, and I can't think of a reason why he would lie when I'm pretty sure his report is going to have to stand up in a court of law."

    Al-Bayati is regularly over ruled in a court of law - see earlier posts on this thread. He's a person who hires his "services" out in the hope that the jury will be dumbasses. Of course since some juries are dumbasses, he sometimes wins. that's nothing to do with scientific merit tho, just the vagaries of the jury system. How Al-Bayati makes his living is telling his clients (in this case, Maggiore's family) exactly what they want to hear.

    If the family had actually wanted the truth, they would have accepted the POSEY autopsy report, and not hired Al-Bayati to rewrite it into something they were happy with. That's dishonest and wrong.

    Just ask yourself this. What's more likely to be true and accurate information? An autopsy report written by someone with a good reputation for the quality of his work and who actually SAW the body and conducted an autopsy (Dr Posey)? Or a REHASH of the report by someone who is regularly over rules in court, who has a terrible reputation, and WHO DID NOT HIMSELF CONDUCT AN AUTOPSY AND DID NOT SEE THE BODY (Al-Bayati). If you honestly answer Al-Bayati, you're not just naive, you're delusional!

    I'll say again what's been said by many posters on this thread. What POSSIBLE reason could there be to hire Al-Bayati when the family ALREADY had an autopsy report sitting in front of them. Answer - they didn't like what Posey said! In other words, they didn't like the truth, which was that Maggiore died of AIDS, just like the autopsy on her daughter showed she did too.

    Well, if as you say, Connie, this affair does go to court, for sure Posey will be sub poenaed and his report will become part of the evidence a jury will have to weigh up, and he will have to testify about what he ACTUALLY SAW when he dissected Maggiore's corpse and conducted tests on samples. That's what's so stupid about the family's strategy - any half competent lawyer will take them apart.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Mikey,
    You know, HIV is similar in so many way to other viral diseases. Having sex with someone who has HepB or HepC, for example doesn't always lead to infection despite exposure. Likewise, needle pricks with blood contaminated by these two does not result in infection 100% of the time despite the exposure (it comes out to ~1/200 pricks for HepC if I recall correctly). If your immune system is healthy you have a better chance of clearing the virus before infection takes hold (the amount of virus at exposure is of course a factor as well). If this isn't a problem for these viruses, why would it be a problem for HIV?

    ReplyDelete
  82. @Connie,
    "Dr. Al-Bayati has said so, and I can't think of a reason why he would lie when I'm pretty sure his report is going to have to stand up in a court of law."

    The question you will have to answer (to yourself anyway) is whether you trust Al Bayati's word because he is truly credible (Chris already showed that he either lied or didn't read 4 studies he cites) or simply because what he says agrees with what you want to believe. You don't have to respond to this but I would ask you to try to be incredibly honest with yourself as you ponder this question.

    ReplyDelete
  83. @anonymous (or John Moore, or whoever you are); I may indeed be naive, but much better to be naive than unkind, which is, again, what I find most everyone here has been toward Celia. Unkindness is, in my mind, the saddest characteristic to possess.

    @poodle stomper; believe me, I have pondered the question. Do you honestly think anyone in their right mind would actually WANT to find the arguments of the HIV skeptics more credible? That's kind of like saying those who were gay back when they used to hang them or beat them in broad daylight, CHOSE to be gay. Give me a break.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Henry Bauer's StudentDecember 16, 2009 at 10:23 PM

    I am not so sure that true autopsy was ever performed on Maggiore.

    Why would I believe this? Because Al-Bayati says so?

    I think everyone knows that a doctor, such as the one who supposedly conducted an autopsy, will never discuss or reveal whether he ever even did the work. Call any doctor and ask if someone is their patient. See what they say.

    So easy enough, say a reputable doctor did an autopsy and who will prove otherwise?

    And what makes you so sure Maggiore's family hired Al-Bayati? Isn't it more likely that Leppo and Rethinking AIDS orchestrated this?

    What seems particularly stupid is Al-Bayati saying she had PCP. Hello. She had PCP and not AIDS?

    ReplyDelete
  85. Do you honestly think anyone in their right mind would actually WANT to find the arguments of the HIV skeptics more credible?

    There is nothing wrong with wanting to believe that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. It would be great if AIDS could be solved simply by not taking ARVs, eating well and readjusting your shakras or whatever. Nobody can be blamed for wanting to believe this.

    It is a problem if you start to delude yourself, start to ignore proper medical advice, and encourage others to do so too.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Henry Bauer's student makes some good points about the fog that surrounds what really happened over the autopsy. As I've said before on this thread, it's so often dangerous to assume that anything the RA group does involves logic and follows a strategy. But my own view is that Dr Posey did in fact carry out an autopsy. There is a real Dr Posey, and he does do autopsies on a contractual basis. And since he surely by now knows of this controversy, I find it hard to believe that he would allow it to be stated that he did do an autopsy if he didn't - it just doesn't seem likely, using the Occam's Razor approach.

    Of course HB's Student is 100% right that medical ethics would prevent Dr Posey from commenting publicly on what the autopsy showed, without permission from the family, or unless under a sub poena in a legal action. It's the knowledge that Dr Posey can't publicly contradict Al-Bayati that allows the RA group the chance to put in place this bizarre sequence of events. However, nobody rational is fooled by this approach. If the Posey autopsy had generated results consistent with the family's beliefs, it's absolutely certain that autopsy would have been released, and trumpeted to the heavens. It's surely only because the Posey autopsy confirms that Maggiore died of AIDS that the family had to bring in Al-Bayati in a last desperate attempt..... A ridiculous thing to do, but when the RA group's involved in "strategic thinking", that's what happens.

    And yes, HB's student, it would not at all surprise me if the shady backers behind the RA group (and HoN, and the Parenzee trial) were bankrolling what's going on. There's a limit to what David Crowe and Celia Farber can raise by busking on the subways.

    And so to Connie. Yes, people on this thread are not flattering to Celia Farber (I would not use the word 'unkind' myself). But there's a reason for that, in fact more than one. First, Ms Farber has done more than most to perpetuate the culture of death and destruction that is represented by the AIDS denialist movement in general, and the RA group in particular. When conduct so shameful occurs for so long, without any indications of repentance or regret, it's perfectly appropriate to be critical. Second, even on this thread, and vastly more so on the denialists' own Blogs, there's some extremely "unkind" things said about various people, including me, Seth and others, who take the time and trouble to fight the AIDS denialists. Perhaps Connie would wish to condemn also the abusive, defamatory, offensive, racist, sexist, homophobic and thoroughly nasty language that has been said about "us", including by people who are closely linked to Ms Farber. There have been several occasions when she has been publicly or privately invited to condemn the language of the gutter, the words of the bigots, and she has studiously and consistently declined to do so. In the circumstances, she's condemned by association for the language used by her friends and supporters, and for the "unkind" words she has certainly uttered about many of us on occasion. Perhaps Connie would now care to condemn the 'unkind' way in which the RA group members behave towards us. That would seem only fair.

    Finally, and Seth knows this well, for reasons related to my self-confessed computer illiteracy, my posts are sometimes listed under the heading "anonymous". But when my name appears at the foot of the message, as here, I am the writer and that they are not actually "anonymous" (of course sometimes denialists have posted fake messages on Blogs allegedly from me, or others, because that's what they do.......).

    John Moore

    ReplyDelete
  87. @Connie,
    "Do you honestly think anyone in their right mind would actually WANT to find the arguments of the HIV skeptics more credible?"

    Actually, yes. There are many people that gravitate towards conspiracy/anti-establishment ideas for various reasons.

    The question is how you, Connie, will handle unpleasant FACTS. For example, Chris pointed out to you where Al-Bayati lied either about the contents of the 4 papers he cited (this assumes he knew their content) or about having read them. Either way if Chris was correct, Al Bayati lied, making it evident that he is no stranger to twisting the truth. Those are the FACTS. How you handle them is a CHOICE. You can CHOOSE to face the facts perhaps by reading the papers for yourself to verify Chris is correct (nothing wrong with personal research) or you can CHOOSE to simply ignore/rationalize the facts for the comforts of what you WANT to believe.

    Understandably it is not an easy CHOICE. Admitting Al-Bayati lied immediately implies you were wrong to believe him trustworthy and such self-admissions are tough to swallow. However, when it comes to advancing in science, or even just as human beings, we have to be able to admit our own failings and learn from them.

    So I am asking which you, Connie, will CHOOSE to do with this particular example? Will you read the papers? Will you try verify the authenticity of Chris' statement? Will you go out on a limb and risk your image of Al-Bayati, knowing you may find a truth you don't like or will you stay inside the comfort zone of your beliefs? Or, will you simply ignore this and go on with your life?

    ReplyDelete
  88. Hi Connie,

    You are courageous lady to enter this snake pit. Most normal people have one simple objective: to cure AIDS. Not to treat it endlessly, not to study it endlessly, not to wear red ribbons at fundraisers -- but, to cure it.

    These jokers don't want to cure AIDS. They live for AIDS. It gives them purpose. It makes their tummies feel all warm inside. They want to prolong and exaggerate the epidemic. They want to sell lots of drugs.

    Here's a courageous Italian M.D., Dr. Marco Ruggiero, who figured out this scam long ago. Enjoy!

    http://aras.ab.ca/articles/scientific/20091211-ProfitDrivenHealth-Ruggiero.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  89. *blinks*

    "Do you honestly think anyone in their right mind would actually WANT to find the arguments of the HIV skeptics more credible? That's kind of like saying those who were gay back when they used to hang them or beat them in broad daylight."

    *blinks again*

    Connie, I'm not sure if I just read your last comment right, but did you just suggest that someone who insists on denying that HIV is the cause of AIDS in the face of all the evidence is in some way equivalent to a gay person asserting that their homosexuality is an integral part of who they are?

    *jaw drops*

    ReplyDelete
  90. Snout, have you read any of Connies *ahem* work? The jaw dropping stops after the first reading!

    ReplyDelete
  91. @snout. No, you didn't read me right at all; I never said anything about it being an integral part of them. What I said was that someone new to a controversy such as this wouldn't prefer to find the argument of the skeptics more credible, that it would be infinitely easier and safer and less self-destructive to go with the flow. I rarely say jaw-dropping things, so relax and read more carefully.

    @poodle stomper. Whoa, no need for the caps, I’m not deaf. And no need for the condescension; I’m a thinking person, don’t need to be reminded about little things like facts.

    @anonymous. If you say so. And too much to get into. I have things to do besides this blog, and given the disagreeable “unflattering-but-not-unkind” tone on here, and the weirdest kind of responses to argument I've ever seen, I’m out.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Connie, there was no condescension intended. I was merely highlighting where the choice comes in. I realize it is not always easy to tell with posts. However my question remains unanswered: what will you do with the information Chris gave you? Will you investigate it's merit or ignore it?

    ReplyDelete
  93. To give another example of Al-Bayati's convoluted alternative explanations take what he said in this interview.

    http://clients.loudeye.com/imc/brisbaneimc/mohammed_al-bayatipt2.mp3 (link broken but I have a copy of the mp3 file)

    Al-Bayati starts with the conclusion that poppers cause KS and weaves a fanciful series of concatenations of causal links between nitrite or popper use and Kaposi's sarcoma.

    1) Abuse of "poppers" causes headaches.
    2) Take aspirin for headaches.
    3) Aspirin causes thrombocytopenia.
    4) Presribed corticosteroids for thrombocytopenia.
    5) Corticosteroids cause immune suppression.
    6) Immune suppression causes KS.

    This nicely sums up Al-Bayati's approach 1) form conclusions 2) invent fairytale explanation for conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
  94. @Connie there are many reasons why people choose to reject a well-established scientific consensus based in actual evidence, and prefer to accept the arguments of what you call "skeptics", no matter how divorced from reality or internally contradictory these arguments can be.

    For some, denying HIV/AIDS is a way of holding at bay an unpleasant reality about their own health. Sometimes this is actually an adaptive temporary response that protects against feeling emotionally overwhelmed.

    For some it is a way of disavowing the responsibility to protect ones sexual partners or children from infection, and arises from confusion and anxiety about interpersonal boundaries, particularly when it comes to sex.

    For some it's an extension of their personal response to very real social stigma. For others it's a way of avoiding difficult decisions where there is no ideal solution to the problem.

    Some people deny their own HIV infection or that of loved ones because they cannot reconcile that reality with their preconceptions about a just universe. After all, misfortune and stigma only happens to people who deserve it, doesn't it?

    Others are deeply distrustful of social institutions like government or the scientific and medical establishment. Sometimes such people have had personal experiences which lead them to blur the distinction between reasonable critical skepticism, and outright denial. Such distrust tends to get magnified when people feel alienated from the relevant discourse, because they have never had the education to understand it.

    Some people react to their own lack of grasp of a complex subject like science and medicine by overestimating their own competence to critique it. Look up the Dunning Kruger effect.

    Some people enjoy taking on an eccentric or minority viewpoint because it makes them feel special. For some people, to feel they are iconoclastic or revolutionary is an end in itself. The flip side of this (which you seem to be emphasising here in your defence of Celia Farber) is self-vindication through taking on an identity of victimhood. This, of course, can produce secondary social gain.

    None of these reasons, as far as I can see, have anything to do with a sober, informed and objective contemplation of the evidence. In my experience, trying to engage with denialists on that level is pointless, except for the benefit of uncommitted bystanders and lurkers. You can see that demonstrated in this thread and others, for example where Bill makes assertions, Poodle refutes them, and Bill just ignores Poodle's response.

    So tell us, Connie. How did you come to believe that essentially the entire scientific and medical communities are wrong about HIV and AIDS, and that you and your friends are right?

    ReplyDelete
  95. Much more than I have time for here again, but I’ll answer that last question, in part.

    How I came to consider that the entire scientific community might be wrong is a few things. For one, I was open to the idea, as it’s not like science hasn’t been wrong countless times before. In fact, science has been wrong before it finally got it right, more often than not. We’ve also been lied to more often than not. I’m a skeptic at heart, I guess you could say, have never swallowed orthodox anything without checking it out.

    It was a gradual awakening to the fact that much of the official data doesn’t line up with reality. HIV positive tests have historically been equal among men and women; AIDS has never (except in Africa) been equal among men and women, not even with the addition of the female-only disease cervical cancer added to the list of AIDS-defining diseases.

    How I came to consider that AIDS medications have become part of a big machine (one that is hungry and doesn’t want to run out of fuel) is that the mortality rate of largely untreated HIV+ people in the developing world is about one-fifth that of HIV+ people here in the west, where we do have access to the best ARVs.

    Conversations with doctors who treat their AIDS patients without ARVs reveal that their patients do as well or better than do those who do use them. Historians who bring context about Africa inform us that the increase of AIDS there coincided with a shift in the political economy in the 80s that brought famine. Pathologists inform us that severe malnutrition severely depletes the thymus gland, the heart of immune function. The epidemic in the west coincided with the unprecedented use of immune-suppressing drugs since the 1970s—corticosteroids, chemo-therapies, antibiotics, antifungals, antivirals, and a long list of recreational drugs. It has been a deadly mix. Never before in our history have human beings been so relentlessly bombarded with so many chemicals so able to decimate our spleens, bone marrow, thymus glands, lymph nodes. And drug-induced disease is a leading cause of death.

    I could go on, but I know the direction these blog discussions go, and that you won’t hear me, nor me you, so I won’t. I’m truly happy for everyone doing well on ARVs, but I’m appalled at the lack of respect shown those who bring information about their short-comings.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Connie

    It is great to be a skeptic. But I do not think it makes for a well informed person when they define their entire world view through skepticism. Ultimately you have to choose and trust sources of information because no one can possibly know enough about everything....

    This was the downfall of Thabo Mbeki, he would not trust AIDS scientists and only wanted information unfiltered. He thought he was smart enough to understand the biology of HIV/AIDS, and he was not.

    Your comments about disease and causes of disease sound Duesbergian and do not reflect reality. These same ideas are parroted by the likes of David Crowe.

    "Human beings been so relentlessly bombarded with so many chemicals so able to decimate our spleens, bone marrow, thymus glands, lymph nodes."
    If that is the case, why is that deaths from cancers have remained relatively stable over the past 100 years? Someone pointed this out to Peter Duesberg at his aneuploidy conference and it left him speechless - as hard as that may be to believe.

    "And drug-induced disease is a leading cause of death."
    And what leading causes of death are drug induced?

    ReplyDelete
  97. HIV positive tests have historically been equal among men and women;


    No, they haven't.
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;239/4840/610

    ReplyDelete
  98. @ Seth: Are official government sources of information credible enough for you? Because from what I can see, those are the ones that don’t line up with reality.

    You think cancer has been relatively stable over the past 100 years? Harold Varmus, president of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, in a 2006 paper published in Science, writes that cancer is "widespread and lethal, currently the second most common cause of death in the United States; it is likely to become the most common in the near future. Despite large federal and industrial investments in cancer research and a wealth of discoveries about [it] ... cancer is commonly viewed as, at best, minimally controlled by modern medicine ... Indeed, the age-adjusted mortality rate for cancer is about the same in the 21st century as it was 50 years ago." Meaning all the billions we’ve put into the search for causes, cures and diagnostics have done ...nothing? Extended a few lives temporarily, for sure, but overall, Varmus says, mortality is the same.

    And I’m not sure what you meant by your last question so I’ll just say it again: Medication-induced disease—iatrogenic disease—is a leading cause of death; that’s from mainstream medical journals.

    I’m not claiming to be a virologist, but that doesn’t make me incapable of seeing the giant pieces of the picture that don’t fit.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Connie, I am listening to you, and I'm happy to go through your list.

    To start at the top:

    "HIV positive tests have historically been equal among men and women; AIDS has never (except in Africa) been equal among men and women..."

    Did you ever check to see if this was, in fact true? It's very easy to do.

    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2006report/table8.htm

    In 2006 males accounted for 72.95% of adults living with diagnosed HIV infection in the 33 states and 5 U.S. dependent areas with confidential name-based HIV infection reporting.

    Males also accounted for 73.36% of new AIDS diagnoses, 72.91% of AIDS deaths and 76.98% of adults and adolescents living with AIDS in the US.

    The male-female ratios of positive HIV diagnoses and AIDS diagnoses are almost identical.

    Whoever told you that "HIV positive tests have historically been equal among men and women (in Western countries)" was, I'm sorry to say, either misinformed or deliberately lying to you.

    Can you hear what I am saying? Or will you ignore an easily checked fact, and continue to insist that "HIV positive tests have historically been equal among men and women" even after you have been shown that it is not true?

    My experience of trying to engage with AIDS dissidents on their claims is that they are not interested in checking their veracity and correcting them when they are shown to be untrue. I find this an utterly bizarre approach to reality.

    Are you any different?

    ReplyDelete
  100. @Connie - gee, a little knowledge truly is a dangerous thing. pretty much every single statement on a science or health topic that Connie made is either (or all of) factually inaccurate, unverifiable or a non sequitur (ie, true, possibly, but unconnected to the train of thought). it's fine to be skeptical but when one's primary source of "scientific" information is david crowe, celia farber or the rRA group's website, that's not exactly "checking it out", Connie, that's reinforcing a delusion.

    "In fact, science has been wrong before it finally got it right, more often than not." Every form of human activity is error riddled, and trial and error is a human approach to learning and improvement. but to say science is more often wrong than right is an unverifiable, unquantifiable opinion that basically rejects all of mankind's progress in technology and medicine.

    "We’ve also been lied to more often than not." Really? how do you know? how more often? by whom? why? Sure, governments and individual politicians sometimes lie, but to imply that the whole of society is built on humans lying to other humans is breathtakingly cynical, or perhaps just paranoid. (OK, OK, Connie is right sometimes. Al-Bayati lied to us in his pseudo-autopsy report on Christine Maggiore's death).

    really, really bizarre stuff........

    ReplyDelete
  101. Connie
    Let me be clear (although I thought I was being clear).

    Your Varmus quote makes my point.
    If what you wrote ".... so relentlessly bombarded with so many chemicals so able to decimate our spleens, bone marrow, thymus glands, lymph nodes."
    Then why didn't major diseases of those organs increase over the past 100 years as the evil chemicals proliferated?

    Second, the 10 leading causes of death in the US are:


    Heart disease: 631,636
    Cancer: 559,888
    Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 137,119
    Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 124,583
    Accidents (unintentional injuries): 121,599
    Diabetes: 72,449
    Alzheimer's disease: 72,432
    Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,326
    Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 45,344
    Septicemia: 34,234

    Can you please tell which are drug-induced diseases? I suppose some accidents are drug influenced, but which are drug induced.

    AIDS denialists look even more foolish when they venture into other areas of medicine.

    Look at Duesberg and Rasnick... There are NO GENETIC BASES TO ANY CANCERS?

    Just plain dumb.

    ReplyDelete
  102. @Connie: "We’ve also been lied to more often than not."

    Does this mean you will investigate the references Al-Bayati quoted to see for yourself whether he is worthy of your trust?

    ReplyDelete
  103. Seth,

    Lazarou in JAMA found that 106,000 deaths/year were caused by prescription drugs.

    http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/279/15/1200

    Try not to be a putz, please.

    ReplyDelete
  104. @Poodle Stomper: I will.

    @Snout: In the 80s when 95% of AIDS victims were men, men and women tested for military service tested positive equally often. The thing about numbers and stats though is that it’s an impossible pit of contradictions, kind of like arguing a moral code from Leviticus.

    @Seth: Why didn’t the major diseases of those organs proliferate? I’m saying that those organs stressed to the max could very well be what is behind acquired immune deficiency. As to iatrogenic disease—I mean all injury and death caused by medications. Prescription drugs, used properly and according to approved uses, kill tens of thousands of us each year, and harm many more. That’s from mainstream medical journals.

    But again, the demeaning tone in general has reminded me that I have better things to do than this fruitless dialogue; I’m unplugging.

    ReplyDelete
  105. @Chris: One final post-script before I stop conversing with mostly identity-less bloggers. To address the four papers cited and Al-Bayati’s credibility: Selection criteria required participants to be HIV+ true, but: in the 1987 Fischl study, HIV was isolated at entry in 57 percent of participants. In the 1990 study, detectable levels of HIV antigen were found in 50 percent before treatment. In the 1990 Volberding study—the largest one—detectable levels of p24 antigen were found in only 9% at entry, and in the 1992 Hamilton study, p24 antigen was found in 20% at entry.

    And this is where I leave. You all are clearly convinced of the integrity and correctness and life-saving power of the orthodoxy; I’m not.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Bye Connie
    Thanks for your comments and discussion...

    ReplyDelete
  107. And this is where I leave. You all are clearly convinced of the integrity and correctness and life-saving power of the orthodoxy; I’m not.

    Connie. You are showing a lack of integrity by conflating isolation, antibody tests and antigen tests.

    All patients were diagnosed with HIV infection based on antibody tests. Antigen tests, particularly in the 1980s, are much less sensitive and undetectable levels of p24 antigen have never been interpreted as HIV negative. You can't simply redefine HIV+ to suit your purposes as Al-Bayati does. It is dishonest. Al-Bayati is aiming to deceive and is often successful.

    ReplyDelete
  108. In the 80s when 95% of AIDS victims were men, men and women tested for military service tested positive equally often.

    Connie, did you read the paper I cited? Homosexual men tested HIV+ at rates of up to 50%. They have always represented one of the major groups. Can you see a problem in just looking at military recruits? Use your brain.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Maybe this is a bit off message for this thread, but there's been some posts on denialist Blogs, mostly Dean Esmay, about an 'opinion piece" (actually a polemical rant straight from the Rethinking AIDS archives) that a little known AIDS denialist named Terry Michael posted on TheStreet.com a few weeks ago. That moronic rant was linked to a page on Gilead and attacked the company and its AIDS drugs. Within a few hours, the article was taken down and the founder of TheStreet.com (Jim Cramer) disowned it.

    Now, the denialists are complaining that Big Pharma censored them. Of course they have no evidence that this happened, but they automatically think it must have done because it fits their paranoid mindset and their belief that Big Pharma controls everything that happens. It's not known whether Gilead or any other company bothered to complain about the Michael article, but at least one AIDS professional and anti-denialist, a person totally unconnected with Gilead, did register the following protest with Thestreet.com, shortly before the Michael story was retracted. It was probably this protest that triggered the retraction once intelligent people at the TheStreet.com became aware of the Michael post. Another victory for common sense, ethics and sound science.

    "I am seriously concerned about an opinion piece that has just been posted at: http://www.thestreet.com/story/10639973/3/nobel-curse-for-aids-big-pharma-opinion.html

    The writer is someone who believes HIV does not exist and does not kill people. These views are insane, and are damaging to the health and welfare of HIV-infected people. His post contains scientifically inaccurate material and distorts the views of a Nobel Laureate, Professor Luc Montagnier by perpetuating inaccuracies that have been rebutted elsewhere on the internet. His post could also mislead investors, causing them financial loss, if they acted on any of the recommendations the writer makes (e.g., by selling Gilead stock
    in fear of a class action lawsuit, a rumor that has no basis in fact).

    I recommend that the TheStreet.com removes that Opinion piece. I understand that there is a place for opinions on your website, but surely you cannot favor the posting of material that has no scientific basis and that serves only to mislead your readers and their
    investment decisions."

    ReplyDelete
  110. Connie: Makes extraordinary and obviously false claim and says this proves the "orthodoxy" wrong.

    Others: Show that her claim is false - with actual evidence.

    Connie: Pulls out random statistic, but admits she doesn't understand them: "they're a pit of contradictions".

    Others: Someone tries to patiently explain the statistic she's brought out

    Connie: runs away, citing closed-mindedness in her opponents

    I think Connie illustrates a very familiar pattern with denialists:

    First, the absolute confidence with which they're prepared to make demonstrably wrong assertions without bothering to fact check.

    Secondly, the readiness to dismiss a whole field of knowledge (like statistics) as worthless because they have been too lazy to bother to try to understand it.

    Thirdly, the combination of arrogance and intellectual cowardice in making an assertion but not being prepared to defend it.

    Connie has provided a prime example of why it is pointless to try to engage in substantive debate with denialists.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Connie also made a very nice, albeit unintended, point about herself. She describes herself as "a skeptic at heart, I guess you could say, have never swallowed orthodox anything without checking it out."

    and yet a few posts earlier stated

    "Why I say Dr. Posey found no evidence of herpes is because Dr. Al-Bayati has said so, and I can't think of a reason why he would lie when I'm pretty sure his report is going to have to stand up in a court of law. I'm not sure how that's being naive."

    This is typical of denialists. Being overly critical to the point of conspiracy theorizing of everything that does not agree with you and swallowing whole the BS of unqualified references that does is not being skeptical. It is denial. Any open minded reader can compare the posts by Bill, Connie, Michael Geiger, BuskerBob and friends and see that the tactics they use are inevitably, as Snout pointed out, the same.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Thanks Dr. K,

    what a fantastic blog. It is a beautiful portrait of the human mind's falliability. It is downright scary even. You see many of these "denialist" folks are not that dumb, but their belief system hinders them. We are all like this, we all reconstruct reality at times to avoid facing up to the cold truth of an indifferent and mechanistic universe.

    Medicine and health is one area where our cognitve biases are most dangerous. Many people focus on the incompleteness of our species' medical understanding as an excuse to indulge in even lesser well known (but easily digestible) "alternative therapies". The bias of considering that the universe must be simple to understand!

    You are doing a great social service sir. Even if you can lead a few people from darkness onto light, consider your services well rendered. Please treat these people with respect and coutesy. They are misled. You know just as well as I that it is very hard to let go of one's erroneous beliefs. Their emotional outbursts are the result of fear and anger. It is no use to adopt a fighting tone. Logic cannot help them, they will just strengthen their already faulty thinking. This is a task that requires some compassion. But it is imperitive that we carry on the fight, this fight is not against people, it is againt the shortcomings of our own minds. The "enemy" of cognitive biases is within us all.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Thank you Anonymous for your kind note.

    And thank you for reminding me to be patient and compassionate. I certainly feel compassion for those misled and for those who find comfort in the false promises offered by AIDS Denialists.

    I try to differentiate those who have fallen victim to the AIDS Denialists from those who are perpetrating harm for self indulgence. I know my frustration with the Duesbergs, Farbers, Bauers, Rasnicks, Raths, Crowes and Al Bayatis does spill over to the vocal victims...I should be more patient with the Maggiores, Geigers, Bills, Stokelys and others who have become stooges in the games played by self serving pseudoscientists.

    As the new year approaches it is helpful to be reminded. So thank you again!

    ReplyDelete
  114. It's horrible how you can use her death to further your own agenda. If you don't have any proof that she died in AIDS, you should not claim so.

    Have some respect for this grieving family.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Does anyone know if there any further news about the autopsy report, or has it all fizzled out now?
    Are death certificates not viewable by the public and counted as public documents? If so can anyone see what Dr Posey wrote on it?

    Also, I note CM's blood count a year before she died showed lymphocytes 21% of total WBC 3.7 (ie absolute count of 0.78). This defined as lymphopenia, since lymphocyte counts range from 1.3 to 3.5).

    Her CD4 count would undoubtedly be low (normally 20-60% of total lymphocytes, which would make the highest possible value [at 60%] to be 0.468).

    So, even though Al Bayati totalled the count wrongly (the true value could be even less than he indicated), CM is undoubtedly lymphopenic one year before her death, and almost certainly CD4 lymphopenic.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Does anyone know if there any further news about the autopsy report, or has it all fizzled out now?
    Are death certificates not viewable by the public and counted as public documents? If so can anyone see what Dr Posey wrote on it?

    Also, I note CM's blood count a year before she died showed lymphocytes 21% of total WBC 3.7 (ie absolute count of 0.78). This defined as lymphopenia, since lymphocyte counts range from 1.3 to 3.5).

    Her CD4 count would undoubtedly be low (normally 20-60% of total lymphocytes, which would make the highest possible value [at 60%] to be 0.468).

    So, even though Al Bayati totalled the count wrongly (the true value could be even less than he indicated), CM is undoubtedly lymphopenic one year before her death, and almost certainly CD4 lymphopenic.

    ReplyDelete
  117. I actually agree with Al Bayati.
    The quack who gave CM gentamicin and the other drugs hastened her death by precipitating acute tubular necrosis and renal failure.

    However, it is quite clear CM suffered a serious pneumonia, with bilateral patchy infiltrates (typical of PCP) at the start of her illness. She was traeted for bacterial and viral infection, and some fungal cover also (but not for pneumocystis) and did not improve.
    She recieved modest doses of steroids only, insufficient to precipitate severe immunodeficiency opportunistic infection.
    Autopsy revealed disseminated Pneumocystis, with involvement of every organ looked at, and CM had the classic eosinophilic alveolar exudates along with inflammatory infiltrate in her lungs, confirming pathologially severe PCP. (This is not the result of a few days low dose steroids).

    Thanks, Mohammed.
    You have confirmed what we all knew -
    CM was lymphocytopenic a year before her death, and certainly had a subnormal CD4 count. She had severe PCP and disseminated pneumocystis.
    She was HIV infected.

    So, CM definitively had AIDS, even if the actual cause of death was renal/cardiac failure.

    We don't need to see the unadulterated Posey autopsy report, you have told us quite enough.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Hi. I believe many people latch onto AIDS Denial because of the criminal acts of the scientific and medical world in recent decades.
    Baxter pharmaceuticals has been caught intentionally putting live Avian flu in vaccination material shipped to multiple countries. If it wasn't caught by an overseas lab tech it would've sparked an epidemic. Biosafety Level 3 protocols make such an 'accident' impossible.
    Bayer also put HIV in their blood product, infecting many.
    There is also the Global Warming Scam that only the most retarded numbskulls fall for, yet there are hundreds of thousands of scientists and snivelling sycophants that support the theory with ZERO evidence and much against it. They do this because they will lose their jobs or their lives if they don't.
    There is also the fact that 911 is scientifically proven to be an inside job, yet some engineers and scientists claim that the laws of physics took a holiday on 911, yet again they do it out of self-preservation.

    The HIV/AIDS connection, looking at the deniers that die early of from unusual illnesses, without drug abuse or anal sex, appears to be real.

    However, the pharmaceutical companies, do not want to cure it as they make too much money and they serve a political depopulation agenda.

    Hell they just need to use something like KP-1461, a cytodine analogue that takes the place of C and binds to some of the the G and A aminos in the DNA chain resulting from the HIV reverse transcriptase. This massively accelerates mutation based errors and shortens the Viruses life span, the degradation outpacing the spread capability thus eradicating it. There are many other breakthroughs that will no doubt never see the light of day. But no, let's just keep making billions and killing people with lethal HAART drugs.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Why not commenting a simple fact. Maggiore resulted positive in HIV test in 1992. We can easily suppose that she was infected at least 1 year before (not less than 3-6 months anyway). So let's suppose she was infected in 1991.

    She died in 2008. It means 17 years after infection. She didn't took any retroviral medication at all. All HIV/AIDS propaganda tells us that 95% of people should have died within 10 years, if they have not a specific mutation, which is very rare 1/1000.
    There are a lot of cases like this (like Freddie Mercury partner who died in 2010 not from AIDS (while he was hiv+ from 1990), not to speak about other celebrities who are still alive)

    The literature also tells us that even retroviral treatment cannot keep you alive for a long time.

    Can someone explain me how on earth Magic Johnson is still alive? Are these people all so lucky to be mutated?

    Looking that i'm not medical scientist but a sociolog and mathematician, i can't speak scientifically. The only thing i can understand is statistic.

    Thank you!

    ReplyDelete
  120. Tell me guys and gals, jolly defenders of science, health, reason and above all, compassion : is this what you're working for ?
    http://www.altheal.org/toxicity/orphans.htm
    Because this is what the industry you're supporting is doing.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Very strange. The prominent, most outspoken and so called "denialists" have allegedly died of A.I.D.S., yet people who I personally know and who have been living with HIV for 25 years are not NOT on meds are healthy. I wonder how that can be explained. Maybe the so called denialists died because it was their time?!?!? I mean, we ALL will die at some point, no?

    ReplyDelete
  122. While the HIV does not equal AIDS argument is very strong, I must add my two cents. I believed that for 15 years. Then about a year and a half ago I came down with CMV Retinitis. Prior to that I was extremely weak and tired all the time. I attributed that to anything but the truth. Alcohol, not eating healthy, etc. But then I started going blind in my right eye due to CMV. I found that people rarely get CMV Retinitis anymore in this country due to the leaps and bounds that HIV medicine has come. I got it because I denied myself treatment due to my belief that HIV wasn't the cause of AIDS. I can tell you that my vision was saved, am no longer weak and tired, and oh yes, I'm on the medicine. I was one of the lucky ones. Most people who deny HIV just simply die. I was afforded the opportunity to get CMV Retinitis first and then to wake the heck up. I am very well aware of the fact that the medication is horribly toxic, and that one day I will die from being poisoned. All I know is it did save me a year and a half ago, and I am still here. How much longer is anyones guess.

    ReplyDelete
  123. First of all, let me say I do not believe Christine died from the medication she was on, so that you know where I am coming from.

    What I really want the denialists to answer is: if all those medications and vitamins are a bad mix that took Christine's life, how could she and all her cohorts foul that up so badly? They want us to believe they're "tuned in" to meds that are so terrible, yet they'd put her own cocktail of drugs (and she, oh so knowledgeable herself, would agree to take such a course) that can so easily kill an allegedly all-around healthy 52-year old woman?

    Why did she want so many meds to fight this "not AIDS defining" combination of illnesses? Interesting how they'd slip up and not know such a combination kills, right? They know more than the rest of us about the big bad meds!

    This is probably why Al-Bayati wants to more emphasize it was just a bad reaction unique to her, just like Eliza Jane, and it has gotten sprinkled in that the stress of her daughter's death and all of its heat just broke her down. (I still can't get over how he merely interpreted the other autopsy and we're not supposed to notice, but I won't even go further with that.)

    Also, a little interesting about being on all of those meds when she died... is in her Alive and Well Meeting from 2000 with other dissidents on the panel (who I'd love to know there whereabouts now), she told the story about how she and her brother had both caught pneumonia, and she proudly fought it without any meds, and recovered 4 times faster than her brother on Rxs. I guess this final battle, she decided all of those meds--including an antiviral--were okay that time.

    That last paragraph doesn't really isn't to prove anything because we know she wasn't actually against some meds, as her daughter received antibiotics. It's just that I have this feeling that from the time she treated pneumonia naturally to this final illness, she was realizing she was losing the battle. I have seen many interviews with her, and I had never seen her more dejected than her interview in "House of Numbers," which was filmed much more close to her death than anything else I'd seen. Even after Eliza Jane's passing, she would hold it together quite well in interviews, but in "House of Numbers," she is a completely different person than what I'd ever seen. She appears near tears the whole time, and in this interview she is merely discussing her multiple HIV tests from the past, so it's not like the topic is discussing her daughter. Again, I'd seen her repeatedly have more strength discussing her daughter the years following her death than this interview done after those.

    Certainly there is no proof, but I am wondering if she had this nagging feeling she had gotten it all wrong, and it was showing on her face at the end of her life, but she had to keep up the denial to the bitter end.

    ReplyDelete