Speaking of deceit in denial, a new crockumentary spreading AIDS denialism is making the scene. Competing with Gary Null & Void Productions to become a major AIDS denialist filmmaker, first timer Brent Leung has released ‘House of Numbers’. Not that Brent Leung is not new to AIDS Denialism. Brent Leung had produced a film based on Boyd E. Graves' book, "State Origin: The Evidence of the Laboratory Birth of AIDS." Now we have House of Numbers, which is aimed at a broader demographic with the potential to confuse a new audience of viewers.
House of Numbers masquerades as a legitimate documentary in much the same way AIDS pseudoscience is confused for science. The movie travels to Perth, Europe, South Africa, and the US as if showing all sides of AIDS. Just as Thabo Mbeki created the illusion of an even divide among scientists by stacking his Presidential Panel in South Africa, Leung creates the impression of a conspiracy around AIDS.
Leung uses the same tactics that denialists have used for years - goal post moving, technobabble, cherry picking, conspiracy theorizing, and misuse of science. Brent Leung tried to stage a pseudo-debate at the world premiere. He sent requests to leading AIDS scientists and was met with a general response of, “Can he be serious? There is not a legitimate AIDS scientist on the planet who would waste their time contributing to delusion that there is a debate about what causes AIDS.”
The film’s trailer presents itself as an evenhanded view of AIDS science. What you are not told is that the legitimate AIDS scientists interviewed were not informed of the film’s intent. Some of the scientists said to be interviewed have no recollection of the experience. It would seem that Brent Leung is the Borat of AIDS denialism, duping people into thinking they are in documentary, Not! But in this case, no one is laughing.
When I first leaned about House of Numbers my prediction was that the film would show to an audience of AIDS Denialists about twice the number that showed up at the Village Voice protest - that would be eight. The film is making its way to film festivals and will surely show globally at HEAL meetings. I was sure that it would show at beer and Weiner Schnitzle parties on UC Berkeley and Virginia Tech campuses. I did not expect it to get much traction.
Was I wrong? House of Numbers may be getting more attention than we hoped. Unfortunately, the crockumentary played well to unknowing local press, who actually bought it as legitimate. House of Numbers is an example of how ignoring AIDS Denialists gives them openings to the public. The answer to denialism is to get the word out on who the denialists are and what they are up to. Read this Opinion Editorial published to alert the public about the film's intent. House of Numbers is a House of Cards and we should take every possible opportunity let the world know.
UPDATE 6/7/09: "House of Not so Large Numbers" They are finally here! Official pics from the Nashville Opening. Young men looking crazy and old men looking very old. See who you can see at this not so full house. Is it me or is that a ward officer? And are those walls padded or what?
UPDATE 5/7/09: AIDS Denial buzzing about Nashville after film fest.
UPDATE 5/6/09: More(on) Brent Leung lingers in Tennessee.
UPDATE 4/29/09: Liam Scheff fires back at Bay Windows, watch out Nancy Padian here he comes!
UPDATE 4/24/09: More coverage in Boston from Edge.
UPDATE: House of Denialism kicks up dust in Boston. Here is the Bay Windows posting.
Monday, April 20, 2009
AIDS Denialist Movie is a House of Cards
Posted by Seth Kalichman at 6:49 PM
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
I just wanna know how a new documentary filmmaker had the money to travel to all these exotic ports?ReplyDelete
Also, Brent Leung claims to be straight! BUT come on, have you seen her, er, I mean HIM???
Yeah, I'm straight too! And if he went to the Red Light District of Amsterdam, I am sure he is no longer NEG!!
What a liar!!
I was wondering whether Brent Leung had done these interviews under false pretenses. His previous Denialist film makes it clear that he had an agenda from the start.ReplyDelete
I'm reminded of the interview with Mark Wainberg in the Scovill/Maggiore "The other side of AIDS". After being asked a HIV-denial laden rhetorical question Wainberg starts to realise that he is being interviewed a Denialist. He asks Scovill whether he is a "dissident" and Scovill lies.
Also check out the evolution denial film "Expelled" for similar tactics.
And "the word" is that there is "consensus"? You think repeating that there is a consensus will stop "denialism"? It's that simple?ReplyDelete
That argument is no longer that convincing I'm afraid...not even for the general public nowadays. I suggest that you guys reconsider your strategy.
Do mainstream scientists change the story they tell depending on the intent of the questioner?ReplyDelete
It sounds like Leung took his cue from LiaR Scheff. The way LiaR Scheff duped BBC into a crockumentary on his complete and utter sensationalists lie about the Orphans as Guinea Pigs! This just proves how the denialists have to stoop to deception to make their cause seem legitimate!ReplyDelete
just doing my part to let others know about its nonsense, to join in go to http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/pages/House-of-Numbers/40491054861?ref=nfReplyDelete
Mr. Crowe (or who ever you are)ReplyDelete
“Do mainstream scientists change the story they tell depending on the intent of the questioner?”
It is not that scientists (and I mean real scientists, not wannabes and frauds) would change what they say depending the intent of the questioner. Rather, real scientists would refuse to say anything for a denialist film. Scientists know that AIDS Denialists twist and corrupt what they say, just as happened in House of Denialism.
I have been checking in with several of the featured scientists, and none seem too upset. The general feeling is that this film will do about as much damage to AIDS prevention and treatment as David Rasnick’s paranoid ranting about an AIDS Blunder. It will likely have about the same career building impact as well.
Do mainstream scientists change the story they tell depending on the intent of the questioner?If the film is repeating denialist talking points then I would think that any scientist would want to be able to respond directly to those talking points or choose to be interviewed at all.ReplyDelete
The ID/creationist film "Expelled" is a good example. most of the scientists who were interviewed said that they would have partcipated if they knew that it was going to be an ID/creationist anti-evolution film. The main exception was Richard Dawkins who had previously been duped by creationist film makers and misrepresented in their film. Most of them said that they would have said almost exactly the same thing. The main difference is if they knew the agenda of the film maker then they would have been able to directly respond to the ID/creationist talking points.
David, don't you find it ridiculous when Robin Scovill lies to Mark Wainberg by claiming not to be a "dissident"?
The filmmaker never made the other film you guys are referring to. You just made that one up. I wonder what else you have fabricated.ReplyDelete
WHAT?!!!! Interviewing people under false pretenses, and with a hidden agenda to boot?ReplyDelete
I am grateful that Mr. Noble and Mr. Newton have finally exposed Brent Lung for what he is.
This article was not very well researched. This is Brent's first film. He never produced anything before House of Numbers.ReplyDelete
Be a clever kid and read the webpage linked to the post.
“Independent film producer, Brent Leung is heading up the Nashville film crew. According to Graves' publicist, Joel Bales, "'STATE ORIGIN' will be on the shelf by inaugauration day. "Once the dust finally settles from the current political tug of war, the laboratory origin of AIDS will dominate the social agenda of humanity, well into the 21st Century."
Your boy Brent was the Producer. Not that the project was ever completed. I heard that Phizer, working the CIA and FBI, had it shut down. Did you hear that too?
Deliberately misrepresenting the communications of scientists (or others) on film and in the written word by selective editing are both forms of dishonesty, and deserve to be treated with contempt.ReplyDelete
But there's a big difference between such propagandising through film and quote-mining written texts: with a film the context is left on the cutting room floor, and is inaccessible to anyone who wants to check the honesty of the filmmaker's work.
People who like to lie through quote-mining written text, however, can be caught out, because unless the quote is extremely obscure or made-up, it is reasonably easy to search for the original to check the context, particularly with "advanced search" on the internet.
Quote-mining propagandists like (the alleged) David Crowe rely on their audience being too lazy or stupid to do this.
Word from the Boston showing of House of AIDS Denial.ReplyDelete
So about 70 people filled a theater with around 500 seats. Brent Leung had a whole 10 minutes to respond to questions from people there regarding his film. And then a bunch of AIDS denialists, who it seemed were unhappy with the panel of discussants, jumped the stage. Lots of shouting from several AIDS Denialists in the audience followed. Must have made Brent proud to have such a shining moment.
There's an article about the Boston debacle here:ReplyDelete
Leung is clearly as habitual a liar as the people he's clambered into bed with (see his comments on the movie and the funding for it).
Liam Scheff has already written an outraged letter to the writer of the piece:
Apparently Liam, like the rest of the deniers, is unaware that Montagnier's quote is referring to the hundreds of published studies of highly exposed seronegative individuals (some of which Montagnier is an author on). Scheff also can't resist the opportunity to misrepresent the Padian study, claiming six years of follow up when 175 couples followed for 282 couple-years averages to 1.6 years per couple.
He then closes with some comments about honesty...
Circa 1999, Leung was also supposedly working on a movie about Len Horowitz's theory that HIV is a lab-created biological weapon:
"A documentary based on Dr. Horowitz's bestselling book, "Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola Accident or Intentional?" (Tetrahedron, LLC Press, 1997;1-888-508-4787; http://www.tetrahedron.org/), wherein several potentially explosive NCI reports are reprinted, is currently in production by Nashville independent film producer Brent Leung."
Horowitz believes Duesberg's denial is because Duesberg was involved in the creation of said weapon. They had a debate about this:
Oh my! More dishonesty from denialists! This is...well...expected actually. It doesn't surprise me that Scovill lied about being a denialist as so many other denialists on Aetiology have lied about so many other things as well (example: reading papers that they have not read).ReplyDelete
I wonder how anyone can truly believe that they are right when they know that they have to lie to make themselves seem credible. Shouldn't this be a huge red flag to anyone following their little pseudoscience faith?
This is not a "denialist" film. Have any of you people even seen it?ReplyDelete
I've seen enough of the trailer on the film's site to know it for what it is. Any film purporting to show a "balanced" look at AIDS and yet quotes the Perth group as authorities on the subject is 99.999999% sure to be denialist propaganda. The Perthers have been denied being expert witnesses in court because they had absolutely no expertise or experience with HIV or people afflicted by it. I won't go into a whole long post about them because Seth understandably does not want his blog turning into a huge mess of Perth-related junk. Suffice it to say that the trailer makes it clear that they are portrayed as authorities when reality shows that they don't know sh@t.ReplyDelete
I love McDonald's justification for Brent Leung lying about his agenda while making the film.ReplyDelete
He responds to Seth's statement:It is not that scientists (and I mean real scientists, not wannabes and frauds) would change what they say depending the intent of the questioner. Rather, real scientists would refuse to say anything for a denialist film. Scientists know that AIDS Denialists twist and corrupt what they say.with
When faced with such hostility against anyone who is suspected of being willing to entertain the possiblity of dissenting opinions, it is normal journalistic practice to withhold one’s opinions, or even attempt to appear sympathetic.So there we have Denialist logic and Denialist morals in a nutshell. Because scientists know that Denialists would distort and take out of context things that they say then Denialist film makers are forced to lie.
And now we have another round of Montagnier being misrepresented and quote mined. You would think he would have learnt after the Djamel Tamil interview.
Horowitz believes Duesberg's denial is because Duesberg was involved in the creation of said weapon. They had a debate about thisNow that would have been a film worth watching.ReplyDelete
Add to that Duesberg debating the Perthies about the existence or lack of existence of HIV. Then you could get the AIDS is undiagnosed syphilis crowd to debate the AIDS is not sexually transmitted crowd.
Chris Noble wrote:ReplyDelete
"If the film is repeating denialist talking points then I would think that any scientist would want to be able to respond directly to those talking points or choose to be interviewed at all."
You imply that the "HIV experts" would've agreed to take part in the film even if they knew that it wasn't going to support their point of view.
Have you seen this? :
As Kalichman also predicted correctly, the scientists who were in the film actually say:
"None of us would have agreed to be interviewed for the film had we known it would promote the AIDS denialist agenda, and include members of that small clique as participants of supposedly equivalent credibility."This kind of "scientific" arrogance is exactly why your attempt at making HIV science appear as legitimate as the evolution science fails.
Why is it that you cannot understand why anyone would want to participate in a film that is 180 degrees different from their own views? Is it because we all know that FILM can be EDITED to show anything and everything that the film-maker wnated?
Sadunkal, are you so naive that you do not understand that even Jesus could be edited to make it look as if Jesus himself approved of Hitler? Yes, even I could be edited to look as if I approve of that lying, murdering, hypocritcal KIKE, Dr. Henry Bauer.
Let's admit that Brent Leung is a lying, hypocritical ass-hole of Clark Baker proportions!
When we admit that the content of the film reflects the content of the film-maker's head, we will all understand what this film amounts to:
Deceptions veiled as truth!
J. Todd DeShong
Most scientists likewise would not want to be portrayed in an ID film, knowing full well that their quotes would be taken out of context. Historians probably would not want to be in a holocaust denialist film as the same would happen. Crock "experts" are quoted in such a way as to make them seem credible while the real experts have their quotes taken out of context to either make them look stupid or make it look as if there is a huge amount of doubt in the mainstream.
Of course they wouldn't want to take part of that. Just look at the stupidity swarming around the quote from Montagnier (with no context given). Hell even you took part in this saying it should be repeated all over the world.
See, any idiot can jump on crap like this and believe it supports their point of view because there is no context given in the crockumentaries. That is why most scientists wouldn't want to be included in denialist propaganda BS.
Sadun, the HIV/AIDS denialists are following the exact rhetorical strategy pioneered by creationist pseudoscientists. To a tee. Here's how it works:ReplyDelete
1. Fail utterly in an field of science.
2. Produce a set of "talking points" that have in fact been refuted over and over again.
3. Manufacture a "controversy" and loudly demand to be allowed to "teach it".
4. Take that manufactured controvery to people such as yourself who have zero background in the relevant issues, and therefore might be potential converts if they are stupid enough, or who overvalue their own ability to critically analyse a field they have no training or experience in (see Kruger-Dunning effect).
5. Claim to have been persecuted and "silenced", and this is the reason your talking points are rejected by anyone capable of actually understanding and critically evaluating them.
6. Take your failed argument to the net, where you can find an almost infinite audience who have little understanding of the issues.
7. Try the courts (e.g. Kitzmiller or Parenzee) Fail utterly.
8. Make a film, e.g Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed or House of #s to continue flogging points 2 to 5.
9. Repeat steps 1 to 6 as required and as nauseam.
Sadun, have you ever tried to convince a hard core creationist that their understanding of evolutionary theory is wrong? I bet you have. How did it go?
Can you understand why genuine AIDS scientists might feel they have better things to do than publicly "debating" the Perthians in 2009, that such a "debate" would be similarly pointless, and agreeing to such a "debate" would achieve nothing except
(a) to reinforce the erroneous impression there is a genuine controversy among real experts (people who have actual traing and experience within the field) rather than a manufactured one by cranks with their own agendas? or
(b) to provide vicarious credibility to people who have spent 25 years demonstrating they deserve none?
Thanks for the heads-up, Seth. But I think you are way off base here. Go watch the film again, then investigate the people in it, like Dan Kuritzky and John P. Moore, both well known paid off pharma-shills who are in it for the bucks and their egos. Neither have even had an HIV poz patient under their care. Why do I say that. Check out www.shillfactor.net and you will see just why these guys are so protective of hiv theory. They are powerplayers in it because journalists and people like you who are also getting hiv grants, do not investigate anything before running your mouth. The world of AIDS research and punditry is dominated by a small clique of powerful individuals and the vast majority of haven’t followed a patient in years, if ever, and are lavishly pampered and subsidized by the makers of AIDS meds. We need more films like this to open it all up to proper scrutiny.ReplyDelete
Fascinating... all you geniuses keep going on and on about the qualities of a film you have not seen. I hope you approach the idea of HIV possibly not being an exogenous, pathogenic retrovirus with the same level of integrity, because that would sure lead quickly to some important answers! I know you will try, Mr. Kalichman and your band of evil pharma-pawns. I know you'll try.ReplyDelete
CrazyDenialist [thanks for the truth in identity]ReplyDelete
About seeing Brent Leung’s Crockumentary to know what it is says, did you go see Robert Gallo’s major talk at NIH last week on Rethinking AIDS Day? Probably not. But I bet you know what he had to say?
Thanks for the note and the bit of honesty. A couple things. One is that PhD microbiologists never see patients. That is why it is just as dumb to fault Duesberg for not treating patients.
Don’t be dumb, lab researchers do not see patients.
For what it is worth, I am Clinical Psychologist and have interacted with thousands of people with HIV/AIDS since 1989 – on treatments and off treatments. Why not believe me when I explain your denial?
Do you really believe that AIDS scientists are just a few and in it for money? Really? Why then select a disease that affects the poorest people in the world? Why not cancer? Or diabetes? Or Gout? That is where the Big $$ must be, right? How do you explain that?
PoodleStomper, Snout etc,ReplyDelete
I won't go too much into detail. You're constantly trying to compare a religious debate to a scientific one. Doesn't make sense. But even so the IDers at least get answers to their arguments, don't they? People actually take the time to set up detailed websites, write books etc. Show me where I can find a real response to Perth Group and then I'll let you ridicule "denialism" as much as you wish. Until then I consider you people as the real denialists. Sorry... My earlier offer about "Debunking the Perthians" still stands.
I only posted this comment because I wanted to reply to you. Please, don’t anyone respond to this nonsense about debunking or debating the Perthies. I will not host a debate on this crap.
To have science to debate you have to first be a scientist. None of the Perthies is a scientist. Not one.
Are any of the AIDS Denialists scientists?
David Rasnick has never held an academic appointment. He spends more time in legal depositions against Big Pharma than he has spent in a legitimate lab. Would you call the illegal and immoral ‘clinical trials’ he did for Matthias Rath science?
Duesberg is not a scientist. He was in the 1960’s, but no scientist would disrespect science the way that Duesberg does.
Mullis is not a scientists. Winning a Nobel Prize is great, but the man is on LSD and sees glowing raccoons that abduct him to far away planets.
De Harven? When was his last scientific contribution? Where has he been for the past 30 years?
Henry Bauer?. No need to say anything about Henry Bauer. He does a good enough job himself.
David Crowe, BA, BS.??
Sadun, get real. You are in college studying cartoon making. Who the hell are you to argue about science?
You are posting several comments a day on several blogs and websites. What the F@#k are you spending this much of your time on this for? What are you neglecting in your life? Any offline friends? Any family? What about school? How about that Berlin nightlife? Seriously, what is wrong with you?
If you want to debate Poodle Stomper or Snout about your Perth delusions take it to their blogs.
I just wondering why, if Brent Leung is such a fan of Boyd Graves, Graves doesn't appear in this film. In fact, I've never met a rethinker who takes Graves seriously at all. The reason is simple: If someone wants to prove the U.S. Government manufactured a virus, they have to find actual evidence of an isolated virus. Rethinkers have never seen this evidence, though they continue to seek it through a $50,000 prize offered by Christine Maggiore's organization, Alive and Well.ReplyDelete
Seth Kalichman isn't a scientist, either.ReplyDelete
Sorry about that – not Liz –Beth.ReplyDelete
I guess I was wrong thinking you were a clever kid. It is just that you gave it away when you said not many requests for the ever so threatening stickers.
Of course Bono is not a scientist. But neither is Peter Duesberg. Duesberg was at one time (see Chapter 2 of Denying AIDS). No one takes him seriously, that was obvious at his aneuploidy conference.
I am actually a social-behavioral scientist. My specialization is behavioral aspects of HIV/AIDS.
Anyone interested in my credibility can easily search PubMed and NIH Grants database. While there check Duesberg, Rasnick, De Harven, Bauer and other 'dissidents'. Easy enough to determine who is a scientist and who is a fraud.
I am proud of what you will find in PubMed and NIH. Obviously no conspiracy against me.
I am also proud of pointing out stupidity when it is harming others. Hence the purpose of this blog.
Out of respect for Seth's wishes, I will not debate the lack of merit of the Perthers. However to your other questions:
"You're constantly trying to compare a religious debate to a scientific one. Doesn't make sense."
It makes complete sense to compare AIDS denialism to ID or holocaust denialism as they all share the same characteristics seen in other forms of denialism. Read Seths book for more information. I'm not a psychologist and he is far better at explaining it.
"But even so the IDers at least get answers to their arguments, don't they? People actually take the time to set up detailed websites, write books etc."
There are many books on HIV. They are called virology books. Seth's book covers AIDS denialism specifically. The CD has a site deditated to HIV and you can also visit AIDStruth.org for information and links to other relevant sites.
"Show me where I can find a real response to Perth Group and then I'll let you ridicule "denialism" as much as you wish."
Thanks but I don't require your permission. See the above sites for information.
"Until then I consider you people as the real denialists."
Let me ask you something Sadunkal; how many times have you claimed something about AIDS that was completely incorrect and been corrected on it?
Want some reminders? I'd be more than happy to go back and collect some of your old conversations. Perhaps your claim that gold standards are mandatory for all tests and that the medical community was "ignoring" this? Seriously, I can compile a list for you if you want.
My point is that you clearly are in no position to be dictating what is science and what is not. This is part of the reason why you are a "denialist" and not a "dissident". To be a dissident you would have to understand information and be able to change your position in light of new evidence. So with all the times you've been wrong, did it change your
position at all? Will we see you repeating the same mistakes on different boards?
One comment of mine you earlier censored provides an answer to the last part of your response. I want to focus on science now:
A Scientist is someone who does science. And science can be roughly described as the objective examination of the existence with the goal of explaining its nature.
One doesn't become a scientist through getting a piece of paper from a university or through having a title before his name or through having hundreds of publications. All that is necessary is the activity of doing science. In that regard, the Perthies are indeed very real scientists with their elaboration of the observations made, even if by other scientists. They can be considered review scientists I suppose. Which is a perfectly fine way of doing science, especially when it comes to something like "HIV". But it is also known that they would like to conduct their own experiments if they can get funding.
Your limited knowledge on the nature of scientific progress was also recently pointed out in another blog by the way, it was emphasized that Alfred Wegener wasn't a geologist by training. I guess you know which blog it was. I'm not giving any names so that your readers won't get caught up in the "denialists' lies". I also avoid giving names so that this comment may have little chance of getting published.
I just wondering why, if Brent Leung is such a fan of Boyd Graves, Graves doesn't appear in this film.That's a good question. I imagine that it is because that if he did it would make the Denialist/Conspiracy Theorists appear to be contradicting each other.ReplyDelete
Whether they admit it or not Boyd Graves, Len Horowitz, Peter Duesberg and the Perth Group are all promoting their own conspiracy theories. All assert that "orthodoxy" is conspiring to suppress the truth about HIV/AIDS. They only differ in their opinions about the existence of HIV and whether it was deliberately created.
Their target audience is the same. Anti-authoritarian, anti-science, delusional.
I will predict that the film also doesn't tell the viewers that Duesberg asserts that HIV exists but doesn't cause AIDS and that the Perth Group asserts that if HIV exists it also causes AIDS.
I'm also predicting that viewers won't hear about the numerous contradictory alternative theories of ADS causation - HHV-6, syphilis, mycobacteria, candida.
The brilliant Kalichman said, "Do you really believe that AIDS scientists are just a few and in it for money? Really? Why then select a disease that affects the poorest people in the world? Why not cancer? Or diabetes? Or Gout? That is where the Big $$ must be, right? How do you explain that?"ReplyDelete
This is so idiotic. I don't recall seeing Bush or Obama on TV announcing they are going to allocate ANOTHER 50 billion dollars to fight gout this year! You have to be in denial if you think AIDS is not the most lucrative field to be in "for the money." This is ridiculous.
Science without publishing?
They would conduct experiments if they could get funded?
Do you expect anyone to take you seriously? Really?
Seth, in reading these blogs and related others it is clear that denialists suffer from serious psychopathology. They seem to believe that you have some sort of financial motive to protect the "AIDS orthodoxy" and thus need to purport it. Ironically, as a clinical psychologist, what their egotistical neuroticism doesn't allow them to realize is that the mere existence of AIDS denialists provides you with more job security and workload then you could possibly want or need.ReplyDelete
AIDS Denialists are certainly a mixed bag. Some are without question paranoid. Others seem to suffer from ‘malignant denial’, a diagnostic term under consideration by the American Psychiatric Association. Others are not denialists at all, just partaking in mischief.
Just the trailer of House of Numbers shows quite the garden variety.
Narcissism and self—indulgence at the expense of others are key traits of sociopathy, also common among Denialists.
You are of course right Lisa. I have no financial stake in this. Like Duesberg and Bauer, I am a tenured professor and I could simply chase Nessies and Aneuploidy and my pay check would not change. Hell, I am even giving the royalties from my book Denying AIDS away to buy HIV meds in Africa.
Lisa, looking for an area of research with lots of grant money available, AIDS is certainly among one of them.ReplyDelete
The 2008 NIH HIV/AIDS budget was $2,928 Million. There was an additional $556 Million for HIV vaccine research. But that was less than one third of other vaccine research at $1,632 Million.
And if it is money you are chasing, several diseases come in way ahead of HIV/AIDS. One can only imagine the conspiracies behind these diseases.
Brain Disorders $3,729 Million
Neurosciences $5,224 Million
Cancer $5,570 Million
Genetics $6,872 Million
Biotechnology $5,179 Million
Watch out for the next Leung conspiracy Crockumentary on Brain Disorders featuring the CrazyDenialist posted above.
Kalichman, I don't expect you to do it, no. It was aimed at those who're more knowledgeable about what science really is. And I don't really believe in Science without publishing, I don't know what made you say that. Well actually I think I know it, but I suspect your misunderstanding sources from your misguided views about what science really is, once again. You should really pay a visit to Bauer's blog every now and then... It's often informative about how science and scientists really work. And sometimes we talk about you too over there. :) Did you know that?ReplyDelete
Brain Disorders $3,729 MillionNeurosciences $5,224 MillionCancer $5,570 MillionGenetics $6,872 MillionBiotechnology $5,179 MillionThe cancer biologists and oncologists everywhere are fueling AIDS denialism in an attempt to take the money allotted for AIDS research. I smell a new conspiracy brewing here people! Wake up world! You denialists are pawns of Teh Manz! David Crowe must be right! Chris, Seth...We must fight back! Down with the field of cancer biology! How many years and how many billions of dollars and still no cure!?
The first documented case of cancer was on Egyptian papyrus dating back to around 1500 b.c Why no cure!? It's been 3,500 freakin' years man! A fraud I say!
Seth said:“Sadun, …You are posting several comments a day on several blogs and websites. What the fuck are you spending this much of your time on this for? What are you neglecting in your life? Any offline friends? Any family? What about school? How about that Berlin nightlife? Seriously, what is wrong with you?”Seth, you should know by now the Standard HIV/AIDS Denialist Playbook that all the major AIDS denialists (Duesberg, Rasnick, Eleopulos, Turner, etc) follow. When you have so comprehensively trashed your own scientific reputation that anyone who knows who you are considers you radioactive and crosses the street as soon as they see you, it’s time to find a sock-puppet, preferably some starry-eyed scientifically illiterate babe-in–the-woods keen to Make Their Name in some field of the media. You know, Duesberg with Celia Farber, Rasnick with Janine Roberts – that sort of thing. Then you parasitise the reputation of your victim. Unfortunately, Sadun is currently being groomed by the “Perth Group” duo (or is there only one of them these days?).ReplyDelete
It’s just one more reason why I find Eleni Eleopulos-Papadopulos and Valendar Turner utterly disgusting. As if the list wasn’t long enough already.
At least Henry Bauer mostly does his own media, and cops the flack himself. He’s a buffoon, but at least he’s not a sociopath. Compared to some other denialists he’s almost kind of likeable.
Yes, Poodle Stomper, AIDS Denialists will be quick to pick up on the cancer dollars conspiracies.ReplyDelete
There is more money in Cancer than AIDS. Maybe that is why Rasnick and Duesberg are now on Aneuploidy? You should have been at their Aneuploidy Conference. What hoot! A bunch of old German men talking up a home country theory that failed over 100 years ago.
David Crowe (or whoever that is) told me (well sort of told ME) that ‘The world is bored with AIDS’ and he has turned his attention to the toxic poisons used on people who are victims of industrial poisoning –that would be cancer.
Same crap, different website.
I think you have his number. Sad though really. I can tell you first handed that Crowe and Bauer will take a young mind in and groom for this. Grooming is the right word Snout. It is what it must be like to be a child groomed by a pedophile. I am not being sarcastic, that is how it felt. I write a little about it in Denying AIDS. It should have been a larger section. Maybe a chapter. Some of my draft readers suggested I get more into the dark behavior I saw in researching the Denialists. It is a story to tell that is for sure.
So who groomed Brent Leung? It seems he was ripe from conspiracy theories past. I think Rasnick was in some of those set-shots posted. I could be wrong, it could have been Santa Klaus.
Here is how I bet House of Numbers was made.
Crowe develops that special relationship with Brent.
Crowe sees the value of a video bigger than his YouTube snippets.
Crowe connects Brent to Rasnick.
Rasnick connects Brent to the financial backers of Duesberg’s Aneuploidy scam who also financed the Maggiore movie.
Rasnick also has connections in South Africa and Europe. He likes to be on the move.
So Crowe groomed little Brent to hand over to Big Sugar Daddy.
So, we have a denialist conspiracy to make a film on AIDS conspiracy. Creepy, yes?
Who groomed Brent Leung?ReplyDelete
As Todd asked in the first post, "I just wanna know how a new documentary filmmaker had the money to travel to all these exotic ports?"
According to the Bay Windows article, 'Leung declined to name the sources [of funding] but described them as a group of "funders from all over the world."'
I'm not sure if Brent realises it yet, but at the moment it looks like he's killed any future hope of a career as a real film maker, because he has comprehensively trashed any reputation he might have had for being trustworthy to his subjects. Sorry, Brent. You might get a job in advertising or PR (see Libby from RA), but your dreams of making decent documentaries look dead in the water at present.
I wonder if he'll continue to protect the identities of the sociopaths who talked him into trashing his reputation like that, and financed him to do so?
And in case you're wondering, Seth, yes I chose the word "groomed" very carefully.
You people constantly refuse to groom me, and the Perth Group takes advantage of that of course. They also constantly give me directions on what step I should take next. I orient my actions on their advice all the time... Hehe, funny stuff. :) You guys actually sound quite insane if you're not aware. How do you believe that they're exactly "grooming" me if I may ask?ReplyDelete
Other than that, I'm willing to bet that there are things Brent cares more about than his "career". Otherwise he would've never started with the project, obviously.
You should ask Seth for some psychology classes because your current attempts at making people debate others are way too transparent. Saying things like "It is your responsibility to stop the murderers" or "You people constantly refuse to groom me" just doesn't hold much water when you have an easily demonstrated history of being proven wrong and not learning from it.
Tell me, Sadunkal, have you learned anything at all from all of the times you've been proven wrong? Would you like me to compile a list of these occasions for you? Can you think of any good reason why would anyone want to debate you about anything if you are incapable of changing your point of view in light of evidence?
You people constantly refuse to groom me, and the Perth Group takes advantage of that of course.ReplyDelete
Have you ever wondered why real scientists spend time trying to convince other scientists that they are correct whereas the Denialist pseudoscientists spend an inordinate amount of time fostering a profoundly scientifically illiterate and anti-science lay audience?
If you read Denialist web boards and blogs you'll see a large number of people who are completely scientifically ignorant, don't accept the "germ theory of disease", promote homeopathy, orgone therapy or other pseudoscientific nonsense, and subscribe to 911 conspiracy theories.
Please do compile a list and post it at my blog. I would love you to do that. Please. Or email me. Or post it here directly.ReplyDelete
Snout, Please do not post the list of corrections to Sad Uno on the Perthies here. I have limited space and would hate to waste any more on his nonsense.ReplyDelete
I did not know Sad One has a blog.
And Chris, you are of course right. Many Denialsits, maybe even Peter Duesberg, do not believe in the Germ Theory.
Retroviruses do not cause disease. Tell that to my cat that died of FIV. I can tell you that cat lived a stress free life out of poverty and never did poppers.
You know these same people are onto the Swine Flu conspiracy.
Hopefully the AIDS denialists will turn their attention Flu Denial and give us a rest.
According to David Rasnick: the Bush administration invented SARS in order to cool down the rapidly growing Asian economies--especially ChinaI wonder what conspiracy theory they'll come up with for this possible flu epidemic. Perhaps it is Obama's grand evil plan to divert attention from the economic crisis. That's the sort of thing they do you know.ReplyDelete
I listened to the Rethunking AIDS Day extravanaganza on the Robert Scott Bell show. Why do the elite Denialist scientists ally themselves with an anti-science conspiracy nut? Seriously, a homeopath is complaining that there isn't evidence for the existence of HIV!!
Then there is the George Whitehurst Berry show. Listening to these shows you get the impression that the target audience for the HIV Denialists have a year's supply of nutritious hemp seed, automatic assault rifles, ozone generators and gold bullion in their bunkers.
I just have one observation. Above, in your explanation of a scientist to Kalichman, you used the phrase "doing science" twice.
I only have a Minor in English so I am not sure, that is why I am asking, but is "doing science" the proper subject/verb agreement?
If you are opposed to HIV Denialism being compared to ID and Holocaust Denial, then how about The Jenny McCarthy/Jim Carrey Spectacle and their whole Age of Autism bullsh*t that claims Autism is caused by vaccinations!
Check out Respectful Insolence for the best blog about it.
Sorry to post three in a row, but I just got caught up on this thread and wanted to let you all know that a few months ago at AIDSMythexposed, there was quite the thread going about how I was being groomed by Nick Bennett! (I exclaimed proudly)ReplyDelete
They meant it as a shot, but of course, as usual, they were dead wrong!
Out of respect for Seth's wishes I won't post a huge list (and I don't particularly want to stop by your blog, sorry). So I will post your latest example:
Lets look at your claims on Open Mind Insert Book that:
All tests REQUIRE a gold standard but HIV tests are the exception to having one and that "...it's not the WHOLE medical community that failed to notice this, it's just that the ones who noticed are ignored" and that "My reference for the necessity of a gold standard is logic".
So I posted a link to a reference (there are others if you'd bother to look) illustrating not only that there are many tests that do not have a gold standard, but also that the medical community knows full well of this as there are alternate, statistical, methods of validating tests.
(Two such papers here and here).
So knowing now full well that tests do NOT require "gold standards", will you write a retraction on your blog? Will you speak out against other denialists using this fallacy? No? Didn't think so. Will you repeat this fallacy? Yes? Thought so.
Tell you what, Sadun, I'll do you a deal. I'll post on your blog a few of the nonsense Perthian claims that "you" have yourself promoted on various threads. No, it won't be a comprehensive list, and no I won't debate them, and don't worry, Seth, I won't do it here. I'll do it under one condition:ReplyDelete
You finish the blog posting which begins: "Due to some developments, I decided to tell my story of how I got involved in the HIV/AIDS controversy and how it looks like from my own perspective."
Because I'm actually quite interested in this (the first part, anyway). How does a 22 year old media/animation student in Berlin with no apparent personal experience of HIV/AIDS and no background in medicine or the biological sciences suddenly develop an obsessive interest in getting scientists to engage in "debate" with the Perthians? How does someone who apparently has not studied any science since junior high school and whose catchphrase is "I haven't read this yet" suddenly develop a detailed knowledge of everything the Perthians have ever written (including references), but have not the slightest idea of why it's bullshit? And why do we never see both you and Val Turner in the same chat room together at the same time?
See, I've been watching the Perthians' successive strategies to try to manufacture public controversy about their crank theories for some time. I'm always wondering, "What stunt are they going to try to pull next?"
Chris and JTDReplyDelete
I think that SadUno means doing science. Like doing homework or doing anything. He actually has written here that…
“One doesn't become a scientist through getting a piece of paper from a university or through having a title before his name or through having hundreds of publications. All that is necessary is the activity of doing science.”
And the Perthies “can be considered review scientists” The problem is the unsystematic and biased reviewed done by Pethies is not science.
How can I say that? Because they cannot publish.
What our SadOne does not realize is that publishing is the conduit through which science flows.
But don’t trust me. He should ask Andrew Maniotis why he cannot get a real academic job. Or Rasnick for that matter. And he should ask Rebeeca Culshaw – now stay home Mom - what happened with her bid for tenure? How about Bauer, oh wait – Henry Bauer cannot recall when he published last. I think a Nessie ate his reprints.
And how about Duesberg himself? If doing science is valuable without publishing, then what is this whole conspiracy against Duesberg about? Why bother with a conspiracy on something of no value?
You are right JTD, ultimately, all AIDS Denialism relies on a conspiracy theory. You are also right in drawing the parallel to the Autism vaccine scam. Andrew Wakefield and Peter Duesberg are one in the same.
What's the proper way of communicating that one is taking part in the activity called Science? I was assuming that "to do science" was correct even if not common.ReplyDelete
That discussion at "Open Mind Insert Book" is listed at my blog as one of the 5 discussions "that require my attention" and about which I said that "I need to find some time to reply to these properly". I got involved in too many discussion without giving considerations to my other interests and occupations and I can't keep up with it all. None of them ever seem to end either. It's sort of stupid but I'm more careful now. :)
Anyway, I never claimed that "All tests REQUIRE a gold standard but HIV tests are the exception to having one". Neither in my blog nor during that discussion. That's a misinterpretation of my arguments. I will clarify that if I can "find some time to reply" properly.
@Snout: Deal. That incident in Boston was an unfortunate interruption. I want to go a little into detail when I write it and I don't know how long the text will be. So it'll probably take a while. Also, since I'll be actually making up a detailed story to deceive you into thinking that I'm not Val Turner or one of his minions, it will be extra demanding. :) Anyway, this deal is kind of motivating actually. I was planning to delay it for some time. Now I'll have to delay my reply to "PoodleStomper" even further.
>"Because they cannot publish."
Even though, if asked, you'd admit that the peer review system is not perfect, you still confuse real science with what's today generally referred to as "science". They can actually publish and they already have. Some of their publications are available in scientific journals. And all of their work is published on their website. Anyone can review them. The only problem, it seems, is that there is a lack of interest in viewing them, let alone reviewing.
Just for a bit of balance... you really gotta wonder what the scientists who got duped into participating in this fiasco were thinking when they agreed to be interviewed by Leung.ReplyDelete
Cranks with a pseudoscience agenda such as creationists and AIDS denialists have been pulling this kind of stunt for years. Wainberg himself has past personal experience of being shafted by Robin Scovill in The Other Side of AIDS. Two minutes research on Google connects Leung with Boyd Graves and Lenny Horowitz. They should have seen this coming.
Some of the scientists are saying that Leung came with Martin Delaney's personal recommendation. Yeah, right, blame the dead guy. It's no excuse for not doing your own checking, especially in the current anti-science climate where there are dozens of similar examples of anti-scientists using film in this way for propaganda and manufactured controversy.
I don't agree with the assumptions in your question. Regarding your other points, I don't think that the dissidents' can afford to refuse any opportunity for reaching out to the public, considering how little opportunities there are. The HIV/AIDS issue is more important for dissidents than homeopathy or conspiracy theories. So the guest dissidents overlook any of their disagreements with their hosts so that they can have a voice out there, or they agree, I don't know. What can they gain by protesting anyway? Will the AIDSTruth praise them? Will they have protected their egos, feel better about themselves?
Other than that, instead of complaining about people's ignorance and ridiculing them, everybody should rather focus on trying to educate and help others, in my opinion.
And the Perthies “can be considered review scientists” The problem is the unsystematic and biased reviewed done by Pethies is not science.,For Sadun's benefit. A scientific review is supposed to accurately review all of the literature on a particular topic and to accurately represent the views of the various author's. The Perth Group do neither.ReplyDelete
They decided in the 1970s that oxidative stress is the factor responsible for cancer. In the early 1980s exactly the same oxidative agents suddenly began causing AIDS. They've maintained this crank idea for close to 30 years despite a complete lack of supporting evidence.
In fact, rather than attempting to do research to find evidence for their crank idea they have almost solely focused on attacking the science that shows that a retrovirus causes AIDS. There is no evidence that any of them new what a retrovirus was before this time but they then declared themselves to be experts in retroviral isolation, something none of them had ever done.
Their review articles consist entirely of cherry-picked citations and quote mines. In some cases they have managed to bypass peer-review and get articles into journals such as Genetica and Biotechnology. In the first case the Denialists were given an entire issue and Peter Duesberg was the gust editor. In the second case Harvey Bialy was the editor. In neither case is there any evidence that the articles were peer reviewed.
Nobody apart from fellow Denialists have ever taken them seriously. Their articles have suffered the same fate as majority of scientific papers that are never ever cited again. They have been ignored because their arguments have no scientific merit. There is no onus for other people to refute the Perth Group.
When a homeopath writes to a journal such as Science and demands that they retract papers the only reasonable response is ridicule. This is high farce. You couldn't write better comedy if you tried.ReplyDelete
When Rethunking AIDS includes James de Meo, orgone scientist and Hulda Clark, cancer quack amongst their rethunkers then the only appropriate response is ridicule.
The problem with the insular group think amongst rethunkers is that they fail to realise how completely nuts they appear to outsiders.
There is nothing inherently wrong with ignorance. When you fight to maintain your ignorance and have the arrogance to claim that the vast majority of scientists are stupid, ignorant or dishonest then you also deserve to be ridiculed.
It's not just that rethunkers make alliances with pseudoscientific quacks such as antivaxxers, homeopathists, germ theory denialists and conspiracy theorists. They actively target these audience groups through radio shows, articles in fringe magazines such as Nexus and alternative health circles.
Duesberg and the Perthies might like to imagine that they are latter day Einsteins but you didn't see Einstein joining pseudoscientific circles to promote his ideas.
"That discussion at "Open Mind Insert Book" is listed at my blog as one of the 5 discussions "that require my attention" and about which I said that "I need to find some time to reply to these properly"."
This is of course perfectly fine IF by "I need to find some time to reply to these properly" you mean that you will look at it from the position that you could be wrong and not from the position that you will have to dig up more denialist junk to try to rationalize your faith and "win" the argument.
"Anyway, I never claimed that 'All tests REQUIRE a gold standard but HIV tests are the exception to having one'"
Actually you did here when you said:
"A gold standard is a fundamental logical necessity for all tests, it's not something evitable really. Just use your logic. It's a part of the definition of a test in a way, at least the scientific ones"
and then went on to claim the medical establishment was ignoring the lack of gold standard for HIV tests here saying:
"And yes, the HIV antibody tests don't seem to have any relation to such standards. But it's not the WHOLE medical community that failed to notice this, it's just that the ones who noticed are ignored."
Let me put it like this:
I have no interest in discussing traditions, or selling traditions as scientific. Logically, all truly scientific tests should have some sort of reference standard. "HIV tests" are one of those tests which don't have one. But there certainly are others. Will my arguments carry more weight in your eyes if I track and start to criticize all the tests which don't have a reference standard? I doubt it, and it's too much work, so I decide to focus on "HIV tests".
@Snout; I thought about the way you formulated your deal for a while, and it occurred to me that I actually have not so much interest in what you have to offer. Because I believe the information you'll provide won't really get me significantly closer to "Debunking The Perth Group's Arguments". If your info will only be about a few details which are more or less irrelevant to the core of the PG's fundamental arguments, then I don't think I have much to gain from what you offered to share. So I ask you to raise your offer, or correct me if I'm wrong. Because at the moment I'm demotivated again.ReplyDelete
Please define "reasonable". What exactly is your criteria when determining which actions are "reasonable"?
Personally, I usually ask myself before acting: "What will I gain if I do that?". I don't consider things that don't bring me anything reasonable usually. What do you think you gain from ridiculing or insulting others? Ego satisfaction? Or do you have an entirely different criteria? What does reason mean to you exactly?
Sadun, so cool! Not one, not two, but three separate denials in a row!ReplyDelete
No reference standard for a detection test.
Providing just a few fundamental flaws gets me no closer to debunking Perthians.
What does the word reasonable mean?
Sadun, have you met Brent Leung? He could learn a lot from you. You have been groomed well. I should say, thank you Mr. Crowe (whoever you are).
"Will my arguments carry more weight in your eyes if I track and start to criticize all the tests which don't have a reference standard? I doubt it, and it's too much work, so I decide to focus on "HIV tests"."
Not at all. Your arguments would "carry more weight" if you understood what you were talking about. Clearly you don't. You do not understand that there are many reasons and situations in which true gold standards of 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity are impossible in physical science. It is not that tests without Gold Standards need to be criticized. This is why we have statistical tests to compensate for that.
That you fell right in line with the "all tests need gold standards" as you explicitly stated in the OMIB site shows that you are willing to take perthies at their word without so much as questioning them. This is why your arguments carry no weight.
In addition to my above post, that you would accept such claims with no knowledge of it should 9to any sane person) raise a red flag about the other claims you have parroted from other denialists. How many others have no clue what the hell they're talking about? What else have the perthies been pulling out of their asses that you simply took as gospel?ReplyDelete
Personally, I usually ask myself before acting: "What will I gain if I do that?".Sadun, what would I or anyone else possibly gain from debating a homeopath about the existence of HIV? Do you really think that he is going to change his mind?ReplyDelete
It is exactly the same situation as debating evolution with creationists. They are simply not going to change their minds no matter how carefully and patiently you explain the evidence for evolution.
In fact debating creationists is often counterproductive in that it can give them false credibility.
In the face of such irrationality the only reasonable response is ridicule.
Most people will, when they recover from the anger, see the hilarity of a homeopath claiming that HIV doesn't exist. Don't you?
"I thought about the way you formulated your deal for a while, and it occurred to me that I actually have not so much interest in what you have to offer."You mean you got a frantic email from Western Australia?ReplyDelete
"Because at the moment I'm demotivated again."This is sounding creepier and creepier. You mean you have an ON/OFF switch they can manipulate (motivate/demotivate)?
No one believes for a moment that you have a genuine interest in "debunking Perthians", or even in objectively assessing the value of their arguments. Your sole purpose is to generate noise about them on the net, as per Strategy 2 on their home page. Strategy 3 (agitating in the courts) failed spectacularly. Strategy 1 (doing $50 to $100 K of actual science) has failed through lack of interest. Strategy 4 (begging for money but we won't tell you what it's for) is an almost pathetically dishonest variant of Str. 1.
Sadun, it's been pretty obvious for a while what's being going on. Val and Eleni's agenda is quite transparent. Whether you realise it or not, they are using you in a very nasty way. They are not nice people.
Take what I say or leave it (you are technically an adult) but don't ever claim that no one warned you.
One, two, three. Every denialism has its realism. What say ye, AIDS Denialist?ReplyDelete
I am not sure why you are debating a Gold Standard for HIV Tests. Sadun, it was either you or the slightly retarded Brian Carter that I explained the Sensitivity/Specificity of testing.ReplyDelete
The ELISA is a very Sensitive test. It is meant to NOT miss a POZ and in so doing, is designed so sensitively that we know some false poz's will show up. That is where the Western Blot comes in. It is a Specific test meant to verify the poz test and invalidate the false poz.
Many Scientists, including the school I am at now, consider The Western Blot as the Gold Standard for antigen/antibody testing.
"slightly retarded Brian Carter"
JTD, since when are you so charitable to AIDS Denialists?
And by what standard? The Geiger-Counter?
My own litmus test for scientists versus denialists: What would it take for you to change your views? If your answer is either "nothing would" or [insert some physically impossible experiment] then you are a denialist.ReplyDelete
The real question is - who is the Gold Standard for stupidity?ReplyDelete
Logic dictates that we can't call anybody stupid unless we have a Gold Standard.
You know Seth, it's the strangest thing. About a week ago I pointed out at dissidents4dumbees, that on a youtube video, Brian Carter stated "hiv has not been cultured in the lab without first adding stimulants or supernatants..." Can you believe Brian does not even know what a supernatant is??????ReplyDelete
Well, eversince then, I can no longer even log onto AIDSMythexposed! God, the retards can sure hold a grudge, can't they? (Insert devil laugh)
The Western Blot IS the Gold Standard.
You know Seth, it's the strangest thing. About a week ago I pointed out at dissidents4dumbees, that on a youtube video, Brian Carter stated "hiv has not been cultured in the lab without first adding stimulants or supernatants..." Can you believe Brian does not even know what a supernatant is??????
Holy Sh%t! Point me to the video! I wanna laugh too!
Does Carter not realize that Montagnier's experiments included control cells that were cultured in the presence of "stimulants" but didn't show RT activity? Does he not realize that of the otherwise identical cultures, only those exposed to HIV produced RT? Does he not understand why this alone can refute he stupidity? No? Then that the heck is he doing telling other people to make sure they know what they are talking about then!?
JTD and PoodleStomperReplyDelete
Ultimately we have to ask the question, what function is the denialism playing for the person.
Brian Carter shows every sign of ignorance in a denialist. He has become so enmeshed in pseudoscience and conspiracy theories that what we get out of him is gibberish. It is really sad. Obviously fragile. Can you imagine living like that, in such a state of deep denial?
So I looked up the video and after coming back from the hospital (I burst a rib laughing) I figured I ask our buddy Sadunkal something related to a comment he posted to the video.ReplyDelete
"And can you infect another cell line with those "virus-like particles [HERVS]?"
"I'm not sure about the infectivity, I doubt the experiments were ever done, but I would suspect that they would behave similarly...Are you claiming that experiments like I mentioned were already done? If so, could you please share your reference with me?"
You "doubt the experiments were ever done"? You "suspect [HERVS] would behave similarly"? HERVS are of enormous interest to scientists everywhere with thousands of papers written on the topic! Have you bothered to research these before saying that you doubt it was ever done or did you just assume Carter was right (don't answer that, it is rhetorical)?
Well Sadunkal, here is my question to you: It has been two months since you posted that comment. Have you researched it to find your answer? If you find that Carter was wrong will you state publicly he is wrong (or on your blog to correct other denialists) or will you continue, as other denialists have in the past, to misuse HERVS with such claims? I really would like to know. (By the way, spoiler alert: Carter WAS wrong)
Ask and ye shall receive...like manna from heaven!
Also, please note the cocky act and body language. Also of interest are the "furnishings" in the backgroud.
BTW, why the name "poodlestomper"?
I think one of the key distinctions that can be drawn is that real scientists, do real research and write real scientific articles to attempt to convince other qualified scientists whereas Denialists target lay audiences and spend time fostering anti-science conspiracy-minded types like Sadun and Brian Carter.ReplyDelete
Surely, people like Duesberg still have enough intelligence to see that somebody like Brian Carter is a complete fool. Why don't they ever correct some of the stupid scientifically illiterate comments that their followers make? Do they need supporters so badly that they will accept anybody even homeopaths, chiropractors and germ theory denialists?
When I was researching Denying AIDS I learned about Henry Bauer and I said the same thing. If AIDS denialists accept Bauer into the camp then how much do they really care about trying to convince people they are credible? I asked David Crowe about Bauer’s credibility given that Bauer believes Loch Ness Monsters exist. His answer was insightful and, well grooming,
“I was just listening to a Canadian scientist who had spent considerable time studying UFO reports, and clearly believed that some of them were accurate. I was not convinced about this, but I support his right to continue researching. How would we know that the Loch Ness monster was just a fiction if we didn't research it? What if we discovered that the monster didn't exist, but the phenomenon that convinced some people that it did was by itself interesting.
The problem is that if you rule out certain areas of inquiry scientists will spend more time worrying about whether they should be asking certain questions than investigating nature!
Do I believe that flying saucers have visited the earth? I'm about 90% sure that they haven't. Do I believe that the Loch Ness Monster, Ogopogo, the Sasquatch and the Yeti exist? No, I'm about 99% sure of that. But I would not consider someone who investigated these areas crazy.
If you'd asked me in the 1800s (well, I obviously wasn't around then) if gravity could bend light, if time slowed down the faster you travelled, if you got heavier if you moved faster ... I would have said I'm 100% sure that the answer is "No" to all ... but Einstein
proved all those amazing things true.
If you'd asked me in the 1700s whether the continents moved, I'd have told you that the evidence of my own eyes proved the impossibility of that. But now most people believe that the principle of plate tectonics (continental drift) explains the outline of the continents on the planet, the occurrences of volcanoes and earthquakes and many other things besides...”
Thanks I found the link on your site, too. Priceless. I love the displaying of a complete lack of understanding about biology followed by his suggestion to Chris to "make sure you know what you're talking about". Wow...just wow. As for the name...let's just say that the Poodles know what they did >.>
How does "What you are not told is that the legitimate AIDS scientists interviewed were not informed of the film’s intent. " differ from how you wrote your book (and contacted dissidents)? It seems like you employed the same tactics :PReplyDelete
Johan [is that your real name?]ReplyDelete
Thanks for commenting and asking about me versus Leung. I suspect that you are actually referring to this whole Joe Newton thing. It is an important question to those who have become obsessed with Joe Newton, and probably to no one else. I have been working on a post “The Joe Newton Files”, but never seem to finish it. I fear it is so trivial it is not worth posting. On the other hand, Henry Bauer is certainly interested in Joe and how he gained access to the AIDS Denialists. If people who comment here express interest, I will probably post it in some form at some point.
To answer your specific question that is actually pertinent to this post, on the surface it may seem that what Joe did and Leung did are similar.
++ Joe never misrepresented himself, he is a student of public health /Brent did not misrepresent himself, he is a filmmaker
++ Joe had observed that Denialists would not be authentic if they knew he was tied to NIH funding/ Scientists would not have talked to Leung if he told them he was doing an “AIDS debate’ film.
So there you have a couple of similarities. Now some differences.
++ Joe never lied about what he was doing or why he was doing it. He stated that he was a curious student of public health interested in alternative theories of AIDS / Brent lied and said that he was doing a film on scientific accomplishments of AIDS research.
++ Joe infiltrated a closed network to understand what they were doing and why they were doing it. What he observed was not accessible in any other way / Leung manipulated the context in which public statements were made. The statements could have been taken from any past interviews, but the context of being interviewed by Leung was used against the scientists.
++ Joe did not use the denialists’ own words against them / Leung cherry picked segments to misrepresent what scientists are saying.
++ AIDS denialist Beth Ely has said that Rethinkers have nothing to hide and would not change what they said depending on who Joe was. So from their perspective, no harm done / AIDS scientists would not have talked with Leung and feel there has been harm done by their being deceived.
++ Joe used strategies that are common among journalists and book authors to naturalistically observe extremist groups. A favorite example is Matt Taibbi's infiltration of an extreme rightwing religious group for his book The Great Derangement [a MUST read] / Leung used strategies that are unacceptable to legitimate producers of documentary and historical works. Name one example of a legitimate documentary that did what Leung has done? And please do not say “Judea Declares War on Germany: A Critical Look at World War II”.
++ Joe’s observations have been used to help expose frauds, quacks, and pseudoscientists who are doing considerable harm / Leung used his footage to propagate a senseless movement that resulted in hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths.
How is that for starters?
As far as HIV being the cause of AIDS, Two Quotes come to mind... First, "Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one!".................And Second....."Of all the offspring of Time, Error is the most ancient, and is so old and familiar an acquaintance, that Truth, when discovered, comes upon most of us like an intruder, and meets the intruder’s welcome."ReplyDelete
Seth, you said: "If people who comment here express interest, I will probably post it in some form at some point".ReplyDelete
Pleeeeeeeeaase do post it! And ASAP! We can hardly wait to tear into it!
Nice...when you google or yahoo brent leung your site is one of the first to pop up. Not really all that surprising given that his only other "contribution" to society is his flopped Graves film (if that doesn't convince you that denialists accept any imbecile into their clique, nothing will. I mean what side of field is leung on anyways?). Actually I'm gonna be fair, Brent has done something good for society: if you happen to swallow poison, don't bother with the ipecac, just visit his house of numbers facebook page, it will have the same effect. Oh yeah, and Brent, please go back to Canada, as the addition of yourself maxes out our crazy quota. Take bauer while you're at it, that should smooth things out:) Really, it's only fair. Click here in case of emergency http://www.facebook.com/pages/House-of-Numbers/40491054861ReplyDelete
PoodleStomper, you said:
>"You do not understand that there are many reasons and situations in which true gold standards of 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity are impossible in physical science. It is not that tests without Gold Standards need to be criticized. This is why we have statistical tests to compensate for that."I never said anything about 100% sensitivity or specificity. Straw-man arguments again. Any reasonable reference standard would be fine in my opinion. I consider the "statistical tests" highly inadequate for compensation though.
What kind of statistical test are you exactly referring to anyway? Something like "many people who test positive develop AIDS" or what? Is there an official established scientific reference standard in form of a statistical test? Where is it?
It's hard to describe how ridiculous your fantasies about my relationship with Val and Eleni sound to me. You have absolutely no idea about my interactions with them and your insane conspiracy theory is difficult to take seriously.
I'm going to write that blog post anyway, no matter what you do or not do. My request was only for improved prioritization, and writing it is not a priority of mine anymore. You can still feel free to expose the Perth Group in any way you wish at my blog, I just hoped you would actually contribute something with a little more potential for actually debunking their fundamental arguments. It's a shame that you're so unwilling to share your alleged knowledge.
You didn't answer my question.
>"...the only reasonable response is ridicule..."
Why is that? Again, how do you determine what's reasonable? I didn't ask you whether or not it's reasonable to debate creationists, I asked you why you consider ridiculing others reasonable. No need for binary thinking, you got more than 2 options. What is it that you gain from ridiculing? What is it that you lose? Is it the best option?
For clarification, saying that I doubt something's existence is not equal to saying that I know that it doesn't exist. But no, I still didn't do an in-depth research about virus-like particles. But also notice that I didn't use the word "HERV", you did.
Are "HERVs" the only candidates for virus-like particles?
Is this question of mine relevant to your point? I don't know.
Either way, feel free to enlighten the public with your information... For example by posting some info at the "Debunking the Perth Group's Arguments" blog post of mine.
The only reason why I keep posting Sadun’s nonsense is because I enjoy watching Snout, Poodle Stomper, JTD, Chris, and BioLad point out the idiocy of AIDS Denialism. If you guys decide that you have had enough of him that is fine and I will end the thread.ReplyDelete
Todd is sad! I guess I am out of the game.ReplyDelete
I have explained specificity/sensitivity to Sadunkal and have even supplied him before with a link that states Western Blot as the Gold Standard for HIV Testing, but like all denialists faced with truth in direct opposition to their lunacy, they just ignore you.:(
>Are "HERVs" the only candidates for virus-like particles?
The particles to which Carter was referring are HERVS, yes.
>Is this question of mine relevant to your point? I don't know.
My point (my question, actually) was why you would say such things as "I'm not sure about the infectivity, I doubt the experiments were ever done" or "I would suspect that they would behave similarly" if you clearly haven't done the research?
Why do you "doubt the experiments have been done" if you haven't bothered to research it? One can find any number of HERV-related articles with a click of a mouse button (and a few keystrokes).
Similarly, what is the basis for you "suspecting" that VLPs/HERVS are infectious like exogenous retroviruses are if you haven't done the research?
You are wrong in both cases, btw, but my question is not so much whether you are right or wrong (that much we already know) but why you deem yourself capable of making assumptions on a topic you don't bother to research. That is all.
Ah Todd, I don't remember any link about western blots from you but I'm not just looking for statements anyway. I'm looking for a little more than that. You know... science, maybe..? Plus saying that western blot is a gold standard makes little sense, since it begs the question: What was the reference standard for the western blot?ReplyDelete
Are you a creationist Todd?
"I never said anything about 100% sensitivity or specificity."
I didn't say you did.
"I consider the "statistical tests" highly inadequate for compensation though."
You are not a statistician. Statistical tests are used for many things. These tests are done comparing different methods of detecting the organism in question, be it HIV or Treponema pallidum (syphillis).
"What kind of statistical test are you exactly referring to anyway? Something like "many people who test positive develop AIDS" or what? Is there an official established scientific reference standard in form of a statistical test? Where is it?"
See above. Also see the links I sent you before (since it is obvious you haven't looked at them yet). Do you need me to repost them?
"You can still feel free to expose the Perth Group in any way you wish at my blog"
Sadun, why would I want to give the Valendeleni Troll any more exposure than it already has? That's getting sucked into their game (see Strategy 2 from their website).
Valendeleni has constantly and repetitiously tried to convince real scientists of their view point. In doing so they have made their modus operandi clear to anyone who reads their stuff carefully.
They have done no actual science themselves, and have zero clinical experience of the disease they are pontificating about.
They claim to be "review" scientists. As Chris has already pointed out, they are nothing of the kind. Review scientists accurately summarise the literature, reflecting the conclusions of the authors they review. Valendeleni consistently lie about and misrepresent the sources they cite. This is not "review" - it is pseudo-review by pseudo-scholars promoting their own pseudo-science.
In recent weeks you have been presented with numerous examples of how they lie about their sources: lying outight about Montagnier's views on HIV gp41, lying about what the Lancet authors were saying about the relationship between HIV infection and KS, etc.
While I agree that a comprehensive list of the Perthians' lies would be a useful document, I do not believe for a moment you are an honest broker in such an enterprise. You have displayed no ability whatsoever to look critically at their claims. You have unashamedly shilled for them on your blog, even to the point of soliciting money for them. "But err... we won't tell you what we're going to do with this cash you send us."
How stupid do you think people are, Sadun?
I just watched the Law & Order SVU Retro episode again, you know the Christine Maggiore story. A couple people were over who had not seen it. If you ever forget just how crazy and destructive the denialists are her story remains the most twisted.ReplyDelete
It also struck me how a work of fiction on denialism could be closer to the truth than Denialist Brent Leung’s crockumentary on AIDS.
It is all so damn weird.
Ridiculous. Deserving of ridicule; foolish; absurd.ReplyDelete
It is completely absurd and ridiculous when a homeopath demands that Science retracts the 1984 Gallo papers. Where is the evidence for homeopathy? Homeopathy is complete and utter pseudoscience. It has no physical basis and a complete lack of compelling experimental evidence of anything beyond a placebo effect.
It is ridiculous when an emeritus contrarian asserts there is more evidence for the existence of the Loch Ness monster (sorry I mean cryptoid) than for the existence of HIV.
It is ridiculous when Kary Mullis accepts astrology and the Urantia Book (supposedly written by extraterrestrials http://www.karymullis.com/urantia.html ) but doesn't accept the evidence that HIV causes AIDS.
It is also ridiculous when a scientifically illiterate media student writes emails to the Nobel Prize committee and asks them to reconsider the Nobel Prize given to Montagnier and Barre-Sinousi.
It is also ridiculous when the same media student sets up a blog on the Nature website and calls it Pure HIV/AIDS Science Forum when he has no clue about science
It is also ridiculous when I give this media student an example of an internet kook http://www.youtube.com/user/bgaede and the media student fails to recognise pure pseudoscience when it is handed to him on a platter.
Sadun, you do serve one useful purpose. You provide a clear picture of the target audience for HIV Denialists. You are scientifically illiterate and blissfully unaware of it. You are pathologically distrustful of "orthodoxy" and "authority" and completely credulous of "alternative" claims.
I realised after some time that despite your alleged open minded attitude that you are simply not interested in learning any science that might conflict with your pet ideas. Ridicule is an appropriate response, not because I want to convince you of your ridiculousness, but because the vast majority of people can see the absurdity of your claims and those of your fellow denialists.
The danger of group think such as the insular HIV denialists is that they lose sight of their own absurdity.
I am so over Henry Bauer. I wish others would go to his site and point out how ridiculous he is! Here is what I posted to his most recent diatribe on you and your book:
Is this the best you can do? You start off saying Kalichman is making errors left and right and mis-quoting and you are insinuating he is lying in his book, “Denying AIDS”, and your start off shot is that Kalichman says your publisher is MACFarland, and should be MCFarland?? Oh, that is terrible, indeed!!! Kalichman should be shot!
Also, your followers HATE being called DENIALISTS, yet with this sentence, you 100% absolutely assert that you are an HIV/AIDS Denialist:
“The preceding sentences make plain that I am denying any connection between HIV and AIDS.”
What a great leader you are indeed!!!
J. Todd DeShong
Having spent quite a bit of time on various AIDS denialist [defined as those who Deny that HIV cases AIDS, Hello!], websites, blogs, and books, it is obvious which ones are more of a waste of time than others.
Don’t get me wrong, they are all a waste of time.
But Henry Bauer scores a triple.
This sounds like a good time for you to dump it as well. Why bother?
I can tell you how I have always seen Bauer. No one takes him seriously except the most entrenched AIDS Denialists. He has no credibility, anywhere. None. When asked if Peter Duesberg commented on his book he said not yet. Now why would that be? After all, doesn’t Bauer prove what Duesberg has been saying? Has Bauer been censored by Duesberg? No one but Crowe endorses Bauer. And all it takes for Crowe to endorse you is a pulse and a promise to deny HIV causes AIDS.
I have always said that what is amazing about Bauer is how AIDS Denialism has embraced him. Speaks volumes about AIDS denial. I have that who section in the Pseudoscience chapter of Denying AIDS on this issue.
Let me know if you see anything new if your go back. But really, do something more productive, like take a nap! Even sleeping would be more productive than reading Henry Bauer's blog.
Personally, there is nothing like reading Loch Ness Odyssey when you need to brighten your day. I mean the first sentence reads, "ON MY NINTH VISIT TO LOCH NESS, I NO LONGER EXPECT TO SEE THE MONSTER, even though I fully believe that it exists"ReplyDelete
Only once have I been able to get past that sentence. I laugh so hard, my eyes tear up and I have to stop.
If he wasn't such scum, I would thank him for his comic relief.
Nessie, did you just hack my blog with your holiday photos? You naughty Monster, you!ReplyDelete
I'm back once more. But this is the last time. Because Seth doesn't want me to explain myself I won't bother. Let's just say that I'm determined to significantly distance myself from the HIV/AIDS controversy for about 4 months, at least. So I'll briefly respond and then say goodbye.ReplyDelete
As far as I can see, those statistical models still assume an accuracy rate for the tests used. Such assumptions cannot be accurately tested in the case of HIV/AIDS, because it's clinically not possible to clearly distinguish "AIDS" from many other conditions, the "latency period" makes it infinitely more difficult. In fact "AIDS" was born out of unreliable assumptions about indirect detection methods in the first place. So it's some sort of circular reasoning I guess.
I really wish you would focus on refuting their fundamental arguments instead of unscientifically trying to make generalizations (which are inaccurate IMO) to discredit the PG's work entirely. We'll agree to disagree then. If you're so skeptical about their intentions, I encourage you to directly ask them. I'm also curious about what they exactly have in mind with those experiments. I would contact and ask them if I were to donate (or if I were as unbelieving as you are). If they're expecting people to make serious donations with so vague info, they're fooling themselves. But I doubt that this is the case.
So if I understand correctly you think of ridiculing certain people as a tool for educating the rest of the public. (Or at least that's your claim/excuse.) The reason I think that this approach is far from being perfect is because you inevitably sacrifice some people for the sake of others. You aren't just not helping them, but you're even digging deeper holes for those people. I consider an approach where everybody is encouraged to improve themselves more reasonable. I encourage you to listen to this talk: Robert Wright: How cooperation (eventually) trumps conflict...
I'll leave you with that note.
And I will do my best to not to read your responses if you reply. I want to get HIV/AIDS out of my mind for a while, I want to be able to fully focus on other things. So we won't be talking to each other for a long while probably. Take care, best wishes etc...
I am happy to say there is no HIV-causes-AIDS controversy outside the minds of AIDS Denialists.
Of course, the last Denialist to say she was taking a break from AIDS is now suing the Treatment Action Group.
I hope that the break from all this blogging gets you to see how much time you have wasted. I also hope that the project you have mentioned working is better use of your time. Take this time to reconcile who you are…you have expressed considerable inner confusion. I will leave it at that.
I am glad you can take a break from AIDS. Those who are HIV infected cannot. The mischief you have chosen to cause could help confuse people who need quality information to make life and death decisions.
Mark Wainberg likes to liken "HIV denialism" to holocaust Denialism. This is ironic in that he is one of the perpetrators of one of the most insidious holocausts in the history of mankind. What is a better definition of a holocaust then the killing of people through lies, terror, isolation,hopelessness and poisoning by AZT? That he is doing all this without the aid of concentration camps is all the more insidious. Oh yes, you can only get out of this holocaust by paying $3000.00 a month for "miracle drugs" but this is the only way out. Mark, I pray that you are still alive when the great lie about aids is finially revealed, and make no mistake Mark it shall be revealed. If I were you I'd start preparing for it. Here's a suggestion why don't you discover that the long term use of the "miracle drugs" actually cures aids completely. At least that way the poor victims of pharmacutical greed won't have to endure the dissabilatating side effects anymore.ReplyDelete
There's a reference online to a Brent W. Leung marrying a Linda M. Nishida earlier this year:ReplyDelete
And my recollection is that in an interview Brent did he said his girlfriend was based in New York. Does anyone know if it's this Linda Nishida, who works in pharmaceutical PR?
Team Leader, Chandler Chicco Agency
Greater New York City Area Public Relations and Communications
Team Leader at Chandler Chicco Agency
Healthcare Public Relations at Biosector 2
Account Supervisor at GCI Group, Inc.
University of Maryland, College Park
University of Michigan
Skilled practitioner with five+ years of experience in public relations and communications, three years of which have been spent in healthcare-focused public relations on the agency side. Experience spans across work in private PR agencies, as well as local and federal government agencies.
Product approvals & FDA/EMEA regulatory announcements, data publicity, issues management, educational programming, advocacy relations, spokesperson development, internal communications, new business development, event planning and account management. Experience spans across a range of therapeutic areas, including oncology, virology and HIV, CV, arthritis/pain and insomnia.
Weird - that linkedin profile has now disappeared.ReplyDelete
One country where the global economic crisis is affecting efforts to treat AIDS patients is South Africa. In SA the UN estimates that 5.7 million people live with HIV/AIDS and 18 percent of those aged 15 to 49 have contracted the virus.ReplyDelete
Conclusion: old same story, everybody is defending their own little businesses...ReplyDelete
That's how we humans have evolved. God, watch us in rapture! LOL