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.

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Death by denial: The campaigners who continue to deny HIV causes Aids

As each of their followers dies, those who campaign against HIV treatments simply move on to the next level of denial
By Brian Deer, The Guardian, February 21, 2012

Karri Stokely is a poster girl for a different way to look at health. After receiving an Aids diagnosis in 1996, at the age of 29, she was treated for 11 years with a cocktail of drugs. But then she saw an internet video saying that HIV was a hoax, stopped taking her medicines – and felt terrific.

"I'm not getting any answers from the mainstream as to why I'm healthy, and why my husband is negative, and why I can quit these drugs," she explains in her own video, which is currently being promoted online. "I think it's a crime. It's crimes against humanity."

Her doctor was aghast – HIV treatment is for life. "He looked me right in the eyes and said: 'You have done a very stupid thing, and you will be dead very soon,'" Stokely recalls. "My response to him was: 'That's funny, because right now I'm feeling pretty good.'"

That was in April 2007. She died four years later, so her comments are a postcard from the past. "Karri Stokely passed away on April 27th 2011,"explains a website run by London journalist Joan Shenton. "She said she wouldn't go quietly so we are keeping her moving interview below on our homepage."

But Stokely's path (via pneumonia) was already well trodden. Dying in denial is a phenomenon. The first traveller on this path I knew was an American singer, Michael Callen, author of a self-help book, Surviving Aids. It was published by HarperCollins in 1990. Three years later, Mikey died.

Shenton is Britain's premier critic of what she calls the "completely wrong" science of HIV. Her site offers as examples the cases of Jody Wells and Huw Christie, the first two editors of a fringe magazineContinuum. Both chose not to follow medical advice and found death.

"We're waking up to the truth and the more of us that survive and live on in health to beat the odds, the more the lie will be shown up for what it is," Wells wrote in May 1994, 16 months before he passed away.

That was just before new therapies transformed life expectancy, and saw many young men who might have followed his denial path rise from their deathbeds and go dancing.

Shenton's site also showcases material on Christine Maggiore, a Californian businesswoman who helped found an international group, now called "Alive and Well Aids Alternatives". That was before her three-year-old HIV-positive daughter died of pneumonia and, in 2008, her own death.

"This was a woman of class, grace, integrity and wisdom," comments Stokely on an internet memorial wall put up after Maggiore's funeral. "From the time we found out 'the truth' surrounding the Aids debacle, Christine had always made herself available for help and guidance."

Here are intelligent, well-educated, idealistic people who wrestle their freedom from the grip of morbid sickness, big pharma products and despair. There's a heroic quality about storming towards your destiny, arms outstretched, eyes wide.

These crusaders' passing, however, gives paradoxical power to those who ushered them along in their journey. Like many health and science cranks (and shrewd defence lawyers), those who persist in the assertion that Aids isn't infectious brandish their embarrassments, thrust them in your face, before moving to the next level of denial.

Shenton, who is now archiving a quarter century of uninterrupted campaigning, assures me on the phone that "Karri is very important".

"I think she died from the side-effects of the drugs. She'd stopped taking them, but she'd been taking them for about 10 years before."

There's no answer to that, of course, but while Shenton comes across as the queen of denial, its pharaoh also has some words on Maggiore's fate. According to Peter Duesberg, the scientist who fathered this philosophy, about 6% of deaths in the over 50s are from pneumonia, and "she is one of those."

"Big deal," he snaps about her death, in a frankly barking podcast interview. "It's nothing. It's consistent with everything I know."

Two weeks' from now, Duesberg, 74, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, celebrates (and I have to suppose he will) 25 years of this stuff. For it was on 1 March 1987 that, in a 22-page paper, he set out his case that HIV is harmless.

"It is concluded," he declared in the journal Cancer Research, "that Aids virus is not sufficient to cause Aids and that there is no evidence, besides its presence in a latent form, that it is necessary for Aids."

Thus was born the "Duesberg hypothesis", which his critics say has led to sickness and death far beyond white, middle-class eccentrics. By some reckonings, in South Africa alone the denialist convictions of former president Thabo Mbeki led to more than 300,000 premature fatalities and 35,000 preventable infant infections.

In fact, Aids denialism predates the Duesberg hypothesis. It was born in the first months of the epidemic. Even in 1981, when I wrote my first report, there were what I then called "two competing hypotheses" for the disease, which had just been spotted by US government epidemiologists among East and West Coast gay men.

One proposed an infection, the other a crummy "lifestyle". And little has changed since then. Although science backed the first, the second limped on, blaming recreational drugs, pharmaceuticals and sexual practices in developed countries, and water, bugs and nutrition in Africa.

The website that features Stokely and Maggiore on its front page proclaims that it is "Rethinking Aids", but as 25 years have been torn from the calendar, little has been rethought. They still say HIV is harmless, or doesn't exist, and that leading Aids scientists are "criminals". Heterosexuals don't get sick from HIV and millions of Africans aren't infected. And there's apparently a global conspiracy to conceal this.

"My secret to staying healthy is really nothing magical," explains Stokely, meanwhile, in her, perhaps eternal, message in a bottle. "I think a very, very large part of it, as with any diagnosis you get, is the biology of belief. The mind is very, very strong on the health of the human body."

Brian Deer was named UK specialist journalist of the year at the 2011 British Press Awards

234 comments:

  1. And Clarkie will make an idiotic comment in 3...2...1...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Clearly if you were a lawyer you'd spend your days chasing ambulances.

    Sad that you put so much effort in to such twisted activities

    ReplyDelete
  3. Chasing ambulances?
    You mean the way AIDS Deniers like Maniotis, Farber, Crowe, and Duesberg chase and exploit people who have tested positive for HIV? Like Karri Stokely? You mean that kind of chasing?
    I just don't think so.
    If I were a lawyer I would be launching a Class Action with families of those who have died against Rethinking AIDS. Yep, that's what I would be doing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. > aniotis, Farber, Crowe, and Duesberg chase
      > and exploit people who have tested positive
      > for HIV?

      Antibody tests are not valid surrogates of virus detection, for all antibodies are heterophile and promiscuous.

      If you don't know what those words mean look it up!

      About 30% of people have at least one "hiv" antibody in their blood, that's how absurd the assumption is:

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2230270

      Frequency of indeterminate western blot tests in healthy adults at low risk for human immunodeficiency virus infection.

      " 32% (low risk controls) had indeterminate Western blot tests, most of which demonstrated a single band of lowintensity. The most common bands
      were p24 (47%), GAG p17 p55 (34%), and POL p31 p66 (36%); envelope bands were unusual (gp41, 2%; gp120, 2%)."

      Confirmed by:

      http://elcid.demon.nl/1995_Western_blot_35pc_of_donors_have_1_band_at_least.png

      Antibodies to Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV-1) in Autoimmune Diseases.

      " 126 blood donors as a control group...At least one band was shown on immunoblotting in 26% of patients with autoimmune diseases and 35% of controls. "


      So HIV tests are basically tools to fool perfectly healthy individuals into believing they're carriers of a deadly virus and put them on deadly drugs. A self-fulfilled prophecy.

      Delete
    2. That's why the Western Blot uses MORE than one line. And the test is repeated.

      It's called an "INDETERMINATE" and not "POSITIVE" for a reason. If you look at the rate of a false positive on both the ELISA and Western Blot, it is much, much, lower.

      Someone like Andy Lindsay with a positive ELISA, Western Blot, and HIV viral load has HIV. There is no question.

      Delete
    3. > That's why the Western Blot uses MORE than one line

      All lines appear in uninfected patientes, therefore the simultaneous appearance of several lines is a matter of pure chance!

      Using the probabilities of each line given in http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2230270 and the positivity criterium of the CDC, we can estimate the probability of a positive WB "by chance" in a low-risk population.

      Here's the CDC definition:

      (gp120 AND gp41) OR (p24 AND (sgp120 OR gp41))

      We plug in the measured probabilities of each line:

      gp120 => 0.02 * 0.32,
      gp41 => 0.02 * 0.32,
      p24 => 0.47 * 0.32,
      p17 => 0.34 * 0.32

      and we add up the probability of each single "positive" combination:

      Results:
      ---------
      0 neg 0.7475028 no-lines
      1 neg 0.0912571 p17
      2 neg 0.0048148 gp120
      3 neg 0.0005878 p17 gp120
      4 neg 0.1323263 p24
      5 neg 0.0161547 p17 p24
      6 + 0.0008523 gp120 p24
      7 + 0.0001041 p17 gp120 p24
      8 neg 0.0048148 gp41
      9 neg 0.0005878 p17 gp41
      10 + 0.0000310 gp120 gp41
      11 + 0.0000038 p17 gp120 gp41
      12 + 0.0008523 p24 gp41
      13 + 0.0001041 p17 p24 gp41
      14 + 0.0000055 gp120 p24 gp41
      15 + 0.0000007 p17 gp120 p24 gp41

      Probability of a positive result: 0.0019538 or 1 in 511.
      ----

      The overall prevalence of "HIV" in the USA is 0.2%, which is 1 in 500... we see it's almost exactly teh same as the prevalence of positive WB by chance alone.

      HIV testing = crock of shit!

      Delete
    4. Did you miss the part in the study, where they said none of the volunteers had a false positive, or did you ignore that?

      Delete
    5. That's a very good question... without neither a virological nor an antibody gold standard (see my citations below), how do you tell when a patient is false positive or not?

      Do you wait 90 years to see if it dies of AIDS or not?

      Delete
  4. I keep waiting for the day these individuals will "wake up" and realize the folly of their ways, but perhaps I am far too expectant of them.

    It would appear that no manner or amount of clinical or laboratory literature seems to sway them, with the possible exception of fringe and discredited individuals who do not even study HIV in any manner to begin with.

    Even the death of their "friends" and colleagues appears to only be a temporary speed bump in the apparent lunacy.

    I hate to say this, as it is a somewhat fatalistic position, but maybe the best thing for all those concerned for HIV+ denialists to die off as rapidly as possible. The sooner they die, the sooner they will no longer be able to potentially endanger others.

    I have tried to reason with them. I have posted FISH (Fluorescence in situ hybridization) genetic sequences showing HIV isolates and the subsequent viral characteristics.

    I have given them extremely detailed laymen explanations of HIV pathogenesis backed up by an assortment of PubMed documentation.

    I have given detailed and well documented descriptions of AIDS causation by the culmination of HIV Immunosuppression via CD4+ T cells, macrophages, and dendritic cells.

    I have even gone so far as to make use of my medical research databases to pull articles of cutting edge theoretical microbiology in an effort to help them understand the future of HIV research

    Perhaps the grim reaper can help them understand where I have failed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Robby, I understand your frustration, but I think you have missed the whole point here.

      It is futile trying to address HIV/AIDS denialism through clinical or laboratory data, or by detailed laymen explanations of HIV pathogenesis or by presenting cutting edge theoretical microbiology.

      Lots of us have tried, and failed.

      HIV/AIDS denialism is a phenomenon within social psychology. Seth (who owns this blog) is a social psychologist.

      HIV/AIDS denialists have not reached their positions by a rational examination of virology, or epidemiology or infectious diseases medicine. It is a waste of time to think you can change their minds by rational argument in those domains.

      Which is why it's so important to understand the social psychology of the phenomenon.

      I suggest starting here, with this video:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoXAAEy6YQU

      Delete
    2. > I have posted FISH (Fluorescence in
      > situ hybridization) genetic sequences
      > showing HIV isolates and the subsequent
      > viral characteristics.

      No ampount of surrogate markers can replace true isolation, no matter how funny the name of it sounds, surrogates without prior isolation are based on pure speculations.

      > HIV Immunosuppression via CD4+ T cells

      Tehre's no correlation between viral load and CD4 counts, so good luck selling your speculative cause called "HIV".

      Delete
    3. Hello there Snout,

      It would appear as though you are a 100% correct, and I admit I do not know the first thing about the social or behavioral sciences unless you count Gen Ed courses from several years ago.

      Their disdain for the academic, clinical and medical science communities is astounding. Several people from the questioning aids forum even emailed my university in an effort to "get me in trouble" with the professor who manages my graduate portfolio and research. Him and I had a good laugh over it over coffee last week.

      I suppose it is my flaw in approaching a matter scientifically with people whose obvious stock and trade is rhetoric and propaganda.

      For whatever reason, it just irks me in ways I lack the colorful adjectives to describe that individuals could be so scientifically inept. Its like reserve critical thinking skills.

      It sort of reminds of a bunch of people from the dramatic arts department (sorry I know one too many wierdo theater majors) trying to haphazardly navigate through an intro biology course. They may know some basic terminology at the end of the semester, but they could no more analyze and apply that information than my dog being able to deal a hand of poker.

      I will be sure to check out the video.

      Delete
    4. Putin, just because you don't understand science, doesn't mean the evidence isn't valid.

      Delete
    5. Hey NotElon

      I have tried to have reasonable scientific discussions with denialists before, and its never proven to be a sequential conversation since they have absolutely no bearing in evidence based clinical or lab work.

      Some of them can indeed "talk the talk" to a point, but it soon becomes obvious they have no idea what they are discussing and are merely parroting. As an example, when they talk at length on a specific (and minute) detail in viral pathogenic response in one sentence, and then in the next demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of even basic cell biology, its quite obvious they are ignorant.

      Calling them on this does not seem to help either, it just pisses them off and makes them even more irrational sending them off into fits about how academia is just another "tool of the orthodoxy".

      Delete
    6. notElon, what if I understood science better than you and I could prove your assumptions wrong?

      Isolation has a different translation in "hiv speak" that doesn't mean isolation at all. RT and p24 as markers are a fraud, because they're not exclusive of hiv. But this is all these "scientists" look for during their so-called "isolation". Not good enough for any scientist worthy of that name!

      Delete
    7. p24 is indeed exclusive to HIV. I should know. It is true there are other proteins that also weigh 24 kilodaltons, and perhaps at one time we could not distinguish one retroviral p24 from another [Arguably not true. See the seminal 1985 paper], but certainly we can now. We have crystallized it, imaged it with x-ray and electron and STM, derived its amino acid chain structure, determined its functions and common mutants, and studied its stacking affinity. It is probably identified as well as anything else. I can go to the lab next door and "see" it, and by "see" I mean to the same extent I can visualize anything else that small. To deny the science of studying HIV is to deny modern molecular biology. The Rethinking AIDS people just figured that out. That is why they are going back and denying syphilis, and tuberculosis, and polio, and vaccine efficacy. They realized that nothing meets their "science".

      But there are detailed electron micr

      Delete
    8. p24 is exclusive of HIV. It is true there are other proteins that weigh 24,000 daltons. However, we have isolated p24 in so many ways, that it is very, very, very, very, very, very unlikely that it does not exist. We have obtained its crystal structure and studied it with X-ray spectroscopy. We have attached fluorescent dye to p24 and analyzed it that way. We have created antibodies that only bind to p24. We have studied the genetic structure of all the common forms of it. We have visualized it with electron microscopy. We have studied how it aggregates into the viral capsid. Inasmuch as you can say we have "seen" something that small, I can go to the lab next door and get a picture of it.

      So if I sound a little incredulous that my assumptions are wrong, forgive me. I know one is supposed to keep an open mind, but the evidence is fairly conclusive.

      Delete
    9. Robby, you are probably right. All the studies in the world won't convince these people. One cannot have a reasonable scientific discussion with them. Maybe it is a matter of pride, but I am simply incapable of giving up. If only because some other HIV+ person might stumble upon this discussion, and conclude we scientists really don't know what we are talking about.

      Delete
    10. notElton: "...p24 is exclusive of HIV. It is true there are other proteins that weigh 24,000 daltons..."

      If you read Gallo's and Montagnier's papers on their characterization of HIV, they made no check as to whether the p24 they found in SOME AIDS PATIENTS was viral or not other than assuming it was.

      Their assumption was based on having performed an attempt of physical isolation of HIV in a sucrose gradient and having sampled the ASSUMED right density slice.

      The blindly ASSUMED HIV was there, even though no microscopic evidence was provided.

      Therefore the alleged viral nature of that p24 is purely speculative. Healthy people are being put on life-threatening chemo based on this speculation alone.

      notElton: "..However, we have isolated p24 in so many ways, that it is very, very, very, very, very, very unlikely that it does not exist..."

      No wonder, since p24's are ubiquitous cellular components how could they not exist? They can be found almost anywhere and that's the reason their presence not by far any proof of HIV.

      notElton: "...We have created antibodies that only bind to p24..."

      That's nonsense. Antibodies are promiscuous and bind to any protein containing a matching epitope somewhere in its molecule.

      There's an unlimited number of antibodies that bind to p24 and up to 60 conditions have been documented to produce them.

      HIV science is riddled with weak assumptions. It wouldn't matter little if this massive misdiagnosis was not putting healthy people on deadly chemo, but this BAD SCIENCE has the tragic consequence of ruining millions of lives.

      Delete
    11. "...We have studied the genetic structure of all the common forms of it. We have visualized it with electron microscopy. .."

      You're talking about a protein all the time and still pretending it's HIV.

      That's called "bait and switch" and it's not a scientific a argument but a scammer's trick.

      Delete
    12. ntoElton: "...We have studied how it aggregates into the viral capsid. .."

      That's preposterous... when you talk about "isolation" you're actually talking about RT and p24... You don't even have the virus yet you pretend to know have gone beyond it and know what the viral capsid is and what it does. Then you go on and illustrate your speculative preconceptions using 3D models pretending they're the real thing.

      Delete
    13. notElon: "..p24 is exclusive of HIV..."

      Gallo and his colleagues have repeatedly stated that the p24s of HTLV-I and HIV immunologically cross-react.

      notElon: "..We have created antibodies that only bind to p24..."

      Antibodies to p24 have been detected in 1 out of 150 healthy individuals, 13% of randomly selected otherwise healthy patients with generalised warts, 24% of patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma and prodrome and 41% of patients with multiple sclerosis.

      The p24 antigen is not found in all HIV positive or even AIDS patients. In one study, the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and p24 were used to detect HIV in patients at various CDC stages from asymptomatic to AIDS. p24 was detected in 24% patients and HIV RNA in 50%.

      This is how "specific" p24 is fot HIV. A load of bull.

      Delete
    14. NotElon,

      Indeed, and I have traveled down the isolation path with them numerous times as well with no effect. Your above discussion is pretty much identical to several others I have had in regards to HIV genetics, structure, protein envelope and isolation. They always repeat themselves over and over again in hopes it will become more convincing via repetition.

      Just to piggy back some of your own analysis, p24 is actually typical of lentiviruses: HIV, SIV (MRCA to humans likely in the early 1900's), FIV, etc. It also shares the similarity of a long incubation period and a brutally efficient gene delivery vector. This, however, is where the similarities end.

      From a genetic structure standpoint, it deviates significantly from any known infectious agent, which is why it is so fascinating to virus hunters like myself and others in academia and medicine.

      I won't go into isolation characteristics in detail for our "friend" above as I think it is a waste of my keystrokes and time. However, if Duesberg and his harem of hacks are so convinced we are wrong, its not like he has not had ample opportunity to prove us wrong over the course of the last 2 decades.


      He could take some of the money from his speaker fees, the sales of books, the money he's gotten from Rath Vitamins, Inc. to sell their products and use it to generate some data in support of his hypothesis.

      He should start by setting his lab up to handle HIV, which he has never worked with.

      From a scientific standpoint, it would be like me walking into the astronomy and planetary science department and asserting that Saturn really does not exist using Einstein's theory of everything as "proof".

      Delete
    15. supraflyrobby: "...I won't go into isolation characteristics in detail for our "friend" above as I think it is a waste of my keystrokes and time...."

      You're bragging and wouldn't last the first assault.

      And please, spare intelligent minds your irrelevant comparisons of virology with astronomy. Nobody is being poisoned to death for the existence of Saturn, nor its existence has been "inferred" from false preconceptions as is the case with HIV.

      Delete
    16. supaflyrobby: "...He should start by setting his lab up to handle HIV, which he has never worked with..."

      You surely mean "work with p24" or with any other ubiquitous protein arbitrarily assigned to your pseudovirus of choice, for it's the only material HIV peddlers have got to show.

      Delete
    17. I didn't base anything I wrote on Gallo and Montagnier's work. How they isolated p24 is important only to historians. Those were written before I was born. The fact that you live in the past is pathetic, but research moves on.

      Delete
    18. notElton: "...I didn't base anything I wrote on Gallo and Montagnier's work...research moves on.."

      Nobody has even admitted, let aloone starightened up their mistakes, therfore everything aaht came later is buiulding further on those mistakes.

      Open any modern HIV test insert and you'll see references to Gallo's work, The fraud/error keeps perpetuated and escalating into its own version of then Ptolemaic Epicycles.

      Delete
    19. You have no idea what you are blabbering about. Gallo never used FRET or half the other techniques I mentioned. Gallo never manufactured artificial antibodies, that yes, are specific to HIV-1 alone. Gallo never imaged viruses one atom at a time with an STM tip, or used lentiviral vectors to treat cancer. Science moved on. You clearly have not.

      Go stand in a corner with your friend there who thinks we faked the moon landing, and your other friend who probably thinks Magellen's voyage was all a conspiracy. If yu excuse me, I'm going to get back to advancing mankind.

      Delete
    20. > Gallo never manufactured artificial
      > antibodies, that yes, are specific to
      > HIV-1 alone.

      When you feel the need to add a free "yes" you're just showing your lack of conviction.

      But how can you harbor any conviction when the antigen tests for p24 using monoclonal antibodies are recongnized as the worse performing of all "HIV" tests at all?

      Parry JV et al. Towards error-free HIV diagnosis: guidelines on laboratory practice. Commun Dis Public Health. 2003

      http://www.hpa.org.uk/cdph/issues/CDPHvol6/No4/6_4guideline1.pdf

      “...Experience has shown that HIV culture and ‘standalone’ tests for p24 antigen are of limited diagnostic value. They may be insensitive and/or non-specific, and they are expensive compared with the standard serological screening tests...
      ...
      ...When testing for p24 Ag it must be remembered that it, too, is prone to false positivity, which must be ruled out by a neutralisation test.”

      You guys are trapped in the circular logic conundrum "p24 is HIV because HIV is p24" and killing scores of healthy people in the process. History will be cruel with you, but not as cruel as you are to your healthy patients.

      Delete
    21. > Gallo never imaged viruses one atom at
      > a time with an STM tip, or used lentiviral
      > vectors to treat cancer. Science moved on.
      > You clearly have not.

      What's been achieved with other viruses but never been achieved with HIV,. You claim it was yet you can't produce any evidence.

      HIV pseudoscience is still stuck with Gallo. So sad! You admit yourself he didn't find any virus... a speck of honesty among all this fraud. Gallo just went through the motions and claimed a viral origing for his "HIV proteins" without excluding their being of cellullar nature.

      No later study has bothered to check the accuracy of Gallo's claims nor proven the viral nature of his antigens. I challenge you to produce one that has.

      Instead, Gallo's antigens were accepted at face value and have been used to this day in the manufacturing of HIV tests (viral lysates).

      Gallo's antigens were later used as the starting point of synthetic antigens and monoclonal antibodies. No challege to Gallo from the people who did that. His antigens have been the unquestioned base of every single later work. The whole HIV edifice has been built upon his errors ever since.

      Delete
    22. > Gallo never used FRET or half the
      > other techniques I mentioned.

      You're probably talking about the paper published in Science on 27th March 2009 by Hubner et al claiming: "...With use of an infectious, fluorescent clone of HIV, we tracked the movement of Gag in live CD4 T cells and captured the direct translocation of HIV across the virological synapse..."

      Their data only show discrete fluorescent points of certain proteins "...that apparently localise at the plasma membrane" and in the extracellular space.

      Nowhere in this paper or in its references is there any evidence of virus particles. All they have is an accumulation of green protein in some buds at the cell surface and transfer to another cell. Such buds will appear in any cell, especially malignant cells such as the Jurkat cells used for the experiments

      Yet they claim evidence for virus-like particles, virions and budding virions!!!

      No contempt with that level of baseless speculation, they spin it further into la-la-land as the title shows "...biogenesis of individual HIV-1 virions in live cells"!!!

      On what do they base their claims? Since viruses are submicroscopic particles, without electron micrographic proof it is impossible to claim there are "...virus-like particles, virions, budding virions" or "..biogenesis of individual HIV-1 virions in live cells".

      But then again, HIV pseudoscience has attracted to its ranks the lowest common denominator of intelligence in the graduate community. It's the only way to perpetuate the sham.

      Delete
    23. > Gallo never manufactured artificial
      > antibodies

      Certainly, he just provided your later "Noble prices" with the wrong antigen p24 to work on.

      What good are the best antibodies in the world when they target the wrong, non-viral antigen?

      I bet this obvious consequence of Gallo's errors have never crossed your great believer's mind.

      Sure, all those misdiagnoses are a huge source of the experimental subjects needed to justify this multi-billion dollar industry... so just look the other way or close your eyes while you extend the palm of your hand!

      Delete
    24. > Gallo never manufactured artificial
      > antibodies, that yes, are specific to
      > HIV-1 alone.

      A close look at the manufacturing and VALIDATION of such artificial antibodies that "specific to HIV-1 alone" reveals that they are still TODAY being validated using the old fraudulent Gallo's concoctions from 1983:

      http://www.cmi.ustc.edu.cn/4/3/203.pdf

      Preparation and Characterization of Three Monoclonal Antibodies against HIV-1 p24 Capsid Protein

      "...In specificity assay, different virus lysate were added instead of HIV-1IIIB lysate and lysate of H9 culture supernatant was used as control and an anti-HIV-1 p24 mAb (kindly provided by Dr. Hiroo Hoshino of Gunma University School of Medicine, Japan) was used as positive control..."

      Gallo created this fake culture, called H9 (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-06-06/news/9306060095_1_gallo-case-aids-virus-scientific-misconduct/2), to make it more difficult for anyone else to test his theories, contending that the H9 culture was the only one in which the AIDS virus would grow. In essence, Gallo stole the culture called HUT78 from Dr. Adi Gazdar, claimed he was the developer of this new culture called H9, and then limited who had access to it.

      Sciences moves forward but AIDS pseudo-scientists don' t, they' re stuck on their proven fraudster Gallo and perpetuate the fraud.

      Delete
    25. I told you I couldn't care less about Gallo. I never heard him speak. I certainly never studied his papers, not till I started talking to you morons who are seemingly obsessed with him.

      You clearly have no idea about the papers I was talking about, as you cited the wrong ones every time. Nor do you have any idea of the techniques I mentioned.

      Delete
    26. HIV has been verified time and again as the cause of AIDS.

      And even Duesberg is not so insane to believe it doesn't exist. Honestly all cells have little buds full of assembling protein particles and nucleic acids coming out of them? Pray tell what those could be. Baby cells?

      Delete
    27. > I told you I couldn't care less about Gallo

      Then you ignore the source of your false beliefs, which makes your case even more pathetic.

      > even Duesberg is not so insane to believe
      > it doesn't exist

      What's insane is believing without evidence. I bet you believe in god as well and say those who con't are "insane".

      You can't take anyone any closer to HIV than p24 and RT, which are not exclusive properties of HIV.
      You cant weasel your way out of this simple truth that invalidates all "science" based on it.

      Delete
    28. > all cells have little buds full of assembling
      > protein particles and nucleic acids coming out
      > of them?

      Look up exosomes and come back to me. Your ignorance is insulting.

      Delete
    29. Stick to driving buses mate.

      Delete
    30. > I told you I couldn't care less about Gallo

      You're nobody, but test manufacturers are still basing their devices on Gallo's flawed work. Example from 2009:


      Core HIVI & 2 Rapid test for the detection of Antibodies to Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) in Serum, Plasma and Whole Blood

      http://www.corediag.com/images/Core_HIV_1-2_CE_English_Packinsert_Final_052009.pdf

      ------
      "...BIBLIOGRAPHY

      1. Popovic, M., et.al. Detection Isolation and continuous production of Cytopathic Retroviruses (HTLV-lll) from patientswithAlDS and pre-AIDS. Science 1984; 224:497.
      2. Carlson, J. R., et.al. AIDS serologytesting in low and high riskgroups. JAMA 1985; 253:3405.
      3. Centers for Disease Control, Update on Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) MMWR 1982; 31:507.
      4. Gallo, R. C., et. al. Frequentdetection and isolation otCytopathic Retroviruses (HTLV-lll) from patientswithAlDS and a riskforAlDS. Science. 1984; 224:500."
      -------------

      You said that "science has moved forward" yet the most recent results test manufacturers were using in 2009 were from papers published in 1985!!!

      Who's lying then?

      Delete
    31. > p24 is exclusive of HIV. It is true there
      > are other proteins that weigh 24,000 daltons.

      HIV mongers can't even agree on the molecular weights or "HIV proteins":

      CAMBRIDGE BIOTECH HIV-1 WESTERN BLOT KIT

      http://www.omsj.org/tests/Cambridge%20Biotech%20HIV-1%20WB.pdf

      "...Slight ambiguities exist in the designation of the molecular weights of the HIV-1 antigens..."

      But it doesn't matter, we'll turn a blind eye and keep misdiagnosing healthy people as long as the billions keep flowing..

      Delete
    32. I know what exosomes are. Those weren't exosomes. They were budding viruses. Thank you for thinking I can't tell the difference.


      I believe in HIV the same way I believe gravity exists. Because the evidence for it is blindingly obvious.

      Anonymous is right. Stick to the bus drivers.

      Delete
    33. I believe HIV exists the same way I believe gravity exists. Because the evidence of their existence is blindingly obvious.

      I don't need Gallo to tell me HIV exists. As I said earlier a trip to the lab next door provides far better proof.

      Delete
    34. > They were budding viruses.

      Proof? The authors used Jurkat cells which bud nuclear structures all the time:

      http://books.google.nl/books?id=NXDACGRU0U0C&pg=PA285&lpg=PA285&dq=Jurkat+cells+bud+-hiv&source=bl&ots=ect6Jt1C6C&sig=69Pl6O8DgyJc9_oYCreB1Tn2_IA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-M1VT7jEL8vb8QOkrIWDCQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Jurkat%20cells%20bud%20-hiv&f=false

      The authors made no identification efforts, yet they arbitrarily claim its HIV because it fits their BELIEF.

      We're dealing with RELIGION here!

      Delete
    35. > a trip to the lab next door provides far
      > better proof.

      RT and/or p24 is proof of what? self delusion?

      No lab can do better than that and you know it, still you're in DENIAL that "hiv" is a non-specific cellular phenomenon rather than a unique virus.

      Delete
    36. Um, no. I can go to the lab next door and get microscopy pictures of that "non-specific cellular phenomenon entering a cell, and of dozens of IDENTICALLY STRUCTURED non-specific cellular phenomena leaving, and then see the cell die.

      In addition, during production of those non-cellular phenomena, normal cell functions shut down.

      I can add a drug as the "non-specific cellular phenomenon" enters the cell, and thus prevent the "nonspecific cellular phenomena" from exiting.

      Proof.

      Delete
    37. > I can go to the lab next door and get microscopy
      > pictures of that "non-specific cellular phenomenon
      > entering a cell,

      no you can't. "HIV" phenomena are only observable in a special line of cells selected by Gallo, called H9.

      If you don't "co-culture" the patient's cells you get NOTHING, ZIP, NULL. Obviously the "hiv" ohenomenon is an exclusive property of that cell line, anyone who looks can see it.

      > and of dozens of IDENTICALLY STRUCTURED
      > non-specific cellular phenomena

      "HIV" has been reported not as just one type of particle but a stunning array of particles:

      - Gelderblom et al. (1988). Fine Structure of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), Immunolocalization of Structural Proteins and Virus-Cell Relation.

      - Hockley et al (1988). Electron Microscopy of Human Immunodeficiency Virus.

      - Lecatsas G, Taylor MB. (1986). Pleomorphism in HTLV-III, the AIDS virus.

      This raises several questions. If one of these particles really is a retrovirus experts call HIV, what are all the others? If the HIV particles originate from the tissues of AIDS patients, where do all the others come from?

      > leaving and then see the cell die.

      It's called APOPTOSIS. All apoptotic cells "bud" vesicles that might contain nuclear fragments (DNA)

      http://tpx.sagepub.com/content/35/4/495.full

      Apoptosis: A Review of Programmed Cell Death

      "...Extensive plasma membrane blebbing occurs followed by karyorrhexis and separation of cell fragments into apoptotic bodies during a process called “BUDDING.” Apoptotic bodies consist of cytoplasm with tightly packed organelles with or without a NUCLEAR FRAGMENT".

      Again: NOTHING SPECIFIC TO HIV, no "special" phenomenon that requires a new virus to explain.

      Delete
    38. Yes, the cells are perfectly healthy, and then, bam, for no reason: Instant Apoptosis. Apoptosis, that I might add is somehow prevented by bathing the cells in the substance you call "the most toxic known to man."


      If you actually read the abstracts of those papers you cited on viral structure, you would see that not only did they culture the virus in other lines besides H9, but that all the particles did show a commonality of structure. Particularly once they developed. HIV, unlike say Poliovirus [which also exists] had a fluid envelope, so you would not expect the outside the have the same exact shape every time, particularly when the image is taken as the virus forms. Images of budding influenza or measles or poxviruses or half a dozen other enveloped particles also show some variation. I suppose none of those exist either.

      Delete
    39. > the cells are perfectly healthy, and then,
      > bam, for no reason: Instant Apoptosis

      Citations please? ... you're a good comedian but it has become too obvious you make things up as you go.

      There's no "instant explosive apoptosis", but simply apoptosis.

      About the cause of cell death... look at the variety of chemicals they need to throw into the culture in order to "produce hiv" (in reality produce apoptosis) and get a few clues!

      http://dare.uva.nl/document/185000

      "Cell culture

      "... The U87.CD4 cells were cultured in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (DMEM) supplemented with 10% inactivated fetal calf serum (FCS), penicillin (100 units per ml) and streptomycin (100ug/ml). In addition, neomycin (300ug/ml) and puromycin (1ug/ml) were added to the culture medium to maintain CD4 and coreceptor expression, respectively. ... Patient PBMCs (1.5×106 cells) were activated overnight using 2ug/ml of phytohaemagglutinin (PHA) in RPMI 1640 medium containing 10% inactivated FCS, 100 units/ml of interleukin 2 (IL-2) and antibiotics. The following day the PBMCs were washed and applied onto a confluent layer of U87.CD4 cells in DMEM. The culture medium was refreshed every 2–3 days and selection antibiotics were added again 2 days later..."

      I guess all those substances just pep-up and revitalize the cells... perhaps if we add them to our food we can live forever?

      Finally, the so-called "scientits" look for our old friend p24 and shout "Eureka HIV!" if the non-specific marker is found (same old scam):

      "...Virus production was monitored by syncytia formation and by frequent CA-p24 ELISA (in-house) on the cultures upernatant..."

      Junk upon junk to reach a junky conclussion.

      Delete
    40. > HIV, unlike say Poliovirus [which also
      > exists] had a fluid envelope

      When you can't produce consistent "hiv" results from one culture to another (or even within the same sample), instead of questioning your assumptions you just cover-up the failure with more free-wheeling speculation.

      Viruses are molecular particles and their structure is more akin to crystals. They're always the same, and more so retroviruses which have a smaller size and therefore less room for change.

      Delete
    41. Ha ha. Shows how much you know about viruses. I guess you never heard of envelopes or seen electron microscopy.

      Here's a picture of budding measles viruses. Notice they all look different. I guess that disease doesn't exist either.
      Nor does ebola.

      Delete
    42. > guess you never heard of envelopes or seen
      > electron microscopy.

      Certainly, never in the case of HIV.

      The con artists you cheer, when pushed to isolate can only can show p24. They need to mix the patient's cell with extraneous cell lines in order to accomplish that non-specific marker feat.

      Anyone that tries to equate the ebola virus to hiv really knows zilch about what he's saying.

      Delete
    43. Unlike all other viruses, retroviruses may appear in cultures in which no external infection has taken place. That may appear spontaneously from "within", that is, "endogenously".

      Retrovirologists claim these retroviruses appear "out of nowhere" because cells contain pre-existing retroviral genetic information passed on from one's parents.

      Animal data show that the yield and rate of appearance of such retroviruses can be accelerated a millionfold by chemically stimulating the cell cultures in the same manner as cultures derived from tissues of AIDS patients are manipulated to obtain "HIV" (see my reference above).

      Significantly enough, no "HIV" appears in cell cultures unless the cells are manipulated in this manner.

      At least a decade before the AIDS era virologists including Gallo knew that particles with appearances similar to retroviruses may be found in cell cultures which had not been "infected" with a retrovirus.

      These can be than "cellular fragments", microsomes from disrupted cells, "membraneous vesicles which may enclose other cellular constituents including nucleic acids", especially when "inadvertent lysis of cells" was induced.

      In "HIV" research lysis is deliberately performed to obtain the "HIV" RNA and proteins.

      In the only EM study in which suitable controls were used and in which extensive blind examination of controls and test material was performed, virus particles indistinguishable from "HIV" were found in 18/20 (90%) of AIDS as well as in 13/15 (88%) of non-AIDS or no risk of AIDS related lymph node enlargements.

      This led the authors to conclude: "The presence of such particles do not, by themselves indicate infection with HIV"

      - O'Hara et al, "The ultrastructural and immunohistochemical demonstration of viral particles in lymph nodes from human immunodeficiency virus-related and non-human immunodeficiency virus-related lymphadenopathy syndromes", Human Pathology 1988;19(5):545-9.

      See here: http://www.theperthgroup.com/PICTURES/OHARA2.JPG

      and here: http://www.theperthgroup.com/PICTURES/OHARA1.JPG

      Can you distinguish the AIDS from the non-AIDS patient?

      Delete
    44. Funny. You can find hundreds or thousands of micrographs showing HIV. To my eye, these particles are obviously viral in nature. I suppose they don't count.

      There is literally no difference in quality between the micrographs of HIV and those of any other enveloped virus. If the measles micrograph is convincing to you, the HIV one should be as well.

      Delete
    45. > Funny. You can find hundreds or thousands of
      > micrographs showing HIV. To my eye, these
      > particles are obviously viral in nature. I
      > suppose they don't count.

      In ahort, any virus-like particle you see has to be HIV. Iinconsistency doesn't matter, characterization (only possible after previos purification) is not necessary... anything goes for HIV if you want it to be HIV...

      At Virology.net http://www.virology.net/Big_Virology/BVretro.html you find 25 "hiv" images. Most are artists' renditions or computer graphics. Only EIGHT are EM pictures but NONE identify the source or nature of the medium. Even worse, NONE has a size bar, so it's not possible to measure the size of the particles or any other morphological feature.

      This is highly unprofessional because the dimensions of particles is critical to taxonomy.

      The best conclusion one can draw from those pictures is the existence in unidentified cell cultures of minute quantities of particles of indeterminate size which possess certain other morphological features.

      Since these are the pictures we've have been looking at all these years, is the claim "These EMs are a retrovirus HIV" justified?

      First, how do we interpret this image: http://www.theperthgroup.com/PICTURES/PLACENTA.JPG ?

      Compare it to this EM at Virology: http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/AIDS/AIDS003.html

      both show particles budding from a cell but, whereas the second image is tagged "HIV", the first is a typical type-C retroviral particle found in a healthy, human placenta:

      - Panem S. "C Type Virus Expression in the Placenta"; Current Topics in Pathology 1979; 66:175-189.

      Such particles are present in nearly all human placentas:

      - Grafe A. "A history of experimental virology."; Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 1991.

      "...Retroviral-like particles are ubiquitous. In the 1970s such particles were frequently observed in human leukaemia tissues, cultures of embryonic tissues and "in the majority if not all, human placentas".

      Not only are the "original HIV" particle found in normal, "non-HIV" infected human placentas, but teh "specific" "HIV" proteins p18, p24 and gp120 as well!:

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1930645

      - Faulk "HIV proteins in normal human placentae"; American Journal of Reproductive Immunolgy 1991;25(3):99-104.

      do we conclude that all healthy, pregnant women are also infected with a retrovirus HIV? Obviously not. It's is essential to exercise great care when interpreting EM images bearing particles with the appearances of retroviruses.

      To prove the particles claimed as "HIV" are a retroviruses and not inert atter, they must be separated from all other biological material (purified) which might be stimulating the cells to produce similar particles.

      After purification they'd be added to "uninfected" cell cultures. If identical particles are obtained with all the morphological and biochemical properties of retroviruses, then a scientist can claim the particles are a retrovirus. If this procedure is not followed then we cannot exclude the possibility that the particles are the result of being sick or the culture conditions, or both.

      To date there's no experimental data proving that "HIV" particles have been purified, much less data that the same particles generate identical particles. Thus there is no basis for the NIAID claim that the particles seen at the link on their website are a retrovirus.

      Delete
  5. Ah, down memory lane: c. 1992 I was counselling HIV+ people, always remarking that eventually it would become a treatable chronic condition- like diabetes- and then, suddenly, *it was*! And the world changed- still we have those who would hark back to the dark days before medical innovation when you fought the virus purely with *belief*!

    Sceptic D

    ReplyDelete
  6. Robby, the problem is that the big names behind AIDS denial, Duesberg and the Perth group don't have HIV. They'll all likely live out to a ripe old age, while they nearly guarantee their followers won't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one that was put on AZT has lived to an old age. Actually they died within 5 years. They all were healthy when they started taking the citotoxic killer.

      Today liver failure the first cause of of death among treated seropositives, while those untreated because they "don't know they're infected" are estimated in their millions by teh CDC, and still the statistics AIDS deaths don't reflect their alleged AIDS deaths simply because they're not dying of AIDS.

      Delete
    2. Putin, I notice you also deny polio. Do you believe anything exists?

      Delete
    3. Science is not about belief, you seem at odds with that.

      Science requires proof, either you can produce it or not. Polio and HIV just can't produce proof of causality, that's all.

      It's not the first time medicine takes decades to admits its mistakes, it happened with Pellagra, Scurvy, Vioxx... the list is endless and now it includes BSE, SARS, HIV, HCV...

      Delete
    4. You know we made polio from scratch in a lab, infected animals with it, and sure enough they became paralyzed. If that is not science, what is?

      Delete
    5. You do realize we duplicated the polio genome from scratch in a lab and paralyzed animals with it.

      If that is not proof, I don't know what is.


      SCURVY, PELLEGRA? Is there some sort of vast and secret vitamin conspiracy I am not aware of? I would say you are the most insane, ridiculous person I have ever heard of, but then Clark Baker will probably make me eat my words.

      Delete
    6. > we duplicated the polio genome
      > from scratch in a lab and paralyzed
      > animals with it.

      You? As long as you keep using the first person for somebody else's accomplishments you come forward as a joke.

      Experiments with macaques and poliovirus using the natural way of infection couldn't reproduce any paralysis. It had to be injected directly into their brains!

      Through brain injections you can paralyse any animal with any arbitrary substance of your choice. Take Coke for example. That doesn't prove the Coke causes paralysis in nature.

      The proportion of poliovirus carriers that get paralysis is so low that any causal association is unlikely. As unlikely as the trick used to "prove it" through an animal model completeley detached from any epidemiologic reality.

      You've been fooled again by a pseudo-scientist going to grotesque lengths to prove his assumptions when they failed.

      Delete
    7. Scurvy and Pellagra were once thought to be infectious. That was my point that flew over your head for being ignorant of medicine's history.

      You ignore history and therefore are prone to repeat the same mistakes.

      Delete
    8. Scurvy and Pellagra were once thought to be infectious.

      You fail history, putin. The modern germ theory of disease dates to the second half of the 19th century, thanks to the work of scientists like Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) and Robert Koch (1843-1910).

      The British Navy had been using citrus juice to prevent scurvy for a century before then. In fact, physicians in the 16th and 17th century were well aware that some kind of acidic principle in fresh foods prevented and treated scurvy, although no one knew exactly what it was until the discovery of vitamin C in 1928 by Albert Szent-Gyorgyi in Hungary.

      Don't believe everything you read in Duesberg's book. In fact, I suggest you don't believe anything you read there.

      Delete
    9. I haven't read Duesberg's book, what I did is read scores of scentific papes written by hiv-believers like the onse I've reference here. Every single dogma is contradicted by even those who believe in them. The exercise was reminiscent of the contradictions found in the bible.

      There's no gold standard to calibrate the surrogate HIV tests. They're used in a circular-logic manner to calibrate each other. The surrogate parameters appear in more then 30% of low-risk people.

      The conclusion can be other than HIV infection is a massive misdiagnosis. Further evidence is in the fact that most peopole diagnosed seropositive were perfectly healthy when they heard their diagnostic.

      Delete
    10. "There's no gold standard to calibrate the surrogate HIV tests."

      Putin, you clearly have no concept of what the term "gold standard" (criterion standard) means. You are simply parroting something you read on a denialist website.

      "The surrogate parameters appear in more then 30% of low-risk people."

      Now you're just rambling.

      Delete
    11. > you clearly have no concept of what th
      > term "gold standard

      It's the opposite of a surrogate marker, if yon't know that then no wonder you're a believer.

      Is there any HIV test that's not measuring non-specific surrogate markers? No there isn't. Therefore no doctor has the right to tell anybody about being "infected" with hiv.

      > Now you're just rambling.

      You live in a fantasy world. HIV antibodies, including multiple bands, have been documented in 32% of individuals at low risk:

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2230270

      "...blood specimens were collected from 168 healthy adult volunteers at minimal or no risk for becoming infected with human immunodeficiency virus... 32% had indeterminate Western blot testsThe most common bands were p24 (47%), p55 (34%), and p66 (36%); envelope bands were unusual (gp41, 2%; gp120, 2%). ..."

      In particular p24 - the marker notElton was selling as "hiv-specific" - is the MOST COMMON and appears in the serum of 15% of people at low-risk!

      Then teh HIV-mongers use p24 marking to "detect hiv" in cell cultures, and pretend they found the virus there...

      Misdiagnosis and bad science at its worst!

      Delete
    12. "It's [a gold standard] the opposite of a surrogate marker, if yon't know that then no wonder you're a believer."

      Thanks. Now we know you're just an ignorant troll, rambling away at his keyboard.

      CRITERION STANDARD. Preferred term to "gold standard." A method having established or widely accepted accuracy for determining a diagnosis, providing a standard to which a new screening or diagnostic test can be compared. The method need not be a single or simple procedure but could include follow-up of patients to observe the evolution of their conditions or the consensus of an expert panel of clinicians, as is frequently used in the study of psychiatric conditions. CRITERION STANDARD can also be used in studies of the quality of care to indicate a level of performance, agreed to by experts or peers, to which the performance of individual practitioners or institutions can be compared.

      http://jama.ama-assn.org/site/misc/auinst_term.xhtml

      Delete
    13. > A method having established or widely
      > accepted accuracy for determining a diagnosis

      The criterium "widely accepoted" is a logical fallacy called "ad populum". The definition you linked is therefore not scientific.

      The "gold standard" in microbiology is be the microbe itself. If you can't produce it then its existence can't be assumed.

      It has been so until the advent of hiv, whose peddlers started pushing surrogate markers instead of the real thing.

      The result everybody can see: perfectly healthy people are given a bogus death sentence. The prophecy becomes self-fulfilled by the administration of cytotoxic chemotherapy.

      Now if you're so intelligent tell us what is the "gold standard" of an hiv test of your choice.

      Let's see whether your "widley accepted" bullshit makes any scientific sense or not.

      Delete
    14. http://www.ilexmedical.com/files/PDF/HIV1-2gO_AXS.pdf

      On page 6:

      "..SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY

      "...At present, there is NO RECOGNIZED STANDARD for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood. Specificity is based on testing of random blood donor and hospitalized patient populations..."

      So the standard is not the verified presence of the virus, but the "assumed presence" in sick individuals. Circular logic at its best: "HIV causes AIDS because AIDS patients define who is HIV positive".

      The vicious circle has never been broken, because no only antibodies lack a "gold standard", but genetic tests as well:

      http://www.annals.org/content/136/6/488.1.full

      "...Primary infection was defined as a confirmed positive virologic test result with either a negative HIV antibody assay result or an indeterminate Western blot. Because THERE IS NO VIROLOGICAL GOLD STANDARD, we assumed that levels of plasma HIV RNA had a sensitivity of 100% for diagnosing primary infection.."

      Bonus marks for detecting the flaw in this logic!

      So we got AIDS doctors pretending there's a "widely accepted" criterium for their bogus diagnoses, when actual scientist have never agreed on one!

      These tests are therfore POLITICALY interpreted, no scientifically, with unnecessary deaths as the result of this criminal practice.

      Delete
    15. The "gold standard" in microbiology is be the microbe itself.

      *sigh*. A gold standard (criterion standard) for a diagnostic test is a diagnostic procedure widely accepted as having the highest sensitivity and specificity for the condition being diagnosed. Read the frickin' definition and stop making up your own definitions for medical terms.

      ""...At present, there is NO RECOGNIZED STANDARD for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood. Specificity is based on testing of random blood donor and hospitalized patient populations..."

      So the standard is not the verified presence of the virus, but the "assumed presence" in sick individuals."


      *head/desk*

      No, the standard for SPECIFICITY is not assumed PRESENCE in the hospitalised patients and blood donors - specificity is tested against populations with assumed ABSENCE. In this case the groups with assumed ABSENCE were healthy blood donors and sick hospital patients with conditions other than clinically diagnosed HIV/AIDS.

      You test SENSITIVITY against populations with assumed presence.

      The flaw in what passes for your logic is failing to understand which populations are used to test sensitivity, and which ones are used to test specificity. You have them arse-backwards.

      The accuracy of your resulting estimates for sensitivity and specificity will of course depend on how good your assumptions are. However, if your assumptions about your populations are incorrect - if for example a few of your blood donors do in fact have HIV, or some of your clinically diagnosed AIDS patients in fact have something else - then your sensitivity and specificity estimates will be UNDERESTIMATES of the actual sensitivity and specificity of the test you are assessing.

      Thus your sensitivity and specificity estimates are minimum values. The true sensitivity and specificity can only be higher - not lower - than your estimates.

      So no, it's not circular.

      Will you be the first denialist in history to grasp this?

      Delete
    16. > No, the standard for SPECIFICITY is not
      > assumed PRESENCE

      Now you throw a straw man...

      Which part of "NO RECOGNIZED STANDARD for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies" you fail to understand?

      Which part of "THERE IS NO VIROLOGICAL GOLD STANDARD" you fail to understand?

      HIV tests as entirely flawed Rube Goldberg devices... one leading to another, leading to another... all in an attempt to create an overwhelming conclusion that a dozen useless tests must be more meaningful than just one.

      You're caught in the stupidest circular logic conundrum known to man.

      HIV testing is an absolute, irredeemable fraud being perpetrated against Africans, Indians, Chinese, Eastern and Western Europeans, South and North Americans, and citizens worldwide, worsened by the entirely disgraced "rapid tests" now used in vans and at folding tables in parking lots to grab the poorly educated and hurl them into the pharmaceutical maw.

      Delete
    17. > if for example a few of your blood donors
      > do in fact have HIV, or some of your
      > clinically diagnosed AIDS patients in fact
      > have something else - then your sensitivity
      > and specificity estimates will be
      > UNDERESTIMATES

      You're verifying an HIV test against another, for there's no other way of diagnosing "infection" with HIV.

      You fail to understand that CONSISTENCY between tests is no the same as ACCURACY of a test.

      In fact by testing surrogate tests against more surrogate tests, your trimming the devices to replicate the SAME MISTAKES. Very consistent, but very WRONG.

      But what the hell... it isn't even consistent... hiv+ by antibodies can be p24 negative by antigen and RNA positive or negative and co-cultiure positive or negativ or any combination thereof... hiv diagnosis is worse than a chinese bazar.

      A pregnancy test "ground truth" is a baby, an HIV test ground truth can't be anything but hiv itself. 30 years of selling bogus surrogate hiv have caused enough deaths, don't you think? or was it the plan all aling?

      Delete
    18. > The accuracy of your resulting estimates
      > for sensitivity and specificity will of
      > course depend on how good your assumptions
      > are.

      Outrageous claim... specificity is now a SUBJECTIVE measure hbaed on assumptions? What happened to SCIENCE?

      But let's take a look a SURREAL situation found in Africa: Women are hiv- and their vaginas are hiv+ !!!!

      http://www.omsj.org/wp-content/uploads/1128-CervicovaginalAntibodies.pdf

      "...In 2.9 to 12.3% of these women, depending on the test used, the anti-HIV antibodies were present in vaginal fluids that were free of contaminating semen. SINCE THERE IS NO ESTABLISHED GOLD STANDARD TEST, it is unclear which of these two proportions is the best estimate of the real prevalence rate..."

      So you're peddling bad science when you claim:

      1. that HIV tests have a gold standard.

      2. that specificity such tests can be estimated without physical viral isolation.

      HIV testing = Junk science.

      Delete
    19. Will you be the first denialist in history to grasp this?

      Outrageous claim... specificity is now a SUBJECTIVE measure hbaed on assumptions? What happened to SCIENCE?

      Evidently not. I'll try once more, but then I'm giving up. It's pointless to try to educate the willfully ignorant.

      Say you've got a new test and you want to estimate its specificity. So you get 10,000 people you assume don't have HIV, and you test them with your new test.

      You get 9980 negatives and 20 positive reactions. Your estimated specificity is 99.80%.

      But hang on, you say - you are only assuming that none of your 10,000 people have HIV. What if some of them do? What if some of the 20 positive reactions weren't false positives as you are assuming? What if some of them were actually true positives?

      Then in that case the true specificity of the test is not 99.80% - it's higher than that. Your 99.80% is the minimum of the true specificity.

      You seem to be suggesting that the only appropriate "gold standard" against which to evaluate the specificity of a candidate HIV test is some kind of viral isolation procedure.

      In principle you could probably do this, but your viral isolation procedure would need to have a SENSITIVITY of 100% or nearly so. Otherwise the population pool selected by this test would include too many false negatives missed by your viral isolation procedure. Remember, when you are evaluating the specificity of a test you need to select a population that DOESN"T have HIV, not one that does.

      What viral isolation procedure are you suggesting, and how did you establish that it has a sensitivity of close to 100%?

      Delete
    20. > What if some of them do? What if some
      > of the 20 positive reactions weren't
      > false positives as you are assuming?

      That's the point! How to know who's false positive, real positive, false negative and real negative? only another independent, more reliable test (a gold standard) can help... but there's no such a test.

      So hiv serology is trapped in an incestuous circle of arbitrary tests being used to "confirm" subsequent arbitrary tests in circular reasoning.

      You can only achieve CONSISTENCY this way (all tests will make the same mistakes) but not ACCURACY. You need the fucking GOLD STANDARD, the isolation of the real thing in the patient, to break out of the circle!

      This is not being done. Instead, "low-risk" specimens (pregnant women and blood donors) are being used as "real negatives" (so if one comes out positive it's considered a false positive) and patients with "clinical AIDS" as "true positives".

      But both assumptions are wrong. The same low-risk patient will be classified "false positive" when used for calibration but will be "true positive" when diagnosed! a flagrant contradiction.

      Also, since there are no unique symptoms of "clinical AIDS", you never know if your "true positives" actually have hiv or not... unless you use another test that has exactly the same calibration problems!

      If you still are unwilling to see the crock in diagnosing without a gold standard, then you're either a criminal or a fool.

      Delete
    21. > our viral isolation procedure would need to
      > have a SENSITIVITY of 100% or nearly so.

      Logically, if you can't demonstrate the virus in a patient then you can't pretend he's infected. You have to assume your surrogate, non-specific results were wrong.

      Therefore, such isolation procedure has to be assumed to be 100% sensitive and 100% specific, the ground truth, the gold standard test.

      If it fails, you have no right to label a patient with HIV/AIDS because you have no probable viral cause.

      Delete
    22. > What viral isolation procedure are you
      > suggesting,

      The standard isolation procedure since virology was born (centrifugation in a glucose gradient) was followed by Gallo in 1983.

      The problem is that the procedure ends with an Electron Microscopy (EM) photograph of the purified(free from anything else) retrovirus, which is the proof of success.

      This slide: http://s16.postimage.org/w7x4z20yb/Slides14.jpg

      shows particles of the Rous sarcoma retrovirus discovered in 1911. The picture published in 1961 confirms it's possible to take an electron micrograph of the 1.16 gm/ml band and show purified, retroviral particles.

      In contrast, the EM Gallo provided at the end of hist attempt at purification din't show any purified virus at all, but a mass of cellular debris:

      http://s16.postimage.org/piqlj1fmb/scaled_php_server_811_filename_purehiv.jpg

      His viral isolation was a failure, yet he pretended there was hiv in there and used this human cellular material to determine what he pretended were "hiv proteins". His obviously biased results were blindly accepted as good ever since.

      Now, by showing antibodies to this human material is how people are still today being labeled as "infected" with hiv.

      Delete
    23. "Therefore, such isolation procedure has to be assumed to be 100% sensitive and 100% specific, the ground truth, the gold standard test."

      Sorry, you can't just assume "ground truths" in science, unless you have evidence. All scientific propositions are provisional, and derived from evidence - in this case multiple concordant lines of evidence.

      So you need to tell us on what basis of evidence have you decided to assume that your particular proposed virus isolation procedure is 100% sensitive - that is, if you test 10,000 truly infected patients you will successfully isolate the virus all 10,000 times (which is what 100% sensitive means).

      Delete
    24. > Sorry, you can't just assume "ground truths" in
      > science, unless you have evidence.

      Science means you can't claim infection by an agent you can't find, even if your PCR shows zillions of "copies" and your WB lights up all the bands like a christmas tree. You are obliged to find an alternative explanation for those non-specific phenomena, otherwise you're practiving a CULT.

      If only the AIDS vigilantes abided by their own rules, millions of iatrogenic deaths would be avoided.

      Delete
  7. Interestingly, we seem to have poster *girls* exclusively - I wonder why that is? A new form of misogyny to go with your old time homophobia: encourage the ladies to forego realistic treatment publicly making it much more difficult to recant.

    Sceptic D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's actually plenty of men who were used as poster boys as well.

      Delete
    2. @ notElon:
      I *know* that! I'm just being mean and drawing attention to their dearly departed, high-profile ladies: Christine, Karri and now, Kim.

      Sceptic D

      Delete
  8. Cel Farb is up in arms about this article and the one against Wakefield.

    How dare Deer blame the victim!


    Of course saying the victim has a rotten family, is suffering from drug abuse and PTSD, and needs "Brain rehabilitation" is totally different.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, because there's nothing in the least bit judgemental about telling people with HIV/AIDS that it's all because of their "lifestyle".

      And if people get sick, then it must be because they failed to change their "lifestyle" enough, like the denialists told them to. There must be something they are still doing wrong.

      Infantile.

      Delete
  9. The group at ReThinking AIDS FaceBook are going ballistic! They are going to write a very strongly worded letter and send it to The Guardian! I can't wait to read that letter.

    And Celia Farber is furious that Brian Deer used the word "Denialist"! She is asking the group if they want to reinvigorate her old Facebook page denouncing the use of the word "denialist" by the "media". If you remember, Farber started that page all because of the piece that SpliceToday.com published by J. Todd DeShong. He wrote a rebuttal to Crowe's stupid "Potemkin Village". Zach Kaufman from SpliceToday.com wrote the original piece which he picked up from D4D.

    So, let them say D4D was not influential, but then why start an entire FB page predicated on DeShong's work? And why now is Farber begging to reinvigorate that page? If AIDS Denialists were so outraged by such a "pejorative" then that FB page would be flourishing and not need to be reinvigorated. This is just further proof that AIDS Denial, or Dissidence or whatever you want to call it, is dying much like the followers are dying as Brian Deer points out in this excellent piece.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Celia will have Clarkie write the "strongly worded letter." I'm sure it will begin something like this:

    "As an ex-Marine and police officer, I have 25 years of experience with blah blah blah."

    Then, anyone reading it will laugh.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Celia Farber is now comparing herself to disgraced charlatan Andrew Wakefield:

    http://www.facebook.com/groups/RethinkingAIDS/

    "Please do me a favor: Suman Som and others are protesting the pernicious Guardian UK attack on Joan Shenton and Peter Duesberg by the discredited Brian Deer. Please approach Suman and ask how you can help. Anybody who does not yet understand how orchestrated and out for blood these Pharma assassinations are should read and REPOST what I am about to share here, the DEFAMATION LAWSUIT filed by Andrew Wakefield against Brian Deer and BMJ. It is a fraternal twin to my defamation lawsuit against Richard Jefferys, which is far from over. I'll find it and post it. But please, please, READ it and grasp it. Everybody must understand what we are up against. I feel very alone (apart from God,) and every sound, like the one you just made Adolfo, is reassuring..."

    Celia Farber must be lying awake at night, trying to think up new ways to publicly humilate herself.

    Sad.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think Ms. Farber needs to stop "denying" who the real disgraced journalist is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed. One of the funniest aspects of the comment thread at the Guardian is the denialists descending en masse to try and paint Brian Deer as a puppet of Big Pharma.

      They obviously haven't got a clue who they are dealing with:

      THY KINGDOM COME: Brian Deer investigates the Wellcome legacy
      Brian Deer: Vioxx - a killer painkiller

      Perhaps Celia Farber is jealous, but the reality is that Brian Deer is one tough cookie whose almost universal respect and admiration is hard-earned.

      And unlike Celia, he's nobody's puppet.

      Delete
  13. Celia says her lost lawsuit is "far from over"? BwaHAHAHAHAHA!!! They have long since missed any deadlines to appeal. She was humiliated. Clarkie was legally sodomized by the judge's ruling.

    It is completely over. Celia is turning more and more delusional. She is clearly skipping her thorazine doses.

    Hey Celia - take this: "You are a slutty, delusional, ugly, attention-whore of a skank."

    Can you please now file a lawsuit against Kralc Rekab? Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  14. I wonder if Farber has read the legal definition of a public figure as provided by her own lawyers:

    "The U.S. Supreme Court noted two fundamental differences between public and private figures. First, public figures usually have greater access to the media which gives them 'a more realistic opportunity to counteract false statements than private individuals normally enjoy.' Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. at 344; Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. at 136. Second, 'public figures...voluntarily expose themselves to increased risk of injury from defamatory falsehoods concerning them' as they 'invite attention and comment." Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. at 345. Silverster v. American Broadcasting Cos. 839 F.2s 1491, 1494 (11th Cir. 1988)."

    And then contemplated it in light of her own use of the media:

    http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/hands_not_so_bloody_4TBbcloxRHegmNZH0clyzK

    http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/writer_hits_back_at_aids_rants_6czkVdbBGghlnzzV9hfdBI

    http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nypost/access/1075281931.html?dids=1075281931:1075281931&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jul+11%2C+2006&author=&pub=New+York+Post&desc=CUCKOO+OVER+AIDS+WRITER&pqatl=google

    http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nypost/access/582294051.html?dids=582294051:582294051&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Mar+19%2C+2004&author=&pub=New+York+Post&desc=STRAIGHT+AIDS+MYTH+SHATTERED&pqatl=google

    http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nypost/access/88536028.html?dids=88536028:88536028&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Nov+04%2C+2001&author=&pub=New+York+Post&desc=TALKING+TRUTH+ON+AIDS+DATA&pqatl=google

    http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/boston/access/52017403.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Mar+29%2C+2000&author=Renee+Graham%2C+Globe+Staff&pub=Boston+Globe&desc=SMART+SWANK%3B+FARBER'S+PASSIONS&pqatl=google

    http://lastexitmag.com/article/5-questions-for-celia-farber

    http://discovermagazine.com/2006/oct/celia-farber-interview-aids

    http://www.bookslut.com/features/2006_09_009885.php

    http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/interviews/18972535/aids-africa-interview-celia-farber

    http://vimeo.com/3816716

    http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/rbinterviewcf.htm

    ReplyDelete
  15. The Denialist/Dissidence group should be thanking Brian Deer for writing this article because they have been wanting for anything that might rally the troops and shake off the level of apathy and lack of involvement of their own members. They have long lost momentum or any focus within their own group because of infighting and division fueled by the Perth Group's bitter revenge of David Crowe and Duesberg. Mainstream will not destroy the dissidents ..their own self generated stalemate/stagnation will!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whatever, but this dissident here has helped a perfectly healthy pregnant woman diagnosed - against her will - with HIV challenge her diagnosis, reject the mother-to-child hiv transmission prevention protocol, escape Child Services prosecution and deliver in a natural way.

      Now she has the healthiest daughter in the neighborhood - never tested for HIV - and she leves her life unmolested as if it all had been a bad dream.

      Delete
    2. You? The guy who doesn't believe in nutrition, who believes vitamins are an evil conspiracy? You delivered a baby? GOD help the world.

      Delete
    3. > The guy who doesn't believe in nutrition

      Scurvy and Pellagra were once thought to be infectious, only after decades medicine admitted its error and acknowledged they were caused by nutrition deficiencies.

      Medicine is plagued with similar errors today, HIV is the most flagrant of all.

      You're trolling out of desperation and putting words in my mouth I never said because you've been exposed as a sham.

      Delete
    4. Christine Maggiore lives?

      "Our children have excellent records of health," Maggiore said on the Air America program when asked about 7-year-old Charlie and 3-year-old Eliza Jane Scovill. "They've never had respiratory problems, flus, intractable colds, ear infections, nothing. So, our choices, however radical they may seem, are extremely well-founded."
      http://articles.latimes.com/2005/sep/24/local/me-eliza24

      I hope this child putinreloaded "helped" is luckier than Eliza Jane was.

      Although she was the best-known, EJ was far from the only kid who has died because of the stupidity of putinreloaded's group.

      Delete
    5. Mike Hersee from HEAL London...

      Delete
    6. > I hope this child putinreloaded "helped"
      > is luckier than Eliza Jane was.

      Eliza was not hiv-positive. Any attepmto to blame hiv for this is either stupidity or manipulation.

      This child will never be given amoxicillin, so it won't die from amoxicillin like Eliza did, as simple as that.

      Chemotherapy to prevent vertical transmission from mother to child has multiple toxicities that could endanger the lives of both. In any case it induces permanent mitochondrial, genetic and neurological damage in children exposed to treatment. The danger of these substances, especially to an immature baby, gives the mother the right to demand an absolute certainty in the diagnosis not obtainable by surrogate methods.

      In case of infection only 13% of untreated infants get infected. The percentage varies from study to study and in many cases is overestimated. Any uncertainty about the diagnosis of the mother reduces the risk of the child being born with HIV.

      It is good medical practice to avoid treatments with side effects if certainty in the diagnosis does not exceede 80%. In the mother's case such certainty is less than 50%, which reduces the risk of transmission to less than 6.5%. Under these conditions, chemotherapy will cause unnecessary iatrogenic injury to a baby that has more than 93.5% chance of being born healthy with no intervention at all.

      From a purely ethical point of view, it's hard to justify inflicting permanent injury to 94 healthy children to try and prevent the infection of 6.

      For all these reasons, in the case of this woman the risks of treatment outweigh the possible benefit.

      Delete
    7. @Ronda:

      For the sake of the TRUTH, check out the facts before selling more bogus AIDS.

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

      "..When Eliza Jane failed to improve, Maggiore took her to see Philip Incao...Incao prescribed amoxicillin for a presumed ear infection.... The following day, Eliza Jane became lethargic and vomited several times. While Maggiore was on the phone with Incao, Eliza Jane collapsed and stopped breathing.."

      Sudden vomiting, lethargy and death... what are the adverse reactions of amoxicillin?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoxicillin#Adverse_effects

      "...The onset of an allergic reaction to amoxicillin can be very sudden and intense - emergency medical attention must be sought as quickly as possible.... fever, nausea, and vomiting... For some people who are allergic to amoxicillin the side-effects can be deadly...Young children having ingested acute overdoses of amoxicillin manifested lethargy, vomiting and renal dysfunction."

      Now the ruthless HIV mongers, like the vultures that they are, try selling their HIV upon the corpse of an innocent child who was killed by amoxicillin.

      You're all a fake, you relabel as "AIDS" anything that suits your pharma business, including good hea

      Delete
    8. "Sudden vomiting, lethargy and death" are not diagnostic of anything - certainly not anaphylaxis.

      In real life - rather than in Al-Bayati's imagination - any paramedic or physician would diagnose anaphylaxis on the spot. It's that obvious clinically. Even a bus driver competent in first aid should be able to recognise it.

      Can you explain how "anaphylaxis" caused Eliza Jane's growth retardation, severe anaemia and thymic atrophy?

      Does it explain her HIV enecephalopathy?

      Does it explain the Xray findings of pneumonia and the Pneumocystis jirovecci found in her lungs post mortem? Did you even read the wiki article you linked?

      Eliza Jane died of PCP, as did her mother three years later.

      You are in denial. It is frightening that someone as ignorant as you are could be providing "medical" advice to women with HIV.

      Delete
    9. > Eliza Jane died of PCP,

      When the facts con't match your AIDS bible, simple change the facts.

      The annual incidence of pneumonia in children younger than 5 years of age is 34 to 40 cases per 1000 in Europe and North America, http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra011994

      If you want to relabel pneumonia as AIDS in order to "win" a debate then you're diagnosing AIDS in Western children at an absurd incidence of 40 per 1000!

      Anemia incidence in uschildren is at present 3.6% http://www.ajcn.org/content/88/6/1611.long

      You can't dignose AIDS without HIV serology... read your own bible! you pick up a common conditions and redefine it as "AIDS" by "bone pointing" the way any crackpot would do.

      Elisa died of the symptoms I mentioned earler and their cause was immediate and clearly iatrogenic, as I documented earlier.

      Delete
    10. "If you want to relabel pneumonia as AIDS..."

      Not just any old pneumonia - it was Pneumocystis jirovecci pneumonia (PCP). Same as what her mother died of three years later.

      "You can't dignose AIDS without HIV serology... read your own bible!"

      Actually, according to the 1999 case definition (which applied in 2005) you could for certain conditions, for example definitively diagnosed PCP in the absence of another cause for profound immunosuppression. "Definitively diagnosed" means by histology, including histology done at autopsy.

      But that's irrelevant, because the 2008 epidemiological surveillance requirement for Stage 3 (AIDS) is not for "HIV serology" - it's for "laboratory-confirmed evidence of HIV infection". Laboratory tests for HIV-1 p24 antigen are explicitly included in the case definition.

      "Elisa died of the symptoms I mentioned earler"

      "Sudden vomiting and lethargy" are non-specific symptoms of a sick kid, not of any disease in particular.

      By any definition, Eliza Jane died of AIDS, as the coroner determined, and which has never been challenged by anyone medically qualified.

      Sorry, those are the facts. It has nothing to do with "bone pointing" or other witchcraft. You are in denial.

      I just hope that the child you "helped" is lucky and turns out to be HIV negative, although your calculations of this probability are way too optimistic.

      Delete
    11. > "Sudden vomiting and lethargy" are
      > non-specific symptoms of a sick kid,
      > not of any disease in particular.

      You're turning a blind eye to the medical act that immediately preceded those symptoms: the administration of amoxicillin, which produces exactly those same symptoms.

      But then again HIV peddlers turn a blind eye to any reality that falsifies their theory of a virus being the common cause of 30 unrelated, previously known and treatable diseases.

      > Not just any old pneumonia - it was
      > Pneumocystis jirovecci pneumonia (PCP)

      Everybody has Pneumocystis jirovecci including YOU:

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

      "...In humans with a normal immune system, it is an extremely common silent infection...."

      Now you call a most commonplace infection because "AIDS" just becuase it suits you in a debate.... typical AIDS "bone pointing" diagnostic at its best!

      You guys belong in the rainforest, you belief system is pure wishful thinking and shamanism.

      Delete
    12. OK smart guy, go find a study where people show PCP in their lungs at autopsy by GMS staining in the absence of severe immune deficiency.

      http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite?page=kb-05-02-01

      “At the National Cancer Institute, only 7 of 2,887 consecutive autopsies revealed PCP, a prevalence rate of only 0.2% in a high-risk population.”

      (Vogel CL, Cohen MH, Powell RD, DeVita VT. Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia. Ann Intern Med. 1968 Jan;68(1):97-108).

      The population is described as “high risk” because it was people who had cancer. You're not arguing EJ had cancer I assume.

      Delete
    13. Everybody has Pneumocystis jirovecci including YOU:

      Putin, this is just getting silly.

      I probably don't have Pneumocystis jirovecci currently, although I probably have immunity to it from an earlier silent encounter. But even if I did currently have this bug in my body, I don't have Pneumocystis jirovecci pneumonia.

      I am certainly carrying Candida species: all humans do. However, I don't have oesophageal candidiasis.

      I probably have CMV and/or Toxoplasma gondii. They are very common. However, I don't have CMV retinitis or cerebral toxoplasmosis.

      I almost certainly have at least one of the herpes simplex viruses. Nearly everyone does. However, I don't have disseminated herpes.

      Many of the microbes that cause AIDS defining opportunistic diseases are common to almost universal.

      But the AIDS defining diseases caused by these microbes are generally rare to non-existent except in people with HIV/AIDS. TB is an exception - it is "only" 30 times more common in people with AIDS.

      Eliza-Jane didn't just have Pneumocystis jirovecci - she had Pneumocystis jirovecci pneumonia.

      PCP is an extremely rare disease, except in people with untreated HIV/AIDS.

      Delete
    14. > You're not arguing EJ had cancer I assume.

      Immunohistochemical detection of HIV-1 in the brain (what was used to push hiv on EJ) only looks for the p24 antigen. But HIV mongers can't even agree on the molecular weights or "HIV proteins":

      CAMBRIDGE BIOTECH HIV-1 WESTERN BLOT KIT

      http://www.omsj.org/tests/Cambridge%20Biotech%20HIV-1%20WB.pdf

      "...Slight ambiguities exist in the designation of the molecular weights of the HIV-1 antigens..."

      http://www.hpa.org.uk/cdph/issues/CDPHvol6/No4/6_4guideline1.pdf


      Also, stand-alone tests for p24 antigen are recognized as being of no diagnostic value:

      “...Experience has shown that HIV culture and ‘standalone’ tests for p24 antigen are of limited diagnostic value. They may be insensitive and/or non-specific,..."

      Readers can only laugh at these "bone pointing" political diagnoses aimed at smearing those who criticize the silly HIV link to AIDS.

      Delete
    15. > go find a study where people show PCP in their
      > lungs at autopsy by GMS staining in the absence of
      > severe immune deficiency.

      be my guest:

      Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia in an immunocompetent female patient:

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19783112

      The reason it's not found more often is due to "attention bias" because GMS staining is performed SELECTIVELY in immune depressed patients and not on the population at large.

      > The population is described as “high risk”
      > because it was people who had cancer. You're not
      > arguing EJ had cancer I assume.

      So you ADMIT that hiv is not the ONLY cause of immune deficiency... that's some progress.

      Now let's leave for a moment the HIV TUNNEL VISION system and look at The Many Causes of Immune Deficiency:

      http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/i/immune_deficiency_conditions/causes.htm?ktrack=kcplink#causeslis

      * Various serious illnesses: o Chronic illness
      o Cancers
      o Cancer patients - chemotherapy can cause immune deficiency.
      o Severe emotional disorders
      o Malnutrition * Juvenile Scleroderma - impaired immune system
      * Myelodysplastic syndrome
      * Renal failure, acute
      * C3 deficiency, hereditary
      * Diabetes mellitus type 1
      * Prednisolone
      * Centromeric instability of chromosomes 1,9 and 16 and immunodeficiency
      * Efalizumab
      * Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
      * Roifman syndrome - immune deficiency
      * Velocardiofacial syndrome
      * Diabetes mellitus type 2
      * Starvation (acute)
      * Anakinra
      * Ataxia telangiectasia - weak immune system
      * Brequinar
      * X-linked lymphoproliferative disease
      * Philadelphia-negative chronic myeloid leukemia - susceptibility to infection
      * Leukemia, Monocytic, Acute - susceptibility to infection
      * Adenosine deaminase deficiency
      * Common variable hypogammaglobulinaemia
      * Paroxysmal nocturnal haemoglobinuria
      * Tacrolimus
      * Chediak-Higashi disease
      * Mizoribine
      ...
      ... list too long...
      ...
      * Hyperimmunoglobulin E (IgE) syndrome
      * Chromosome 22q11.2 deletion syndrome - weak immune system
      * Paraneoplastic syndrome
      * Pentostatin
      * Visceral leishmaniasis
      * Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome
      * Recurrent hereditary polyserositis

      and only in the LAST place

      * HIV-1 disease

      Causes that the AIDS establishment chose to ignore, for they're too busy marketing a BOGUS CAUSE in order to sell their BOGUS REMEDIES and live the good life.

      Delete
    16. > Many of the microbes that cause AIDS
      > defining opportunistic diseases are common
      > to almost universal.

      Exactly... you're starting to see the light.

      Now admit that the list of causes of immune deficiency is VAST (see http://www.rightdiagnosis.com/i/immune_deficiency_conditions/causes.htm).

      Next admit you suffer from TUNNEL VISION by seeing HIV in any immune deficiency ingnoring:

      1. surrogate hiv markers that come up positivem with more then 60 documented conditions,

      2. more than 80 documented causes for immune deficiency.

      So stop pushing your, simplistic, childish and unscientific SINGLE VIRAL CAUSE paradigm of AIDS, which is based on turning the blind eye to the complex world around you!

      Delete
    17. Are you claiming that the woman in the study you cite died and PCP was detected at autopsy? If not you haven't answered the question.

      "The reason it's not found more often is due to "attention bias" because GMS staining is performed SELECTIVELY in immune depressed patients and not on the population at large."

      It was only found in 7 of 2,887 cancer patients.

      In this more recent study it was found in none:
      http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/128/3/1385.long

      "No patient was found to have PCP at autopsy."

      Here's recent survey from China:

      J Med Microbiol. 2011 May;60(Pt 5):631-8. Epub 2011 Jan 27.

      Retrospective study of Pneumocystis pneumonia over half a century in mainland China.

      Wang XL, Wang XL, Wei W, An CL.

      Department of Medical Microbiology and Parasitology, College of Basic Medical Sciences, China Medical University, Shenyang 110001, PR China.

      Abstract

      A retrospective study was performed on case reports of Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) from 1959 to 2009 in mainland China. The epidemiological characteristics of PCP over half a century were investigated over two time spans. The first was from 1959, when the first incidence of PCP was reported, to 1984, before the emergence of AIDS in mainland China. The second was from 1985, when the first AIDS case was reported in mainland China, to the end of 2009. A total of 2351 PCP cases were reported during these two time spans, covering a 51-year period. Only seven PCP cases were reported during the first time span. Six were diagnosed by autopsy, accordingly without treatment, whilst the other was diagnosed by open lung biopsy in a living patient who eventually recovered following treatment with sulfadiazine and pyrimethamine. The other 2344 PCP cases were reported during the second time span (1985-2009) from 21 provinces, four municipalities and three autonomous regions. Among the 2344 PCP cases, 70.22 % (1646/2344) were identified together with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection or were in AIDS patients. The remaining 698 non-HIV-infected patients had undergone organ transplantation, had other underlying diseases such as malignancy or hypoimmunity, or had undetermined diagnosis. The results of statistical analysis indicated that AIDS was the most common underlying disease of PCP for patients <1 year and >14 years. For patients aged between 1 and 14 years, haematological malignancy was the most common underlying disease. The trend of the underlying diseases changed with time, showing that the number of PCP patients afflicted by HIV/AIDS increased dramatically, reaching almost threefold during the most recent 5 years compared with the level of the previous 10 years. The number of patients undergoing organ transplantation or with other underlying diseases rose constantly, but the number of malignancies tended to decline from 1995-2004 to 2005-2009. During the second time span (1995-2009), most of the patients (97.61 %) were diagnosed alive and only 56 cases (2.39 %) were identified by autopsy. The mortality of PCP patients treated with anti-Pneumocystis drugs was 14.61 % for those with HIV/AIDS and 15.84 % for those without HIV/AIDS. For the PCP patients without anti-Pneumocystis treatment, all (100 %) of the HIV/AIDS-associated PCP patients died, whilst 13.79 % (4/29) of non-HIV-infected PCP patients survived. These data from epidemiological investigation of PCP in China over a period of half a century may provide useful information for prevention and the development of treatment of PCP.

      Explain again the factors that you think would've caused EJ to have PCP detected in her lungs by GMS. Are you now saying, based on the study you cited, that she was immunocompetent but developed PCP and died of it?

      Delete
    18. > Are you claiming that the woman in the study you
      > cite died and PCP was detected at autopsy?

      PCP is PCP whether you're dead or alive, hiv+ or not. You're setting your own rules for who has PCP "acceptable" by hiv-mongers and and who has "regular" PCP, you're a total joke.

      > Explain again the factors that you think
      > would've caused EJ to have PCP detected in her
      > lungs by GMS.

      1. being a common infection,

      2. focus bias by a doctor who wanted to look for it to confirm his beliefs.

      Since the incidence of PJ detectable by GMS in the general population is unknown - unless you kill your PCP patients - you "GMS only" condition is a straw man.

      Delete
    19. > OK smart guy, go find a study where people show
      > PCP in their lungs at autopsy by GMS staining in
      > the absence of severe immune deficiency.

      Here you are, fear monger, I must do your homework for you!

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3492758

      Pneumocystis carinii (now jiroveci) in human lungs at AUTOPSY.

      "...To get some information about the prevalence of Pneumocystis carinii in the Danish population we have examined autopsy lung biopsies from patients at 2 large hospitals in Copenhagen, Righospitalet (RH) and Finseninstituttet (F),.."

      Results:

      ".. pneumocysts found in 4.7% at RH hospital and in 4.4% at F hospital.."

      Now you would diagnose 4.5% of the Danish hospital population with HIV, that's how much of a snake-oil saleswoman you are!

      Delete
  16. @ blast from the past , quote, This is just further proof that AIDS Denial, or Dissidence or whatever you want to call it, is dying much like the followers , unquote.

    Really ? The reality is , whatever you want to call it are getting on with their lives , healthy , free from debilitating medication , free from the compliance teams with degrees in manipulation , free from arseholes who cant see the wood for the trees , and with lawyers suing those fuckers that dont disclose factual scientific data to their patients . And for your information Seth , none of those you mentioned above have been chasing or exploiting me . I wish they would , my story tells of a worse cover up than has allready gone on .

    If the best you lot can do is gloat and slander people for choosing life instead of the prison that HIV became , then youv lost the war .

    Humanity and giving life and support to those choosing life is something the shitheads who run and gloat on this page know nothing about.

    If you were a lawyer Seth , youd be doing exactly the same as the HIV tests and pharmaceutical companies and the politicians , exploiting peoples weakneses by lying to them. Here , i think you might be in with a shout there , you have those credentials already you sad bastard.

    Vultures the lot of you , you should be ashamed of yourselves . If you were men at all , youd crawl back under the peice of shit you came from and give the families of the dead the respect they deserve .

    As for Deer , gutter press paid for by those with conflicts of interest.



    Andy Lindsay

    ReplyDelete
  17. In Brian Deers own words ;

    "In my piece I had opined that scientists are no more trustworthy than restaurant managers – whose kitchens are randomly inspected to protect the public. But my commissioning editor told me I couldn't say that in "the house journal of science". I had the impression they felt it just wasn't a reasonable thing to say.

    And then came the killer: a five-page contract I would have to sign before I could be welcomed aboard"


    Looks like you buckled then Brian doesnt it.

    Andy Lindsay.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You realize that context has nothing to do with HIV, right?

      Actually, you probably don't, because you are paranoid and delusional. But it doesn't.

      Delete
    2. You realize that context has nothing to do with HIV, right?

      Actually, you probably don't, because you are paranoid and delusional. But it doesn't.

      Delete
    3. > You realize that context has
      > nothing to do with HIV, right?

      HIV is a delusional world of arbitrary surrogate markers in healthy people treated with the deadliest cell poisons known to man.

      Delete
    4. Pretty sure the deadliest cell poison known to man in Botulinum toxin or ricin. It is certainly not a drug that can be taken for upwards of 15 years.

      Delete
    5. Lower the dose like HIV mongers did with nucleotid analogues until boulism becoems a "chronic" disease.

      Remove it altogether and you get "elite controllers".

      The scam is soooo tranparent! only the mentlally weak fall for it.

      Delete
    6. Um, botulism is a bacterial infection. There is no dose to lower, unless you refer to the dose of antitoxin. In that case, the infection would indeed be lifelong, with "life" equal to a few pain-filled days.

      Delete
    7. You were talking about Botulinum toxin, now you pretend you were not?

      Administer this toxin like you administer nucleotid analogues - in dosis that are not deadly - and you produce a chronic patient of botulism just like you've produced chronic patients of HIV!

      Delete
    8. You obviously have no idea about how botulism toxin works if you think that is the case. Some toxins can build up in the body. Many don't. BT causes acute respiratory failure. I have not seen any evidence that injecting a dose smaller than the one needed to cause this would cause chronic damage. In fact, the immune system mounts a response against BT and neutralizes it. That is how the antitoxin is created. Continuous injection of microdoses would result in immunity, not "chronic botulism."


      I haven't seen any evidence that nucleoside analogues build up in tissue, and cause immune collapse either, but you guys seem to take it on faith.


      And Botulism the disease always refers to the bacterial infection.

      Delete
    9. > You obviously have no idea about how
      > botulism toxin works if you think that is
      > the case. Some toxins can build up in the
      > body. Many don't.

      Fine! Let's go back to ARVs... It’s been known for a long time that antiretroviral treatment actually damages the mitochondria.

      Mitochondria have their own DNA, and damage to them is an irreversible life-long burden.

      MITOCHONDRIAL TOXICITY OF ARVs... the bizarro world of "hiv treatment" that not only can't cure AIDS but it comes to its own bonus of permanent, life-threatening diseases:

      - Kohler & Lewis, “A brief overview of mechanisms of mitochondrial toxicity from NRTIs"
      - Lewis et al., “Antiretroviral nucleosides, deoxynucleotide carrier and mitochondrial DNA: evidence supporting the DNA pol gamma hypothesis"
      - Brinkman et al., “Mitochondrial toxicity induced by nucleoside-analogue reverse-transcriptase inhibitors is a key factor in the pathogenesis of antiretroviral-therapy-related lipodystrophy"
      - Chapplain et al., “Mitochondrial abnormalities in HIV-infected lipo-atrophic patients treated with antiretroviral agents"
      - Brinkman et al., “Adverse effects of reverse transcriptase inhibitors: mitochondrial toxicity as common pathway"
      - Lewis & Dalakas, “Mitochondrial toxicity of antiviral drugs"
      - Donovan (editorial), “MR recognition of mitochondrial dysfunction in children born of HIV-seropositive mothers on antiretroviral therapy"
      - Munoz et al., “Mitochondrial diseases in children: neuroradiological and clinical features in 17 patients"
      - Blanche et al., “Persistent mitochondrial dysfunction and perinatal exposure to antiretroviral nucleoside analogues"
      - Culnane et al., “Lack of long-term effects of in utero exposure to zidovudine among uninfected children born to HIV-in fected women"
      - Taylor & Low-Beer , “Antiretroviral therapy in pregnancy: a focus on safety"
      - Mantovani & Calamandrei, “Delayed developmental effects following prenatal exposure to drugs"
      - Barret et al., “Mitochondrial dysfunction in HIV uninfected children"
      - Shiramizu et al., “Placenta and cord blood mitochondrial DNA toxicity in HIV-infected women receiving nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors during pregnancy"
      - Poirier et al., “Long-term mitochondrial toxicity in HIV-uninfected infants born to HIV-infected mothers"
      - Tardieu et al., “Cerebral magnetic resonance imaging in children born to HIV seropositive mothers and perinatally exposed to zidovudine"
      - Saitoh et al., “Impact of Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors on mitochondria in Human Immunodefciency Virus Type 1-infected children receiving Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy"
      - “New chemical tool kit manipulates mitochondria, reveals insights into drug toxicity"

      There’s such a plethora of studies. The HIV vigilantes say rethinkers cherry-pick the literature, it's utterly impossible here. The deluge of studies finding the same thing illustrates that highly reproducible results do not alter medical practice when those results contradict mainstream dogma.

      Delete
    10. > And Botulism the disease always refers
      > to the bacterial infection.

      You stubbornly refuse to get the point...

      You can take healthy people and turn them into "artificial botulism" patients by administering them the toxin, the same way the AIDS industry fabricates artificial "AIDS" patients by giving healthy people immunosuppressant ARVs.

      Still pretend not to understand?

      Delete
    11. "You can take healthy people and turn them into "artificial botulism" patients by administering them the toxin, the same way the AIDS industry fabricates artificial "AIDS" patients by giving healthy people immunosuppressant ARVs."

      Didn't I just say there would be no long term impact of injecting subclinical amounts of botulism toxin?


      Well yes, your statement is true in that it has never been proven that nucleoside analogues are immunosupressants. They have been proven to cause dozens of side effects, probably due to the effects on mitochondrial DNA replication. But immune impairment is not one of them. And they have never been proven to cause sudden irreparable damage years after the drugs have been cut.

      Delete
    12. > hey have never been proven to cause sudden
      > irreparable damage years after the drugs have
      > been cut.

      You forgot so soon the woman that heads this article?

      > it has never been proven that nucleoside
      > analogues are immunosupressants.

      http://www.touchbriefings.com/pdf/2930/thornton.pdf

      "...clinicians should have an
      understanding of the potential impact of drug therapy on the bone marrow and overall immunosuppression in patients infected with HIV.
      IATROGENIC IMMUNOSUPPRESSION from drug exposure could adversely influence the outcome of HIV therapy..."

      Ignorance, rightout lies or both? from the HIV mongering front with love! or hate?

      HIV+ + ARVs = iatrogenic AIDS.

      Delete
    13. Yes. Karri Stokely, who kept telling everyone how healthy she was and how her immune system was fine, until she suddenly got really sick and died of the poisonous drugs she stopped taking years earlier. Interesting poison that is. It only works after you stop taking it.


      I should have clarified. AZT cause netropenia and granulocytopenia, neither a hallmark of AIDS, while on the drug.

      The drugs have never been proven to cause long-term selective immunodestruction years after they are stopped. And many of the drugs have not been shown to have any immune effect whatsoever.

      Delete
    14. > The drugs have never been proven to cause
      > long-term selective immunodestruction years
      > after they are stopped. And many of the
      > drugs have not been shown to have any
      > immune effect whatsoever.

      Again, no citations that support your claims? Then it's only your personal opinion that you make up as you go.

      Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, especially AZT, induce apoptosis in the immune cell populations of HIV patients:

      - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9467750

      - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10050777 (mitochondrial dysfunction in hematological cells)

      Now it's funny, when the CD4 count of a person on ARVs go down HIV gets the blame for it!

      This crude twisting of reality can only happen in the surreal, kafkian world of HIV/AIDS, the multibillion dollar iatrogenic disease.

      Delete
    15. What about citations to support your claim that they do? Have you ever heard of a poison that causes greater symptoms among those that don't take it?
      Oh right. THere are none.

      Delete
    16. > a poison that causes greater symptoms among
      > those that don't take it

      You made up this one yesterday, rught? No citations of course.

      “...From April 1996 through December 2000, a total of 501 antiretroviral-naive HIV-seropositive patients who initiated HAART were recruited .... After 24 months of follow-up, 42 (16.5%) of 255 patients were considered to have a discordant immune response [low CD4 cell counts with low viral load or high CD4 cell counts with high viral load] .... Most (death or adverse) events (29 [65%] of 44 events) occurred within the FIRST YEAR AFTER INITIATION OF HAART. Overall, clinical events were not more frequent among patients with a discordant immune response than among patients with a good immunologic response.”

      - Dronda F et al. Long-term outcomes among antiretroviral-naive human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients with small increases in CD4+ cell counts after successful virologic suppression. Clin Infect Dis. 2002 Oct 15;35(8):1005-9.


      “...Of the 1735 patients who initiated HAART, 186 patients died and 37 were lost to follow-up during 1955 person years of follow-up. Out of these patients, 103 (46.1%) died within 3 months AFTER HAART INITIATION.”

      - Madec Y et al. Response to highly active antiretroviral therapy among severely immuno-compromised HIV-infected patients in Cambodia. AIDS. 2007

      “...By Dec 31, 2008, 23 699 patients (12%) of the 196 368 new patients who initiated ART in Malawi were known to have died. Although nearly two-thirds of deaths happened within 3 months after starting ART....A further 24 409 patients (12%) were classifi ed as “lost to follow-up”...Operational research has shown that 50% of patients lost to follow-up have died.”

      - Harries AD et al. Diagnosis and management of antiretroviral-therapy failure in resource-limited settings in sub-Saharan Africa: challenges and perspectives. Lancet Infect Dis. 2010 Jan;10(1):60-5.

      "...…This was a cohort study of 320 treatment-naïve adults who started ART between October 2003 and November 2006…Mortality was found to be high, with the majority of deaths occurring within 3 months of starting ART.”

      - Johannessen A et al. Predictors of mortality in HIV-infected patients starting antiretroviral therapy in a rural hospital in Tanzania. BMC Infect Dis. 2008;8:52

      “...very short survival after HAART initiation among patients initially categorized as lost but who were eventually confirmed dead (i.e., 42 days)…in this study, nearly 60% of all deaths within the first year would not have been detected unless patient tracing was performed…The finding of substantial death rates among patients who are lost to follow-up also suggests that death rates after HAART initiation in the developing world may be higher than previously suspected.”

      - Bisson GP et al. Overestimates of survival after HAART: implications for global scale-up efforts. PLoS One. 2008;3(3):e1725.

      Delete
    17. Those studies don't prove anything for you. Kari Stokely's immune system declined AFTER she stooped HAART. You suggest that was the effects of HAART that somehow carried over.

      Jon Barnett's numbers are still declining after he stopped HAART, which he was on for only a short time. You and he say HAART was also responsible.

      You have to prove that a medicine can cause selective decline in a specific cell line, doing most of the damage after it is no longer taken.


      Do not show a study of people who were suffered from AIDS before they started HAART, and claim it supports your view that HAART was responsible. Because that is seemingly what you just did. " In our cohort more than half of the patients had clinical AIDS AT ENROLLMENT INTO HIV CARE, and other African ART programs have also reported high rates of advanced disease"

      So if the drugs are the sole cause of AIDS, they cause AIDS before you take them, and they cause AIDS years after they are stopped. If the drugs are not the sole cause, how many causes are there? And why did all these causes appear around the same time?

      Delete
    18. > Those studies don't prove anything for you. Kari
      > Stokely's immune system declined AFTER she
      > stooped HAART.

      Two gross scientific errors:

      1. One person is not a representative sample to extract conclussion to the population at large,

      2. The damages that caused her death are reported in the ARV inserts as "deadly side effects".

      3. Her medical history before being diagnosed with "hiv" is brimming with probable causes of death.

      if you listen carefully to what Karri is saying in that interview with Robert Scott Bell, she describes severe problems from breast surgery that caused infection and use of antibiotics and a very clear assault on her immune system.

      That was followed in later years by severe anatomical problems from botched surgery at first childbirth that involved failure to heal, massive antibiotic therapy and, once again, a massive assault on her immune system.

      In 1995 at her second time of giving birth there were problems with the C Section, failure to heal and an immune system very clearly under massive pressure.

      It was shortly after that when she was tested for 'HIV', clearly a medical short-circuiting that seems, at the very least, to ignore her history.

      She tests positive and is then put on highly toxic anti-HIV chemotherapy which clearly attacks the DNA and gives rise to all kinds of complications and is known to last for many years, maybe in some cases forever, even after they are stopped.

      Delete
    19. > Do not show a study of people who were suffered
      > from AIDS before they started HAART,

      Where did you get the "suffering" from? You're making assuptions again...

      You seem to ignore that the criterium to initiate of HAART is not "being ill", but certain levels of CD counts and viral load, levels that do not correlate with illness.

      You've shown a high degree of bias and subjectivism in your assessments. With no scientifical mind you're just another dupe of this pseudo-scientific pharma scam.

      Delete
    20. "Where did you get the "suffering" from? You're making assuptions again..."

      That paper. The one you cited. The one that cited statistics about how many of the participants started malnourished, with severe anemia, and disseminated infections.

      YOU were the one who brought up Karri Stokely and said her death was due to HAART. If you want to talk about concluding things from one patient. We take statistically relevant data, and Snout has cited the vast difference in life expectancy between those on therapy and those HIV+ off of it. Now you are saying that her immune failure waas due to all sorts of reasons, and HAART was only one factor.

      YOU are the one who cannot explain why any other virus was isolated with higher standards than HIV. Who cannot explain why a picture of dozens of particles that look like viruses and no cellular debris in site
      http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/lecture/images/hiv_tm_em.jpg
      is worse than micrographs of other viruses.
      http://newsinfo.iu.edu/pub/libs/images/usr/7206.jpg
      http://www.esrf.eu/news/general-old/general-2009/Influenza-Virus.jpg

      Most of them have no scale, and I'm fairly sure that viruses are not viable after being bombarded with electrons.


      In addition, you have never stated the cause of polio if not the polio virus or explained how there could be cases of polio traced back to contaminated vaccine, when we got the wrong virus.

      You also think that vaccines are ineffective, which means that you have to explain where all the cases of measles went. Or rubella. Or smallpox, even from the unhygienic areas of the globe.

      Your views are so out there and so lacking in credibility, that your arrogant impregnation of my scientific credentials is laughable.



      Pretty sure, I am not the one who is biased and lacking a scientific mind, here.

      Delete
  18. The "strongly worded letter" the ReThinking AIDS facebook group promised has yet to materialize. It was promised 48 hours ago and that self imposed deadline has passed and no letter! Perhaps their righteous indignation has nutted already!

    And the other FB page Celia Farber wanted to "reinvigorate" has amassed a whopping 15 members in 72 hours!

    These DENIALISTS need to accept that their "movement" is impotent.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @ Christina:

    While I agree with you for the most part-i.e."rallying the troops"- I fear that these alternative ( to reality) proselytisers may hang on *forever* despite hard evidence, scientific consensus and public opinion. Interestingly sometimes old ideas don't die: I have some 1960 alt med compilations that 'new stylee' proselytisers echo today. Let's hope that their numbers continue to decline.

    Sceptic D

    ReplyDelete
  20. I just noticed the guys over at QA.com have also initiated a letter writing campaign to The Guardian. They ask that everyone who writes a letter to please tell everyone they have done so at that particular thread. They think 100 letters should do it! But alas, after 4 days not one person has said they have written a letter!

    It is also now 4 days and the letter and petition at RA facebook have not materialized either.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I am not surprised that at RA, nothing has materialized. It has been over 55 years and Clark Baker's brain hasn't materialized yet.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Celia Farber is paranoid. The comment below to which she is referring, was not made about her. So I guess she is paranoid and egotistical.

    Yvonne Bender ‎Celia Ingrid Farber .
    12 hours ago

    Celia Ingrid Farber I'll answer you following an apology for the false accusation that I went on radio and said I wouldn't "shag" an HIV positive person. You neo-FB dissidents will say anything.
    7 hours ago

    ReplyDelete
  23. Celia Farber is up to her old tricks; she is ranting and raving like a lunatic and then deleting her comments! This is going on at the RA facebook page.

    Just one day after she was preaching about dissidents taking a non violent approach to discussions and giving people "Spirit Boosts" she went on a crazy rampage of violent language against several people! All it seems, because of the Parenzee Case from several years ago. Can't they ever let stuff go and get along? It's confusing. I can't tell if she hates Brink or Crowe or who exactly due to her looooonnnngggg screaming rants HALF IN ALL CAPS TO MAKE HER POINT EVEN MORE VIOLENT!!!

    But don't look for them because she took them down.

    OOOPPPSSS, but thank God I saved them! heheheee

    Yep, I copy/pasted them. Such good fortune! Any suggestions where I could post them? hint, hint, Seth!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Truthy, looks like Celia has never seen your website. She wants to know why no one cares about all the people Clark Baker freed from prison. You think anyone will have the heart to tell her Clarkie had nothing to do with those cases?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Clarkie in WonderlandFebruary 27, 2012 at 1:51 AM

    This is Humpty dumpty... now that Clarkie and Celia are fumbling their words... I am the new denialist spokesperson. Here are the first denialist words I spoke centuries ago... when I pointed out we can make words mean whatever we want... we don't need to listen to scientists.... just redefine the problem by redefining the words! WE DENY THAT REALITY EXISTS!

    'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
    'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
    'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

    And that is why I deny the lie... that all the King's men can't put the Denialist egg back together again.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Remember.... it is not a lie, if you believe it.

    ReplyDelete
  27. notElon, I doubt it would matter if Celia Farber read my site and absorbed every word. She and the other hard core denialists, and there is no other appropriate word for them, will never believe the facts about any aspect of HIV no matter how those facts are presented. I could dip facts in gold, encrust them with jewels and present them in a Tiffany box and the denialists would still reject them. But ain't it fun trying? :)

    ReplyDelete
  28. Celia Farber seems to be a very disturbed woman. I am not trying to be funny nor cruel. But her tirades at RA facebook are very disturbing. One day she seems calm and introspective, the next day she is spitting vile and violence and directly contradicting her previous statements. The word for that is hypocrisy. And then the next day her meds kick back in and she deletes her violent tirades.

    This Brian Deer story inspired her to restart her Anti-"Denialist" facebook page, garnering all of 15 members in the past week. Now she wants to start another facebook page called "Transcending AIDS". She really needs to schedule an appoint with Seth for some hard core counselling. Seth, if you can't prescribe meds for her, then slip them in her tea. She seems like a tea drinker to me...or perhaps shove her back into the "happy box" with the "light the frequency of pure love!"

    ReplyDelete
  29. @ Truthy et al:

    re Celia & Clark:

    They carry on because they have nothing else to do with their lives and denialism represents- at least in their fevered imaginations- a chance at fame and fortune rather than realistically trying to salvage what remains of their thusfar sadly disappointing lives. You know, in middle age you can turn things around- study, work, make friends, get a hobby, oh why not? There's a whole big world out there!

    However, I am a realist and doubt that either of them will abandon their 'claim to fame'- after all, it may all that they have. Sad.

    Sceptic D

    ReplyDelete
  30. Dear Mr. Kalichman,

    I wonder if you would please remove whatever it was you posted here some time ago, pertaining to my visit to a clinic called The Life Vessel Institute. I was directed there by a good friend who was concerned about my health after I had developed severe pneumonia, chronic fatigue, and crippling depression. I wrote about it on my Facebook Page primarily so concerned friends in Sweden could know how I was doing. The Life Vessel Institute is an extraordinary place and the people there treated me with great love and dignity. I don't want their name misrepresented, and my illness and healing was a private matter that doesn't belong here, as material for mockery. Please remove it. I think if you start to adhere to at least some standards of dignity toward other people, and freedom of medical choice, you will feel better. There is a tremendous amount of information emerging about healing modalities for various illnesses. For people with AIDS, reparation of the gut is the most promising avenue, because it brings candida under control, which some ARV drugs can also play a role in, transiently. Please remove all mention of my private medical struggles, which were obtained by invasion. Please also refrain from attacking and misrepresenting people who are HIV positive and trying to get well. It's not right. If you have any questions about anybody's health you should, as a real journalist would, contact them, or their families, ask for facts, and report only with their blessing. All else is just a violation of patient's rights, and human rights. It's also not journalism. Thank you.

    Celia Farber

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I disagree. It is journalism, because you stated that recommendation in a public venue. Seth did not mention it with regard to your health. That might indeed be a private matter. You are not a persin of any great importance, whose individual health choices should be publicized and mocked.

      But Seth only mentioned the Life Vessel Institute with regard to your public suggestion that a dying person should go there instead of seeking treatment for HIV. The Life Vessel Institute might do great things to provide pain and stress relief, but empirically such symptomatic treatments have not done as well as the control of the underlying cause. Of course, you believe that cause doesn't exist, but Seth [and facts] disagree.

      Seth also did not say anything about the Life Vessel Center that their own website does not say. If you feel self-conscious about "using frequency, vibration, sound and light to enable a person to reach a natural state of relaxation," then you should not have recommended it.

      Delete
    2. Dear Ms Farber,

      I wonder if I could trouble you to remove all the homicidally misleading drivel you have written over the years about HIV/AIDS and its prevention and treatment.

      Unfortunately, a number of people have died as a result of believing your blithering idiocy, and numerous others have suffered substantial harm.

      Please note that when you post private medical details about yourself all over the internet (as you did in your second sentence above) they cease to be private. If you don't want such details to be subject to public discussion - including the possibility of mockery - then keep them private.

      Please also note that if you pen gushing testimonials about charlatans who use ridiculous modalities to con seriously ill people into giving them money for unproven and useless treatments, then mockery is the very least you can expect. You can style it "health freedom" if you like, but most of us will recognise it as fraud of the most venal and exploitative kind.

      Please also note that if people with HIV post private details about their own health on the internet in an effort to deceive their readers into rejecting competent medical advice and as a result those readers suffer harm, then you can be pretty damned sure that those publicly posted "private details" will be subject - at the very least - to extensive scrutiny and discussion. No matter how hard you and your friends try to cast that information down the memory hole when things go horribly wrong.

      Finally, please also note that Seth is not a journalist, even by your own very loose understanding of the profession.

      Thank you.

      Snout.

      Delete
    3. First of all, Ms. Farber never said she was suffering from "severe pneumonia" on her FB page regarding the Life Vessel. She only said it was due to her Post Traumatic Stress disorder! (Which is offensive to War Vets and others who actually suffer from PTSD.) What a blatant lie! However, a chamber full of light of any frequency has not been shown to kill pneumonia causative organisms. Unless of course you are using high intensity UV light like in a laminar flow hood used in laboratories. But that is not good for humans, to say the least.

      Next, Ms. Farber is quite the hypocrite. She accuses Seth of not treating people with dignity and that he needs to contact the person or their families regarding issues of their health. Much like Ms. Farber did when she viciously, and violently railed against Kim Bannon's father and Kim's best friends at QA.com! That was some of the most disgusting, vile tirades I have ever read! Not to mention libel and slander of Kim's father. Did you sue yourself for that, Ms. Farber? You hypocrite.

      Please Ms. Farber, stop being a lying, manipulative hypocrite. Grow up and practice what you preach.

      JTD is all you'll get from me.

      Delete
  31. Dear DOCTOR Kalichman:
    I wonder if you would please LEAVE on your website all the publicity surrounding Celia-Attention-Whore-Pathetic-Idiot Farber's visit to the "Love-Wave Chamber." Any scam enterprise that purports to treat pneumonia by shoving them in a "love capsule" is as phony as the ideology that denialists like Celia maintain. Pneumonia should be treated with antibiotics, not idiocy.
    Facebook is not private, nor should it be expected so. The law has established that, as well as common sense. However, Celia has made a notorious career out of demonstrating that she lacks an understanding of both.
    Celia's "illness" is not a private matter, as she publicized this "life-love chamber" scam.

    Furthermore, Celia shows in her usual illogic that she fails to understand the very concepts that she asks you to adhere to - medical choice and dignity. She is as undignified as trash comes - blaspheming families, thrashing about filing lawsuits, and manipulating people into believing lies which often end up in their deaths. This isn't "medical choice." It is death by ignorance - which she promotes. "Medical choice" is based in informed decision-making. Celia gutter-slut Farber is an impediment to that.
    "Reparation of the gut" is Celia's latest blathering. And there is NO evidence that anything that Celia is whining about was obtained by "invasion."

    Furthermore, she needs to educate herself that the greatest "attacker" who misrepresents people who are HIV positive - is her and her ilk (e.g. Clarkie Baker). Providing them with accurate knowledge about HIV to counter her bullshit is a public service that should be lauded.

    Interestingly, she refers to you as a journalist. Last I heard, she is the only one who calls herself a "journalist" - although she is a failed one. You are a professor and a researcher, and like most other things of obviousness - that escapes Celia. Reporting on the condition of anyone's health, especially public hypocrites like Maggiore, Bannon, Stokely, et al is NOT a violation of rights - she has nothing to back that up. She wants to have her cake and eat it to - hold these people up as the paragons of denialism then stifle the press when they die. Sue people for calling her out. Silencing public health advocates like Jeffries. Hypocrisy to the maximum. Reporting on the sad fate of these people is RESPONSIBLE and a public health service, as far as anyone else (other than Celia) is concerned.

    Finally, she demonstrates incredible chutzpah talking about "human rights." I might suggest that over 300,000 people in South Africa lost their rights as humans to live because mental dimwits like Celia Farber and ignoramus like Peter Duesberg. Celia talking about human rights would be funny if it weren't so reminiscent of Hitler talking about kindness.

    Celia's letter is a masterpiece of bullshit - like her failed career, her mental fragility, and her constant and unwavering manipulation of those who are vulnerable. Certainly she has a lot to be depressed about, and a "love chamber" isn't going to be the solution to her problems. Any "love chamber" service that purports to "treat" pneumonia or idiocy should be exposed as a scam as well.

    Keep up the good work, Dr. Kalichman.

    -Kralc

    ReplyDelete
  32. Celia's latest is her greatest.

    She claims we should contact patients to get the real facts about their illness. Exactly! We contacted Celia about her incredible claims about 3 Hz cures her illness.

    The judge in New York pointed out Celia's double standards. She plays the bully and runs people out of jobs and blasts libel everywhere. But, she cannot take the smallest negative comment.

    Lawyers, again I ask: why do we not counterclaim against Clark and Celia? They condemn themselves with their own words.

    Words have consequences. Farber's fake 3 Hz cures as substitutes for real medicine have consequences.

    We should make a deal with Farber. We can omit reference to "the Life Vessel Institute" if she promises to post new inane material on this website every day. Otherwise, I think we should all post thousands of references to the 3 Hz cure.

    Celia, what would it take? We need a new comment from you everyday! C'mon, give us fresh meet. We welcome your freedom of speech! The more you talk, the more you discredit denialists.

    ReplyDelete
  33. it was not proven that she died of AIDS.... she died from a condition she had 4 years before she was diagnosed with AIDS... the drug she took worsten her initial condition... if you have time read "AIDS: The Crime Beyond Belief by William L.C. Scott & Donald W. Scott". I'm sure you folks believed they landed on the moon too....

    ReplyDelete
  34. @ James Murtagh:

    Counter-suit is certainly an enticing idea but it would probably tie up judicial systems in several countries for years because denialists - and other alt med prevaricators- habitually shoot their mouths off - most likely, unrestrained by higher cortical activity : giving atrocious, dangerous medical advice, frightening people off pharmaceutical products while playing fast and loose with facts about their critics' sources of income- and just about everything else. Oddly enough, these are the creatures who are doing the suing: reasonable people would expect it to be *the other way round*!

    Sceptic D

    ReplyDelete
  35. Ms. Farber also recently wrote, at the ReThinking AIDS facebook page, that there have been many times when she has been homeless. She said she was so broke she had to move out of her NY apartment because she sublet it at times. This is not someone who is concerned with her privacy.

    ReplyDelete
  36. @ Anonymous: Yeat - I'm sure we folks also believe the Earth is round as well...How crazy, huh?

    ReplyDelete
  37. That "strongly worded letter/petition" that was promised by the group at ReThinking AIDS facebook page never materialized. Much like Celia Farber's rants, their righteous indignation burns out fast.

    Also, Ms. Farber has dropped out of the conversation at RA FB. Her meds may have worn off.

    And the group she tried to re-energized still has the same 15 members. What a shame.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nope she came back. Trying to get people to contribute some spare change for a site to support her "assumption" all AIDS is caused by degeneration of the digestive tract. Unfortunately, her appeal isn't going to well. Someone suggested she host a bake sale.

      Delete
  38. @Concerned Citizen:
    Another complete lie from the lying bullshit that vomits out of Farber's mouth. Faber's daddy pays for everything for her. She takes many holidays, etc. For crying out loud - she even went to New Mexico on a holiday and paid to sit in a "love chamber"! Does that sound like a homeless person to you?

    She has borderline personality disorder and is a liar. She wants to elicit some sort of sympathy and masturbate her victimization complex by saying these lies. If she can't afford to live in NYC, she could easily move to many places where the cost of living is lower (everywhere else).

    Farber is a real piece of shit. Not just any turd, but a lying, borderline, pathetic, narcissistic, loser attention-whore who associates with real intellectual "gems" like Clark Baker.

    ReplyDelete
  39. You can directly tell Celia what you think of her lies!
    celiafarber@aol.com

    ReplyDelete
  40. Celia Farber is scamming/begging for money again! The new site she wants to create "Transcending AIDS" is going to be a "hub of awareness, stories blah blah blah". She originally was very adamant that it was to be a completely free site. NOW she is in cohoots with Jonathan Barnett and is wanting to charge anywhere from $5 to $60! What a scam!

    I would think she would have learned by now that internet content should be free. She begged for money for her Truth Barrier Site and scored a goose egg. QA.com just sponsored (begged) for a measly $250 and only THREE people (besides their anonymous matcher) donated and TWO of those where Jonathan Barnett himself.

    What do they expect when most all AIDS Denialists are on disability, scamming the government for their income. Don't forget they do this despite claiming to be extremely healthy. Karri Stokely famously claimed she would proudly accept disability insurance until she died at age 99 from old age! And the worst offender of this is John Robert Hankins who claims he has been HIV+ for 26 years and never taken ARVs and is as healthy as a horse. Yet he can be found at RA facebook talking about his Section 8 housing and doing crystal meth and other drugs!

    These people are denialists to the core. They deny every aspect of HIV/AIDS as well as their own pathetic reality. So sad. So funny.

    ReplyDelete
  41. HIV advocacy groups call for investigation into handling of Michigan criminal case.
    Absolutely it is vital we identify where the system failed,” said Nicole Seguin of the Positive Women’s Network of Michigan. Tut tut.

    Which is why The American Independent’s reporting led Josh Moore, a prominent attorney in HIV law, to opine that either the public health system had suffered a “catastrophic failure” or the accused “is not HIV-positive.”

    The non-Disclosure ? What about the non – disclosure of non specific HIV Antibody tests to patients that include literature such as the specificity and limitations of those tests ? How many years should the medical practicioners be sent to prison for knowing this and not disclosing it to the patients before even contemplating drawing blood ? There's a law against that too .

    I rest my case.

    Andy Lindsay. (whose hiv negative status was withheld by pharma paid psychcopaths along with the non disclosure of the limitations and specificity of HTLV 111 tests).

    I predict a riot , not a war !!!

    ReplyDelete
  42. Don't get your hopes up, Andy. Clark and Celia couldn't sue their way out of a paper bag.

    ReplyDelete
  43. And in 39 straight cases , there wasnt an HIV medical expert able to talk their way out of a wet paper bag with a hole in it under oath and penalty of perjury !

    There is no law against tit for tat on forums , but there is a LAW against non-disclosure of medical facts when someones life depends on those facts !

    ReplyDelete
  44. Clarkie:

    Once again, you are lying. There were no "cases" like you talk about. You also had no "involvement" like you claim, other than the Air Force calling you a kook. hivinnocenceproject.com reveals your lies, once again.

    HIV as the causative agent of AIDS is well established - as established as your idiocy. Someone's life can depend on disclosures, often - especially if someone doesn't disclose their HIV + status or in some cases, lies about their status and has unprotected intercourse. Now, Clarkie - go crawl back to your 82 year old wife who supports you. Or take some college classes - as at age 55, you have yet to get an education.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Clark Baker and Celia Farber combined have the intellectual capacity of a deformed turd. Yet interestingly, separately and together they have incredible intense delusional narcissistic disorders sprinkled with borderline aspects and victimization complexes. Clarkie is a typical example of a person who became a traffic cop for feelings of inadequacy and craving some sort of authority feeling to compensate for a low station in life, while Celia is a histrionic bitch who thinks she is deep in her thoughts and simply writes emotional drivel.

    They never followed Robert Downey Junior's advice in "Tropic Thunder": Never Go Full Retard.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Can someone ask Celia and Clark how their "appeal" is going in the libel case that they both got sodomized in?

    I'm sure their answer would be fascinating as telling the truth (there is no appeal; no lawyer wants to touch these fools with a 10 foot pole) would be scary for them. Admitting to anyone (or themselves) that they are lying hypocritical uneducated fools who few take seriously would create a rip in the time-space continuum.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes there is an appeal: http://www.quackdown.info/article/how-celia-farber-tried-sue-aids-activist-and-lost/

      Look up the case, there's a conference scheduled for April 4th.

      Delete
    2. Excellent article. Thanks for posting. How can we follow the progress of the appeal? You wrote to look up the case. How can we do that?
      Thanks again.

      Delete
  47. Regarding the "strongly worded letter" to Brian Deer and the Guardian by the ReThinking AIDS flunkies, Celia Farber has admitted that the letter is written, but then they never bothered to follow up. She admits they were temporarily fired up, and then their ire fizzled out. It's been three weeks and they have still not sent it nor gotten any signatures. It's too late if you ask me. No impact to it now! Just like all their "momentum". Too funny. Here is the FB quote:

    Celia Ingrid Farber Anna, the text for the peitition exists. Would you be willing to get involved in sort of putting your spirit behind it. It should be done by somebody "affected" (that's Jonathan B's word.) Basically, it was another case of me (and Suman) getting really fired up and then suddenly losing some essential factor in making something move forward. Suman wanted an HIV positive person or people's to drive the petition. I agreed. I can't say exactly what happened with that. But we wrote it. It's GOOD. And I would like to send it to you. May I? We can all do this together. I would love to have you involved.
    Friday at 9:35am ·

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Truthy:

      You know, I survey alt med provocateurs and have noticed something: they're always trying to get a protest or political action going ( when they're not suing someone) *but* it rarely gets anywhere. At heart, these efforts to 'assist others','right wrongs' and get the 'truth' out are in essence PR and rallying the troops to lift flagging interest and raise funds.-btw- So are the lawsuits.

      Sceptic D

      Delete
  48. "there is a LAW against non-disclosure of medical facts when someones life depends on those facts "!

    i.e. , non-specific antibody test kits as part of ones fully informed consent...

    ReplyDelete
  49. I am willing to give Celia Farber $1,000.00! Or anyone who can provide proof to support the many claims by Clark Baker regarding his supposed success with HIV Criminalization Cases. I have posted the Award at my sites, HIV Innocence Project Truth and HIV Innocence Group Truth.

    I have also posted that I will give $100,000.00 to anyone who can prove that Clark Baker is the sole person responsible for causing Humanitarians around the world to become interested in HIV Criminalization Cases due to Mr. Baker's supposed successes via OMSJ and HIV Innocence Group/Truth as Mr. Baker recently claimed!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Duh how do I claim the money from a fake name on a bogus blog? It's like arguing with a dog......Hi Snout, Poodle Stomper (vale)

      Delete
  50. As a mark of the bewildering status of the HIV theory, while HIV proteins could not be found in the placentas of 75 HIV positive pregnant women (1), they could be found in the placentas of 25 healthy, HIV negative women! (2)

    1. Peuchmaur M, Delfraissy JF, Pons JC, et al. (1991). HIV proteins absent from placentas of 75 HIV-1-positive women studied by immunohistochemistry. AIDS 5:741-5.

    2. Faulk WP, Labarrere CA. (1991). HIV proteins in normal human placentae. American Journal of Reproductive Immunology 25:99-104.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's only bewildering if you have no idea what the studies involve, or about the role of HERVs in pregnancy. You've been conned so easily, yet imagine your cutting and pasting from denialist websites represents access to great insight. Sadly there'll always be gullible people like you around to keep the cult going.

      Delete
    2. Read the papers then talk!

      I knew a woman diagnosed with "HIV" during pregnancy because she showed "gp120, p24 and p17" in her Western Blot"...

      Faulk & Labarrere (see above) proved gp120, p24 and p17 antigens in NORMAL HUMAN PLACENTA!

      HIV proteins in normal human placentae.

      Abstract

      "Cryostat sections of human normal term placentae were studied for evidence of immunopathology by using antibodies to lymphocytes, macrophages, platelets, and coagulation factors. ... Antigens gp120 and p17 were identified in normal chorionic villi in vimentin-positive fibroblast-like cells and in endothelium, respectively. Antigen p24 was localized to HLA-DR positive cells that morphologically resembled macrophages in areas of villitis..."

      I convinced the woman that she had nothing wrong and the HIV test was simply telling she was pregnant.

      HIV/AIDS is bizarro land... the crooks would have medicated her and her child to death for simply having a placenta!

      Delete
    3. > the role of HERVs in pregnancy

      To cause pergnant women be labeled as HIV+ and medicated with anti-HERV's with lifelong sequels for mother and child?

      I supposed so.

      Delete
  51. Here are some interesting statistics. The international AIDS society publishes at http://iasociety.org/Default.aspx?pageId=5&elementId=14377 the following findings:

    - 91.9% of infants born of HIV+ who did not receive ARV treatment remain HIV free after 24 month
    - Of 1446 infants monitored 44 died
    - 53 tested HIV+

    How does mortality compare with the general Rwandan population for pregnant mothers, most of which are HIV-:

    64 infants out of 1000 infants died which is a HIGHER mortality rate when compared to the 44 infants who died in the 1446 group of HIV+ women investigated. (http://www.indexmundi.com/rwanda/infant_mortality_rate.html)

    The study also claims a 40% higher survival rate for infants if their HIV+ mothers were on ARV treatment and at the same time admits that those results are statistically insignificant.

    My interpretation of these figures is that HIV+ mothers who are being monitored in this way receive better health care than the general population. Hence the lower infant mortality rate. If that was not case I assert that infant mortality for HIV+ mothers when compared to HIV- mothers is about the same, any difference being statistically inisignificant.

    The fact that HIV does no cause an increase in infant mortality strongly suggest that HIV -if it exists- is not causing anything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0028510

      "Mortality rates per 1,000 child-years follow-up were 39.3 and 381.6 for HIV-uninfected and infected children respectively. "

      Delete
    2. - 91.9% of infants born of HIV+ who did not receive ARV treatment remain HIV free after 24 month

      This was not a study of women "who did not receive ARV treatment". The majority of the HIV+ mothers received some form of ARV treatment for PMTCT.

      You're making stuff up again, Putin.

      Delete
    3. On page 3:

      "...By 2009, 61% of HIV-positive pregnant women received ARV...This community-based household survey was conducted between February and May 2009"

      So 39% were treatment naive. According to hiv-mongering orthodoxy they would have huge chances (30% - 80%) of giving birth to hiv+ children.
      Does the data confirm the gloomy hiv-mongers' predictions? Let's see...

      The study doesn't say whether the 44 dead kids were infected with hiv or born to untreated mothers, so we leave them out.

      Of the 1402 surviving children, 855 (61%) were born to ARV mothers, and 546 (39%) to untreated mothers. 53 children were hiv+. Orthodoxy says transmission rate for ARV mothers is 2%. Let's assume it's true... what would then be the transmission rate for hiv?

      2% of 855 gives 17 hiv+ children for the ARV group. We've 36 hiv+ children left for the untreated group.

      36/546= 6.5% transmission rate for the untreated group.

      So even by orthodox views, ARV treatment will only prevent 4.5 infections out of 100 untreated births! What is the cost of this "prevention"? Permanent damage to the mitochondria of 100 healthy kids in order to "save" 4!!!

      What's the ethics of this carnage, may I ask?

      Mitochondria have their own DNA, and damage to them is an irreversible life-long burden. It’s been known for a long time that the antiretroviral treatment of pregnant "hiv+" women, purportedly to prevent transmission of HIV, actually damages the mitochondria of the babies:

      — Brinkman et al., “Adverse effects of reverse transcriptase inhibitors: mitochondrial toxicity as common pathway”, AIDS 12 (1998) 1735-44
      Other references in my files to mitochondrial damage by antiretroviral drugs include articles from as far back as 1995, indicting in particular the NRTIs that continue to be part of many HAART regimens:
      — Lewis & Dalakas, “Mitochondrial toxicity of antiviral drugs”, Nature Medicine 1 (1995) 417-22
      — Donovan (editorial), “MR recognition of mitochondrial dysfunction in children born of HIV-seropositive mothers on antiretroviral therapy”, American Journal of Neuroradiology 26 (2005) 687-9
      — Blanche et al., “A prospective study of infants born to women seropositive for human immunodeficiency virus type I: HIV infection in newborns — French collaborative study group”, New England Journal of Medicine 320 (1989) 1643-8
      — Blanche et al., “Persistent mitochondrial dysfunction and perinatal exposure to antiretroviral nucleoside analogues”, Lancet 354 (1999) 1084-9
      — Mantovani & Calamandrei, “Delayed developmental effects following prenatal exposure to drugs”, Current Pharmaceutical Design 7 (2001) 859-80
      — Barret et al., “Mitochondrial dysfunction in HIV uninfected children”, AIDS 17 (2003) 1769-85
      — Poirier et al., “Long-term mitochondrial toxicity in HIV-uninfected infants born to HIV-infected mothers”, JAIDS 33 (2003) 175-83
      — Tardieu et al., “Cerebral magnetic resonance imaging in children born to HIV seropositive mothers and perinatally exposed to zidovudine”, American Journal of Neuroradiology 26 (2005) 695-701.
      — Saitoh et al., “Impact of Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors on mitochondria in Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1-infected children receiving Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy”, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 51 (2007) 4236-42
      — Kohler & Lewis, “A brief overview of mechanisms of mitochondrial toxicity from NRTIs”, Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis 48 (2007) 166-72
      — Lewis, “Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, mitochondrial DNA and AIDS therapy”, Antiviral Therapy 10 (Suppl 2, 2005) M13–27
      675-84
      —Brinkman et al., “Mitochondrial toxicity induced by nucleoside-analogue reverse-transcriptase inhibitors is a key factor in the pathogenesis of antiretroviral-therapy-related lipodystrophy”, Lancet 354 (1999) 1112-5

      Delete
  52. Non disclosure of test kits that dont test for anything specific , thats a pretty big non disclosure dont you think ?! Theres a law against non disclosure. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  53. Clarkie continues to troll online and promote his "services" for clients - see his latest lie about "winning" another case.
    What a tool.

    ReplyDelete
  54. actually Outhane X-stupid is trolling the Facebook group Rethinking AIDS and what appears to be a cheap bribe, most of us don't think you guys should be trolling there, stay here and keep up the slander. Catholics with Catholics and Baptists with Baptists.

    ReplyDelete
  55. HIV: a case of bad science that persists since 1983.

    "Generation of HIV-1 primary isolates representative of plasma variants using the U87.CD4 cell line"

    2011 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166093410002831

    Again this "viral isolation" is nothing more than a surrogate. They want to sell an arbitrarily selected level p24 in a co-culture (direct culture of hiv remaisn to this day impossible) at the price of hiv "isolation".

    "Cell culture
    Human glioma U87.CD4 cells expressing stably either the HIV-1 coreceptor CCR5 or CXCR4 were obtained through the NIH AIDS Research & Reference Reagent Program... The U87.CD4 cells were cultured in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (DMEM) supplemented with 10% inactivated fetal calf serum , penicillin and streptomycin. In addition, neomycin and puromycin were added .... Patient PBMCs (1.5×106
    cells) were activated overnight using phytohaemagglutinin in RPMI 1640 medium containing 10% inactivated FCS, interleukin 2 and antibiotics..."

    This chemical assault is suposed to replicate the "natural" conditions of hiv infection... oh well...

    "... Virus production was monitored by syncytia formation and by frequent CA-p24 ELISA on the culture supernatant...d CA-p24 values were determined when required. Values over 0.1 ng/ml were regarded as positive..."

    HIV = non-specific surrogate marker + arbitrary detection threshold. The scam continues unchanged since Gallo's glorious days!


    Here' s my letter to the author:

    Dear Sir,

    I've read your paper with interest and there's one question I'd like you kindly respond:

    Why didn' t your team use a control cell culture subject to the same chemical manipulations as the hiv co-culture in order to exclude that stimulated cellular productions could wrongly be interpreted as "hiv" by the surrogate markers your team used for identification?

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  56. How about those with brains with the educated= and the idiots with Farber and Clarkie.

    ReplyDelete
  57. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_-jtHak2ow&feature=player_embedded

    Healthy numbers there,Jonathan....CD4 in serious decline and Viral load increases big time.Classical AIDS timeline as well.When will you start your ARVs?Or do you want to go all the way and be the next Karri,Christine,Emery or Kim?

    ReplyDelete
  58. Celia Farber's "Chip In" to build her new website, Transcending AIDS, is a huge failure! It's been 6 days and she has FOUR contributions totaling less than $90 bucks! She has less than 3 days left, can she make it?

    The really pathetic thing about this is not the general apathy of the Denialist losers, but the fact that they do not need money to start a site. They could have a great site for free! I think the real issue is Ms. Farber wants to pay herself as an "investigative reporter" for the site. It's the oldest scam in the book. Sad. Very, very sad.

    She could dig up the proof that Baker is legitimate and I would be happy to fork over a thousand bucks!!

    ReplyDelete
  59. I am offended by who ever wrote to Jonathan Barnett that his numbers are unhealthy etc...and wrote my initials. JB has disabled my comments and I would like to say that those comments are NOT from me. JTD

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't know who that is, but he has a youtube channel.

      http://www.youtube.com/user/dissidents4dumbees

      Pretty creepy.

      Delete
    2. JTD, if this offensive youtube comment is not from you, then I suggest you report the channel to youtube and have the account and the IP address of the person who posted it permanently banned.

      http://www.youtube.com/user/dissidents4dumbees

      Before you do that, you should save the page they posted, including the photo, as evidence.

      If the page is deleted before you get a chance to save it, then post a comment here, and I will forward you a saved copy.

      It is a criminal offense "to knowingly and without consent credibly impersonate another person through or on an Internet Web site or by other electronic means with the intent to harm, intimidate, threaten or defraud another person."

      http://www.geekosystem.com/california-internet-impersonation-law/

      Delete
  60. I am pretty sure it was just a denialist who copied what was written here and added the sick stuff under it and signed it with JTD to make you look like a bastard.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Celia Farber shut down her begging scam three days early for the new site she wanted to build. Such a failure! Although she is putting a happy face on it saying it's just not the right vehicle at the right time. More like no one wants to be sucked into her scam to pay her rent. Maybe she should just get a job.

    ReplyDelete
  62. @Truthy:

    The problem for Celia and her ilk like Clarkie is that they can't get a job even if they wanted to. They aren't qualified to do anything, which is why they spout of nonsense (it makes them feel better because they can pretend they are educated).

    Clarkie is forced to live off his 82 year old wife while Celia is forced to live off her daddy and occasionally orally fart out histrionic burps of nonsense while pretending to be some tortured writer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Kralc:

      'Tortured writer'? More like tortured readers.

      Sceptic D

      Delete
  63. The ridiculous continues at RA FB. Now Clark Baker is suggesting they put up an AIDS Denial Billboard in LA! How the hell are they gonna pay for that when they have proven twice recently (Farber and QA.com) that they can't raise funds? But I pray they do it! Then maybe they will get the attention they have been wanting. Be careful what you wish for, Denialists.

    ReplyDelete
  64. HAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!! Knowing Clarkie, they will staple a flyer to a telephone pole outside his post office box and call it a "national media firestorm." BwaHAHAHA - Clarkie putting up a denial billboard? Hilarious!

    See - he just wants some attention for his site - it has always been his plan to try and make money off his post office box of "medical justice" and he is currently failing supremely. Clarkie = Extreme Grande Douchebag, Super-Sized. Fail.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Is it possible to donate one penny to their cause? That would be kind of funny.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Someone should take a screenshot of the following page and put it up on a big billboard in LA:

    http://articles.latimes.com/1993-02-18/local/me-312_1_officer-community-service

    ReplyDelete