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.

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Beyond Kary Mullis: The Alien Conspiracy Theory of AIDS















Ok, so this one falls under the category 'Just when I thought I had seen all of the crazies in AIDS denialism.' There is a theory that AIDS is the result of an Alien plot against Earth.

Kary Mullis, the alien abducted Nobel Prize winning AIDS denier, has obviously never connected the celestrial dots. Now we have proof... Mullis' glowing raccoons crafted HIV to kill earthlings. Obviously the whole Drugs=AIDS myth is just a cover up.

Why are the AIDS Denialists keeping this a secret?

Why hasn't TruthBearer Celia Farber told us about this?

With his extraterrestrial contacts Henry Bauer surely has knowledge of the plot. Why is he silent?

Is Irving Newton former weatherman in Roswell, Joe's father?

Could it be that there is a larger scheme at work?

Is there an interplanetary conspiracy beyond any of our wildest imaginations? The sort of thing that is only revealed by excessive dopamine in the brain, and LSD of course. Read the terrifying story below or visit The AIDS-ET Connection Hypothesis.

The AIDS-ET Connection Hypothesis

The AIDS-ET Connection Hypothesis is a new, unifying scientific concept, which logically and simply explains and unifies the known facts relating to HIV/AIDS and Ufology (the study of Unidentified flying objects). Like any hypothesis, it is in the least well established stage of scientific knowledge, and provides a guideline for further study, investigation, and possible modification.


HIVs are Human Immuno Deficiency Viruses. After infection they replicate primarily in specific cells of the human immune system, especially T-4 lymphocytes, and by eventually killing these cells thereby weaken the immune system. When the immune system is weakened enough multiple opportunistic infections occur, due to attack by a variety of otherwise medically uncommon microorganisms. The resultant disease conditions are collectively termed Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome or AIDS. Although appropriate medical treatment may be very helpful concerning delaying the onset of and reducing the severity of AIDS, AIDS is commonly considered an eventually lethal disease.
HIV is present in all the body fluids of infected persons. Infection is commonly spread by transfer of virus in body fluids, especially blood and semen. After infection there is a variable latent asymptomatic period of about on average 10 years, during which in the absence of laboratory tests infected persons will not know they are both infected and infectious. Infection can occur in utero, by passage through the birth canal or by nursing. Infected newborns usually die of AIDS within a few years.

HIVs are retroviruses employing RNA transcriptase for replication. This enzyme is notoriously prone to transcription errors in replication, so that the viruses rapidly change genetically (mutate). This rapid mutation rate works to make production of a generally effective preventive vaccine virtually impossible. It also insures that in time strains will arise resistant to all chemical treatments (1-3).

At this time world wide epidemics (pandemics) of HIVs are in progress. The number of HIV infected persons and AIDS cases world wide is unknown but believed to be rapidly increasing. (4). A noted authority states the epidemic’s spread is exponential, justifying cataclysmic expectations (1 p. 195).

(2). The geographical and general time origin of HIVs.AIDS was first seen in America when otherwise healthy young homosexual (gay) men presented to a San Francisco (west coast) physician in 1979. Several months other such cases in gay men were recognized in New York (on the east coast).

An African physician near Zimbabwe (central Africa), reading about AIDS in an American Medical Journal, recognized the same syndrome in Africa, but affecting heterosexuals of both sexes, and newborns.

HIV appears to have emerged in Africa about the same time as in the United States. In 1984 Drs. Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier jointly received credit for the discovery of a new virus, infection with which caused AIDS. The virus was named HIV. In 1983 Dr. Montagnier isolated a HIV from the blood of a west African who, though dying of AIDS, repeatedly tested negative for HIV. This new HIV is genetically quite different from all the African and American strains of HIV. It is believed to have been present initially in western Africa and western India. The jointly discovered virus is now termed HIV-1, the Montagnier discovered virus HIV-2. The strain of HIV-1 discovered in America was originally homosexually but not heterosexually infectious. The HIV-1 and HIV-2 discovered in Africa were and are heterosexually infective. All HIVs are readily transmissible through blood and blood products. All HIVs may be transmissible in utero, by passage through the birth canal, or by nursing. All HIV’s can cause AIDS.

Accepted research on the origin of the different HIV pandemics indicates that they all evidently originated at close to the same time (around 1950) in five different widely distant locations; central and western Africa, both coasts of America, and western India. The central African strain was a heterosexually infective HIV-1, the east and west coast American strains were homosexually infective HIV-1, and the western Africa and western India strains were heterosexually infective HIV-2. This is what authorities such as Dr. Mirko Grmek and others who have studied the situation believe.

According to the above, HIVs all originated as a minimum in at least three genetically distinctly different strains (two of HIV-1 and one of HIV-2), two of which (HIV-1s and HIV-2) are so extremely different genetically that one could not have arisen from the other. These HIVs then infected susceptible gay and non-gay subjects in five different locations, on two distant continents, all at close to the same time. Note that each human infection would have had to occur shortly after each (unique) viral origination, because HIVs are rapidly inactivated outside the human body.

The foregoing established, scientifically accepted circumstances concerning the originations of the different strains of HIV-1 and HIV-2 and their resultant pandemics, indicate clearly that the origination of the HIVs and the resultant pandemics evidently cannot have occurred naturally.

I mention that for a microorganism strain to arise which was previously entirely unknown, because harmless or non-existent, and produce major human pandemics, is an occurrence previously unknown to both medical science and human history.

For all this to have occurred naturally is essentially impossible.

Nature simply does not work this way.Again, this troubling conclusion is the opinion of the world authority on the history of HIV/AIDS Mirko Grmek M.D. Ph.D. and others.

Theories of HIV and pandemic originations.

Due to the fact that numerous investigators have come to the conclusion that HIVs and their pandemics cannot have originated naturally, several hypotheses involving purposeful creation and origination have been proposed to explain what happened. Prior to my hypothesis these were all iatrogenic (physician caused) or human conspiratorial theories.

My hypothesis is a non-human conspiratorial concept.

All the conspiratorial theories are politically undesirable. As a consequence a politically correct, but scientifically incorrect and indefensible concept, has arisen and is supported and nurtured by the authorities of the western world, especially by the USA and its allies.

At this time the politically correct concept is simply that HIVs originated in Africa by an unusual, unique isolated case of transmission from a simian to humans. This simple concept is contrary to all the facts concerning the nature of HIVs and the origin of their pandemics.. To name just a few, Simian Immuno Viruses (SIVs), like other animal SIVs, are essentially harmless passenger viruses which do not cause an AIDS- like disease, SIVs are genetically very different from HIV-1, HIVs do not cause AIDS in simians including chimpanzees (despite many attempts), no HIV has ever been found in any animal, etc. At least 5 different simians with 3 different HIV strains at 5 distantly different locations, three in Africa and two in America, all at close to the same time, would have to be involved, etc. These and other such facts result in the simian origin concept being maintained publicly only by those with dependent funding. Authority Betty Korber working at Los Alamos recently communicated publicly about her important genetic work on HIV-1’s time origin. Her communication included a comment about the mystery of HIV’s origin.

The origin of HIVs remains a mystery to human science. Meanwhile HIVs continue to do what they do best, infect and kill humans.

Human purposeful creation of HIVs impossible.

Human iatrogenic concepts generally presuppose the HIV multiple pandemics originated in accidental or purposeful contamination of vaccines. Human conspiratorial concepts propose that HIVs are purposefully created Biological Warfare agents. I maintain all concepts that HIV came into existence by human origination are invalid, for five different reasons:

(1). All attempts to reproduce the supposed accident which originated HIV have failed. It is extremely unlikely that an accidental occurrence could have produced HIV from non-HIV, when all such attempts by skilled researchers have not succeeded in doing so.

(2). Human science was quite incapable of creating HIVs in the time frame of HIV-1 origination, now placed between 1930 and 1940. The necessary knowledge of virology simply was not available then, and still is not now.

(3). The history of the HIV pandemics indicates against human involvement. The required vaccination programs did not exist in Africa and America during the required time frame of 1930 - 1940.

(4). There is no record or evidence of any Biological Warfare research program relating to HIV. What government would attempt to produce such a genocidal agent? What government would release it knowing there is no cure?

(5). The evidence from Ufology strongly suggests non-human involvement. The concept of non-human involvement logically and simply explains all the relevant facts from both Biomedicine and Ufology. The concept of human involvement is repeatedly in conflict with the same facts.

(5). Iatrogenic (medical) concept not possible.

Iatrogenic concepts rely upon accidental creations for the different HIV strains, and mass needle inoculations for the early initiation of the HIV pandemics. Inoculations by mouth, such as for example via the Sabin oral polio live virus, commonly given orally by sugar cube, are excluded, as HIVs are believed not infectious by consumption of food .

(4). To my knowledge human science has not, despite many attempts, ever succeeded in creating HIVs from non-HIV’s

(3). It is very improbable that where many purposeful skilled attempts have failed, an accident many years earlier could have achieved this result. Note that several purposeful linked events would have been necessary. As a minimum it would be necessary for two different strains of HIV-1 and one strain of HIV-2 to accidentally originate at the same time. And for the gay infecting virus to be given to gays by inoculation in America. While the non-gay infecting HIV-1 was given by inoculation to non-gays in central Africa. And the different non-gay infecting HIV-1 virus was given by inoculations to non-gays in western Africa and India. All at close to the same time. That all these events could have occurred accidentally and/or purposefully by human means appears so unlikely, that I consider them essentially impossible.

Therefore I consider the above considerations effectively exclude human iatrogenic theories of HIV origin.

(6).Human conspiratorial concept not possible. Briefly, human purposeful creation of HIVs is not possible because at the time HIVs originated, in the first half of the last century or earlier, human science was quite incapable of creating HIVs, even if it wanted to. The evidence is as follows.

When the human body becomes HIV infected its immune system eventually recognizes the infection and produces detectable antibodies to the HIVs, usually within weeks or months. This is termed seroconversion. Attempts to determine when HIVs originated include the study of frozen dated African and American blood samples to determine the earliest dates for seroconversion. To my knowledge nothing earlier than 1950 has been found. This indicates HIVs and their pandemics originated as early as 1950.

A time for HIV-1 origin can also be arrived at, by comparing the number of existent mutations with the viral mutation rate. In the hands of Wolinsky et al (6) this resulted in a time frame of 1930 to 1950. In the hands of Korber et al this resulted in a time frame of 1920 to 1940 (5).

The above indicates conclusively that HIVs originated no more recently than 1950. Most likely in the time frame of 1930 to 1940.

I maintain that it was impossible for human science to purposefully create HIVs (and infect people with them) even at the time of 1950, because virology in general and viral genetics in particular was not nearly knowledgeable enough. For example;

The key research enzyme Reverse Transcriptase, detection of which in the suspected AIDS virus provided the discovery that they were retroviruses, was discovered in 1970.

Retroviruses in humans were not discovered until 1978.

The polymerase chain reaction, central to retroviral research, was not discovered until 1983 (7).

Without any knowledge of or use of these tools, purposeful creation of HIVs would be technically impossible. In addition, what human agency would fund the development of such destructive agents? And after development purposefully release them, in the knowledge there was no generally effective prevention or treatment? And why in the time frame of 1930 to 1940? At this time America was still recovering from a great economic depression. These are not the circumstances under which an immensely and generally destructive new viral disease is developed and released.

The above considerations effectively exclude all human conspiratorial theories of HIV origin.

(7). A non-human conspiratorial theory. The conspiratorial theory can be saved by the concept that HIVs were originated and initially spread into humans by means of purposeful intelligence, that intelligence not being human. This concept is in good agreement with all the known facts, and to my knowledge is the only way they can be logically and simply explained.

(8). Supporting evidence from Ufology. Before proceeding further I immediately state that all the foregoing, though on the surface convincing regarding a non-human conspiratorial theory, is in fact far from convincing to the experienced scientist. If I had nothing more than the foregoing, I would never have sought publication of my hypothesis. In fact, however, there is a massive and convincing body of supportive evidence, from the independent source of Ufology. It is this evidence from Ufology, which in addition to the evidence from Biomedicine, encouraged me to formulate and publish the hypothesis.

The evidence from Biomedicine and Ufology is complementary and mutually supportive, and the hypothesis which results from combining the two simply and logically explains otherwise incomprehensible phenomena from both disciplines.

For example, the incomprehensible (high technology) origins of HIVs, the essentially simultaneous initiation of the different strains and their pandemics, the missing AIDS cases between 1945 and 1979, all become readily understandable by simply employing the concept that advanced extraterrestrial (ET) technology is involved. The incomprehensible phenomena of cattle mutilations become readily understandable with the understanding that the mutilations in fact occur at locations of HIV transmission in humans, and are in fact probably not mutilations but tissue samplings related to HIV transmission. The (harvested) cattle blood is genetically very similar to human blood, and may be taken in relation to HIV replication. The incomprehensible phenomena of human abduction with medical type examinations become understandable with the realization that the examinations emphasize locations of HIV transmission in humans.

149 comments:

  1. Sadly this is still one of the more sensible of denialist conspiracy theories. I particularly enjoy the final claims that "The incomprehensible phenomena of cattle mutilations become readily understandable with the understanding that the mutilations in fact occur at locations of HIV transmission in humans, and are in fact probably not mutilations but tissue samplings related to HIV transmission. The (harvested) cattle blood is genetically very similar to human blood, and may be taken in relation to HIV replication. Yep, aliens with the technology to travel between light-year distances have not yet mastered the use of human cells for cell cultures. Nope, they had to use cows (is there any evidence that HIV can even infect bovine cells?).

    ReplyDelete
  2. You are omitting another explanation - panspermia. Sir Fred Hoyle proposed that HIV (and other viruses) arrived on earth on comets.

    I call for an open debate between the ufologists, the panspermians and the secret weapons program theorists.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is a very important development, Seth, and one that deserves the full attention of all HIV/AIDS dissidents unless they want to be seen as Silencing Dissent from the Orthodox Dissident Position (which is, of course that HIV was created in a US government lab by evil scientists including Peter Duesberg.)

    It is no wonder that Duesberg is trying to pass off his Frankenstein creation is nothing more "a harmless passenger virus" - of course he'd say that to try and deflect responsibility for his role in creating this monster in the first place.

    I demand - in the interests of Free Speech and Scientific Progress (and also for its positive entertainment value) a Public Debate between a small number of protagonists of the AIDS-ET Theory and those who favor the more orthodox AIDS-as-a-bioweapon theory. This debate should be international, public and adjudicated by a number of disinterested scientists of Nobel Laureate class who must present the international community with a resolution as to the way forward.

    Dr Phillip Duke is one of the best known and most cited experts on the UFO-AIDS connection on the whole internet. Dr Duke and his Group would be the obvious candidates to take the first position. I'd suggest that there are two clear frontrunners to argue the Bioweapon Position:

    Dr Lenny Horowitz:

    http://boydgraves.blogspot.com/2008/05/dr-peter-duesberg-indicted-in-aids.html

    and University of Firenze Professor Marco Ruggiero:

    http://www.marcoruggiero.org/pdf/Armi%20biologiche%20a%20Vaiano,%20AIDS%20and%20biowarfare.pdf

    The Truth must come out!

    ReplyDelete
  4. The only place this will be settled is in a COURT! We need a jury to decide this as they are clerly the most scientifically credible people!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Snout, again I think you are missing the obvious solution to your false dilemma. Duesberg is a shape shifting alien. Think about it. It explains everything with the minimum number of assumptions. Occam's Razor.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I laud your efforts at humor, Gents! I really do.

    The problem, though, is that you guys just aren't funny. Pretend friends and comradery o the internet AIN'T THE SAME THING AS REAL LIFE INTERACTION WITH LIVE HUMAN BEINGS.

    Keno Kid and the clueless Poodles just ain't gonna make it in Vaudeville, sorry.

    But, even feeble efforts at mirth-making deserve some credit, so "backatcha" as my teenager daughter likes to say. {Slang for "that's good")

    ReplyDelete
  7. I cannot believe that you guys are so far off base.

    The evidence shows that Mullis was abducted by glowing raccoons.

    They implanted HIV under his skin to transport back here.

    They also fed him LSD.

    He came to the attention of Rasnick who hears special messages from Aliens, Matthias Rath and the CIA...it is all connected.

    Rasnick sent him to Duesberg who discovered that HIV was a harmless interstellar passenger virus. Duesberg also diagnosed Mullis with LSD-induced AIDS.

    Duesberg confided in Farber, and she created the cover study.

    A GALAXY WITHOUT AIDS IS CLOSER THANK YOU KNOW.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Bill
    You obviously have not been following this story.You have been too preoccupied with warping the Padian study on a different thread. You continue to claim that HIV is not sexually transmitted.

    Seriously Bill
    If Space Raccoons are not responsible for transporting HIV to Earth and sexually infecting other species, explain this aberrant behavior.

    http://shapish.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/raccoon.jpg

    Show me the one study that explains this behavior?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Umm, Dr. Mullis won the Nobel Prize. Period. John Moore did not.

    Dr. Duesberg was elected to the National Academy of Science. You jokers can't even spell National Academny of Science.

    They are distinguished scientists -- because of the WORK THEY HAVE DONE.

    So, I give them a little slack on some of their zanier comments!

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Umm, Dr. Mullis won the Nobel Prize. Period. John Moore did not."

    Dr. Moore has hands on experience in virology, specifically with HIV. Mullis' prize was in chemistry, not biology and does not make him a virologist. Mullis has not done anything with HIV (or any virus that I can recall) and PCR (the invention that netted Mullis the Nobel Prize) was originally demonstrated, not by Mullis, but by others prior to him.

    Mullis' beliefs in glowing green raccoons fluent in English and other far out ideas tell of a mindset that is not at all based in reality. If that is the kind of source you find credible, Bill, then it says much about your mindset as well.

    ReplyDelete
  11. PoodleStomper..

    AIDS Deniers think Mullis is a quirky eccentric. But his behavior is far more erratic than it is eccentric. In Denying AIDS I describe Mullis' behavior during an invited talk that goes way beyond crazy. He may have been high at the time. In any case, Mullis is way way out there.

    One of the things going on with entrenched AIDS denialists like Bill is that they have surrounded themselves with nuts for so long their metric for sane operates off a different scale. The same phenomenon occurs on inpatient psychiatric wards. Normal gets recalibrated.

    Snout - I hope the image of the raccoon and beagle did not offend you.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I feel sure the reasons Mullis got the Nobel prize instead of those that demonstrated it earlier are the same as why Montagnier got it instead of Gallo. It just seems so wrong that those damn Swedes keep getting the wrong person on the podium.

    I suppose in your minds the fact that Mullis misappropriated the award justifies to you why he says it could never be used to quanitify anything.

    Viral Load of Crap!

    Your desperation is becoming apparent

    ReplyDelete
  13. At least Bill is trying to present an argument, you lot just sit around sniggering like spotty faced school kids.

    Seth, I've started printing some of your more notable posts and will be sending them to the American Psychological Association with a letter of complaint, it'll be interesting so see how they view your very public professionalism.

    Have a nice day

    ReplyDelete
  14. No, Seth, but I did have to change my underwear afterwards. I'm so glad we don't have raccoons here in Australia.

    Bill, has it occurred to you that the National Academy of Sciences (that's with an "s" at the end if you were wondering how to spell it) is a US GOVERNMENT CORPORATION and that... gee... maybe Duesberg got invited in for "services rendered" following his work with the top secret Special Virus Program, a program of... wait for it... THE US GOVERNMENT?

    http://www.stewartsynopsis.com/boyd_ed_graves.htm

    DOESN'T THAT TELL YOU SOMETHING???!!!1!!1!

    Open your eyes, Bill! Wake up and smell the coffee. Join the dots. Don't let the Orthodoxy pull the wool over you. Stop being a sheeple.

    THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Pity the Orthodox
    I have never said Mullis did not deserve the Nobel. I have also never said that Duesberg should not have been elected to the NAS.
    They made important contributions, in the 60's and 70's.

    Then they lost their marbles.

    Credibility is not a lifetime appointment. It is earned every day.

    Had Enough..
    Bill is presenting an argument. Its just that the argument is not grounded in reality. And it is the same argument. Over. And over. And over.
    How many times does Nancy Padian have to explain her study? How many times do we have to explain her study?

    That is the thing about denialism. You ignore the facts. Then when we ignore your insisting that a cherry picked sentence is reality. Then you say we have no answer to your argument.

    Now when you contact the APA be sure to include the following statement..

    "Kalichman insults us simply because we are presenting an alternative scientific view, questioning the existence of HIV. He calls us crazy because we trust the credibility of a Nobel Prize winner who takes LSD and was abducted by alien raccoons. He further calls us names, like morons and idiots, because we tell people to ignore their HIV+ test result based on Henry Bauer's careful analysis of the data. Henry Bauer, a Science Professor who is also world famous for hunting down the Loch Ness Monster. Kalichman claims to doing a public service by calling us conspiracy theorists and AIDS denialists when he is actually heavily supported by the pharmaceutical industry to continue to sell toxic AIDS drugs that contaminate pure bodily fluids and kill people. You should also know that Kalichman's money from Big Pharma has never been traced because it is kept in a secret vault at the NIH. Finally, and most horrifying, Kalichman is using the proceeds from his book Denying AIDS to commit genocide on Africa by purchasing toxic so called 'HIV medications'."

    That should pretty much sum it up.

    If you want more text like that, I am happy to send you the letter that Michael Geiger wrote the University of Connecticut.

    Crazy is as crazy does.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Rocket Raccoon of the planet GroovyJanuary 7, 2010 at 7:58 AM

    for more reading on the ET connection to HIV, visit http://www.angelfire.com/wa/UFO/page39.html as cited in the above article.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Pity the Orthodox,

    "I suppose in your minds the fact that Mullis misappropriated the award justifies to you why he says it could never be used to quanitify anything."

    If you would bother to look up past uses of qPCR and qRT-PCR you would find very quickly that modified forms of PCR are routinely used to quantify. It is used in fields other than HIV research as well. There is more than form of PCR than the original one and Mullis was not involved in developing any of them so I fail to see how he can comment on them without researching them. If Mullis did in fact state that RT-PCR could not be used to quantitate then he 100% incorrect. His mindset, as we pointed out previously, does not make him very credible. The guy believes in talking raccoons for Pete's sake.

    Below are a few different types of PCR we use in our lab (we aren't doing any AIDS research, don't worry):

    PCR
    Real Time PCR
    Reverse transcription PCR
    qRT-PCR
    MS-PCR
    SOE-PCR

    ...and the list goes on. Bet you didn't know some of those existed, did you? Perhaps it is time to get off of Virusmyth and do some actual research.

    "Your desperation is becoming apparent"

    There is no desperation here. RT-PCR is used in many fields of biology. Only denialists like yourself continue to believe that it is just bunk invented by a large global conspiracy/aliens/CIA labs, ect... Your ignorance of basic science has long been apparent.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Wow, looks like I mis-cut part of a sentence in my previous post.

    "There is more than form of PCR than the original one and Mullis was not involved in developing any of them so I fail to see how he can comment on them without researching them."

    should have read


    "There are more forms of PCR than the original one and Mullis was not involved in developing any of them so I fail to see how he can comment on them without researching them."

    ReplyDelete
  19. This link our Rocket Raccoon friend linked to is hilarious! Dukes basically claims that cows are moreclosely related to humans than humans are to chimps! Does anyone know what Duke's PhD was in? Does he even really have one? I find it hard to believe that it is anything related to biology. It also wouldn't be the first time a loony misrepresented his credentials *Cough-Maniotis-Cough*

    ReplyDelete
  20. Letters of complaint from AIDS denialists to universities and other professional institutions (or in some cases, the White House) are something to be welcomed (Seth et al). They are invariably so dumb ass stupid as to be ignored. Indeed, often they can actually work in favor of the person being complained about, by making the university/institution aware of what a good job he or she is doing to promote sound science and combat pseudoscience, and how courageous he or she is to face such nasty attacks as a result.

    It's worth noting that the AIDS denialists initiated this tactic several years ago, perhaps first with attacks on Tara Smith by Harvey Bialy, then with others on Bob Gallo, Mark Wainberg, John Moore, Brian Foley, Seth Kalichman etc by such luminaries as David Steele, Michael Geiger and Clark Baker. Not one of these attacks has ever achieved anything.

    On the other hand, having sown the wind by acting like this, some AIDS denialists reaped the whirlwind when the same tactic was applied against them. One has only to ask Roberto Giraldo, Harvey Bialy, David Steele, Rebecca Culshaw, Andrew Maniotis and a few others how their professional careers developed once their AIDS denialist activities were brought to the attention of responsible grown ups in their institutions/companies.

    So, bring it on, but be careful what you wish for......

    ReplyDelete
  21. Had Enough is so totally Clark Baker! That is such a Baker tactic. Deceptive and subversive and hidden behind a fake name! You should be very scared, Seth. You know how rational people take notice of Baker! hehee
    JTD

    ReplyDelete
  22. Obviously Poodle doesn't understand very clearly. PCR is a great tool, what it basically does in all its forms is multiply random and pre-determined genetic sequences either DNA or RNA. The problem with quantifying is that there is no way to know the amount you started with therefore with every multipyling step the error rate rises. Usually there is a 20 fold multiplication which gives you a million fold amplification to make a sample a more useable proposition. The exact number of steps is not always exact due to such things as annealing problems etc.

    This is the simple reason you can't rely on it to definitively count something and why different labs give different end point values.

    You have to know what X is prior to multiplication and to know the exact multipier to arrive at Y. Now there is no smoke and mirrors involved in that analysis and it doesn't matter if you are trying to count HIV or any other known or fictional virus the same problem recurs.

    You are a mathematics denier my friend

    ReplyDelete
  23. Seth, I don't object to anyone arguing anything. I just find it very poor that you keep reminding us of your Phd in psychology and then start ranting like John Moore, and more particularly DeShong. Crazy is as Crazy does is right and if you can find the professionalism in some of the stuff you write then you do seriously have a fewanger management problems. Perhap take a deep breath and re-read, and don't get caught up in the hysteria before hitting the send button, works a treat. It is an emotive subject, don't lower yourself to that level, it adds nothing to your argument.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anonymous
    AIDS Denialists often vomit up obviously dumb misuses of genetics, virology, chemistry etc. and I rarely chime in. There does not seem to be any problems showing the idiocy of the 'arguments'.

    But when you guys do the Padian thing, you are in my sandbox.

    The scientific peer reviewed studies that debunk your deliberately twisted misuse of her work are her studies themselves. If you actually read, and understood, her research you would see that it does not support the notion that HIV is not sexually transmitted or any of your other crazy AIDS Denialist rantings.

    But because Nancy has a positive view of people, she assumes you just do not understand. So she has taken the time to explain her findings so a 6 year could understand. Perhaps she should have gone for a 4 year old?

    So readers of this thread have it handy..

    http://www.aidstruth.org/denialism/misuse/padian

    The same response is excerpted in Denying AIDS.

    It has been reposted dozens of times.

    So let me make it easy for... I know that students of Peter Duesberg only read a sentence here and there so here are the first sentences from Nancy Padian's debunking...

    "HIV is unquestionably transmitted through heterosexual intercourse. Indeed, heterosexual intercourse is now responsible for 70-80% of all HIV transmissions worldwide."

    What is so hard to understand about this?

    Had Enough..
    Yes I have.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Poodle Stomper is a trip!

    He brags about using PCR in his lab, but doesn't tell us where the lab is.

    He bags on Maniotis:

    It also wouldn't be the first time a loony misrepresented his credentials *Cough-Maniotis-Cough*

    but Maniotis has published several papers in the literature -- he's not hiding behind cheesy pseudonyms on blog sites.

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=maniotis+andrew&hl=en&as_sdt=2000

    Maniotis worked with Judah Folkman, MD in Boston -- on angiogenesis

    Aside from prancing aroung on the internet with imaginary friends, what has "Poodle Stomper" ever done or published?

    ReplyDelete
  26. "HIV is unquestionably transmitted through heterosexual intercourse. Indeed, heterosexual intercourse is now responsible for 70-80% of all HIV transmissions worldwide."

    Nice CONCLUSION, but her data (175 HIV+ persons, sex for 6 years, no transmissions) kinda says something a wee bit different, don't it Seth?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous,

    "Obviously Poodle doesn't understand very clearly. PCR is a great tool, what it basically does in all its forms is multiply random and pre-determined genetic sequences either DNA or RNA."

    Au contraire, my friend. I use PCR on a daily basis, giving me a pretty good grasp of it.

    "The problem with quantifying is that there is no way to know the amount you started with therefore with every multipyling step the error rate rises."

    Well the point of doing quantitative PCR is that you didn't know the starting amount. That is why you are running the assay, you goof. If you knew the starting concentration there would be no reason to quantify it. However, along with your sample(s), you also have standards of known starting concentrations that are run concurrently. The standards (which do have a known concentration) are used to create a standard curve used to calculate your samples' starting concentration. The use of standard curves are not unique to HIV. They are used everywhere in math, biology and so much more. An example of what an RT-PCR standarc curve using such standards can be found here or for a more detailed look, here.

    "You are a mathematics denier my friend"

    And you, my friend, should do some research before making foolish statements such as "the problem with quantifying something is that you don't know the starting amount".

    ReplyDelete
  28. Bill,

    You are incorrect. I am not bragging about using PCR. I merely stated I do it. PCR is so routine that it is not worth bragging about by anyone. Of course then there are denialists like you who I doubt have ever touched a thermalcycler trying to tell everyone how they know so much more than real scientists that use the technology on a daily basis. Then the issue of experience does come into play.

    "He bags on Maniotis...but Maniotis has published several papers in the literature"

    Oh but I'm not "bagging" on Maniotis for what he may or may not have published (by the way Bill is he primary author on any of those?). No, rather I was "bagging" on him for misrepresenting his credentials. Are you saying you have no problem with his doing this?

    "Aside from prancing aroung on the internet with imaginary friends, what has "Poodle Stomper" ever done or published?"

    Yep, I'm published. I've also been doing research for quite a while, thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Bill, seeing as you are unable to understand Nancy's study, try reading..

    Boily et al. Heterosexual risk of HIV-1 infection per sexual act: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.
    Lancet Infect Dis. 2009 Feb;9(2):118-29.

    When you cherry pick Boily, please provide the page and line number so we can easily find the context...not that context matters.

    And you are right about Maniotis being an accomplished scholar. Looks like about 33 published papers since 1987 - my second year of Grad school. He is first author on 4. Yep, he is world class.

    My personal favorite is when Maniotis goes after that most famous Dissident of all time....

    A critique of the Montagnier evidence for the HIV/AIDS hypothesis.
    Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner VF, Papadimitriou J, Page B, Causer D, Alfonso H, Mhlongo S, Miller T, Maniotis A, Fiala C.
    Med Hypotheses. 2004;63(4):597-601.

    This is so sad, I think I will go watch a movie.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I love that Had Enough is now schooling you, Seth, on "professionalism" and not "lowering yourself to that level". Yet Had Enough is threatening you! Threats. Boy, that is certainly professional and a level to which everyone should aspire! (In case that is not clear to you, Had Enough, I am being facetious)
    JTD

    ReplyDelete
  31. Bill, seeing as you are unable to understand Nancy's study, try reading..

    Is this not a textbook case of projection, Seth?

    Anyone can read understand Padian's paper -- 75% of HIV + people had safe sex, and didn't transmit the virus. 25% of HIV+ people had unsafe sex and didn't transmit the virus.

    Nobody transmitted the virus.

    She almost conducted a controlled study refuting a large plank of the AIDS dogma.

    "We observed no seroconversions after entry into the study." (Padian)

    "We observed no weapons of mass destruction in the country we invaded" (Bush)

    ReplyDelete
  32. Although this is a bit of a digression back up the thread, I think I should correct what an earlier poster said about AIDS denialists making complaints to institutions to try to get AIDS scientists fired. Bialy tried this stunt against me as long ago as 1995 when I wrote my review of Duesberg's book in Nature. That was years before he went for Tara Smith in the same way. Who knows, I may even have been the first to be complained about - although I doubt it....... Didn't work though, did it? But I agree, though, that this tactic, once introduced, backfired spectacularly against the denialists, who as usual showed themselves to be not very bright......

    ReplyDelete
  33. Nancy Padian's StudentJanuary 8, 2010 at 10:22 AM

    For those of you who are unable to visit http://www.aidstruth.org/denialism/misuse/padian because you fear the evils of science...read Nancy Padian's Debunking HERE...

    By Nancy Padian
    HIV is unquestionably transmitted through heterosexual intercourse. Indeed, heterosexual intercourse is now responsible for 70-80% of all HIV transmissions worldwide (2). The current likelihood of male to female infection after a single exposure to HIV is 0.01-0.32% (2, 3), and the current likelihood of female to male infection after a single exposure is 0.01-0.1% (2). These estimates are mostly derived from studies in the developed world. However, a man or a woman can become HIV-positive after just one sexual contact. In developing countries, particularly those in sub-Saharan Africa, several factors (co-infection with other sexually transmitted diseases, circumcision practices, poor acceptance of condoms, patterns of sexual partner selection, locally circulating viral subtypes, high viral loads among those who are infected, etc.) can increase the likelihood of heterosexual transmission to 20% or even higher (4). Evidence that specifically documents the heterosexual transmission of HIV comes from studies of HIV-discordant couples (i.e., couples in a stable, monogamous relationship where one partner is infected and the other is not); over time, HIV transmission occurs (5). Other studies have traced the transmission of HIV through networks of sexual partners (6-9). Additional evidence comes from intervention studies that, for example, promote condom use or encourage reductions in the numbers of sexual partners: the documented success of these interventions is because they prevent the sexual transmission of HIV (1,10,11).

    In short, the evidence for the sexual transmission of HIV is well documented, conclusive, and based on the standard, uncontroversial methods and practices of medical science. Individuals who cite the 1997 Padian et al. publication (1) or data from other studies by our research group in an attempt to substantiate the myth that HIV is not transmitted sexually are ill informed, at best. Their misuse of these results is misleading, irresponsible, and potentially injurious to the public.

    A common practice is to quote out of context a sentence from the Abstract of the 1997 paper: "Infectivity for HIV through heterosexual transmission is low". Anyone who takes the trouble to read and understand the paper should appreciate that it reports on a study of behavioural interventions such as those mentioned above: Specifically, discordant couples were strongly counseled to use condoms and practice safe sex (1,12). That we witnessed no HIV transmissions after the intervention documents the success of the interventions in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV. The sentence in the Abstract reflects this success – nothing more, nothing less. Any attempt to refer to this or other of our publications and studies to bolster the fallacy that HIV is not transmitted heterosexually or homosexually is a gross misrepresentation of the facts and a travesty of the research that I have been involved in for more than a decade.

    If safe sex practices are followed, and if there are no complicating factors such as those mentioned above, the risk of HIV transmission can be as low as our studies suggestÖIF. But many people misunderstand probability: they think that if the chance of misfortune is one in six, that they can take five chances without the likelihood of injury. This "Russian Roulette" misapprehension is dangerous to themselves and to others. Furthermore, complicating factors are often not evident or obvious in a relationship, so their perceived absence should not be counted on as an excuse not to practice safe sex.

    Conclusions and References at the AIDSTruth posting

    ReplyDelete
  34. Dr. Padian summed it up best when she says "Individuals who cite the 1997 Padian et al. publication (1) or data from other studies by our research group in an attempt to substantiate the myth that HIV is not transmitted sexually are ill informed, at best."

    ReplyDelete
  35. Poodlestomper
    The Padian obsession is perhaps one of the oddest in the denialist rant. For me it right up there with glowing raccoons. Maybe if you are on acid it makes sense?

    I know Nancy Padian fairly well.. she is really a first class scientist. When I talked with her about the denialists she was less than amused. She knew what they were saying and doing..I think mostly through AIDSTruth. You know she was at Berkeley and knew all about Duesberg. And in in SF during the days of SF Act UP. She sees them as part of the larger anti-science movement and science illiteracy problem. She is of course correct.

    You are correct too. She says it best and probably best to leave it at that.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Dr. Padian summed it up best when she says "Individuals who cite the 1997 Padian et al. publication (1) or data from other studies by our research group in an attempt to substantiate the myth that HIV is not transmitted sexually are ill informed, at best."

    What about individuals who CITE the data in her 1997 paper?

    "We observed no seroconversions after entry into the study." (Padian on pag 356)

    As Joe Louis once said, "You can run, but you can't hide"

    ReplyDelete
  37. Yes you are all first class scientists. You should be with the amount of funding you have received from your friend Fauci at the NIH. Clark Bakers latest blog lists the obscene amounts you are protecting and goes most of the way to understanding your agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Bill,
    "What about individuals who CITE the data in her 1997 paper? "We observed no seroconversions after entry into the study." (Padian on pag 356)"

    Bill if you would look at table 3 that Chris pointed out you would notice that the vast majority of couples in this study did practice safe sex habits. Since I doubt you can admit to being wrong and actually looking it up in the paper, I have taken the time to copy the relevant data (table 2) below:

    At intake
    # practicing abstinence: 0/144 (0%)
    # using condoms: 70/144 (49%)

    From there the following numbers for each follow up (FU). *Note % condom use is for sexually active couples only*

    FU # _____ Abstinent _____ Condom use
    1 ________ 24/144 (17%) __ 105/120 (88%)
    2 ________ 19/81 (23%) ___ 56/62 (90%)
    3 ________ 8/44 (18%) ____ 37/37 (100%)
    4 ________ 4/21 (19%) ____ 14/17 (82%)
    5 ________ 1/13 (8%) _____ 11/12 (92%)
    6 ________ 0/7 (0%) ______ 6/7 (86%)
    7 ________ 0/3 (0%) ______ 3/3 (100%)

    I'm sure anyone can see why your following claims are incorrect. The study did not follow the couples for 6 years. Rather, 6 years was the longest possible time. If you look at the last follow up visits you will notice that most of the couples are no longer participating after the first or second follow up. Since this has been explained yet again and the data shown to you, if you try to repeat this BS claim again it is knowing full well that you are intentionally lying.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Anonymous
    I do not visit Baker's blog. That would be a huge waste of time. But the post you mentioned sounded interesting.

    I have been advised not to comment further on Baker due to pending legal actions.

    John, quite a track record. Amazing level of funding AND you have time to shut down AIDS Denialism. Very iimpressive.

    Nancy Padian is also well funded...so let me ask Bill and the other AIDS Deniers this.

    If the NIH defunded Duesberg for SAYING that HIV does not cause AIDS...

    Then why don't they nix Padian for SHOWING IN RESEARCH that HIV is not sexually transmitted?

    Why?

    Because both are stupid lies.

    Duesberg's grants were not defunded... his grants ran out as did his fundable ideas.

    AND Padian has NEVER shown that HIV is not sexually transmitted.

    Thanks Poodlestomper...What a great way to end the Padian rant..we are done unless Bill or other AIDS Deniers can DIRECTLY answer you, Chris, and Snout AND directly address the Boily article. Otherwise their comments will end up in the trash bin.

    ReplyDelete
  40. The Baker blog listing funding of different scientists is as whacky and lacking in logic as any of Baker's previous posts. He lists numbers of money's each scientist has received, but does not say how far back it goes. He also claims the figures are in the millions, but Baker has decimal issues and it looks as if the figures represent BILLIONS! I am sure it is intentional. That way the readers perusing the blog will see BILLIONS and Baker can say, "well, I clearly stated the figures were millions of $$..." Typical disingenuous denialist tactics!
    There are many other inconsistencies and outright lies in that blog, but I don't have the energy to try and correct Baker any longer!
    JTD

    ReplyDelete
  41. JTD
    I found Baker's post very helpful. He is helping defeat AIDS Denialism more than any of us. Who in their right mind would believe that successful research grants are a bad thing? Maybe he will start counting peer-reviewed publications in his axis of stupidity? Baker obviously has too much time on his hands.

    I wonder if Baker would consider posting his tax forms to fully disclose the sources (blackout amounts) of his income? If he showed his I would show mine. I would be happy for everyone to see who pays me....and who does not. I would trade my inside info on my past book royaties for his RAS and Leppo's any day of the week.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Agent Bixby of the IRSJanuary 9, 2010 at 3:05 PM

    Speaking of taxes...
    Maybe Dave Rasnick will meet your challenge and show his 1040? Oh wait, I bet he has not paid taxes in well over 10 years. I mean why would he? Living in Africa and the Bahamas, so what if he has a Florida business address. That does mean that his old paranoid, Libertarian, anti-government ass does not pay taxes. Does it?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Who is that guy Baker anyway? Is he really that ignorant or does he believe that Tony Fauci actually has anything to do with NIH funding decisions? I think the guy must have shoe gum between his ears.

    ReplyDelete
  44. What I find interesting here, is that when real science, like a clinical trial for a new therapy or a modified use of an already approved therapy, causes even one or two deaths, there is a HUGE investigation into the ethics of the trial and the circumstances leading up to the deaths of those individuals. For example, everyone reading this knows of the tragic death of Joyce Ann Hafford in the Nevirapine trial for prevention of mother-to-infant transmission. But when AIDS denialists kill one of their own, such as Christine Maggiore or Nikolas Emerson, the "investigation" is kept totally in-house or not done at all.

    Likewise, if Nancy Padian follows a number of serodiscordant couples for 6 months on average over a 6 year period, and finds that condom use prevents transmission, the denialists scrutinize every detail and then lie to claim that the study followed all couples for a full six years etc. Yet when Peter Duesberg claims that drug use causes AIDS because everyone knows that gay men are heavy drug abusers, the denialists don't ask to see the data Duesberg bases his claim upon.

    Can you say "double standards"? Sure.

    ReplyDelete
  45. A simple search, such as a GOOGLE search for "Clark Baker" shows that he is at the very top level of the American Criminal Justice System. He has been involved in the prosecution of many very top-level scams and criminal cases in the USA. It is thus easy to see why the AIDS denialists selected and recruited him to take on the international AIDS scandal. It turns out that AIDS is a global problem, with the governments of not only France and the USA involved, but also China, Thailand, Brazil and 80 or 90 other countries all taking actions to control the spread of HIV.

    Clark pretends to be just a "Hollywood Gumshoe" but GOOGLE reveals him to be a globally famous investigator capable of waking the entire world up to the conspiracy here. What most people experience as "reality" is just a little rabbit hole in Clark's back yard. In the world of Clark Baker, lies are truth and rumors are solid data. Now all he needs is a judge and jury to go along with his version of the story.

    ReplyDelete
  46. HIV and AIDS of course are serious. It is not right to be joking about it on any level, IF there was not 100% certainty that HIV-1 and HIV-2 are the cause (with HIV-1 M group viruses being the major cause) of the AIDS pandemic, then dissent would be important and welcome. In fact dissent is science is always welcome, but it must be based on evidence, not lies or opinions.

    Kary Mullis and Clark Baker claim to seek the "Holy Grail", the ONE paper which PROVES that HIV-1 and/or HIV-2 are the cause of AIDS. But science does not work that way. There is no ONE paper that PROVES the Earth is a sphere (or roughly spherical in topology) revolving around the sun rather than a flat plain. There is no ONE paper that PROVES that life evolved by natural selection over hundreds of millions of years, rather than being created in 6 days (HE rested on the 7th day) a few thousand years ago. And there is no ONE paper that PROVES that HIV-1 and HIV-2 are the causes of AIDS in humans. Instead we have only hundreds or thousands of papers and line of evidence, each pointing to the same conclusion.

    Of course there are clever arguments and lies that can be told to make it seem as if all the evidence is refuted. But reality, facts, evidence, are stronger than lies, and clever arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Seth, successful research grants!!! your definition of successful is as out of sync with reality as you. No cure, No vaccine, No hope in sight.....a great success for modern science.

    "We are done with the Padian rant" unless one of our guys wants to comment.

    And now tax minimising makes a scientific opinion invalid, well that should set science back about a thousand years. I'm pretty sure he's no orphan in that department.

    Calculations for PCR, it's meant to be a measurement you idiot poodle and nothing you dribbled addressed the problems with quantifying, moron.

    I bet none of you use rubbery figures for your funding applications, your own House of Numbers is the cash deposits in to the bank. Greedy is as Greedy does.

    And now Chicken Shit DeShong is backing out of debating Ely, as predicted and on cue so no surprises there.

    AS for my favourite, Prof Moore, who says the issue of HIV/AIDS was settled back in the 80's but we shouldn't quote any papers from then as we have learnt so much more since ??? you can't see the disparity in that line of thought? He is the ulitmate shill.

    Padian, I'd recant for 12 mill too.

    There's no conflict of interest, you are paid for your time to present NIAD's agenda which is continued funding.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Proof the earth is round = WGS84 Datum

    Proof of evolution - The origin of species (Darwin)

    Proof HIV is the cause of AIDS = Gallo/Popovic 1984.

    Pick the odd one out.

    Yes number 3 didn't actually proove anything.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Dear Try Hards

    The money comments must have stung, you've dredged out Dr. Duke who is just an imaginary internet sock puppet for the orthodoxy. We have House of Numbers, you have House of Cards.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Just for the record I am now an XMRV denier too. It appears that the whole field of retrovirology is the epithany of junk science.

    ReplyDelete
  51. WTF,
    Calculations for PCR, it's meant to be a measurement you idiot poodle and nothing you dribbled addressed the problems with quantifying, moron."

    Perhaps you should study up on qRT-PCR (and on the use of punctuation, too). It may be more informative than your own baseless assumptions.

    "Padian, I'd recant for 12 mill too."

    Truly your ignorance is blindingly obvious. She never "recanted". Her data was clear to all but the most incompetent of people. She stood by her data, which is perfectly valid. It doesn't, however, say what denialist idiots claim it does. I've posted some of her data in a previous post. Anyone that reads it will see just why denialists are wrong in their claims.


    Anonymous,
    "Proof the earth is round = WGS84 Datum"

    But WGS84 was modified from previous versions (60, 66, 72...ZOMG! It must be Big Geography modifying its data to cover up the facts!) and it clearly was not convincing to flat earth deniers. They stuck around well after WGS84 came out. You fail on this one.

    "Proof of evolution - The origin of species (Darwin)"

    You fail. The Origin of the Species offered evidence that supported the idea but was not in and of itself, undeniable proof. Genetic comparisons are much more useful and accurate than simple comparisons of physical traits. Evolution deniers, however, will deny molecular evidence just as quickly as AIDS deniers do, albeit on a different topic. In both case it is (in my opinion) due to a general ignorance of just what the evidence truly means.

    "Proof HIV is the cause of AIDS = Gallo/Popovic 1984."

    Wrong again. HIV as the cause of AIDS is supported by a larger volume of evidence than just the 1984 papers. No evidence to this day has refuted it although like evolution and the round earth, there are always a band of science illiterates that claim otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Anonymous..."Proof HIV is the cause of AIDS = Gallo/Popovic 1984."

    The Gallo thing just never stops. Truly amazing. I have said countless times that we can toss out Gallo 1984, and everything else published in the 1980's without losing anything about what we know today about HIV and how it causes AIDS.

    Those old studies are of historical importance only.

    AIDS Denialists are hopelessly stuck in the 80's. Find me a single AIDS denialist book that with more than 10% of citations from this century. Name one?

    Speaking WTF..why is that there are bursts of comments from new names coming each night, all with the same paranoid these?

    Anyone who understands science would know that a successful research grant is not defined by finding the cure or vaccine. Science is incremental. A successful project moves us closer to the end point. The single grant fallacy is direct extension of the single study fallacy.

    The good news is that sane and rational people who stumble on this blog and others after being intrigued by the Rethinkers will get the picture. Thanks Clark and Bill for all of your help!

    By the way, what ever happened to Bill? Howe long can it take to Cherry Pick the Boily article? It must be answering the counter-Padians that is burning his logs.

    ReplyDelete
  53. 1. There are over 100,000 papers on AIDS in the literature. However, the vast majority do not contain controls. More so, the vast majority simply assume that AIDS is caused by a virus or lamely cite to Gallo's suspect papers of 1984.

    2. Ideally, Padian should have performed a controlled study -- comparing HIV discordant couples who used condoms with those who did not; and having 2 groups of "HIV-" couples doing the same.

    3. Rather, Padian set forth her mission clearly in the abstract:

    To examine rates of and risk factors for heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the authors conducted a prospective study of infected individuals and their heterosexual partners who have been recruited since 1985. (Padian, abstract).

    4. As I have repeatedly explained, she found "no seroconversions" (Padian, 356.)

    5. Despite finding "no seroconversions", she calculated the following:

    For Males: "The constant per-contact infectivity for male-to-female transmission was estimated to be 0.0009" (Padian, 354).

    For females it was 8 to 9 times even lower! (Padian, abstract)

    "In general, we estimate that infectivity for male-to- female transmission is low, approximately 0.0009 per contact, and that infectivity for female-to-male transmission is even lower." (Padian, 355.)

    6. Trying to backfill her stunning results, she lamely tried to atribute her finding of "no seroconversions" to increased condom useage. But his is phony. She did not calculate transmissions rates for those using condoms and lower transmissions rates for those not using condoms. That would have been good science.

    7. However, she could not atribute increased condom useage to the finding of "no seroconversions" for the 25% of the patients, who did not USE CONDOMS REGULARLY:

    Nevertheless, the absence of seroincident infection over the course of the study cannot be entirely attributed to significant behavior change. No transmission occurred among the 25 percent of couples who did not use condoms consistently at their last follow-up nor among the 47 couples who intermittently practiced unsafe sex during the entire duration of follow-up.

    In sum, Padian inadvertantly did a controlled study between an HIV+ cohort that used condoms (75%) and a HIV+ cohort that did not (25%) -- and both transmitted absolutely ZERO virus.

    So, what does that tell you?

    It tells me that condoms do not increase or decrease the nearly non-existent risk of transmitting HIV thru sex.

    Have a nice day! Go Jets!

    ReplyDelete
  54. WTF, if you are interested in actually learning abut quantitative PCR you could try reading the chapters in Kary Mullis' book on the subject.

    http://books.google.com.au/books?id=woNO4w5HweQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false

    ReplyDelete
  55. XMRV the new HIV,

    "Just for the record I am now an XMRV denier too. It appears that the whole field of retrovirology is the epithany of junk science."

    There is nothing yet to deny about XMRV as no definite claims have been made. There were suggested possibilities but newer studies are showing that there is a very good chance that XMRV is not the cause of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. It is nothing more than science moving forward, making and testing hypotheses and discarding those that are unsupported. When the cause of AIDS was being researched other viruses were tested as well. They were found not to be likely causes and researchers moved on.

    So since the newer studies are suggesting that XMRV may not be responsible for CFS, are you still claiming that those papers are the "epithany of junk science" (did you mean to say "epitome"? You probably shouldn't use big words if you don't know what they mean.)

    ReplyDelete
  56. I took a look at the postings on Baker's Blog about Tony Fauci "awarding himself" grants, and it's laughable stuff. The grant funding system for the NIAID intramural program doesn't work like that. Baker just hasn't got a clue, as usual. Also, for him to say that Fauci has achieved nothing with all the money he's (allegedly) awarded himself is also stupid and false. Fauci's publication record is probably as comprehensive, in quality and quantity, as any scientist in the world over the past 30 years. Publications are one measure of research output, as is the Citations Index, a measure of the impact those papers have had on the research community. It would be interesting to list such measures of output alongside Baker's listing of research funding awarded for the various people he attacks.

    I'd bet that Baker's listings of the research dollars awarded to other people he attacks are also full of mistakes. Besides, as any scientist knows, grants are not awarded to individual scientists, they are awarded to universities and hospitals where the scientist works. And about 40% or so of any award goes not to research but to the infrastructure costs of maintaining the institution (heat, light, water, etc). Also, many large awards contain sub-contracts that go to other institutions to fund collaborators, and those sub-contracts can be a large proportion of the total funds. Some of the "best funded" researchers in the USA, according to raw dollar counts, actually manage research consortia/networks involving literally dozens of sub-contracting institutions and hundreds of off-site researchers. Only a small proportion of the dollars are retained in their own institution for the named researcher's work.

    The point is that Baker hasn't a clue about science, either the subject or the process, so he ####s up everything he says about it, EVERY TIME! He's as incompetent on stuff like grant funding as Bill is as an analyst of what's actually in the Padian paper, and that's quite difficult to accomplish.

    Anonymous, I'm afraid...... Who needs abusive attacks from a thug like Baker?

    ReplyDelete
  57. Also, anyone thinking that grant funding = salaries (or is directly correlated with salaries) also doesn't understand how science works. Grants pay the salaries of post-docs, technicians and students (including contributions to health care, retirement accounts, etc). They pay for the costs of research reagents and equipment, animal purchase and maintenance (if appropriate), research related travel, the cost of publishing papers, etc. So, a scientist whose university is awarded a $1m grant is not a millionaire (if only :) ). That grant would probably be for 4 years, with perhaps $600,000 going to research, the rest to the university's running expenses (called "overheads"). From the $150,000 annual "science budget", $40,000 might go to a post-doc scientist, $40,000 as a contribution to the PI's salary, $20,000 as a contribution to a technician's salary, and $50,000 towards the purchase of reagents, equipment etc.

    Not that Baker would understand any of this.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Nice Bill. All points made on AIDS Denialist websites. The obsession with Padian is what I call the single study fallacy.. like Gallo 1984.. AIDS Deniers do not know the literature and misuse a few studies from the 80's.

    By the way, the Padian study was controlled. Subjects served as their own controls - in this case couples were the subjects (within-couples repeated measures design) with appropriate statistical controls in her analyses.

    It would make no sense to use an HIV- group, unless you were an AIDS Denialist. Maybe you can explain how she would have designed a priori to compare condom users to none-users?

    Maybe she should have consulted David Rasnick? Oh wait, she has never been found to be a fraud conducting illegal vitamin trials in developing countries where people died for profit. Mionor details Bill. Or she could have consulted Duesberg. But then again she would not use ordinary pet mice for lab research, would she.

    I will let the others who have been pounding you on Padian deal with the rest. It was good try. But sad just the same.

    How about after watching football today you read Boily? I am interested to see what cherry picking can do with something not published in the 1980s.

    Have fun, and Go Baltimore Colts! (I have not watched football for a while, I have been busy reading 100,000's of articles)

    ReplyDelete
  59. I find Bill's demented warblings both funny and pathetic. His regurgitation of the RA's standard "thinking" about Nancy Padian's paper epitomizes why AIDS denialists are not taken seriously in the real world. In fact, this kind of "single paper obsession" is very helpful to me and other anti-denialists when it comes to conversations with journalists etc. All one has to do to show how the denialists are cranks is to steer the discussion to how they think "the Padian paper" disproves heterosexual HIV transmission. At that point, the journalist/discussant invariably laughs ........ And, on the principle that once a crank, always a crank, some key points are established early in the conversation.

    So, keep on obsessing, Bill, while the real world moves on and leaves the denialists focusing their efforts on micro-analysis of a 13 year old paper that doesn't mean what they claim it means.

    By the way, is it known whether Maggiore became HIV-infected by sharing blood-contaminated needles? If she wasn't in the latter risk group, then her HIV-infection and eventual death from AIDS must have arisen because of what Bill believes is impossible - transmission during heterosexual sex.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Henry Bauer's StudentJanuary 10, 2010 at 12:56 PM

    Bill obviously does not represent Rethinking AIDS very well. The Crowe crowd is usually much better at disguising their science ignorance. The difference between a control group and controlled study is pretty basic... like freshman research methods.

    AIDS Deniers like Bill make it easy to see through their deranged 'arguments'.

    ReplyDelete
  61. The postings above about grant funding are interesting. They provide a good opportunity to clear up some misconceptions about what academic scientists are paid. There's obviously a range for each kind of position, depending on age and experience, and also location (the cost of living is greater in major cities). But broadly speaking, here's where it stands (for PhD scientists):

    PhD students (age 25-35): $25-35,000
    Technicians (age 20-35): $20-40,000
    Post-docs (age 30-40): $40-55,000
    Assistant Professors (age 35-40): $60-80,000
    Associate Professors (age 40-50): $75-120,000
    Professors (age 45-retirement): $125-300,000

    Like I say, ballpark stuff, with variations above and below. And MDs usually get more money than PhDs. But anyone interested in comparing these kinds of salaries to, say, lawyers or Wall Street people is welcome to do so. Academics are underpaid early in their careers (pitifully so for those with young families and college debts), but can achieve a comfortable middle class standard of living towards the end.

    Do scientists have additional earned income? Sometimes, but it's rarely a significant amount. First, below faculty level it's very very rare to have any outside, earned income. At faculty level, there's the occasional seminar fee or grant review fee, maybe a few hours consulting here and there. But the vast majority of PhD scientists, any additional income would be a few percent of base salary (and that includes Professors).

    Sure, a very small subset of scientists, mostly MDs, do earn significant sums from outside work (consulting, advisory boards, etc). And at the most extreme, that kind of money can exceed base salaries by a significant multiple. My own view is that this situation needs to be more tightly regulated than has been the case, as it can and has been abused (we all read the newspapers and roll our eyes at what can go on, a rare example of common ground between me and AIDS denialists). But I'll say again, only a very small minority of scientists (in AIDS or other fields) earn more than, say, 10% of their total salaries from other than their full-time employers. That's certainly been true throughout my own career. Without actually going back and checking tax returns, I don't think I've ever earned more than 5% of my base salary via "outside work".

    Of course, none of this will stop the AIDS denialists portraying scientists as being in it for the money. But then, they don't trade in facts do they?

    ReplyDelete
  62. "WTF" calls me a chicken shit, but do I hide behind a fake moniker? And I have been waiting 72 hours now for a response from Crowe/Ely. I sent them an email with tentative details for a debate. It looks to me like Ely is the one waffling!
    Now, back to the topic. I do think there is an outerspace HIV connection, but not exactly ET. Nope, it is a Vulcan/Romulan connection. I just saw the Star Trek movie on DVD last night. Remember the "Red Matter" the Vulcans invented to stop Romulus from imploding into a Black Hole? I think that Red Matter is actaully HIV. The special effects they used looked just like HIV! Coincidence?
    Red Matter/(RED) Campaign?
    What do you think?
    JTD

    ReplyDelete
  63. Bill, you still seem incapable of reading the paper and understanding it.

    The retrospective part of Padian's study did find seroconversions.

    She enrolled couples where there was clearly documented evidence from past HIV tests where one of the couple was HIV+ and the other was HIV-.

    The documented HIV status of the couples went something like this

    HIV- HIV+
    HIV- HIV+
    HIV+ HIV+

    Padian also only included couples where the only risk for infection was sex with the HIV+ partner.

    All of the seroconversions that Padian found occurred in the retrospective part of the study but the evidence for this is just as strong as if they occurred in the prospective part of the study. They had a documented testing history for the retrospective part.

    The reasons for the for the seroconversions occurring in the retrospective part of the study are quite simple: a) the risk of transmitting the virus is highest during the acute infection stage b) Padian's behavioural intervention dramatically reduced the amount of unsafe sex between the couples.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Seth writes:

    "Have fun, and Go Baltimore Colts!"

    Baltimore Colts? Maybe, you "learned gentlemen" don't follow football much, but it's the Indiananapolis Colts or the Baltimore Ravens.

    You can look it up!

    http://espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=ind

    http://espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=bal

    No wonder why you guys are lost in space!

    Keno Kid Noble,

    Padian's retrospective study is NOTHING compared to the PROSPECTIVE STUDY.

    Have a nice day!

    ReplyDelete
  65. Great point, Noble. Don't you love how the denialists conveniently ignore just how these hetero's became infected in the first place? Although I believe most of them were "huffing" poppers thru the entire interview process. Yeah, that must be it!
    And why focus on this one Padian paper? She wrote many more and many other people have as well! Naw, let's ignore all the other papers just like they are ignoring the original Maggiore autopsy. It really sucks getting all those facts in the way of all that good denialism.
    JTD

    ReplyDelete
  66. Geezz Bill,there is no losing subtleties on you. I had heard that the Colts left Baltimore. But you nailed it buddy! Got me on that one!

    It is good to know that you take the issues around AIDS as serious as you take your football. Don't comment again until you address Boily et al. noted above. You know where your comments on this thread will go until then.

    If you have trouble accessing the paper, email me and I will send it to you.

    Now you have a nice day Bill.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Chris,
    "Padian's retrospective study is NOTHING compared to the PROSPECTIVE STUDY" is Bill's way of saying "oh crap, I didn't read the paper and don't understand the significance of this material but since it doesn't agree with what I believe I will just dismiss it without cause.

    Just in case you missed it.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Padian's retrospective study is NOTHING compared to the PROSPECTIVE STUDY.

    Why exactly?

    In both the retrospective and prospective parts of the study they have the documented HIV status of each partner over time. At time A some of the couples were discordant for HIV at time B the previously HIV- partner now tests HIV+. The only known risk factor was sex with the HIV+ partner (Padian was careful to exclude any non-monogamous couples or those with other risks for HIV infecrtion).

    Come on Bill. Give us a good reason why we should ignore the retrospective part of the study other than that the results conflict with your deeply held beilefs.

    ReplyDelete
  69. The fact that Bill was unaware of the retrospective section of Padian's study explains why he thought she generated probabilities of transmission without any seroconversions. It just goes to show that it really, truly does help to actually read the paper once in a while.

    ReplyDelete
  70. You guys are a trip! It's like talking football to people who didn't know the Baltimore Colts moved to Indiananapolis 12 years ago.

    Let's try it for the last time. I will quote Padian for all supporting statements

    1. Padian conducted a 10 year study.

    The year 1996 represented the tenth year of our study of the heterosexual transmission of HIV

    2. The design of the study is muddled, because she didn't caculate and compare rates of transmissions between groups who did and didn't use condoms:

    To examine rates of and risk factors for heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the authors conducted a prospective study of infected individuals and their heterosexual partners who have been recruited since 1985.

    The fundamental design was to compare couples where transmission had occurred with those who remained discordant for HIV infections.

    3. The prospective portion of her study began in 1990.

    "A prospective phase of the study began in 1990."

    4. During the prospective phase of the study (1990 -1996), she observed NO SEROCONVERSIONS.

    We observed no seroconversions after entry into the study

    5. In several places, she tries to imply that the CAUSE of finding no seroconversions, was due to increased condom use.

    a. Over time, the authors observed increased condom use (p <0.001) and no new infections.

    b. Infectivity for HIV through heterosexual transmission is low, and STDs may be
    the most important cofactor for transmission. Significant behavior change over time in serodiscordant couples was observed.


    c. Elimination or modification of these factors could result in reduced transmission of HIV.

    6. Condom use was at 54% before 1990, and at 79% after 1990. (See Table 1).

    7. Because there were NO SEROCONVERSIONS during the prospective phase of the study, she had to make assumptions about how her subjects got infected in the first place.

    The infectivity constant (per-contact transmission risk) for male-to-female transmission was estimated using maximum likelihood methods taking account of the
    fact that infection times of both index cases and all infected partners occurred prior to recruitment and are known only to lie in broad intervals


    8. This was the longest study of heterosexual transmission in the US.

    To our knowledge, our study is the largest and
    longest study of the heterosexual transmission of HIV in the United States.


    9. Padian really had no viable explanation as to why 25% of her subject, the "unsafe sex" cohort, failed to contract HIV from all that risky sex.

    While lack of transmission in our prospective study may in part be due to such unidentified protective factors, we also observed significant behavior change over time.

    Nevertheless, the absence of seroincident infection over the course of the study cannot be entirely attributed to significant behavior change. No transmission occurred among the 25 percent of couples who did not use condoms consistently at their last follow-up nor among the 47 couples who intermittently practiced unsafe sex during the entire duration of follow-up.

    In short, Padian failed to make an a priori hypothesis, that her prospective study would yield no seroconversionsm, due to her amazing counseling techniques.

    When the data showed NO SEROCONVERSIONS, she chose to muddle the conclusion, and throw a grab-bag of red herrings into the mix.

    If the sexual transmission theory of HIV is correct, a handful of the 175 HIV discordant couples having sex, should have contracted the virus. NONE DID.

    What does that tell you?

    Have a nice day!

    ReplyDelete
  71. And then Bill was gone.
    In all fairness I should say that Bill did send in a long comment...more of the same Padian crap cut and pasted from various Denialist pages. I promised not to subject any of us to more of that. Nothing about Boily mentioned in that long unpublished comment. Why not? No mystery there...it is in the 99.9% of AIDS science that AIDS Deniers deny exists. Here is the abstract so you can see why Bill is finding it hard to locate cherries to pick.

    Lancet Infect Dis. 2009 Feb;9(2):118-29.
    Heterosexual risk of HIV-1 infection per sexual act: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.
    Boily MC, Baggaley RF, Wang L, Masse B, White RG, Hayes RJ, Alary M.

    Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College, London, UK.

    We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies of the risk of HIV-1 transmission per heterosexual contact. 43 publications comprising 25 different study populations were identified. Pooled female-to-male (0.04% per act [95% CI 0.01-0.14]) and male-to-female (0.08% per act [95% CI 0.06-0.11]) transmission estimates in high-income countries indicated a low risk of infection in the absence of antiretrovirals. Low-income country female-to-male (0.38% per act [95% CI 0.13-1.10]) and male-to-female (0.30% per act [95% CI 0.14-0.63]) estimates in the absence of commercial sex exposure (CSE) were higher. In meta-regression analysis, the infectivity across estimates in the absence of CSE was significantly associated with sex, setting, the interaction between setting and sex, and antenatal HIV prevalence. The pooled receptive anal intercourse estimate was much higher (1.7% per act [95% CI 0.3-8.9]). Estimates for the early and late phases of HIV infection were 9.2 (95% CI 4.5-18.8) and 7.3 (95% CI 4.5-11.9) times larger, respectively, than for the asymptomatic phase. After adjusting for CSE, presence or history of genital ulcers in either couple member increased per-act infectivity 5.3 (95% CI 1.4-19.5) times versus no sexually transmitted infection. Study estimates among non-circumcised men were at least twice those among circumcised men. Low-income country estimates were more heterogeneous than high-income country estimates, which indicates poorer study quality, greater heterogeneity of risk factors, or under-reporting of high-risk behaviour. Efforts are needed to better understand these differences and to quantify infectivity in low-income countries.

    ReplyDelete
  72. I wonder what possible right you think you have to go about this
    grand worldwide strategy to root out all the world's AIDS
    "denialists". Just who the hell do you think you are--God! if
    people through their own education and thought processes find huge
    gaps in the HIV=AIDS theory than so be it, it is their life and
    they have the right to live it as they see fit. I suspect you are
    nothing more than just another bitter hate-filled fag who because
    of your obesity, vapid personality, and slothful appearance could
    not get laid if your life depended on it. Get some help and stop
    using others as a tool to vent your own self-hatred and the hatred
    of your sick warped little fag subculture. It's funny how the
    people who plaster the internet with their pissy little arguments
    about HIV are you, Deshong, Poodle Stomper, and this Snout
    thing...all obviously viscous nasty ass queens with nothing better
    to do with their lives.

    Seriously, you all need to get a life and leave people alone.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Harvey Bialy called people fags and queens.
    Peter Duesberg calls men Homos.
    The Perth People say excessive ingestion of semen causes AIDS.

    And just when people started to believe that AIDS Denialism was not fueled by homophobic maniacs, you posted here.

    Thanks Anonymous. Much appreciated.

    ReplyDelete
  74. I wonder what possible right you think you have...Just who the hell do you think you are--God!

    When Seth on Meth the consummate shrink went off his Lithium he started this rag of a blog imagining he was the reincarnation of Mother Theresa with a mandate from the HIV=AIDS God to save Africa from evil dissidents. Nay! Save the world! He clearly needs to get back on his meds.

    ReplyDelete
  75. "Rant, rant, rant...if people through their own education and thought processes find huge gaps in the HIV=AIDS theory than so be it"

    As with any disease, there may be gaps in understanding certain aspects of HIV (hence why research continues) but there is no data out there that puts HIV's causation to doubt for those who (and this is key here) understand it. The problem is that most denialists no not have the background or in some cases simply no desire to understand the data.


    "it is their life and they have the right to live it as they see fit."

    Absolutely. The problem is when they go around passing their dangerous misinformation to others.


    "More rants...you, Deshong, Poodle Stomper, and this Snout thing...all obviously viscous nasty ass queens with nothing better to do with their lives."

    Nope, I'm straight as an arrow and have quite a busy life, thank you. I do make the time to counter the inane and scientifically unfounded claims of those who would consider themselves experts in a field in which they have no experience, however. I suppose you could say this is as close to a hobby as I have the time to pursue. I also have the background to understand the complex science of virology and molecular biology as it applies to HIV. How about you?

    ReplyDelete
  76. Seth, you still did not answer the questions of onecleverkid about Christine Maggiore's tests, when she was tested negative the second time around and then indeterminate the third time. You keep avoiding that. In the film HON it's been documented that she was tested first positive, then negative, then indeterminate. And, answer me this, why is her son and her husband whom she had reportedly unprotected sex for so meny years remain NEGATIVE??? Can you explain that, please? Also, what is the "gold standart" for WESTERN BLOT? You did not answer that question either. How do you explain THE FACT people test NEGATIVE or POSITIVE depending on what country a person lives in? Why Montegnier said loud and clear that "WE CAN BE EXPOSED TO "HIV" MANY TIMES WITHOUT BEING CHRONICALLY INFECTED, IF A PERSON HAS A GOOD IMMUNE SYSTEM"? According to what he said the virus is not deadly as you believe. Nevertheless, those words came out of the mouth of the Nobel Prize winner for the co-discovery of HIV! I think, it must be very easy for you to answer my questions. And please, be nice and don't bring into the conversation glowing racoons and aliens. Waiting!

    ReplyDelete
  77. Sure Anonymous

    This is Denialism 101. Ask a question. Get the answer. Ask again. Answer again. Ask again. Get ignored and say 'why are you avoiding the question.'

    Maggiore's testing history is anything but documented. It is convoluted. I do not believe she ever gave a coherent account. She certainly did not test false positive...after all she died of AIDS. But her early testing history is hard to know. I guess you just have to trust her when she says she tested positive, then negative, then positive. It is a matter of who you trust. I find Maggiore difficult to trust. Not because she was bad person (the cranks she listened to are the real bad guys). She was just so screwed up it is hard to know what she was saying.

    House of Numbers does not show Maggiore's testing history. As she is talking we see test results flashed on the screen. But watch carefully. We never see test results in chronological sequence with either matching names, dates of birth or even ages that make sense. This has been described in detail more than once on this blog.

    Are there errors in testing results? I am sure they occur. But I have known thousands of people who have been tested for HIV...I have never met anyone who received a false negative or false positive result. I have known a few indeterminants... Maggiore may have been when she first tested.

    As for the Montagnier misuse...asked and answered again. It is pretty clear he is talking about local immune response in relation to transmission where it is well known that the immune system can clear the virus and avert infection. Take Montagnier's responses together without the idiocy of Leung and the context built around him and what Montagnier is saying is hardly denialism.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Anonymous,
    "In the film HON it's been documented that she was tested first positive, then negative, then indeterminate."

    If you are truly interested in the problems with the HON's portrayal of Maggiore's test results you can check here: http://www.houseofnumbers.org/Maggiore_s_Labs.html. Whether you are a denialist or not you will see that the information presented is exactly as shown in HON (yes, I've seen it and yes, it was crap). The results shown in the HON film do not match those in Maggiore's story.

    "And, answer me this, why is her son and her husband whom she had reportedly unprotected sex for so meny years remain NEGATIVE??? Can you explain that, please?"

    Her son is not HIV+ because there is about a 25-30% chance of transmission from infected mother to child, not 100%. He got lucky, EJ did not. Her husband, if he still tests negative (I don't know when the last time he was tested is) was lucky that HIV is not easily transmitted sexually. Certain factors make it much easier to transmit (e.g. herpes or other STDs that leaves open sores). It is thus, possible that Robin is still HIV- but since I haven't heard of him being tested lately we can't know for sure either way.

    "Why Montegnier said loud and clear that "WE CAN BE EXPOSED TO "HIV" MANY TIMES WITHOUT BEING CHRONICALLY INFECTED, IF A PERSON HAS A GOOD IMMUNE SYSTEM"? According to what he said the virus is not deadly as you believe."

    Not at all. As Seth explained, Montagnier is speaking about the clearance of the virus at the time of initial exposure, NOT in a person who is already HIV+. Whoever told you otherwise is misrepresenting the facts.

    This is not unique to HIV and holds true for other viruses such as HepC, HepB, ect... For example, a person pricked with a needle covered with HepC-infected blood does not have a 100% chance of becoming infected. In fact, the odds are closer to 1.8% (although the exact figure can vary).

    So here are my questions to you:
    1) Why do you believe that Robin and Charlie MUST be infected with HIV in order for Maggiore's HIV+ status to make sense? Do you think that just HIV must be 100% transmissible (even though studies have shown otherwise) or do you apply this logic to all viruses?

    2) After reading THE FACTS on Maggiore's story during HON and seeing HON's results sheets, can you confirm that the results do NOT match Maggiore's story?

    3) Do you think it is sensible to state that a person with a healthy immune system is more likely to combat the initial exposure to a virus (HIV or otherwise)? If not, do you disagree with this just for HIV or for all viruses (since it applies to others as well)

    Waiting!

    ReplyDelete
  79. Poodle Stomper...

    As you know Nancy Padian showed that HIV cannot be sexually transmitted. Why are you ignoring that question? What are you afraid of? Just because you have answered the Maggiore and Montagnier questions does not mean that you can ignore Padian.

    So now address Padian, and I will tell you are ignoring the questions about Maggiore's HIV tests.

    AIDS Denialism may be a broken record, but it makes for a great bingo game (copyright Snout).

    ReplyDelete
  80. Seth, you did not answer all of my questions. I asked you WHAT IS THE GOLD STANDART FOR WESTERN BLOT? You, instead, went on and on about Christine. I, also asked you WHY DO PEOPLE TEST EITHER NEGATIVE OR POSITIVE DEPENDING ON WHERE THEY LIVE? WHY DIFFERENT COUNTRIES, SOMETIMES DIFFERENT CLINICS WHITHIN ONE COUNTRY REQUIRE DIFFERENT NUMBER OF PROTEIN BENDS BELIEVED TO BE UNIQUE TO HIV TO REACT WITH HUMAN BLOOD ON HIV ANTIBODY TESTS?
    Montengnier was asked by Leung: "If you take a poor african WHO'S BEEN INFECTED WITH HIV and BUILT his immune system, is it possible then for that poor african to get rid of HIV"? Montegnier: "I would think so" Key words in this dialog are HAS BEEN INFECTED - chronnical infection, because Leung later says BUILD - that means loud and clear, Podle Stomper, that OVER TIME we can BUILD that poor african's immune system by means of proper nutrition and his body with healthy built, restored immune system will get rid of HIV. Why Montengnier says that it is possible to get rid of CHRONIC infection after a person's immune system has been strenghtens? And, then Montegnier says loud and clear that people always think about the magic words vaccine, cure, medicine complitely neglecting simple measures of proper nutrition; personal hygene; irradicating infectious deseases; drinking clean water.
    And, Seth, just like you can't believe that Christine had different outcome of the test over the years, I might also question the status of thousands of HIV "positive" people you worked with. I don't know whether you telling the truth or not. I can't get hold of those people and ask them questions. Would you believe if I say that I, personaly know many HIV "positive" people who live normal lives without HIV drugs, many of them discordant couples who have unprotected sex for years and negative partner does not seroconvert and also they have healthy children?

    ReplyDelete
  81. Poodle, you wrote that Robin Scovill is "lucky that HIV is not easily transmitted sexually".
    I think it is important to point out "from female to male" in this situation. Male to female is much easier, just due to simple biology.
    That is something I tried to point out to Brian Carter a year ago, but am not sure he ever understood it.
    JTD

    ReplyDelete
  82. Anonymous
    Thanks for commenting.
    I actually have a full time job... I cannot answer your questions that have been answered a million times. It is pretty sad. A person AIDS Denialist Bingo game.

    You say everyone who tests positive is a false positive. From now on don't post as Anonymous...post as vector and please share with us how many people you have infected or supported others in infecting.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Seth, I am sorry you are so busy, but the questions I've asked shouldn't be so difficult to answer even if you claim they've been "answered" million times before. You know darn well I've never said "everyone who tests positive is a false positive", you're putting words in my mouth. And, I'v never infected anyone. You continue avoiding the fact Montegnier thinks it is possible for CHRONICALLY infected person to get rid of HIV by BUILDING that person's immune system. Why is that Seth? And yes, It is very sad you and your supporters can's aknowledge that :( If you decide to answer my questions(knowing how busy you, poor thing, are) your effort will be greatly appreciated! XOXO. Anonymous :)

    ReplyDelete
  84. Anonymous, I have a job too, but I can spare a moment to answer your questions, on the admittedly unlikely possibility that they are posed sincerely rather than rhetorically.

    1. Can you first explain precisely what you mean by a “GOLD STANDART”? The problem with questions of this nature is they leave this undefined, so any attempt to answer them becomes an exercise in chasing moving goalposts.

    2. No, people do not test NEGATIVE OR POSITIVE depending on where they live. At most, a Western blot pattern read as “positive” according to one country’s criteria might be read as “indeterminate” by another’s. “Indeterminate” means “we want to do further testing and follow-up before committing to a diagnostic result”. See also (4) below.

    3. No, Montagnier was talking about which factors are involved when an initial infection progresses to chronic infection (HIV positive status), and the factors he thinks influence that process. Montagnier does not say “it is possible to get rid of CHRONIC infection after a person’s immune system has been strengthens”. You inserted the word “CHRONIC” there, not he, and in doing so you changed what he actually said into what you wanted him to say. That's just making stuff up, and attributing it to someone else.

    4. House of Numbers shows that Christine had a series of diagnostic tests for HIV in early 1992. These were initially indeterminate although strongly suggestive of recent infection with HIV (reactive EIA with gag and env bands on the WB) resolving a couple of weeks later to a clear positive result (gag, pol and env bands). This is a typical pattern of results when someone has been infected a few weeks before testing commenced.

    Then in September 1993 she repeated the process and got a clear positive (strongly reactive EIA with all 8 bands on the WB). This was repeated a week later with the same result. In between the two testing processes (early 1992 and September 1993) she had what looks to me like a HIV-1 p24 antigen test, but it’s hard to tell because any useful information about precisely what kind of test has been cropped out of the image in the film. This test was negative, as are the majority of p24 antigen tests done a year or so after initial infection.

    According to what she showed us on HoN. Christine had two series of diagnostic HIV tests, both with the same clear positive outcome. Unfortunately, the film is edited to show the individual tests out of sequence, which might confuse the casual viewer. If she had other diagnostic tests with a different outcome these aren't shown on the film.

    5. I too know many HIV positive people who live normal lives for several years without getting sick with HIV disease or needing HIV treatments. Some go for only a few years without needing treatment, some for longer, just as with many other chronic conditions. Why do you find this odd?

    ReplyDelete
  85. JT,
    "Poodle, you wrote that Robin Scovill is "lucky that HIV is not easily transmitted sexually".
    I think it is important to point out "from female to male" in this situation. Male to female is much easier, just due to simple biology.
    "

    You are quite correct. I should have specified that I was speaking of female to male transmission and I should again stress that I do not know if Robin is still HIV- (since I don't know when was the last time he got tested or the results). I say lucky for 2 reasons that I believe do have some merit.

    First, viral load generally goes up fairly high when a person has reached clinical AIDS (as Maggiore did) and such an increase leads to an increased chance of transmission. Secondly, herpes increases the chance of transmission. Now, I don't know what type of herpes contributed to Maggiore's death (was it genital herpes, a cold sore or a resurgence of an old chicken pox infection that went disseminated? Beats me). If it was genital and Robin had previously contracted it then it could have increased Robin's chances of contracting HIV from Maggiore. So while F->M transmission is lower than M->F I still think it fair to consider him lucky if he is still HIV-. =)

    ReplyDelete
  86. Snout, why you're answering questions which were addressed to Seth? Isn't he the one approving and posting all of the comments?
    You pretending not to know what gold standart is. Ok, "gold standart" refers to the most specific tests to validate other tests.
    2. Snout, the number and location determining a positive test, FOR THE SAME VIRUS, varies all over the world. In fact, to these days there's no internetionally agreed criteria as to what constitutes a positive WB. An african positive with a p41 and p120 band would not be positive in Australia, parts of US or Europe. An australian with p32, p41, p24 and p18 bands will not be positive in Africa. Different internetional regulatory bodies or local policies and not the presumed pathogen determine patterns of antibody reactivity said to prove a retroviral infection.
    Snout, I have inserted the word CHRONIC because Seth was keep repeating the first part of the interview with Montegnier. Yes, in the first part of the interview he does talk about the prevention and degreesing the chances of the innitial infection, however when Leung asked him again if it is possible for a poor african who's BEEN infected with HIV to get read of it by BUILDING his immune system, Montegnier answered he think so. BUILDING takes time a gradual process. You can't BUILD and improve infected person's immune system within the two weeks of the innitial infection and he will get read of HIV. A damaged immune system would certainly take time to repair. Why then Montegnier didn't say: "No, Mr. Leung, it is possible for the poor african to get rid of HIV ONLY during the time frame of the initial infection" ???
    You said you know "positive" people who are going for few years without getting sick with HIV desease. I don't know of such desease. I thought HIV was a virus that kills T-cells and the depletion of them leads to weakening of the immune system and as a result infected person gets opportunistic infections and "other" deseases that belong to AIDsyndrome. What I find to be odd is when a "positive" person who has Hepatitis, for example, his doctor diagnoses him with AIDS and swiffly puts him on antiretroviral drugs, even though that person is asymptomatic. But, Hepatitis is caused by a virus, not HIV virus. This is just an absurd!

    ReplyDelete
  87. Snout, thanks for keeping up with Mikey. It is entertaining, as usual.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Seth, I'm not Mikey. LOL. Ja russkaja zenshina kotoraja zainteresovana v teoriji SPID, vot i vsio! I don't think Mikey speak russian. You got it wrong :)

    ReplyDelete
  89. Anonymous - may I call you Mikey? - like Seth I also have a job, and can only take limited time out to answer your questions (those sheep aren't going to herd themselves you know). But I'm happy to address your points, one at a time.

    Ok, "gold standart" refers to the most specific tests to validate other tests.

    I have a new test for HIV. You take 5 ml of blood and add it to a glass of clean water. If it turns into a Volkwagen minibus the test is read as "positive". If not, it is "negative".

    Field trials of my new test have found that it is 100% specific - we have never had a single false positive. It is more specific than any other HIV test on the market.

    Is this what you mean by a "gold standart"? Could I use it to validate other tests?

    ReplyDelete
  90. Ha Ha. Snout, How about if I take a load of dog's shit and put it in a dish add some agitative chemicals see if it moves and voila! A new virus has been produced. What do you think about that?
    The task of authenticating a new diognostic test in clinical medicine requires an alternitive independent method of establishing the presence of the condition for which the test is to be employed. This method, often referred to as the "GOLD STANDART", is a crucial sine qua non, and represents the tenet upon which rests the scientific proof of validity. Again, Snout, what is the "gold standart" for WesternBlot???

    An antibody test becomes meaningful only when it is standardised, that is, when a given test result has the same meaning in all patients, in all laboratories, in all countries. WHY then different countries, different laboratories have different criteria for interpriting WB test???

    In an interview, in the movie "HON" when Leung asked Luc Montegnier: "If you take a poor african who's been infected with HIV and build that poor african's immune system, is it possible for that poor african naturally to get rid of HIV?" Luc answered: "I would think so" Here Leung clearly talks about chronic infection, because he talks about BUILDING( which is a gradual process) that poor poor african man's immune system. WHY A NOBEL PRIZE WINNER, CO-DISCOVERER OF HIV confirms the possibility of getting rid naturally of viscious virus HIV that chronically established itself in the poor african body by BUILDING that man's immune system??? Don't try to twist Luc's words and tell me his words were taking out of contest, please, uvolte!

    Also, why Luc says that people think of magic words vaccine, drugs where HIV can be treated by simple measures of nutrition, personal hygene, irradicating infectious diseases, by taking antioxidants, improving nutrition??? Ha? Why is that he says there's no profit in nutrition? He said water is key! In the interview he didn's say not even ONE positive word about antiretroviral drugs! Why?

    ReplyDelete
  91. In HON there is a bright and articulate young woman named Kim Bannon. Does anyone know how she is doing?

    ReplyDelete
  92. Anonymous,
    I will let Snout comment on most of your post since it is addressed to him and he has already posted a huge section on the Montagnier interview on his own blog. I will however reply to this:

    "Why is that he says there's no profit in nutrition? "

    This is 100% complete rubbish. There is a HUGE profit to be made in nutrition. There are BILLIONS to be made. Ask anyone that worked in the nutritional supplement business. I myself worked there for a few years and later quit, took a pay cut and moved to academic research when I found out how much of the data we generated was being manipulated and misused to make claims about products that were not even remotely true. This wasn't isolated to the company for which I worked, either.

    Nutrition-based companies can easily rival pharmaceutical companies in terms of overall income but they have much more lax rules on what they can claim. All they need to do is word things just right that the reader believes a claim is being made when a tiny little box at the bottom of the package says "These statements not evaluated by the FDA...."

    ReplyDelete
  93. Clearly, Mikhail, you have missed the point of my reply: any useful test (let alone your hypothetical gold standard) needs to be sensitive as well as specific.

    But I am prepared to persist. Not for too long though. About your "alternitive independent method of establishing the presence of the condition" -

    1. Does this method have to consist solely of a single test, or can it consist of multiple lines of concordant evidence?

    2. If the latter, is it essential that there is 100% agreement from every scientist in the world about which out of many dozens of possible lines of evidence constitute the most reliable standard which is practically applicable in every setting on the planet? If so, why is this necessary?

    And finally,

    3. A gold standard is, after all, a diagnostic decision making process in itself. How is it validated if not against a gold standard of its own? After all, you have just told us this is a sine qua non for such a decision making process to be valid. And does the gold standard's gold standard also need a gold standard of its own? Is it really turtles all the way down?

    ReplyDelete
  94. Ok Mikey, now what?
    How about a double reverse with a twisted cherry stem?
    Please don't do it! We will all die from exhaustion.
    XOXO

    ReplyDelete
  95. Seth, it's funny how you always have to say the "final" word after your servents answer questions for you first...Ohhh! I'm sorry you have no as "exstencive" knowledge as tehy do on the topic or guts to do that yourself. By the way, Aren't you interested in men?
    Poodle Stooper, I was talking about nutrition - real food, good diet where complex carbohydrates, quality proteins, fiber, minerals and vitamins are present in form of real food. Many, many, many poor africans don't have access to nutrisious foods, heck, even many many many poor americans have no access to nutrisious food. We all know how important it is to consume all of those necessery for anyone's body nutrients and vitamins on the daily basis for the body to function properly, keep the immune system working properly that can keep diseases at bay. What majority of the poor african countries have there to eat: rice? and drink contaminted water? Majority of them look mulnurished and immensiated. Are you going to deny that? So yeah, a good nutricious food in conjunction with antioxidants, vitamins, clean water can and would extend their lifespan if the funds money spend more wisely and not on antiretroviral drugs alone. Will those toxic drugs alone do any good in poor african countries that have been stricken by femmine? Have you, yourselves, ever personally experience hunger on the daily basis? Have you ever experienced thisrt and had to drink contaminated water on the daily basis??? You have no clue what it is like to live in poverty day after day after day for the rest of your life and that life is not going to last more than 40 years. You have choice of eating fruits and vegetables all you like. Steakes and chicken and fish. Just look at Seth...he looks like he eats pretty darn well! Seth looking so robust I'm pretty darn sure he will NOT, most likely, EVER, die from exhaustion ;)

    Snout, once again I will persist myself. In order for a test as specific as Western Blot to be invented there must be a "gold standart" upon which scientists must rely on. You can't just come up with an idea to create a test without a "gold standart". Once again what is a "gold standart" for WB? How did HIV scientists came up with the idea of creating one? What knowledge did they use for creating such "specific" test? It shouldn't be a difficult question for you to answer. Furthermore, how can you explain Dr. Robin Weiss saying in the movie "HON" that WB shouldn't be used as diognostic test, it's a dogma that it's been promoted into some sort of Holy Grail, that we don't need WB, he doesn't think it's useful diognostic test, he doesn't think it's worth doing. What in a f...k is he saying??? Does that mean I take ELISA, test positive, I'm HIV infected without further having WB a confirmatory test? After 25 no scientist came to a certain conclusion as to what tests to take and not to take??? Holy shit!!!

    I read Snout's blog on Montengnier's interview. There's no question similar to mine that has been asked by anyone regarding the chronic infection and the ability for the body to get rid of HIV naturally by building the immune system. Snout, ANSWER TO MY QUESTION. How is it possinble to be chronically infected with HIV and yet by building a good immune system to be able to illiminate the HIV out of the body???

    ReplyDelete
  96. Anonymous Michael, I wish I could say it is nice to have you back.

    Ask a new question and I will try to answer it. I do not have all of the answers,but as you know I have some pretty smart friends. Rather than insulting them you should thank them. 99% of people ignore you AIDS Deniers, we are giving you a voice here.

    You're welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  97. "Poodle Stooper, I was talking about nutrition…Will those toxic drugs alone do any good in poor african countries that have been stricken by femmine?"

    Do medications alone do help in Africa? Absolutely. Would it be awesome to be able to provide them with easier access to clean water and better food? Absolutely. Unfortunately all the good food and water in the world doesn’t stop HIV from destroying the immune system. In Africa, many of those dying of HIV are in the wealthier areas. Better food and water are great but they don’t stop HIV. If you have real evidence otherwise please feel free to cite it.


    "I read Snout's blog on Montengnier's interview. There's no question similar to mine that has been asked by anyone regarding the chronic infection and the ability for the body to get rid of HIV naturally by building the immune system."

    That is because Montagnier was not referring to CHRONIC infection. If you read Snout’s post you would understand that Montagnier was not referring to that but rather to initial exposure. He also says he “would think so”. He does not say it is a definite yes because, quite honestly, I don’t think there is any solid evidence to show that improved nutrition does build the immune system in such a way that would lead to a significantly increased ability to remove the virus at initial exposure. In other interviews, Montagnier makes it clear that for chronically infected people his own nutritional approaches, for example, were not beneficial in the absence if ARVs. Now a quick question regarding your question on the western blot (I won’t debate this with you since you are doing so with Snout): Do you disagree with the use of the WB just for HIV or also for the thousands of other areas of biological research which uses it (we use Western Blots in our non-HIV genetics research in our lab, for example). Do you simply disagree with all WBs in general?

    ReplyDelete
  98. Poodle Stomper, just where in the "wealthy" areas in Africa, "many" are dying of HIV? How many in the "wealhty" areas are dying of HIV compare to not so "wealthy" areas of Africa( no access to good food and clean water)? Or are they dying of AIDS? I thought HIV was a virus that causes AIDS. You said it would be awesome if those poor africans had easier access to clean water and better food. I also say it would be also very awesome if women and children were stopped from being raped and infected with all sorts of STD's for which they don't have immidiate access to antibiotics, it would be also very awesome if those poor africans wouldn't be diognosed with AIDS without even being tested for HIV because they aquired TB and Maleria that are so prevelant in Africa. Are you gonna tell me that HIV enters poor africans bodies weakens their immune system thus resulting in TB and Maleria??? Maybe HIV is also responsible for parasitosis and warms? It would be also very nice if Dr. Niel T. Constantine come to Africa and told those poor africans and also to those more fortunate "wealthy" ones that the test they took is LOUSY and DIDN'T MEAN A THING if it that makes any difference for anybody to hear. His words, not mine, by the way. It will also be very nice if those few "fortunate" in Africa get to be tested by confirmatory WB be told that WB is not even worth doing, according to the words of Dr. Weiss. But, of course you will start saying that the words of those scientists were taking out of context, that they were talking about this and not about that and blah blah blah.

    Poodle I do know that WB is used in other areas of biology, but just like Dr. Weiss stated in the movie WB is NOT WORTH DOING as a confirmatory test to diognose HIV, according to his knowledge and confidence of his words, there's no need of even discussing WB any further.

    Ok, now back to Montegnier, again. Ahhh! Mon ami, Montegnier! Here's the thing, Poodle Stomper, you can deny all you want he "didn't" confirm Leing's words on chronic infection and building the immune system of a poor african, however he also eagerly continued on funds have been spend on vaccine, drugs rather than on nutrition, clean water, antioxidants and he was talking about personal hygene, elimination of warms, parasites, diseases so poor africans could restore their already damaged immune systems. According to what you said earlier that "medications alone do help, absolutely", I wonder why Luc Montegnier, who won a Nobel Prize for co-discovery of HIV, NEVER says the same in the interview, in fact almost entirely he talks about natural ways of erradicating HIV out of the body? "people think about the magic words - the vaccine, drugs".

    Poodle Stomper, HIV drugs are known to be highly toxic. How do we know for sure that those poor mulnurished riddled with debilitating Maleria or TB africans are not dying faster from the side affects of antiretroviral drugs???

    ReplyDelete
  99. I thought HIV was a virus that causes AIDS. You said it would be awesome if those poor africans had easier access to clean water and better food.

    You seem a bit confused. Yes, HIV is the cause of immune decline that leads to AIDS. My saying that it would be awesome to get better food and clean water to Africans is independent of this. I just think it would be great if everyone in the world had access to what we have here in Europe, America, Canada and other better developed countries. I agree it would also be great if women were not raped. However, my not wanting people to starve or be raped is independent of me not wanting people to get infected with HIV. Even if HIV were not a problem in the world I would still think that food, water and security would be great world-wide. Get it?


    It would be also very nice if Dr. Niel T. Constantine come to Africa and told those poor africans and also to those more fortunate "wealthy" ones that the test they took is LOUSY and DIDN'T MEAN A THING if it that makes any difference for anybody to hear. His words, not mine, by the way…. But, of course you will start saying that the words of those scientists were taking out of context, that they were talking about this and not about that and blah blah blah.

    According to Dr. Constantine himself: “What Mr. Leung has done is take our statements completely out of context. For example, he and I were discussing the use of rapid HIV tests and their accuracy. I explained that the tests were excellent, but that some individuals were assembling rapid HIV tests from individually purchased components and making these tests in their garages for sale. Such tests, that had not been subjected to the quality assurance measures required by organizations such as the FDA, were inferior and should not be used. That is, only tests that were approved by expert organizations should be used. Hence, my statement in the film "Now if I tell you that the test you took was lousy and didn't mean a thing." Mr. Leung used this to imply that I was stating that HIV tests were useless.” His words, not mine.

    Dr. Weiss stated in the movie WB is NOT WORTH DOING as a confirmatory test to diognose HIV, according to his knowledge and confidence of his words, there's no need of even discussing WB any further.

    Was he also taken out of context? Dr. Weiss himself states: “When I said ‘I don't think the Western Blot is a useful diagnostic test; I don't think it's worth doing’, I was referring to relatively high throughput screening for blood banks, and in the mid 1980s we did not yet have commercial dip stick Western Blot kits available. In retrospect, it would have been better for me to say: ‘I don't think the Western Blot was a useful primary screening test.” Again, his words, not mine.

    Click here to read their own words on this.

    So yes, in both cases, Dr. Weiss and Dr. Constantine (not me) state quite clearly that they have been misquoted! The question I ask you now is why you would trust a movie as a source of information, especially when the people interviewed have come out and explained exactly what they said.

    Continued in next post…

    ReplyDelete
  100. Continued from previous post…

    I wonder why Luc Montegnier, who won a Nobel Prize for co-discovery of HIV, NEVER says the same in the interview, in fact almost entirely he talks about natural ways of erradicating HIV out of the body? "people think about the magic words - the vaccine, drugs".

    Perhaps because he was not asked about ARVs in the interview? You should check out Montagnier’s other statements about HIV. He is quite clear that there is no natural or pharmaceutical way of completely removing HIV from the body. He is also quite clear that HIV is the cause of AIDS. You need to stop cherry picking quotes and read up on non-denialist sites for yourself.


    Poodle Stomper, HIV drugs are known to be highly toxic. How do we know for sure that those poor mulnurished riddled with debilitating Maleria or TB africans are not dying faster from the side affects of antiretroviral drugs???

    If you wish to claim this is the case then the burden of proof is on you to show it does. Step up to the plate and show evidence.

    Poodle Stomper, just where in the "wealthy" areas in Africa, "many" are dying of HIV? How many in the "wealhty" areas are dying of HIV compare to not so "wealthy" areas of Africa( no access to good food and clean water)? Or are they dying of AIDS?

    This will take longer to answer as I will have to go back and look up the numbers. Before I do, however, please respond to this current post. Here are my questions to you:

    1) Do you concede, based on Dr. Weiss and Dr. Constantine’s own statements, that they were taken out of context?

    2) If you answered that yes, according to Dr. Weiss and Constantine, they were taken out of context and did not say what it seemed they were saying, will you continue to use HON as a source of information or actually bother to research their claims for yourself?

    3) If HON is indeed telling the truth, why would they need to misquote people to support their views? Do you condone this behaviour?

    ReplyDelete
  101. Михаил,

    You asked "WHAT IS THE GOLD STANDART FOR WESTERN BLOT?"

    I asked you three basic questions intended to clarify what, precisely, you mean by the term "GOLD STANDART". These were not idle questions. Many HIV/AIDS denialists seem to have a problem with "GOLD STANDARTS" as they pertain to HIV testing. I have never been able to discover what these problems are, because whenever I've tried to discuss this with them it becomes obvious that the denialists have not the faintest frickin' idea what they mean when they use the term "GOLD STANDART" - it's just an impressive sounding term they copy-pasted from a denialist website.

    You ignored my questions, preferring to speculate on the physiognomy and sexual preferences of the blog-host.

    Unfortunately, this marks you indelibly as a troll. Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously after that?

    ReplyDelete
  102. HON's #1 fan
    About Kim Bannon.
    I remember her quite well from the movie. Who would not not remember her. She is obviously a bright and energetic young woman who bought into AIDS Denialism's false hope.
    My understanding is that if your want to know how she is doing you should as David Crowe. He has been among the more convincing people when it comes to refusing HIV treatments.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Poodle Stomper, I am not confused. HIV is NOT a single causative agent of AIDS. HIV alone does not lead to AIDS. In fact, this "elusive", "viscious" retrovirus has been blamed for too long to be a singular cause of AIDS. Period!

    And the words of those too "scientists" were NOT taking out of context. If you've seen a documentary Weiss and Leung are NOT talking about blood banks. Weiss says:"diagnostics say is the PATIENT infected or not. You don't need a Western Blot." He didn't say a word about blood banks. They are NOT talking about blood banks. Cut the crap already!!! Please, provide me with the evidence, a video of the interview where Weiss says BLOOD BANKS to support your claims.

    And, when it comes to Dr. Constantine's interview...He tried to deny his statment he said him and Leung were discussing the accuracy of rapid tests, he said they were excellent, but some individuals assembling these rapid tests in their garages for sale. The problem with his attempt to deny his words is this...When Leung says to Constantine:"I'm going to ask you one more question that perteins my test I took in Africa"...it's ok, I'm negative." Right before starting questioning Dr. Constantine Leung didn't say where EXACTLY he took his test in Africa, in what part of Africa exactly he took it. Constantine very confidently, right away told Leung that if he tells him that the test he took was lousy, it didn't mean a thing and if it matters for anybody to hear; actually smiles like it's no big deal the test Leung took was lousy. Where in the movie does Constantine talks about fabricated by some individuals tests before Leung disclouses the outcome of his test? How does Constantine know what part of Africa Leung went where he was given a poorly manufactured lousy test? Furthermore how does Constantine know that the TEST Leung took is the same that has been manufactured by those very SOME INDIVIDUALS who were assembling rapid tests in their garages??? Constantine talks about those tests with a confidence of a person who knows that the test Leung took was manufactured by those very individuals who assemble HIV tests in their garages for sale, thus the test Leung took is lousy and means nothing. And, even if Constantine knew exact location of Leung's test taking, how Constantine can be so sure that the tests at that particular location were lousy??? And, if, that's Constantine's beliefs then it just further proves that the tests are TRULLY LOUSY, all of them, regardless of where you take them in Africa. Stop this bullshit already about taking Weiss's and Constantine's words out of context!!!

    Snout, I already answered to you what "gold standart" is and you pretend like I didn't. I am not going to answer a question that has been already answered. You need to go back and look at my answer again.

    ReplyDelete
  104. And the words of those too "scientists" were NOT taking out of context. If you've seen a documentary Weiss and Leung are NOT talking about blood banks….Please, provide me with the evidence, a video of the interview where Weiss says BLOOD BANKS to support your claims… And, when it comes to Dr. Constantine's interview... When Leung says to Constantine:"I'm going to ask you one more question that perteins my test I took in Africa"...it's ok, I'm negative."…Constantine very confidently, right away told Leung that if he tells him that the test he took was lousy, it didn't mean a thing and if it matters for anybody to hear…

    You are either lying or forgetting some of the movie. Both statements are presented in HON as single sentences. Immediately before that ONE sentence by Dr. Weiss is a clip of Robert Gallo explaining the reliability of the HIV testing procedures. It goes from Gallo DIRECTLY to the one sentence (with NO CONTEXT or interviewer’s question) from Weiss.

    The phrase you are quoting by Dr. Constantine also has NO CONTEXT. It was presented immediately after a clip of Leung speaking with an African woman.

    There is no context for either. There was no Leung asking them anything prior nor are Dr. Weiss or Dr. Constantine’s prior or following statements given. We do not know what they were asked or what they were talking about. Again, they are single sentence quotes. Watch the movie again if you don’t believe me.

    Secondly, as I stated above, these are the words of Dr. Weiss and Constantine themselves, not mine. Dr. Weiss’ statement started with “The sound bites were extracted out of quite a long interview with me and presented out of context. In my recollection (I don't have a tape of the interview) Leung was pressing me about HIV antibody tests in reference to screening blood donations. When I said ‘I don't think the Western Blot is a useful diagnostic test; I don't think it's worth doing’, I was referring to relatively high throughput screening for blood banks…” Dr. Constantine’s statement begins with “What Mr. Leung has done is take our statements completely out of context

    HON has already been definitively shown to have altered the order of the test results presented during the Maggiore section. There is no reason to believe that Leung would suddenly have objected to doing so again. If he was unscrupulous enough to take test results out of order to support his belief, why would you think he wouldn’t be unscrupulous enough to do the same with sound bites, especially when it is just ONE SENTENCE WITH NO CONTEXT?


    Stop this bullshit already about taking Weiss's and Constantine's words out of context!!!

    I could say the same to you. My question to you is this; have you forgotten the order of the film or are you intentionally lying about it? I’ve watched it. Both of those sentences are given alone and with no context. Again, Dr. Weiss’ was given immediately after a clip of Gallo and Dr. Constantine’s immediately after a clip of Leung speaking with an African woman. The actual questions posed to them were not included in that same clip nor were what they said before or after those ONE SINGLE SENTENCES. Please tell me how you can deduce the context from this.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Poodle Stomper, I know that there are 300 hours of recorded interviews and these two interviews with Dr. Weiss and Dr. Constantine are not limited to those two questions in two separate interviews. When Leung will put exstended interviews with Weiss and Constantine on DVD release we'll see who's 100% correct about their statments, Until that happens claims of Wiess and Constantine's statments were taking out of context are just that Claims! We only have WORDS of both "scientists" no video proving their words. And, you bluntly without any proof believe their every single word.

    However, if you youtube HIV tests are hoax House of Numbers the un-cut version of Constantine and Leung interview you can see when camera starts rolling Leung says: "Ok, I'm gonna ask you ONE LAST QUESTION that pertains to my test I took in Africa...and then we'll go on to...Constantine interrupts: "And you want this on air...Leung:"Yes, I tested negative, it's ok...Constantine: "It's up to you, if you want to disclose your results...Now, if I'd tell you that the test you took is lousy and it didn't mean a thing, would that make any difference for anybody to hear?" Leung:" It would make a difference to me"...Constantine: "Yeah, I know you want for everybody to hear that to know that".

    Now, Leung says I AM GOING TO ASK YOU ONE MORE QUESTION. It was a new question( ONE MORE QUESTION) regarding HIV testing. Leung DID NOT start a question with something like "According to what you said, Dr. Constantine earlier that SOME INDIVIDUALS assamble lousy tests in their garages for sale in that particular part of South Africa where I took my HIV test, would it be fair to say that the test I took in Africa is also lousy and didn't mean a thing?" If Leung would have Constantine's knowledge of tests being made by SOME INDIVIDUALS in their garages for sale prior of asking that QUESTION, then, why bother to ask I'M GOING TO ASK YOU ONE LAST QUESTION ABOUT THE TEST I TOOK IN AFRICA already knowing they're lousy? Leung even says, it's ok I'm negative - he is confident he's not infected- he sounds confident about the outcome of his test in Africa! So, Leung's confidence only proves he didn't have a knowledge of these tests being lousy from Constantine before this last question. Ferstein??? Right away Constantine cuts Leung off without asking where EXACTLY in Africa he took the test and very confidently says the test he took was lousy. Once again, how does Constantine know that the test Leung took was ONE OF THOSE manufactured in the garage for sale by some individuals in Africa??? In his counter statment Constantine says that his words are being taking out of context, because him and Mr.Leung were discussing the accuracy and use of rapid tests being manufactured by some individuals in their garages for sale and that they don't get approved by expert organizations...thus his statment "If I tell you the test you took was lousy and didn't mean a thing" was taken by Mr.Leung out of context. Constantine did not emphasizes the fact him and Leung were discussing lousy prepared rapid tests particularly in Africa! Constantine's confidence in the interview makes us to believe that all(or many many many) freaging rapid HIV tests being used in the world worhtless and lousy!!! He EVEN says IF THAT MAKES ANY DIFFERENCE FOR ANYONE TO HEAR with a smile on his face like he thinks in his head "Yeah, I know the tests are lousy and nobody gives a damn to fix the situation." It's hilarious how you trying to twist the whole interview. Here's counter question - What makes you believe that what Weiss and Constantine are saying is true and what Leung says is false???

    ReplyDelete
  106. However, if you youtube HIV tests are hoax House of Numbers the un-cut version of Constantine and Leung interview you can see when camera starts rolling Leung says: "Ok, I'm gonna ask you ONE LAST QUESTION that pertains to my test I took in Africa...and then we'll go on to...

    Which begs the question; if that was the LAST question pertaining to the test he took in Africa, what were the previous ones? Again, no context is given as to the previous conversation. NONE. Even with the added footage, there is no clue given that reveals what was said previously.

    Similarly, even in the Youtube “extra footage” regarding the Western Blot does NOT give the context as to what the context was of their conversation. You seem obstinate in refusing to accept this despite the fact that it is painfully obvious that in both of these interviews there was much being discussed on these topics before the aired footage. What is needed is the ENTIRE uncut interview or, at the very least, the entire section pertaining to the WB. This is not given.

    And, you bluntly without any proof believe their every single word…It's hilarious how you trying to twist the whole interview. Here's counter question - What makes you believe that what Weiss and Constantine are saying is true and what Leung says is false???

    What makes me believe Weiss and Constantine over Leung? For one, as I’ve said before, HON has been definitively shown to have taken test results and place them out of order in order to support Maggiore’s story. So, given that HON has already done it once there is no reason for Leung to do it again. I have no reason to suspect Weiss and Constantine of lying. They are not the ones with the history of doing so.

    Now, having answered your "counter question", I counter your counter question. Watch the footage of Maggiore speaking and the tests. Do you deny that they are placed out of order? Why was it necessary to do this (and this is only an example, there are others)? Do you condone the manipulation of video footage to support a point of view? Can you think of any reason why Leung wouldn’t do so again? Can you trust anything in the movie if this is the standard used in producing it ?

    ReplyDelete
  107. Not to interrupt, but I thought I should update you on Bill's failure to respond after his Padian Rant.

    Bill has tried to comment a couple times saying that he will soon address the empirical literature review by Boily et al. on heterosexual transmission of HIV. He says he will be back with us after this week's football game.

    I remain hopeful that if Bill can realize there are a couple decades of research on sexual transmission of HIV he awaken Bill from his near AIDS Denialist stupor. But so far no such luck.

    ReplyDelete
  108. We only have WORDS of both "scientists" no video proving their words.

    This is completely and utterly absurd. If there is any doubt or ambiguity about the context of their statements then Weiss and Constantine are the people to ask for clarification and not Leung.

    Why do scientifically illiterate fools pretend that they understand what these scientists "really" meant better than the scientists themselves? What evidence would they accept that they are wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  109. Ok Ok, Poodle Stomper,

    Let's assume Dr.Weiss was taken out of context when talking about WB being used in "blood banks" to screen the blood. Remember! he said WB is not worth doing, it's not a useful diognostic test, it's been promoted into some sort of Holy Grail and that WB became a dogma in HIV research. Then, tell me this if Dr. Weiss WASN'T talking about WB being used for screening the blood in the blood banks, but as Leung claims, Dr.Weiss was TRULLY talking about WB being used as a follow up test FOR INDIVIDUAL CASES, HOW his statment about Western Blot being a dogma in the HIV research, being promoted into some sort of Holy Grail and being useless diognostic test, a test that is not worth doing WOULD BE ANY DIFFERENT??? According to Dr.Weiss logic, Western Blot would be NO LONGER a dogma in HIV research, a useless diagnostic test that he thinks is not worth doing and NO LONGER a Western Blot would be promoted into some sort of Holy Grail IF he was talking about an individual taking HIV test, right??? What would be he thoughts on WB being used for individual cases, it would no longer be a DOGMA, a HOLY GRAIL??? Hmmmm...interesting.

    Let's assume Dr.Constantine also was taken out of context. He describes some individuals getting parts for rapid HIV tests, assembling them in their garages for sale and that those rapid HIV tests don't get approved by expert organizations...Where did he get such detailed information? According to his knowledge and the fact he told Leung the rapid test Leung took was lousy, a) just how many people were misdiognosed with HIV? b) Leung was misdiognosed too? Finally, if there's so much confusion about so many tests to diognose people with HIV - Different countries use different tests, different criterias about the HIV protein bands, US uses WB( in fact WB, which is also happened to be a dogma in HIV research, is MANDATORY in US) England doesn't use WB, PCR's, viral loads, one ELISA, two ELISA'S, lousy rapid tests, "excellent" rapid tests - why then, there's an absence of ONE RELIABLE STANDARTIZED USED IN THE WHOLE ENTIRE WORLD HIV TEST? WHY, NOBODY IN 25 YEARS OF HIV RESEARCH CAME UP WITH AN IDEA OF CREATING ONE RELIABLE HIV TEST? BILLIONS OF DOLLARS HAVE BEEN SPEND AND WE STILL HAVE NOT ONE STANDART TEST FOR DIOGNOSING HIV!

    ReplyDelete
  110. You seem to have avoided directly answering my question so I will ask it again. Do you confirm or deny that the test results were presented out of order in HON?

    Let's assume Dr.Weiss was taken out of context when talking about WB being used in "blood banks" to screen the blood. Remember! he said WB is not worth doing, it's not a useful diognostic test, it's been promoted into some sort of Holy Grail and that WB became a dogma in HIV research.

    Indeed, Wiess’ own statement says “The sound bites were extracted out of quite a long interview with me and presented out of context. In my recollection (I don't have a tape of the interview) Leung was pressing me about HIV antibody tests in reference to screening blood donations. When I said ‘I don't think the Western Blot is a useful diagnostic test; I don't think it's worth doing’, I was referring to relatively high throughput screening for blood banks, and in the mid 1980s we did not yet have commercial dip stick Western Blot kits available.

    Then, tell me this if Dr. Weiss WASN'T talking about WB being used for screening the blood in the blood banks, but as Leung claims, Dr.Weiss was TRULLY talking about WB being used as a follow up test FOR INDIVIDUAL CASES…

    There is no reason to believe that Weiss “WASN’T talking about WB being used for screening the blood in the blood banks”. What he meant is made clear in the statement he had to make due to being quoted out of context. His whole statement can be seen here.


    Hmmmm...interesting.

    What is interesting (sad actually) is that both the people you are quoting have been so badly taken out of context that they had to write statements explaining what wasn’t included from the interview and why their 5 second sound bites don’t mean what Leung pretends it means. What is more interesting than that is why (as Chris pointed out) you seem to accept that Leung knows what they meant better than they do.


    Let's assume Dr.Constantine also was taken out of context. He describes some individuals getting parts for rapid HIV tests, assembling them in their garages for sale and that those rapid HIV tests don't get approved by expert organizations...Where did he get such detailed information?

    You would have to ask him. My question to you is this; if you don’t know where he got this information, why do you seem to prefer to see it as suspect rather than doing the research and finding out?


    According to his knowledge and the fact he told Leung the rapid test Leung took was lousy, a) just how many people were misdiognosed with HIV? b) Leung was misdiognosed too?

    Well I’m fairly certain that the hospitals do not go around to garages to buy their HIV tests so while some may test themselves with cheap, garage-purchased tests, an actual HIV+ or – diagnosis would not be made on those tests but rather on those with FDA approved quality control. If Leung took a home-assembled test then yes, as Dr. Weiss stated, the test should not be considered reliable. Quality control is extremely important in test manufacturing. Do you believe this should not be the case?


    Finally, if there's so much confusion about so many tests….WE STILL HAVE NOT ONE STANDART TEST FOR DIOGNOSING HIV!

    Your conversation with Snout regarding Gold Standards is not finished. I will let Snout answer your question regarding this.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Just chiming in..

    I think the demand for ONE STANDARD TEST FOR DIAGNOSING HIV is obviously bogus. Actually, it is great example of goal post moving.

    Saying there is not a single standard test for diagnosing HIV is like saying we do not have one standard mammogram for detecting breast masses because there are several different imaging machines available. You can say the same thing for all medical diagnostics.

    Name one medical diagnostic test that has ONE STANDARD TEST.

    Perhaps you are advocating a more natural means of diagnosing HIV infection, like David Crowe sticking his finger in your ear.

    There is a standard protocol for diagnosing HIV (using a sensitive ELISA test followed by a specific confirmatory test) and there are several reliable test kits for both. Why is this not standard enough?

    Take it away Snout...

    ReplyDelete
  112. Poodle, like I said earlier Wiess said "WESTERN BLOT HAS BEEN PROMOTED INTO SOME SORT OF HOLY GRAIL, IT'S BECAME A DOGMA IN HIV RESEARCH, WE DON'T NEED WESTERN BLOT." he doesn't think it's worth doing, it's useless. INDEED, you ommited the second part of my quot where I point out those facts. And did not answer to my question. Whether Weiss was taking out of context or not he's belief about WB becoming A DOGMA IN HIV RESEARCH remains the same. Jo understand? Whether he talks about BLOOD BANKS or INDIVIDUAL CASES he believs WB BECAME A DOGMA IN HIV RESEARCH AND HAS BEEN PROMOTED INTO SOME SORT OF HOLY GRAIL!

    What he says is trully scary! WB supose to be specific and confirm whether person, people trully have an infection and now we hear it doesn't worth a load of dog's poo.

    Seth says there's a protocol for diognosing HIV( using sensitive ELISA, followed by a "specific confirmatory" test)

    Seth, would you please give me the name for that second "specific confirmatory" test?

    ReplyDelete
  113. Seth on Meth mumbles, Name one medical diagnostic test that has ONE STANDARD TEST.

    Answer: The granny test for measles. Look at the abdomen of the afflicted one and if there are red rashes then they have it. 100 percent specific.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Anonymous on Dope (why do you think they call you stupid?)

    The granny test...easy for you to say. My Granny worked for Glaxo. How could I trust her?

    And don't go telling me measles is caused by some 'virus'. We all know it is caused by too much bleach in the laundry.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Of course I am referring to Western Blot. But you have taken car of that.

    Because you say WB tests are invalid and pick some quotes to prove your case, I guess I am just wrong.

    I have to go and inform the entire world of science and medicine that they are wrong too and that they have wrongly diagnosed millions of people with an infection they do not have caused by a virus that does not exist.

    You are such a genius! Please tell us your name so we can nominate you for a Nobel Prize!

    ReplyDelete
  116. Seth: "Measles caused by too much bleach in the laundry." Your sense of humor just as bad as your gray matter.

    "HIV" tests are inaccurate, unreliable, useless and MUST be banned ASAP!!!

    What are those tests are trying to look for... for antibodies...antibodies for what? They look for some proteins "UNIQUE" to "HIV", I thought "HIV"negative people also have those "UNIQUE" proteins in their blood!? Even dogs! Oh, hold on one second they look for some particles...particles of what "virus"? Where is that "virus"? Have you seen it? Have you look at it through the microscope? You say what? It has been isolated from EVERY SINGLE AIDS patient? Get out of here! Or was it just a pool of genetic waste? Ahhh! That viscious retrovirus( that makes millions of copies every single day) is ever so asleep(sometimes for how many years he's asleep? 10, 15, 20 years, holy shit!) retrovirus that "jump" from monkey? Eh! That darn monkey infected the whole damn population of the planet earth! Jabat' tu obezjanu! Shob jej bilo pusto! That's some trulley unique properties THAT ever so elusive retrovirus possess. What Dr. Weiss said about Western Blot test? It's been promoted into Holy Grail, it's a Dogma in "HIV" research?? No shit!! I'd say "HIV" researchers have been chasing Holy Ghost for 25some years. Yep! As much as it hurts to hear, they did. Amen!

    ReplyDelete
  117. What he says is trully scary! WB supose to be specific and confirm whether person, people trully have an infection and now we hear it doesn't worth a load of dog's poo.

    Let’s see if you can understand this. I’ll try to make it so simple that a 3-year old could get it. HIV testing using the standard ELISA requires a second, confirmatory test. Traditionally this has been the WB. The WB takes a lot of time, skill and money to run. Studies have explored the use of other tests (using a different method than the initial ELISA) as confirmatory tests (I can provide links to such studies if you are truly interested). Some of these are much quicker to run, simpler, and less costly. It is probably to this that Weiss is referring. This would certainly fall in line with him speaking of blood banks. Again, there is nothing in Dr. Weiss’ statement (when taken in the correct context) that goes against mainstream HIV research, nor is he saying it “ it doesn't worth a load of dog's poo”. When taken OUT of context, however denialists can pretend it means whatever they want. Unfortunately, it also makes very obvious their intellectual dishonesty.

    Now, speaking of intellectual dishonesty, please answer my previous question (which you have now 3 times avoided answering); do you confirm or deny that the tests displayed in HON as Maggiore’s tests were placed out of chronological order to fit her version of the story? Do you condone HON doing this? How do you justify your trust in a movie that does this?

    ReplyDelete
  118. What is really important to realize about Constantine/Weiss/Montagnier et al regarding HoN is this:
    Why would these scientists tell a complete stranger weilding a camera nonetheless, that everything that has been discovered about HIV, including that which they themselves discovered, is bogus and bull shit? IF this is some big secret conspiracy that they are hiding from the world, why would they all of a sudden break down in front of an amateur videographer and reveal these deep, dark secrets?
    The only logical answer (and I certainly realize these AIDS Denialists do not think nor act logically)is that they were edited out of context! Think about it!
    JTD

    ReplyDelete
  119. "HIV" tests are inaccurate, unreliable, useless and MUST be banned ASAP!!!”

    And globes of the Earth are made by the Round-Earther NASA corporation. They must all be banned because a small but vocal group of idiots think the earth is flat! Get to it! ASAP!

    What are those tests are trying to look for... for antibodies...antibodies for what? They look for some proteins "UNIQUE" to "HIV", I thought "HIV"negative people also have those "UNIQUE" proteins in their blood!?

    You betray your complete lack of understanding of ELISAs and Western Blots. HIV- people do not have HIV proteins in their blood. There are the rare cases of false positives but a false positive does not mean they have HIV proteins in their blood. Any ELISA (hell, just about any test) will have these rare false positives because ELISAs are designed to be extremely sensitive. Are you disputing the use of ELISAs elsewhere in science as well, say to determine antibody presence and titer to the chicken pox virus?? How about the use of ELISAs for detection of exposure to syphilis? Do you also disagree with the use of ELISAs and Western blots for detection of herpes simplex? All of those have rates of false positives due to the very nature of the test. Does that make the tests invalid or do you simply disagree with their use for HIV? If just for HIV, then why?

    You babble on and on and yet you can’t seem to answer my one, simple question. Do you confirm or deny that Maggiore’s tests were presented out of chronological order in HON so that they might fit her story? Why do you trust a movie that would do that?

    And JT makes a good point. Which is more likely; that a bunch of scientists in on a huge global conspiracy all slipped up in front of an amateur film maker with cameras pointed at them or that they were simply quoted out of context? Occam's Razor my friend.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Boily et al. An exercise replete with specious statistical mumbo jumbo for "science" which was supposed to have been "settled" long ago. Why go through such contortions if HIV "science" has been "settled" as the orthodoxy are wont to ramble on about?

    ReplyDelete
  121. Poodle Stomper,

    Christine's Maggiore tests results were NOT taking out of chronolagical order.

    HIV tests can not be used for diognostic purposes simply because HIV was never isolated.

    Just like you said yourself Poodle, ELISA is sensitive and only shows the presence of antibodies that anyone can have! Then you say ELISA requires a secong confirmatory test. Tradicionally it's WB. I know it's time consuming, but if it's "specific" and a requirement it must be performed to make sure that the person is "trully" infected.

    According to Dr. Weiss we don't need useless, not worth doing WB, it's a Holy Grail, it became a dogma in HIV research. It's even more scary that only ELISA has been used to screen the blood of thousands! ELISA is sensitive test, it's not looking for virus itself, it only reacts with antibodies that were supposedly produced by the ones body to fight off infection NOBODY EVER ISOLATED!

    Of course, Poodle, I was talking about about uselessness of ELISA and WB in bull shit HIV research. And the statments "WB is not worth a load of dog's poo" is mine Poodle, not Dr. Weiss.

    Poodle, studies have explored the use of other tests? Really? 25 years later and we still don't have reliable confirmatiory HIV tests, we only exploring confirmatory tests? Only a Holy Grail? Wow! Bravo! So much for the greatest research in the bull shit HIV science! I wonder just how many thousands of people were misdiognosed on The Holy Grail of HIV bull shit science???

    JTDESHONG, no conspiracy! "the scientists" know that what they're working on is bull shit based science. Watch the movie again and see how much they stumbble and mumbble on the fundamentals of bull shit HIV science. They contradict each other, one even says looking at the supose picture of HIV that it is PWOBABLY HIV. Indeed, after 25 years elusive, ever so sleepy or hibernating HIV it's still only a PWOBABAL cause of AIDS!

    ADIOS AMIGOS!!!

    ReplyDelete
  122. "Boily et al. An exercise replete with specious statistical mumbo jumbo for "science" which was supposed to have been "settled" long ago..."

    You AIDS Deniers are more fun by the day.

    Boily et al. is a review of the current literature on heterosexual transmission of HIV. A complicated problem. It is not that we know everything about HIV transmission. In fact there is a lot we do not know. A hell of a lot. That is why the science continues to advance.

    Here is the problem. You AIDS Deniers like Bill rant and rave about how Padian proved that HIV is not sexually transmitted. It is easy to show how idiotic that argument is. So rather than picking a single old study to death, I asked Bill to read and discuss a simple review article published last year in The Lancet. That was going on 2 weeks ago. Bill keeps trying to post comments..saying that he is getting to it after he watches football games. He also wants to switch topics to something about H1N1 virus. Nope.. no topic switching.

    The reality is Bill never read Padian. He would not know how. Just like he cannot read Boily et al. There are no webpages at VirusMyth or Rethinking AIDS to rip one liners off from about Boily et al. The task actually requires reading, thinking, and analyzing.

    I'm still waiting for Bill.

    But hey, why don't some of you other AIDS Deniers help him out. Go ahead, make my day.

    And also.. those were not Maggiore's HIV test results in House of ButtHeads. Thanks for confirming that.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Christine's Maggiore tests results were NOT taking out of chronolagical order.

    Really? Did you go back to double check the sequence or are you simply making this up? The first test shown as Maggiore’s initial test is dated 2/24/1992. Her second test shown is not dated. After the second test she says she chose to take the test right away rather than wait 6 weeks. The test shown (that she supposedly took “right away” is dated
    September 23, 1993. The patient’s age on the test is 40 (Maggiore was 37 then). She says she took it again and it came back negative. This 4th test is dated Aug 9th, 1993 (did she travel backwards in time?). Go back and look it up. Tell me, do you condone this kind of manipulating?


    HIV tests can not be used for diognostic purposes simply because HIV was never isolated.

    Only a truly scientifically illiterate fool would believe this. HIV has been isolated thousands and thousands of times. You betray your lack of understanding of biology, specifically virology. Tell me, what required criteria have not been met in the countless isolations of HIV and what peer-reviewed references mandate them?


    Just like you said yourself Poodle, ELISA is sensitive and only shows the presence of antibodies
    Correct so far…
    that anyone can have!
    Oh so wrong! Tell me, do you know what the rate of false positives are? To which references are you referring when you say that “anyone can have these”? I certainly did not say this.

    Then you say ELISA requires a secong confirmatory test. Tradicionally it's WB. I know it's time consuming, but if it's "specific" and a requirement it must be performed to make sure that the person is "trully" infected. According to Dr. Weiss we don't need useless, not worth doing WB, it's a Holy Grail, it became a dogma in HIV research. It's even more scary that only ELISA has been used to screen the blood of thousands!

    What Weiss said about his out-of-context quote was “When I said ‘I don't think the Western Blot is a useful diagnostic test; I don't think it's worth doing’, I was referring to relatively high throughput screening for blood banks, and in the mid 1980s we did not yet have commercial dip stick Western Blot kits available. In retrospect, it would have been better for me to say: ‘I don't think the Western Blot was a useful primary screening test’.” If you still don’t understand what that means perhaps you could find yourself a good translator to translate it into Russian for you.

    -Continued

    ReplyDelete
  124. - Continued from previous post

    ELISA is sensitive test, it's not looking for virus itself, it only reacts with antibodies that were supposedly produced by the ones body to fight off infection NOBODY EVER ISOLATED!

    Again, simply because you don’t understand isolation doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened. ELISAs are used to detect antibodies to other chronic pathogens such as herpes simples, syphilis. Are you saying that, because these tests have rare false positives (more than the HIV test, if I recall correctly) that the tests are useless? Do you dispute the existence of these diseases?

    Poodle, studies have explored the use of other tests? Really? 25 years later and we still don't have reliable confirmatiory HIV tests, we only exploring confirmatory tests?

    You seem to be misunderstanding. Perhaps it is the language barrier or perhaps you are simply trying hard to support your little faith. Let me say this in plain English: The studies to which I was referring were looking at alternative confirmatory testing protocols that would replace the slower and more technically difficult Western Blot. This would be advantageous in third world countries. That is not to say we do not have a reliable confirmatory test but that they were exploring ALTERNATIVES! Get it?


    Watch the movie again and see how much they stumbble and mumbble on the fundamentals of bull shit HIV science. They contradict each other, one even says looking at the supose picture of HIV that it is PWOBABLY HIV.

    Are you still putting your faith in that movie? The one that quotes out of context and displays the wrong tests to support their view? Perhaps you wish to consider the inconsistencies among denialists. You say HIV was never isolated (hilarious, by the way) but Duesberg disagrees. He says it was isolated and even tried to claim the Perth Group’s prize. Others claim HIV was created in a government lab or even by aliens.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Poodle Stomper, you are a real actor, dude. Thumbs up! Weiss WAS saying that it would be better for him to say: "I don't think WB WAS a useful confirmatory test." Yet he WAS talking about the present situation with WB, NOT PAST. Aj jaj jaj!!! Poodle, Poodle, you are true con artist. You are still playing on Weiss being taking out of context.

    LISTEN TO THE INTERVIEW CAREFULY. Leung asks Weiss: "In an effort to make WB more specific, why DON'T they ( NOT why DIDN'T they) up to criteria from two bands to like four or five?" They are talking about the present, Poodie! We all know that WB tests were NOT available in the mid 80-ies for HIV testing and yet Weiss claims that back then, in the 80-ies WB wasn't a useful primary screening test. How could that be? They didn't have it, yet it wasn't a useful test! Also Leung talks about to up the criteria from 2 bands to 4 or 5 to make WB more specific, to improve it NOW, in the present " Why DON'T they" Furthermore, Weiss's statments only prove that WB is WORTHLESS regardless whether it was used in the past or in the present. Jo comprende? Why is it so difficult for you understand that?

    You say that perhaps Weiss was talking about "ALTERNATIVE" to WB tests that researchers are "working" right now on...still waitind for the links from you on those studies...but he said that he "doesn't think WB is a USEFUL diognostic test, it's WORTH doing" "diognostic test says is the person is infected, you don't need a WB, it's a prognostic test" which means all the people who were tested positive on ELISA ( which is not a diognostic test, but only sensitive - non specific) and later DIAGNOSED on WB are trully not HIV infected, becuase WB is NOT A USEFUL DIOGNOSTIC TEST!!! IT IS A PILE OF DOG'S SHIT!!!

    ReplyDelete
  126. PoodleStomper.. at some point we have to ask what is the point? Anonymous probably has nothing better to do than this circular dance.

    And Anonymous, the question to you is why?

    Why would the medical establishment say that WB is a reliable confirmation of HIV infection if it is total crap? Why would every medical scientist in the world accept WB as a confirmatory test? For the money??

    If WB were invalid, we would have to use PCR to confirm. Or a different more expensive antigen test. While WB is more expensive than ELISA it is not the most expensive option.

    Re: the pile of dog shit...you smelt you dealt it.

    And how about a Bill & Boily et al. Update? Not a peep. I figure with no picked cherries to pluck from AIDS Deniers websites (like he did with Padian) Bill has gone to Crowe and Bauer for help with his task. But guess what? Neither Crowe nor Bauer could read Boily et al. They can not even scale the tree much less pick cherries from this one.

    It does not take much to see where the dog shit is here. Just an ounce of rationality.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Seth, how about YOU gonna provide us with prove that "HIV" kills T-cells, how exactly "HIV" kills T-cells and causes AIDS? And, maybe, oditionaly it would be also great to get a proof of corellation between CD4 cell depletion and viral load? Would you, please, enlighten us on this glorious study of "HIV=AIDS"? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Seth,
    You are correct that it isn't a very good use of time but I don't mind when it shows so well the lengths denialists will go to in order to keep their little faith afloat.

    Anonymous,
    Weiss WAS saying that it would be better for him to say: "I don't think WB WAS a useful confirmatory test." Yet he WAS talking about the present situation with WB, NOT PAST...LISTEN TO THE INTERVIEW CAREFULY. Leung asks Weiss: "In an effort to make WB more specific, why DON'T they ( NOT why DIDN'T they) up to criteria from two bands to like four or five?" They are talking about the present, Poodie!

    OK, anonymous. Listen very carefully. There is no indication as to what they were discussing prior to that quote. Hence why there is NO CONTEXT. Perhaps Leung phrased his question knowing that by doing so he could take the sound bite the way he wanted it. The point is that NO CONTEXT IS GIVEN as to what was being discussed. You may not like it because it doesn’t fit into your own little version of reality and you can assume all you want but in the end, Dr. Weiss made it very clear what he meant.

    HOWEVER, if you believe that you are privy to the entire context of the interviews in the movie then please, recite for me word for word what was being discussed by Dr. Weiss and Leung JUST prior to the quote they show. It sure isn’t mentioned in the “uncut” Youtube video nor is it in the actual movie. Oh yeah, and provide a reference for this.


    You say that perhaps Weiss was talking about "ALTERNATIVE" to WB tests that researchers are "working" right now on...still waitind for the links from you on those studies

    I said I would provide some of the studies IF you requested them. You did not request them so I did not provide them.

    However, I have asked you some questions that you have yet to answer. So here you go again:

    1) Did you go back and check the order of Maggiore’s tests in HON before stating they were not out of order? If so why did you not catch the very obvious magical time-traveling tests? Are you so simple-minded that you cannot read dates or lying to avoid admitting the shady tactics used in producing the movie?

    2) What criteria were not met in your definition of isolation that would cause you to say HIV was never isolated (granted I realize that you don’t think these things through but rather just read and repeat things on denialist sites)? What (credible) references do you have that show such criteria are mandatory?

    Once you can show that you are capable of reading dates and providing the references you should have had for your previous claims I will be more than happy to provide you with further references on the use of alternate testing protocols. Until then you’ll have to wait.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Anonymous, try

    AIDS: 31 May 2007 - Volume 21 - Issue 9 - p 1185-1197

    See Table 2. Those who had the best virological response (HIV RNA < log 2.7 copies/ml) had the lowest hazard ratio for AIDS or death.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Anonymous,
    "Seth, how about YOU gonna provide us with prove that "HIV" kills T-cells, how exactly "HIV" kills T-cells and causes AIDS?"

    You can start by reading a very brief sumamry of proof that HIV kills T-cells here. It only has 20ish references but they are all cited in case you actually want to read them for yourself (which is doubtful).

    ReplyDelete
  131. Anonymous
    You should first thank Chris and Poodle Stomper for taking you serious and offering you a couple references to answer your question.

    For my part, I have pointed out that this is my author's blog for Denying AIDS. The focus is on AIDS Denialism. The purpose of this blog, just like the book, is not to debate whether HIV causes AIDS or provide evidence for questions answered very well in many places. The answers to you questions are also found in very readable websites...

    http://www.thebody.com/
    http://aidstruth.org/

    ReplyDelete
  132. Yes Seth they are very readable sites. Just like Lord of the Rings and many other fictional novels. Shame Boily's paper wasn't as readable, I count the word "Estimate" 5 times in 2 paragraphs and a conclusion of "not clearly understood", marvelous proof, you've swayed me from the dark side. Just wished they hadn't gathered the data in ante natal clinics in africa for obvious reasons. Oh, and it's a bit racist claiming that most of them lied about their sexual habits just to manipulate the data.

    Just another sham snakeoil example from AIDS Inc, sadly you swallow it all completely like every other non thinker just because it is published in the Lancet or JAIDS, just as priests follow the gospels blindly and without question.

    None are so blind as those that refuse to see.

    ReplyDelete
  133. That is great Anonymous. Glad you could read (although not understand?) Boily et al. Too bad you have to rely on the likes of Duesberg, Bauer and Rasnick to make sense of it all. Kind of like a reality check from a schizophrenic.

    But at least you read the paper...far more than old Bill can say.

    Congratulations! I will continue to post your comments on my very readable blog!

    ReplyDelete
  134. Has anybody read Vladimir's Koliadin hypothesis on Destruction of normal resident microflora? Apparently the prevalance of OI in predominantly gay AIDS patients have nothing to do with the immunity. Gay men are known for taking broad-spectrum antibacterial and antimicrobal antibiotics. They are also known for indulging in colon clense. Those two procedures result in destruction and removal of friendly microflora from the gut, lungs, mucous membranes, skin. Friendly flora plays immidiate role in digestion, utilization of food as well as in production of vitamins. Various species of friendly microorganisms prevent various areas of organism from colonization of other species of microorganisms, including potentially pathogenic species, due to successful ecological competition with the latter.

    Just destruction of the normal resident microflora ( not deficiency of the T-lymphocites) is the factor which makes the individuals highly susceptible to bacterial and parasitic OI.

    Normally helpful good beneficial bacteria help keep fungi such as PCP and candidiasis in check, but in the absence of such flora, they emerge as oppotunistic infections....


    Also, receptive anal sex desturb the microflora found in the mucosal lining of the intestinal tract.

    Koliadin's hypothesis makes a lot of sense and explains why HIV=AIDS fails on many levels. A must read!

    ReplyDelete
  135. That is some of the stupidest crap I've ever heard! "Gay men are known for taking broad-spectrum antibacterial and antimicrobal antibiotics"? Really? You're telling me that no one else uses antibiotics? Please show me real references that show that "Just destruction of the normal resident microflora ( not deficiency of the T-lymphocites) is the factor which makes the individuals highly susceptible to bacterial and parasitic OI."

    "Koliadin's hypothesis makes a lot of sense and explains why HIV=AIDS fails on many levels."

    Simply because neither you nor Vladdy seem to understand HIV doesn't mean that is "fails". In all honesty it just means you are not capable of grasping the complex subject of virology, immunology, epidemiology and general biology. I would suggest looking other places than denialist websites for your information.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Poodle Stomper..This sounds like Tony Lance and the leaky gut theory of AIDS. Did you know that leaky gut is also blamed for how vaccines cause autism? Amazes me how crazy ideas become transferable across such different conditions. Wasn't leaky gut once a theory of schizophrenia?

    ReplyDelete
  137. Poodle, of course heterosexuals also use antibiotics. In fact, permanent use of broad-spectrum antibiotics is prescribed to many HIV seropositives and to most AIDS patients as an apparent prophilaxis against OI. You know that very well. My friend who was diognosed with HIV over a year ago was given antibiotics as a profilactic measure to prevent PCP. Why would his doctor give him antibiotics if he didn't have any symptoms of Pneumonia whatsoever?

    I specificaly mentioned seropositive gay men because they considerate to be in the higher risk group of getting HIV. A lot of them do abuse antibiotics to prevent or treat STD's. Upon sreoconversion they are prescribed more antibiotics whether asymptomatic or not + depending on their numbers of T-cells count and viral load they might be prescribed antiretroviral medications which are known to have serious side effects. A large amounts of medications, especially antibiotics can lead to serious intestinal problems: suppresed friendly bacterial flora of the gut, problems with digestion of the food, problems of the absorbtion of nutrients, vitamins, minerals and yes, Seth, leaky gut syndrme is one of those intestinal problems as well. The body becomes suceptable to many infections, pathogens and can no longer fight them off.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Yep, "Leaky gut" has been and will no doubt continue to be blamed for everything by those who peddle woo. I've heard people blame "leaky gut" for just about every problem under the sun.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Poodle, I don't blame leaky gut for AIDS. There are many more contributive factors to the development of AIDS, than HIV virus alone.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Anonymous,
    "Poodle, of course heterosexuals also use antibiotics. In fact, permanent use of broad-spectrum antibiotics is prescribed to many HIV seropositives and to most AIDS patients as an apparent prophilaxis against OI. You know that very well."

    When I was in South America many of the doctors that went with us took prophylactic broad-spectrum antibiotics regularly to avoid the nasties found in the water. Guess what? None of them developed AIDS. Of course they were also all HIV-.

    If you are going to go on about this then please provide credible references to show that antibiotic abuse can cause the kind of OIs observed in AIDS patients. For that matter it should be a trivial matter to show credible supporting evidence that taking probiotics or whatnot would reverse AIDS.


    "My friend who was diognosed with HIV over a year ago was given antibiotics as a profilactic measure to prevent PCP. Why would his doctor give him antibiotics if he didn't have any symptoms of Pneumonia whatsoever?"

    As for your story about your friend a) I have no evidence other than your word that it is real, b) I'm not his doctor so I wouldn't know why he was prescribed what.

    "I specificaly mentioned seropositive gay men because they considerate to be in the higher risk group of getting HIV. A lot of them do abuse antibiotics to prevent or treat STD's."

    Please provide credible references to support this claim. You'll have to excuse me if I don't just take someone's word for it, especially if they swallow whole crap from the likes of Vladimir Koliadin.


    "A large amounts of medications, especially antibiotics can lead to serious intestinal problems: suppresed friendly bacterial flora of the gut, problems with digestion of the food, problems of the absorbtion of nutrients, vitamins, minerals..."

    I agree that some intestinal problems can occur from high amounts of antibiotic use. HOWEVER, it is on YOU to prove that this can cause the symptoms seen in AIDS patients. If you cannot provide credible references for this then it is just another kooky hypothesis with no supporting evidence. You may as well be claiming that alien spirits are clinging to our bodies and causing illnesses.

    Lastly, Vladimir Koliadin works in aviation. If you are willing to take his word on HIV (a very complex topic) over that of biologists, would you conversely choose to fly a plane that I (as a biologist) built over one built by an aviation expert? I sure as hell wouldn't! Think of what kind of credibility the sources you choose have in the relevant field.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Still no Bill on Boily et al. Maybe I should have given Bill something easier to read? It seems he cannot quite figure out how to refute the studies that have repeatedly shown HIV transmission among heterosexual couples, INCLUDING PADIAN's RESEARCH. It is impossible to reconcile Boily et al. with the trash and cherry picking found on AIDS Denialist websites. This will probably be the last time I mention it

    ReplyDelete
  142. Poodle, you've been negative and very disrespectful. I've never said probiotics will reverse AIDS. I've never mentioned probiotics. I've never said anything about aliens. Thank God you're not my friend's doctor!

    I don't know the administration frequency of anibiotic prophylaxis by the doctors you went with to South Africa. You might be lying about "regularly". I'd rather trust Koliadin than you. HIV is not the reason people develop AIDS.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Poodle Stomper...you need bigger boots to stomp out these buggers. Personally I have found you to have the patients of a Saint. 95% of people ignore AIDS Deniers and only a couple of people actually interact with them on an information basis...that would be you, Chris, Snout, and Todd.

    Anonymous, "HIV is not the reason people develop AIDS"

    What does that mean?? Do you mean it is not HIV itself that kills people, only the opportunistic illnesses that people with AIDS develop after HIV destroys their immune system? Is that what you mean, because you are wrong. HIV dementia, HIV's effects on cerebral blood vessels, Chronic diarrhea caused by HIV, and other direct effects of HIV disease kill people....and of course opportunistic illnesses.

    Poodles Stomper, are we done here?

    ReplyDelete
  144. Seth, I think people give too much attention to your fucktard website. Go back to your closet and enjoy 17mil you've received for defending "the truth". I hope you throw some mula to your loyal dogs: Snout, Poodle Stoomper, JTDeshong. Good Bye!

    ReplyDelete
  145. By the way, Seth. Does HIV also responsible for AIDS in Africa?

    ReplyDelete
  146. Seth,
    I'm curious if Anonymous can indeed present evidence that directly supports his ideas.

    Anonymous,
    You have made the following claims based on Vladdy's BS.

    1)"Apparently the prevalance of OI in predominantly gay AIDS patients have nothing to do with the immunity."

    (Really? That's odd since AIDS defining diseases such as Kaposi Sarcoma, disseminated herpes, ect... mainly occur in the immune suppressed.)

    2)"Just destruction of the normal resident microflora ( not deficiency of the T-lymphocites) is the factor which makes the individuals highly susceptible to bacterial and parasitic OI."

    3)"Normally helpful good beneficial bacteria help keep fungi such as PCP and candidiasis in check, but in the absence of such flora, they emerge as oppotunistic infections..."

    and finally

    4)"Also, receptive anal sex desturb the microflora found in the mucosal lining of the intestinal tract."

    So, I ask what EVIDENCE you have to support this?

    "I'd rather trust Koliadin than you."

    The question here is why? Why are you are taking the word of an aviation scientist over that of biologists (not just me but those biologists who have hands-on experience HIV) then you must have some pretty compelling evidence, right?

    I wouldn't trust my skills as a biologist to help me build a working airplane, why do you trust Vladdy's skills in aviation to come up with a working theory on AIDS?

    You should also explain what you mean by "Koliadin's hypothesis makes a lot of sense and explains why HIV=AIDS fails on many levels."
    How does the causality of HIV to AIDS "fail"?

    ReplyDelete
  147. @Poodle Stomper,

    What evidence do you have to support claims that HIV has been properly isolated in controlled conditions as a whole unique retrovirus with principal morphological characteristics of a retrivirus? Not HIV patircles, not HIV proteins, not virus-like in appearance virus, but isolated in controlled conditions as a whole unique to retroviruses HIV.

    ReplyDelete
  148. "What evidence do you have to support claims that HIV has been properly isolated..."

    Gee, I dunno. It could be the hundreds and thousands of isolations done in the past. It could be the mountain of publications documenting isolations and the analysis of the resulting viruses. Take your pick.

    You, however, seem to be deliberately avoiding my question. I asked which criteria you felt had not been met in all of the past isolations of HIV. If you feel these criteria have not been met do you have any real references to show that such criteria are mandatory? Can you provide these references? I would hope you can. You wouldn't make a claim without having evidence to back it up...would you?

    ReplyDelete
  149. Seth et al,

    why do you come off as being arrogant, condescending and/or vile? do you really need to ridicule others to make your points?

    please try to be more civil and openly look at the evidence instead of just simply bashing others.

    -a

    ReplyDelete