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

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

Seeking Stories of AIDS Denialism

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

aidsandbehavior@yahoo.com

All information will be kept confidential.

Thursday, April 19, 2012

Death by Denial: Maria Papagiannidou dies of AIDS


"It is said that a cure for 'AIDS' cannot be found, but I was 'HIV-positive' for 10 years, had full-blown 'AIDS' for another 12 years and have now become perfectly fine again without any doctor's intervention or medication."
Maria Papagiannidou


Word has spread that Maria Papagiannidou  has died. She became hooked into AIDS Denialism and paraded about by her pals at The Rethinking AIDS Society. She gained media attention in her home country of Greece when she proclaimed AIDS was a myth. She chronicled her denial in her book Goodbye AIDS! Did you ever exist?
Ms. Papagiannidou is the most recent in a long succession of AIDS Deniers who have died of AIDS. They made the misinformed choice not to take antiretroviral medications; dying earlier than they could have if treated. 
Once again, the leaders of AIDS Denialsim -- David Crowe, Peter Duesberg, David Rasnick, and Henry Bauer are living to very (very) ripe old ages, while those who listen to them die young. 
The leaders of Rethinking AIDS have much in common - they are all crazy old white men.
Those who listen to them and die have much in common too -  they are young, men and women, racially and ethnically diverse, HIV positive, and refuse treatment. 
Fortunately, the AIDS Deniers are becoming increasingly irrelevant. 
I would like the old guys at Rethinking AIDS to hold one more AIDS Denier's conference before they completely disappear. I want one more chance to say Goodbye AIDS Denialists! Did you ever exist?

248 comments:

  1. Maria Papagianidou has died but the seeds of denial she infected my homecountry with live on...

    I see it in the comments sections of the online articles that chronicle her life and death.It is sad and scary.People replicating her unfounded views (actually word for word the views of the foreign denialists) without an ounce of critical thinking.

    When the majority of people have no idea of how the scientific community works,when they have no idea what a virus is,when they have no idea what a T-cell is and what is it's fuction,when they have no idea why clinical trials are more valid than single cases how can an expert exlain to them how wrong the denialists are?

    I am one of the (very) few Greek scientists that has battled the denialists of Maria Papagiannidou's group from day one.

    I feel I have earned very few victories but I will not give up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dont ever give up man, Just knowing your fighting for truth against these people already makes u a hero in my books man. keep up the good fight, these people set back AIDS education by like 25 years maybe more

      Delete
  2. Maria was on the HAART when she died of liver failure which is not an AIDS defining disease but a toxic side effect of the drugs. More people have died from the HAART than any harmless virus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know where you got your info from, but the NEWS disagrees with you on both accounts.

      "According to the medical press her death due to pulmonary embolism and thrombosis of the right leg, associated both with AIDS."

      But I no idea. Though, why she would need HAART if, as you say, she cured herself and wasn't sick till she went back on it, I cannot begin to speculate. Does that really make sense to you?

      Delete
  3. Noreen, why are you changing the official cause of death? And you are on HAART are you not? You wrote that you are on Atripla and have had NO side effects.

    Also, Maria claimed to have been off of ARVs for quite some time and back on them only a short time before she died. You lot love to say that ARVs are toxic and cause irreparable harm. That's a load of crap! The human body is very good at repairing damage. Any potential damage done by the ARVs, Maria's body had plenty of time to heal.

    Stop putting your spin on the situation and face reality.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The religion of aids kills because it is not science Maria died many years after a positive test and after toxic treatments who killed most of the people in months eventually the truth will come up and this is that the virus never ever found just speculated and believed from the high priests of control

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I try to be patient, but I think I'm going to start losing my rag when I finally confront the evil bastards who gleefully preach that science and life-saving medication is a "religion". And make money from it. And when their victims die, it was always the victims' fault for not following the lunatic protocol(fruit juice, diluted bleach, whatever) they were given or, worse, going back to real medicine. Usually when it's too late.

      Delete
    2. Too bad that the "truth" is being buried with the denialists...

      Delete
    3. Anarchic teapot is not kidding about the bleach by the way. A few months back I saw someone recommend hypochlorite supplements as a cure for HIV in a New York Times comment. Being a chemist, and wrongly assuming no one would be dumb enough to drink Clorox, I assumed it was a misprint. But nope! Check out Miracle Mineral. It's science!

      Also here: http://www.miraclemineral.org/http://www.miraclemineral.org/ "Recently, Jim has returned from Africa where he successfully treated more than 800 HIV/AIDS cases." EeeK!

      Delete
    4. NonElon,

      I almost feel guilty for laughing at that (almost).

      Delete
    5. I really pity you man, The science behind HIV has been going on since they literally discovered it, Electron microscope's and all kinds of other shit, I'll tell you what, It didn't seem like a religion and it seemed awful scientific when my family members died from AIDS. Had they held on a couple of years more they'd probably still be here today

      Delete
  5. Denialists, take note:

    1. Kruger J, & Dunning D (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of personality and social psychology, 77 (6), 1121-34 PMID: 10626367


    I love the Denialists rationale: AIDS doesn't exist/kill. Therefore people who don't take AIDS medicines are healthy. But....when they ultimately and inevitably die, it was either a) coincidence b) stress or c) they took AIDS medicines at some time in their life that just so happened to kill them now.

    Disjointed, retarded failed logic. But they are too-wrapped up in their own denial brainwashed-stupidity to even BEGIN to see the absurdity of their fail. Unless they are Clarkie or Celia - then they are just too stupid or too malicious or both.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Our purpose must be to save lives.

    It is sad that another tragic death takes place. Clark Baker, if you value the lives of your clients and friends, I urge you to make a clear statement that AIDS is indeed killing denialists. Since 2008, I have urged all doctors to unite behind the hippocratic oath. DO NO HARM! Our purpose is to save lives, period.

    Dr. Gil and Roland, Dr. Ullberg- unite and urge all very ill AIDS victim to seek the very best medicine possible. People's lives are too important. No one should die to make a point. Karri, Maria- where will it end?

    Celia Farber and Duesberg, you know full well that AIDS kills, and that AIDS victims deserve the best treatments possible. Fold up the Denialist tent! Your career and sensationalism, such as it is, does not justify putting your friends at risk.

    Choose life. No more dancing, no more debating. Save the lives of your friends.

    ReplyDelete
  7. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fMXK9w_-6U

    ReplyDelete
  8. for the youtube link, press CC to watch it translated in English

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maria talks about being diagnosed with AIDS in 1995:

      "I had encephalitis. Then they told me I had 10 more years to live... eh... eh... 10 more days to live, unless I take the AIDS drugs that would give me an extension...


      I took the AIDS drugs and all the symptoms disappeared! I recovered! Then my doctors told me: “Since you recovered after this, you can live like a normal person,” and this life extension became 12 more years, which was an unusual big extension of agony and sadness.

      And in 2005 I was feeling very well – very well, but on the other hand I couldn’t do anything. At this point, I got an email from a professor in Illinois – Mr Andrew Maniotis, a Greek-American. He saw on my website what I was writing and what I wanted to discover, and he advised me by email to stop the medicines.

      On 23 April 2007, I stopped taking medicines, I stopped seeing my doctors and I stopped doing the AIDS check-ups because I realised... that I was never infected by anything!"

      Delete
  9. The denialists say whatever they feel in the moment, no matter how much it contradicts their previous statements. Just look at the RA facebook thread on Maria P. where Farber, Brewster, Carter et al are now blaming Huw Christie and Emery Taylor of being secret drug addicts. Blame the death on the victims. Anything but the disease.

    Just look at Jonathan Barnett. His recent post where he admits he has been gravely ill and getting worse the last few years is a prime example. He castigates other "dissidents" for blaming his sickness on his obsession with his blood tests and the stress it causes. Barnett accuses them several times of "bone pointing." But Barnett does this too but on a much grander scale. Just look at the "graveyard" at his blog in which he not only "bone points" but literally puts a skull and cross bones over the faces of his dead friends. But not all his dead friends, just the ones who took ARVs which is what killed them according to Barnett.

    So Barnett not only bone points, but also blames the deaths of his friends on the fact that they chose to take meds. They chose a different path than Barnett. But Barnett chastises other dissidents for not respecting his treatment options, but Barnett does not respect the treatment options his friends chose, because their choice was different from his.

    Such hypocrisy. But don't point that out to them because then they will become vicious and libel and slander, and harass you.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "The Newsweek profile touches on the formative impact of Nazism on Duesberg, who grew up a privileged Catholic in fascist Germany, and the resulting attitudes he holds toward people who aren’t heterosexual white men. He degrades women and developmentally disabled people (both lack “all the IQ genes,” he told Interlandi, “half joking”). He calls black people Schwartzes (the German N-word) and gays “homos,” and describes both as evolutionary failures. [2] His assistant calls these “gaffes,” and says of Duesberg: “He’s just from a different era, when people actually talked like that.” Actually, only Nazis and other racists, homophobes and eugenicists talked like that. Decent people of any age didn’t, and don’t."


    http://www.aidstruth.org/features/2009/reviled-yes-genius-not-so-much

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "He calls black people Schwartzes"

      This came from a journalist who doesn't know anything about the meaning of german words and their spelling . This sentence should read:

      "He calls black people Schwarze" (notice the lack of "T" in this proper spelling of the word). "Schwarz", in german, means "black", thus the sentence should read:

      "He calls black people -black-".

      and as for the german word for "n....r", it is "Neger". I'm happy we cleared up this small segment of bad journalism.

      Delete
    2. Watch it Anonymous! You will draw the rath of the halfTRUTHERS!
      Please repeat after me 600 times-"Duesberg is viewed by Gallo only as a useful gadfly".

      Delete
    3. You appear to be correct. I searched the German wikipedia for the correct term for "Black People", and it is indeed "Schwarze "

      Too bad Duesberg appears to be wrong about everything science.

      Delete
    4. To anonymous:
      If you have nothing significant to add then please add nothing.

      NotElon:
      No mind can be right about everything all the time nor can it be wrong about everything all the time. I fear that people all too often forget this while indulging in their pet-peeves.
      Even Maddox concedes: "Thus, as wrong as Duesberg surely is about HIV, there is at least a chance that he is significantly right about cancer."

      Don't write him off as someone "wrong about everything science." ,we just might come to regret it someday. I can understand that people are outraged at his position on Aids but if you want to fight that then stick to facts and don't personify it, that just confuses everybody. You know what they say: "attack the message, not the messenger"

      Delete
    5. I don't know anything about oncology, but I know people who do. They tell me they don't know about virology, but his oncology research is terrible. Aneuploidy More than that, what he got right about his "new theory", he stole from other people. And he repudiated his early work on cancer that got him a position in the NAS. Based on their statements, I wrote that it appears he is wrong on everything science.

      But you are right. I do not know whether his cancer work is as wrong as his denial of HIV or his insistance that AZT would cause selective Helper T Cell depletion, even though there is no chemical mechanism for it.

      I think that somewhere inside him, he definitely has a brilliant mind. I heard him speak, and he is far above the caliber of Farber. It is too bad he is so invested in fringe theories.

      Delete
    6. He never claimed to be the discoverer of aneuplody. As for his oncology research goes, show me an oncologist who's resaerch isn't terrible. Cancer to this day is a major mystery and treatment is nothing but a scorched-earth approach in a desperate attempt at stopping it.

      It is far worse that people are way too far invested in attacking people personally for their fringe ideas...as Seth says: all stones need to be turned. What he forgets is that sometimes long ago turned stones need to be revisited...we may have overlooked something.

      Cancer runs in my family so I would like it very much if he could still have his shot at it.

      Delete
  11. Immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (also known as "Immune recovery syndrome"[1]) is a condition seen in some cases of AIDS or immunosuppression, in which the immune system begins to recover, but then responds to a previously acquired opportunistic infection with an overwhelming inflammatory response that paradoxically makes the symptoms of infection worse. [2]

    The suppression of CD4 T cells by HIV (or by immunosuppressive drugs) causes a decrease in the body's normal response to certain infections. Not only does this make it more difficult to fight the infection; it may mean that a level of infection that would normally produce symptoms is instead undetected (subclinical infection). If the CD4 count rapidly increases (due to effective treatment of HIV, or removal of other causes of immunosuppression), a sudden increase in the inflammatory response produces nonspecific symptoms such as fever, and in some cases a worsening of damage to the infected tissue.

    Shall i go on ? The drugs (DNA terninating thus immunosuppressive)are what fucked Maria ,period. Anything short of that is a complete fuckin lie and if you lot cant admit that , then go look at the limitations and specificty of those very tests that were not disclosed to every tested person including Maria , who was told if it was positive , they were gonna die.

    You lot make me sick.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "DNA terninating thus immunosuppressive " You just said the opposite. How do you think the immune system suddenly shoots back in a dangerous fashion when someone with AIDS starts taking HAART? That would only happen if HAART encouraged the immune system, which it does, in that it combats the actual immunosuppressive factor.

      And if Maria Papagiannidou got IRIS and died from it, it was only cause YOU LOT filled her head with lies and rubbish, so she denied herself the lifesaving drugs until after immune collapse. There's no Immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome if the immune system doesn't need reconstituting.


      And once again, Andy, "DNA terninating" does not mean what you think it means. I offered before to go over the mechanism with you, but instead you went and cursed me off, and threatened my family. By all rights I should wash my hands of you, but because, unlike you, I am kind-hearted, generous, and sane, that offer still stands.

      Delete
    2. notElon, Andy is convinced that his HIV diagnosis was false, because he had two negative p24 antigen tests in the early 1990s, several years after his initial diagnosis.

      You and I have both explained to him why you cannot draw that conclusion from those two tests. Andy chooses to ignore that. The denialists are telling him otherwise.

      I don't think there is anything more that you can do or say to change his mind.

      Delete
    3. notElon-Cancer patients on chemo (POISONING) also have majorly dangerous increases in their white cell counts and nobody views as being good any good thing.
      The practice is extremely taxing on the immune system, go ask any oncologist who has been at it many years what their thoughs are on feeding a person chemo long term who is already in the immune crapper.
      You can bleed a person and they will most certainly also get a dramatic increase in their white cell counts as well.
      Gee! Theres an idea!

      Delete
    4. And before you say, "AHA I TOLD YOU THE T CELL COUNT GOES DOWN", consider these two points.

      1) Contrary to what Clark Baker says, not all drugs are the same. SSRIs don't treat infection. ARVs are not generally used to treat cancer (unless the cancer is viral), and cisplatin and radiation don't treat AIDS. A study for one is not directly comparable to the other.
      2) Either the drug is toxic to immune cells, like Andy tried to argue in a previous post, or it promotes their growth. You cannot argue that it does both at the same time, and thus destroys the immune system. You need a defined mechanism, and then stick with it. If the data doesn't support it, then tough. Your mechanism is wrong.

      Delete
  12. I'm thru with dissidents (at least for a while). Once i posted on QuestioningAids, asking if ANY of them were actually healthy, and for how long, and Barnett was the first to defend his position, saying he's been healthy for 20+ years. After seeing the recent pictures on his blog, i feel absolutely betrayed. JB, i know you are reading this. Those pictures do not, in any way shape or form, represent anyone with anything close to a decently functioning immune system. There is nothing you can say that would explain away what you've gone thru medically, as mere bad luck or chance illness. Yes, you are living, but at what price?

    I delayed meds for 2 years longer than i should have due to the dissident movement, and now my baseline viral load is permanently suffered because of it.... My options for treatment holidays are diminished, as well as a 'functional' cure. If i could take it back, i would've started as soon as i found out my status. My baseline would be low, and give me more options in the long run.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm thru with dissidents (at least for a while). Once i posted on QuestioningAids, asking if ANY of them were actually healthy, and for how long, and Barnett was the first to defend his position, saying he's been healthy for 20+ years. After seeing the recent pictures on his blog, i feel absolutely betrayed. JB, i know you are reading this. Those pictures do not, in any way shape or form, represent anyone with anything close to a decently functioning immune system. There is nothing you can say that would explain away what you've gone thru medically, as mere bad luck or chance illness. Yes, you are living, but at what price?

    I delayed meds for 2 years longer than i should have due to the dissident movement, and now my baseline viral load is permanently suffered because of it.... My options for treatment holidays are diminished, as well as a 'functional' cure. If i could take it back, i would've started as soon as i found out my status. My baseline would be low, and give me more options in the long run.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Will this conference actually happen this time around? I put even odds on NO. Any takers?

    ReplyDelete
  15. This is total insanity. I speak greek and I had watched some of her interviews on you tube. She had stopped publishing articles (she was a journalist), and I was wondering what happened to her. It is really sad that this woman believed the crap and bizarre theories that HIV is not the cause of AIDS.

    I also remember she was referring to one of her interviews about a "scientist" AIDS denialist here in the US whose opinions apparently she believed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i believe you are referring to Andrew Maniotis, the murderer of Lampros Papantoniou.

      Delete
  16. Another day, another dead denialist, and another pile of excuses.

    I recently read Jonathan Barnett's description of his declining and dangerous health on his blog and it is also rumored that Gos, another moderator at QuestioningAIDS, is pretty sick and has Kaposi Sarcoma, and that's why he hasn't posted at QA in two months.

    http://forums.questioningaids.com/showthread.php?p=61295

    So many Denialists dying of AIDS at once! It's like last year all over again, when Emory Taylor and Karri Stokely both dropped dead all at once.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would not take everything Gos writes very seriously.A closer look at his stories,including the one about how he got infected,does not make him very trustworthy.I think his KS story is just a fabrication so he can accuse anti-denialists for grave-dancing in advance.You will see that he has moderated and edited other posters post in that thread because he has not posted any pictures and they ask questions about it.He think`s he is so clever and he is also trying to draw the attention away from the fact that a very prominent denialist just died.

      Delete
    2. Im sad to see i was in the wrong and that Gos indeed does have issues with his feet.For that i apologize.Please get medical advice from a physician,Gos!

      Delete
    3. Nope, you were right the first time - he was trolling for a reaction. What a funny guy!

      Delete
  17. Tony, JB could not have been healthy for 20+ years. He was only diagnosed in 1998. He took meds for 2 1/2 years and then later again for 7 months. Although, he has probably been poz for many more years by his admission of extreme promiscuity and street drug use.

    Also, JB's identity is his disease. He plays the victim, hoping to be a martyr, but his true identity is his disease. Why else would he take pictures of his ailments and post them? Why else would he seek out and waste money he does not have on untested and unproven treatments like IV Vitamin C, ultraviolet blood irradiation and Indian Shaman?

    Don't try to use logic with him or any of the others.

    ReplyDelete
  18. No , i never said the opposite.

    How can someone , assuming your ficticious virus exists , have a high viral load and be negative for antigen to that virus ?

    If someone starts taking immuno suppressive drugs , PCR would measure the amount of enzymes (antibody) fighting against those drugs , its not the viral load thats falling on those drugs , its the bodies immunity , which is what becomes undetectable.

    The suppression of CD4 T cells by HIV (or by immunosuppressive drugs) causes a decrease in the body's normal response to certain infections.


    When those drugs are stopped , and the body has a chance to recover its immune system , it is then we see people starting to show the signs of getting rid of those toxins which were previously administered in high doses .

    Thus , Immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (also known as "Immune recovery syndrome"[1]) is a condition seen in some cases of AIDS or immunosuppression, in which the immune system begins to recover (after stopping the drugs), but then responds to a previously acquired opportunistic infection (the drugs synthetic DNA sequence ) with an overwhelming inflammatory response that paradoxically makes the symptoms of infection worse.


    You guys arent just insane , your stupid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That literally shows you have no clue. That is some of the most ridiculous non-science I have ever read.

      Antibodies are not enzymes, for one. And the rest of your non sense would be contradicting itself left and right if it made any sense. You really look like an idiot when you write such junk.

      And we're insane and stupid, huh? You're quite the comedian.

      Delete
    2. Lindsay Nagel must be a fuckin miracle then if she is non science , which makes your science a fuckin tragedy waiting to happen.

      Delete
    3. Let me guess...could this perhaps be the next person you are planning to parade around as a bastion of pseudoscience, only to see the inevitable once again assert itself? How novel, though I must say lacking in originality considering your track record.

      Not that you folks ever make much sense scientifically, which Truthy aptly points out in this case, but as Snout and others have finally managed to get across to me over the course of time: this is not about science to you people, its about pathological behavior.

      No amount of verified data can change your minds, which is why the term denialist is so fitting.

      My only hope is that this next victim of yours is not so far gone that she can't see you for what you are you worthless chicken-hawk.

      Delete
    4. Um. IRIS happens when people with AIDS start taking drugs. It's fairly well documented. If you actually read the wikipedia article you quoted all the way through, you'd see that.

      Delete
    5. PCR does not diagnose.
      Antibody tests do not diagnose.
      Antigen tests do diagnose but since you dont have a virus they cant.
      So what clinical diagnosis do doctors use to diagnose someone who have no clinical conditions ?

      Delete
    6. Did it ever occur to you that you are holding on to the one thing that you think tells you what you want to hear?

      Delete
  19. Lindsay Nagel . Explain that one away .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People that hold certain positions in the private sector (like me) can explain her, the mainstream couldn't do it without shooting a foot clean off.
      It would surprise anyone who ever even once uttered the word "AIDS" without a doubt.
      Seth could go get anyone he would like to debate me, never would though.
      My posts on the subject of AIDS would never fly here, because they would actually make sense and come with the truth attached.
      Can't be having that! Right Kalichmen?

      Delete
    2. Oh and what "certain position" do you hold? I have no idea who you even are, because unlike you, you steadfastly refuse to supply a moniker or any info about yourself.

      Delete
    3. notElon-What are you even saying?
      The position I hold is that of being capable of actually explaining "Lindsay Nagel", I wouldn't expect any genuine explanation of her situation from you, or from anyone else here.


      Thats not because I view you as some type of idiot either, I have asked several so- called AIDS researchers who also didn't know me for an explanation of her, they proved to be the idiots.
      The only thing they knew was that she was most certainly infected with the AIDS virus, but as far as why it wasn't replicating, not a clue.

      Delete
    4. So, I'm not her doctor, I never met her, and all I have to work with are the facts she's alive and 20 year old blood work? Can I explain Lindsey Nagel? I can suggest some possibilities, but unlike you, I rely on evidence for my statements.


      There are many mutations that confer resistance to HIV. There's one that prevents the chemokine from becoming unbound from CCR5. There is the famous 32 base deletion rendering CCR5 inoperable, There is a mutation modulating the rate of CD4 apoptosis. Some people quickly produce broadly neutralizing antibodies. Some people have a different cytotoxic T cell response than normal. Basically, some people get sick more slowly, just like other people have mutations that make them get sick much faster.

      All this is well documented, and one or more might be present in Lindsey Nagel. Or maybe it is something else entirely. Without blood work, there's no way of knowing or guessing when or if she will progress. I suspect that those "idiots" probably explained this to you already, and you didn't like their answer.

      Well fine. Here's an answer more up your alley. Just like Magic secretly doesn't take AZT, and Emery Taylor secretly did, Lindsey Nagel is a secret "mainstreamer". She only hid the fact that she is secretly getting treatment so she could star in House of Numbers and jumpstart her burgeoning movie career. Maybe she never had AIDS and falsified her documents in a KGB plot. See? I can make up conspiracy theories too.

      Delete
  20. Great Post Prof; direct and to the point. Do we really even need to spend copious amounts of keystrokes explaining the obvious? I suspect you are right in that Rethinking AIDS will soon find itself going the way of Continuum in this epidemic: irrelevant by way of mortality. I personally am finding it increasingly difficult to have much sympathy. After all, is the tragedy of an all but forgone conclusion really that much of a tragedy?

    I wish you well as the semester winds down (I am mercifully done next week).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No offense,
      But beyond the fact that the actually virus actually exists, you couldn't explain your way out of a wet paper bag as far as retroviruses are concered.
      I know, because I have already seen you try and fail miserably.

      So much for the future of the so-called brightest and best of science who are being brainwashed by the boat-load out in the middle of a cornfield somewhere, I guess.

      In the name of all things "HOLY" though, I sure hope that they will at least let you take home a free sack of it next week.

      Delete
    2. You will have to forgive me if I take scientific criticisms from a person with only a HS diploma with a grain of salt.

      You lack even basic understanding of cellular function and (quite frankly) belong where you are with the rest of the psychopaths.

      Delete
    3. supaflyrobby:

      You obviously have no idea who I am.

      When it comes to HIV/AIDS along with all the other forms of chronic immunodeficiency all bets are actually off as far as the science that you seem to think you’ve mastered goes.
      University walls are actually quite sound proof “even the real ones!”, you may one day find that out for yourself as I did.

      As it stands right now, the obvious beliefs that you along with many others here seem to share on this subject are actually no better or worse than those of the people that you have worn out the word "DENIALIST" on. The only difference is a slight one, some of you here may actually have a better understanding of a few more of the big words than some of them do, that’s about it though.

      How long did you actually say that science has been studying retroviruses for again there Peyton Rouse? 40 years wasn't it?

      If I were you, I would demand a major refund from that glorified high school on steroids that you attend.
      Retroviruses were actually known as “RNA viruses” before the “84” HIV announcement and actively studied by scientists for a lot longer than 40 years.

      And as far as psychopaths are concerned, I have no ties whatsoever to NIH, CDC, or USAMRID.

      Delete
    4. Um, if you think retrovirus = RNA virus, it is you who need the refund from the glorified elementary school.

      There are four different types of RNA virus, depending on the type of RNA: positive sense, negative sense, double stranded, and retrovirus.


      Now obviously, viruses have been around for the span of human history, so dating when the studying of them as a class started is a tricky matter. But I would date the studying of a specific type to when we definitively found out the workings of it. The defining feature of retroviruses is reverse transcriptase. Viral reverse transcriptase was discovered around 1970 by Howard Temin and David Baltimore. They won the Nobel Prize for their discovery in 1975. HIV was discovered in 1983. AIDS wasn't recognized as a disease. until June 5, 1981.

      2012 - 1970 = 42.

      Oh! You're right! Robby was off by two years. Another truth crushed under the foot of Big Rounding!

      Delete
    5. notElon-
      You and "Superboob" both should just stick with being quietly ignorant, rather than continuously opening your cake-holes and removing all doubt.
      Retroviruses are not RNA viruses then, and were never known as such. Never!
      1910/1: Peyton Rous transmitted solid tumors of chickens by transplanting tissue, but also isolated the infectious agent (Rous Sarcoma Virus: Rous, P. J. Exp. Med. 12:696–705; Rous, P. J. Exp. Med. 13:397–411).
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rous_sarcoma_virus

      1960's: Howard Temin knew that retrovirus genomes were composed of RNA and observed that replication was inhibited by actinomycin D (inhibits DNA synthesis therefore he proposed the concept of reverse transcription (Nobel prize awarded to Baltimore and Temin, 1975).

      I bet you think that retroviruses are the only viruses that contain reverse transcrptase as well? Well, now is your chance to check into it and act as if you always knew better. lol
      There were tons of animal retroviruses of different types know for decades, like the lentivirus "visna" for example! It first was first isolated in 1949.

      I wouldn't doubt that Robert Gallo still to this very day sometimes speaks the term "RNA-RETROVIRUS."
      Ask Seth if he slipped and said it while he was autographing lab coats for him just this past May 5th when he spoke at UCONN.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6qEUwgxoiI

      It might not be obvious to anyone, but word has it that Kalichmen was actually in that video, under the podium.

      Delete
    6. Of course they are RNA viruses, you bozo. They contain RNA. There is no vast conspiracy to deny that they contain ribonucleic acid, indeed I said so in my post. But the study of them as retroviruses had to wait till reverse transcriptase was discovered. As we learn more about things, we invent more specific categories for them.

      As for Howard Temin in the 60s, I presume he did the research slightly earlier than 1970. 1970 is when his definitive proof of reverse transcriptase was published.

      " bet you think that retroviruses are the only viruses that contain reverse transcrptase as well?"
      Um, no actually. The Hepatitis B virus is a DNA virus that contains reverse transcriptase. It is in a special category in the Baltimore Classification to itself. But reverse transcribing RNA viruses are currently called retroviruses, yes. That is the current definition.

      Delete
    7. notElon-Categories? Current? Congrats!
      Classifications change! What do you actually think I was talking about in the first place whiz-kid?
      The point I was trying to make from the word "go' was that science was more than just aware of, and studied what are now called "retroviruses" for a hell of a lot longer than 40 or 42 years! The reverse transcriptase was always there, it didn't just magically appear the day it was actually discovered.
      Other virues in the lentivirus subfamily of retroviruses such as visna virus and bovine visna virus were already well known to science long before the human AIDS virus showed-up on the scene, so were their effects as well as how they went about thier buisness! Gallo, Batimore, Duesburg, as well as countless others all knew full about those agents and their capabilities, yet all still played dumb regarding the inner working and capabilities of the human AIDS virus as if it were alien.
      Another lying sack of shit on that subject that just popped into my mind is a scientist named William Blattner, they all should get an Oscar for their roles in all this.

      Hep-B ? Congrats yet again on your Wikipedia search finding on Hep-B, and leaning that simply just containing "reverse transcrptase" does a "retrovirus" make!

      Same goes for the Popes (D. Baltimore) just about all to himself classification jive. Was that found before or after you just learned about Hep-B not being classified a retrovirus even though it also contains a form of RT?

      As far as me being "bozo" is concered, how I choose to style my hair should be no concern of yours, I myself prefer to think of it more as the "Larry Fine" look .

      Delete
    8. "Classifications change! What do you actually think I was talking about in the first place whiz-kid?"

      Well, I thought you were talking about denying HIV was any different from another RNA virus like polio or rotavirus. Which is decidedly not true, because all three use vastly different transcription factors. So referring to one by the generic "RNA virus" would be stupid and unhelpful once reverse transcriptase was discovered. Rous did not know there was any unique was RSV coded it's genome compared to other viruses, so he didn't make any distinction between retroviruses and anything else. That distinction was made, and it is an important one. Which was the point I was getting at, and I thought you were belittling.


      But you apparently knew all that already. So sow it sounds like you are just an ***hole who likes to insult people and spout non-sequitors for no apparent reason. For example, why you think I needed to search Wikipedia to find out Hep B uses reverse transcriptase, I can't imagine.

      Or why you say Baltimore and Gallo "played dumb" about HIV? I assume you mean before it was discovered. After it was discovered, Gallo certainly knew what it was capable of, as he WAS LOOKING for the disease that caused AIDS in the first place. How he would know it was related to Visna before HIV was isolated, I also can't imagine. Visna itself doesn't infect lymphocytes, so the pathology of the diseases is not even similar.

      Delete
  21. Oh dear god -- The Denialists at QuestioningAIDS are advising Gos to take garlic and onion to treat his KS! This is priceless!

    Who wants to take bets on whether Gos or Jonathan Barnett is the next to die at QuestioningAIDS?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fauci is recomending AZT for treating allergies now? Sounds about right!

      Delete
  22. "It is not yet known what the long-term effects of elevated blood fat levels will be, but it is clear that in HIV negative people high cholesterol levels are associated with coronary artery disease, heart attacks, and strokes. According to Keith Henry, M.D., director of the HIV Clinic at Regions Hospital in St. Paul, MN, writing in the February 15, 2000 issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine, "As the HIV epidemic moves into populations that are already at increased risk for cardiovascular disease, increased rates of metabolic abnormalities could have serious consequences as the population ages." Indeed, there have been several reports of relatively young men taking HAART who have experienced cardiovascular disease and/or heart attacks, although most of these have occurred in men with other risk factors such as smoking or high blood pressure.

    Elevated blood fats may not be the only factor predisposing people taking HAART to heart disease. At the 7th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) in January/February 2000, James Sosman, M.D., and colleagues from the University of Wisconsin reported that protease inhibitors can affect the endothelium, or blood vessel linings. Speaking at a meeting of the American Heart Association last fall, Dr. Sosman noted, "We need to be taking the long-term cardiac care of HIV patients who are using protease inhibitors more seriously."

    Also at the 7th CROI, D.L. Johnson and colleagues reported that protease inhibitor therapy was associated with an increase in systolic blood pressure, another risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Jack Stapleton, M.D., and colleagues from the University of Iowa College of Medicine has reported on several cases of deep vein thrombosis (blood clotting) or pulmonary embolism (blockage of blood vessels in the lung by a migrating piece of clotted blood) in persons taking combination regimens that included indinavir, nelfinavir, ritonavir, or saquinavir.

    In addition to medications that lower blood fats and cholesterol, common sense measures such as diet modification (reducing the consumption of foods high in sugar, fats, and cholesterol), aerobic exercise, and smoking cessation are likely to be as beneficial in reducing heart disease for HIV positive people as they are for HIV negative people."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you've dug up a conference report from 12 years ago. Does this attempt to prove a point?

      Delete
  23. Sadly rethinkingAIDS will only die off when Crowe and his white, straight, HIV negative, far-right friends conk out. The +ve denialists will come and go.

    Check out the rethinkingAIDS facebook page. Another young guy has given up his meds and they are all celebrating. Even Brian Carter is chipping in. I thought he had died ?!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Oh - so there are side effects to drugs? Antiretrovirals have side effects? Who knew - shocking! Anticancer medicines have side effects too - maybe they shouldn't be used. Anesthesia has potential complications - I guess it is critical that surgeries be performed with no anesthesia! Bring it on!

    I suppose there are also side effects in not taking the medicines, though. Just ask Papagiannidou. Nevermind - ask Stokely. Doh! Nevermind - ask Kim Bannon. Doh - I keep on getting confused - they all aren't around anymore....
    Try Barnett. Yeah - Barnett...You might need to contact him fairly soon though...

    ReplyDelete
  25. Care to share your justification for censoring... er, I mean not approving my previous comment responding to "Tony", Seth?

    You allow anonymous folks to make statements about me, but deny me access to respond. I thought only the denialists did that sort of thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JB,

      That is actually quite humorous considering the policy from your merry band of intellectual lightweights and pseudoscience proponents.

      "we will not tolerate blatant adverts for orthodox perspectives", which in practical language essentially means that only a denialist perspective is welcome. Moreover, I have seen how you folks use and interpret research, and its a laugh riot to anyone with the slightest grasp of scientific acumen.

      On the positive side, I do know UMKC will offering their intro biological science course this summer (5 credit hours, 3 lecture, 2 lab). I even know the professor quite well. I would urge you to go enroll. I think it will open up your eyes that have been glued shut. And if you need a tutor, you could do much worse than yours truly.

      In all sincerity, I am sorry to hear about the declining health of Gos and yourself. Its probably not too late to turn this around my friend, but you have to be humble enough to admit that you are wrong.

      Delete
    2. Kalichman protects his minions well, he blocks my posts when they contain the smacks these idiots deserve.

      Delete
    3. "its a laugh riot to anyone anyone with the slightest grasp of scientific acumen."

      You don't say?

      Well, if that were the actual case, you obviously shouldn't have even able to muster a slight grin out of it there Chuckles.

      Thanks! I'll be here all week!

      Delete
    4. Censoring? If Kalichmen didn't, he would have been serving Tator-Tots in the UCONN cafeteria before he even got through his first week of this shit! LOL!!!
      Just ask him.

      Delete
    5. Come get *MIND FUCKED* by science out in the cornfield with supaflybleedingheart, sign-up now!
      The rows are filling fast!
      "With water, that is."

      Delete
    6. You get lamer and stranger by the minute. Go back to your day job, anony. Oh, you probably don't have one.

      Delete
    7. Oh really notElon? So when did they officlly change the name of Ramallah to "Los Angeles" anyway? Do you think that Andy L. is actually going to hop a plane to Israel so he can hunt you down and torture you or something?
      Yeah right! I can just picture that harmless guy walking the grounds of Hebrew "U" flashing that photo you post of J. Stalin and grilling people for information on your whereabouts. lol
      Obviously not as clearly as you can though.

      So what do you plan on actually being when you grow-up anyway? lol A petri dish in an AIDS research lab? Sounds about right.

      Delete
    8. My contact info is clearly available on the web as is my true profession. I just assumed you people would be too dumb to find it if I didn't make it obvious. I see I guessed right.

      Delete
    9. And no. I am not worried about Andy. Have you seen him on youtube? He looks terrible. I could totally take him.

      Delete
    10. I myself am often shocked by the utter stupidity of my fellow man from time to time. AIDS denial folks typically take the taco in this regard. I am fairly certian nonElon is a chemist, or if he is not, he has done a damn good job of fooling me. If I had to hazard a guess, he is probably a practicing chemist, as he does not have the arrogance and wanna-be sophistication of chemists in academia.

      Most of the AIDS denial folks know full well my academic background at the university, some were even so kind as to send emails (which we laughed at over coffee).

      I fully stand by the work I have done at the lab, as well as the papers I have submitted on the genetics and pathology.

      Once again, AIDS denial has never been about science. The scientific concensus sent their flock into obscurity long ago. They suffer from an affliction I cant attribute to biology. Which is, perhaps, why Seth is so goos at pointing them out.

      Delete
    11. Sounds like an offer to a fight. I might have looked terrible back when i did those videos after just quitting your toxic regime of drugs , but im looking and feeling rather healthier now since quitting them, with plenty of energy at my disposal. I have never even seen you , but fearless as i am , ill give you 20 minutes in a square go , meaning i accept your offer to try to take me. Personally speaking , after i knock you out in the first few minutes , maybe you should bring along a back up or two to keep it interesting for me while you regain consiousness . Im standing here.

      Delete
    12. Seth is "goos" at pointing out hot pharma and biotech stocks as well I bet.
      You two should do lunch sometime superboob.

      Delete
    13. Oh wow. I now see this thread has managed to devolve from sophomoric to utterly comedic.

      Even throw in a threat for a fist fight for good measure? What are you 14 man? I am sure donning a hazmat suit to protect against possible blood contamination from your "harmless virus" would not make for good reality TV, but it does show your maturity level (or more appropriately, the lack thereof).

      On a more serious note, you are of course free to quit ARV's in favor of things like homeopathy, fruit juice or any other alternative medicine regimens which are 99% nonsense. My problem with those such as yourself is not the choices you make which hurt only you, but their potential to harm others.

      Feel free to be the next statistic, and also feel free to have others of your ilk attach complete BS as to reasons in an attempt to explain away the obvious.

      Enjoy your date with inevitability.

      Delete
  26. What a tragedy, I'm sorry and very angry about this useless death. I'm hiv positive myself, I've been on antiretrovirals (reyataz / truvada / norvir) vor more than 4 years and have NO side effects, neither short terms nor medium terms. My numbers are great and I feel great. I know that the first treatments were very hard and had many side effects but this is OVER. Each hiv positive person in developped countries can find a regime that will cause few or no side effects. We all have to educate people about the new reality of hiv - a very manageable virus that can't stop you of living your dreams, having children and plannig for a long life, providing you get the proper treatment IN TIME.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well you would say that wouldnt you. But what makes you think you had an infectious virus in the first place ?

      Delete
    2. Because he is not an idiot and knows that there is actually science behind diagnostic tests?

      Delete
    3. ABBOTTS science behind diagnostic tests says that "at present , there is no recognised standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV 1 or HIV 2 in human blood".

      Only an idiot would fail to understand that statement.

      Delete
    4. Apparently you are an idiot, then. Because you take one random statement and use it to deny all the evidence.

      Delete
    5. No it doesn't. You can't even quote mine accurately.

      Delete
  27. Hey Kralc you moron, why don't you mention Drug Activists who drop dead from the medications?

    Start with Winston Zulu maybe, HIV+ on ARV's and got himself a little bit of liver cancer to die on, seems suspcious that one of the write ups on his death stated that his tireless efforts in AIDS activism led to increasing stress which took a toll of his health and he died.

    Seems only and orthodox poz can get health limiting stress these days and when you get liver cancer on the meds it's not and AIDS defining disease.

    Hey I love JB's rebuilding of D4D's archives, it show just what morons you are.

    Adios Cabron

    ReplyDelete
  28. i know hundreds of people who have adhered to haart and have died. nobody has the answers Including Winston Zulu. Any discussion should
    consider an analysis of those who have taken haart as well

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Luckily, that is what statistically significant peer reviewed trials are for. They show HAART works. No matter how short people live on HAART, the statistical lifespan is far longer on it than off.

      They do show that liver cancer is statistically more common among people on HAART than in the general population, particularly for those who start HAART with low CD4 counts. Whether this is a function of HIV or the drugs themselves or a combination is not known. Protease inhibitors are known to be associated with liver toxicity, but evidence leads to the virus, as it explains the correlation with CD4 count.

      Also, a new study came out a month ago showing that the harmful side effects are the worst in those whose viral load hovers about 50, even on HAART. That includes a significant fraction of people with HIV and it shows that there is room for improvement drugwise.

      But going from HAART does not provide complete protection and has side effects to HAART has unpleasant side effects ergo I shouldn't take it to HAART causes not treats AIDS, even in people who never took HAART is madness.

      Delete
  29. (reyataz / truvada / norvir)
    I have been on the same combination and I do have massive side effects and numbers, especially cd4 are not great. I wish there was more openess on both sides to come together and look at the bigger picture.
    I went on meds because numbers were bad, not because I was ill or experienced health problems (never had an oportunistic infection to date!!!). I have been on meds long enough for numbers to budge but they don't, I am left with side effects and the question whether my decision to take them was the right one. Yes, I have discussed the issue with my doctors... Yes, I have changed medication...Yes, I do complementary medicine in order to curtail side effects...Yes, I have a healthy lifestyle (no drugs, not promiscous, privileged social background ...)
    The questions remains, are there other issues involved that could account for low CD4? I get disturbingly diff answers from both sides...Where do I go from here?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Asking them to show you HIV in your blood would be a good start. Write to your doctors and ask them where is their proof of claim that you have an infectious virus in your body called HIV that kills cells if they decline to show you it. When push comes to shove , they soon start shrinking like a match to polythene and passing the buck. Just my experience and not suprisingly the experience of others ive come to know.

      Delete
    2. Always side with evidence.

      I have a mechanism for how HIV preferentially infects and destroys CD4+ cells. I can test that mechanism and find reams of evidence for HIV as the cause of AIDS.

      NO denialist has ever given me a reason why hunger or poppers or AZT any other reason of the week would destroy only one kind of lymphocyte. No denialist has ever told me why a rise in opportunistic infections among gay Americans occurred at the same time as a new chronic illness in Uganda. Or why the two seemed related to each other, or why wildly different drugs and hemophilia and poverty all cause exactly the same effect on certain cells.

      The evidence is crystal clear. If there is a bigger picture, denialists are not in it. And they know it.

      Delete
    3. Try this for size .

      Starvation kills you . AZT kills you. Poppers causes cancer , which kills you.

      Jobby jabbers using poppers and other drugs in America no doubt have an effect on the immune system .Starving of water and food would have an effect on poor Africans. Only the population of Africa has multiplied ! None of which were related. The only comparison would be a shot immune system.

      The evidence is crystal clear.

      Delete
    4. Do poppers cause a selective drop in CD4+, but not CD8+ cells? No. Then end of story; they cannot be the cause of AIDS.

      AIDS has to be caused by a biologic phenomenon. No toxin is that specific.

      Delete
  30. Unfortunately Elon, there hasn't actually been a placebo controlled double blind trial of HIV drugs since Concorde.

    In essence you are not comparing apples with apples, more realistically you are comparing cyanide to strychnine being that Concorde was a seriously flawed AZT trial stopped short due to "ethical" reasons.

    It would be so much nicer if you were at least occasionally honest

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The ethical reasons being that we shouldn't let people continue to die of a disease once it was obvious we can treat it. But, yes, I suppose you are right. Who cares about lives?

      Delete
  31. "No matter how short people live on HAART"

    What happened to that "Chronic and Manageable Disease"? I keep hearing the drug peddlers prattle on about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is chronic and manageable. Chronic means it will eventually kill you. That's why it's important to acknowledge it's existence and practice prevention.

      However, HIV is manageable in that the drugs can provide a longish lifespan, provided they are taken regularly and started early.

      Delete
    2. "longish". I have a bar of soap in my bath tub that isn't that slippery.

      Delete
    3. Yes, unlike you I try not to make definitive statements when we don't know all the details. Protease inhibitors are less than 20 years old, and the exact lifespan depends on many factors. So I am wisely not putting an exact number. Definitely longer than the average lifespan of an infected person who doesn't take them.

      Delete
  32. Another Big Pharma cover up!

    PENICILLIN KILLS!

    The CDC doesn't want you to know that more than 400 people died from this so-called lifesaving antibiotic! Who are they kidding? CDC has been in the pocket of Big Mold from the very beginning! Untold Billions have been spent on this killer drug!

    People die on penicillin, and people die without it! So, it is all a tie!

    OSMJ will continue its investigations until it is revealed that EVERY SINGLE DRUG HAS KILLED AT LEAST 400 HUMAN BEINGS! Big pharma, Big Mold, are a big industry scam.

    OSMJ will not stop until all these BIG BUCK KILLER DRUGS are stopped! Human life was so much better in the middle ages. Better yet, it is time to go back to the stone age!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Latex too!

    Yes, the Big Pharma diabolical plot literally joins hands with Big Glove. Billions of dollars are being spent on these killer gloves!

    We don't need clean water. EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO DRINKS SO-CALLED CLEAN WATER eventually has died! 100%

    You can't argue with statistics like this!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OSMJ NEWSFLASH-Spoken like a true "STOCK HOLDER".

      Do you and Seth compare notes on the subject?
      If not, you probably should.

      Delete
  34. it appears Maria was diagnosed in 1985 . She lived with HIV/AIDS 27 years . The people I know who have taken the meds are living about the same time.

    There are a few very exceptional cases on both sides. The focus needs to be about truth and only truth. The whole picture is required the people on HAART who have died not just the ones for who it works but the failures also. To me many people are able to stay off HAART longer if using alternative therapies up to 15-20 years. HAART should be last resort.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No alternative therapy has ever worked, and it is no surprise. You guys refuse to understand the cause; how do you expect to cure the virus?

      Delete
    2. notElon-You should become a spokesmen for the "Fourth Riech", if your not one already.

      How do you explain all the AIDS deaths in the U.S. alone last year with all of the wonder drugs on duty? I suppose those were all miracle-drug shunning "DENIALISTS!" who all bought the damn farm huh?
      Because nobody dies prematurely while drinking the KooL-A.I.D.S.!
      Is that it Jimmy Jones?

      Delete
  35. The genius has spoken,Clark Baker shares his wisdom with youtube,starts in spanish but turns into english later on :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9sm3LIPO5U

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That comment is deadpan sarcasm, I assume.

      Delete
  36. WOW!!! Clarkie looks AWFUL! He has gained more weight, and now has a mullet! Unbelievable. His blatherings are getting even worse.

    Unbelievable comedy! Classic find!

    ReplyDelete
  37. So now Clarkie is begging for money on Spanish language programs. He sure looks AWFUL!!

    ReplyDelete
  38. Someone reply to that video...please..

    ReplyDelete
  39. Clark must be about to take a long trip to a distant, far away land. I came to this conclusion based on the huge bags he had packed and stored below his eyes.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Clark HealthWatchApril 28, 2012 at 9:31 PM

    Hey! Let's not dance on Clark's grave.

    Obviously, the man is ill and deserves our compassion. We all know that one day he is going to go the way of Kari and Maria. As Clark's health deteriorates, I hope he will get decent medical care. No one needs to die for ideology. We could not help Kari, we could not help Maria. But maybe we can help Clark. The dementia has been setting in for years, and now it accelerates.

    Clark- get the treatment you need. Don't join your clients and die to make a political statement. Choose life.

    Duesberg and Farber- it is time you urged your friend and colleague Clark to get treatment before it is too late. You don't need more blood on your hands.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So far as I know, Clark doesn't have HIV. Unless the treatment you were thinking of was Abilify.

      Delete
    2. We may not know exactly what Clark is suffering from, but it is time for him to come out of the closet. Clark, the first step to regaining health is to admit what you have. Clark suggested many times that he wanted to inject himself with HIV to show that it was harmless. Did he make good on his promise? Regardless, the man is suffering from something extreme. He needs to get out of denial and get help.

      Delete
    3. Clark HealthWatch, Baker Watch:

      Can you tell by people's appearance what their disease is? If so you are a closet heretic!

      Delete
  41. Looks like Clarkie is being paid off by BigDonut. He's clearly a DonutSlut. Maybe he simply needs the 3 Hz Lovewave tubular fat treatment. I'm not sure he will fit in the "vessel" though.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Clark- we can see the cholesterol coming out of your face. Please- do you think fat is a conspiracy of the gym industry? Clark- get the help you need. Fear the Donut. Fear the mullet.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Wait, I thought he was HIV positive.

    He looks a little heavy for someone that's HIV positive.

    ReplyDelete
  44. How dare you imply that Donuts may be addictive! We, the donut denialists, deny that their is any casual link between donuts and fat or cancer.

    We deny that cigarettes cause cancer, we deny that global warming exists, we deny evolution. Our sponsors the Koch brothers through Freedom Watch wants to purify science and keep it free from truth!

    We deny that Kari or Maria or even Clark ever existed. We erase all inconvenient truths so we can believe what we want to believe and get to the real "truthiness."

    We can't be wrong. After all, Big Donut has police departments and private detectives all over the country in our pocket! Investigators say what we tell them to say!

    Right now, we are investigating Clark's incredible health decline. We believe the man in the video is not even Clark- he is a Clark double, as the real Clark is too sick. Clark appears to be hiding on some spanish-speaking island in an undisclosed location. I don't blame him. The denialists are responsible for more deaths than Osama. Seal team six, where are you?

    ReplyDelete
  45. God, he has more fat on his face than an Atripla victim.

    I bet if you could see his back there'd be an HIV associated Buffalo Hump happening.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An HIV associated Buffalo Hump happening?

      Buffalo Humps actually only come courtesy of the life giving "wonder-meds" that all of the douche-canoe med-students here continously keep preaching in favor of knuckle-head.

      Unless Gallo actually inserted a gene for it that was somehow missed, of course.

      Delete
  46. Has anyone seen Baker's latest post about a family in TN that packed up and left because doctors were trying to take away the children of an HIV+ mom that would not give her poz kids ARVs? He claims OMSJ helped the family but they ran away and never contacted OMSJ again. Pretty convenient, huh?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. they still ran away...

      Delete
    2. Maybe Clark scared them off. He certainly didn't do a good job protecting them.

      Delete
  47. I am thinking of starting OMFJ, "Office of Massive Fat Justice". Our investigators will initiate the Donut Innocence Group and assist with investigations of caloric excess.

    ReplyDelete
  48. LOL, he looks like he's been on high dose AZT for a couple of years, there's not much time left for him I'm sure, perhaps we could get a 2 for 1 deal on graves, he could be next to Barnett in Denialist heaven.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is insane, Why are we attacking Baker of all people for taking anti-virals? First off, as I said there is no credible evidence he has any reason to take them. There is utterly no reason to think he would take them if he needed to.


      But if he actually has HIV and is treating it protease inhibitors [as it is they not AZT that causes lipodystrophy], then what is he supposed to do about it? Not take the drugs and look great until he comes down with disseminated Zoster and fungal sores? Claiming that HAART made him look terrible as he does is almost certainly demonstrably false, and won't do anything except possibly scare HIV+ people into listening to him.

      Delete
    2. Nice of you to admit AZT kills you moron.

      Delete
    3. It doesn't in the way you weirdos think, but I never said that it is side effect free. Or that random people without HIV should gorge themselves on it.

      Delete
    4. Clark HealthWatchMay 2, 2012 at 3:21 AM

      Absolutely!

      Clark looks terrible despite, and not because, of the medicines he needs. No one is claiming that HAART is making Clark look bad. THE DONUTS are killing Clark. But, donuts and HAART are a bad combination.

      Denialists believe in all kinds of things without proof. Why do they need any proof about Clark? Would they not want us to ask questions, just like Galileo? Sure, it might not be popular to be concerned about Clark's health, but we are ready to ask the hard questions.

      Clearly, if you listen to Clark's video backwards, you can hear "Clark is dead" just like the famous beatles spoof. After all, as Mark Twain said "If I were dead I'd be the last to know."

      Clark may deny it, but denialists deny reality. So, who knows?

      But please- don't dance on his grave. Let's show some respect.

      Delete
    5. notElon- So I guess that in your big-book of infinite wisdom regarding all things AIDS, that as long as someone can describe properly the way in-which AZT along with the other drugs in that classification actually kill. They will still end-up just as dead, but at least they will have earned their proper respect and cred before they get sent packing.
      Thus- "The guy was surely smoked by that mucho horrible-ass drug, but at least he knew the proper route in-which it actually took in-order to do it! Hence, at least he didn't die a freak'in stupid clueless weirdo!"
      Correct? Correct!
      "LET IT BE WRITTEN! LET IT BE SAID."

      Delete
    6. I agree. There is something terribly wrong with him. We have no grounds to speculate on what it is. But I hope he finds out and is able to treat it. I do not wish to dance on his grave either.

      Delete
    7. Yes. Scientific literacy is important. You should always know when to take a drug.

      AZT is a treatment for HIV. It also has side effects. If you have HIV, then you might need AZT. But you should probably read the bottle.

      If you don't have HIV, of course you shouldn't take it.

      It's the same with antibiotics. Linezolid and daptomycin have all sorts of adverse effects, but if I had vancomycin resistant staph, one of them would hit the spot.

      Or Tylenol for that matter. Do you pop pills when you don't have any pain or fever?

      Delete
  49. Seth and readers,
    You may all want to check out Jonathan Barnett's blog, Resistance is Fruitful. You may be surprised, Hell, shocked even, to see that JB and I have been communicating via email and telephone and have resolved many issues. What is that called, again? Oh, I believe it's called being responsible adults.

    We both hope that if he and I can come to terms and respect each other's opinions, then maybe we'll set a new precedent for others on both sides of the aisle, so to speak.

    Check it out and maybe we can all start a new tone of dialogue; one that sounds respectful.

    J. Todd DeShong

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Todd,

      Thanks for posting this. Maybe Seth will allow me to post a real comment here.

      It's time to stop demonizing each other. No more wishing people dead, just because we hold different points of view.

      I'll repeat here what a close friend said: "pain and disease are the enemies, not each other."

      Delete
    2. I'm glad it worked out for you two.

      Delete
    3. Making friends with anti-Science?May 2, 2012 at 3:12 PM

      Should we all take a denialist to lunch? I don't think so.

      Denialists are not equal to other persons. Denialists are responsible for 300,000 excess deaths in Africa. I personally am against medical genocide, and oppose making friends with Clark Baker.

      Sure, some genocidal maniacs might make reasonable lunch friends. But, I believe we should demonize demons. I don't want to dance on anyone's grave. I'd rather that all people get decent medical treatment. I'd like everyone to base medical decisions based on science and logic. I'd like everyone to follow the Hippocratic oath.

      Denialism is a microcosm of the great threat to our society. Education is so poor that people swallow the anti-logic of denial. We can't solve real problems while people deny climate change, evolution, AIDS, the historical holocaust etc.

      So, it remains everyone's duty to oppose denialism and all it stands for. Denialists spread "pain and disease", thus, denialists are the enemy.

      Delete
  50. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZBQgX01KGk&feature=youtu.be

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Um yeah, we all know who Christine Maggiore and that adorable baby were.

      Delete
  51. Thats only what the woman in the above link tried to do , maybe , just maybe ,there are some starting to listen that there is debate needed instead of slander and accusations which clearly has done no good to anyones health.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's no debate needed. I'm all for civil discussion. But there's no debate. There are two reasons for this.

      1) There is no middle ground. Either HIV exists and causes AIDS or it doesn't and modern science as we know it is garbage. We scientists see it as black and white. And Maggiore also saw it that way. Look what she called her book for crying out loud. "What If Everything You Thought You Knew about AIDS Was Wrong?" Either we are right or she is.


      2) She cannot be right. In fact, Maggiore was demonstrably wrong, and she paid the price for it. That cute kid in the video had severe growth problems and dies of Pneumonocystis. Maggiore herself died of an opportunistic infection. When Eliza Jane died, Celia Farber published a scathing article about how it was all an anomaly and that this was obvious because Maggiore was in perfect health; then Maggiore herself got sick and died. In Maggiore's view this should be inexplicable. But there are reams and reams of evidence that speak to the reason they both got mysteriously sick. I can present the evidence, but I cannot meet you halfway. You can't debate something that is true and certain. Should I debate someone on the color of the sky or the wetness of the ocean?

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

      Delete
    3. Strange as it may seem , i dont hear any of the HIV brigade on radio spouting off all the shite you lot do , is that because it doesnt hold any weight with broadcasters anymore , unless of course your promoting the company you have shares in and you happen to be at the healm of the US governmemnt notching up royalties marketing Amfar . Your sad sadistic bastards the lot of you. You dont have a test that can detect a virus , the antibody tests are just non specific antibody tests , therefor the drug companies are selling drugs to kill off peoples immune systems . Your a fuckin knockout notElon but notElton or Stalin either. And we all know that BSE hangs out with the guy from balls of steal ,so you better watch , we are one step behind you ya freak.

      Delete
    4. Well so much for civil discussion...

      Delete
    5. There's a not very thinly veiled threat to a real person in that posting.

      Delete
    6. We all know that people with diagnosed HIV and mental health issues are the ones with the greatest need.

      Andy, when you have something to go on come back to me.

      Delete
    7. Maybe the FBI will come back to you for the threats of murder.

      Delete
  52. So...what has the OMSJ done? He talks about cases but what cases have the assisted in?

    ReplyDelete
  53. It would appear notElon's true colors are on show now, a fundamentalist orthodox, the most dangerous kind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was never ambivalent about my views on the obvious truth. I don't know what took so long for you to notice. And if you mean that I am the most dangerous kind because I understand all the evidence making your view a bunch of hooey, I am flattered.

      Delete
  54. I don't understand how proper science can be somehow distorted by the use of the words "fundamentalist" or "orthodox" in an attempt to be disparaging. Fundamental science and medicine, is, at its core evidence based.

    It would appear that "Anonymous" above's true colors are on show now, a fundamentalist denialist idiot, the most common kind.

    ReplyDelete
  55. I know many people with HIV, here's what I've learnt: HIV is real but the rate of non-progression (without ARVs) to a state of life-threatening immunodeficiency is much higher than a few percent out of all infected individuals (over 20+ years). Does HIV cause AIDS? sometimes..Does HIV + certain (still unknown) cofactors cause AIDS in most cases? Likely...people need to converge towards a middleground of sanity

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Then you should converge on Dr Rodney Richards who clearly states that HIV tests do NOT detect HIV. In fact , Dr Rodney Richards who holds patents in the manufacturing of the antibody testing states that , There is no test for HIV , its all an illusion !!!

      Theres sanity , someone who knows what he is talking about. If AIDS inc would like to take the man to court for that statement as im sure it is inteded to kill thousands , then why havent they ? Perhaps because they know the games up the pole hahaha

      And the only idiots are the ones who blow pish , insult the dead , and really shouldnt write cheques their arses cant cash defending a theory that HIV is the cause of AIDS until they can show us a virus cultured by a microbiologist. You lot are clearly insane and i for one wont be wasting my time with sites like this anymore , cause i got some living to do. As for a not very thinly veiled threat , where ? A person is a fiction sunshine , doesn exist in the real world , but then how were you supposed to know , if you cant even find your elusive HIV.
      Not only do you know jack shit about biology , you know jack shit about law as well. The true colours of a few dumdums are clearly on show defending this site. Well im gonna be far too busy following fictional entities , so you can relax. Go snort some poppers.

      Delete
    2. Do you acknowledge that Christine Maggiiore (and her daughter), Kim Bannon, Pappagiannidou, Stokely, etc died of AIDS?
      In light of evidence, do you agree that classifying HIV as a harmless virus is utter bullshit? Do you agree that telling people not to take sound medical advice is dangerous? Do you agree that listening to uneducated fools like Clark Baker and his nonsense conspiracy- theories is dangerous? If you agree with this then we are all in agreement.

      Delete
    3. In light of evidence that HIV has never been shown to exist as anything more than a name for something else and in light of the fact it has therefor never been proven to cause AIDS , I fail to see how anyone can lump the phrase HIV with LAV , IDS , GRIDS or AIDS .

      So no , i dont classify HIV as a harmless virus or for a virus that causes anything in light of the evidence of no virus.

      The whole construct is Bullshit !

      Therefor , i agree that asking a doctor to show me HIV virus attacking cells in ones blood is impossible , which is why they dont.

      I would tend to agree with everything Clark Baker has written in light of the lack of evidence any of you have to disprove him.

      So i guess we shall just have to agree to disagree since Rodney Richards is not an uneducated fool. I can see there are a few on here though , such as JTD , BSE , notELON, superdry fly by robby and your ignorant self.
      Tell me , do the scientists who were thrown out of Semmelweis for fraud actualy pay you all for spouting such pish or does they just bend over for you all ?

      Delete
    4. Rodney Richards can state whatever he wants. I can say that the sky is purple. That doesn't make it true.


      As for me being a fictional person, well I write pretty well for someone who does not exist. Insane? Well one of us writes badly spelled schitzo rants, treating the world like like the X-Files. The other is me. I'll let the world judge as to which of us is rational.

      Delete
    5. Rodney Richards test kits dont test for HIV , not only does he say it , thats why the kits have legal disclaimers in them.

      You can say the sky is purple all you want but you didnt make the sky and have no claim to a legal disclaimer to say it is or it isnt.
      The difference is , Rodney Richards can claim just that about those test kits , because he fuckin made them you moron. And because he hasnt seen any proof of claim of a CULTURED virus that causes AIDS , then neither have you . So its all an illusion ,just like your purple sky.

      As for being a fictional entity , a fictional entity cannot write, correct. Only the representative of the person(legal fiction) or natural person (natural legal fiction) can do that.

      Look pal , yer kind of fucked and ill run rings round you lot all the time so best not to tell yer granny how to suck eggs.

      Maybe you should try taking some of yer own churches ARV;S if your that convinced ye kin poison a body back to health , because you seem pretty sick to me. Though i wouldnt advise it , best you try some nutrition instead.

      Refering to the schitzo rants like BSE and his necrophilia friends from the diamanda galas fb page were on about , they were watching too many james bond movies if ye ask me , or balls of steel. Maybe they all fell out their cesna and got gobbled up by the crocs themselves .

      Delete
    6. I showed you pictures of the cultured virus. I guess because I don't exist, the pictures don't count but yeah.


      Rodney Richards DIDN'T invent those tests, by the way. He DIDN'T claim he invented them, either. He claims he was GOING to start work on a competing test when he decided that there is no proof ELISA is correlated with HIV. He also says YOUR theory of PCR is bunk, so I don't know why you quote him.

      As for me, there are now studies showing that those antibodies are correlated with presence of virus on electron micrograph, so that should be proof for Rodney.

      Delete
  56. It sounds like the only "Rodney" crazy "anonymous" above has "converged" on none other than Rodney Dangerfield!

    ReplyDelete
  57. The following statement is from Liam Scheff at his facebook page:

    Open Call: I'm seeking comedians and performers who do Conspiracy (honest politics) Talk as part of their act. For a potential traveling show. Please put me in touch with those you know. Make your recommendations here, or message me.

    So far he is considering contacting Joe Rogan and Doug Stanhope! Talk about delusions of grandeur. Both of those comedians are way too successful and famous to bother with Liam Scheff. I guess because Liam now has a book out he thinks he's something. Of course we all know he published the book himself. What a tool.

    But damn, I would love to see this "traveling show"!

    ReplyDelete
  58. The "AIDS-Denialist" pathology is simpler than it appears. Most of them do not like blacks. They also do not like gays, especially gay men, although they are very often explicit on this point (very often, they are self-hating gays/lesbians). And their most visible, constant targets are black, gay, HIV-positive men. Didn't you notice this? AIDS-Denialism is sublimated racism, compounded by pathological homophobia, especially among the women, most of whom are crytpo-lesbians. And one of their chief conceits (especially from white 'denialists') is claiming to know and understand the Senegalese, or Zimbabwean, or Zulu mind. I am a South African black and I can say with confidence that to POZ African Blacks, the pale-faced denialist-meddlers are witches, each and every one. Their arrogance is unconscionable.

    It is chiefly minority men (in the States) that are testing positive for HIV. Which is to say, they are testing positive for something that (although deemed 'nonspecific' by denialists), will--and does--shorten lifespan. But if you are able to find a treatment that will buy you a decade, or two, or more, take advantage of it.

    'Denialists' muddy the waters for a lot of reasons. A handful of them muddy the waters because they are genuinely bad people, and a handful muddy the waters because they are useful idiots. If you are sick, it is in your best interest to ignore the lot of them.

    Here are the facts. In the 80s and 90s (Durban), I watched a handful of friends die (they weren't bushmen, but businessmen). A little over half were taking AZT and they died a little faster. But (and it's a BIG 'but'), ***everyone*** died before their time--good, beautiful, young men. Something is wrong and therapies on the market have cut the rate at which young, sick men die.

    Side-effects suck. I agree. But so does dying young...before you know who you are, before you have found love. In the end, none of us can keep our bodies, but dying well takes time, and a handful of drugs afford the sick enough time to die well, rather than while beset only with fear.

    And finally, the Denialists aren't (most of them), HIV-positive. What business of theirs is our disease!? As for African Blacks, we don't want a little, sanctimonious white girl patting us on the head, telling us what is right and what is wrong. That's when we take our machetes off the mantle.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I hear Clark Baker is "considering" Brad Pitt as the star in a self-produced epic. Unfortunately, Louis Anderson already turned him down.

    And to the idiot "Anon" above - Clarkie Baker is an uneducated fool who spouts nonsense to uneducated fools such as yourself - that makes him feel important. You know, being the self-declared King of Tools. You, my sad friend, are merely one of his turd-sandwich minions. But keep it up, moron! You're really entertaining me with your whackadoodle logic! Hey - I have an idea - have you considered searching for the Loch Ness Monster? There are serious academicians who make a career out of that.

    I'm sorry though if you still suffer the PTSD symptoms resulting from any alien abductions and rectal probing.

    ReplyDelete
  60. To "Anon" above:
    Do you refer to the prestigious Semmelweis Society which is now comprised of 2 people - an osteopath who has settled 15 malpractice lawsuits and the infamous Clarkie Baker with no college education at all?
    Do you refer to those who quit the group because Clarkie infected the original group and called him a complete load of bullshit and referred to Celia Farber as an "attention whore"?

    How prestigious and hallowed such said group is.

    ReplyDelete
  61. The HIV empire is crumbling fast as you read this.

    Thousands upon thousands are waking up to find there is no scary virus. They are begining to read.

    Best black boab gets his machete down and gets to work on the test kit inserts before everyone finds out its all a hoax.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Yeah anon - sure. You, in your mighty educational pedigree figured it all out! It's all big pharma! Obesity is Big Donut, and penicillin is a conspiracy of Big Mold! They are all empires! You have figured out the secret! You must be Robert Langdon of the Da Vinci code...It's all the Illuminati! Robert Gallo is Silas! You have everything figured out!!

    ReplyDelete
  63. Clark Baker, OMSJ DirectorMay 7, 2012 at 6:12 PM

    Thank you, "Anonymous" above. I appreciate your defense of me. HIV "science" is simply false propaganda by those who advance the "germ theory of disease". Everyone knows that Alexander Fleming was a paid shill MoldSlut. And Joseph Lister was a guy who sold his diploma to Listerine.

    HIV science is as phony as the Smallpox so-called vaccine. If you study the real research uncovered by award-winning journalists such as Celia Farber and Liam Scheff, you will see that the Smallpox Virus and the Influenza virus are merely constructs preached by the orthodoxy of electron microscope companies. Surgery is a useless tool simply promoted for profit by the surgical instrument companies, in the same way that birth is an obvious push by the ObGyn cartels. The rabbit hole goes way deep.

    I studied humanity on the streets of Brazil and have arrested thousands of felons over a 25 year career. What is clear to me is that anyone who believes HIV nonsense is simply indoctrinated with the same scientific nonsense that they claim comes from "education." They could learn a thing or two if they spent time with me on the mean streets of Los Angeles.
    People can make fun of me all they want. Galileo was persecuted as well. One day, in about 400 years, people will see that the whole germ theory of disease is fiction made up by the orthodoxy.

    ReplyDelete
  64. This thread is an insult to anyone with health issues that this blog pretends to address. Where is the blooger-in-charge?

    "Wait, I thought he was HIV positive.

    "He looks a little heavy for someone that's HIV positive."

    "LOL, he looks like he's been on high dose AZT for a couple of years, there's not much time left for him I'm sure, perhaps we could get a 2 for 1 deal on graves, he could be next to Barnett in Denialist heaven."

    "Looks like Clarkie is being paid off by BigDonut. He's clearly a DonutSlut. Maybe he simply needs the 3 Hz Lovewave tubular fat treatment. I'm not sure he will fit in the "vessel" though."

    ...puke!

    Shame on you

    ReplyDelete
  65. Anon - I stand corrected. Clarkie Baker should be exposed in a sound frequency vessel with ultrasound waves in the 2-20kHz range. That is the appropriate frequency range for ultrasound assisted liposuction.

    Thank you for drawing my attention to the error.

    Good Day, Sir.

    P.S. - This blog, in case you hadn't noticed, serves the primary function of exposing the Denialist charlatans like Clarkie Baker as the uneducated conspiracy-theory dipshits that they are. Their idiocy is an insult to anyone with 2 brain cells who understands basic biology, yet for some reason there are some denialists who maintain their bullshit and keep dropping like flies.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Jonathon Barnett has decided to take AVR's. Take a look at some of the comments on his blog made by dissidents. It's unbelievable how quickly they turn on their own. Maybe some of you should wander over to Jonathan's blog and offer a word of support to him because he sure isn't getting much from the dissidents! If we are going to criticize dead dissidents for not taking AVR's, maybe we should try to support the living when they do!

    http://www.resistanceisfruitful.com/blog/2012/05/07/97/

    ReplyDelete
  67. Jonathan Barnett will start up ARV`s again and i applaude this decision.Thanks for not throwing your life away,Jonathan!But check out the comments from David Crowe on Jonathans Blog!You make me sick David Crowe! You are an absolute disgusting person and Jonathan says he will adress your comments later on - I hope he rips you apart!

    http://www.resistanceisfruitful.com/blog/2012/05/07/97/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't find that comment particularly hateful, just typical biologically ignorant David Crowe.

      Check out over here, where he encouraged someone to disregard her heath, because as she wrote who needs who needs CD4 cells when you have CD8, and who needs lymphocytes altogether when you have neutrophils? After all, you have way more neutrophils than lymphocytes. Those other types are just for show. We scientists have no idea what lymphocytes actually do. Crowe thought she had a valid point.

      I don't see him eating crowe anytime soon, so this is just par for his course.


      Barnett is right to worry about his count and not to trust him.

      Delete
    2. Barnett is to be commended for taking care of his health, but he would have been far better off had he not left the antivirals.


      Take study in the New England Journal of Medicine. When Barnett stopped taking antivirals, he was in the low risk >500 CD4/ml group. By deferring treatment until just before he gets opportunistic infections, he greatly increased his risk of death. And for what? It is clear that his "Alternative therapies" did not stop the CD4 decline in any meaningful way.

      Delete
  68. Your welcome CB.


    http://exlibhollywood.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/what-is-pharmaslut.html


    All anyone has to do is read. The above link and the names of those mentioned was fact checked and found to be correct. Ha , you can tell by their response on here that they are really not happy about it , but hey ho , thats life.

    This one is a knockout. They are working on a vaccine that will give people an antibody to the mythical HIV !!!! Just a tad hillarious as according to them , the antibody tests are what diagnosed everyone infectious in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. | get no money from big pharma. None. Zip. Zilch. Not a cent. My pockets are empty. And I still think Clark Baker is an idiot.


      I mean did you see his chart? Look how few people now die from infectious disease! Back in the 20s, when it was the leading cause of death, we should have worried about it. But now that the numbers of deaths mysteriously dropped, we should turn our focus where it belongs: blaming scientists for um living!

      Delete
  69. Clark Baker, OMSJMay 9, 2012 at 12:55 AM

    Yes, thanks for referencing my extremely prestigious article where I simply cite myself. HIV is mythical. Bacteria are mythical, and smallpox is mythical! Anyone who reads my prestigious article knows full well how valid it is. It is just as valid as my many other exposés where I have proved that Obama is a Kenyan Muslim and global warming is a conspiracy of the left wing. Anyone who is brilliant would understand my articles. Especially people who are educated on the "mean streets" like me.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Clark Baker, OMSJMay 9, 2012 at 12:58 AM

    Thank you again, Anonymous. I fact check all my sources myself and re-check them for accuracy with my crack team of journalists, scientists, and private detectives. And when something doesn't make sense, we just check it again. Then, it all makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Hands across the water Mr Baker , if id bumped into you on the street , id have given you something to "keep handy" in your back pocket.
    The street taught us a lot , its good to be able to use it against the real villains :-) We are the authors of our own writs , and yes , they hold a lot of weight .

    This lot on here couldnt tie our shoe laces Mr Baker. Adios .

    ReplyDelete
  72. You are all right....I now see what I have done. How could I have been so blind? I can't believe I was brainwashed by Duesberg and Farber.

    I now repent my ways. I can't stand the guilt. The only decent thing I can do is end it all.

    Farewell cruel world! From now on the Clark you see is just a faint copy of the original

    ReplyDelete
  73. Carl Stryg started a very interesting thread at RA facebook. He asks why there is not a trove of dissident literature showing what alternative treatments work. As Carl points out, with all the HIV+ dissidents who have gone the alternative route, there should be a lot of literature showing what alternative treatments work for each ailment...but there is not. To me, that shows that there are none!

    ReplyDelete
  74. And Andy Lindsay's views on what he thinks NTRIs does actually comes out: They are synthetically programmed to make their own DNA, insert it into your cells, and then slowly kill you over time. So when a virus does that, it is impossible. Can't happen. No. Just a hoax But This tiny little thing contains all the synthetic programming it needs to screw T Cells.


    "The drugs alter the DNA at the same time slowly killing off all immunity. If youv quit the drugs and get this far and manage to eat well enough , there is no guarantee you will get better recovering full health. The immune system will have to be started over again while any toxins in the cells will have to be discarded , thats if the drugs havent made their own DNA sequence making it nigh impossible .
    This hasnt been discussed as far as i know , so if anyone knows of a discussion or data then id like to be directed to it. Either lamivudine or stavudine , id have to take a look , terminates DNA , and i think it was synthetically programmed to make is own DNA. Hence , the title of the thread."

    ReplyDelete
  75. Get someone to rebut that argument then you moron. Its allready been proven by Karry Mullis that this has been done.

    What hasnt been proven is that there is an infectious virus , which is why the tests that dont test for that virus that hasnt been found carry disclaimers you moron.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can rebut it myself. There is no freaking way a molecule that small could be "programmed" to do anything.

      Where is the "DNA Sequence" encoded in the drug? How would it know what DNA to rewrite? What is the mechanism of this magic rewriting? Do you have any evidence of your claims? Did Kary Mullis even say that, or did you hear him say something completely different and then get all mixed up, like you always do?

      Delete
  76. And before i forget , the only thing that screwed with my T CELLS were toxic DNA chain terminating drugs that altered my DNA so much that my body started making too much cholestorol and trygliceride to the point it nearl killed me.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Can you provide me with published scientific papers that show how
    Entry Inhibitors
    Non-Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors
    Protesase inhibitors
    Integrase inhibitors
    (all these are types of ARVS?)
    are "DNA terminating"?

    ReplyDelete
  78. I don't understand why someone diagnosed as HIV positive in 1985 dying in 2012 is newsworthy? Surely many patients who have taken antiretroviral drugs continuously since 1985 have died prior to Maria? Also, a pulmonary embolism isn't an AIDS-defining disease, so to say that she died of AIDS is erroneous. Additionally, an increased risk of cardiovascular disease is known to be a side effect of the protease inhibitors. According to the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/testing/index.htm) "CDC estimates that 56,300 new HIV infections occurred in the United States in 2006 (1). Each year, approximately 16-22 million persons in the United States are tested for HIV." So if 56,300 people test positive out of even just 16,000,000 million tests that means that 0.35% of tests are positive. To put that another way, all HIV positive tests can be attributed as false positives even if the tests are 99.65% specific. If the tests even just generate 1 false positive in every 285 tests then all positive results can be attributed as false positives, correct? According to the NIH (http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hivaids/understanding/howhivcausesaids/pages/hivcausesaids.aspx), "Current HIV antibody tests have sensitivity and specificity in excess of 98% and are therefore extremely reliable." Isn't a test that is even 98% sensitive inadequately sensitive if you're testing 16 million people per year and if HIV is estimated to affect 0.4% of the population?
    And since many of you claim ART saves lives, and the only way to scientifically prove this is with double-blind randomized placebo-controlled studies, please reference the randomized placebo-controlled studies showing ARVs offer a statistically-significant mortality benefit. Can we have an intelligent discussion about this, or is everyone too busy celebrating that someone died after being HIV positive for 27 years?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous, if I were to take the trouble to explain to you the gaping hole in your "all HIV positive tests can be attributed as false positives" argument, would this make the slightest difference to your thinking?

      Or would I be wasting my time?

      Delete
    2. No. Please explain to me the flaw in my reasoning. 0.4% of the population is estimated to have HIV. In order to find that 0.4% you'd have to test 100% of the population. Given that a surrogate marker is used and thus some level of false positives are inevitable and this is conceded by all, even if the tests are 99.6% specific and only generate 1 false positive out of every 250 tests, since the estimated incidence is 0.4%, all reports of HIV positivity can be explained as false positives. This is incredibly basic math. If you give a 99% specific test to 22 million people per year you will misdiagnose 220,000 people. That's a big problem, right?

      Delete
    3. Your reasoning might be true if we gave one test. We do not.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous, the measured specificity of the currently used screening tests such as EIA or chemiluminescent assays is around 99.8 or 99.9%. This means that out of a thousand truly negative samples tested you can expect 998 or 999 truly non-reactive results, and 1 or 2 falsely reactive results - on the screening test alone.

      However, no one receives a positive HIV diagnosis on a screening test alone. A reactive screening test is simply the first step in an diagnostic algorithm of tests such as immunoblot and nucleic acid amplification tests together with clinical data, which is required before a diagnosis of HIV infection can be established, or conversely which establishes that the reactive screening test was a "false positive".

      By definition falsely reactive screening tests - our 1 or 2 per thousand "false positives" are initial screening tests which are not confirmed on the completed diagnostic algorithm, and which are therefore not counted as HIV cases.

      The Gaping Hole in your argument is that you are confusing the result of a reactive screening test alone with a diagnosis (or misdiagnosis) of HIV infection. Falsely reactive screening tests and confirmed HIV diagnoses (which is what your 0.4% is counting) are mutually exclusive categories by definition.

      Oh, and a side issue - I'm not sure what population you are referring to where the estimated incidence is 0.4%. In the US the estimated prevalence of HIV infection is a little under 0.4%, but the estimated annual incidence is around 50,000 in a population of about 300 million, or 0.017%.

      Delete
  79. "To put that another way, all HIV positive tests can be attributed as false positives even if the tests are 99.65% specific. If the tests even just generate 1 false positive in every 285 tests then all positive results can be attributed as false positives, correct?"

    I fail to see how "a test that has some false positives" means that "all the results of that test are false positives".

    People in the denialist movement love to point out the cross reactions that take place in the antibody tests.They tend to forget thought that false positives are rare.They tend to forgert that although the presition of the antibody testing is not 100%,it is certainly very high.

    Also you claim that ARVs kill.That comes in direct contrast with clinical trials from all over the world that show that ARVS prolonge the life of HIV positive individuals

    Trials with ARVs

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=arvs%20clinical%20trial


    Also I will repeat my question to the person that claimed that ARVs are DNA terminating

    Can you provide me with published scientific papers that show how:

    Entry Inhibitors
    Non-Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors
    Protesase inhibitors
    Integrase inhibitors
    (all these are types of ARVS?)
    are "DNA terminating"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The reason you fail to understand that all cases of HIV positivity can be explained by the tests being 99.65% specific is apparently because you suck at math, and I asked you to provide a reference to support that ARVs produce a statistically-significant mortality benefit. You have failed to do so. If you test 16 million people per year and 56,300 of them test positive that is a positive rate of 0.35%. So even if the tests are 99.65% specific, which would make false positives very rare, that still makes all positive results attributable as false positives.
      Have you considered that perhaps the "denialists" are simply better at math than you? Whose really in denial?

      Delete
  80. Ok bright sparks. How does one clarify that your HIV is attacking ones immune system when there is an absence of virus in the blood ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There isn't an absence of virus in the blood. We can detect it with PCR.

      We can culture and concentrate the virus through generations of cells in a petri dish and then visualize it with an electron microscope. Same as any other virus. This is, of course, too time consuming and expensive to do with every sample. But it has been done.

      Delete
  81. Somebody else sucks both at math and at biology.

    Should I remind you that every positive result is confirmed by other tests?Should I mention that besides antibody tests there are tests like PCR that detect the viral RNA?

    AIDS truth org has some more trials for you.

    http://www.aidstruth.org/science/arvs

    How many clinical trials would it take to convince you?

    What killed the people with AIDS before the use of any kind of ARVs?

    How come it was observed that people that got exposed to the fluids of people with AIDS got AIDS as well (people that were not gay,drug users or haemophiliacs,).

    How come it was observed that AIDS could get transmited through blood transfusions?(that was long before anyone sugested a virus as the infectious agent).

    And my personal favorite

    If HIV is so freakin harmless how come it was observed that it can harm and kill T cells in the lab?Scientists infected CD4+ T cells with HIV and CD4+ died.What killed them???

    ReplyDelete
  82. Clark Baker is bragging about "another OMSJ case" at Rethinking AIDS facebook page. Baker writes:

    All HIV-related criminal charges against US Army Sergeant TD were dismissed yesterday. After more than 200 days, he was released after the judge read the verdict...

    Baker promises to report all about it after he clears it by the Army. Funny that Baker does not say who "Sargeant TD" is and this is the first he has ever mentioned it. I want to know the specific charges etc. Surely there is a news report somewhere. I see Baker is back to his usual deceptive self, bragging but supplying zero facts, proof or any details at all except his word. We all know what Baker's word is worth.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Let me put it another way notElon.

    When a substance, taken from a donor species (eg JTD) , is transferred to a recipient species (eg BSE) , the recipient may develop antibodies against the substance. If this phenomenon takes place , the substance is said to be immunogenic.

    However , BSE's cd4 will not be getting attacked by the substance if BSE is antigen negative for that particular substance.

    Go teach yer granny how to suck eggs.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Just because an antibody test is reactive to a specimen of blood it does not mean someone is testing positive for an infectious virus.

    Is arthritis an infectious virus ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First of all, are you talking to me? Cause I see my moniker there, but your rejoinder has nothing to do with what I said. I didn't mention antibodies.

      Do you not know what Polymerase Chain Reaction is? Do you not know what culturing means?

      Delete