tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post7567678430013976873..comments2024-02-25T14:29:44.021-05:00Comments on Denying AIDS and other oddities: Hey Professor, ignoring the nut next door is not helpingSeth Kalichmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01715826946361587097noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-47086756042904930752009-07-01T14:11:53.651-04:002009-07-01T14:11:53.651-04:00"Threatening legal action for "libel&quo..."Threatening legal action for "libel" is a favorite tactic of corporations and other thugs and phonies when they want to try to silence legitimate criticism."<br /><br />sounds familiar...mmmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-66509583183428751612009-06-20T23:55:27.015-04:002009-06-20T23:55:27.015-04:00Onecleverkid,
You are just trolling. Here is the ...Onecleverkid,<br />You are just trolling. Here is the complete list of errors and subsequent corrections,<br />http://www.tac.org.za/Documents/ErrorsInFarberArticle.pdf<br />And here is the specific Vit A question you are fishing for:<br />FALSE VIT A Farber states that the fact that some of the HIVNET 012<br />participants were on a vitamin A trial negates data associated<br />with them.<br />If vitamin A supplements were actually effective at reducing MTCT,<br />Farber's statement would be true. However several studies of whether<br />vitamin A supplements reduces MTCT have been conducted. They all<br />found that vitamin A supplementation does not differ from placebo.<br />See the Cochrane review (2006)52 on this. It is possible that vitamin A<br />supplementation confers other benefits, but even this is unclear as a<br />recent Zimbabwean study demonstrates.53<br />JTDjtdeshonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09881997315363701292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-34711799243736680582009-06-16T14:06:11.634-04:002009-06-16T14:06:11.634-04:00onecleverkid wrote:
"I would love to see you...onecleverkid wrote:<br /><br />"I would love to see your evidence, especially as it pertains to the article "Out Of Control" in Harper's, which was fact-checked for months to the point where the publishers of Harper's have not felt the need to retract a single word of it in the years since."<br /><br />Shall we do them one by one?<br /><br /> “A 1994 study, for example, that gave vitamin A to pregnant HIV-positive mothers in Malawi reported that those with the highest levels of Vitamin A transmitted HIV at a rate of only 7.2 percent.” <br /><br />Can you give us the citation for this study and confirm that it "gave vitamin A to pregnant HIV-positive mothers in Malawi"?<br /><br />I'm thinking that it's this study, which doesn't make reference to giving vitamin A to anybody:<br /><br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7911919?dopt=Abstract<br /><br />Lancet. 1994 Jun 25;343(8913):1593-7.<br /><br />Comment in:<br />Lancet. 1994 Jun 25;343(8913):1585-6.<br /><br />Maternal vitamin A deficiency and mother-to-child transmission of HIV-1.<br /><br />Semba RD, Miotti PG, Chiphangwi JD, Saah AJ, Canner JK, Dallabetta GA, Hoover DR.<br /><br />Dana Center, Department of Immunology and Infectious Diseases, Baltimore, MD 21287-9019.<br /><br />Studies show that around 10-40% HIV-positive women will give birth to children who are also infected. However, the risk factors for transmission from mother to child are not well understood and the effects of maternal nutritional status are unknown. We conducted a study of vitamin A status in pregnant women as a risk factor for mother-to-child transmission of HIV in Malawi. Serum vitamin A, height, weight, CD4 T-cell counts, and duration of breastfeeding were measured in 338 HIV-positive mothers whose infant's HIV serostatus was known. Mother-to-child transmission of HIV was 21.9% among mothers whose infants survived to 12 months of age. Mean vitamin A concentration in 74 mothers who transmitted HIV to their infants was lower than that in 264 mothers who did not transmit HIV to their infants (0.86 [0.03] vs 1.07 [0.02], p < 0.0001). We divided HIV positive mothers to 4 groups, those with vitamin A concentrations of less than 0.70, between 0.70 and 1.05, between 1.05 and 1.40, and greater than or equal to 1.40 mumol/L. The mother-to-child transmission rates for each group were 32.4%, 26.2%, 16.0%, and 7.2%, respectively (p < 0.0001). Maternal CD4 cell counts, CD4%, and CD4/CD8 ratio were also associated with increased mother-to-child transmission of HIV. Maternal age, body-mass index, and breastfeeding practices were not significantly associated with higher mother-to-child transmission. Our study suggests that maternal vitamin A deficiency contributes to mother-to-child transmission of HIV.IPnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-26059842774040745852009-06-11T20:08:24.084-04:002009-06-11T20:08:24.084-04:00Don't play dumb with me, kid.
Threatening leg...Don't play dumb with me, kid.<br /><br />Threatening legal action for "libel" is a favorite tactic of corporations and other thugs and phonies when they want to try to silence legitimate criticism. And that is exactly the purpose of Farber's suit. Not even her most ardent supporters think her action has a snowflake's of success in the courts, but that's not the point of it. The point is to try to threaten and intimidate critics of AIDS denialists.<br /><br />Such tactics deserve to be treated with the utmost contempt. <br /><br />You said:<br /><br />"It seems especially ridiculous to refer to a great journalist [sic] as a liar when commenting on a libel case which is being brought before the courts for saying exactly that. Some might think this behaviour crazy."<br /><br />The threat implied in that is very clear. If denialists such as yourself want to try to play those games with me I will call you out on it in no uncertain terms. I do not tolerate thugs. You crossed a line there.Snouthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00315836146914661895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-12332804332966050672009-06-11T13:23:22.334-04:002009-06-11T13:23:22.334-04:00Dear Snout,
I was not making threats of any kind, ...Dear Snout,<br />I was not making threats of any kind, since I have no connection to that lawsuit at all. I was merely pointing out the irony of libeling someone while talking about their libel case. <br /><br />Your characterization of the lawsuit seems wrong to me. She isn't "responding to criticism by threatening libel actions," she is responding to vicious attacks planned carefully to stop her from being able to write for other publications. For you to refer to what happened as "criticism" of her is ridiculous and shows your own level of denial, since you won't even look at the facts objectively.<br /><br />If all of the insults and condescension you have hurled at me on every corner of the internet was your version of giving me "the benefit of the doubt" than I can't wait to see how you treat people you actually don't like. When do the tickets go on sale, indeed.<br /><br /><=Bonecleverkidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-44713432598636318402009-06-11T05:18:47.898-04:002009-06-11T05:18:47.898-04:00Is there anyone else here who thinks that respondi...Is there anyone else here who thinks that responding to criticism by threatening libel actions is a perverse and pathetically stupid way of defending freedom of speech?<br /><br />Kid, your veiled threats are transparent and contemptible. Part of me was kind of prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt up till now. Not any more.<br /><br />Farber complains that the "libel" she alleges in her suit has "deprived her of friendly intercourse". It's pretty obvious to any outside observer that her insightlessness and an insufficiently critical approach to "friendly intercourse" is what got her into this mess in the first place. (Not that there's anything inherently wrong with "friendly intercourse" - I'm all for it, provided you're sensible about it.)<br /><br />If Farber wants to publicly blame the world for her plight from the witness stand, I say: well, go ahead. Knock yourself out.<br /><br />When do the tickets go on sale?Snouthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00315836146914661895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-16320239918444110462009-06-10T14:08:25.661-04:002009-06-10T14:08:25.661-04:00Dear Anonymous and JT,
If a man who works for a no...Dear Anonymous and JT,<br />If a man who works for a non-profit organization is doing something wrong, is it your opinion that he should never be stopped? Why should it matter where he works? Where is your logic? It seems especially ridiculous to refer to a great journalist as a liar when commenting on a libel case which is being brought before the courts for saying exactly that. Some might think this behaviour crazy.<br /><br />I did not ask for "proof of her lack of integrity in ANY work place." I suggested that if you are going to claim that she makes "shit up" that you had better have hard evidence to prove it or you are committing an act of libel. This is good advice that you perhaps don't deserve. I would love to see your evidence, especially as it pertains to the article "Out Of Control" in Harper's, which was fact-checked for months to the point where the publishers of Harper's have not felt the need to retract a single word of it in the years since.<br /><br />JT, You are so much more reserved and respectful and polite on a certain other blog where the guardians of science have been helping you along on your journey of self-discovery. Maybe it's because you have respect for the host or the regular readers of that blog. I'm not sure, but when you enter this sandbox, your tone changes so dramatically that frankly, it freaks me out.onecleverkidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-89743021237828179052009-06-09T19:57:06.952-04:002009-06-09T19:57:06.952-04:00HAHAHAHAHAAHA, Oh, oneDUMBASSkid, (who, from what ...HAHAHAHAHAAHA, Oh, oneDUMBASSkid, (who, from what I have heard, is 58 years old...hardly a kid) Oh, wait, maybe that was his IQ...anyway, I digress.<br />I do not have to back up anything. All one has to do is read Celia Farber's "articles" and any INTELLIGENT person can see for themselves that her writing is slanted to her Denialist Agenda via her sensationalistic "style". Would you call how she strings together utter nonesense as a style?<br />Also, further proof of her lack of integrity in ANY work place, especially journalism, one need only look at the fact, which she admitted, that she was sleeping with her boss at SPIN! Anyone with half a brain knows that even the perception of impropriety is reason enough to not engage in behavior which would put ones morals and integrity into question. However, it would seem that Ms. Farber does not give a hoot about seeming to have integrity, when it is quite plain that she does not have integrity, morals nor scruples as a journalist nor as a human being. Please read the link below. They are quotes I found on the web from her co~workers and Exfriends at SPIN, Adam Greenfield and Nancy Leopardi.<br />http://dissidents4dumbees.blogspot.com/2009/05/celia-farber-ethics-in-question-by.html<br />When will you people learn not to ask me for back up and proof? I always come thru...and ALWAYS before you have to ask for it. You just have to read my blog.<br />JTDjtdeshonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09881997315363701292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-57339402480005038172009-06-09T16:00:24.339-04:002009-06-09T16:00:24.339-04:00Onecleverkid,
I am concerned about Ms. Farber. Su...Onecleverkid, <br />I am concerned about Ms. Farber. Suing a charitable organization for libel? Does she have brain damage? I mean all of that blonde hair colouring that is obvious in the Nashville Film Fest photos linked below makes you wonder. What's more toxic than hair colouring? And don’t say AZT, at least not if you really are clever.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-27139032632228888672009-06-09T13:19:45.832-04:002009-06-09T13:19:45.832-04:00Dear J. Todd DeShong,
Unless you can back up your ...Dear J. Todd DeShong,<br />Unless you can back up your claims written here that Celia Farber makes "shit up to fit" her agenda with hard evidence, I would advise you to stop that libelous behaviour. Keep in mind that this site, as well as your blog, scienceguardian.com and Snout's blog, is a public forum where anyone can witness the damage you are attempting to do to the career and livelihood of a true investigative journalist.onecleverkidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-68046879330842083752009-06-06T22:15:02.513-04:002009-06-06T22:15:02.513-04:00Michael Geiger, I am sure you will run from this, ...Michael Geiger, I am sure you will run from this, as you always do when I directly reply to your loose cannon bull~shit! You know, the way you ran from my reply to your sanctimonious, egotistical, self~serving projectionism at Snout's site? When I pointed out how you LOVE to diagnose EVERY homo~faggot, yes, such as myself, as being HIV+ due to drugs and stress.<br />Go back and read it, as I have new words for you here.<br />I am re-posting your EXACT words from above, to demonstrate a perfect example of "moving goal posts", something you loser DENIALISTS love to do. Geiger's words:<br />"However, before he died in 1994, (probably due to high dose AZT monotherapy toxicity, as azt was the only drug used at the time,)" <br />As I pointed out, and you verified in your response, AZT was NOT the only therapy in 1994. No matter how badly you want to "re~state" what you already stated. I was on three medications taht you claim did not even exist in any part of 1994 whether it be in January or December. I was diagnosed in November 1994, and went on meds immediately. <br />Now, per my own words here and at my own site, I have stated I went off DDI within two weeks because I chose to do what you whining DENIALISTS like Karri Stokely do not do, and that is I took control of my life and my health. I told my doctor that eventhough DDI had no taste and no smell (back then, it was a powder that had to be dissolved in water or juice or whatever) I just could not get the shit down. So I discussed it with my doc and he changed my meds!! Unlike lying Karri Stokely, who by her very own words stated that she tolerated her meds well and had almost zero side effects, then changed her words and said she had nauseau, vomitting, diarrhea, neuropathy for 11 years! IF that is true, and that is a big, fat IF, then she should have taken control and talked to her doctors. She had a doctor, who by the way, must have understood these meds and their potential, since as soon as Karri Jokely's liver enzymes went whacky, her doctor changed her meds. Therefore, I believe that IF she had bad side effects (as she did not claim, and then did claim and God knows what the real story is), then I believe her doctor would have tried different meds to find what worked for her!<br />However, if you read Clark Bakers blog about Sustiva, Baker tries to say that Jokely/Stokely was physically addicted to Sustiva, but if you read the links he provides, you will see that Baker, who barely has a high school education, was just making up shit to fit his agenda, (much like Celia Farber and Liam Scheff do).<br />Please check out my site here, where I completely deconstruct the lies Clark Baker writes about Sustiva being addictive:<br />http://dissidents4dumbees.blogspot.com/2009/05/clark-baker-is-scientifically.html<br />Now, Geiger, will you please get a life and stop lying about a subject you know SHIT about?<br />One last thing, you are 61 years old if you are a day!<br />J. Todd DeShongjtdeshonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09881997315363701292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-11873538923772999182009-06-06T13:28:18.273-04:002009-06-06T13:28:18.273-04:00Todd, you say you were on DDI and Epivir (3TC) and...Todd, you say you were on DDI and Epivir (3TC) and d4T in 1994? <br /><br />Casper Schmidt died in the spring of 1994. <br /><br />d4T did not reach any pharmacies until July of 94, after Casper had already died. And when D4T was first approved, it was only approved to be added to AZT.<br /><br />Epivir (3TC) was not even approved by the FDA until November of 95, and Schmidt was also long dead by then. <br /><br />DDI, though it was approved in 1991 (without even having had any placebo trial) could have been taken by Schmidt, but would have been taken only in combination with AZT. And if so, both AZT and DDI likely would have been given at higher dosages such as 600 to 750mg daily each. <br /><br />Those taking such regimens of either AZT monotherapy and those taking AZT and DDI had very low survival rates, as adding DDI to AZT showed very very little benefit.<br /><br />Therefore, your assumption that Schmidt could have taken the combos that you claim you were on are not possible. <br /><br />Furthermore you were not even yet diagnosed as hiv nor taking any hiv drugs when Casper Schmidt was diagnosed as aids nor when he had died in the spring of 1994 of "aids related illness", whatever that means. <br /><br />And lastly, Todd, Casper Schmidt was then in his late 40's and he therefore would have tolerated the early aids drug toxicities far less than someone much younger such as yourself. <br /><br />And by the way, Todd, if the drug regimen you were on in 95 of ddi/3tc/d4t was so wonderful, then why are you not still taking it? No need to answer, as I already know why. That regimen was also severely toxic. <br /><br />And back to you, my dear, dear, Dr. Seth! Have you yet pondered my question? <br /><br />Could it be that you have successfully, even though subconsciously, have diagnosed your own self?<br /><br />MichaelMichaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05529276675893724850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-45470409008001073222009-06-06T09:43:30.696-04:002009-06-06T09:43:30.696-04:00JTD
It does beg the question.
What are dealing w...JTD<br />It does beg the question. <br /><br />What are dealing with here in Michael Geiger and others. Is it denialism or ignorance? <br /><br />Denialism is surely related to ignorance for some, but not all denialists. Duesberg, Rasnick, Crowe, Mullis, Maggiore cannot be ignorant of HIV/AIDS. In those cases psychpathology seems to drive the denialism. But maybe not Michael Geiger? <br /><br />In Denying AIDS I do not spend as much time as I may have to discuss the distinction and relationship between denialism and ignorance. <br /><br />Is it similar to racism, where some cases are clearly pathological hatred and others are ignorance? This will likely be a chapter in my next book. <br /><br />You are very helpful in pointing out the ignorance when you see it. Maybe if Michael understood antiretroviral therapy he would not be so resistant.Seth Kalichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01715826946361587097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-88837117930973941402009-06-05T22:23:56.218-04:002009-06-05T22:23:56.218-04:00Here we go again with Michael Geiger! Geiger show...Here we go again with Michael Geiger! Geiger shows his true stupidity when he says that "AZT was the only monotherapy used in 1994" makes no sense for two reasons.<br />A) In 1994 there were many more medications being used than AZT. I for one, was on DDI and Epivir (3TC) and d4T.<br />HINT to Geiger: Mono means ONE!!<br />B) Monotherapy itself had not been used even before 1994.<br />That statement by Geiger is almost as stupid as Brian Carter's youtube video in which Carter states that HIV has never been isolated without using SUPERnatants...as if that is a Super Natant much like SuperMan is a SUPER Man!!<br />Here's the video link again. The views are only at 417...let's get that number up, shall we?<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFb0FbLcK7M&feature=related<br />JTDjtdeshonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09881997315363701292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-56561321567708274462009-06-05T16:55:42.287-04:002009-06-05T16:55:42.287-04:00Hi Seth and Lisa,
Just listened to your intervie...Hi Seth and Lisa, <br /><br />Just listened to your interview on Little Atom. Nice job, and you speak very well, but I am concerned that in your re-iteration of what dissidents believe are the causal factors behind the AIDS phenomenon, I am very concerned that you very likely convinced even more people that the dissidents are correct. Even the interviewer said to you "So why should we believe you that HIV causes AIDS?"<br /><br />I have to admit, it gave me a great laugh. Thanks. <br /><br />But that is not the reason for this note to you. I am just wondering if it has ever crossed your mind that in diagnosing other people as "denialists", that you could possibly be unconsciously diagnosing your own self as a denialist but are simply disowning it and projecting it upon others. <br /><br />Interesting thought, I think, that you may subconsciously be diagnosing your own self. After all, a denialist certainly would be the last to know they were in denial. Is that not correct?<br /><br />Even Caspar Schmidt, the very early aids sceptic/dissident who after writing his theory on aids being the result of group-think hysteria, eventually got himself also diagnosed as hiv positive. However, before he died in 1994, (probably due to high dose AZT monotherapy toxicity, as azt was the only drug used at the time,) he confessed to an interviewer that Caspar himself at that point believed that in writing about others who had fallen under the spell of group hysteria, that he had unfortunately been unknowingly diagnosing his own self. That is quite a revelation for him to have had just prior to his own death. <br /><br />So, therefore, I do at times wonder about you Seth. As you, just like Caspar Schmidt, are also a very intelligent person. But it does come to my own mind that if you are, as I suspect, unknowingly diagnosing the denialist of your own self. <br /><br />Well enough of that, and hopefully I will see you at Rethinking AIDS 2009 in November, and we can discuss it and sort it all out from there. <br /><br />Be well, <br /><br />Love and Kisses, <br /><br />Michael Geiger!Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05529276675893724850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-23080043288222021352009-06-04T18:02:51.165-04:002009-06-04T18:02:51.165-04:00So sad. No mention of Henry Bauer… the undisputed ...So sad. No mention of Henry Bauer… the undisputed Queen of Pseudoscience!! Believing in the Monsters of Loch Ness may even be too crazy for an article on conspiracy theories… It is also a good thing no one has ever heard of Bauer!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com