In our paper on HIV denial, Steven and I started the introduction off with a note about South African president Thabo Mbeki:
This denial was highlighted on an international level in 2000, when South African president Thabo Mbeki convened a group of panelists to discuss the cause of AIDS, acknowledging that he remained unconvinced that HIV was the cause. His ideas were derived at least partly from material he found on the Internet. Though Mbeki agreed later that year to step back from the debate, he subsequently suggested a re-analysis of health spending with a decreased emphasis on HIV/AIDS.
Though he's not been publicly vocal about his views in recent years, it has been suggested that they've not changed--that he still remains unconvinced, at best, of HIV causation of AIDS. An article in today's Guardian suggests he's ready to start speaking on it again--and it's the same old schtick:
President Thabo Mbeki remains an "Aids dissident" who has told a biographer that he regrets bowing to pressure from his cabinet to "withdraw from the debate" over the disease ravaging South Africa.***
Thabo Mbeki: The Dream Deferred describes how the president contacted the author earlier this year to reiterate some of the views that caused uproar in the medical community before Mr Mbeki stopped talking publicly about Aids several years ago. Mr Gevisser also describes how the president's view of the disease was shaped by an obsession with race, the legacy of colonialism and "sexual shame".
The book will reinforce the view of Mr Mbeki's critics who say his unorthodox opinions have cost hundreds of thousands of lives by delaying the distribution of medicines, and that the health minister, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, has continued these views.
This may sound familiar to those who've read our PLoS Medicine paper (or who've simply dealt with pharma-phobic deniers) as well:
The president said he was seeking an open debate but portrayed those who disagreed with him - who include Nelson Mandela, trade union leaders whose members were dying in large numbers and Aids activists - as in the pay of the drug companies.
And while Mbeki attributes much power to "drug companies," it sounds like many who've disagreed with his stance on AIDS have been fearful to tell him as much:
Mr Gevisser says that while Mr Mbeki has never explicitly denied the link between HIV and Aids, he is a "profound sceptic". The issue came to a head in the cabinet in 2002 after Mr Mbeki's political advisers and some ministers told him it was running out of control and damaging South Africa's reputation, which had been so high under Mr Mandela's leadership.
"What happened was not, quite, a rebellion," writes Mr Gevisser. "Only one elected ANC representative, Pregs Govender, the chair of a parliamentary committee on the status of women, resigned and publicly criticised Mbeki. And even behind closed doors only one or two people actually had the courage to tell Mbeki they thought he was wrong."
- Log in to post comments
Looks like this thread has now completely degenerated into the random warblings of the crazy, sex-obsessed, conspiracy theorist, Lo-life cooler, the mad "there's no such thing as a pathogen" Jan Spreen and Anthony ("call me Pat") Liversidge, with only Jorg now posting as a voice of sanity and reason. What a waste of time it's all become.
By the way, anyone doubting that Pat is Tony Baloney Liversidge should read what he posts on his own Blog, NAR, where he admits to posting on this Aetiology string using multiple pseudonyms. Gee, what a surprise.
too bad ive got the facts on my side, and the university of California pedigree, youre probably a janitor, or an online degree recipient, lol loser.
Ha, Ha, Ha!!!! Show me where I wrote that! Pathogen simply means A disease producer. Nothing else. Disease exist, I wouldn't deny that one can feel very "dis-eased" thus disease producers must also exist. So many things can produce disease!
What? That's not what you meant? Ah, you were talking about germs! Okay then, true enough, the germ theory of diseases, of course, that all nonsense to me....
The core of Hamer's New Medicine holds on half a page A4. But to grab it's meaning, it takes a lot of time and unless you can see through the hate propaganda against Hamer, I think his findings are completely out of reach for you. For you and so many others who, when it comes to a different approach of something about which they already made up their mind, firmly stick to their ideas and try to beat the heretic with the stick of main stream propaganda.
hamer beleives that all illneses are caused by a very stressful event in childhood, and that all illnesses like cancer, aids are the result?
"Why? If a leader of a country denied antibiotics to her people for some ill-specified reason, and said people were dying because they did not have access to medicine, would that leader's actions not be considered criminal? You may disagree with the premisses, but I see no logical way to disagree with the conclusions, given the premisses are correct. And that is what I mean by "inextricably bound"
Why do you use an antibiotic analogy when you can say ARV's? Again. I thank the stars that scientists aren't the only ones with a right to vote. Misguided? perhaps but criminal is to take the extrem position and most won't follow you there. We can agree to disagree however.
"Looks like this thread has now completely degenerated into the random warblings of the crazy, sex-obsessed, conspiracy theorist, Lo-life cooler, the mad "there's no such thing as a pathogen" Jan Spreen and Anthony ("call me Pat") Liversidge, with only Jorg now posting as a voice of sanity and reason. What a waste of time it's all become.
By the way, anyone doubting that Pat is Tony Baloney Liversidge should read what he posts on his own Blog, NAR, where he admits to posting on this Aetiology string using multiple pseudonyms. Gee, what a surprise.
Posted by: Truthseeker | November 15, 2007 3:53 PM"
Now I know this is not from Anthony Liversidge AKA "truthseeker". Who could this well be...mmm
"By the way, anyone doubting that Pat is Tony Baloney Liversidge should read what he posts on his own Blog, NAR, where he admits to posting on this Aetiology string using multiple pseudonyms. Gee, what a surprise."
you are welcome to advertise your arch enemy.
No, that's not the right way to put it. Stressful event, yes, childhood, no. BTW, the actual concept of Aids is about the worst possible explanation of what really happens and as such Aids is merely the result of scientific nonsense thinking.
The major discovery of Hamer is not only the idea of a stressfull event provoking a biological conflict, but also the revolutionary notion that all diseases come by the pair. To which we must add the fabulous ontogenetic system of diseases and germs.
I couldn't very well use ARVs as an analogy to themselves, could I? Again, a leader that knowingly slaughters her people is criminal. i think we agree on that. A leader that is misguided may not be strictly speaking a criminal, but a.as we all know, ignorance of the law is no excuse, and b.when many have attempted to point out exactly where the leader's point of view is wrong and s/he still ignores the evidence, her actions are beginning to cross the border of criminal behaviour.
We can only censure a (hypothetical?) leader like that; nobody is advocating invasion, war, assassination and/or prison. Unless the people of the country abused choose to do so, of course.
Truthseeker:
Thanks for the kind words. :-)
However, your comment made me realize that actually posting on this thread goes beyond the most liberal definition of sanity and reason, and I am doing that probably just to get the last word in...Screw it. I stop. Now!
I suspect that Pat really is Pat. Some of the Denialists do use multiple pseudonyms but not all.
Liversidge posted under the pseudonym "Truthseeker" above in the thread. I don't know if he has used other pseudonyms.
I gave up trying to guess who was who after making mistakes. In the end it doesn't matter much.
When did Ms. Maggiore claim that neither she nor her lawyers have received the GMS-stained slides or the brain slides from the Coroner's Office?
Why do you claim it is not available?
It was in the Coroner's report. It was shown personally to Maggiore.
Are you telling me that Maggiore has requested the slides and has not received them?
That isn't what she says.
Maggiore has been shown the evidence. We know this because it was broadcast on national television.
The television show is not the evidence. You are being deliberately obtuse by suggesting that this is the case. The slides are the evidence.
If you think the slides that Maggiore was shown are fakes then you had better inform the authorities.
"It's been almost 2 years since Ms. Maggiore appeared on national television reviewing the pathological slides that showed her daughter died of Pneumocystis pneumonia, but on August 10, 2007, she claimed the following:from what I understand, her lungs show no pneumonia of any kind" Slides from a pathologist facing accusations of being a pathological fudger. A TV show. The "evidence" is rock-solid.
Take a look at the slides yourself. There is no pneumonia. The lung alveoli are clear.
Fig 1A page 6 Photograph of Eliza Jane Scovill's H & E stained lung section shows normal structures of the lung. Note that the alveolar spaces are free of exudates and the alveolar walls are free of inflammation and fibrosis.
Hey no_new_moan_yeah,
What makes you think that photomicrograph is representative of the pathological changes in Eliza Jane Scovill's lungs?
"I couldn't very well use ARVs as an analogy to themselves, could I?"
no, that is contrary to the rules of the english language but you didn't need an analogy.
"Again, a leader that knowingly slaughters her people is criminal."
This is precisely the crux of it all. You cannot argue he is "slaughtering" his people without being histerical. You use the language of hysteria when you yourself, believably are not. Visit Rwanda or Theresienstadt and educate yourself as to the meaning of the word "slaughter".
Mbeki is not a "slaughterer". Orac calls it the Hitler Zombie. Making a wrong and hateful comparison in order to discredit. It is a weak intellectual fart.
Tara,
All Things aside, perhaps it is time for a web programme that limits Usernames to one per verifyiable e-mail address.
This would greatly reduce the mischievous activities of the less mature trolls on this and future threads.
"I suspect that Pat really is Pat. Some of the Denialists do use multiple pseudonyms but not all.
Thank you and I take you at noble value too but stop being so lop-sided in your views. You know damn well old farts across science extend to this day their stupid fraternity jokes like the one JP Moore pulled off on Bialy's wiki entry and all the dumb shit Bialy pulled too.
Your world is so simple. I envy you.
Hey but Carter is Carter.
And Hilary mixes AIDS CHURCH religion and politics quite nicely. So now it's not enough to spend the gazillions of taxpayers dollars - lets raid the church coiffeurs too.
click on carter ---->
How do you know it was John that altered Bialy's wiki entry. He's hardly the only person in the world that Bialy has pissed off. From what I have seen John always uses his real name.
Pat, I suspect ScienceBlogs doesn't want to require registration to comment, which is required to do the one-on-one mapping of username to e-mail. That decision might be the purview of the individual blogger, but I suspect not. Besides, it's a hassle to have to register just because a few people are irritating, not to mention what the reaction would be from certain paranoids around here who think they're being censored every time Dr. Smith takes a few hours to review the held-for-moderation queue.
Excuse me,
I am the Rob you are referring to and for the record, I am Jewish. My last name is Schwartz which is a Jewish last name and if you had any sense of humor whatsoever or knew anything about being Jewish, you would realize that I was joking about that. In fact, I was the creator of the group exposing experimentation on children. The remark I made was in response to a joke my friend Seth had made on the wall of the group and playing along with the joke I made an antisemitic joke, knowing that anyone with half a brain knows that Schwartz is a Jewish last and therefore it was a joke. Sometimes people use humor to deal with tragedy, get over yourself.
"When did Ms. Maggiore claim that neither she nor her lawyers have received the GMS-stained slides or the brain slides from the Coroner's Office?"
She claims to have all the slides and the TV slides were not among them. She asks in her letters Chris links to what the significance of those slides are and there is no evidence that she recieved a reply. www.rethinkingaids.com/challenges/Maggiore-Flegg.html
I have no evidence of the existance of those slides outside the broadcast TV report Chris harps on about.
"Besides, it's a hassle to have to register just because a few people are irritating, not to mention what the reaction would be from certain paranoids around here who think they're being censored every time Dr. Smith takes a few hours to review the held-for-moderation queue."
I understand the hassle but the reality is no one knows who's who anymore and all those "fake" posts went unfiltered. Screw the paranoids, something needs tweaking to ensure at least a moderately meaningless flame "war".
"From what I have seen John always uses his real name."
Maybe...we won't as long as people can post as "whatever"
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz7_3n7xyDg
Rob, that was a week ago. It would have made your point more effectively if you'd actually linked to the relevant comment - most people around here have NO idea what you're talking about. (It's here: http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/11/mbeki_still_in_denial.php#com… )
Pat, sure it would make things more comprehensible, but if Dr. Smith was going to require registration, I think she would have done it around the time that people were threatening each other with bodily harm. Merely being unable to tell what the hell is going on in the comments is par for the course. For me, anyway. I don't even try to guess who's who, because it doesn't really matter.
It's not. I could force everyone to use TypeKey, but that's a real pain in the ass, and all anyone would have to do to get around it is register twice anyway as it doesn't limit by IP address. I've asked people before to stick to one pseudonym but you can see how well they follow that.
Hey rob,
its me from facebook, im the one that sent you that message, its a girl named Adele that accuses us and that whole group of being anti semitic, she usualy posts here everyday, she nuts! all she does is call people anti jewish all day, without any evidence
I'm no authority on compoooters but I've seen plenty of websites with username reservation and it wasn't a hassle to register
"I think she would have done it around the time that people were threatening each other with bodily harm."
relax. It's hysterical. But the verdict is in. These threads are not worth following for anyone and I concur.
"For me, anyway. I don't even try to guess who's who, because it doesn't really matter.".-jen_m
"I've asked people before to stick to one pseudonym but you can see how well they follow that."-Tara
Chris,
"How do you know it was John that altered Bialy's wiki entry. He's hardly the only person in the world that Bialy has pissed off. From what I have seen John always uses his real name."
How do you know that multiple-pseudonym syndrom is specific to "denialist" infection of thought?
pat: (breaking my own word to myself! obviously, you cannot trust a scientist!)
Having grown up in the USSR, I am quite familiar with the meaning of the word "slaughter", even though I am too young to have witnessed it myself. Memories run deep (or at least they used to; nowadays many of the school-kids do not know anything about the War or Stalin's purges, etc...but I digress).
I used a hypothetical conditional, and therefore the word slaughter. The word "if" was very important in that context. However, if anybody even *contributes* to the deaths of thousands of people, is that person not responsible? I use criminal not in the legal sense of the word but rather in an ethical sense. In any case, as I have said above, the culpability depends on whether or not you accept the premisses. I happen to do so; I assume that you do not, hence charges of negligence contributing to (many) wrongful deaths do not apply and you can talk about the complexities of political settings.
I have no marshmallows in this fire in any case (besides thinking that denying the connection between HIV and AIDS is rather silly while not at all being funny), and originally posted only to comment on the particular behaviours of particular people in this particular thread, I am afraid.
Try reading the autopsy report (page 16 has the histology results).
I guess so:
Look at you losers, weve got the best scientists on our side
World Renowned Scientist, Lynn Margulis, Ph.D.
National Academy of Sciences Member
Calls for New 9/11 Investigation
Official Explanation a Fraud
27aug2007
World renowned scientist, Lynn Margulis, Ph.D., today severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation, "I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken."
One of America's most prominent scientists, Dr. Margulis is Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts - Amherst. She was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1983 and served as Chairman of the Academy's Space Science Board Committee on Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution. In 1999, President Bill Clinton presented Dr. Margulis with the National Medal of Science, America's highest honor for scientific achievement, "for her outstanding contributions to understanding of the development, structure, and evolution of living things, for inspiring new research in the biological, climatological, geological and planetary sciences, and for her extraordinary abilities as a teacher and communicator of science to the public."
In her statement on PatriotsQuestion911.com [Below], Dr. Margulis referred to 9/11 as "this new false-flag operation, which has been used to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as unprecedented assaults on research, education, and civil liberties". She compared 9/11 to several self-inflicted attacks that had been used in the past to arouse people's fear and hatred and justify war, including the sinking of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor, the Reichstag Fire, and Operation Himmler, which Germany used to justify the invasion of Poland, the trigger for World War II.
Dr. Margulis credited "the research and clear writing by David Ray Griffin in his fabulous books about 9/11" for providing much of the information that formed her opinion about 9/11. She specifically lauded The New Pearl Harbor and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, "which provides overwhelming evidence that the official story is contradictory, incomplete, and unbelievable."
Internationally acclaimed for her ground-breaking scientific work, Dr. Margulis is an elected member of The World Academy of Art and Science, an organization of 500 of the world¹s leading thinkers, chosen for eminence in art, the natural and social sciences, and the humanities. And in 2006, she was selected as one of "The 20th Century's 100 Most Important Inspirational Leaders" by the editors of Resurgence magazine.
source: email 26aug2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIO
Cooler says:
I tried to tell you back on October 10th that you were missing an opportunity to plug your favorite work of fiction:
Franklin, did you buy your degree at wal mart or target? damn loser barely passed high school, probably went to a ghetto college and flunked out, now hes a full time science blogger. I hate stupid uneducated people!
www.rethinkingaids.com/challenges/Maggiore-Flegg.html
No. She specifically states that she does not have the special [GMS] stained slides. Maggiore has been advised by Al-Bayati so I find it strange that she is still ignorant about the importance of the GMS stained slides. It's a diagnostic test for PCP. How could they not be relevant to the issue.
They are directly referred to in the Coroner's report. If you think they don't exist then you had better inform the authorities. Maggore has seen the slides. Does she claim they are fake?
"What makes you think that photomicrograph is representative of the pathological changes in Eliza Jane Scovill's lungs?"
Posted by: franklin
Franklin, what's wrong with you, apart from being a chickenshit who is scared to go directly to Christine Maggiore? How would Pat know all these things? He is not sitting with the slides in front of him; neither is he sitting inside Maggiore's head in spite of what the idiots here who can't recognize very characteristic writing styles may think.
The notion that you can show select sections of select slides to a lay person during a TV show and use this as proof that she has had a chance to examine the evidence is beyond desperate even for you guys.
Here's what Maggiore has to say about that TV show and the presentation of the slides - and yes the top bozo of all you bozos in the war on Christine Maggiore, the one Niccoli Nattras references in his FINE Sceptical Enquirer article advertized by brave Sir John up above, DID declare the Maggiore slides fake. But they weren't fake, which means that you guys' hero paediatrican, molecular biologist, PhD, MD, was unable to make anything but the most moronic of statements on background of that TV show, and yet you keep referencing it as if it were the paper that proves HIV causes AIDS.
Nick Bennett complains the slides aren't real because they don't look like what he thinks he saw on the TV show. Boo hoo. What he saw on TV was an enlarged area of a slide and a mendacious coroner pointing to some black dots and making unsupportable claims.
If you and Bennet and all those who hopped on the Ribe bandwagon had seen the full Ribe interview for PrimeTime (the stuff they played for us on a monitor that we commented on), you'd be running as far as you could from this guy. He makes stuff up and gets caught doing it ALL THE TIME but thus far, has picked on poor Latinos, homeless black people, drug addicts and prostitutes--people who are unable to hold him accountable for his acts. He strayed outside the usual group in our case, hopefully to his severe detriment.
There you bave it chickenshits. Now take Bennett and whoever else makes you feels safe and brave with you, go to LA and explain to Christine Maggiore how those "black dots" in the "enlarged area" is so obviously PCP that Bennett was able to diagnose it from his intellectual jerk off couch with such certainty that he can even spot "fake" slides on this background.
I never said it was. I just missed the leap of logic where John Moore was identified as the person who altered Bialy's wiki page. The only evidence appears to be Bialy's paranoia.
Nick has never claimed that any slides are fake. There is a very simple point. The slides that Maggiore was shown were the GMS stained slides. These are not the same slides that Al-Bayati used in his "report".
The GMS stains are in the Coroner's report. If you or anyone thinks that the GMS stains are fake or that they don't really show PC organisms then you had better inform the authorities of these crimes.
All this blather about fake slides and television shows appears to be a pathetic attempt to avoid dealing with the evidence which is the GMS stained slides.
MEC writes in his or her post above:
".... the one Niccoli Nattras references in his FINE Sceptical Enquirer article"
Nicoli Nattrass (not Niccoli Nattras) is in fact a woman. This is hardly a state secret, because the article in the Sceptical Enquirer contains a rather charming photograph of its author, the unquestionably female Dr. Nattrass.
It couldn't possibly be the case that an AIDS denialist like MEC is commenting on an article's contents without actually reading it, could it? Surely not, perish the thought, nobody would actually do anything like that, would they? Well, no scientist would, but of course the standards are rather different for the likes of MEC, hiding away under his pseudonym, along with "pat".
This thread would indeed be easier to follow if everyone did what I'm doing by posting under my own name. But of course the standards are rather different for the likes of MEC, hiding away under his pseudonym, along with "pat" (oh, did I already say that....).
Chris Noble is quite correct on two counts:
1) "I just missed the leap of logic where John Moore was identified as the person who altered Bialy's wiki page. The only evidence appears to be Bialy's paranoia."
Bialy is indeed paranoid, amongst other things.
2) "Nick (Bennett) has never claimed that any slides are fake."
To my knowledge, that is true. I have never heard or read Nick making that claim.
This issue of the pathology slides and what they allegedly do and do not show will not be settled by internet gossip. If Ms. Maggiore is foolish enough to continue with her legal action against the LA Coroner's office, the truth will be revealed in a court of law (actually, it already has been, in the official Coroner's report). Believing that Coroners fake documents like this report is akin to believing that the moon landings were filmed in New Mexico, or that 9/11 was an inside-job by the CIA (oh, hang on, a lot of the AIDS denialists do have those beliefs, silly me for forgetting!)
I'm pretty sure that Pat really is Pat.
Claus Jensen referred to him in his rant email: SOME GUYS LIKE MICHAEL GEIGER AND PAT MANAGE THAT YOU KNOW, JUST BEING BROTHERS IN ARMS ,BROTHERS! WITHOUT LETTING THEIR ASSES TAKE OVER THEIR PERSONALITY.
Geiger and a couple of others appear to be behind most of the sock-puppetry.
John,
read lynn murgulis's pedigree above, and compare it to yours.............(just collapsed in complete laughter)
Margulis that is..................(just collapsed in complete laughter again)
Whats johns greatest scientific acomplishment,taking grants from drug company hacks, failed microbicides, maybe hell get the nobel prize for trying to get professors fired all day?
"By the way, anyone doubting that Pat is Tony Baloney Liversidge should read what he posts on his own Blog, NAR, where he admits to posting on this Aetiology string using multiple pseudonyms. Gee, what a surprise."
Tara, this witless inanity is entirely false, if anyone cares. I have only posted once on this exciting thread.
You guys need to listen to your scientific elder DR. richard Strohman, professor emeritus of MCB from Cal. Bow your head and learn moore.
"The last four pages of this review were devoted to HIV and its role in AIDS. It appeared to Peter that many of the same contradictions that appeared in the retrovirus/cancer hypothesis also appeared in the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. He systematically began to discuss the weaknesses in HIV as a retrovirus causing immunodeficiency. Included in his criticism back in 1987 were the following crucial points that stand against the hypothesis and that remain completely unanswered by the scientific orthodoxy in charge of AIDS research:
There is HIV infection and low or no risk of AIDS; therefore, something other than HIV must be involved.
The long latent period between infection and clinical disease is inconsistent with the short generation time of retroviruses which is only 24Â48 hours and with everything known about experimental retroviral disease. AIDS remains as the only claimed retroviral disease outside of the laboratory!
The levels of actual HIV found in the blood of AIDS patients is too low to account for observed loss of immune function.
There is no animal model for AIDS.
HIV is not directly cytocidal; it does not kill T cells.
All of these points were then, and are now, defended by a close analysis of available data, as you will see. As the reader goes through this collection, it will become clear how steady are these points and how they remain critical and unanswered. The last point is of special interest since, in 1995, eight years later, we find in Nature, arguably the leading science weekly journal in the world, the commentary that, at the same time (a) confirms Peter Duesbereg's contention (point number 5, above) that the evidence could never have supported direct viral killing; and (b) shifts the standard hypothesis around 180 degrees. The Nature commentary, in an article dealing with HIV, said that: "... an intrinsic cytopathic effect of the virus is no longer credible." (Wain-Hobson, S. Nature, 373: 102, 1995).
What very few people realize, including most professors of molecular biology that I know, is that this shift has occurred: that the orthodox view of HIV as a direct killer of human immune cells has been thrown out. This is a crucial issue since the experiments surrounding this new view, while they have received wide acclaim by the AIDS orthodoxy, are seen to be flawed by many other experts (see Nature, Scientific Correspondence 375: 193Â198, 1995).
The new view is that the source of trouble is not direct killing by HIV but rather a cell-mediated killing of HIV-infected cells by the immune system itself (Wei, et al., and Ho, et al. Nature 373: 117Â126, 1995). This turn-around was necessitated by the fact that Duesberg's third point (above) was also true. How could HIV kill so many T cells if one could not detect significant numbers of free HIV in a patient's blood? This question has remained unanswered until these recent reports. Using new amplification methods to detect HIV, Wei and Ho conclude that, indeed, free virus is found after all. However, as Duesberg and Bialy, have pointed out (see Chapter Twelve), the new method (PCR) does not measure free virus but only highly amplified amounts of viral RNA. This method amplifies an original HIV-RNA signal by many thousand times so that error becomes a major problem in quantitation. That is, it is extremely difficult to know with any precision exactly what the level of starting material might have been. It is one of the problems in HIV/AIDS and other disease research that highly sophisticated molecular measurements are used as surrogate markers for infectious virus units, the only significant units in biological measurements of this kind.
Kary Mullis, the inventor of PCR, takes a dim view of using PCR in the above manner indicating that it is a very poor substitute for identifying "live" virus (replicating virus) in the blood of an AIDS patient. Most people, including most biologists, do not know that it is almost impossible to isolate live virus from AIDS patients; a crucial point that Duesberg has been making for almost ten years.
A careful reading of Dr. Duesberg's criticisms, and the papers themselves, reveals that when one establishes standards to convert PCR results to actual viral numbers, those numbers reflect the same old low levels of infectious HIV (Duesberg and Bialy, see above). That is, there are still no valid measurements that lead one to the conclusion that AIDS patients have high levels even of infectious HIV. But let us suppose the PCR studies are correct and that AIDS patients actually harbor high levels of infectious HIV and that a war of attrition against the immune system, after ten years, finally takes its toll. But it is precisely because of the fact of latency-Duesberg's second point, above-that such a war is so unlikely. With the high (PCR) viral numbers reported (100,000 HIV per ml blood) every cell in the body would soon be infected. But with this level of infection it becomes impossible to explain the lag period; such an infected person would surely be dead within days or weeks if HIV truly caused AIDS. This is just one of many contradictions present in the latest claims from Nature that the critics of the HIV hypothesis have finally been silenced. In fact, the editor of Nature has, in a flagrant act of censorship, called for Peter Duesberg to quit his role as critic, and he has stealthily used his power as editor to enforce Duesberg's silence in the journal ("Has Duesberg a right of reply?," Nature 363: 109, 1993)
This new research, together with its contradictions and false claims, are just surfacing as the Duesberg collection goes to press. But the reader will get some accurate sense of the state of confusion generated by this research from the recent "Scientific Correspondence" in Nature (375: 193Â198, 1995) and from a full discussion of the HIV numbers game by Duesberg and Bialy in Genetica (Supplement, in press,1995), reprinted in Chapter Twelve in this volume.
This change of purported mechanism of AIDS causality is just the latest example of flip-flopping by the HIV/AIDS research orthodoxy where the emphasis on direct HIV killing needs to be modified in order to accommodate the reality of AIDS natural history. The other most recent "shift" in emphasis involved discarding what was the earliest and most telling characteristic of AIDS, Kaposi's sarcoma. Kaposi's sarcoma is no longer considered to be caused by HIV (see Chapter Ten). But very few people take note. Few have the time to follow even the highlights of this enormous literature. Of course, we also are reminded by Dr. Duesberg that the definition of AIDS is completely circular and makes a mockery of its scientific pursuit. If you had Kaposi's sarcoma, or any other AIDS disease, but no HIV, then you would not receive a diagnosis of AIDS. You would simply enter the hospital record book as a patient with Kaposi's sarcoma, or with whatever other disease you actually had. No HIV, no AIDS ... very simple, but also impossibly irrational since causality is built into the definition"
The last four pages of this review were devoted to HIV and its role in AIDS. It appeared to Peter that many of the same contradictions that appeared in the retrovirus/cancer hypothesis also appeared in the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. He systematically began to discuss the weaknesses in HIV as a retrovirus causing immunodeficiency. Included in his criticism back in 1987 were the following crucial points that stand against the hypothesis and that remain completely unanswered by the scientific orthodoxy in charge of AIDS research:
There is HIV infection and low or no risk of AIDS; therefore, something other than HIV must be involved.
The long latent period between infection and clinical disease is inconsistent with the short generation time of retroviruses which is only 24Â48 hours and with everything known about experimental retroviral disease. AIDS remains as the only claimed retroviral disease outside of the laboratory!
The levels of actual HIV found in the blood of AIDS patients is too low to account for observed loss of immune function.
There is no animal model for AIDS.
HIV is not directly cytocidal; it does not kill T cells.
All of these points were then, and are now, defended by a close analysis of available data, as you will see. As the reader goes through this collection, it will become clear how steady are these points and how they remain critical and unanswered. The last point is of special interest since, in 1995, eight years later, we find in Nature, arguably the leading science weekly journal in the world, the commentary that, at the same time (a) confirms Peter Duesbereg's contention (point number 5, above) that the evidence could never have supported direct viral killing; and (b) shifts the standard hypothesis around 180 degrees. The Nature commentary, in an article dealing with HIV, said that: "... an intrinsic cytopathic effect of the virus is no longer credible." (Wain-Hobson, S. Nature, 373: 102, 1995).
What very few people realize, including most professors of molecular biology that I know, is that this shift has occurred: that the orthodox view of HIV as a direct killer of human immune cells has been thrown out. This is a crucial issue since the experiments surrounding this new view, while they have received wide acclaim by the AIDS orthodoxy, are seen to be flawed by many other experts (see Nature, Scientific Correspondence 375: 193Â198, 1995).
The new view is that the source of trouble is not direct killing by HIV but rather a cell-mediated killing of HIV-infected cells by the immune system itself (Wei, et al., and Ho, et al. Nature 373: 117Â126, 1995). This turn-around was necessitated by the fact that Duesberg's third point (above) was also true. How could HIV kill so many T cells if one could not detect significant numbers of free HIV in a patient's blood? This question has remained unanswered until these recent reports. Using new amplification methods to detect HIV, Wei and Ho conclude that, indeed, free virus is found after all. However, as Duesberg and Bialy, have pointed out (see Chapter Twelve), the new method (PCR) does not measure free virus but only highly amplified amounts of viral RNA. This method amplifies an original HIV-RNA signal by many thousand times so that error becomes a major problem in quantitation. That is, it is extremely difficult to know with any precision exactly what the level of starting material might have been. It is one of the problems in HIV/AIDS and other disease research that highly sophisticated molecular measurements are used as surrogate markers for infectious virus units, the only significant units in biological measurements of this kind.
Kary Mullis, the inventor of PCR, takes a dim view of using PCR in the above manner indicating that it is a very poor substitute for identifying "live" virus (replicating virus) in the blood of an AIDS patient. Most people, including most biologists, do not know that it is almost impossible to isolate live virus from AIDS patients; a crucial point that Duesberg has been making for almost ten years.
A careful reading of Dr. Duesberg's criticisms, and the papers themselves, reveals that when one establishes standards to convert PCR results to actual viral numbers, those numbers reflect the same old low levels of infectious HIV (Duesberg and Bialy, see above). That is, there are still no valid measurements that lead one to the conclusion that AIDS patients have high levels even of infectious HIV. But let us suppose the PCR studies are correct and that AIDS patients actually harbor high levels of infectious HIV and that a war of attrition against the immune system, after ten years, finally takes its toll. But it is precisely because of the fact of latency-Duesberg's second point, above-that such a war is so unlikely. With the high (PCR) viral numbers reported (100,000 HIV per ml blood) every cell in the body would soon be infected. But with this level of infection it becomes impossible to explain the lag period; such an infected person would surely be dead within days or weeks if HIV truly caused AIDS. This is just one of many contradictions present in the latest claims from Nature that the critics of the HIV hypothesis have finally been silenced. In fact, the editor of Nature has, in a flagrant act of censorship, called for Peter Duesberg to quit his role as critic, and he has stealthily used his power as editor to enforce Duesberg's silence in the journal ("Has Duesberg a right of reply?," Nature 363: 109, 1993)
This new research, together with its contradictions and false claims, are just surfacing as the Duesberg collection goes to press. But the reader will get some accurate sense of the state of confusion generated by this research from the recent "Scientific Correspondence" in Nature (375: 193Â198, 1995) and from a full discussion of the HIV numbers game by Duesberg and Bialy in Genetica (Supplement, in press,1995), reprinted in Chapter Twelve in this volume.
This change of purported mechanism of AIDS causality is just the latest example of flip-flopping by the HIV/AIDS research orthodoxy where the emphasis on direct HIV killing needs to be modified in order to accommodate the reality of AIDS natural history. The other most recent "shift" in emphasis involved discarding what was the earliest and most telling characteristic of AIDS, Kaposi's sarcoma. Kaposi's sarcoma is no longer considered to be caused by HIV (see Chapter Ten). But very few people take note. Few have the time to follow even the highlights of this enormous literature. Of course, we also are reminded by Dr. Duesberg that the definition of AIDS is completely circular and makes a mockery of its scientific pursuit. If you had Kaposi's sarcoma, or any other AIDS disease, but no HIV, then you would not receive a diagnosis of AIDS. You would simply enter the hospital record book as a patient with Kaposi's sarcoma, or with whatever other disease you actually had. No HIV, no AIDS ... very simple, but also impossibly irrational since causality is built into the definition
Richard Strohman PHD UCB MCB professor emeritus, your scientific father
Gramercy Sir John, you're killing me!!
One thing can be said for you, when you do post, it is only the strongest and most pertinent arguments you select for publication.
If you'd care to scroll back to the last "denialist" thread in which you made such an illustrious appearance, you'll see I have read that Nattrass article so well that I was the first to point out several errors and peculiarities in it and offer to edit it for you in the interest of AIDS Truth. I even tried to engage you in a chitchat about HIV specific reverse
transcriptase/transcription and Gallo's Parenzee testimony on background of the Nattrass article, but that was apparently too scientific a topic for your taste.
When somebody else here repated one of the mistakes I had pointed out about Gallo being the discoverer of retroviruses, your answer, at great length and repetition, was that it was unscientifc to dismiss an article because of trivial errors in the text. You have now chosen to dodge my last post because you suspect I have omitted to look at the attached picture of the author of an article I refer to tangentially?! Well argued, Sir John. Well argued as always. Maybe Harvey, like yourself, is a bit of a looney, but he is still able to manage two consecutive arguments that don't contradict each other.
Ok Dr. Noble, let me see you do what you do best, tell us in the face of direct evidence that this from Bennett is not either incoherent nonsense or a suggestion that the slides Al-Bayati "IS CLAIMING COME FROM EJ" aren't from EJ. My interpretation is that it is an incoherent nonsensical suggestion that Bayati's slides aren't from EJ:
It's ludicrous - on the Primetime live program with Ms Maggiore they showed the slides that Al-Bayati is claiming to have possession of, and they looked nothing like the slides he is claiming come from EJ. He is simply a brazen deluded fool for trying to convince anyone otherwise.
http://www.rethinkingaids.com/challenges/bennett-cohen-ejreport.html
This issue of the pathology slides and what they allegedly do and do not show will not be settled by internet gossip (Moore)
Brave Sir Moore, you are killing me once again! That is a particularly rich coming from YOU of all people. can I have a buck for every time you've peddled internet gossip about Christine Maggiore?
Let me repeat,
"There you have it chickenshits. Now take Bennett and whoever else makes you feel safe and brave with you, go to LA and explain to Christine Maggiore how those "black dots" in the "enlarged area" is so obviously PCP"
Nick Bennett was naturally very skeptical because for some reason that is still beyond comprehension Al-Bayati chose not to use the GMS stained slides. Nick is entirely correct. The slides that were shown to Maggiore on Primetime were not the same ones that appear in Al-Bayati's reports.
If Maggiore were actually interested in the truth she would have shown the GMS stained slides to an independent certified human pathologist and asked for an opinion as to what they mean.
Al-Bayati and Maniotis are neither certified pathologists nor independent.
Dr. Noble, "Nick" is suggesting the slides are not from EJ at all. Is he entirely correct?
"This thread would indeed be easier to follow if everyone did what I'm doing by posting under my own name. But of course the standards are rather different for the likes of MEC, hiding away under his pseudonym, along with "pat" (oh, did I already say that....)."
It applies only to MEC and pat. All others excepted.
" I use criminal not in the legal sense of the word but rather in an ethical sense. In any case, as I have said above, the culpability depends on whether or not you accept the premisses."
Obfuscation of language is very much part of the problem. If you want to use the word "criminal" in the ethical sense than the word you are looking for in UNETHICAL.
People are welcome to use any language they deem necessary but when people start making contrived connections with slaughter, murder and whatnot they loose a sizable chunk of their credibility.
Franklin,
which one of the slides listed in the autopsy report are the slides that were shown on prime time?
From the autopsy report (page 16):
A GMS-stained slide of the lung was shown on PrimeTime.
The slide issue is analagous to this:
I have agonizing pain in my left leg following a fall.
X-rays are taken of both lower legs.
One X-ray, of the left lower leg, clearly shows a spiral break in the tibia (that's the shin bone, Cooler).
The other X-ray, of the right lower leg, shows perfectly intact tibia and fibula--no break.
My mom loves me and doesn't want me to have a broken leg, so she hires a pathologist who looks at the X-rays and says the X-ray of the right leg proves I don't have a broken leg.
My mom goes on TV and is shown the X-ray of the left lower leg with the clearly visible fracture, but she still insists that I don't have a broken leg.
Both X-rays are really of my legs.
I am still really hurt and in need of treatment.
Read the above post by duesberg and strohman, two UCB MCB professors to see the flaws in the hiv hypothesis, learn from your scientific masters.
Hey MEC,
It seems that an another Anatomic Pathologist has reviewed the autopsy slides, although apparently not at the request of Ms. Maggiore.
On her web page, Ms. Maggiore quotes Benjamin Ryan as telling her:
So according to MEC, Maggiore characterizes the histological evidence for Pneumocystis pneumonia as nothing more than "a mendacious coroner pointing to some black dots and making unsupportable claims," but a well-respected Anatomic Pathologist characterizes the autopsy slides as showing that the Pneumocystis pneumonia "was extremely severe."
If Maggiore is right, why doesn't she seek the opinion of a licensed physician who is certified in Anatomic Pathology?
But dearest Frankie, what IS wrong with you?! If you would but read on you will see that Christine Maggiore was very interested in the opinion of Dr. Harry Vinters. Unfortunately Dr. Harry Vinters was not the least bit interested in accounting for, expanding on, or explaining his opinion. For some reason his interest in a grieving mother's search for answers seems to have vanished as soon as the interview with Benjamin Ryan was concluded:
"Dear Dr. Vinters,
I am contacting you with regard to an interview you gave to Benjamin Ryan of Gay.com this past December on the subject of the death of my daughter Eliza Jane Scovill.
I would very much appreciate clarification of some remarks attributed to you in that interview in order to better understand your interpretation of my daughter's autopsy report.
Currently, a transcript of the interview is posted online and contains a note that I called your office back in December seeking clarification but to date have received no response. I'm hoping email is a more effective way to reach you and that you will take a moment to reply to the three questions below. The answers are of interest to me personally, and I would also like to post them online. Below please find your quotes and my questions.
Benjamin Ryan: "Dr Harry Vinters reviewed the autopsy and he told me that he found the pathological finding 'very well described' and that it was 'a very thorough report.' He also said 'the HIV encephalitis was extremely severe and the PCP was extremely severe as well.'"
Approximately how much time did you spent reviewing my daughter's autopsy report?
To what do you refer as evidence of "extremely severe" PCP? My understanding of the autopsy report is that there was no inflammation of the lungs and there is only microscopic evidence of PC rather than evidence of a fulminate case of PC pneumonia, and no evidence of death by asphyxiation.
On the same topic, Benjamin Ryan states: "Vinters said it's possible to have a low amount of inflammation but still have PCP." In my daughter's case, however there was *no* inflammation noted in the autopsy report. Were you correctly quoted by Ryan?
To what evidence do you refer in your statement that "the HIV encephalitis was extremely severe?" My daughter's spinal fluid was clear at the ER and remained clear after many weeks of attempts to grow any microbe in culture. A CAT scan performed at the ER shows no swelling of her brain and medical records show no symptoms that would correspond with "extremely severe" encephalitis such as high fever, head pain, or loss of mental acuity.
I look forward to receiving your reply.
With appreciation for your time and cooperation,
Christine Maggiore
As of today, no reply has been received"
Perhaps Vinters was listening that day in Medical School when they tuaght that it is impossible to talk someone out of a delusion by using logic
"the autopsy slides as showing that the Pneumocystis pneumonia "was extremely severe."
How could all the docs at the time have missed severed PCP? Why did it take Ribe 4 month to detect something "severe"
Flegg thinks it is not a "classical" case of PCP:
"EJs acute deterioration was not particularly typical of PCP and may have been caused by some other factor or intercurrent infection".
this doesn't sound like he is considering it "extremely severe"
How common is "severe PCP" with no inflamation?
Quick quote by JP Moore:
"I agree completely with Mark Wainberg, an outstanding scientist for whom I have immense personal respect for his stand against AIDS denialists. As you're obviously one yourself, I have nothing further to say to you, other than to note that I very much hope that Maggiore is prosecuted, convicted and punished for her conduct over the death of her daughter.
John Moore"
Needless to say NO charges were ever filed.
"Perhaps Vinters was listening that day in Medical School when they tuaght that it is impossible to talk someone out of a delusion by using logic"
I doubt very much that that they teach "impossible".
what logic are you referring to? The one which allows Maggiore to be HIV- poseur for profit one day and then an HIV+ profiteer and murderer of her daughter the next? The one that allows a highly specific test to contradict itself repeatedly? The one that allows a failed journalist and HIV authority, who never had to make agonizing treatment decisions for herself or her kids, to write the following tasteless lie: "Maggiore has never had to make agonizing treatment decisions for herself or for her children."
What logic were you taught in medical school?
As I've already explained on the Intro to HIV Denial Thread, although Al-Bayati and Ms. Maggiore interpret the Coroner's report as indicating that no inflammation was present in the lungs, from the brief description of the lung histology in the report it seems that the lack of inflammation may refer to the foamy casts within the alveoli and not necessarily to the entire lung:
So is it the "foamy casts in the alveoli" that have no inflammatory response or is it "all lobes" that have no inflammaotry response?
Perhaps we will find out if the case ever comes to court, but the significance of noting that the casts found in the alveoli lack an inflammatory response is that it is a "pertinent negative"--the lack of intra-alveolar inflammation argues against the working clinical diagnosis at the time of death, namely of sepsis caused by a community-acquired pneumonia.
Such a pneumonia leading to sepsis would almost certainly be a bacterial pneumonia and the intra-alveolar exudates would be expected to contain numerous acute inflammatory cells.
Noting that those acute inflammatory cells are not present within the alveoli is what physicians do as part of a "differential diagnosis," when they are showing that the initial diagnosis is not surported by the histolgical findings.
Instead the foamy casts that lack inflammation are typical for Pneumosystis pneumonia and the GMS stains confirm the diagnosis.
It sounds very straightforward.
Perhaps Vinters was listening that day in Medical School when they tuaght that it is impossible to talk someone out of a delusion by using logic
Sometimes when you're running out of things to say it's better not to say anything Frankie. There is only one school that teaches its students to avoid any personal contact with the people it smears; that teaches its students not to answer any questions from the people it smears; that teaches its students to wish death and eternal hell on the people it smears rather than answer a few simple questions. That school is run by John Moore to disseminate the moral Truth of AIDS.
Christine Maggiore asked a few questions for the record. If Dr. Vinter's felt confident, he could simply have answered her and let the people reading her website decide for themselves.
He turned out to be an irresponsible, heartless chickenshit like the rest of you.
"Dr Harry Vinters reviewed the autopsy and he told me that he found the pathological finding 'very well described' and that it was 'a very thorough report" (Vinters)
"So is it the "foamy casts in the alveoli" that have no inflammatory response or is it "all lobes" that have no inflammaotry response?
Perhaps we will find out if the case ever comes to court"
(Franklin)
If it was so well described why do we have to wait for a court hearing to find out? If it was so well described, why didn't it describe the inflamation elsewhere that would have supported the PCP diagnosis?
To MEC: My point was that "Kyle" made a post in which he or she stated that because the Nicoli Nattrass Skeptical Enquirer article contained a photograph caption from which a sub-editor had omitted the word "human" before "retroviruses", then this meant that:
1) Nicoli Nattrass was "a liar";
2) The entire article was "a lie".
Yet when you made an error by stating that the author was a male, when the photographic evidence in the article shows her to be female, you say it's just an error (or words to that effect).
By "Kyle's" logic, then you are "a liar" and everything you have ever posted is "a lie".
Of course I don't personally agree with Kyle's "logic", but then I'm not an AIDS denialist.
And of course I won't respond to any questions you pose. That would involve debating or discussing science with an AIDS denialist, and our policies on never doing that are widely known.
Oh please. Can you guys get out of the mid 90s, yet?
cooler posts yet another old rant with info that was known wrong even then
"There is HIV infection and low or no risk of AIDS; therefore, something other than HIV must be involved."
Many, many, many disease organisms have cases of infection with no clinical disease,a dn varaitin int eh degree. This is NORMAL for disease organisms. There is, among other things, genetic variability, and we are learning some of the genetic correlates and causative factors for LTNPs. By definition, a disease that make opportunistic infection possible, as HIV/AIDS does, has cofactors - those opportunistic infections. So what?
"The long latent period between infection and clinical disease is inconsistent with the short generation time of retroviruses which is only 24Â48 hours and with everything known about experimental retroviral disease. AIDS remains as the only claimed retroviral disease outside of the laboratory!"
oh, good crap!! In humans, there are four known retroviruses, HTLV1, which causes T-cell leukemias and lymphomas, HTLV-2, with no known pathology, the virus associated with human spastic paraparesis, and HIV1, and 2 which cause AIDS. In animals there are many known retroviral diseases, causing variously tumours, wasting and auto-immune diseases, immunodeficiency syndromes and aplastic and haemolytic anaemias.
HIV causes immediate disease symptoms - from flu-like symptoms with high blood-born viral levels on initial infection, to active lymph infection with low-level escape of virus into the blood through the so-called "latent phase' with increase t-cell turnover and very often swollen glands, to final immune collapse. NOTHING in this is inconsistent with a rapid viral replication time.
"The levels of actual HIV found in the blood of AIDS patients is too low to account for observed loss of immune function."
This is a straw man - during the so-called 'latent phase' the active infection is in the lymph nodes, not in the circulating blood. This has been known since the mid 1990s.
There is no animal model for AIDS.
So there is species-specificity in the ability of HIV to cause active disease. How on earth does this cast doubt on whether HIV can cause disease in the species where it causes disease?
HIV is not directly cytocidal; it does not kill T cells.
No, it is **indirectly** 'cytocidal.' It triggers a central and well-known function of the immune system - to destroy infected cells displaying foreign proteins. We learned that as we learned more about HIV and retroviruses. So what?
"And of course I won't respond to any questions you pose. That would involve debating or discussing science with an AIDS denialist, and our policies on never doing that are widely known."
Would you answer questions relating to the POLITICS of AIDS.
Of course not, "pat". We do not answer any questions posed by AIDS denialists like you, because that would be to dignify your position.
These seemingly interminable discussions of the pathology slides all rather miss the point that there would not BE any pathology slides to discuss had the mother taken the correct steps to prevent the poor child from becoming HIV-infected and dying of AIDS three years later. Here's two relevant papers from this week's journals, additions to the hundreds/thousands of peer-reviewed papers in this subject area, dating back many years.
This was yet another preventable AIDS death, the central point.
Jourdain G, et al. 2007. Risk factors for in utero or intrapartum mother-to-child transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 in Thailand. J Inf Dis 196, 1629-1636.
Chung MH, ......... John-Stewart GC. 2007. Independent effects of nevirapine prophylaxis and HIV-1 RNA suppression in breast milk on early perinatal HIV-1 transmission. J Acq Immune Def Synd 46, 472-478.
"Of course not, "pat". We do not answer any questions posed by AIDS denialists like you, because that would be to dignify your position."
Who told you I deny AIDS??? My position is that your political views are undemocratic and somewhat fascist in nature. I understand that no one likes to be told that.
"These seemingly interminable discussions of the pathology slides all rather miss the point that there would not BE any pathology slides to discuss had the mother taken the correct steps to prevent the poor child from becoming HIV-infected and dying of AIDS three years later."
But how could Maggiore know her status? Even leading AIDS activists thought that she was lying about her HIV+ status. If science can't determine her health status, how can she make treatment decisions? You said it yourself, her HIV status is known only because EJ died, as you claim, from AIDS. Btw, Years of AIDS awareness has taught me that people don't die of AIDS but of the opportunistic infections. Has something changed in the definition yet again?
Once again this goddamn mother sucker Pee Moore dares to write his shit arguments all over my screen.
He's like the cancer cartel vultures, who never miss an occasion to spread the merits of their chemo poisoning and, when the patient finally dies after innumerable sufferings, blame some uncontrollable cell mutation for the fatal issue. However, in case the patient got away from his cancer without their mortal X-rays and chemicals, we're told that the initial diagnose was wrong and that the mutated cells were in fact never really there. To top it all, if ever a patient, who, after having seen the light between two hospital torture sessions, has dared to turn his back on the troops of almighty oncologists & consorts to bravely bet on some alternative horse instead, if ever that patient dies, his case is immediately and invariably transferred to the preventable cancer deaths folder.
I've written it before, and I write it again because you keep asking for it: John Pee Moore, you're a sucker of Satan's cock and I sincerely hope that you'll live to the day when some Devine inspiration will finally enable you to recognize the HIV=Aids=Death equation as a deadly scam, go down on your knees and beg Christine Maggiore for mercy.
To MEC: My point was...
Yes thank you very much, I know what your point is; it is as you say "widely known".
Nicoli Natrass IS a liar
Now grow up!
"No, it is **indirectly** 'cytocidal.' It triggers a central and well-known function of the immune system - to destroy infected cells displaying foreign proteins. We learned that as we learned more about HIV and retroviruses. So what?"
You are welcome to ignore what I have to write; JP is convinced I deny AIDS but, in the off chance you choose not to:
Thank you for that ground-breaking observation on how the immune system functions but I do believe this phenomena was understood before the advent of HIV. I have a few more questions to which it is nigh impossible to find someone with knowledge who is also willing to the answers. So in the off-chance you might answer them.
You say HIV is "indirectly" cytocidal. I hear most of science is now on that same page because years of research have failed to find any "direct" mechanism. Science says only somewhere between 1-500 to 1-1000 cells are infected with HIV thus the "indirect cytocidal" thesis(do I have that right so far?) But then you explain the immune system does this:
"It triggers a central and well-known function of the immune system - to destroy infected cells displaying foreign proteins"
What do you mean by "infected"? If they are not infected with HIV, what are the cells "infected" with that would make them display foreign protein earmarkers?
You've become so eloquent and mature in your old age jspreen.
"Science says only somewhere between 1-500 to 1-1000 cells are infected with HIV "
Which cells. Which kinds of cells. Where? Free in blood, lymph or in glands, or in tissues?
BTW, the fraction of cells that are infected is essentially irrelevant. The rate of loss of the cells is the relevant number - if infected cells are rapidly removed from the pool, there will only ever be a small percentage of extant cells that are infected, but the loss can still be substantial.
BTW, pat,
We did not know that the mechanism by which HIV kills cells is indirectly through immune system targeting, before we knew about HIV. We learned the mechanisms by which HIV kills cells as we studied HIV, which kinda by definition was after we learned about HIV.
No, you don't have that right.
I can understand how hard it is for you to find this information, since it is only available in immunology textbooks, medicine textbooks, pathology textbooks, and a freely accessible web-based resource that has been maintained by the NIH since September 1995.
Actually I may have to retract that about Natrass being a liar. I guess she is no more a liar than Harvey Bialy's parakeet, although even that bird brained creature hasn't been reduced to quoting Bennett as the ultimate authority on the EJ case, Chris Noble and Peter Flegg as expert on "denialist debate tactics", and George on the merits of Padian's Waffle. "Info-ganda" btw was an original term used by my humble self, not "George" or Culshaw, to describe the Padian Waffle, but the Natrass piece is so riddled with error I couldn't be bothered pointing it out earlier.
Although Natrass piece is shameless as well as brainless parroting of AIDStruth info-ganda, there is one waffling passage that you'd perhaps deign to discuss, Prof. Moore, seeing that your prime motivator is that lofty ideal, the "moral Truth" of Aids:
The pharmaceutical industry is, of course, far from angelic. There are documented cases where drug companies have designed trials in ways to promote sales of particular products rather than to test the best possible treatments; where clinical trials in poor countries have been unethical; where early research indicating dangerous side effects has been ignored for too long; where patent law has been abused to prevent low-cost competition; where too many resources have been spent on marketing "me-too" drugs (that is, drugs that are only marginally different from existing products) rather than investing in innovative drug development; and where unethical financial inducements have been made to doctors, researchers, and politicians (Goozner 2004; Angell 2005). However, what such cases suggest is that the pharmaceutical industry (and industry-funded research) needs to be carefully scrutinized and regulated. It does not imply that the entire industry and associated medical science are harmful to humans. As Cohen (2006) argues, the problem with the new pharmanoia is that it has put "Big Pharma" on a par with "Big Tobacco" and, through wild exaggeration, has turned "shades of moral grey into black."
Could you, Prof. Mooral, whose world otherwise seems to be dominated by absolute polarity, explain to us what "shades of moral grey" means, and what place this concept has in the noble, disinterested, life saving science of medicine? cold you tell us, in your professorial opinion, at what point shades of grey turn into black?
and since pat doesn't seem to be able to do basic research himself:
Curse of HIV disease - post "a" which is onset, with self-limiting mononucleosis-like symptoms in about 50% fo patients.
---
b) A strong cell-mediated and humoral anti-HIV immune defense
Cytotoxic B and T lymphocytes mount a strong defense and virus largely disappears from the circulation (figure 4). After the increased cell-mediated immune response, there is a rise in humoral antibodies. During this period of strong immune response to the virus, more than 10 billion new HIV particles are produced each day but they are rapidly cleared by the immune system and have a half life of only 5 to 6 hours (some estimates show a half life of minutes). Although there can be up to 108 virus particles per ml of blood, the number of infectious virus particles is much lower indicating that much of the plasma virus is defective or neutralized. At this stage, most of this virus is coming from recently infected proliferating CD4+ cells (figure 5). The infected cells that are producing this virus are destroyed either by the immune system or by the virus and have a half life about 1 day. However, the rate of production of CD4+ cells can compensate for the loss of cells and a steady state is set up in which most CD4 cells are uninfected. Although infected, activated T4 cells are destroyed by the immune system, a small fraction of the productively infected cells may survive long enough to revert back to the resting memory state (as do non-infected CD4+ memory cells). The resting memory cells do not express viral antigens but do carry a copy of the HIV genome which remains latent until the cells are reactivated by antigen. These memory cells may survive many years and constitute a reservoir that may be very important in drug-based therapy.
The virus disseminates to other regions including to lymphoid and nervous tissue. This is the most infectious phase of the disease.
c) A latent reservoir. As a result of the strong immune defense, the number of viral particles in the blood stream declines and the patient enters clinical latency (figure 4). Little virus can now be found in the bloodstream or in peripheral blood lymphocytes and, initially, the number of blood CD4+ cells is only slightly decreased. Nevertheless, the virus persists elsewhere, particularly in lymph nodes and here viral replication continues as follicular dendritic cells interact with more T4 cells that become infected. The virus is also replicated by macrophages.
Although the number of HIV particles in the bloodstream is much reduced during clinical latency, the virus is detectable. After the initial peak of virus, the virus reaches a "set point" during latency. This set point predicts the time of onset of clinical disease. With less than 1000 copies/ml of blood, disease will probably occur with a latency period of more than 10 years. With less than 200 copies/ml, disease does not appear to occur at all. Most patients with more than 100,000 copies per ml, lose their CD4+ cells more rapidly and progress to AIDS before 10 years. Most untreated patients have between 10,000 and 100,000 copies per ml in the clinical latency phase (See below).
d) Loss of CD4+ cells and abortion of the immune response. One reason that the immune system fails to control HIV infection is that the CD4+ T helper cells are the target of the virus. Also follicular dendritic cells can be infected with HIV and these also diminish in number over time. Moreover, dendritic cells present antigen to CD4+ cells and may bring the virus into contact with these cells at the time that they are stimulated to proliferate by antigen.
During the course of infection, there is a profound loss of the specific immune response to HIV because:
i) responding CD4+ cells become infected. Thus there is clonal deletion leading to tolerance. The cells that proliferate to respond to the virus are infected and killed by it;
ii) epitope variation (see below) can lead to escape of HIV from the immune response;
iii) activated T cells are susceptible to apoptosis. Spontaneous apoptosis of uninfected CD4+ and CD8+ T cells occurs in HIV-infected patients. Also there appears to be specific apoptosis of HIV-specific CD8+ cells;
iv) the number of follicular dendritic cells falls over time, resulting in diminished capacity to stimulate CD4+ cells
There is thus a relentless decline of CD4+ cells with especially a loss of those specific to HIV. This occurs from the very beginning of infection and is permanent (unless chemotherapy intervenes). Near the end stage of AIDS, CD8+ cells also decline precipitously. It is nevertheless the case that during the course of HIV infection, most CD4+ cells are never actually infected by the virus but die from some other means (see below).
e) Onset of AIDS. The period of clinical latency varies in length from as little as 1 to 2 years to more than 15 years. Onset of AIDS is rare in less than 3 years except in children. But, eventually, the virus can no longer be controlled as helper CD4+ (T4) cells are destroyed (figure 4). Ironically, the killer cells needed to control HIV also damage the helper T cells that they need to function efficiently. With the lack of CD4+ cells, new cytotoxic T cell responses cannot occur as helper cells are lacking and such new responses are required as the virus mutates. As the T4 cells fall below 200 per cu mm, virus titers rise rapidly and immune activity drops precipitously. It is the loss of immune competence that enables normally benign opportunistic parasites such as viruses, fungi or protozoa to cause infections (figure 6A and B). Once AIDS develops, patients rarely survive more than two years without chemotherapeutic intervention. (See anti-HIV chemotherapy section). There is considerable variability at this stage. Some patients with clinical AIDS do survive for several years while others who appear relatively healthy can suddenly succumb to a major opportunistic infection. It is the onset of HIV-associated neoplasms and opportunistic infections that defines AIDS proper. At this stage, also, syncytium-inducing HIV appear in many (about half) AIDS patients (see below). These are more CD4+ cell tropic than the initially infecting HIV and this contributes to the rapid loss of CD4+ cells in later stages of the disease.
http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/lecture/HIV3.htm
reasons fro CD4-cell loss:
WHY IS THERE A PROGRESSIVE LOSS OF CD4+ HELPER T CELL?
WHY DO CD8+ KILLER T CELLS DISAPPEAR IN THE LATER STAGES OF THE DISEASE?
Why, when only 1 in 10,000 (early) or 1 in 40 (later) cells show productive infection, do all of the T4 cells disappear? It is still unclear why the CD4+ cells all disappear but there are a number of possibilities:
a) In an activated, infected CD4 cell, huge numbers of virions are synthesized. These bud from the cell and result in punctured membranes (figure 27). But the cell needs to be infected for this to happen and most CD4 cells are not infected.
b) Since the membrane of HIV fuses with the membrane of the cell to be infected by a pH-independent mechanism, syncytia formation can occur leading to the spread of virus to uninfected cells (figure 27). But syncytia are not very common.
c) Infected cells that are producing viral proteins (but not those in the latent state) will present those proteins on the cell surface in association with class I MHC histocompatibility antigens. The infected cell, like other virally-infected cells, will be destroyed by cytotoxic T cells (figure 27). Again this only happens in cells that are infected by HIV.
d) Gp120 is linked to the Gp41 on the virus surface by non-covalent interactions and is frequently shed from infected cells or from virus particles. This binds to uninfected cells via CD4 antigen. As a result, they appear to be infected and destroyed by the immune system.
e) There have been reports of AIDS-related cytotoxic antibodies in infected patients that may react with a specific antigen on the surface of activated but uninfected T4 cells.
apo1.jpg (184145 bytes) Binding of cytokine induces TNF alpha expression in macrophage and receptor expression in CD8+ T cell
apo2.jpg (158829 bytes) The cells contact one-another and TNF-alpha and the receptor interact. Apoptosis ensues
apo3.jpg (112831 bytes) Macrophages internalize T cell
Figure 28 - Induction of apoptosis in T8 cells
f) AIDS may have an auto-immune component. In a normal antigenic response carried out by T4 cells, CD4 antigen interacts with MHC type II histocompatibility antigens. Since Gp120 also binds to CD4, the Gp120 can mimic MHC class II antigens since both have a CD4-binding site; indeed, there appear to be regions of similar sequence in the two proteins. Thus anti-Gp120 antibodies may turn out to be anti-MHC antibodies as well. (This might spell trouble for vaccine production).
g) It is possible that HIV might infect a subset of T4 cells that is vital to propagation of entire population of T4 cells
h) HIV proteins may alter T4 cell function. There is some evidence for this.
i) Presently, the most actively studied possibility for the loss of the entire CD4+ and CD8+ cell population is that HIV initiates apoptosis in these cells (Such apoptosis is a normal process in T4 cells to overcome autoimmunity and to terminate an immune response) (figure 28). This is now thought to be a major factor in the loss of CD4 cells during the progression of the disease
http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/lecture/hiv10.htm
Why do CD8+ cells die late in infection?
CD8+ cells are not infected by HIV (because they do not have the CD4 receptor) and their numbers remain high during the course of the disease for many years. And then, until recently inexplicably, they rapidly die off. It appears that some of the HIV subtypes that occur late in infection prompt a mass apoptosis of CD8 cells. Although CD8 cells are CD4-, they do have CXCR4 co-receptor and HIV can bind to this (only the later syncytium-inducing strains of HIV do this). Since no CD4 antigen is present there is no infection but binding to CXCR4 sends a signal to the cell, the signal for apoptosis and mass CD8+ cell suicide ensues. Interestingly, the CD8 cells only die when macrophages are present.
How does this happen? It is now known that binding of strains of HIV that arise later in infection to the CXCR4 receptor sets in motion the tumor necrosis-alpha death transducing pathway (figure 28). In macrophages, binding of a ligand to CXCR4 receptor on the cell surface induces the expression of TNF-alpha. In CD8+ T cells, the same binding triggers the expression of TNF-alpha receptor II.
When such a macrophage and CD8+ T cell come in contact, the TNF-alpha on the macrophage binds to the TNF-alpha receptor on the CD8+ T cell. This triggers an apoptosis signal in the CD8+ T cell resulting in the vesiculation of the CD8+ T cell (figure 28). Macrophages then phagocytose the remains of the T cell. This explains why macrophages have to be present for the CD8+ cells to die. Why would this happen naturally? Why do chemokines act as death signals for CD8+ T cells? These cells are killer cells and may cause serious trouble if they end up in the wrong place. It is thought that chemokines direct CD8+ T cells to the fate of macrophage-mediated death unless they reach their appropriate location.
To MEC (who does not appear to be able to read and/or comprehend simple sentences), I repeat my earlier answer to "Pat".
"We do not answer any questions posed by AIDS denialists like you, because that would be to dignify your position."
For a fuller version of this answer, go to http://www.AIDSTruth.org, a website full of useful and accurate information on the science of HIV/AIDS, and on the denialists (at least, the ones we consider worth writing about).
Franklin and Lee,
You are absolutely right, Pat is just silly and ignorant.
Here Pat let me help you understand:
HIV kills in vitro except for the immortal cell lines. Lentivirus systems may explain the progressive loss of CD4 cells. Evidence suggests. . . i n addition to direct mechanisms indirect mechanisms may result in the death of uninfected CD4+ T cells: Syncytia in vitro - free gp 120 likewise, although as the illustrious prof. Moore has pointed out in a review the in vitro effect is largely an artifact produced by ridiculoualy high amounts sprinkled onto cell soups with no immune system. A number of investigators have suggested that superantigens, either encoded by HIV or derived from unrelated agents, may trigger massive stimulation and expansion of CD4+ T cells, ultimately leading to depletion or anergy of these cells. The untimely induction of a form of programmed cell death called apoptosis has been proposed as an additional mechanism. It has also been observed that HIV infects precursors of CD4+ T cells in the bone marrow and thymus and damages the microenvironment of these organs necessary for the optimal sustenance and maturation of progenitor cells (Schnittman et al., 1990b; Stanley et al., 1992). These findings may help explain the lack of regeneration of the CD4+ T cell pool in patients with AIDS.
Other data suggest- although no mathematical model has been forthcoming that woul make sense of the suggestion - that HIV infection is sustained by a dynamic process involving continuous rounds of new viral infection and the destruction and replacement of over 1 billion CD4+ T cells per day.
So you see Pat, if we just lump all of the above together, "these studies strongly suggest that HIV has a central role in the pathogenesis of AIDS". What's so difficult to understand about all this hard science? Is it the fact that all these methods, and many more to come I'm sure, of cell killing were all invented and employed only by the uniquely cunning HIV?
Ah Prof. Moore, I see. If one has been labelled a "denialist" you will answer no questions at all, not only the one's about science, none at all. Except you do nothing but come on here and repeat yourself every time
we yank your chain.
Grow up!
Prof. Moore,
Don't answer for me, please answer for everyone"
Why do you think the Merck v520 vaccine failed? You know the one which was so highly anticipated to be a huge success, now only to find the ones participating in the study are more likely to acquire HIV, the one dropped like a hot potato in the phase II trials...
Lee, I am a full-blown AIDS patient who is almost at the two year mark without antiretroviral drugs. I can assure you that HIV isn't harming me. Other rethinkers have tossed thier drugs and are living normal lives too. You might want to read some of thier stories at livingwithouthivdrugs.com
Wow it is amazing how one has to fight to get a simple answer to a simple question. What will always amaze me is how there is always a statement alluding to the obvious tagged as if it were an insult
"You are absolutely right, Pat is just silly and ignorant.
Here Pat let me help you understand"
Of course I am silly and ignorant at least in respect to HIV science. Just for your information Mr. Moore, I am not a scientist so of course I don't understand the sciencespeak and that is what perhaps you can slowly start to understand yourself and realise where it is in the information chain you stand.
"Here Pat let me help you understand"
looks though as though the door has been opened a little tiny crack though. Thank you, I think it was well worth breaking my skull over.
"the killer cells needed to control HIV also damage the helper T cells that they need to function efficiently"
what does this mean? Thank you for your time.
PS: The only thing I deny is that you are aware of your autocratic impulses.
I noticed like MEC points out the many adjectives qualifying low probabilities.
verbal auxilary rather.
john, we dont want you to answer our questions, we dont respect you anyways as a scientist, why should we care what you think when far more credible scientists like Margulis, Duesberg and shyh ching Lo agree with us?
We dont care about a hack who hasnt accomplished one thing in his sorry scientific career. Sooner or later you guys will exposed for the frauds that you are, thats why censorship is your best friend, the sign of a coward is one who wants to prevent intelligent people from hearing a more compelling argument, just like a megalomanicial prosecuter would do everything to stop a a jury from hearing a compelling defense.
See hiv fact or fraud google it, hell go to the aidstruth site as well, its about informed consent, and you are an enemy of free speech and academic freedom.
cooler, how in the hell does refusing to dignify your idiocy be responding to it, constitute censorship of your idiocy? I don't see anyone stopping you from displaying your stupidity all over these threads.
But it's of a piece: yelling " you wont respond to me, and that is censorship" is perfectly in line with the logic you display in all your other writing.
I posted an overview of the proposed mechanisms of CD4 depletion by HIV, and I note that you conspicuously avoided apoptosis in your response.
CD4 cells can be induced to "suicide" by binding of HIV GP120/GP4 to CD4 receptors. Thsi works even if the gp120/gp41 are free of the virus - free proteins from teh virus can kill CD44 cells.
The mechanism of CD4 depletion is not perfectly understood - its been a mystery for a while, and has been hard to solve. So what? WE know the depletion happens, we know that is is associated with HIV viral loads, we know that HIV kills ÃÃ4 cells via several mechanisms, and we know that the mechanisms under consideration can account for the depletion. lack of full understanding is NOT evidence that HIV doesn't kill CD4 cells - it certainly does not overturn all the observational evidence about HIV infection and CD4 depletion.
--
AIDS and Apoptosis
Infection of CD4+ T cell cultures with HIV is associated with a cytopathic effect of the virus, manifested by ballooning of cells and formation of syncytia leading to cell death by apoptosis of both infected and non-infected cells. CD4+ T cell destruction can be mediated directly by HIV replication as a consequence of viral gene expression, such as gp120-gp41, or indirectly through priming of uninfected cells to apoptosis.
Expression of the viral envelope gp120-gp41 complex in infected cells mediates onset of apoptosis of both infected and non-infected cells. Thus chronically HIV-infected cells can serve as effector cells to induce apoptosis in uninfected target CD4+ T cells.
Peripheral T lymphocytes from HIV-infected subjects are prematurely primed for apoptosis, this means that those cells are obviously more sensitive to the induction of apoptosis in response to various stimuli than T lymphocytes from uninfected controls. Interestingly, not only T cells of the CD4 subset but also of the CD8 subset are primed for apoptosis. It also was observed that not only T cells but all blood mononuclear cells, including B cells, T cells, NK cells, granulocytes and monocytes, show increased sensitivity to apoptosis.
The central paradox of HIV pathogenesis is that the viral burden, either free or cellular, seems too low to deplete the CD4+ population by direct killing. The observation that an important fraction of T cells are prematurely primed for apoptosis in HIV-infected subjects prompted the hypothesis that some indirect mechanisms are responsible for inappropriate cell death and significantly contribute to CD4+ T cell depletion as well as to CD8+ destruction in AIDS. Indeed, it has been observed that apoptotic T cells in lymph nodes of HIV-infected individuals contained many apoptotic but uninfected bystander cells whereas infected cells were not found to be apoptotic.
See review by Gougeon in "Apoptosis and its Modulation by Drugs", Springer, 2000.
http://celldeath.de/encyclo/misc/immunol.htm
noreen, you have previously said that your T count is very low. Your immune system is compromised - a critical component is severely depleted. Isn't that harm?. HIV hasn't killed you - that does not mean it has not harmed you. Yo keep talking about LDN as having kept yo alive - doesn't that mean that something has harmed you to the point where you need therapy to stay alive?
Perhaps you are a rare variant who can live with low t cells and high viral load. Or perhaps you're just lucky so far - I'll pray that continues.
Perhaps you are a rare variant who can live with low t cells and high viral load.
What a typical nitwit. Let me give you a hint, Lee -- symptoms, actual physical symptoms matter. All these bogus surrogate markers and inaccurate tests, don't matter. Get a frickin' clue.
Noreen, any bozo purporting to give you medical advice over the internet on a blog, no less, deserves to be ignored. They do not live in the real medical world.
MEC has pointed out qualifiers used in the NIH summary for mechanisms of CD4 T-cell depletion. For the most part, these mechanisms of cell killing have been observed in cell culture experiments, and the qualifiers apply to what role(s) these mechanisms play in the patient.
To test the role of any of these mechanisms, one must perform an experiment that specifically interferes with that individual mechanism and not the others, and then determine the outcome for CD4 T-cell killing. Such experiments are very difficult to perform in human subjects, and they won't necessarily lead to effective therapies.
The approach that has been successful has been to identify inhibitors of enzymes encoded by the virus that are necessary for the viral life cycle. By interfering with viral replication, these inhibitors interfere with essentially all of the proposed mechanisms for HIV-induced CD4 T-cell killing, and they have been shown to be effective at preventing CD4 T-cell loss in HIV-infected patients.
Likewise, they have been shown to be effective at preventing opportunistic infections and death in AIDS patients.
So therapies that inhibit HIV replication prevent CD4 T-cell loss and are of proven clinical benefit to HIV-infected patients, but this inhibition occurs at points of the viral life cycle that are fundamental to multiple proposed mechanisms of HIV-induced cell death.
So even though the therapeutic benefits of antiretroviral therapy show that HIV replication is important for CD4 T-cell killing, the therapies do not distinguish which of the proposed mechanisms of HIV pathogenesis are most important for the CD4 T-cell loss observed in patients..
Dear Lee, Don't be too hard on "cooler". He's done AIDS science/truth a very considerable service over the past few days, without of course intending to do so, and without knowing what he's done and why it's so useful to us. The situation's a bit like how Dave Crowe's idiotic press release helped us win the fight over the Liam Scheff-inspired BBC documentary on the ICC - the law of unanticipated consequences in action, driven by an unstructured, illogical mind. We may or may not eventually expose how and why "cooler" was so helpful, depending on how we feel about it at the right time. In the mean time, thanks "cooler", keep those crazy posts coming!
Also, Lee, good luck with trying to explain the science of HIV/AIDS to the trolls on this site. They won't, of course, understand a word of it in any meaningful way, because their attitude to real science is much the same as that of the ID/creationism believers to Darwinian evolution - it doesn't fit into their faith/belief system, so they reject it automatically.
yep I'll keep those crazy posts coming
hundereds of chimps injected, all were supposed to die of AIDS , not one did. Lets make hiv species specific to save the hypothesis.
Most viruses cause disease before antibody protection, not ten years later, if theres ever a vaccine well all test positive!
The amount of blood tcell is so low, like 1 in a 1000 lets imagineer it with the PCR, got any EM pictures of these high viral Loads from patients? of course not.
Mycoplasma incognitus kills/sickens every animal inoculated, as shyh ching lo showed, lets just create genocide and forget about that and only worry about microbes that do zilch in animals, just keep extending the window period to 40 years, like with HPV, make some good money for merck.
Got a study by honest scientists that rules out other risk factors to see if hiv positive people without mycoplamas, AZT, severe drug abuse/stress get AIDS, which is the only way to prove a species specific microbe with such a long window period is pathenogenic?................of course not, any one that questions gallo's cancer virus that turned into the aids virus overnight is a holocaust denier!
Lee,
I suppose that lengthy post was a reply to me?
" I note that you conspicuously avoided apoptosis in your response."
I "conspicuously" avoided? Am I by now at least "conspicuous" enough in my ignorance that it becomes self-evident that I am no scientist and make no claims as to what does or doesn't cause your pet theory and therefore I possibly don't know enough about apoptosis to even know WHY I should avoid it. But I understand why you'd think so. You think I deny AIDS or HIV or both and possibly even evolublahblahblah...and so you think all questions from me are roadside bombs. When you are at war for too long, you start to see enemies everywhere, so be careful, you don't want to start gunning down people wildly; it makes for bad press. If I were you, I'd ditch the chief; it's his war after all.
I am starting to understand now that the new politics of AIDS as defined by Mr Moore requires exclusive membership in order to argue, defend and/or strip individuals of their rights. The ordinary man and woman are now excluded from any social policy descision concerning HIV and what else in the future. If Mr. Moore had his way I perhaps would end up in prison. I certainly know Maggiore would, Moore said no less than exactly that.
Personally I don't think I need to now diddly about HIV to know that what Moore proposes is naked zealotry and it is socially destructive madness. The clue was a very simple one: Moore shows no concerns for the future of a Charlie with parents in Jail. Moore shows a serious lack of understanding when it comes to the shortcomings and pitfalls of foster care. JPMoore shows serious disregard for the consequences his ideology would have. Imagine that! He hasn't even considered Charlie!
"the killer cells needed to control HIV also damage the helper T cells that they need to function efficiently"
what does this mean? Thank you for your time.
"we know that HIV kills ÃÃ4 cells via several mechanisms, and we know that the mechanisms under consideration can account for the depletion."
Can?Ok but what if they don't?
"lack of full understanding is NOT evidence that HIV doesn't kill CD4 cells - it certainly does not overturn all the observational evidence about HIV infection and CD4 depletion."
I never gave such evidence but to complete your exercise in logic: ...nor is a lack of full understanding evidence that HIV does kill CD4 cells. I think we agree.
"Ironically, the killer cells needed to control HIV also damage the helper T cells that they need to function efficiently. With the lack of CD4+ cells, new cytotoxic T cell responses cannot occur as helper cells are lacking and such new responses are required as the virus mutates."
Pat asks about the meaning of the above.
It refers to one of the central problems of AIDS, namely that the primary cell target of the virus is a key cell type involved in the regulation of the immune response at multiple levels.
CD4 T-cells are important regulators of the cytotoxic CD8 T-cells that kill virally infected cells. As the CD4 T-cells die off, they become unavailable to regulate the CD8 T-cells needed to respond to the continuing viral infection.
yeah john i know what your going to do, your going to take some joke I made about balls, ignore every other noble prize worthy prose ive written and put it on your stupid site, like I care, cherry pick statements and then ignore the science, just shows how desperate you are, you would never post everything I say entirely because your are that much of a mendacious hack. Dont cherry pick, thats the sign of a coward who cant defend his arguments.
As far as the stuff about balls and getting laid, I think its hilarious. This blog has gotten so pathetic with name calling, "denialists' so I learned it from you idiots, none of whom have the university of california pedigree, or the big balls and the big heart! Why should i not joke around a little when you guys are such narrow minded idiotic hacks that are oblivious to reason and civil debate.
Let me get this straight.
Against medical advice, the parents made a conscious choice to expose their children to the risk of HIV infection in utero and for several years of breast feeding while taking no steps to mitigate that risk because they have decided that HIV is harmless;
one of their children died of AIDS;
after the death of the child, the LA Times reported that the mother "said she continues to counsel HIV-positive parents around the country about how to keep from using anti-retroviral drugs during childbirth and from giving medications to children who have tested positive for the virus;"(http://www.aegis.com/news/Lt/2005/LT051205.html)
and Pat is outraged because he feels that John Moore "hasn't even considered Charlie."
by the way, this site is copywrited by seed, so you cant even cherry pick my john cleese/sacha baronesque cohen comic genius even if you wanted to! Fuck yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
I'm wondering if the John Moore of this online diary at Salon is the same nutball posting here.
Well, being a scientist is a bit like being in the military. As one rises up the food chain, other people do one's dirty work. There aren't many generals who get strung out on the barbed wire in front of a machine-gun nest, are there? Rankwise, I am now somewhere around a colonel, judging from the uniforms my friends in the Army's AIDS program sometimes wear (I always give them a vigorous salute, the nature of which is conditional upon the contents of their last research paper).
* * *
So, like many of my peer group, I am just an overpaid two-fingered typist, with no white coat but with acid-holed sweat shirts.
Man, this stuff is embarrassing and unreadable. Who are these delusional knuckleheads, and why is the NIH funding them?
I have a feeling the seed execs are so impressed with my combination of delicious wit and solid science they are going to be offering me my own blog here, Im a hot commodity.
Cooler tells us "this site is copywrited by seed."
Can someone please point that out to Andrew Maniotis.
Back in August he ended one of his typical blogarrhea posts on the Intro to Denial thread with the following threat:
Maybe if his publisher finds out that Andrew has been "editing" his "book" by posting it on a blog that is owned by Seed they will have second thoughts and we can save several forests.
Sorry Pat, couldn't help pulling another snowjob on you for fun. Of course it was all the "we're groping in the dark" adjectives and adverbs that were the point. But hey, as Lee says, "So what? WE know the depletion happens". The rest is just a matter of heaping "plausible mechanisms" on top of each other until the world of phenomena fits the phenomal microbe and our prophetic knowledge of it
Mr. Lee, I don't know who you are talking about avoided anything, but heaping gobbledygook on gobbledygook doesn't dignify anybody, so there at least you let action follow words.
The passage starts,
Expression of the viral envelope gp120-gp41 complex in infected cells mediates onset of apoptosis of both infected and non-infected cells. Thus chronically HIV-infected cells can serve as effector cells to induce apoptosis in uninfected target CD4+ T cells.
and ends,
Indeed, it has been observed that apoptotic T cells in lymph nodes of HIV-infected individuals contained many apoptotic but uninfected bystander cells whereas infected cells were not found to be apoptotic.
Thus elegant is the process of science: we start out with the problem that normally only infected cells kill themselves, and just a paragraph or two further down, via a simple process of introducing the notion of "priming" and repeating the word over and over, the problem has now been reversed and apparently fully solved. It is now the uninfected cells that get suicidal, "primed" by the infected but no longer suicidal cells. A single mystical word made he whole difference betweeen ignorance and knowledge.
It is thus the well known psychological mechanism of displacement or transference of the suicidal impulse which accounts for the anomaly - that and probably the fact that most infected cells are catholic and therefore not too happy about killing themselves, whereas the uninfected cells are mostly muslim which would account rather neatly for their tendency to blow themselves up.
As for free gp120 binding to receptors, closet denialist Prof. J.P. Moore has held it forth as a classic example of the dangers of drawing conclusions from in vitro
observations:
We do not argue that gp120 could never have a biological effect on cells in vivo via receptor-mediated interactions. Nor is it impossible that virions could influence cellular processes in vivo independently of receptor-mediated fusion events.
We do, however, argue that it is not an adequate mimic of in vivo biology simply to add free gp120 (or virions) to target cells in vitro in amounts that are apparently several orders of magnitude greater than in body fluids...(The two decade-old) papers are not consistent with each other, and the more frequently cited study, by Oh et al, has serious design flaws that may cast doubt on the gp120 concentrations it promulgates. The much lower gp120 concentrations recorded by Gilbert et al (2003) are likely to be closer to true levels. And the presence of plasma anti-gp120 Abs that block receptor binding should inform the design of in vitro experiments.... Some of these considerations apply, of course, to other studies of similar design that use high concentrations of other HIV-1 proteins, such as Tat and Vpr, in vitro, in the hope that this is relevant to pathogenesis.
Virology, 323 (2004) pp1-8
Relish if you will the eminent encapsulation of the essence of HIV research in those beautiful closing words,
in the hope that this is relevant to pathogenesis
It is the fact that Moore can write such reviews which wins him the respect as a solid scientist he may not have won for his human qualities, whereas you, Mr. Lee, have so far only shown yourself as another cut and paste parakeet, the very thing you loathe so much in the unscientific
"denialists".
Good luck with that one franklin, his book is totally original, and the publisher agrees with the message, doubtful theyd be any copyright infringments so youll have to resort to debating him, instead of abolishing the first amendment.
But Cooler,
You just told us that Seed holds the copyright to the Blog. Maniotis indicated that he has been posting excerpts from his "book" on the Blog so that we would inadvertently edit it for him.
Doesn't that cause a problem for the publisher, if Seed holds a copyright on the portions that Maniotis may have already published on Tara's Blog?
So even though the therapeutic benefits of antiretroviral therapy show that HIV replication is important for CD4 T-cell killing, the therapies do not distinguish which of the proposed mechanisms of HIV pathogenesis are most important for the CD4 T-cell loss observed in patients..
Aha Frankie, so we're back to "we don't really know what the f... is happening but the drugs must be peddled so HIV causes AIDS."
Cooler, sink me if Pater John has not just dignified you and exalted you above all other denialists! In terms of the AIDS colonel John Givens mentioned, it's the military strategy of going for the soft targets when the harder ones are... well are too hard.
why dont you call a lawyer and ask him/her how far youd get with that............
MEC,
I know I just finished college, and im already one of johns top targets, wow, all because i saw a video hiv fact or fraud in college and we all found it compelling!!! I must be put in a stalinist gulag, Im not allowed to think and speak, unless I think and speak only what john wants me to!
Cooler, I think it was all the talk about getting laid that made John take an interest in you.
Maybe Lonely Boy needs to get a life and learn all about it, then he would have better things to do than to argue with rethinkers on a blog.
"Let me get this straight.
Against medical advice, the parents made a conscious choice to expose their children to the risk of HIV infection in utero and for several years of breast feeding while taking no steps to mitigate that risk because they have decided that HIV is harmless."- franklin.
You fail to grasp over and over the simple fact that she has conflicting HIV tests. What is the medical advice when this happens? What is the best course action? SHE had to make A descision. Not you, not Moore and certainly not Bergman who has never had to make tough health descisions for herself or her kids. I am disgusted at Moore's and Bergman's self-rightuous attitude that somehow they would be better parents.
From interviews that Maggiore has given over the years, it seems pretty clear what medical advice she received concerning the risk of transmitting HIV to her children.
From an interview Maggiore gave in 2001:
From an interview Maggiore gave in 2007:
So Frankie, was that advice given after the positive, negative or indeterminate test result?
It seems the advice was given during her pregnancy.
The OBs obviously don't consider AZT russian roulette.
Interesting Q&A with U.S. AIDS Czar, Mark Dybul:
MARK DYBUL: I would be happy to answer any questions.
STAFF: Please identify yourself and your affiliation.
Q Lambros Papantoniou, Greek correspondent for the Greek daily newspaper, Elettheros Typos, Athens. Ambassador Dybul, have you seen the HIV virus in a laboratory?
MR. DYBUL: I've seen - under a microscope, yes, I've seen electron micrographs of the virus, yes.
Q Where and when?
MR. DYBUL: Oh, they're all over the place. They're published in virtually ever journal. I have a picture of one in my office.
Q Do you have to report any progress on cure of this deadly disease?
MR. DYBUL: Unfortunately not. Cure is a word we don't use in HIV/AIDS. We use treatment, life-long treatment. Like many diseases, chronic diseases, we're not able to cure, whether it's diabetes, hypertension. This is a chronic infectious disease which we can treat. We hope life-long; we don't know for sure yet, but we hope life-long so that people live normal life spans. And in the clinics I actually still attend up at our National Institutes of Health, we're actually dealing with regular diseases now as people are living very long times, 10, 15 years with antiretroviral therapy, but we don't have a cure.
When we have a cure for HIV, it is quite likely that we'll cure cancer, because HIV is a retrovirus that puts itself into the - our own human cells. Many infectious diseases live outside of cells and so we can get - access them relatively easily. To get rid of HIV, you actually have to kill human cells, much like cancer. So when we cure HIV and when we - we will, at some point, have such a scientific advance - we'll be able to cure a lot of other things as well.
Run that by me again? To get rid of HIV, you actually have to kill human cells, much like cancer.
You have to kill the cells to kill the virus? So, because HIV is deadly (it kills cd4 cells) we have to treat it with drugs that.....kill cd4 cells.
Does this sound a little bit like the debacle in Vietnam -- in order to save the village from Communists, we had to burn the village.
"It seems the advice was given during her pregnancy."
Franklin-straight forward question- What was her known health status during her pregnancies? Was she KNOWN to be positive? was she KNOWN to be negative? or was she KNOWN to be indeterminate ...or all three?
If I test pos, neg and indeterminate, What am I ? Am I a pickup truck or am I the victim of confusion?
Pat,
Regarding what was known about her health status during her pregnancies:
"From an interview Maggiore gave in 2001:"
...
"Doctors warned that there was a 25 percent chance that Maggiore would transmit the deadly virus to her unborn child unless she took powerful anti-HIV drugs like AZT. Maggiore refused."
How'd that work out for her? The child?
"cooler" writes:
"yeah john i know what your going to do, your going to take some joke I made about balls, ignore every other noble prize worthy prose ive written and put it on your stupid site,"
No "cooler", you do not know what we're going to do, but we are most certainly NOT going to post anything you have written on AIDS Truth. I'm afraid that, like Michael Geiger and Anthony Liversidge, you're not significant enough to make it onto our site. So all your ramblings about "copyright" are completely irrelevant.
But I'll think you again for the service you so unwittingly did us via one of your earlier posts. It really was very much appreciated!
John,
Can you not just grow up?!
pat says:
"You fail to grasp over and over the simple fact that she has conflicting HIV tests. What is the medical advice when this happens? What is the best course action? SHE had to make A descision. Not you, not Moore and certainly not Bergman who has never had to make tough health descisions for herself or her kids. I am disgusted at Moore's and Bergman's self-rightuous attitude that somehow they would be better parents."
Pat... you fail to grasp the central argument. Maggiore continues to insist that HIV does not cause aids, despite the fact that she was told that if she did not accept treatment there was a chance that she would transmit HIV to her child and he would die of aids, and then subsequently she did transmit HIV to her child and that child died of AIDS.
For the HIV/AIDS point, it is irelevant what anyone thinks of her parenting decision. What rmatters is that this is an example OF transmission of HIV followed by a death from AIDS, precisely as predicted by her doctors. For people to use Maggiore as a case study for the argument against HIV causing AIDS is simply absurd.
Pat,
You originally asked what the medical advice would be in her situation.
I directed you to publicly available information--interviews in which Ms. Maggiore participated--that provide some insight into the medical advice her physicians provided.
You now ask me: "What was her known health status during her pregnancies? "
If you would like more detailed information about Ms. Maggiore's health status at any given point in time, I suggest you direct your questions to her.
Regarding what was known about her health status during her pregnancies:
"From an interview Maggiore gave in 2001:"
...
"Doctors warned that there was a 25 percent chance that Maggiore would transmit the deadly virus to her unborn child unless she took powerful anti-HIV drugs like AZT. Maggiore refused."
How'd that work out for her? The child?
Roy, you are just a (aspiring) scientist, so maybe we shouldn't expect too much of you, Franklin or Lee the parakeet, but try to grasp that restating the premise over and over will not yield the conclusion.
1. It is not Christine Maggiore neither her doctor speaking in these quotes. It is a narrator teling us the odds of transmission IF (the premise) the mother is positive. Nothing more. I would very much hope the doctors had more to say than that, and that the OBs did more than simply turn Maggiore away at sight.
This is one of the interviews Bergman would have read "researching" her article on Maggiore in which she concluded and publicly stated Maggiore was an HIV negative poseur. How is that possible?
"But I'll think you again for the service you so unwittingly did us via one of your earlier posts. It really was very much appreciated!"
Seriously, youd think hed have something better to do than argue endlessly on a blog, Im slowly recovering from an illness, thats the only reason im here, hopefully ill be recovered soon and be able to stay away from these blogs for good.
Cooler,
"He" is not arguing. He is desperately trying to portray himself as a winner by resorting ot these mysterious unanswerable hints. Actually he is portraing himself as God, who in his wisdom and splendour makes everybody serve his unknowable purposes. It's nothing new, I've got at least a dozen similar quotes from him directed at different people on YBYL. That's why we call him johnnie One-Note. You'll get used to it.
http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/2007/03/the_sad_song_of.html
MEC of course is being characteristically obtuse when trying to make the case that Maggiore is HIV-negative. As recorded in the LA Coroner's report, her daughter died of AIDS (PCP pneumonia, HIV encephalitis) as a result of acquiring HIV-infection from her mother (unless MEC ascribes to the stork or tooth fairy model of HIV vertical transmission). This is the central fact of the case, as is the high probability that the infection of the daughter would have been avoided had the mother taken AZT or similar ARVs at around the time of delivery, and then avoided the additional risk factor of breast-feeding the child. MEC, "pat" and others can squirm all they like to try to find a way around those central verities, but their efforts on Maggiore's behalf change absolutely nothing. The facts are the facts.
MEC,
The prediction: "...25 percent chance that Maggiore would transmit the deadly virus to her unborn child..."
is born out by the child who died of the deadly virus, because her mother did nothing to protect her.
Look at the evidence, make a prediction, collect data, does the data support the hypothesis...
How am I doing so far MEC?
Dr Moore
Seeing you are so adamant that Eliza Jane died of a AIDS related illness, I presume that, when it is proven she did not, you will renounce your position as the self appointed HIV?AIDS defender, give up your job at Cornell and never be heard of in scientific circles again.
This would be the least you could do, because your credibility would be shot to pieces.
Kyle ( male by the way John)
Roy,
You and Prof. Moore are still doing splendidly so far as restating the premise (HIV infection) goes. We will have to wait and see, I guess, if it is identical with the conclusion. I do not pretend to hold the answer.
One thing is for sure, it will be the end of Johnnie One Note if the outcome should be different than anticipated. Tell me something Prof. Moore, do you have access to information regarding EJ's HIV test that her mother doesn't? Upon the answer depends whatever is left from the Guinea Pig Kids affair of your humanity.
The LA Times and the ABC both consulted independent experts in anatomical pathology. They both agreed that the diagnosis of PCP was incontrovertible.
"They both agreed that the diagnosis of PCP was incontrovertible."
Are the pathologists claiming PCP wasn't present looking at slides showing healthy lung tissue and ignoring the rest? I'm not familiar with the case and am not a pathologist, so I don't know what PCP tissue slides would look like. But it seems to me that there is either pathology or there isn't and if not PCP than what are the others claiming as the cause of the pathology?
MEC,
Collecting evidence that confirms a hypothesis is not restating the premise.
You sound like a creationist spewing that "survival of the fittest is a tautology..." nonsense.
But Roy, you sound just like an AIDStruth Crusader, spewing that "you sound like a creationist" nonsense.
Maybe it's just lack off scientific understanding on my part, but what is the "evidence" you have been collecting, and which hypothesis have you been confirming? Is it evidence that Christine Maggiore was not confused and thrown into agonizing doubt by her conflicting test results? Results that were apparently tricky enough to fool the astute Jeanne Bergman.
Or is it evidence that EJ really, really died of PCP? If that is the case, could Dr. Noble make the slides available that the LA Times' and ABC's experts were looking at; or failing that, their specific answers to Maggiore's and AL-Bayati's specific questions?
Franklin has already gone through the evidence here
I am also not a pathologist. My understanding is that the H&E stained slides are useful for demonstrating changes in the gross morphology of the tissue and an inflammatory response. Al-Bayati seems to have seized upun the words "no inflammatory" response and equated this to no pneumonia. As Franklin has shown above, in HIV infected immunosuppressed patients it is common if not expected that there is relatively little inflammatory response with PCP.
Al-Bayatis has largely side stepped the GMS stained slides. GMS is a stain commonly used for the detection of the PC organisms. According to the Coroner's report and the description of the slides shown to Maggiore on national television these slides showed an abundance of PC organisms with their characteristic teacup morphology. This represents the direct detection of PC in a quantity that is consistent only with PC pneumonia.
I've heard some objections that PC is ubiquitous. That is true to the extent that somewhere of the order of 90% of the popualtion is exposed to the organism. PCR detection does not necessarily mean PCP. In this case it was not molecular evidence but direct visualization of the organism. It does not show up in stains unless there is a lot of it.
It is all really very bizarre considering the typical "rethinker" critiques of HIV. They want electron micrographs of HIV rather than antibody or molecular detection. They argue that HIV can't possibly cause AIDS because it is not present in quantities that they believe are necessary to do anything. They argue that the only way that HIV can possibly cause disease is by direct cell killing and any mechanisms involving the host response to HIV cannot be important. Yet, here there is direct evidence for PC in a more than sufficient quantity and they ignore it. They seem to be fixated on the host response rather than the PC organism that causes the disease.
Haha, Dr Noble, that was one of your better spins in the last paragraph above, so I'll let you have it to yourself for once while we focus on EJ.
Regardless of HIV cell killing methods, in EJ's case we would of course like to see some "host response". A "fulminate", "severe", deadly PCP is supposed to show equally severe and deadly damage. This is the same as with HIV; the mere presence of particles or its "molecular signature" is not sufficient to kill somebody.
I do not think the presence of PC is in dispute, only the evidence that it had developed into severe, or fulminate pneumonia (PCP). That evidence may or may not be there. Is it too much to ask to suspend judgment until we are able to see for ourselves?
I'm out, the level of the troll jacking has reached a ludicrous level.
On a good note, Nelson Mandela's concert (the 46664 concert) which benefits HIV/AIDS programs is currently running adverts on TV and Radio. Madiba himself is on the ads saying that HIV/AIDS is no longer just a health issue, but is a human rights issue.
And Madiba still has a lot of influence here as well as the rest of the world, so this should help.
MEC,
If you weren't arguing with scientists, and doctors, about terms and concepts you clearly don't understand the meaning of, then you might not sound so much like a creationist.
What I really like is the argument that it wasn't pneumonia because there was no evident inflammation associated with the PC-containing pink foamy casts in her edamatous lungs.
To remind everyone, this is a summary of Al-Bayati's statements of what the coroner's report says:
1. Pneumocystis carinii was found in Eliza Jane's lungs by Gomori methenamine silver staining in association with pink foamy casts in the alveoli. The lungs were also edematous (water-logged).
2. Eliza Jane was mildly neutropenic (low neutrophil--a type of white blood cell--count) and profoundly anemic (low red blood cell count)
3. Eliza Jane's brain contained throughout its white matter with relative sparing of cortex a number of variable-sized microglial nodules characterized by multinucleate giant cells associated with moderate pallor and myelination, occasional macrophages, and and angiocentric pattern. These lesions stained positive by immunohistochemistry (IHC) for the HIV core p24 protein, a finding consistent with HIV encephalitis.
4. There was atrophy of the spleen and thymus
5. There was enlargement of the liver with fatty infiltrate of the cells (steatosis) and ascites
"Pat... you fail to grasp the central argument. Maggiore continues to insist that HIV does not cause aids, despite the fact that she was told that if she did not accept treatment there was a chance that she would transmit HIV to her child and he would die of aids, and then subsequently she did transmit HIV to her child and that child died of
For the HIV/AIDS point, it is irelevant what anyone thinks of her parenting decision. What rmatters is that this is an example OF transmission of HIV followed by a death from AIDS, precisely as predicted by her doctors. For people to use Maggiore as a case study for the argument against HIV causing AIDS is simply absurd."
Why are you trying to convince me of something I am not even arguing against. That is all ok wih me what you say but what I am discussing is Maggiore's apparent "culpabitlity". Moore and co here maintain that she is guilty of negligence and should go to jail inspite of the FACT the no chrages were ever filed. Should Maggiore have followed the advice of the doctor who gave her a positive diagnosis or the one that gave her the negative diagnosis? Considering the "fact" that HIV tests are highly specific and accurate she had to make a choice based on her highly specific and accurate status as HIV +-+ indeterminate and what not.
I am not discussing wether HIV causes AIDS or not so please stop telling me Maggiore is proof of it
"If you would like more detailed information about Ms. Maggiore's health status at any given point in time, I suggest you direct your questions to her."
But it is ok for YOU to speculate about it and insist she was negligent.
"Doctors warned that there was a 25 percent chance that Maggiore would transmit the deadly virus to her unborn child unless she took powerful anti-HIV drugs like AZT. Maggiore refused."
How'd that work out for her? The child?"
Which doctor told her that? The one that found HIV or the one that didn't or the one that just said "gee I donno"
Apparently a doctor that was concerned for her child's health.
Remember, you're supposedly outraged at Moore because he "hasn't even considered Charlie."
According to interviews given by Ms. Maggiore, the physicians she consulted when pregnant did consider her children--but she chose to ignore their advice.
"Apparently a doctor that was concerned for her child's health."
That is the one who said she was dying, what about the one that said she was fine?
Jesus H Christ. Were you to test positive, negative, indeterminate, what would you do? Would you gobble pills "in the offchance"? Would you risk potentially serious side effects "just in case"?
"According to interviews given by Ms. Maggiore, the physicians she consulted when pregnant did consider her children--but she chose to ignore their advice."
When you have conflicting advice, WHAT DO YOU DO????
To what advice do you refer?
What advice are you claiming that Ms. Maggiore received from "the one that gave her the negative diagnosis"?
"What advice are you claiming that Ms. Maggiore received from "the one that gave her the negative diagnosis"?
I suspect she got no advice from them. My last test was negative and there was no following advice. My doc just said: "you're fine"
Are you suggesting Maggiore is lying to us about her conflicting test results? Do you have any evidence of this?
pat, said:
"I am not discussing whether HIV causes AIDS or not so please stop telling me Maggiore is proof of it"
Maggiore is a prominent HIV denier, and the focus of this thread has become the denier 'arguments.' So, lets get this on the record, pat. Do you accept that HIV is the causative factor for AIDS? That is my only interest in this thread, and it seems to me that you are on the denier side. If not, if yo accept that HIV causes AIDS, could you please make that clear?
"When you have conflicting advice, WHAT DO YOU DO????"
If one side of that conflicting advice said I am at risk of dying, and perhaps more troubling, that actions I am contemplating put my children at risk of dying, then I certainly don't simply pretend there is no risk and continue as usual.
"So, lets get this on the record, pat. Do you accept that HIV is the causative factor for AIDS?"
Thank you for finally asking and a penalty for JP Moore for foul language based on nothing but his very own prejudice.
Do I have a choice? Do you think I can falsify HIV/AIDS? I have to accept what I am told. I am told by some that HIV is the SOLE causative agent in AIDS while others are saying HIV is not sufficient and none of this comes from any "denialist" sources. If JP Moore says HIV causes AIDS than I must accept it but I do not understand why I MUST be an "AIDS denialist" for defending Maggiore's rights as a parent. Do YOU understand that logic?
"That is my only interest in this thread, and it seems to me that you are on the denier side."
If that is your sole interest than why are you writing to me? My sole interest is the POLITICS of AIDS and the gros misrepresentation of what constitutes "murder" and "crime". I worry about legal "over-reach". I worry about loosing my rights to question everything and anything I am fed. If people like Duesberg end up in jail for "scientific dissent" I also wonder where that leaves "the scientific method". If Duesberg ends up in jail, he cannot contribute to cancer either and that would be stupid considering his already recognised contributions in that field. He denies HIV as a causative role in AIDS, so what? Why does JP Moore think he must protect me from Duesber's ideas? Why does JP Moore insult me like that? Every great scientist dissents somewhere so if we were to put "dissenters" in jail there would be no more scientists and no more science. Also, who is going to protect me the day a liar comes around and sells me something I cannot legally say no to, what then?
If you do not want to discuss anything outside the "science of AIDS" than there is no point in talking to me because I am solely interested in the politics of it.
Pat says:
When asked what advice she received that conflicted with the published interviews indicating that she was advised to take steps to prevent transmission of HIV to her children, Pat replies:
So, Pat has no evidence that she received conflicting advice regarding the management of her pregnancy.
In fact, Pat suspects that she received no such conflicting advice about the management of her pregnancy.
Let's see if we understnd Pat's position:
Against medical advice, the parents made a conscious choice to expose their children to the risk of HIV infection in utero and for several years of breast feeding while taking no steps to mitigate that risk because they have decided that HIV is harmless;
Pat suspects that the parents received no conflicting advice from their physicians regarding these risks;
one of their children died of AIDS;
after the death of the child, the LA Times reported that the mother "said she continues to counsel HIV-positive parents around the country about how to keep from using anti-retroviral drugs during childbirth and from giving medications to children who have tested positive for the virus;"(http://www.aegis.com/news/Lt/2005/LT051205.html)
and Pat is outraged because he feels that John Moore "hasn't even considered Charlie."
"If one side of that conflicting advice said I am at risk of dying, and perhaps more troubling, that actions I am contemplating put my children at risk of dying, then I certainly don't simply pretend there is no risk and continue as usual."
So you would take life long treatment for HIV "in the off chance" you might have it. I am not sure how smart that is considering I have a friend who is about to loose his liver due to the side effects of those drugs and that is the professional opinion of his AIDS doctor 12 years into his treatment. I also know someone who died 2 years ago of liver failure caused by too much medication (that was the opinion of the treating doctors at the hospital, not my observation)and it is not pretty at all either so I am not sure which is preferable.
Life long arv's sounds very drastic for an "off-chance".
"Pat suspects that the parents received no conflicting advice from their physicians regarding these risks"
That is incorrect. I strongly suspect she recieved conflicting advice seeing she recieved conflicting diagnoses
"I suspect she got no advice from them. My last test was negative and there was no following advice. My doc just said: "you're fine"
You copy and pate an incomplete sentence of mine. This is the complete sentence. The "no advice" I refer to is the advice that she must have gotten about being "fine"
Here is the Analysis of causes that led to Eliza Jane Scovill's cardiac arrest and death M.A. Al-Bayati/Medical Veritas 2 (2005) 567-581 567.
EJ had a cardiac arrest after the fourth dose of Amoxicillin. The autopsy showed acute pericardial effusion suggesting pericardial tamponade was the cause of the hypotension and cardiac arrest. This is not a typical clinical course for PCP pneumonia in an AIDS patient. PCP fungal pneumonia does not present with cardiac arrest, it has a fairly characteristic clinical course, and causes chronic hypoxia which presents gradually and is frequently treated with mechanical ventilation which keeps the patient alive for a while with a 50% chance of recovery with various treatments. Pericardial, and pleural fluid was present indicating an acute allergic reaction to the amoxicillin. PCP pneumonia produces pulmonary infiltrates, and does not cause pericardial and pleural effusions.
PCP pneumonia produces cysts in the lungs, hence the term pneumocystis. This was not a feature of EJ's lungs as reported. In order to produce hypoxia, the alveoli must be made nonfunctional by filling up with exudate. No exudates were described in EJ's reports.
In terms of the brain findings of Microglial nodules are not specific for HIV infection and may be present with neoplasia, traumatic focal necrosis, or infection from viral, protozoal or bacterial organisms.
Regarding the P24 in the post mortem brain tissue, Western blot positive requires detection of two or more antibodies to HIV; p24, Gp41, Gp 120/160. Presence of P24 only, without the Gp41 or Gp120/160 is a false positive. There were no western blot blood tests antemortem which is the usual method for diagnosis of HIV.
HIV encephalitis and Aids dementia is characterized by progressive cognitive dysfunction. None of these symptoms were present in EJ who had normal cognition, making the diagnosis of HIV encephalitis highly unlikely.
It is clear that the LA coroners delayed autopsy report was politically motivated and in error.
Needless to point out, this same LA coroner has been found guilty of errors and outright misconduct on other cases as well.
I think what a lot of people who post on this thread, particularly those who support Ms Maggiore, are forgetting (or deliberately overlooking) is that there is no available evidence that Ms Maggiore has a history of "indeterminate" or "contradictory" diagnostic tests for HIV infection; there is only her word for it, and her statements have not been consistent over the decade or more that she has been making them. Given what happened to her daughter, an awful lot of weight is being placed by her supporters nowadays on Ms. Maggiore's uncorroborated statements.
Given the outstanding precision and sensitivity of HIV diagnostic assays, particularly since the later-generation tests were developed a few years after the first ones in the mid-1980's (tests which were, quite literally, "emergency measures" that were adequate but not perfect), this entire issue could be resolved very easily. All Ms. Maggiore has to do is to have a comprehensive set of blood tests performed blind by independent, qualified diagnostic laboratories and then reveal the full results, with all relevant details, publicly. Tests could also be performed on any archival blood samples that remain.
It's extremely rare for HIV-infected people not to seroconvert to HIV antigens, and those rare cases either involve people with genetic abnormalities in their humoral immune system, or people with highly aggressive HIV-infection that leads to death within a year or two. Clearly the latter scenario does not apply here.
So, let's see the facts if Ms. Maggiore's supporters truly do want to claim that she thought she was HIV-negative at the time when she made the critical decision (not to take preventive measures) that led to the death of her daughter from AIDS.
"Let's see if we understnd Pat's position"
No, let me explain my position yet again.
She cannot determine her own status because the precise testing techniques categorically diagnosed her as +-+ indeterminate etc... She must now make a descision based on the rock solid evidence that she is all those things. She weighed the risks of side effects against the risks of infecting her children "with HIV" and "no HIV" and "maybe HIV but maybe not". It appears she made the wrong descision and hindsight is always 20/20 so shame on all those who would say "I told you so" because nobody "knew so" at the time, not even Jeanne Bergman. Remember her? the HIV/AIDS authority trying to convince the world and Maggiore that she is HIV NEGATIVE!
I perhaps am the only person that doesn't "deny anything" that can also support Maggiore and her rights and obligations to make the final health descisions for herself and her kids. Everybody got it wrong right up to the point EJ died. I perhaps am also the only person who can understand why she is totally confused about what probably does and doesn't cause AIDS. If I had the testing history Maggiore has, I probably wouldn't write a book about it but I certainly wouldn't have a clue about my status and I would probably just walk home hopelessly confused and not really inclined to take lifelong chemotherapy.
To all those who WANT guilt and public executions; Good luck.
In dubio pro reo. end
A challenge to Mr Moore
"And of course I won't respond to any questions you pose. That would involve debating or discussing science with an AIDS denialist, and our policies on never doing that are widely known." - John P. Moore, Weill Cornell HIV=AIDS microbicide researcher, recipient of handy $500,000 grant from a drug company, and frequent analyst of fundamental flaws and omissions in the HIV=AIDS hypothesis.
John, you seem blithely unaware of the fact that every time you make this avowal you are signalling that you lack answers. Is this wise?
Moreover, the irony is that you yourself have raised many of the most pertinent questions as to the sense and quality of the work of HIV=AIDS researchers.
Would you like us to give you a list of the papers in which you have made remarkable admissions of this kind?
We have already dealt with one (and will shortly add more) on our modest blog ScienceGuardian/New AIDS Review in the posts John P. Moore Brings Down The AIDS Paradigm (Part 2)
To quote from the introduction
"To put it bluntly, John P. Moore Ph.D. has written a paper which tears out the thumping heart of his entire campaign in defense of the beleaguered paradigm and throws it to the paradigm attack dogs he is usually occupied with trying to kick as hard as he possibly can.
The title of this quietly seminal work is a question: "Is there enough gp120 in the body fluids of HIV-1 infected individuals to have biologically significant effects?"
The minireview can be found in Virology, 323 (2004) pp1-8, and is written with P. J. Klasse, who is also at the Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, 1300 York Avenue, W-805, New York NY 10021 (Fax 212 746 8340 jpm2003@med.cornell.edu)."
Perhaps you wish to claim this is misinterpreted, but there is no comment registered by you since it was put up on May 30th. Do you have some problem in contradicting yourself? Perhaps you should ask Nancy Padian for advice on this predicament.
Or possibly you wish to claim that your inability to reply is part of your policy of not replying to "denialists", but again, this only signals to all thinking people that you are hiding.
So tell us, why should onlookers credit a scientist who declines to try and answer any questions about their work?
Can we credit him with confidence in his work?
Can we credit him with pride in his work?
Can we credit him with a sense of public responsibility?
Can we credit him with a sense of responsibility towards those affected by his work?
Sorry, we forgot that you refuse to respond to "denialists" (although as we have often pointed out to you we at Science Guardian/New AIDS Review are not suggesting any "conspiracy theory" and our role is merely to ask questions, as good journalists do, so that you may deny "denialists", if you wish).
Alas! Given your silence, we will have to judge all these points for ourselves, it seems.
But will you accept our nomination for the Nobel, or at least the Lasker, for your many contributions to demonstrating the emptiness of the paradigm claim HIV=AIDS?
Remember that standard care after HIV diagnosis uses ongoing qPCR viral load analysis, which in itself constitutes an independent diagnostic test for HIV infection. To repeat, standard o care requires ongoing monitoring of HIV levels, via a test different from that used to diagnose.
"I think what a lot of people who post on this thread, particularly those who support Ms Maggiore, are forgetting (or deliberately overlooking) is that there is no available evidence that Ms Maggiore has a history of "indeterminate" or "contradictory" diagnostic tests for HIV infection; there is only her word for it, and her statements have not been consistent over the decade or more that she has been making them. Given what happened to her daughter, an awful lot of weight is being placed by her supporters nowadays on Ms. Maggiore's uncorroborated statements."
To argue she is concocting all of this so she could profit from AIDS denialism at the expense of her children's health is simply too much of a stretch to explain her sudden shift. Remember that she was a good "trooper" at firt. Her health testimony is consistent with her sudden about face and nicely explains it too without having to strain the imagination with wild conspiracy theories.
"So, let's see the facts if Ms. Maggiore's supporters truly do want to claim that she thought she was HIV-negative at the time when she made the critical decision (not to take preventive measures) that led to the death of her daughter from AIDS."
Mr Moore, you are the one who wants to put her in jail. You are the one portraying her as a predator. If you make wild conspiracy theories about Maggiore, is the onus not on you to bring evidence?
Also, I never made the claim that she thought she was NEGATIVE during her pregnancies. I simply say I don't BLAME her for the discisions she took. If her health statements are accurate than she must have thought she was pos, neg AND indeterminate during her pregnancies which translates into into english as..."not having a fucking clue".
"However, given the known and unknown risks of antiretroviral use in pregnancy, the National Institutes of Health guidelines state that the final decision regarding their use "should be made by the woman after discussion with her health care provider about the known and unknown benefits and risks of therapy" in a "noncoercive" environment"
Is Moore not creating a coercive environmemt by demanding prison for Maggiore?
The law is clear and so are NIH guidelines.
Pat says that he strongly suspects that Ms. Maggiore received conflicting advice from her physicians regarding her risk of transmitting HIV to her children in utero or by breastfeeding "because she recieved conflicting diagnoses."
He points to his own experience:
He seems to accept that some of Ms. Maggiore's physicians counseled her that she was at risk of transmitting HIV to her children but he adds that this advice came from:
Here's what Ms. Maggiore reports about her HIV testing on the Alive and Well web page:
She continues:
I seem to have missed the part that Pat seems to assume must have occurred--the part where her physician told her "you're fine."
As far as I can tell, in or around 1992, two HIV tests in a row were reported as "positive," and about a year later one test was reported as "inconclusive," followed by a test that was reported as "positive," followed by a test that was reported as "negative," and a final test that was reported as "positive."
Contrary to Pat's assumption based upon his own experience, Ms. Maggiore provides no information indicating that any physician ever advised her that she "was fine" with respect to her HIV infection--and she reports consulting 9 physicians.
Instead, from her statement, it seems that her physicians went to great lengths to document her HIV infection.
Likewise, the interviews with Ms. Maggiore that we have already disussed indicate that when she was pregnant, the physicians she consulted advised her that she was at risk of transmitting HIV to her children and to take steps to mitigate that risk.
Ms. Maggiore chose to ignore that advice.
There is no evidence that I know of to indicate that Ms. Maggiore received contradictory advice from her physicians concerning the risks of HIV transmission to her children.
An autopsy has shown that one of her children died of AIDS, yet the LA Times reports that Ms. Maggiore "said she continues to counsel HIV-positive parents around the country about how to keep from using anti-retroviral drugs during childbirth and from giving medications to children who have tested positive for the virus;" (http://www.aegis.com/news/Lt/2005/LT051205.html)
But Pat is outraged because he feels that John Moore "hasn't even considered Charlie."
I think what a lot of people who post on this thread, particularly those who support Ms Maggiore, are forgetting (or deliberately overlooking) is that there is no available evidence that Ms Maggiore has a history of "indeterminate" or "contradictory" diagnostic tests for HIV infection; there is only her word for it, and her statements have not been consistent over the decade or more that she has been making them. Given what happened to her daughter, an awful lot of weight is being placed by her supporters nowadays on Ms. Maggiore's uncorroborated statements.
Given the outstanding precision and sensitivity of HIV diagnostic assays, particularly since the later-generation tests were developed a few years after the first ones in the mid-1980's (tests which were, quite
literally, "emergency measures" that were adequate but not perfect), this entire issue could be resolved very
easily
Of course the onus is on Prof Moore to bring evidence - Pat nails it once again.
May I remind you, Sir John of the Short Memory, that when it suited you and Bergie to call Christine Maggiore a false-positive profiteer, there was not a word out of you about the infallibility of the tests or the fallacy of taking Maggiore's words about her test results at face value. Does the term "hoisted on your own petard" ring a bell? I am still waiting for you to make two consecutive arguments that don't contradict each other, Prof Moore.
There is no evidence that I know of to indicate that Ms. Maggiore received contradictory advice from her physicians concerning the risks of HIV transmission to her children.
Franklin you are really getting tiresome now. The general advice about HIV transmission hopefully remained the same. The diagnosis didn't. Doubt was sown in Maggiore's mind about the validity of the diagnosis. Choices had to be made on that backgound.
There is no doubt most doctors will tell you to take the meds regardless; nobody is arguing otherwise. However, conversations with at least some doctors do still consist in more than "take the meds yes or no, tick the appropriate box".
"There is no evidence that I know of to indicate that Ms. Maggiore received contradictory advice from her physicians concerning the risks of HIV transmission to her children. "
But the one you cut and paste says:
"She treated me as an individual rather than an impending statistic, and in doing so noticed my GOOD HEALTH."
Did this doctor counsel her to take ARV's? Do doctors counsel their patients to take ARV's and AZT "just in case"?
"But Pat is outraged because he feels that John Moore "hasn't even considered Charlie."
Franklin feels Maggiore is guilty. Franklin would you put charlie's mother in jail. Franklin also thinks putting mothers in jail for making the wrong descision is creating "an uncoercive evironment".
Franklin thinks NIH guidelines are just for laughs.
No, Ms Maggiore tells us that the doctor counseled her to repeat the testing.
She also tells us that the repeat test came back as "inconclusive," and then additional repeat tests came back as "positive," and then "negative," and finally as "positive."
Ms. Maggiore does not tell us what the physician counseled her to do when all of the test results were available.
Nor, indeed, does she tell us what types of tests were performed nor what the actual results of the testing were.
She only gives us her report of the interpretation of those results, but tells of nothing about the basis for that interpretation.
At any rate, those tests were apparently performed years before she became pregnant.
By the time she was pregnant, Ms. Maggiore tells us in her writings and interviews that she was unable to find a physician willing to attend at her delivery unless she agreed to take steps to mitigate the risk of transmission of HIV to the baby.
She ignored their advice and one of her children subsequently died of AIDS.
Pat keeps claiming that Ms. Maggiore made her choices because she was uncertain as to whether or not she was infected by HIV, but it appears that all of the physicians she consulted at the time she was pregnant counseled her otherwise.
Her own writings seem to indicate that the reason she took no steps to mitigate the risk of transmission of HIV to her children was not because of "conflicting advice" from her physicians about how best to manage her pregnancy, but that it was because she does not believe that HIV infection causes AIDS, :
There is no evidence that I know of to indicate that Ms. Maggiore received contradictory advice from her physicians concerning the risks of HIV transmission to her children.
Even after one of her children died of AIDS, the LA Times reports that Ms. Maggiore "said she continues to counsel HIV-positive parents around the country about how to keep from using anti-retroviral drugs during childbirth and from giving medications to children who have tested positive for the virus." (http://www.aegis.com/news/Lt/2005/LT051205.html)
But Pat is outraged because he feels that John Moore "hasn't even considered Charlie."
Sorry if you find that information to be tiresome, MEC. I know how much energy you must need to expend to keep reading and posting on this blog while burying your head so deeply in the sand.
MOORE is a "useful idiot" for the denialists
Mr. Moore, you do no one any favors by engaging these people.
The very fact that a scientist from a major U.S. university considers it worth responding (over and over and over) to denialist viewpoints gives them credibility they do not deserve.
You are just egging them on. And your hubris in quoting Churchill is beyond belief.
You, sir, have turned into an internet troll.
A. Carricci
Answer these questions if you please Franklin:
Do you believe that sentenses of jail for dissent, as advocated by Moore and Wainberg, are consistant with creating an "uncoercive environment" for the rest of us?
Do you believe Bergman's wild and absurd opining about an "obvious" negative status and Maggiore's "alleged" criminal motive's is consistant with creating a "uncoercive environment" for the rest of us?
I feel these following questions are important to me and many others who are not "yet" affected by these policies. The consistant demonizing of a victim of HIV, the threats of profesional isolation towards academics for "dissent in science", this absurd "war" on "denialists" where "they" are seen as "perpetrators of death" and every other stupid "war" tactic, do everything thing to waken the naturally skeptical mind of human beings and promotes nothing more than resistance, polarization and ultimately tragedy.
I second Carricci's assesment of Mr. Moore
Clearly John Moore is unaware of the literature on false positive HIV tests. Luckily I have prepared a detailed summary of the scientific literature at http://aras.ab.ca/test.html and especially at htthttp://aras.ab.ca/test-false-positive.html
Just one of the things Moore is forgetting is that factors that can cause a false positive test may vary over time. So someone might be tested 100 times at once and all tests be consistent, but a month or a year later, may have a different status.
He's also forgetting that the status called 'indeterminate' exists, and what does that mean except that ELISA tests are flawed? And what if the WB was done first and ELISA used for confirmation? Then we'd have to consider ELISA tests perfect, operationally, because otherwise we might end up in an infinite loop of testing.
Furthermore, John Moore is forgetting that there are at least 10 documented different standards for interpretation of western blots, so it's quite easy to be positive in one country and indeterminate in another, or even indeterminate based on testing in a different lab.
Furthermore, John Moore is ignoring the fact that prejudice plays a role, at least in some jurisdictions. In Ontario, for example, there is a different sequence of testing for someone in a 'risk group'. And whether someone is in a risk group is prejudicial. Would Christine be considered to be in a risk group just because they'd like the test to stand a greater chance of being positive?
Never-a-brain writes:
It's hard to no whether you are just an idiot, a liar or ignorant. Foamy casts are exudates and are detailed in the Coroner's report.
Pat,
What do you believe scientists and physicians should do when individuals make pseudoscientific arguments to promote the points of view that HIV is harmless and that HIV-infected women should take no steps to prevent transmission to their children?
What responsibility do you believe scientists and physicians have to counter the misinformation promulgated by HIV-infected patients who have been seduced by the delusion that HIV is harmless?
. . . or to counter the misinformation promulgated by academics who distort the work of others to convince HIV-infected people that the virus is harmless?
Check out Tara's thread on Smallpox and the Intro to Denial thread to see some of the lies and distortions posted by Maniotis and cited from Duesberg's writings--lies and distortions pepetrated in an effort to convince the gullible that HIV is harmless.
Or check out the absurd lengths to which Michael Geiger will distort scientific findings which he seems completely incapable of understanding--all in an effort to convince the gullible that HIV is harmless.
The actions of these individuals is reprehensible.
Think about the effect these people have had on AIDS mortality in S. Africa.
Even after her child died of AIDS, the LA Times reports that Ms. Maggiore "said she continues to counsel HIV-positive parents around the country about how to keep from using anti-retroviral drugs during childbirth and from giving medications to children who have tested positive for the virus." (http://www.aegis.com/news/Lt/2005/LT051205.html)
What do you think the role of scientists and physicians should be to counter these activities.
some ignoble hairbrain wrote: Foamy casts are exudates and are detailed in the Coroner's report.
No, foamy casts are not exudates. AL Bayati's report makes this distinction and mentions that the ME did not report exudates.
The presence of pericardial and pleural effusions suggests acute allergic reaction with pericardial tamponade as the cause of death. The HIV evidence was concocted after a delay of 4 months by a corrupt ME for political purposes.
Never-a-brain writes
Now you have switched from ignorance to lying.
Foamy alveolar casts are exudates.
Pat, What do you believe scientists and physicians should do when individuals make pseudoscientific arguments to promote the points of view that HIV is harmless and that HIV-infected women should take no steps to prevent transmission to their children? What responsibility do you believe scientists and physicians have to counter the misinformation promulgated by HIV-infected patients who have been seduced by the delusion that HIV is harmless?
. . . or to counter the misinformation promulgated by academics who distort the work of others to convince HIV-infected people that the virus is harmless? Check out Tara's thread on Smallpox and the Intro to Denial thread to see some of the lies and distortions posted by Maniotis and cited from Duesberg's writings--lies and distortions pepetrated in an effort to convince the gullible that HIV is harmless. The actions of these individuals is reprehensible.What do you think the role of scientists and physicians should be to counter these activities.
The responsibility of scientists and physicians is to honestly inform the public that
1) toxic drugs can never eradicate a retrovirus encoded into the human genome.
2)HIV drugs have serious side effects including death.
3)The HIV patient has the final decision concerning what treatment they wish to use, whether toxic, nontoxic, or no treatment.
4) that the HIV causes AIDS hypothesis is in serious doubt 20 years after it was proposed with no animal model, no mechanism, no vaccine and no reasonable treatment. HIV science is actually pseudo-science and is in a shambles.
5) That the HIV/Aids is more a political issue than a medical science one.
6) That many HIV antibody positives do quite well for many years without toxic drugs
7)That AZT killed tens of thousands over a decade in the 1985-95 era. Why would anyone believe the medical system now?
useful books include:
Inventing the AIDs Virus by Peter Duesberg
Science Sold Out by Rebecca Culshaw
The Origin, Persistence, and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory by Henry Bauer
useful web site: reviewingaids dot org
Can you please answer my questions too? While you formulate them
I will answer yours.
"What do you think the role of scientists and physicians should be to counter these activities."
I can tell you what the role of scientists shouldn't be. It shouldn't attempt to usurp people's right to make final medical descisions for themselves and their families no matter what scientific facts they may possess. So much is simply certain in my mind. There is no better and more efficient institution for such descision making than the "family". To believe one can regulate to perfection the descision making precess must be one of the top 10 Utopias. To believe this is to believe in one's own unique perfection and infalliability. If ordinary people can get it wrong so can science and I think it is beyond dispute that mistakes are human. You make far too much out of the "lies and distortions" and far too little of the intelligence of the general public. I am under the impression that you vastly under-estimate the dangers of a regulated descision making process. I would argue that history is full of examples of such legislated disasters.
One thing they CAN do is to continue cementing the foothills of that K-2 of medical evidence and let the damn thing stand on its own without the imaginary and polarizing crutches of a "war on denial".
The NIH promotes and supports the principal of an "uncoercive environment", alas it seems some are intent on operating outside this principle and on the outer fringes of ethical behavior by pretending there IS a "war" on thought infection and promoting a medical mini version of 1984 where all individual medical treatment can be dictated from outside the family by complete strangers.
An ignoble hairbrain said Now you have switched from ignorance to lying. Foamy alveolar casts are exudates.
Cant you read?
Al Bayati's report says " PCP pneumonia produces alveolar exudate, inflammation in interstitium and alveolar space, interstitial fibrosis, and alveolar epithelial damage in all patients. The ME observed none of these lesions in Eliza Jane's case."
According to Al Bayati, although the ME reported foamy alveolar casts, they did not report "alveolar exudate, inflammation in interstitium and alveolar space, interstitial fibrosis, and alveolar epithelial damage" and therefore the pathology was unlikely to be indicative of PCP.
But he's a dog pathologist.
Never-a-brain wrote:
Yes, I can. Can you.
You said that the Coroner did not report exudates. He did.
Pink foamy alveolar casts are exudates that are characteristic for PCP. The GMS stained slides showed that these foamy exudates were full of PC organisms.
What Al-Bayati says is of little relevance. The man invents fantastic stories that confirm whatever his clients want to hear.
Correction.
Thank goodness no one ever let Al Bayati near a dog. Unfortnately, he has worked extensively with rats. I mean the little white guys in cages. Please, keep Al Bayati away from dogs!
I think I will go with the LA ME report on the Scovill baby.
he's a dog pathologist - which makes his title one word longer than yours.
And Noble, spare us your libelous shite, just for once will ya? Weall know who is on trial for inventing diagnoses to serve the shifting needs of the prosecutor and it ain't Al-Bayati. No amount of AIDStruth spin can obscure that FACT!
Sonce David Crowe's fine Comment got held up in Tara's denialist filterTM, I'll post it once more for those in the back rows:
Clearly John Moore is unaware of the literature on false positive HIV tests. Luckily I have prepared a detailed summary of the scientific literature at http://aras.ab.ca/test.html and especially at htthttp://aras.ab.ca/test-false-positive.html
Just one of the things Moore is forgetting is that factors that can cause a false positive test may vary over time. So someone might be tested 100 times at once and all tests be consistent, but a month or a year later, may have a different status.
He's also forgetting that the status called 'indeterminate' exists, and what does that mean except that ELISA tests are flawed? And what if the WB was done first and ELISA used for confirmation? Then we'd have to consider ELISA tests perfect, operationally, because otherwise we might end up in an infinite loop of testing.
Furthermore, John Moore is forgetting that there are at least 10 documented different standards for interpretation of western blots, so it's quite easy to be positive in one country and indeterminate in another, or even indeterminate based on testing in a different lab.
Furthermore, John Moore is ignoring the fact that prejudice plays a role, at least in some jurisdictions. In Ontario, for example, there is a different sequence of testing for someone in a 'risk group'. And whether someone is in a risk group is prejudicial. Would Christine be considered to be in a risk group just because they'd like the test to stand a greater chance of being positive?
Posted by: David Crowe | November 18, 2007 7:28 PM
What happened to Al-Bayati's fantastical parvovirus story? Where did he pull that one from? Any serology to back up his "differential diagnosis"?
Look at this fantastical story that Al-Bayati invented.
The inhalation of 'poppers' at sufficient amounts causes methemoglobinemia and severe headaches, which is then treated with aspirin. The heavy use of aspirin and alcohol cause thrombocytopenia. As well, AZT and proteases inhibitors also cause thrombocytopnea, peripheral neuropathy, and bone marrow depression. Thrombocytopenia, peripheral neuropathy are classified by the United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as an AIDS indicator, which is also treated with high doses of glucocorticoids that cause AIDS [1-4,7].
Poppers cause headaches. ->
Take aspirin for headaches ->
Aspirin cause thrombocytopenia. ->
Take glucocorticoids for thrombocytopenia ->
Glucocorticoids cause AIDS.
I've never heard such a convoluted and unbelieveable story.
What happened to Al-Bayati's fantastical parvovirus story? Where did he pull that one from? Any serology to back up his "differential diagnosis"?
Fair question (for once). It looks like speculation to me as well. However, there wasn't any serology simply because the ME wasn't interested in pursuing this possibility, especuailly not when he had the equally fantastical HIV to blame for it all
I think what a lot of people who post on this thread, particularly those who support Ms Maggiore, are forgetting (or deliberately overlooking) is that there is no available evidence that Ms Maggiore has a history of "indeterminate" or "contradictory" diagnostic tests for HIV infection;
That's what they forget, you say? Wrong, Johnny boy. The only people who forget something are you and your creepy little helpers. You all forget that a caring mother is infinitely more entitled to decide what's good for her daughter and what not, than a bunch of drug pushers desperately trying to save their business from hell.
Let go John, don't play that Faustian role. It may seem profitable right now, but after a while, you must pay back. Eternally. Eternity lasts a long time, broffer.
Franklin,
Any thoughts on coercive environments?
So, in summary: The denialists on this Blog accept as completely true and accurate Ms. Maggiore's uncorroborated (and often contradictory) statements about her HIV-infection status, without having access to any evidence that her statements are true and accurate. But they will not accept that the hard, scientific facts in the LA Coroner's report are true and accurate, despite the evidence being available for inspection. The reason for this dichotomy has nothing to do with science and medicine, it represents the denialists' quasi-religious dogma about HIV/AIDS. The denialists operate a belief system ("Ms. Maggiore is our friend, so we believe her"), akin to the creationists in their rejection of Darwinian evolution ("God is our saviour, he speaks, we obey"), allied to conspiracy theories ("the LA Coroner works for 'the system', so he must be corrupt"). The absurdities of the denialists' position is why HIV/AIDS scientists will never 'debate' them; it's why our efforts go into minimizing the damage they cause to the lives and health of other people. Sometimes, the material posted on these Blogs can help in this regard.
it represents the denialists' quasi-religious dogma about HIV/AIDS
The fact that you have never ever showed even the slightest consideration for a mother who lost her child clearly indicates that the only religious dogma about HIV/Aids are in your own sick brain.
You and your goddamn war. Where did you get that idea in the first place, man? War? On what? For what? To serve whom? Who are you to think you have even the slightest clue about some absolute Truth?
Get away from that computer and all those people you call denialists and who keep you awake at night, John. Go for a walk in the woods, get some good fresh air and embrace a tree. That will make your day, I swear it will.
BTW, I think you respond far too much to the people you keep saying you don't want to speak with.
MOORE is a "useful idiot" for the denialists
Mr. Moore, you do no one any favors by engaging these people. The very fact that a scientist from a major U.S. university considers it worth responding (over and over and over) to denialist viewpoints gives them credibility they do not deserve. You are just egging them on. And your hubris in quoting Churchill is beyond belief. You, sir, have turned into an internet troll.
A. Carricci
Please. Do not discourage the incorrigible incredible Mr Moore from posting copiously here, since as noted in our challenge to him above (A Challenge to Mr Moore, held up by Tara for 12 hours till safely buried in the sequence) he has been most helpful in publishing many papers pointing out fatal flaws in the established HIV=AIDS paradigm.
We support Mr Moore fully in his strenuous publicizing of the fact that he not only has no answers to the "denialist" cliams but actually supports them in his papers.
Now that Harvey Bialy has retired from the fray, we count Mr Moore the leading denialist in HIV=AIDS. Not only does he deny that the "denialists" have a case, he denies that the paradigm makes sense.
In other words, Mr Moore is a brave man - a closet dissident who tells his secret in the light of day. That is why he deserves the Lasker, if not the Nobel.
> Stell dir vor es ist Krieg, und keiner geht hin
Literally translates to: Imagine it is war and nobody shows up. This was the rallying cry of the German peace movement in the eighties.
The quote was often attributed to a poem written by Berthold Brecht, for Brecht was the most famous German poet of the 20th century, and dropping his name sounded important. In reality it is really a - rather vague - German translation of this sentence from Carl Sandburg's epic poem "The People,Yes":"Sometime they'll give a war and nobody will come."
The real Brecht poem is very different:
Wer zu Hause bleibt, wenn der Kampf beginnt, und läÃt andere kämpfen für seine Sache, der muà sich vorsehen: Denn wer den Kampf nicht geteilt hat, der wird teilen die Niederlage. Nicht einmal Kampf vermeidet, wer den Kampf vermeiden will, denn er wird kämpfen für die Sache des Feindes, wer für seine eigene Sache nicht gekämpft hat."
Translation:
Who stays at home, when the fighting begins, and relies on others to fight for his cause, should beware: Because who has not shared the fight will share the defeat. The one who wants to avoid the fight will not even avoid fighting, because the one who doesn't fight for his own cause will end up fighting for the enemy.
(Forgive my less than perfect translation; my English is not as good as Brecht's German.)
This is the exact opposite of pacifism, it is a call to arms, an outcry against appeasement.
That the deniers (ab)use quotes by turning their meaning into its opposite and by manipulating a text by inserting false quotes says a lot about their mentality.
No Mr Moore,
Your quasi-religious dogma about who "denialists" are is at the root of your nonsensical tirades. Maggiore may very well have HIV, EJ may very well have died of AIDS but such is not MY point.
You dogmatically hold on to the belief that Maggiore is criminally profiting from HIV/AIDS at the expense of her children. You bring ZERO evidence of "profiteering" and you bring ZERO evidence that Maggiore even fits the profile of such a predator. You indeed deliver a perfect conspiracy theory yourself that strains belief.
Also you publicly stated Maggiore should go to jail for her descisions and you refuse to answer whether this lives up to the principal of an "uncoercive environment".
Muttering such threats and fabricating webs of lies about a private individual's integrity in effect nullify our perception of our freedom of choice by limiting the very definition of what we have a "right" to choose. Choose right or go straight to jail?
Inspite of all the evidence given by neighbours, community workers, teachers and health professionals attesting to her sterling qualifications as a caring mother and ignoring the fact that no charges of neglect ever materialised, you choose to continue peddling your half truths and discredited conspiracy theories for obvious political reasons. Maggiore is not proof HIV causes AIDS nor is it proof it doesn't. Arguments along those lines are obviously pointless. Maggiore is living proof of the dangers of politico-scientific over-reach into the private lives and legal rights of individuals at large.
Your gratuitous definition of "denialist" is as accurate as the definition of "mother fucker".
Stell dir vor es ist Krieg, und keiner geht hin.
Thank you Johannes for your insightfull historical presentation of the "origines" of "the quote".
The problem is that looking too far for "meaning" will make one overlook the simple truth that is actualy delivered in the form of these very simple words as they are presented, "devoid" of constructed context.
"Stell dir vor es ist Krieg, und keiner geht hin"
the peace cry is unmistakeable.
I am sorry you fell for the actual war cry though and inadvertantly (or not) fired a full broadside charge of "denialist" grape shot onto my decks without bothering to indentify who you are shooting at. What am I denying again?
I can't believe this thread is still active!
For those who are stilling following along with their score cards, here is a good summary of what constitutes pseudoscience:
1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.
2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.
3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.
4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.
6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.
7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.
pat, jspreen MEC, any of those ring a bell?
Then, there are those who have big balls and are pedigreed! (You know who you are!)
But they will not accept that the hard, scientific facts in the LA Coroner's report are true and accurate, despite the evidence being available for inspection.
Silly little and diminishing by the minute homunculus, what ARE you talking about? Who does not accept the hard facts in the coroner's report? The hard facts are, presence of teacup shaped organisms, ZERO evidence of fulminating or severe pneumonia.
But if the evidence is available for inspection, maybe you, Prof. Moore, can provide a link to the GMS stained slides, which I'm sure you have examined minutely?
Btw. when are you going to write two consecutive sentences - forget about whole arguments - that don't contradict each other, or at a minimum don't contain at least one lie?
"For those who are stilling following along with their score cards, here is a good summary of what constitutes pseudoscience:
1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.
2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.
3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.
4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.
6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.
7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.
pat, jspreen MEC, any of those ring a bell?"
What pseudoscience are you talking about? Do you even know what my disagreement is?
Pat,
You asked me if I feel that the response to Ms. Maggiore has led to a "coercive" environment for health care decisions.
To my knowledge, Ms. Maggiore has never sought medical care from Drs. Moore, Bergman, or Wainberg. I know of no Doctor-Patient Relationship that exists between any of these individuals and Ms. Maggiore.
To my knowledge, nothing that these individuals say publicly or privately about Ms. Maggiore can be construed as having anything to do with the relationships that exist between Ms. Maggiore and her chosen health care providers.
Whether the conditions under which Ms. Maggiore receives medical advice from her physicians are "coercive" or "non-coercive" has nothing to do with the publicly stated opinions of private citizens.
It's not as if these individuals are picketing outside the clinic where Ms. Maggiore receives her health care.
Ms. Maggiore chose to publicly discuss her health issues and to promote the views that HIV is not the cause of AIDS and that antiretroviral therapies are ineffective and dangerous, especially with respect to preventing perinatal transmission of the infection.
As I previously explained to Cooler on another thread:
Based upon your earlier post, you seem to think that the only appropriate response to AIDS denialism by scientists and physicians is to:
Pat, no amount of scientific evidence will ever convince the HIV denialists to stop spreading their dangerous lies--their position is not based on scientific evidence nor is it subject to correction by experiment. To simply retreat to the lab or to the clinic would be to shirk our responsibility to counter the false information that HIV denialists are feeding to the public.
As Chomsky stated:
You seem to think that because Ms. Maggiore is infected with HIV or because her daughter died of AIDS that physicians and scientists should turn a blind eye to her promotion of pseudoscientific views that endanger the public health. You imply that because it is unseemly to criticize a grieving mother, Ms. Maggiore's views and actions should not be criticized.
I feel that Ms. Maggiore's story is a prime example of why scientists and physicians need to counter the pseudoscientific advice of HIV denialists. I have read that Ms. Maggiore's views were strongly influenced by a conversation she had with Dr. Duesberg in the mid-1990's. The death of Ms. Maggiore's daughter provides a graphic illustration of the duty physicians and scientists have to vigorously oppose the flawed and dangerous views of HIV denialists such as Dr. Duesberg.
According to the LA Times, even after her daughter died of AIDS, Ms. Maggiore "said she continues to counsel HIV-positive parents around the country about how to keep from using anti-retroviral drugs during childbirth and from giving medications to children who have tested positive for the virus." (http://www.aegis.com/news/Lt/2005/LT051205.html)
You do not seem to have any issue with people counseling pregnant women that HIV is harmless and they shouldn't worry about passing the infection on to their children.
I disagree. I disagree even when the advice is given by an HIV-infected woman whose daughter died of AIDS.
Franklin,
You ask what are scientists to do but here you don't even explain what it is you do. You vaguely describe your activities as "opposing dangerous views".
"According to the LA Times, even after her daughter died of AIDS, Ms. Maggiore "said she continues to counsel HIV-positive parents around the country about how to keep from using anti-retroviral drugs during childbirth and from giving medications to children who have tested positive for the virus." (http://www.aegis.com/news/Lt/2005/LT051205.html)
You do not seem to have any issue with people counseling pregnant women that HIV is harmless and they shouldn't worry about passing the infection on to their children."
Why do you quote the NY times so often when you can't even discern from the text what it is she does (supposedly):
The NY times says she counsels on how to keep from using drugs. You translate that as counseling that HIV is harmless. That is a misrepresentation. I have never been to one of her meetings nor have you. There are many people who opt not to take the medicines and it is their right; it is enshrined in the law. It is their right to weight the known and unknown risks of side effects against the known and unknown risks of transmission and it is their right to recieve all information on all treatment options and non-treatment options in an uncoercive environment. These extra curricular activities that you so vaguely describe do nothing to instill a sense of professionalism and at their worst create the false impression that people do not have full discretion when weighing treatement "options" and that their descisions are somehow prescribed by law. This is false. It is implied coersion.
"I feel that Ms. Maggiore's story is a prime example of why scientists and physicians need to counter the pseudoscientific advice of HIV denialists"
The only counter evidence needed is K-2. We don't need fabrications about dark profit motives so obviously false.
why don't you sneak into one of her meetings and catch her in flagranti giving medical advice. That should settle it.
Pat,
Do you think that patients have a right to receive accurate information?
Or do you condone the practice of using false or misleading information to influence other people's health decisions?
What exactly do you think "pink foamy alveolar casts" are?
I was rather hoping you would produce the evidence, which is freely available according to John Moore, and explain it to me.
Whether the conditions under which Ms. Maggiore receives medical advice from her physicians are "coercive" or "non-coercive" has nothing to do with the publicly stated opinions of private citizens.
Whether HIV+ people choose to follow the advice of their health care providers or not has nothing to do with the publicly stated opinions of private citizens such a Christine Maggiore, Pat or myself, so what's your problem Franklin? Would it be the problem of stringing two arguments together that are not mutually contradicting?
Pat,
Here is a typical argument from Ms. Maggiore:
Do you endorse that argument?
Do you think that physicians and scientists should remain silent when an individual makes such arguments in support of the thesis that HIV is harmless and that pregnant women should take no steps to prevent transmission of the virus to their babies?
Sorry MEC,
I don't see what your argument has to do with mine:
Hey MEC,
I know it must be hard for you to read with your head buried so deeply in the sand, but if you're interested in the relationship between the intra-alveolar exudates and intra-alveolar casts of PCP you might want to check out this site:
Respiratory Cytopathology--Infections (By: Mark Stevens CFIAC, Principal Medical Scientist,Institute of Medical and Veterinary Science, Adelaide, Australia 5000)
He shows some pictures illustrating the cytopathology of PCP, and describes the intra-alveolar exudate:
So "exudates" and "casts" are synonyms for the hyaline intra-alveolar material that is characteristic of PCP, just like Chris Noble tried to explain to ne'er_a_peen.
He also mentions that the "cup-shaped cysts of P. carinii are best demonstrated with GMS," precisely the stain used by the Coroner in the Scovill autopsy.
I know that you probably aren't surprised by your own ignorance of this basic knowledge--but doesn't it make you wonder about Al-Bayati, the so-called "expert" that Ms. Maggiore asked to review the pathology report and slides?
If the intra-alveolar exudate of PCP "appears as a three dimensional cast," and the Coroner reported that "all lobes show pink foamy casts in the alveoli," how could Al-Bayati report that the "the ME observed none of these lesions in Eliza Jane's case?"
Could it be that he knows as little about the pathology of PCP as you do?
Perhaps he simply has his head buried as deeply in the sand as you do, although he may be more well-compensated for the inconvenience.
Maybe you could start charging $22,000 for reading an autopsy report.
And more importantly he states Cysts and trophozoites are not demonstrated with the H & E or the PAP stain.
So when Al-Bayati shows the H&E stained slides and says there is no evidence of PCP he is being deliberately deceptive.
It should also be pointed out that th every reference textbook that Al-Bayati cites in his Medical UnVeritas article has nice micrographs of PC stained with an appropriate stain.
Pathology. Second edition, edited by Rubin E and Farber JL. J.B. Lippincott Company, Philadelphia, Pensylvania, 1994.
It is hard to put down Al-Bayati's errors to ignorance. It has to be willful deception.
Do you think that physicians and scientists should remain silent when an individual makes such arguments in support of the thesis that HIV is harmless and that pregnant women should take no steps to prevent transmission of the virus to their babies?
No, they should not remain silent. They should very seriously take the arguments in account and, instead of behaving in some superior "You stupid denialist, I won't neither listen nor talk to you because that would only dignify your position" manner, see if they hold. And of course they hold. So many patients have had the same reaction "Hey! I fell ill only after I started to take the drugs", to remain silent and ignore them is plain stupid and even more: To do it now, in the year 2007, after twenty years of growing opposition to the official HIV=Aids version, is criminal.
"Do you endorse that argument?
"Do you think that physicians and scientists should remain silent when an individual makes such arguments in support of the thesis that HIV is harmless and that pregnant women should take no steps to prevent transmission of the virus to their babies?"
Again Franklin, you cannot read the words presented to you; that is an argument in support of the argument that these drugs have toxic side effects. Is the war so close to being lost that you can't counter with facts anymore? You need to counter with a fabricated charge of AIDS profiteering and child neglect, eh?
"Pat,
Do you think that patients have a right to receive accurate information?"
Didn't I just say so?
"Or do you condone the practice of using false or misleading information to influence other people's health decisions?"
Do you have evidence Maggiore is coercing people into not getting a second opinion?
While on the topic of African AIDS estimates...
U.N. to Cut Estimate Of AIDS Epidemic
Population With Virus Overstated by Millions
By Craig Timberg
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, November 20, 2007; A01
JOHANNESBURG, Nov. 19 -- The United Nations' top AIDS scientists plan to acknowledge this week that they have long overestimated both the size and the course of the epidemic, which they now believe has been slowing for nearly a decade, according to U.N. documents prepared for the announcement.
AIDS remains a devastating public health crisis in the most heavily affected areas of sub-Saharan Africa. But the far-reaching revisions amount to at least a partial acknowledgment of criticisms long leveled by outside researchers who disputed the U.N. portrayal of an ever-expanding global epidemic.
The latest estimates, due to be released publicly Wednesday, put the number of annual new HIV infections at 2.5 million, a cut of more than 40 percent from last year's estimate, documents show. The worldwide total of people infected with HIV -- estimated a year ago at nearly 40 million and rising -- now will be reported as 33 million.
A. Carricci,
Your attack against Prof. Moore (and the readers of this blog) is unjustified. It just show that you are against public understanding of AIDS/HIV science.
To don't have any more the disgust to see AIDS/HIV science explained to laymen, I strongly suggest that you switch off your computer and stay in your ivory tower.
"exudates" and "casts" are synonyms for the hyaline intra-alveolar material that is characteristic of PCP, just like Chris Noble tried to explain to ne'er_a_peen . . . If the intra-alveolar exudate of PCP "appears as a three dimensional cast," and the Coroner reported that "all lobes show pink foamy casts in the alveoli," how could Al-Bayati report that the "the ME observed none of these lesions in Eliza Jane's case?"
Could it be that he knows as little about the pathology of PCP as you do? (Franklin)
It is hard to put down Al-Bayati's errors to ignorance. It has to be willful deception (Noble)
I can see you are mighty impressed with yourselves gentlemen. Unfortunately the distinction to be made is not between "cast" and "exudate" but between "foamy exudate" and "lesion". In this case the simplest hypothesis - the one science teaches us to explore first - is that the problem arises as usual because of your exceptionally poor reading skills. Here is what Al-Bayati refers to as
"lesions":
The lesions of PCP usually comprise an interstitial infiltrate of plasma cells and lymphocytes; an interstitial fibrosis; an interstitial diffuse alveolar damage; and hyperplasia of type II pneumocytes.
He speaks in the same context about the alveolar exudate separated from the enumeration of the (other) lesions lesion by a mere semicolon instead of a full stop, which might be sufficient to confuse inexpert readers such as yourselves. But elsewhere Al-Bayati clearly states that the ME DID find this, but ONLY this, indication of PCP:
The ME stated that all lobes show pink foamy casts in the alveoli with no inflammatory response. The ME's observation clearly indicate that Eliza Jane did not suffer from pneumonia.
Al-Bayati very, very clearly does not contest the ME's observations about the pink foamy casts, only his conclusions. Here again he states what was NOT found - note "foamy exudates" or "casts" are NOT among the things mentioned as NOT found:
The microscopic examination of Eliza Jane's lungs revealed no inflammation. The ME did not observe any inflammatory response in the alveoli or in the interstitial tissue to justify a diagnosis of Pneumocystis carinii Pneumonia (PCP) or any other form of pneumonia.
So to sum up what AL-Bayati calls "lesions" are those given in the first quote above, foamy exudate being excepted.
I am not going to accuse eiher of you of wilfully misleading us, though, since there's plenty evidence you are simply illiterate morons.
Do you think that patients have a right to receive accurate information?
I think everybody agrees on that. The problem is though that the people who think they have accurate information more often than not know next to nothing about disease. Which is why the best thing they can do is just shut up, unless, of course, they have good news to share.
Up above you (or whoever goes by the moniker Never-a-brain) said that the Coroner's report did not mention exudates. You specifically referred to exudates. Now rather than admitting to being wrong you launch into another fruitless mindnumbing word game with logic that is only apparent to yourself.
Dr. Noble,
The fact that by your logic "denialists" are all the same doesn't make me never-a-peen. Or expressed in a language you science geniuses might be able to read, there is no known homology between never-a-peen and myself, thus no basis for this illegitimate template switching in your attempts to cover up the fact you can't read everyday prose.
Al-Bayati very, very clearly does not contest the ME's observations about the pink foamy casts, only his conclusions. Here again he states what was NOT found - note "foamy exudates" or "casts" are NOT among the things mentioned as NOT found:
Thank you MEC for clarifying the above description, elevating the discussion above the moronic level of the ignoble one (aka the illiterate moron). The clinical course decribed was that of sudden cardiac arrest after amoxicillin. The pulmonary findings were not sufficient to cause hypoxia and/or cardiac arrest. Rather the pericadial and pleural effusion represented a sudden fluid shift from an allergic reaction to the administered drug, as suggested by Al Bayati.
What were those various comments from AIDS denialists like MEC and his/her buddies, earlier on the thread, criticizing non-physicians for allegedly offering medical advice to Noreen over the internet (advice like "consult a qualified physician")? So now we have the sad and sorry spectacle of non-pathologists like MEC and never-a-brain offering their views over the internet on complex issues of medical science (pathology, and disease pathogenesis) on which they know nothing, and on which they are not qualified to have a meaningful opinion. That the likes of MEC and never-a-brain seem to think that they can second-guess a trained, qualified, government-certified pathologist and medical examiner (and his colleagues) who prepared the official Coroner's report is hubris on a staggering scale. But of course AIDS denialists live in a fantasy world of conspiracy theories and cover-ups, a world in which they can pretend to be significant experts on important scientific issues. The REAL world, fortunately, is a very different place, and it is a world in which the AIDS denialists always lose what passes for their "arguments". Which is what will happen, once again, when AIDS denialists appear in court in Ms. Maggiore's legal action. Of course, this assume that the judge doesn't just toss the lawsuit out at some stage, on the grounds of its inherent frivolity. This is what happened in the Silvah case, of course, a case in which I had the privilege of assisting the defense as an expert witness, and in which the ludicrous nature of Duesberg's deposition was of great assistance to the judge in his decision to throw the case out before it went any further. Incidentally, the denialists might like to know that the legal fees paid to the defense's expert witnesses were spent, in large part, on purchasing Nevirapine for distribution to South African, HIV-infected, pregnant women. Thus, something good did come of the Silvah case after all. If the same thing happens again, in the Maggiore case, it would provide the perfect, and notably ironic, closure - the AIDS death of one poor child helping to save many others from the same fate.
LOL! Why am I not surprised the illustrious Prof Moore considers himself the distributor of Poetic Justice, a wholly theological concept?
I don't now if even Chris Noble was fooled by Moore's introduction: I am second-guessing neither Ribe nor Al-Bayati, merely helping those in sore need understand the plain words of the latter.
"criticizing non-physicians for allegedly offering medical advice to Noreen over the internet (advice like "consult a qualified physician")?"
You were criticited for making death prophecies and you know that.
Why don't you post Duesberg's testimony?
"when AIDS denialists appear in court in Ms. Maggiore's legal action."
What legal action?
Dr Moore,
I have just read your statement in the Silvah case.
In paragraph 7 you give the UN aids figs as an example of how destructive HIV?AIDS is , now that the UN has re stated those figs, I presume you will now retract that statement.
You have given a statement to the court that was obviously false.
Also you have not replied to my question of what you will do
when it his proven that Eliza did not die of an AIDS condiiton.
Dear Kylie Minogue, given the time difference between here and where you live in Australia, you must have missed my earlier general statement on this thread to the effect that I do not ever answer any questions asked of me by any AIDS denialist. That particularly applies to you, as your posts rank alongside "cooler's's in respect of their extreme silliness.
at least I have big balls and the big heart.
John youve repeateatdly debated with denialists like Noreen on this blog so youve broken your oath, so youve lost your honor.
Duesberg , Lo, mullis, strohman, these are the real people history will anoint them as galileo's, especially shyh ching Lo md phd the militarys most distingushed infectious disease pathologist, the only scientist since Koch to discover a microbe mycoplasma incognitus/penetrans that killed/sickened every animal injected (mice, monkeys, chimps embryos, and didnt find it in one healthy control. My question to you and Tara is why do you deny this and not raise more awareness about this infection that can masqeurade as many illnesses?
Dont tell me it was a contaminant, contaminents dont cause fatal wasting diseases in mice/monkeys and contaminents are not visible in patients tissues by the EM, as Lo saw it in tissues with the EM. Researchers at the university of alabama concluded it was a novel strain when they inoculated in the trachea of rats and found it to be very invasive vs the ordinary strain of MF.
Dont tell me about antibody testing either, the monkeys that died only had a weak antibody response when near death. Nicolson has found it by PCR in many cases misdiagnosed as CFS etc............as you people always blame us for being denialists that cost lives, I hearby call out Tara and JP moore etc as denialists as well, for not raising more awareness of lo and nicolsons work, they are mycoplasma denialists that are costing peoples lives, all we rethinkers want is full informed consent for patients, not only hearing drug company and CDC propaganda.
All refrences provided above. Project day lily google it
Prof Moore,
I have noticed something rather disturbing: denialist status has nothing to do with one's belief but solely with the subjects one asks questions about. Thus Kyle gets no answer about the revised UN stats simply because they are revised downwards.
Prof. Moore, my mum knows nothing about HIV/AIDS, doesn't give shit one way or the other either. She is completely apolitical. If I get her to post my questions would she be a denialist as well?
Switching. . . .
Hi Prof Moore, I am Molecular Entry Claw's mother. I don't really understand what is going on but my son tells me it has long been well known that pregnancy is one of the main causes of false positive HIV tests and that you should know that. Why then are you lending your authority as a scientist to national statistics calculated on basis of test results from pregnant women:
India, once believed to have the largest HIV-positive population of any country in the world, today announced that new, more accurate surveillance data suggest India has about 2.5 million people living with HIV - about half the number estimated by UNAIDS based on previous surveys of HIV prevalence among pregnant women.
http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/C216549D-65B8-483D-8C84-D513A22900B6.asp
PS. I see you react to a Commenter named Kyle by calling him Kylie Minogue, then announces that HE is silly. . .
Please grow up.
Best wishes
MEC's Mum
Dear MEC's mother.
The denialists like to quote a letter from A. Voevodin Lancet. 1992;339:1548 as evidence that HIV tests are very inaccurate.
In 1991 29.4 million HIV tests were done of which approximately 7.4 million were pregant women. The number of false positives in pregant women from a single ELISA was 8000 (note none of these women were diagnosed HIV positive on the basis of a single ELISA). That still gives a specificity of about 99.89% compared to 99.90% for the general population. If pregnancy causes false positives it does so at a very low rate.
I would advise you to closely monitor your son's internet activities. Perhaps you could install some netnanny software.
Dear Dr. Noble,
Is it just the case then that pregnant women are all HIV positive? I mean if they are positive, their husbands, boyfriends and children must be as well I should think. So how could the test results from this group cause such gigantic errors in the HIV stats?
In fact, and this goes to the nice Prof. Moore as well, I've been following Dr. Noble's advice, and am shocked to see that I as a monogamous married woman am at greatest risk of all of acquiring HIV infection. I am quite shocked, so I hope you have advice for me. Should I go on chemo-prophylaxis?
"BANGKOK (AFP) - Married people accounted for more than 40 percent of all new cases of HIV/AIDS in Thailand last year, the country's health ministry said Thursday, despite an overall decrease in infections" (Google Alert, 12 October 2007).
"UN warns of Thai housewife HIV/AIDS crisis", Apiradee Treerutkuarkul www.bangkokpost.com/News/21Aug2007_news12.php
"In Thailand, up to 40% of the 18,000 new cases found each year are housewives, which was previously identified as a low-risk group. . . . The number was high compared to so-called high-risk groups, such as men having sex with men (28%) and sex workers (10%).... the situation has worsened in Papua New Guinea, where half of new AIDS cases are housewives. Housewives also account for at least 46% of all new cases in Cambodia"
"Press Release: Secretariat of The Pacific Community - SPC
SPC headquarters, Noumea, New Caledonia, Thursday May 31, 2007: Women are most at risk of contracting HIV from the men they should trust the most - their husbands....
This was the sobering message delivered to delegates at the 10th Triennial of Pacific Women, being held at Secretariat of the Pacific Community headquarters in New Caledonia."
"'Uganda: Rising HIV infection - where did we lose it?'", by Dr. Chris Baryomunsi, New Vision (Kampala), 12 December 2006; http://allafrica.com/stories/200612130724.html
[Earlier, government programs had led to] significant behaviour change, especially among the young generation, by delaying sex, reducing the number of sexual partners, using condoms, testing for their HIV status and seeking improved health services. . . . The 2005 HIV survey by the Ministry of Health shows . . . married couples and rich women . . . to be at high risk."
"'Married couples top HIV infection rates in Uganda', Kampala, 4 December 2006 (Xinhua);
www.chinaview.cn 2006-12-04 19:19:03
Apuuli Kihumuro, the director general of the Uganda AIDS Commission said . . . [that] between 1996 and 2005, 42 percent of the 130,000 HIV new infections occurred within wedlock. . . . [presumably] caused by unawareness of their HIV status, engaging in sex with multiple partners and their reluctance to use condoms. [Whereas] 'The low rates of infection among the youth and unmarried people according to the findings are ascribed to their vigilance in having protected sex'".
"New Vision (Kampala) 3 July 2007, reported by Fred Ouma
A detailed analysis of the 2004/05 Uganda HIV/AIDS Sero-Behaviourial Survey revealed the need to refocus HIV preventive measures to married people. . . . According to the survey, from an estimated 1.1 million Ugandans living with HIV/AIDS, married people were identified as the most risky group.... Contrary to the common perception that young people were at the greatest risk of HIV infection, the report shows an unprecedented shift, with 74% of new infection among people above 25 years of age. Only 10% of new infections were recorded among single people during the period of the study. New infections were highest (66%) among married, followed by 20% in widowed or divorced."
" 'A look at HIV - where are we now?' Sabin Russell, San Francisco Chronicle, 13 August 2006;
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/13/MNGSNKHMRQ1…
In India, for example, 80 percent of women infected with HIV are monogamous married women. 'The fastest rates of infection are among housewives and young women, because the men who go to sex workers also go home'"
"For a growing number of women in rural Mexico - and around the world - marital sex represents their single greatest risk for HIV infection. . . . because marital infidelity by men is so deeply ingrained across many cultures . . . . These findings are published in the June 2007 issue of the American Journal of Public Health. . . . The article's lead author, Jennifer S. Hirsch, PhD, associate professor of Sociomedical Sciences at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, is principal investigator on a large comparative study showing that the inevitability of men's infidelity in marriage is true across cultures. . . . in rural Mexico . . . in rural New Guinea and southeastern Nigeria" (http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/marital-sex-biggest-hiv-risk-women-aroun…)
Dear Dr. Noble,
Is it just the case then that pregnant women are all HIV positive? I mean if they are positive, their husbands, boyfriends and children must be as well I should think. So how could the test results from this group cause such gigantic errors in the HIV stats?
In fact, and this goes to the nice Prof. Moore as well, I've been following Dr. Noble's advice and checked up on my useless son's internet activities. I must say I was shocked when I found that I, as a monogamous married woman, am at greatest risk of all of acquiring HIV infection. I hope you have advice for me, Prof Moore. Should I go on chemoprophylaxis?
"BANGKOK (AFP) - Married people accounted for more than 40 percent of all new cases of HIV/AIDS in Thailand last year, the country's health ministry said Thursday, despite an overall decrease in infections" (Google Alert, 12 October 2007).
"UN warns of Thai housewife HIV/AIDS crisis", Apiradee Treerutkuarkul "In Thailand, up to 40% of the 18,000 new cases found each year are housewives, which was previously identified as a low-risk group. . . . The number was high compared to so-called high-risk groups, such as men having sex with men (28%) and sex workers (10%).... the situation has worsened in Papua New Guinea, where half of new AIDS cases are housewives. Housewives also account for at least 46% of all new cases in Cambodia"
"Press Release: Secretariat of The Pacific Community - SPC
SPC headquarters, Noumea, New Caledonia, Thursday May 31, 2007: Women are most at risk of contracting HIV from the men they should trust the most - their husbands....
This was the sobering message delivered to delegates at the 10th Triennial of Pacific Women, being held at Secretariat of the Pacific Community headquarters in New Caledonia."
"'Uganda: Rising HIV infection - where did we lose it?'", by Dr. Chris Baryomunsi, New Vision (Kampala), 12 December 2006; [Earlier, government programs had led to] significant behaviour change, especially among the young generation, by delaying sex, reducing the number of sexual partners, using condoms, testing for their HIV status and seeking improved health services. . . . The 2005 HIV survey by the Ministry of Health shows . . . married couples and rich women . . . to be at high risk."
"'Married couples top HIV infection rates in Uganda', Kampala, 4 December 2006 (Xinhua);
www.chinaview.cn 2006-12-04 19:19:03
Apuuli Kihumuro, the director general of the Uganda AIDS Commission said . . . [that] between 1996 and 2005, 42 percent of the 130,000 HIV new infections occurred within wedlock. . . . [presumably] caused by unawareness of their HIV status, engaging in sex with multiple partners and their reluctance to use condoms. [Whereas] 'The low rates of infection among the youth and unmarried people according to the findings are ascribed to their vigilance in having protected sex'".
"New Vision (Kampala) 3 July 2007, reported by Fred Ouma
A detailed analysis of the 2004/05 Uganda HIV/AIDS Sero-Behaviourial Survey revealed the need to refocus HIV preventive measures to married people. . . . According to the survey, from an estimated 1.1 million Ugandans living with HIV/AIDS, married people were identified as the most risky group.... Contrary to the common perception that young people were at the greatest risk of HIV infection, the report shows an unprecedented shift, with 74% of new infection among people above 25 years of age. Only 10% of new infections were recorded among single people during the period of the study. New infections were highest (66%) among married, followed by 20% in widowed or divorced."
" 'A look at HIV - where are we now?' Sabin Russell, San Francisco Chronicle, 13 August 2006;
In India, for example, 80 percent of women infected with HIV are monogamous married women. 'The fastest rates of infection are among housewives and young women, because the men who go to sex workers also go home'"
"For a growing number of women in rural Mexico - and around the world - marital sex represents their single greatest risk for HIV infection. . . . because marital infidelity by men is so deeply ingrained across many cultures . . . . These findings are published in the June 2007 issue of the American Journal of Public Health. . . . The article's lead author, Jennifer S. Hirsch, PhD, associate professor of Sociomedical Sciences at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, is principal investigator on a large comparative study showing that the inevitability of men's infidelity in marriage is true across cultures. . . . in rural Mexico . . . in rural New Guinea and southeastern Nigeria"
"Dear Kylie Minogue, given the time difference between here and where you live in Australia, you must have missed my earlier general statement on this thread to the effect that I do not ever answer any questions asked of me by any AIDS denialist. That particularly applies to you, as your posts rank alongside "cooler's's in respect of their extreme silliness.
Posted by: John Moore | November 20, 2007 10:36 PM "
Can someone count how often JP Moore came along just to repeat that he won't explain himself?
Play it again Sam!
My husband recently had his fourth HIV test, the last three were for insurance reasons and all of his tests are HIV-Negative. Surely, if I have 100,000 viral load then he in theory should be in danger. But in reality I don't have anywhere near that number due to it being hyped-up by a math formula. Another attempt to "scare" the public into believing that HIV is deadly. John Boy, we rethinkers live in reality and to all of the inconsistencies of the HIV theory. We at least acknowledge them where most of you bury your head in the sand and try to beat your drums louder to drown us out.
Sexual mores are assumed based on HIV test results? Who woulda thunk!
That the likes of MEC and never-a-brain seem to think that they can second-guess a trained, qualified, government-certified pathologist and medical examiner (and his colleagues) who prepared the offou areicial Coroner's report is hubris on a staggering scale.
Dear who-ever-you-are,
The pericardial and pleural effusions were described by the ME, so there is no second guessing here. The clinical course was also described by the ME and Al Bayati. No second guessing here. The ME concluded PCP and HIV. Al Bayati concluded allergic reaction to Amoxicillin with shock and cardiovascular collapse.
The pleural and pericardial fluid described by the ME supports Al BAyati's conclusion. Acute Pericardial Tamponade was probably the cause of hypotension and cardiac arrest. The pulmonary findings were insufficient to produce cardiovascular collapse. This is not wild speculation or conspiracy thoery. Its common sense.
Of course, the good professor has no medical training so cannot understand any of it.
By the way, you really hurt my feelings. My name is never-a-peen which rhymes with nevirapine, not never-a-brain which doesn't rhyme with anything. Try something that rhymes with deadly toxic hiv drug.
If you want names, we can call you a few. But its already been done, and all the names are out there, so why bother?
"You must have missed my earlier general statement on this thread to the effect that I do not ever answer any questions asked of me by any AIDS denialist."
Professor Moore, you really are a lot of fun. I mean being so predictable and everything. As Truthseeker has so astutely pointed out, you're the denialists' best friend! And thanks to our gracious host Tara - who's nice enough not to shut us down - we compile on the world wide web the substantive questions you refuse to answer.
Here's another one from a student puzzled by a biochemical paradox. How can quasispecies <=> hypercycles according to Eigen be reconciled with lentiviruses according to Foley?
From a letter to Clinton (4/3/00), we can see how Mbeki anticipated this very thread.
EXCERPTS: ... It is obvious that whatever lessons we have to and may draw from the West about the grave issue of HIV/AIDS, a simple superimposition of Western experience on African reality would be absurd and illogical.
Such proceeding would constitute a criminal betrayal of our responsibility to our own people. It was for this reason that I spoke as I did in our parliament, in the manner in which I have indicated.
I am convinced that our urgent task is to respond to the specific threat that faces us as Africans. We will not eschew this obligation in favour of the comfort of the recitation of a catechism that may very well be a correct response to the specific manifestation of AIDS in the West.
We will not, ourselves, condemn our own people to death by giving up the search for specific and targeted responses to the specifically African incidence of HIV/AIDS.
I make these comments because our search for these specific and targeted responses is being stridently condemned by some in our country and the rest of the world as constituting a criminal abandonment of the fight against HIV/AIDS.
Some elements of this orchestrated campaign of condemnation worry me very deeply.
It is suggested, for instance, that there are some scientists who are "dangerous and discredited" with whom nobody, including ourselves, should communicate or interact.
In an earlier period of human history, these would be burnt at the stake!
( . . . )
The scientists we are supposed to put into scientific quarantine include Nobel Prize winners, Members of Academies of Science and Emeritus Professors of various disciplines of medicine!
Scientists, in the name of science, are demanding that we should cooperate with them to freeze scientific discourse on HIV/AIDS at the specific point this discourse had reached in the West in 1984.
People who otherwise would fight very hard to defend the critically important rights of freedom of thought and speech occupy, with regard to the HIV/AIDS issue, the frontline in the campaign of intellectual intimidation and terrorism which argues that the only freedom we have is to agree with what they decree to be established scientific truths.
Some agitate for these extraordinary propositions with a religious fervor born by a degree of fanaticism, which is truly frightening.
( . . . )
It is most strange that all of us seem ready to serve the cause of the fanatics by deciding to stand and wait.
Master, Slave and Outlaw
Some time ago a person got very angry with me. My short story Twenty-first Century Love hadn't pleased her at all and she had decided that I belonged to the very wrong, the very lost and the very dangerous. How dare I question the established Aids truth without ever questioning myself? A day or so later she allowed me to surface from the abyss of miserable shame and sent me the answer to her devastating question: I suffered from what is called in French a "délire hyper-logique". From her message I learned many things. For example, a "Hyper-logic delirium" is a systemized delirium, meaning that the fool's craziness is not senseless but, on the contrary, very coherent and logical. It may even convince perfectly normal people. Which implies that today a person who provides formal proof for just about anything can be persecuted as a dangerous dissident for being too logical. The trick is just to consider the initial idea as delirious.
Dissidents of all sorts, behold! Say you watch a 9/11 video. You see a building with a very small hole caused by a very big aircraft. The aircraft has left no trace whatsoever. You want to say something to the person next to you. Like: "Hey! It's insane! The approach is impossible! The hole is far too small! I can't se no plane debris, it's a lie, there never was a Boeing-752!" Don't. Hyper-logic delirium. You'll be called a conspiracy theorist and you may end up in an asylum.
Although, the conspiracy theorists item, if you really give it a closer look, you must admit that it's not that simple. As a matter of fact, very few conspiracy theorists really end up in an asylum. Did you ever wonder why so few of them are ever severely persecuted? No? You should. You did? Never found an answer, did you? But I have figured it all out, listen.
HIV, the virus that causes Aids. The 9/11 commission report. The unavoidable "Don't ask if, ask when" avian flu pandemic. The invasion of Iraq. The hype against Iran. You name it. Conspiracies? Let me laugh. They're a joke compared to the one and only superior and ultimate conspiracy, code name GPS-GPS. Global Population Survey using the Global Positioning System. There you have the real thing.
But the guys behind the scene must be absolutely sure before they can pull the trigger. Sure of what? Sure not only of the fact that people will believe anything they're told, but also that all subjects will unconditionally hang on to their beliefs and continue to listen to the same voices that taught them what to believe and what to do, whatever happens. Make people believe a lie is very simple. Make them believe the lie even when someone else tells them it is a lie is a lot trickier. But the real state of the art consists of anchoring the believe so thoroughly that the indoctrinated will treat dissidents as dangerous psychopaths.
Let me illustrate the basic idea with a small example. We need to stage three persons. One who teaches. One who learns. One who questions. Let's call them the Master, the Slave and the Outlaw.
Step one: Will Slave believe Master?
Master --In Texas, where there's much oil in the soil, frogs living underground developed small caps on their head.
Slave --Why did they develop caps, Master?
Master --So they don't get oil in their eyes.
Slave --How intelligent nature is. And again we witness: Survival of the fittest! One more proof that Darwin was right.
Step two: Will Slave believe Master unconditionally?
Slave --In Texas, where there's much oil in the soil, frogs living underground wear small caps on the head.
Outlaw --That's not true at all. What a silly idea! I lived in Texas for twenty years and I can tell you that there's nothing special with the frogs over there. AND that they don't live underground.
Slave --I don't believe you. My master knows.
Generally these two steps are enough to be pretty sure whether yes or no a slave will follow his master like a dog. But in certain extreme cases a third step is essential to be absolutely sure the slave will never ever even think of mutiny.
Step three: Will Slave stand up against Outlaw if needed?
Outlaw --If you have a master then you're a slave. If you believe any joke your master tells you, then you belong to the herds of lazy brain cattle easily exploited by a greedy sheepherder.
Slave --Conspiracy theorist! Guru! Terrorist! Psychopath!
Now we are sure: this slave is ready to follow his master anywhere, whatever happens. Got the idea? OK. Now let's see if the approach is applicable.
Step one: Will Slave believe Master?
Slave --There's a starving man over there. Shall we provide him with food and water?
Master --That man is not starving. That would have been his condition 30 years ago. Today he has Aids.
Slave --What can we do to relieve his sufferings?
Master --Give him AZT and ARVs, our life-saving killer drugs. They are toxic and may not help much, but they are the best we have.
Step two: Will Slave believe Master unconditionally?
Outlaw --There's a starving man over there. Let's give him food and water.
Slave --That man is not starving. That would have been his condition 30 years ago. Today he has Aids.
Outlaw --What's in a name? Call it what you want but I tell you, that man needs food and water.
Slave --No, we must give him those life-saving killer drugs. They are toxic and may not help much, but it's the best we have. Food and water are not absolutely essential, life-saving drugs are.
Step three: Will Slave stand up against Outlaw if needed?
Outlaw --What are you, a dumb guy? I tell you that man is starving! Give him apples, rice, meat, bread and water. Poison is the last thing a starving man needs!
Slave --My master taught me our life-saving killer drugs are vital. He knows a thousand times better than you and me together.
Outlaw --Tell your master he's a dirty scumbag to make money over the back of the starving poor.
Slave --Conspiracy theorist! Guru! Terrorist! Psychopath!
This slave will follow his master to hell and back.
Now, look around the world in which we live. What do we see? Hundreds of millions behave like the slave painted above, a handful of dissident outlaws here and there trying to convince the others they got it all wrong. But the slaves don't listen and the masters are assured that the sheep will hang on to their beliefs whatever happens. Any topic, 9/11, Aids, the war on Iraq, the debate isn't getting anywhere. For instance, Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, they admitted it was all a lie, but the liars were reelected.
Today GPS phase one, the Global Population Survey, practically touches its end. The masters are perfectly sure now the slaves will blindly follow and pretty soon GPS phase two will be activated through the Global Positioning System.
Now you understand, don't you? Beg your pardon? No, you still have no idea what I'm after... Sigh... Okay, I'll tell you.
A guy is driving a car equipped with a GPS connected to an inboard computer system. A metal voice gives some indications.
"Turn left!" The driver turns left.
"Turn right!" The driver turns right.
Does the guy driving the car ever take an opposite turn to see what happens? No, never. He obeys. And always will.
There are too many of us. The poor will be taken care of with life-saving killer drugs against Aids, Avian flu and the like. They are of no concern, they don't have access to the Internet and nobody will go to them and tell them it's all a lie. And the rich, you ask? The rich drive their fancy cars. It's only a question of time. The inboard computer knows. "Turn right!" The driver turns right. Straight into the ravine.
It's all so logical. It's hyper-logical.
Tara, showing a typical disregard for the truth posters on your exciting thread here who support the orthodoxy (these two things go together, it seems) have added some shocking calumny which brings into disrepute my humble but accurate blog, Science Guardian/New AIDS Review, and besmirches my name with misleading statements.
I know you will allow factual correction of this small stain on your otherwise great blogging achievement of hosting a no-holds-barred debate on this vexed topic of whether AIDS is a retroviral disease or a drug/conventional disease/nutrition problem.:
Incidentally, for those posters on this thread who don't actually know who Pat/Anthony Liversidge/Tony Baloney is, and why would you, he's an elderly Englishman living in New York who runs a puerile Blog, New AIDS Review, devoted to AIDS denialism and other related conspiracy theories. His deadly rival, a person he loathes more than he hates any AIDS scientist, is Harvey Bialy, whose own Blog was much more popular and better written then his own. Pat/Liversidge/Baloney likes to think of himself as some kind of civilized, Anglo aristo type, but in reality he's just Bialy-lite, posting the same material only with less humor and even sillier scientific content. He reserves a special place of hatred in his heart for the AIDS Truthies, because they listed Bialy and not him on their "Who are the denialists page". He took this to be a huge personal slight. Pathetic when you stop to think about it - the price of a big ego attached to a small brain I guess.
Molecular Spartacus Claw
This is all subjective commentary (presumably by a Moore cohort, judging from the style) and not for us to contradict, but for the allegation that we detest the estimable Dr Harvey Bialy, when in fact we admire Harvey Bialy's honesty, integrity, courage, intellectual acuity, careful vocabulary, scientific purity, and wicked sense of humor, including his explosive email hand grenades, as long as they are applied to other victims who deserve it, such as the incorrigibly disrespectful scientist, the self-celebrated John P. Moore, who by the way was eviscerated by Bialy's dangerous literary antics only when he very rudely declined to debate Bialy in public, as is his evasive and telling wont (he also refused to have lunch with the enquiring editor from NAR, me, who applied to record his reasons for believing that HIV causes AIDS, which he has never dared detail, for some reason).
Our single disagreement was over whether we deserved it when Dr Bialy gave us the same treatment. We hold him in great esteem. If only the establishment truth-denialists had half his brainpower and zeal for truth.
On another subject, "Molecular Spartacus Claw" speculated about why Anthony Liversidge is not listed on AIDS Truth's "Who are the denialists page". We never for a moment considering adding him. Although he resembles Bialy in running a conspiracy theory/AIDS denialist Blog, it's not particularly influential even in denialist circles. Moreover, Liversidge has no scientific training (accounting for the asinine content of what he posts), unlike Bialy who was able to use his degrees to persuade a few gullible journalists that he knew what he was talking about. Recording the reality about Bialy on AIDS Truth was therefore useful to show journalists who in fact they were dealing with; that situation would never arise with Liversidge. After all, if we listed Liversidge, we'd pretty much also have to list Michael Geiger...... One has to draw a line somewhere!....
No "cooler", you do not know what we're going to do, but we are most certainly NOT going to post anything you have written on AIDS Truth. I'm afraid that, like Michael Geiger and Anthony Liversidge, you're not significant enough to make it onto our site. So all your ramblings about "copyright" are completely irrelevant.
John Moore
Contrary to his shortsighted expectations, we thank God and the distinguished John Moore for his kind decision not to include us on his misleading, shamefully disrespectful, emotionally grotesque, intellectually denialist and antisocial site AIDSTruth.org since we are not at all scientific denialists, as he is.
In fact we believe that the first principle of good science is that good scientists debate the truth with enthusiasm and respect for any person who raises a question in order to understand their science better, while politically driven and theoretically vulnerable scientists do neither.
We are however, proud to be linked to the inimitable Michael Geiger, whose unrestrained passion for the truth results in often glorious prose whose ringing tones are literary music compared to the raspberries visited upon all truthseekers by the renowned John P. Moore, whose refusal to enlighten all of us with debate with "denialists" is not very convincing when he comments on what they say so copiously and is their best publicist.
There is also the fact that he makes many of their points for them in his papers which as promised we will shortly be enumerating on the blog as a Thanksgiving present for the redoubtable Moore in exchange for his evident support of our position that the scientific literature of the field must remain the touchstone of truth for both scientists and laymen, including journalists.
As to Tony/baloney having no scientific training, that's an advantage in many ways. Being an outsider to science is an excellent qualification for seeing the Emperor has no clothes. Many advances in specialist fields come from outsiders, because they take less for granted. Journalists are outsiders trained to ask good questions on behalf of the public, and review the answers. Does Mr Moore or his goon object to this process?
Let's note that the flaws in HIV=AIDS are so obvious and clear that outsiders with no previous experience of science whatsoever can see through it, once they pay attention. Could this clarity be why Mr Moore prefers not to engage "denialists" directly? Surely not.
We also enjoy and admire "cooler's" ability to give Moore more than a run for his money. Right on, dog!
By the way, Science Guardian is not a conspiracy theory blog, since we do not think there was ever an explicit plan to peddle the (even now still) unproven theory HIV=AIDS to government and public. But we have to say that the pr campaign to promote it and the behind the scenes bureaucratic response to dissent could count as a conspiracy, since it has been effectively coordinated by Fauci and his explicit censorship, according to memos that found their way into the public sphere.
But in general we don't allege any conspiracy and to say that we do is just the usual Moore ploy, an attempt to stain our reputation by association with 9/11 nuts, just as the word "denialist" tries to imply that dissent is not rational and not based on the published, peer-reviewed literature, as all comment at New AIDS Review is.
Ands could it be that Mr Moore declines to publicise our humble blog for fear of what it says? Surely not.
But how odd that a scientist who pretends to have all the science on his side is reduced to ad hominem disrespect as his only reply to our writings. What does that tell you?
It tells us that the inarticulate Mr Moore is the dissenters' best friend, a scientist who cannot lie, a secret ally to be cherished for his Fauci-flouting personal drive towards scientific reality which in this superb scientific mind cannot be gainsayed, even by 500,000 dollar bills.
Ignorance is an advantage? How so?
It's not so amazing that there is a very neat inverse relationship between the level of scientific training and the ability to find "flaws" in HIV/AIDS theory.
The same phenomenom is seen in evolution denial. The simple truth is that the people doing the "rethinking" do not understand the science that they are attempting to critique. The "flaws" that they find are simply reflections of their own ignorance and confusion.
"The same phenomenom is seen in evolution denial. The simple truth is that the people doing the "rethinking" do not understand the science that they are attempting to critique. The "flaws" that they find are simply reflections of their own ignorance and confusion."
Chris Noble intellectually surrenders.
Truthseeker, aka Anthony Liversedge, posts his usual pretentious drivel to try to advertize his own blog which is remarkable only for the stupidity of the discussions about science that take place there. But Truthseeker does make one interesting comment when he writes
" But in general we don't allege any conspiracy and to say that we do is just the usual Moore ploy, an attempt to stain our reputation by association with 9/11 nuts"
It appears then that Truthseeker is condemning Andrew Maniotis, Lynn Margulis and Henry Bauer as "nuts", because all of these AIDS denialists have also publicly joined the ranks of 9/11 conspiracy theorists. They are of course nuts, because the basis for 9/11 denial is as stupid and unscientific as the basis for denying that HIV causes AIDS. The statements made by Maniotis, Margulis and Bauer that they are both AIDS and 9/11 denialists therefore expose them to the world as cranks, cuckoos, flakes and nuts, and act to show AIDS denialism for the silliness that it truly is. It's good to see that Anthony Truthseeker Liversidge is therefore of the same opinion - these people truly are "nuts". Thanks Anthony for this little gem of wisdom among the dross of your postings here and on your own blog!
yep, the 911 truth community now includes over 200 architects and engineers, 2 swiss structural engineers that say building 7 collapsed with explosives, former CIA official and writer of the award winning movie "Syriana"
And millions of other highly educated people around the world.
Planes dont dissepear into thin air while terrorists passports and red bandanas survive like in shankesville
buildings dont have all 81 columns fail at the same time without explosives, fire and damage has never caused a rapid symetrical collpase, or even a collapse for that matter.
Please cite me evidence for your conspiracy theory? the fatty bin laden tape? Or the passport that flew on the streets of manhattan of satam al saqiumi, glad that passport survived, funny how they never found the black boxes at ground zero.
funny how dumb you people are, you claim to be scientists, but scientists dont dismiss theories out of hand, they discuss theories in terms of evidence, and the very fact they do dismiss these theories shows how ignorant they air. "oh my government could never do that WELL THEY KILLED 3 MILLION IN VIETNAM, IRAQ ARE YA STUPID? They put plans on paper to commit acts of terrorism agaisnt americans and blame it on Cuba, operation northwoods, but of course, government atrocity apologists dont even know this info, ie they are the same types of people in germany that could never belive hitler could do evil, or the people in russia that would never beileve that he would torture dissidents in gulags. Youd call those people conspiracy theorists as well if you lived in those societies
Architects for truth google it
loose change the most watched movie ever online, the final cut is even better. Buy it.
Are you pretending to be Duesberg's grad student again Gene?
Your confusion is entirely of your own making and has nothing to do with any supposed paradoxes.
I'm grateful to Liedetecter for bring Liversidge's post to my attention, as I never bothered reading what Liversidge wrote (for much the same reason as I don't feel the need to stick my finger into a pile of manure to know what it is). So I would have missed that little gem in which he (rightly, for once) dismisses 9/11 conspiracy theorists as "nuts" (exemplified by the likes of "cooler", who proves the point rather nicely above).
No scientist can be an AIDS denialist without automatically losing all his or her professional credibility, because to be an AIDS denialist is to display that one has no ability to properly understand and judge the contents of the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Similarly, no scientist/engineer can be a 9/11 conspiracy theorist without automatically losing all his or her professional credibility, for much the same reasons.
It therefore is no surprise that there is overlap between the AIDS denialists and the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, since both groups attract people with much the same mindset, people who lack the judgement or insight to recognize the absurdity of what they believe in. The additional loss of scientific credibility incurred by being in both camps reflects synergy in action. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde: "To believe in one conspiracy theory may be regarded as merely silly; to believe in both looks like insanity".
It would not surprise me to learn that AIDS denialists also believe in the Loch Ness Monster and Alien-created Crop Circles (oh, hang on that's exactly what Henry Bauer DOES believe in....). How long it will be before one or more AIDS denialist proposes that Elvis Presley is alive, busy filming the next installment of the re-enactment of the moon landings in the deserts of New Mexico, while discussing with Marilyn Monroe how they combined to shoot JFK from the Grassy Knoll? There's no difference between the mindset required to believe that statement is true, that required to believe the CIA was responsible for 9/11, and that required to believe that HIV either does not exist or that it does not cause AIDS. Each of these views is equally absurd, and equally unjustified by the facts.
So, I for one welcome the linkage that's becoming apparent now between AIDS denialists and 9/11 conspiracy theorists, as it shows up AIDS denialism for what it truly is - the realm of the "nuts", to re-use Anthony Liversidge's word.
Happy Thanksgiving to all the sensible, non-conspiracy-theorist people who have posted on this site (Chris Noble, Franklin, Lee, Braganza, Adele, Tara, ElkMountainMan and a few others). At these peoples' Thanksgiving Dinners, the only turkeys present will be the ones on the plate.
The statements made by Maniotis, Margulis and Bauer that they are both AIDS and 9/11 denialists therefore expose them to the world as cranks, cuckoos, flakes and nuts, and act to show AIDS denialism for the silliness that it truly is. It's good to see that Anthony Truthseeker Liversidge is therefore of the same opinion - these people truly are "nuts". Thanks Anthony for this little gem of wisdom among the dross of your postings here and on your own blog!
Posted by: Liedetector | November 21, 2007 9:16 PM
Thank you kindly, LieDetector//Moore-goony for your humorous opinion of what we wrote above, spelling and logic challenged though you appear to be in the post.
Apparently your litmus test as to whether what we wrote is "pretentious drivel" or "gems of wisdom" is whether it fits your fixed preconceptions. Is this enough? We daresay it is not, for reasons to do with scientific research on the framing of data as it enters what passes for your brain, a phenomenon which is fully explained on our humble blog, but seems to have passed right over your head.
Prising your death grip from what you think you already know may be impossible, but we are willing to give it a try. Perhaps you should mull over the following questions if you can spare any time from licking the distinguished Mr Moore's polished boots:
1) Is saying that one feels stained by association with "9/11 nuts" the same thing as saying that all those who take a second look at the official story of 9/11 are nuts?
We support anyone who takes a second look at any notion which is supported automatically by the sheep of society who feel that in order to graze the meadow they have to all point in the same direction as the head sheep, apparently a tendency with which you are personally familiar.
2) Is it true that people who are wrong to question one notion are therefore wrong to question another, unrelated belief?
Skepticism is a useful frame of mind, but its results depend on studying the data, surely. In the case of HIV=AIDS only the irrational, uninformed, and scientifically illiterate still conclude that the paradigm is airborne. All intelligent observers whose minds are in gear and who read the scientific literature can see that, theoretically speaking, it long ago crashed into the trees at the end of the runway without ever lifting one inch into the air, in spite of having enormous afterburners attached fueled by billions of dollars worth of Federal funding since it started rolling 23 years ago.
Yes, at present the little I know of 9/11 conspiracy theory seems to me to be as prima facie silly as the current AIDS paradigm obviously is, but my opinion is as worthless as yours is in AIDS until I study the data and the reasoning of the people you mention, who have certainlly proved themselves worthy skeptics in HIV=AIDS, as you have not, it seems.
3) We both have a duty to respect judgements and conclusions different from ours until we have thoroughly studied the data and reasoning involved, do we not?
4)We both have a duty to respect those who have different opinions, also, do we not?
5) Is the phrasing ("drivel" "dross" etc) you use respectful?
6) If not, should we respect your opinion, since your ears are obviously closed to different views from people you do not respect, who have written extensive books about the topic, or in my case, a blog amounting to two books and counting?
Since you may lose your way in following these 6 questions, here are the answers: No. No. Yes. Yes. No. No.
For further assistance, please refer to Science Guardian, which exists to brief data challenged clever people at the top of science and society such as yourself.
200 architects, 100 million views on the internet of movies that are being beleived by millions of far more intelligent people than the drug company hacks on these blogs, movies like Loose change, 9/11 mysteries and Zeitgeist, Former cia officials like Ray Mcgovern, and robert baer, author of the award winning movie syriana.
Heres a message from robert baer for you conspiracy nuts, could you imagine fools like John moore/liedetector etc being able to author novels as compelling as his? Id be laughing my off.........Maniotis bauer and Margulis have nothing to be ashamed of for exposing both the hiv fraud and 9/11. Just bc the government tells you something doesnt make it true, its about the evidence. Listen to your master Robert Baer, far more qualified than anyone else to show us the light.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDXurOmeJxc
look at this idiot moore, as usual he offers no evidence, just psychoanylisis, but what else would you beleive from a government atrocity apoligist whod piss in his pants in fear if hed have to debate real scholars like Noam Chomsky or David Ray griffin. This troll psuedoscientist moore proably still beleives they are WMD's in Iraq, but what else would you expect from a fool that offers zero evidence for his theories, just a pathetic attempt at being a psychologist.
Debunk this, back and to the left, idiot, the shot came from the front you idiot, even cyril wecht the worlds leading forensic scientists says so, you have to be an idiot to beleive the warren commision. Its so obvious that youre just a hack that doesnt believe your government can tell a lie. Its like living in Orwells 1984.
Sorry, one of the leading explosive experts in the world says world trade center 7 was brought down with explosives, here is testimony.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgoSOQ2xrbI
See zeitgeist, loose change and 9/11 mysteries on google video now.
millions of views, people I know that are far more intelligent than moore, and have graduated from far better universities than moore inc are seeing the truth.
Here's another one from a student puzzled by a biochemical paradox. How can quasispecies hypercycles according to Eigen be reconciled with lentiviruses according to Foley?
Are you pretending to be Duesberg's grad student again Gene?
Your confusion is entirely of your own making and has nothing to do with any supposed paradoxes.
Posted by: Chris Noble | November 21, 2007 10:42 PM
Why Chris, I do believe you forgot to actually answer the question. What's the matter, don't you feel your science credentials are quite up to it? You were rather better in the BMJ debate. Maybe you could draw on some ofyour helpers from that occasion?
Ok, let me give you a softer one to warm up on: how do you distinguish a lentivirus from a "conventional" virus? Which genetic or biological characteristics make a virus "lenti"?
Here is the link for loose change, the most watched movie ever in the internet for those that want a primer on 9/11 conspiracy theories.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501
Prof. Moore,
I have now read a little further on the internet as Dr. Noble advised I do. I'ved discovered you think my son is part of a worldwide AIDS Denialist Conspiracy. This has me worried my son might get in trouble. Could you please elaborate on your AIDS Denialist Conspiracy theories, so I can make an informed decision as to whether I have to confiscate MEC's computer or possibly turn him over to the FBI?
Thank you for your reply
MEC's Mum.
PS. Why didn't you reply to my previous request? I'm still not sure if I should go on chemoprophylaxis since according to the infallible HIV tests, as a monogamous married woman I seem to be in greaster danger of contracting HIV than if I were an IV drug using prostitute.
http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/11/mbeki_still_in_denial.php#com…
MM
PPS. Prof. Moore, how have you discovered Prof. Bauer is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist? Could you plesae provide your references. I am interested in this topic but I could't find anything written by Prof Bauer on it. So far the only conspiracy theories I have been able to find are your own. That's why I lke reading your stuff, it's not anything like the ususal dry and boring science.
So, I for one welcome the linkage that's becoming apparent now between AIDS denialists and 9/11 conspiracy theorists, as it shows up AIDS denialism for what it truly is - the realm of the "nuts", to re-use Anthony Liversidge's word.
Happy Thanksgiving to all the sensible, non-conspiracy-theorist people who have posted on this site (Chris Noble, Franklin, Lee, Braganza, Adele, Tara, ElkMountainMan and a few others). At these peoples' Thanksgiving Dinners, the only turkeys present will be the ones on the plate.
Darn it, we foolishly decided not to use the turkey crack in the screed we just posted, since it seemed too obvious, and here the wit challenged John "I am a secret HIV dissident" Moore uses it without any respect for the intelligence of his readers at all... wait! he is addressing his faithful following, so that would be appropriate after all.
Regarding the association of 9/11 nuts with AIDS critics, we agree with John "My support of HIV=AIDS is political and ad hominem, for the science please see my dissident papers in exclusive insider journals where I prepare my way for when the paradigm crumbles" Moore that this stains the reputation of HIV/AIDS critics.
But as noted above, when lives are at stake it behooves people to study the data and the reasoning involved, not to judge with prejudice, conformity or other lazy emotional motivations. These distort science, and there are plenty of them - in fact at Science Guardian our blog logo lists too many of them to count.
John deals in at least a dozen of them in defending his tattered pardigm against the debunking of critics who rather amazingly include himself, as our next post on New AIDS Review will show.
Exactly how this superb mind and sensitive psyche can live with this intellectual and emotional inner conflict is not for us to say, but it is kinda cute that it shows so explicitly, or would be if his style wasn't so wearyingly nasty. Noblesse oblige, John! Graduates even of Downing College should have more gentlemanly manners in public debate. It is embarrassing for other English expats to read these excesses.
No scientist can be an AIDS denialist without automatically losing all his or her professional credibility, because to be an AIDS denialist is to display that one has no ability to properly understand and judge the contents of the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Substitute "believer" for "denialist" and this would be a very accurate statement, at least among the elite of the field. What readers must understand, however, is that it is very improbable that Moore doesn't know this. Not only does he make many admissions to this effect in his papers, if you know where to find them (coming up, folks, when the more interesting side of life permits) but he is a smart cookie, as his brilliant posts on this thread show.
What elevated genius he shows in his wordplay in so brilliantly characterizing what we write as "manure", especially when he never read it! This man is a genius, as well as too honest to conceal from his peers the flaws in his working (read 'fundraising') hypothesis.
Once again we nominate Moore for the Lasker, at least. Why is no one here supporting this?
By the way, John, since we at Science Guardian are not 9/11 conspiracy theorists, as you have now acknowledged, what remaining reason can you possibly have for ignoring our admiring posts on the subject of your brilliant scientific comments on the flaws in the paradigm?
Your desire to cannibalize turkey today is no excuse. Please let us know how you wish to disagree with your very own self.
moore does not understand that the official story about 9/11 is a conspiracy theory, so therefore he is a conspiracy theorist. He's so ignorant the names he calls people can easily be applied to himself.
another great 9/11 film. 9/11 mysteries.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003
»Ein Narr fragt viel, worauf kein Weiser antwortet.«
Gene likes to use words that he doesn't understand in a vain attempt to convince people that he really has a clue what he is talking about.
Now, how stupid and unscientific is it to doubt that a Boeing completely disappeared through a hole some 20 feet across? What? The hole was in fact over 80 feet wide but large parts of it were hidden by smoke? LMAO !
What did you say? The B-757 body is only 12 feet 4inch wide and 13 feet 6inch high and thus perfectly fits in the small hole? Yeah, sure. The wings and engins and all were made of ice cream and candy sugar, and instantly evaporated at the impact.
Man, I swear that now I've seen the light, I truly can't believe anymore how totaly unscientific I was when questionning the 9/11 commission report.
HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHA HA !!!!!!
Wake up, truthseeker. If you really seek what your name announces, you should open your eyes now to see that the only 9/11 nuts are the ones who swallowed the 9/11 commission report hook, line and sinker. Your reputation cannot be stained more than by being associated with them.
"»Ein Narr fragt viel, worauf kein Weiser antwortet.«
Der Narr hält sich für weise, aber der Weise weiss, dass er ein Narr ist.
Evolution is always brought up, and is a straw man argument. The language of science and the language of religion are describing quite different things in very different worlds. The major criticism of evolution is that it frequently serves as religion for the common man who is better served by some form of a real religion.
By now, after the discovery channel ran a debunking 9/11 conspiracy program which featured all the top 9/11 truth people presenting their arguments in a very convincing manner, everyone knows about it, and this is the major reason for the the demise of the repuglican party in every election since november. This is the reason why even mickey mouse, minnie mouse or donald duck can run for president on the dem ticket, and win. The dems will sweep it. The American people have wised up to the ways of the current admministration, ie pre-emptive warfare as an instrument of foreign policy, and curtailment of civil liberty at home, a formula we have seen in previous fascist governments thoughout history.
Ditto for the Hiv=Aids Fraud which is rapidly becoming common knowledge. This fraud was previously maintained by heavy govenment censorship of the media, and heavy drug advertising by big pharma. This is now ending thanks to openly available information on the internet at places like The New Aids Review, Barnes World You Bet Your Life, and Reviewing Aids.
The drug company shills and reps like moore et al who derive their income from HIV=Aids will moan and groan, but HIV gravy days are coming to an end, so enjoy your turkey day, your last HIV gravy could be on your turkey plate.
"»Ein Narr fragt viel, worauf kein Weiser antwortet.«
(Noble)
Der Narr hält sich für weise, aber der Weise weiss, dass er ein Narr ist. (Pat)
And only a fool, Dr. Noble, answers when he doesn't have an answer.
Wake up, truthseeker. If you really seek what your name announces, you should open your eyes now to see that the only 9/11 nuts are the ones who swallowed the 9/11 commission report hook, line and sinker.
Oh please.
1) AIDS is caused by an infectious virus, and is not a relabeled drug/conventional disease/nutritional deficit problem. If you have antibodies to it as indicated by the "AIDS test" you will die very soon, unless you pay attention to John "I am not a macaque, I am a respected scientist" Moore and take expensive ARV's.
2) The Pentagon and the WTC 7 were blown up by the Bushies in a plot to justify invading Iraq.
These two statements have the same probability.
Zero.
I don't recall having mentioned dummy "Double You" Bush anywhere...
The question to ask is, if you really insist upon using statistics and probability calculation:
What's the probability a Boeing-757 completely disappeared into the Pentagon through a hole some 20 feet across and leaving no trace behind?
You really must wake up and open your eyes, truth seeker, or you won't find anything at all.
Nobody is saying "bush" knocked down the towers, it seems that these intelligence agencies that recieve millions in funding with no oversight need to be investigated.
Its now well known that the CIA overthrew democratically elected Mossedeq in 1953 because he wanted to throw out american/british oil companies, leading to chaos murder and death.
its maintream news that the joint cheifs of staff put plans on paper to commit acts of terrorism against americans and blame it on cuba, operation northwoods.
Its an established fact that the CIA instigated the war in vietnam, invaded and overthrew the regime in south vietnam and set up a puppett regime, an started commmiting acts of war against north vietnam, starting a conflict that killed 60k americans and 3 million vietnamese. This all happened before the staged gulf of tonkin. If these criminals would drag is into an illegal war that they started, why is so hard to believe they wouldnt kill 3,000 americans, when theyve killed millions of innocents before?
Anyone that doubts this should read up on noam chomsky
Chomsky doesnt buy the 9-11 demolition conspiracy.
To put things back on track:
Mbeki is partially vindicated by the UN's latest downward revision of the AIDS epidemic.
So far HIV/AIDS is about falsifying its own estimates.
Yes , but equally or more distinguished scholars do, like david ray griffin phd, Howard zinn, Robert baer, like most they thought the idea was absurd at first, but once they looked into the evidence they concluded it surely was at least a viable lead that neeeded to be investigated.
over 200 architects, and engineers growing every day
http://www.ae911truth.org/
Another good citation but it is actaully applicable to Gene not me.
I am fully aware of the limits of my knowledge and understanding and I am careful not to overstep this boundary. Denialists on the other hand delude themselves that they understand complex scientific subjects better than the scientists that have spent decades studying this science.
Anthony Liversidge even goes so far to claim that his total lack of scientific training somehow puts him in a better position to understand the science than people who do have extensive training and research experience. Somehow ignorance becomes a virtue. The hubris is staggering.
This total inability to accurately judge ones own skills and understanding has come to be known as the Kruger-Dunning effect
Wrong. HIV=Aids denialists have no pretention at all to understand complex scientific subjects. The only pretention they have is to look through the bullshit smoke screens caused by scientific nerd brains set on fire due to overheating while trying to find a way out of dogmatic thinking.
Dear Chris, what a marvellous paper you've steered me to in that last link. The title says it all, and so much of the rest of it is directly applicable to the personal pathologies that underlie much of HIV/AIDS denialism (I exclude the minority subset who are nothing but shameless profiteers, seeking to peddle quack remedies in place of the prove, safe and effective use of ARVs). But the majority of the HIV/AIDS denialists are merely living embodiments of the old adage "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". They know a little about science (actually, in Liversidge's case, next to nothing) and think that means they are qualified to understand research publications and comment on them. It's ludicrous of course, pathetically so. But unlike the harmless buffoonery of the 9/11 conspiracy nutters, the dangerous consequence of the AIDS denialist conspiracy is that these people cause the death of innocent people. That's an important difference, and it underlies why we must continue to fight the AIDS denialists (in the real world, of course). There's not a credible scientist among the lot of them, essentially as a point of definition, and the non-scientists do not know that they do not know what they are talking about, the Kruger-Denning effect in action!
"Another good citation but it is actaully applicable to Gene not me"
yawn
"Somehow ignorance becomes a virtue. The hubris is staggering." -Chris Nobleuh
It is far too obvious that this is too much for you to understand.
Some can't see the forest for the trees
while others can't see the trees for the forest:
"No one's recollection about the first shot was more precise, though, than that of a ninth grader named Amos L. Euins. He told the Dallas County sheriff, "About the time the car got near the black and white sign, I heard a shot."
www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/opinion/22holland.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref…
It is easy to dismiss ignorance as an invirtuous trait but was it not a child who said: "the Emperor has no clothes!"?
"This total inability to accurately judge ones own skills and understanding has come to be known as the Kruger-Dunning effect"
Who needs skill to tell you it is hyped?:
www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-China-AIDS.html?n=Top/News/Health/Dis…
www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/world/21aids.html?n=Top/News/Health/Diseases…
www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/world/20aids.html?n=Top/News/Health/Diseases…
www.nytimes.com/2007/11/08/health/08hiv.html?n=Top/News/Health/Diseases…
news nov. 8-22nd 2007
I think that Dr. Kary Mullis is a very credible scientist. In fact, his comments are what pushed me over to the other side of AIDS and I am extremely happy that I did go there. Many, who I am in contact with, have given up the antiretrovirals or have never taken them in the first place and are alive and quite well without them. But that's an unpleasant fact to some of you. One day you will be recognized for the closed-minded idiots, not scientists, that you really are.
Kary Mullis is most certainly not a credible scientist. He's an AIDS denialist, which has caused him to lose all his professional credibility. It's not possible to be both an AIDS denialist and a credible scientist; these two things are as incompatible as being a 9/11 conspiracy theorist and being taken seriously by anyone other than nuts, flakes and cranks. That Mullis fooled you, Noreen, merely speaks to the dangers caused to laypeople by scientists losing their credibility and becoming AIDS denialists. Those very few scientists who act that way thereby cause the death of many people as a result, which is why they have been ostracised by the scientific community (and, of course, for displaying an absurd lack of professional judgement about the science of HIV/AIDS).
I will ask again Dr Moore
When it is proven that Eliza Jane did not die from an AIDS related illness ,will you get up and state the following.
I, Dr John Moore, having now been proven to be so wrong in the Eliza Jane Scovill case, my credibilty as a scientist
has been totally destroyed.
I hereby renounce every comment I have made about HIV?AIDS
and I will relinquish my post at Cornell and I will never comment on any scientific matter again.
Regards
John Moore (ex Phd)
kary mullis is a very credible scientist, a nobel prize winner, and he was supported by another nobel prize winner for a while, Walter gilbert, and by the military's most distinguished infectious disease pathologist shyh ching Lo phd md. Not to mention Duesberg who gallo himself said was the worlds leading expert on retroviruses. NOt to mention other Cal mcb professors who found Duesbergs argument more compelling like strohman and rubin.
all these scientists brought up the same objections to the hiv hypothesis, the lack of an animal model, (tons of chimps injected not one has died of aids after 20 years) the extremely low % of t cell infection, (1/1000) or so etc etc, the....... mysterious ever extending latent period.
Are they right? maybe maybe not, but thats why you conduct further experiments, not name call and pretend to be a psychologist like the ignorant fool jp moore does all day.
"He's an AIDS denialist, which has caused him to lose all his professional credibility."
yawn.
Anthony Liversidge even goes so far to claim that his total lack of scientific training somehow puts him in a better position to understand the science than people who do have extensive training and research experience. Somehow ignorance becomes a virtue. The hubris is staggering.
This total inability to accurately judge ones own skills and understanding has come to be known as the Kruger-Dunning effect
Exactly, Chris, including the inability to see that the Kruger-Dunning effect applies to oneself, especially if one is caught supporting a failed paradigm in an area outside one's field of expertise and operating under the illusion that one is defending good science, when one is in fact supporting bad science, science so bad that John "Please do not make the mistake of thinking I am a macaque, I am a respected scientist as long as I avoid answering HIV critics and God forbid, having to say why I support the paradigm" Moore of Weill Cornell dare not speak in its favor except with ad hominem puerility and a grand imitation of a skunk that emits an insupportable stink if kicked.
Perhaps it is hard to operate from an obscure office in computing support in Australia, Chris, but has it not occurred to you yet that Moore is not 100% confident in his position and this accounts for his papers (so far we have counted five) freely admitting to insiders that the paradigm is built on quicksand?
How many times do we have to point this out before you get the message? We assume that with your 100% familiarity with the literature you know what we are talking about. Surely this is so? Do we really have to cite chapter and verse before we can rescue you from your predicament of seeking fame and fortune solely on the basis of defending John Moore's fund raising paradigm on the Web, when your squad leader himself doesn't actually believe in it and is taking care to prepare to jump ship early before it sinks?
We are trying to rescue you Chris but like a poor swimmer caught in an invisible undertow you fight off your lifeguard instead of keeping calm and relaxed so we can tow you to shore.
And do we really have to explain to you why outsiders often see things which people in a field do not? Are you really so naive in the sociology of science that you are not aware that in an age of increasingly narrow specialism, intensifying crowd politics in billion dollar fields, and Kuhnian paradigm entrenchment deeper than ever before, the perceptive outsider or the individualistic newcomer is often the one who best understands what is going on and makes the breakthrough to win the Nobel?
Contrast that type with the career shoelicker who rises by defending the status quo on the top of which his patrons sit. Which type would you rather imitate?
Contrast the type a) Mullis with the type b) Moore, and tell us which is which. if you want evidence, just examine this latest thought by John "That is one of my macaques, and that is me, please do not confuse the two" Moore:
But the majority of the HIV/AIDS denialists are merely living embodiments of the old adage "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". They know a little about science (actually, in Liversidge's case, next to nothing) and think that means they are qualified to understand research publications and comment on them. It's ludicrous of course, pathetically so. But unlike the harmless buffoonery of the 9/11 conspiracy nutters, the dangerous consequence of the AIDS denialist conspiracy is that these people cause the death of innocent people. That's an important difference, and it underlies why we must continue to fight the AIDS denialists (in the real world, of course). There's not a credible scientist among the lot of them, essentially as a point of definition, and the non-scientists do not know that they do not know what they are talking about, the Kruger-Denning effect in action!
followed by this (spelling corrected):
Kary Mullis is most certainly not a credible scientist. He's an AIDS denialist, which has caused him to lose all his professional credibility. It's not possible to be both an AIDS denialist and a credible scientist; these two things are as incompatible as being a 9/11 conspiracy theorist and being taken seriously by anyone other than nuts, flakes and cranks. That Mullis fooled you, Noreen, merely speaks to the dangers caused to laypeople by scientists losing their credibility and becoming AIDS denialists. Those very few scientists who act that way thereby cause the death of many people as a result, which is why they have been ostracized by the scientific community (and, of course, for displaying an absurd lack of professional judgement about the science of HIV/AIDS).
Mullis won the Nobel with one of the cleverest insights into how to achieve a technical breakthrough in science there has been in the last hundred years, an idea which won hundreds of millions of dollars for the company that employed him and which has resulted in over two hundred falsely convicted prisoners being released from Death Row so far.
The more pedestrian type b) Moore tends to criticize the type a) Mullis perhaps in envy at his enormous success is using his terrific imagination, and inevitably finds some excess of that attribute to complain about and try and bring the type a) Mullis down. Wouldn't you know it, but Mullis has written an autobiography that reports seeing fairies at the bottom of his garden or somesuch, and type b) Moore feels vindicated.
But in fact as everybody looking on can see this is simply just another example of your Kruger-Denning effect at work, a classic example in fact where the critic is unaware of the fact he is blind to what is really going on. Mullis has imagination, Moore has not. Mullis has the Nobel, Moore has not, and at this rate never will, until he puts funding politics aside and used his brilliant mind for what God gave him it for, which is science, not serving as Fauci's guard dog.
What is telling in all this is that Moore a) says his own papers refuting his beloved paradigm are misunderstood by the humble editor of New AIDS Review but cannot say how and b) never dares mention the scientist by name who so thoroughly refuted the HIV paradigm in 1986 that he, Peter Duesberg, undoubtedly one of the finest scientific minds engaged in productive science today, has never been answered in the same journals since, or indeed on any peer reviewed level, by any of the main players running this international con game.
By big players we do not mean Moore, of course, we mean Anthony Fauci, Director and chief censor of NIAID, and Bob Gallo, renowned non-discoverer of HIV, and first to demonstrate that HIV does not cause AIDS, and maybe the lesser David Ho, now leader of the doomed search for a vaccine whose research which won him the cover of Time magazine is now scorned and repudiated by even his closest friends in the field.
Ho of course is Moore's patron, who recognized Moore's special attributes and brought him over to the US from England to pursue his career role as a HIV barking guard dog who in partnership with Mark Wainberg of Montreal most viciously snarls at HIV critics as "denialists" without ever daring to try and refute their scientific points in any peer reviewed battle, just as he declined to contest publicly with Harvey Bialy, or even non-scientists such as my harmless self, whose study is the behavior of scientists rather than their work.
But this is the habit of paradigm defenders, for some reason they have a psychological bloc against meeting HIV critics in public debate. Bob Gallo used to mysteriously develop a sudden indisposition whenever he found out that he was about to run into Peter Duesberg at a conference, and would cancel his speech rather risk having to defend his absurd concept in public against a scientist he previously wrote he admired in the highest terms.
We admire Mr Moore as we have said before for his semi private acknowledgement of the great flaws in the paradigm, and feel he should be awarded the Lasker. The only reason we can think of why he has not already won it is that he is lacking in social graces, as indicated by this thread, where he spends virtually every work insulting those that ask him to justify what he says he thinks about his favorite paradigm.
This is where Chris comes out ahead, for he is much better mannered. Perhaps it is he should get the Lasker, after all. The problem is that he has proved entirely incapable of seeing a single flaw in the notion HIV=AIDS, after many, many years of instruction by HIV critics. This is the kind of blindness that Kruger and Denning were referring to in their paper, so I suppose he is thereby disqualified. Pity, because he is a gentleman, a rare breed in this dispute.
Oddly enough, it may be that our nomination will have to go to Tara, who is not only scrumptious according to her current blog photo but a good enough scientist to allow free and open debate, unlike John "I do not ever debate HIV denialists in public but am willing quietly to endorse their points in little publicized papers" Moore.
For her understanding of this basic principle of good science, which she observes despite so far being subject to the Kruger-Denning effect in automatically endorsing the wrong side, we nominate Tara for the Lasker next year.
The idea that John Moore secretly admits in his papers that "the paradigm is built on quicksand" is one of your delusions. How do you come to this amazing conclusion? Through some version of the bible-code? Take every 7 letter and write the result backwards?
The only thing that you demonstrate is that you are completely incapable of understanding the science and are apparently oblivious to this reality.
Take a trip to sci.physics.realtivity.
You'll find a number of internet cranks that have the delusion that they have proven Einstein's theory of relativity to be false. They too have no training in the field and regard that as a virtue. Apparently going to a university, studying the science and passing exams is just a form of indoctrination and is to be avoided at all costs. The layperson is unfettered by all these silly dogmatic ideas and can see the problems in Einstein's theory of relativity with just their own "common sense". They use this "common sense" to find "flaws" or "paradoxes" in modern physics that in reality reflect only their own ignorance and misunderstanding. They too are completely deluded about their own capabilities and skills. They believe they are correct and the vast majority of physicists are a) stupid b) afraid of losing their jobs or c) just blindly follow the dogma.
If you follow this newsgroup you will see that the same cranks come back time after time and never learn anything despite several people patiently explaining the science to them.
The parallels with HIV/AIDS cranks are perfect. The same delusions of competence. The same appeals to "common sense". The same arguments about "paradoxes". The same conspiracy theories about an "orthodoxy" that is afraid of the "truth".
The idea that John Moore secretly admits in his papers that "the paradigm is built on quicksand" is one of your delusions. How do you come to this amazing conclusion? Through some version of the bible-code? Take every 7 letter and write the result backwards?
Really, Chris, you reveal how little you follow the discussion, and how unfamiliar you are with the literature. No wonder you got chased off at New AIDS Review so quickly.
Are you PubMed challenged? It is not difficult to find John "have some sympathy for my macaques, now that microbicide research has received such a huge setback" Moore's papers under the search string John P Moore.
You're a clever fellow, I am sure you can read and understand them if you go through them carefully.
However, since you may need some help, why not go to New AIDS Review where one of them was deconstructed in a recent post for your instruction?
Your response is so revealing of your lack of familiarity with the literature that I am quite discouraged in my admiration of your talents, and relieved that I switch to nominate Tara for the Lasker, and not you after all.
After all, the site you refer to may well describe the modus operandi of cranks who believe they can replace Einstein, and isn't one of their characteristics that they are unfamiliar with the
literature?
Since you now demonstrate that you suffer from the same handicap, perhaps we have found the answer to the mystery of why such a clever fellow as yourself seems immune to the lesson taught by the 20,000 papers written in the field of AIDS on the premise that HIV is the cause of AIDS. That lesson, which has failed to penetrate your well fortified mind for so many years, is that every year without fail more and more assumptions tied to this notion are knocked over like skittles in a beer evening.
Yet year after year you have failed to see this, and ground your axe against HIV critics on and on and on, impervious to logic and data which is freely available if only you would read it.
Is this not the very definition of a crank?
I have followed the perverted attempts at misinterpretation that you and other Denialists have offered. Literature misrepresentation is a defining characteristic of cranks. They take a paper that shows A and they try to make it show B. Duesberg is an expert at this. He took a paper by Pallela et al that demonstrated that ARVs dramatically decrease mortality and morbidity in HIV+ people and through some perversion of logic and truth tried to pretend that it showed the opposite. Ultimately the only thing he proved was his complete lack of honesty.
Your version of my foray into your webblog are as far from reality as your interpretation of the literature. It took several weeks of mind-numbing, excrutiatingly repetive, explanation for me to finally get you to understand a very simple but very stupid mathematical mistake in Duesberg's anti-HIV scriptures. It is truly amazing that anybody can be so immune to reason and logic. The experience was about as pleasurable and rewarding as bashing my head against a brick wall for two weeks. In the end it doesn't matter because nobody including other Denialists take you seriously.
To torture you further would be unkind, Chris, so we will leave you making your claims without even references to your supposed triumph at New AIDS Review.
Does it not occur to you that your victorious interpretation of the error that you suppose Duesberg made might not be another classic example of the Kruger-Denning effect?
No?
Well, that is what they predicted.
That it wouldn't occur to you.
"The only thing that you demonstrate is that you are completely incapable of understanding the science and are apparently oblivious to this reality."
how can you judge that when you are aware of your own limits?
"I am fully aware of the limits of my knowledge and understanding and I am careful not to overstep this boundary. Denialists on the other hand delude themselves that they understand complex scientific subjects better than the scientists that have spent decades studying this science."
If it is too complex for others to criticise than it is too complex for you to defend, especially when blindfolded. You insist on your own stupidity and deny yourself any ability or privilage to question things beyond your paygrade and project that onto everybody else. You would be led off a cliff by credentials and you even defend your obligations as an "idiot" to do so.
There is one thing that I do understand. If, for example, I am going to stand up at a conference and state that all of the other scientists present are wrong then I need to make absolutely sure that I understand the science better than them. I don't pretend that being ignorant is an advantage. I don't pretend that "common sense" is sufficient.
Yet this is exactly what Anthony Liversidge and other Denialists do. Liversidge even goes further to make the absurd and arrogant claim that he can understand a scientist's papers better than the scientist himself. This represents a delusion of competence that is
inversely proportional to his actual level of understanding.
Your version of my foray into your webblog are as far from reality as your interpretation of the literature. It took several weeks of mind-numbing, excrutiatingly repetive, explanation for me to finally get you to understand a very simple but very stupid mathematical mistake
Dearest Dr. Noble, you are, as Truthseeker says, welcome to your own illusory victories, but for everybody else it was painfully obvious that you kept going on and on and on about Duesberg's "very stupid [entirely trivial and unimportant] mathematical mistake" because you thought you had finally scored a point and didn't want to let go of it ever. It's just like this Palella thing you keep bringing up over and over because you want to divert attention from the illustrious closet denialist, Prof. Moore's, papers showing that he agrees with Duesberg on several essential points regarding flaws in HIV theory and research.
... And possibly because you obviously do not feel qualified to engage in a debate about HIV as quasispecies and lentivirus - which I find very peculiar, Dr. Noble, since during the BMJ debate there was hardly a scientific topic you didn't feel qualified to comment on, ranging between genomics, immunology, virology, molecular biology and pathology to name but a few. Now strangely you seem to have suddenly become aware of your shortcomings in these areas, whereas you and Prof Moore seem quite comfortable with regular forays into political science, psychoanalysis, structural engineering and moral philosophy on these pages.
When will you learn to think correctly, Nobel? If weather forcast specialists with their fancy computers all say it snows where I live and I see for myself, simply by looking out of my window, that there's not the smallest trace of snow anywhere to be seen, I can say they're all wrong even if I know next to nothing about meteorology or computer programs.
Did Copernicus know the Bible by heart when he said the Archbishops were completely wrong with their geocentric universe ?
Starving people, you give'em eat, Noble, not AZT. No science needed, old chap. Common sense, that's old we need here. And no bone in the fight, of course. Maybe that's your problem, a hell of a big bone in the fight.
It was painfully obvious that Denialist will go to incredible lengths to avoid admitting any mistake. Liversidge and fellow denialists fought tooth and nail before they, or at least a portion of them, finally admitted that Duesberg had made a mistake. Of course the mistake became "trivial" in the process of admitting the mistake.
It's hard to tell whether this is an attempt at comedy or whether you really believe this nonsense. Are you going to try to convince John that he is really a closet Denialist?
It's not a question of my qualifications but the level of your and Gene's understanding. Before you demand people to answer your questions it would be useful if you demonstrate that you have the capacity to understand your questions let alone the answers.
"There is one thing that I do understand. If, for example, I am going to stand up at a conference and state that all of the other scientists present are wrong then I need to make absolutely sure that I understand the science better than them. I don't pretend that being ignorant is an advantage. I don't pretend that "common sense" is sufficient."
But somehow you are confident in calling Duesgerg and Margulis crackpots and "denialists" when you admit to knowing next to nothing. How is that possible? Do you look for the largest consencus and then bark madly from behind the protective skirts of the majority? Chris, fess up. If you know next to nothing yourself than your defense of the hypothesis is stricktly dogmatic; it is a BELIEF system.
"It was painfully obvious that Denialist will go to incredible lengths to avoid admitting any mistake."
Now all we need to do is get that patato head Moore to admit his African AIDS hysteria was mostly just that...hysteria.
Chris, I wouldn't bother wasting my time in further discussions with Liversidge over my papers if I were you. I don't read his Blog, but I was emailed his attempt to analyze the Klasse/Moore paper on gp120 concentrations in plasma, etc. It was pathetic. At one point I actually burst out laughing at the sheer stupidity of what passes for Liversidge's "thinking" on the science that underlies this paper. A reasonable analogy would be if I attempted to deconstruct the meaning behind a poem written in Swahili, a language and a subject with which I have no familiarity at all. Of course I would never do that, because the Kruger-Denning effect doesn't apply to me. As well as "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing", another adage comes to mind: "There's no fool like an old fool".
Still, if the denialists and conspiracy theorists want to waste their time on attempts to understand my papers, it's at least a harmless activity that doesn't kill vulnerable people, so they're welcome to continue.
I have to say, though, that all the denialist postings on scientific subjects that I've read on this string do confirm one thing: AIDS denialism is not rooted in science. It never has been, because when Duesberg first launched AIDS denialism, it was because of his jealousy at the professional success of Bob Gallo (just as his earlier attacks on oncogenes etc were based on his resentment of Bishop, Varmus, Baltimore et al.; there's a nice essay on the subject on AIDS Truth). Duesberg's "malignant narcissism" (as one of his peer group has put it) triggered all of this nonsense, and although he tried to put a veneer of science on it all, what he was up to was so obviously transparent that he was ostracized by the scientific community for putting his ego before his responsibility to the public (just as Mullis was, although for slightly different reasons). So AIDS denialism never had a basis in science, and it still doesn't. Nowadays, it's a quasi-religious operation based on faith, with elements of conspiracy theory, "pharmanoia", anti-governmentalism, quack medicine profiteering and personal fear of a lethal virus all thrown into the pot. But science, no, it's not science, as is borne out by the sub-High School quality of the scientific material posted on this thread by the denialists. It would be pathetic if it weren't so dangerous to the health of people who actually believe this claptrap and make poor personal (or in the case of Mbeki, political) decisions as a result.
Why do you care, you cant debate any of your views publicly, you claim to have a mountain of evidence but cant link people to the first 5 papers proving hiv causes AIDS. You say to prove a microbes pathenogenicity in humans you cant do it in a series of original papers, Koch did it, shyh ching Lo did it. Your rocket ship analogy is the biggest joke of them all!
You are against patients recieving informed consent, and are responsible for the epidimic of mycoplasma incognitus/penetrans induced complex multi organic illnesses often misdiagnosed as CFS/depression etc, the only microbe to kill and sicken every animal inocluated, thanks for the genocide, keep up the good work. If people had informed consent this genocide could have been prevented, Lo has already developed a vaccine.
You overdosed patients with AZT in the late eighties, might have killed them, and if the patients knew they were being on long term chemo they would hav never taken it, and might still be alive today.
There will always be scientists that have different viewpoints, thats just the way science works, its up to the patient to recieve full informed consent and then proceed with that knowledge. If somebody took the atkins diet, and died of a heart attack because many other doctors felt it was dangerous, it is really no one fault besides the patient, if the patient benifits from that diet than good for them, nobody is intentionally trying to murder anyone.
With hiv its the same thing if you or Duesberg is wrong and a certain patient takes that advice and is either benefitted or harmed by it, as long as he/she recieved informed consent it is no ones fault but thier own for their resulting good health or disease.
So stop pretending to save lives, youre not, if people make a choice based on informed consent, they have a right to control their own destiny, especially when you and your drug company hack pals could easily be wrong.
Yet this is exactly what Anthony Liversidge and other Denialists do. Liversidge even goes further to make the absurd and arrogant claim that he can understand a scientist's papers better than the scientist himself. This represents a delusion of competence that is inversely proportional to his actual level of understanding.
Chris, you are an interesting psychological phenomenon all by your repetitive self. You deny the truth of incontrovertible statements automatically and without thought, either by rephrasing them inaccurately or by calling those who uselessly try and inform you better "Denialists", a reversal now you have apparently now capitalized in your desperation to foist a label on others that you yourself deserve with every post you write.
Actually as you well know we didn't say we understood their papers better than the scientists themselves who wrote them. We said that we read them with more care than you do, and that we found they contradicted the paradigm they used as a premise. In fact, Moore explicitly contradicts the authority of the HIV research he reviews. He condemns it as badly done and its conclusions as unacceptable. Are you not aware of this? Time for you to read New AIDS Review, Chris. As a fellow guardian of good science, you should enjoy it.
But will you? When will you learn anything new at all? Over years your only intellectual function is to deny. You are offered a Niagara of refutation of what you have attached yourself to like a barnacle to the side of a sinking ship. The ship that hit an iceberg in the form of Duesberg, one of the great scientists of the current era, whose name will still be up in lights a century from now while yours will be a footnote of obdurate denialism of good science in the history of this great affair. Yet you cannot seem to understand any of it, presumably because of the Kruger-Dunning effect.
You are indeed the great Denialist, Chris, a Denialist of such grand stature that we can only gasp in wonder at the uniqueness of your accomplishment. For unlike your betters you actually believe on what you are purveying, isn't that right? You actually believe in the most obvious nonsense in science since Jacques Beneviste's proof of homeopathy, which even Nature and John Maddox doubted.
But world beating barnacle or not, at least get your characterization of what you are denying straight. We have found a number of papers so far where your hero and mentor John "I love macaques even though I am not and never have been a macaque and am merely busy running through $500,000 kindly provided by the large drug company Bristol-Myers Squibb in painting their undersides with microbicides which enhance the passage of HIV for some reason on the basis of a paradigm whose flaws I can enumerate better than any denialist" Moore states quite clearly for all to see and comprehend the existence of fatal mistakes in the claims and research of his fellow HIV hunters, and there is already one of these papers deconstructed in detail for your delectation on New AIDS Review.com, where it lies for you to read and fail to understand as is your wont.
Why not use your index finger to trace the words and speak them out loud as you go along? Maybe that would help.
That's what we do. In fact, that is how we got onto this whole thing. By examining their papers word for word, rather than skimming them as you apparently do and taking for granted that they only say whatever they say in the abstract, we found that Moore, Fauci etc were writing papers which included self condemnation.
Presumably this is the result of their inner conflict, unknown to your simpler self, which arises from the knowledge that they have built their careers on a) a fantasy which they know very well is scientifically absurd and which kills people, and b) on the misplaced trust of a large number of decent people from you to Bill Clinton.
Do you honestly think that any of these guys and their underlings would take ARVs if they discovered themselves to be HIV positive, which of course is impossible since they are not in a "risk group"? Would you, Mr Noble, take them? Or would you actually start reading the literature with a little more attention to the fine print for a change?
There's a question for you to answer yes or no. Would you consider taking the test and if positive reading the literature of HIV=AIDS with more attention?
If so, go to New AIDS Review, where we will add another post especially for you on the topic of Moore and his covert leadership of Denialism in HIV=AIDS, denialism on both sides of the fence, denying that the "Denialists" have any points while at the same time denying that the paradigm he lives by and on makes any sense either.
It is becoming difficult to decide whether you or he are the greater Denialist, Chris. You have longevity on your side, and have taken your stand publicly without any equivocation of any kind, since any point that HIV critics make is hidden from you by the Kruger-Dunning effect.
But Moore has the authority of his Weill Cornell position on his side, and is flouting the interests of his patron Bristol-Myers, who awarded him his $500,000 prize for his so far unsuccessful microbicide research, and has written his Denialism up in peer reviewed papers in learned journals for all to peruse.
We'd say it was neck and neck right now.
In the interest of brevity, could the denialists agree to abbreviate their "I'm not a denialist, you are!" manifestos, like the above, to the traditional standby:
"I know you are, but what am I?"
I quite agree, Roy. Although in Liversidge's case, it would be easier if he just wrote "I am insane, and here's the proof". Incidentally, have you and Chris noted the delusion of grandeur associated with his use of "The Royal We" when referring to himself. There's yet more personal pathology there to be deconstructed if anyone could be bothered......
Chris, I wouldn't bother wasting my time in further discussions with Liversidge over my papers if I were you. I don't read his Blog, but I was emailed his attempt to analyze the Klasse/Moore paper on gp120 concentrations in plasma, etc. It was pathetic. At one point I actually burst out laughing at the sheer stupidity of what passes for Liversidge's "thinking" on the science that underlies this paper. A reasonable analogy would be if I attempted to deconstruct the meaning behind a poem written in Swahili, a language and a subject with which I have no familiarity at all. Of course I would never do that, because the Kruger-Denning effect doesn't apply to me.
Gee, John, lured out of hiding again? What happened to your vow never to respond to Denialists? Are we getting under your skin with our promise to out you as a covert leader of dissidence in HIV=AIDS science?
Yes, your papers are written in the scientific equivalent of Swahili, 'Ndio Bwana (Yes Sir), but unluckily for you, anyone willing to use their index finger to pore over the sentences word by word, as we do, mouthing them out loud and using three medical dictionaries and a TV tuned to TNT to avoid dying of boredom, can decipher the literacy-challenged content well enough to see you standing there as it were buck naked in your honesty, enumerating the deficits in the science of your bumbling colleagues well enough to bring into very severe question the creaking paradigm you are still standing on, supported as it is by the billions in tax payer and drug money of those who trust you.
Having deconstructed one of your papers at length in our post John P. Moore Brings down the AIDS Paradigm Part 1 and 2) (to be found at www.scienceguardian.com/blog/?p=495) and shown this to be nothing less than a fatal attack on the thinking of the faithful disguised as a call for better data we can understand your embarrassed laughter, since no doubt Anthony Fauci was not pleased, but we said we admired your honesty and integrity for doing it and cannot understand why you should persist in sniping at us for trying to expand the understanding of the science and politics of HIV=AIDS in the same spirit presumably as you wrote the paper explaining why HIV in the body has no "biologically significant effects".
Is it possible that you aimed at making these points privately only to your insider colleagues and not to the world at large? A world which might be very interested to find that you stand by the result of your study that HIV has no effect in the body, and even try to claim priority for this finding in your paper, emphasizing that you found it out many years ago but were too discreet to publish it, presumably because the HIV Inquisition for which you are a leading prosecutor would have you upside down on a hook in no time if you did, judging from the way they trashed Peter Duesberg, a far greater scientist than yourself, all but yourself would agree.
The post is there for all to see and judge whether your laughing dismissal of it as scientifically misunderstood is valid or whether you are hung on your own yardarm.
I shouldn't worry John you will be admired for your honesty even though for political reasons it has to be concealed beneath a cloak of rude disrespect and calumny about Peter Duesberg, when you are really on our side.
"The Royal We" ???
At least the world can see how little sense you make Moore. Stick around.
Of course I would never do that, because the Kruger-Denning effect doesn't apply to me.
Wonderful! The Kruger-Dunning effect in operation again!
Ha, ha, ha ! Pee Moore doesn't read this blog, he says. Yet I am quite sure it is among his principal activities. He reads this blog, eats his liver and hammers nervously away on his keyboard in some kind of heroic attempt to compose an answer that doesn't get him further up shit creek.
Everthing you say is wrong, Johnny pee more. For instance, medicine is not a science. Fucking around with chemicals you inject into monkeys to record how many of them among how many die in how many hours, days or weeks may be scientific, medicine isn't. And never has been. So cut out the bit out scientific knowledge, will ye? You may know a lot about animal mistreatment, but that's all, okay?
Oh, I forgot. Scientific medicine does exist. It's called the German New Medicine. The discoverer is called Ryke Geerd Hamer. Predictability. Reproductibility. Falsification criteria. Verification criteria. You name it, it's all there. Dr Hamer is chased all over the globe like a criminal. At the same time his New Medicine is plundered by the greedy and cutely relooked to enable the chemo cartel crooks to continue their works in peace.
John,
I did notice the Royal We, but with the mix of arrogance and mental illness prevalent among the denialists I wasn't sure whether to attribute it to pure ostentatiosness, or split personality disorder.
Though, given their Highnesses latest post claiming to understand the intent of your papers better than you do, I think Mr. Liversedge suffers from such arrogance that not only have t(he)y convinced themselves their shit doesn't stink, but apparently t(he)y thinks its really Creme Brulee.
Roy, In the interest of brevity, could you and John consider blowing each other in private henceforth? As fascinating as your agreements are in and of themselves,
the "don't you agree with me Roy that. . . "yes, John I cetainly agree with you and I still love Big Brother", exchanges are not really news.
How about it if we simply assume that you agree with each other until otherwise indicated. If you start feeling lonely and insecure you can always mail your mutual assurances directly?
At one point I actually burst out laughing at the sheer stupidity of what passes for Liversidge's "thinking" on the science that underlies this paper. A reasonable analogy would be if I attempted to deconstruct the meaning behind a poem written in Swahili, a language and a subject with which I have no familiarity at all
First of all, John, you seem have such insurmountable problems with your mother tongue that I woudn't advise you to attempt any foreign languages before you have learned that just because a poem is written in Swahili, it doesn't make Swahili its subject, neither would "the meaning
behind(?) the poem" automatically relate to a subject you don't understand - unless of course you consider Swahili speaking people so different from yourself that they are not real people to you but rather some sort of alien guinea pig race.
Someone as high and mighty as yourself, Prof Moore, should be excused for feeling that good old colonialist alienation towards the people you so nobly have set out to civilize, however, in this case the problem is not so much that you self-admittedly cannot find the point of shared humanity which is the subject-matter of all poetry, but that you understand nothing about the entire African continent. You should therefore stick to your revealing reviews of HIV science, making sure the slippers are by your bedside in the morning, and teaching your darling macaque (you know the only one that has survived al your vaginal challenges )to fetch the newspaper from the front lawn.
It's not a question of my qualifications but the level of your and Gene's understanding. Before you demand people to answer your questions it would be useful if you demonstrate that you have the capacity to understand your questions let alone the answers
Gene and I presumably don't understand Ascher or Palella either, but for some reason you don't mind discussing those. On the other hand, I think the recent embarrasing revision of the African HIV stats is within most people's intellectual grasp - excepting of course Prof. Moore who self-admittedly doesn't understand anything about people who speak foreign languages and don't keep slippers by their bedside - and yet you don't wish to discuss that either. Heck, you don't even want to tell my poor mum how she, as a monogamous, married woman, of a sudden is at high risk of AIDS.
Dr. Noble, are there any emerging aspects of the sinking HIV/AIDS paradigm you feel comfortable discussing? Vaccines, microbicides, chemoprophylaxis for healthy women (African naturally, although the study says nothing about their Swahili skills); anything at all you want to say before the growing waters drench you to the bone Dr. Noble? Or are the times really a-changing that fast? In that case, and if your time to you is worth saving, then you'd better start swimming.
MEC,
Such arrogance from fools.
So MEC, when will the paradigm come crumbling down?
Please name a date by which a majority of scientists will side with you on HIV and AIDS.
Why not use your index finger to trace the words and speak them out loud as you go along? Maybe that would help.
That's what we do. In fact, that is how we got onto this whole thing. By examining their papers word for word,... we found that Moore, Fauci etc were writing papers which included self condemnation.
There's your problem right there, Truthseeker. By focusing on the words, you're ignoring the most important part of every scientific paper. No wonder you don't understand them.
I did notice the Royal We, but with the mix of arrogance and mental illness prevalent among the denialists I wasn't sure whether to attribute it to pure ostentatiosness, or split personality disorder.
Though, given their Highnesses latest post claiming to understand the intent of your papers better than you do, I think Mr. Liversedge suffers from such arrogance that not only have t(he)y convinced themselves their shit doesn't stink, but apparently t(he)y thinks its really Creme Brulee.
Posted by: Roy Hinkley | November 23, 2007 6:30 PM
May we re-present this post by a fond supporter of John P. "I say leave my blasted bottom alone Hinkley, that is the macaque over there in the other cage fer Heaven's sake!" Moore as a classic, in fact unique specimen of the befuddled and leaden wit of those who help John out in his rapid evasion moves when confronted by his own words, precious words spoken sotto voce backstage in specialist journals obscure to the average concerned citizen, HIV meme victim and macaque imprisoned at Weill-Cornell in Manhattan but now increasingly publicized in a spirit of admiring amazement by the critics of his paradigm platform who were under the impression that he was Ho's lackey in insulting and jeering at them in a scientifically vacuous manner but now realize that he is their greatest supporter.
This post is so distinguished in three dimensions of inaccuracy and disrespect that we believe there should perhaps be an annual Hinkley Prize for distinction in mispelling ('ostentatiosness' 'Liversedge'), misunderstanding and illiteracy in reading posts before adding comment ("given their Highnesses latest post claiming to understand the intent of your papers better than you do", ie Hinkley joins Noble in misreading what we wrote), and inability to come up with a non cliched metaphor that doesn't disgust imaginative readers ("arrogance that not only have t(he)y convinced themselves their shit doesn't stink, but apparently t(he)y thinks its really Creme Brulee."
What kind of mind writes such a sentence in public? Only the kind of strong, unimaginative mind willing to face the fact that drugs kill AIDS patients with liver damage but are prescribed for a harmless virus, and do nothing at all about it. But then, lack of imagination is one of the chief handicaps of HIV apologists, as we have seen.
By the way, since Chris Noble admitted in public on New AIDS Review that he wouldn't recommend taking the drugs himself and then, embarrassed at being taken to task by Michael Geiger over this stance, vanished from the site, perhaps we should also ask Roy whether if HIV positive he would do the same ie prefer not to take them?
Of course like Chris Noble he may have learned to avoid giving an answer to this question.
My,
The arrogance of a man who considers himself superior because he can spell his own name when others have never even heard of it. It staggers the imagination.
Please, do be careful if you decide to award a prize in my honor. I would hate for it to become confused with THE Hinkley Prize for HIV/AIDS denialism which was established on a freezing cold day in hell on July 14, 1993. This prize will be awarded to the first person to accurately predict the date upon which the HIV/AIDS paradigm would crumble. We've had over seventy thousand entries fail so far, new entries arrive, and fail, daily. The grand prize for predicting the precise date of "The Fall of the HIV/AIDS Paradigm!" is fifty thousand dollars held in ESCROW in a Swiss Bank. Registration is free, enter as many times as you like, just please put your prediction in writing and place your name on it so we can so we can observe a small ceremony, mostly snickering, as your date passes.
Oh! And Anthony?
Thanks for putting the U in ostentatiousness!
Thanks for putting the U in ostentatiousness!
Ha, ha, ha! You left it out yourself to begin with, you dummy. Well, what the heck. If we start to focus on typos, we're lost.
Dear Prof. Moore,
As you know, I have been following your own and Dr. Noble's advice and started spying on my son to find out more about the well coordinated worldwide web of denialist activities he is part of. I agree with you it's shocking! Just shocking, and must be dealt with accordingly. First off I will do as you have recommended and use all my energy and authority to destroy his future career possibilities. But somehow this doesn't seem harsh enough. Do you have any other ideas?
Prof. Moore I cannot tell you how exciting it is for me that I'm now working with you. I have learned so much. Take for example the HIV-herpes connection. The latest research shows that,
Treating herpes simplex virus type 2 appears to reduce HIV-1 plasma levels by more than 50% in men infected with both viruses
This means that Herpes Simplex accounts for almost as much HIV as HIV itself does, and that's just ONE cofactor. . . Oh my golly!
That's exactly like the new studies that show monogamous married women like myself account for 40%-70% of all new HIV infections, which means that our husbands andchildren would account for another minimum 90% of infecions, making the grand total of new HIV infections among married couples and their children 165 percent, give and take a few, of the total 100 percent of new HIV infections.
I think it's a sign of good science when the basic numbers are kept thus consistent throughout the different disciplines making up the entire field. But I do find the science behind the virology particularly elegant: HIV activates Herpes, which activates HIV, which activates Herpes, which activates HIV... until in the end you a have a bona fide AIDS event. How can Leversedge, or whatever his name is, think this is complicated at all? Why anybody who understands the concept of a circle would have grasped the fundamentals of HIV science!
And just imagine - I like HIV science because I get to use my imagination right away - what would happen if we threw into the mix some of the other frequent coinfections like Hep C that also make the very HIV specific fractions of RNA detected by PCR soar in numbers... I think here we have the explanation to the pseudo-conundrum raised by that pseudo-virologist, Peter Duesberg, who says HIV is just too sleepy to cause any harm: HIV is the aristocrat among viruses, Prof. Dumberg, just as virologists are the aristocrats among scientists. It doesn't need to do any of its own replication; it simply tells the other opportunistic infections to wake up and start replicating for it.
Yours admiringly
MEC's Mum
PS. Prof Moore, Dale says that by focusing on the words, you're ignoring the most important part of every scientific paper. I think that's a very wise remark. As you pointed out yourself, my son made a terrible fool of himself by not studying Nicoli Nattras' picture attached to her recent article, thus sowing serious doubs about whether he had actually read it. So I was wondering if you could put up a picture of yourself on your website wearing the white robes of your Calling? I'd like to be able to show to my friends the scientist with whom I have been corresponding the past couple of days.
MM
PPS. Why are you not answering any of my questions Prof.Moore?
MM
PPPS. There's yet more personal pathology there to be deconstructed if anyone could be bothered......(Moore)
I gather from my son's secret study notes (yes he keeps a file on you with a skull and crossbones logo on the cover) that since you don't have a personal writing style or wit to speak of, you are understandably "borrowing" from your much more urbane fellow expat, Mr. Leversedge. I find it highly commendable that a man of your age and stature is still adding to your list of tricks, but I do think it would b better if you stuck with borrowing words whose meaning you actually understand. You can thus
"deconstruct" text, concepts, binary oppositions... but you cannot, I'm sad to say, deconstruct pathology - not even of the personal kind.
MM
PPPPS.
Roy, please grow up.
What a joke! The HIV=Aids=Death equation has been a crumble pie from the beginning and weren't it for the propaganda glue daily reinforced by Johnny pee more, whining Markus, galloping Robert and their creepy little helpers, the cake would have fallen apart into separate atoms ages ago.
"Please name a date by which a majority of scientists will side with you on HIV and AIDS."
You can now join the chorus and sign the lowered AIDS estimates for all of Africa.
This prize will be awarded to the first person to accurately predict the date upon which the HIV/AIDS paradigm would crumble.
But Roy, you are not aware that the HIV/AIDS paradigm crumbled in 1984? That was the year when it was announced by Bob Gallo and Margaret Heckler to the stenographers of the world press on the basis of Bob's four papers. These papers when examined by thinking people proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that HIV did not and could not cause AIDS, since his lab detected it in merely one third of the blood samples of AIDS patients.
You are not aware that Bob Gallo was the first person to prove that HIV does not cause AIDS? Where have you been in the last 23 years? Oh, making money out of the failed paradigm, pretending it is viable? I see. Now tell me, do you not feel any shame at exploiting a notion which puts so many innocent people in jeopardy from nasty poisons? Is there not a twinge of conscience occasionally at the end result of your efforts?
We are assuming of course that you are in the last analysis a fundamentally decent man, who certainly had a mother and may even have children of his own. And an intelligent one, which can be easily seen from your posts.
One always wonders how it is that fundamentally decent men can perpetrate a failed paradigm on the world simply because all their dimmer colleagues are going along with it.
One theory might be that the truth is so painful and shocking that it is simply too horrible to contemplate that one is participating in it, especially for a good scientist.
Of course, such inner conflict is the only way to account for John's antics in writing such hate filled screeds against the "Denialists" while he himself quietly supports their main points in his hitherto unpublicized papers which Science Guardian is about to spotlight.
But a man who can so easily crack urbane jokes about spelling while profiting from science that Bob Gallo showed was nonsense in 1984, what can we say about him?
Only that the ways of the soul are deep and hidden in those who live by a system which attacks the health of women and children on the basis of science which they know in their hearts to be wrong.
Oh well, back to joking lightly about the fate of the unwashed, who cares about them, eh? After all, 25 books have been written exploding the paradigm, articles with 200 footnotes have been written all over showing it hasn't a logical leg to stand on, and the correct view of the entire mess is freely available on the Web, with even John supporting it in the literature, along with Anthony, Bob, and other more senior AIDS generals, as we have shown in our little read blog.
The liberal flagship Harpers last year devoted 15 pages to exposing the scam. Yet the whole bandwagon rolls on undisturbed,
So when when it all end? Only God knows, but perhaps you can tell us, if you look into your own soul. Maybe the question should be, when will men like you crumble?
When at long last will conscience strike you?
Scientists who side with us heretics on Aids are per John Pee Moore & Consort's "Scientific Community" definition excluded from said community. Thus, you feel very safe from where you write your litle notes because, in your un-seeing eyes, the Aids denialists can never possibly become a "scientific" majority.
But this, I hope, is of no real importance. The foundations of Science itself are crumbling little by little and the day the herds of Aids drug pusher and pushers of all sorts will finally face their creator, maybe an new science will rise and shine and in which there will be no place for selfish, foolish and greedy naked assed emperors.
Now, put that in your pipe and smoke it.
What did you say? Me, angry? Yes, very.
http://www.elfyourself.com/?id=9591224168%20
jspreen, you're too kind, tell them to stick it and we all know where. The only ones who believe that HIV causes AIDS also believes in Santa's little helpers.
Of all the amateurish ignorant arguments the AIDS denialists make this one is probably the most buffoonish:
"the HIV/AIDS paradigm crumbled in 1984?"..."HIV did not and could not cause AIDS, since his lab detected it in merely one third of the blood samples of AIDS patients."
Since you, and nearly all other denialists, are completely ignorant of experimental science, I'll let you in on a little secret.
Science is hard.
Things don't always work perfectly. And the first time a difficult technique is developed, such as culturing a retrovirus from the preserved tissues of patients who died of AIDS, it doesn't work in every single attempt. But, given time to improve the technique and gain experience in handling such unfamiliar entities as retroviruses and T-cells, (as well as using fresh samples from patients who are still suffering from the disease rather than improperly preserved specimens from some of the very first people to die of the disease), scientists can make great progress in the lab.
In fact, a mere 3-4 years after Gallo's press conference, detecting the virus from the blood of infected individuals had become routine:
"We isolated HIV-1 or detected HIV-1 DNA sequences from the PBMC of all 409 HIV-1 antibody-positive individuals. None of 131 healthy HIV-1 antibody-negative individuals were HIV-1 culture positive, nor were HIV-1 DNA sequences detected by PCR in the blood specimens of 43 seronegative individuals. In addition, HIV-1 PCR and HIV-1 culture were compared in testing the PBMC of 59 HIV-1 antibody-positive and 20 HIV-1 antibody-negative hemophiliacs. Both methods were found to have sensitivities and specificities of at least 97 and 100%, respectively."
As for the rest of your post:
"One always wonders how it is that fundamentally decent men can perpetrate a failed paradigm on the world simply because all their dimmer colleagues are going along with it.
One theory might be that the truth is so painful and shocking that it is simply too horrible to contemplate that one is participating in it..."
Project much?
Since you recognize this possibility, that one could deny a fundamentally obvious truth as a mechanism to preserve and protect the psyche, perhaps you should consider your own position more closely? You know, just in case you and Cooler really aren't smarter than 99.9999% of doctors and scientists who have made a career of understanding biology. Or, just in case Duesberg & Margulis are not the only 2 out of 2000+ members of the National Academy of Sciences smart enough to see a scientific fraud so obvious it has been exposed by laymen writing blogs.
As for THE Hinkley Prize, I'll place you in the "indeterminate" category: "I know that "The Downfall of the Paradigm" is imminent, I'm just unable to predict it with less than a 23 year margin of error."
Roy, if Detecting HIV is such a fine art now, why did Gallo only acknowledge only 40% under oath? Surely, if it is so accurate he would have testified to this. If it were 100% accurate, this does not prove that HIV causes AIDS or anything else for that matter. My question to you is where are the double blind studies that prove all of this? Some of you harp about studies but the most important one, the one that proves HIV causes AIDS, doesn't exist yet you wholeheartedly accept this hypothesis without proof.
"Since you recognize this possibility, that one could deny a fundamentally obvious truth as a mechanism to preserve and protect the psyche, perhaps you should consider your own position more closely?"
Sorry, this is not directed at me but...
I can understand that someone who is stricken with much grief could go into a denial mode but I must wonder what TS' grief is that would cause him to go into his "denial" mode. What is his grief?
TS, what's your grief that could cause so much denial?
"I know that "The Downfall of the Paradigm" is imminent, I'm just unable to predict it with less than a 23 year margin of error."
It is strange that you should think this funy when it is AIDS science that has been unable to make any accurate prediction in 23 years.
"the one that proves HIV causes AIDS, doesn't exist yet you wholeheartedly accept this hypothesis without proof."
Proof can be a long time in coming. Very few things have been "proven". Science is falsified, not "proven" true (i.e. "We don't know what it is but we know what it isn't"). So don't ask what HIV IS, ask what HIV isn't. It is not an automobile, so much is certain. There are many diseases for which humanity needed decades to solve so 23 years in and of itself is not really exceptional. What IS exceptional with AIDS though is that the HIV/AIDS HYPOTHESIS is zealously defended as a "fact" proven true (???) and all other doors have been padlocked shut. It is alot like locking the emergency exits of a crowded cinema from the outside or steaming full speed ahead through the dark of night in 53'000 tons of "unsinkable" steel ... recepies for disaster.
"trust me...it can sink!"
Well, after wading through all the overnight postings from the AIDS denialists, it's quite clear that all but one of them that post regularly on this site are certifiably insane, wackoes, nutters, loonie-toons and flakes - and the single one who isn't mad has a very obvious agenda that is not very well hidden behind the pseudonym (I'll leave it to the denialists to argue among themselves who is the sane one, which will no doubt degenerate into an "I am Spartacus"-style of debate).
I've gleaned a few useful items of political intelligence for the real-world war against HIV/AIDS denialism from these threads, but I don't think there's much more to be learned from this particular subset of loonies, so I'll not be visiting this thread again.
I'll leave by appending below the advie given to Josh Lyman by CJ Cregg, the Chief of Staff to President Bartlett in the sadly missed TV Show "The West Wing, concerning the crazies who post on Blogs............. (Chris, Roy, Adele, Braganza, Tara et al. from the sane side of the above interchanges will, of course, fully understand that CJ's words don't apply to them, as they are so very obviously intelligent people).
-----------------------------------------------------
"You posted on a website?"
". . .C.J., it a crazy place. It's got this dictatorial leader. . ."
"What did you go there for in the first place?"
"It's called LemonLyman.com."
"Let me explain something to you, this is sort of my field. The people on these sites: they're the cast of 'One Flew Over the Cookoo's Nest.' . . . I'm telling you to open the ward room window and climb on out before they give you a pre-frontal lobotomy and I have to smother you with a pillow. . . .
Of all the amateurish ignorant arguments the AIDS denialists make this one is probably the most buffoonish:
"the HIV/AIDS paradigm crumbled in 1984?"..."HIV did not and could not cause AIDS, since his lab detected it in merely one third of the blood samples of AIDS patients."
Since you, and nearly all other denialists, are completely ignorant of experimental science, I'll let you in on a little secret.
Science is hard.
Things don't always work perfectly. And the first time a difficult technique is developed, such as culturing a retrovirus from the preserved tissues of patients who died of AIDS, it doesn't work in every single attempt. But, given time to improve the technique and gain experience in handling such unfamiliar entities as retroviruses and T-cells, (as well as using fresh samples from patients who are still suffering from the disease rather than improperly preserved specimens from some of the very first people to die of the disease), scientists can make great progress in the lab.
Can we quote you on this Roy? Well, no matter, don't bother to reply, since you are obviously not a very bright scientist after all, since not only do you take refuge in political arguments but you can't even read your own literature straight. Maybe you are not a scientist at all, at this rate. If you are not aware of the first enormous difficulty of peddling the HIV=AIDS hypothesis to any thinking person, which is the extreme difficulty of finding significant amounts of HIV in the blood of patients, a difficulty which has led to the "AIDS test" being one for antibodies, and not virus, then you are a scientific dunce, and should sit at the feet of John Moore, your tutor, for an hour and ket him explain.
Unfortunately it seems that you are one of the dimmer ones not even aware of the problems with your paradigm, let alone a solution to them, so one can't even be sure that you know what you are doing visiting this claptrap and its consequences on hapless gays and blacks. No wonder your conscience doesn't switch on. You actually believe what you say. Guess its the old Kruger-Dunning effect at work again.
But thank you to Pat for putting his/her finger on the crucial point here. The very fact that like Moore you answer doubts about your favorite funding hypothesis with belligerence and not ease tells all of us what is involved, and it ain't science.
Let's think what it is. Here are some possibilities:
"Why does an opponent scorn his critics? In this case, you can think of several reasons.
"1) He is defensive.
2) They are ignorant of the world (eg kids, 9/11 nutters, etc)
3) They have arguments he can't afford to answer in public.
4) He is better paid ie funded and therefore wiser in the ways of the world than the naively idealistic critics
5) They have a conscience and he is determined to keep his switched off.
6) He suffers from inner turmoil and the very sight of a critic is a wound to his psyche
7) Terror at the paradigm collapsing under his feet leaving him exposed intellectually, emotionally, socially and financially.
You choose."
Gee, I am quoting myself. Sorry about that. But one tires of writing it out all over again for the drivers in the slow lane. A scientist who doesn't understand the meaning of having to find virus or virus parts with needle-in-a-haystack PCR is no quick mind, that's for sure.
I guess there should be another factor in the list.
Noreen,
Perhaps you should take some time and (re)read Gallo's testimony, the 1984 papers, and the reference I posted above.
As you read, keep in mind that the Gallo lab were developing a new technique for culturing a new virus. That virus, HIV, as you know has an RNA genome. RNA is a relatively unstable chemical compared to say DNA or proteins. It is degraded by enzymes called RNAses, present virtually everywhere, unless special precautions are taken in the the storage and care of samples. In particular, extreme cold and the additon of RNAse inhibitors delay the action of RNAses in degrading RNA molecules. In the early eighties it was still unknown that HIV was an RNA virus and so special care was not taken in preserving blood and tissue samples from people suffering from, or dead of AIDS. Thus, many of the original samples the Gallo lab worked with were not of suitable quality to isolate a replication competent virus from.
As techniques were refined and blood and tissue samples were handled appropriately for the recovery of virus a success rate of nearly 100% in recovering virus from patients has been achieved. See the above reference.
In the Parenzee case Gallo was asked about their original work in the early eighties. Work which has only been supported by later studies using improved techniques.
Roy, I still cannot believe that HIV can do all of the things that it is porported to do since I am fine and have the all of the criteria that is so important to AIDS. Many are in the same boat as me meaning many have stopped their drugs and some have never progressed to AIDS after twenty years. Obviously, there are some flaws to this theory. Why in the world wouldn't those who profess to be interested in science, not do the required studies of various persons, on and off the drugs to establish the truth once and for all. When scientists state that they don't debate us, well, it only makes us that much more convinced that something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Why is everyone so afraid of the truth unless they have something to lose?
I've gleaned a few useful items of political intelligence for the real-world war against HIV/AIDS denialism from these threads
Of course you have, John, of course you have. In your ver own reality this wasn't an unbroken string of humiliating defeats, including this last pathetic attempt at putting a brave face on pure white flag waving, but a masterplan, masterfully laid and executed by you for lofty and hidden purposes that have now been achieved. You clever bugger you, for pure grandiosity of conception Churchill, never mind Napoleon, had nothing on you John. Not-a-thing!
I don't think there's much more to be learned from this particular subset of loonies, so I'll not be visiting this thread again.
There are probably a few here, who are reading your umpteenth self-important parting speech with a shrug of the shoulders, mumbling "who does he think gives a shit?!" But I'll have you know I'm not one of them, John. I'm your number one fan, your fondest admirer, your all night DJ. You'll be sorely missed by me and my Mum, Mrs. Entry Claw, but we say thank you for all that's been, your informative answers, your gentle ways and especially the nice words in parting.
The last song is for you as well. My Mum chose it for you:
Here come old flattop he come grooving up slowly
He got joo-joo eyeball he one holy roller
He got hair down to his knee
Got to be a joker he just do what he please
He wear no shoeshine he got toe-jam football
He got monkey finger he shoot coca-cola
He say "I know you, you know me"
One thing I can tell you is you got to be free
Come together right now over me
He bag production he got walrus gumboot
He got Ono sideboard he one spinal cracker
He got feet down below his knee
Hold you in his armchair you can feel his disease
Come together right now over me
He roller-coaster he got early warning
He got muddy water he one mojo filter
He say "One and one and one is three"
Got to be good-looking 'cause he's so hard to see
Come together right now over me
"In the early eighties it was still unknown that HIV was an RNA virus"
Stupid question alert:
Isn't "RNA virus" the same as a "retrovirus"?
Science, Vol 220, Issue 4599, 865-867
Copyright © 1983 by American Association for the Advancement of Science
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
articles
Isolation of human T-cell leukemia virus in acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)
RC Gallo, PS Sarin, EP Gelmann, M Robert-Guroff, E Richardson, VS Kalyanaraman, D Mann, GD Sidhu, RE Stahl, S Zolla-Pazner, J Leibowitch, and M Popovic
Several isolates of a human type-C retrovirus belonging to one group, known as human T-cell leukemia virus (HTLV), have previously been obtained from patients with adult T-cell leukemia or lymphoma. The T-cell tropism of HTLV and its prevalence in the Caribbean basin prompted a search for it in patients with the epidemic T-cell immune deficiency disorder known as AIDS. Peripheral blood lymphocytes from one patient in the United States and two in France were cultured with T-cell growth factor (TCGF) an shown to express HTLV antigens. Virus from the U.S. patient was isolated and characterized and shown to be related to HTLV subgroup I. The virus was also transmitted into normal human T cells from umbilical cord blood of a newborn. Whether or not HTLV-I or other retroviruses of this family with T-cell tropism cause AIDS, it is possible that patients from whom the virus can be isolated can also transmit it to others. If the target cell of AIDS is the mature T cell as suspected, the methods used in these studies may prove useful for the long-term growth of these cells and for the identification of antigens specific for the etiological agent of AIDS."
Noreen,
Searching "long term nonprogressor" in google scholar returns 1020 hits.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=long+term+nonprogressor&b…
I think if you acquaint yourself with this literature you will find that only about 5% of HIV infected people go for prolonged periods without progressing to severe CD4 cell depletion and AIDS. These people are studied extensively when they can be identified and are willing to be involved in research.
As for scientists who refuse to debate denialists, I see their reasoning although I'm not sure I agree with it. It does seem that talking to denialists rarely produces results. For instance, will you read the Gallo paper, the relevant testimony from the Parenzee trial, or the reference I cited above?
Or will you falsely claim again next month that HIV can only be isolated from 40% of people who test HIV positive?
Until denialists demonstrate they give a damn about the truth, a debate does seem pointless at best.
No Pat, most RNA viruses are not retroviruses.
http://www.virology.net/Big_Virology/BVFamilyGenome.html
"No Pat, most RNA viruses are not retroviruses."
thank you :)
"No Pat, most RNA viruses are not retroviruses."
- which is totally irrelevant in this context, since all retroviruses are RNA viruses.
So now the loser who wrote "I don't read his Blog" some 24 hours ago, has been "wading through all the overnight postings from the AIDS denialists"
It's pathetic but also, it's so much fun to have such an opponent! Right here he's just posted another great example of the kind of contributions I referred to above, the kind of mails which get him further and further up shit creek. And what does he write? "I've been wading" !!!
But the most hilarious part of his scribbling is of course the "I am Spartacus" bit! I assure you, Johnny pee more: the "certifiably insane, wackoes, nutters, loonie-toons and flakes" sticker you glue on the Aids denialists, I'm very proud to receive one. Man, the idea of getting into a contest of which the winner obtains an "I am found sane in the eyes of Johnny pee more" medal! Nobody can top that shit, Moore, nobody. You merit a medal, sure do!
I regret you'll never read this post, since you'll never be back on this thread. He he he... I bet you'll be back before the night is over.
See you tomorrow after the wading, Johnny.
Why do you incessantly bring up the term 9/11 nutters, as you call them, seeker of no truth? Why do you scorn them? Do you know that when it comes to 911, you behave exactly as silly as the Moore tribe does on the Aids topic? Cut it out man, you've nothing to gain there. Unless, of course, you are ready to answer the questions you're asked. For instance (I repeat):
What's the probability a Boeing-757 completely disappeared into the Pentagon through a hole some 20 feet across and leaving no trace behind?
"As for scientists who refuse to debate denialists, I see their reasoning although I'm not sure I agree with it. It does seem that talking to denialists rarely produces results."
The results of course are very hard to gage. Let me give an example unrelated to my field of ignorance or expertise.
Lets talk about crime prevention as opposed to law enforcement. In essence these two strategies go hand in hand and in effect make up the two edges of Justicia's sword. Upon closer inspection of the blade you realize though that one edge is significantly sharper to the touch than the other.
Enforcement appeals to the lazy mind. an uninterested public.
It is budgetable like an war.
It is fightable like a war.
It is paradable like a war.
Prevention has no appeal to the lazy mind. There are no quick results and there is a boring and unsettling dearth of "evil villains".
But it produces results!!! IT DOOOOOOOOOOOOOES!
sorry for cap-locks-ing but I am falling on blank screens. Let me cap-lock this just once
IT PAYS TO DEBATE!!!...
maybe not for Truthseekers sake, or Maggiore's sake, or Duesbergs sake, or my sake (although I wish you would)
Do it for the sake of every other curious mind out there that is suddenly and unexpectadly confronted with this whole thing. Do it so they don't come out bruised by Moore's "war" concrete wall of "Guh'scheise" (thats for Adele, she enjoys it. It is Saexisch for "cow shit" or Schwabisch for "cast iron")
"Until denialists demonstrate they give a damn about the truth, a debate does seem pointless at best."
Mull this over one more time. You know this can hardly be true. Moore called me a denialist and that is fine if it turns his crank but don't tell me I don't care...don't tell me you are the only one who does.
"No Pat, most RNA viruses are not retroviruses."
- which is totally irrelevant in this context, since all retroviruses are RNA viruses."
I wouldn't have caught that one. I'm a biology idiot (who's partially right about Africa)
So if Gallo knew in 1983 he was dealing with a retrovirus would he have known it was also an RNA virus? What does this change?
"It's pathetic but also, it's so much fun to have such an opponent! Right here he's just posted another great example of the kind of contributions I referred to above, the kind of mails which get him further and further up shit creek. And what does he write? "I've been wading" !!!"
I donno 'bout djou mang, but that is funny indeed. Good observation about Moore's nautical skills. Wherever you choose to paddle or swim, Mr. Moore, stay off my starboard tack! :)
Okay, for the sake of debate, I'll demonstrate I give a damn.
You write:
Now, which way must one interpret the adjective "falsely"? I guess that your truth would be something close to 100%, wouldn't it? But my truth is: 0%. My truth up to today is Nobody has ever isolated HIV. People have done tricks with PCR and what not, but HIV isolation, nobody, nowhere, ever.
And thus, the question is not: Is it 0% or 40% or 100%? The question is: What is acceptable HIV isolation?
Good comeback jspreen, until it has been properly isolated and cultured from we so-called HIV+s, what do they really have? The analogy that I gave in my book is that I have green eyes and if there is a test for green eyes, I would always come up "positive" because I DO have green eyes. But to say that because of this that I am sick or dying is ludicrous. When I make a video for YouTube, I will invite you over so you can see what a full-blown AIDS person, without any AIDS symptoms, looks like. Seeing is believing but I think that most of you will still ignore the truth!
"wouldn't have caught that one. I'm a biology idiot."
Hehe, Pat, this is not biology but introductory logic.
If all A are B, does it follow all B are A?
The reason you didn't catch it was that you asked a good faith question, and thought you would receive a good faith answer. But to Roy your admission of ignorance was a weakness that had to be exploited. Herein lies the real biology of the matter.
Roy Hinckley says: Of all the amateurish ignorant arguments the AIDS denialists make this one is probably the most buffoonish: "the HIV/AIDS paradigm crumbled in 1984?"..."HIV did not and could not cause AIDS, since his lab detected it in merely one third of the blood samples of AIDS patients."
Roy then goes on the quote this article: J Clin Microbiol. 1990 January; 28(1): 16-19. Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 detected in all seropositive symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals. J B Jackson
Regarding this article, it was listed as the key article by Duesberg proving that HIV has been isolated and identified (reference 16 below), and Duesberg then claimed the continuum award.
However, the paper (16) does not attempt to prove that HIV causes AIDS. This is assumed by the paper. The paper only says that when HIV proteins are found, HIV DNA by PCR can also be found. Not a very surprising finding.
Roy Hinkley says: Or will you falsely claim again next month that HIV can only be isolated from 40% of people who test HIV positive?
As we discussed above, even Duesberg admits this point. The issue is at question is quite different. Does HIV cause a disease, a disease which causes Kaposi's sarcoma in gays but not in hemophiliacs? A syndrome which causes immune suppression by an unknown mechanism with no vaccine and no animal model?
Duesberg says that HIV is a harmless passenger retro-virus. And has said so for 20 years. I tend to think he is correct. After all he did all the original work on retroviruses and was awarded membership into the national academy of science.
noreen still standing reminds me of the story bout the woman who jumps off a skyscraper. as she falls, she says to herself - just gone past the fiftieth floor, no problems, wonder what all the fuss about this falling shit is? fourtieth floor, hey all's still fine. thirtieth floor, no problemo. twentieth floor, this is cool, i feel great, wind in my hair, you go girl! tenth floor - weehaaaa!!! and then, splat, she's dead. what's going to happen to noreen is no joke tho. she's going to die of aids in a year or two, maybe only a few months. check out the stats on hiv+ people with high viral loads and very low cd4s - death is just a matter of time, and not very much time. noreen you need to tear yourself away from the ghouls who are making you commit suicide by telling you that it's no problem to jump off a skyscraper and just carry on enjoying the fall. get on arvs before you run out of time. you don't have much time left, you're already falling past the tenth floor and the ground is hard when you hit it.
Moore picks up his marbles (those that are left)
I've gleaned a few useful items of political intelligence for the real-world war against HIV/AIDS denialism from these threads, but I don't think there's much more to be learned from this particular subset of loonies, so I'll not be visiting this thread again.
Wait! Come back! We need you John. You are the best living demonstration of the fact that HIV=AIDS apologists/exploiters/fanatics/ have absolutely no scientific reply to those who refute their absurd claim/23 year unproven hypothesis/massively silly theory/self-serving stupidity/dangerous rationale for killer drugs. None.
You are our Living Exhibit No. 1 of this overriding fact. Anyone who doubts HIV=AIDS just has to review your contributions to this thread to confirm their suspicions that it is bunk. You are the most public Denialist now, and you show us that the Denialists have empty hands when faced with sincere and knowledgeable complaints. All you fire back is insults, politics, and refusals to debate dangerous heresy in case starving blacks don't take their life saving ARVs.
Now you are leaving us, What one wonders is how long do you think bad logic will last without your fierce counterattacks to protect it?
A claim a retrovirus is deadly for the first time in history, contrary to all known science about retroviruses (pace Gallo and his absurd HTLV-I), with no animal model, no modus operandi, no significant presence, no "significant biological effect" (your words), no discernible health effects until you catch some other plague or poison - are you really so cynical that you think the average concerned citizen will swallow this nonsense for long?
Well, we already know the answer to that. You have prepared your lifeboat in the form of the papers we are about to put stage center at Science Guardian.
The real 9/11
As a farewell present let's acknowledge one thing. There certainly are one or two 9/11 gullibles around here. We welcome them for scoring some very good points in this debate. It doesn't mean they are wrong about HIV=AIDS. Each case is separate. Humans being what they are it is quite hard to find anyone who is entirely sane, you and me excepted of course, and Kruger and Dunning.
So let's respond to jspreen, who seems to have the right idea about HIV, but runs with the loonies on 9/11, JSpreen wrote that we had the wrong idea about 9/11, "no one mentioned the Bushies," etc.
Well, OK, js, let's define the terms then. What exactly is the right idea - your alternative explanation for 9/11? The Pentagon was blown up with explosives and not hit by an airplane? So where did the reported fourth hijacked airplane go? And what made the very large hole in Minnesota or wherever? Misplaced explosives?
I am already sorry I asked.
Henry Bauer speaks
Getting back to incorrect claims here that the inimitable Henry Bauer is a 9/11 flake/nut/screwball, he writes to us that:
"After a couple of brief visits, I stopped looking at Aetiology Blog because it lacks evidence-based discussion and seems just a forum for ranting. Now I find that the Comments here at Science Guardian bring some of that trash to my attention. Just for the record here, I do not now and never have given credence to 9/11 conspiracy theories or to alien-generated (or supernaturally generated or UFO-generated) crop circles. Nor do I "believe in" Loch Ness monsters, I just assert that there is strong evidence that large unidentified animals are extant in Loch Ness, see www.henryhbauer.homestead.com/LochNessFacts.html and writings cited (and some posted) there. For my approach to looking into scientific unorthodoxies and heresies, see my latest discussion in the 2001 book SCIENCE OR PSEUDOSCIENCE: MAGNETIC HEALING, PSYCHIC PHENOMENA, AND OTHER HETERODOXIES (http://scienceorpseudoscience.homestead.com/ has bits from various gratifyingly positive reviews)"
Like the sound of that? All should read his latest book on the unlikely nature of the HIV=AIDS scheme Very nice academic tone, restrained and accurately phrased.
The bottom line is personal shame
Getting back to no more Moore, the prospect saddens us and we have lost the zestful sense of humor his antics always put us in,
So we have to be serious for a moment. Let's face it, this is the most shameful scam in science and a disgrace to all competent scientists who claim authority in perpetuating it.
What would your mother say, John, if she understood what you were up to? What would your Downing College friends say? Isn't there anybody in your life trying to put you back on the straight and narrow?
Are you the Lonely Guy of AIDS? Was cooler right in suggesting that you need the attention of a good woman? Or is your taste is the other direction? Would you at least consider attending a (secular) church tomorrow?
So many questions will now have to go unanswered, on top of the fifty HIV=AIDS ones you have failed to answer so far.
You folks shouldn't worry about me, who is quite fine. You see, I have a wonderful parachute, LDN, and I am not afraid of heights. Maybe you are and maybe you can scare most from pursuing their dreams but not me! If I were like you, I would be scared to look over the edge and never leap into new things but playing it safe by the mainstream's standards is by not taking any risks and like picking fruit, one has to go out on a limb to reap the best results!
What happened to the science? The medical publications and reasoning? There never was any.
This verbiage is a modern day equivalent of a voodoo curse, or perhaps a witch doctor shaking a rattle while chanting a death song to the patient. It may have worked quite well from 1985-1995, driving thousands of drug abusing gays to their deaths by AZT. However, this is 20 years later and the fraud has been revealed for all to see. The witchdoctor has no teeth and is recognized as a clown. HIV is a harmless passenger virus, and those who wisely avoid the toxic drugs are labeled long term non-progressors. How many LTNPs are there? All of them who avoid the deadly drugs.
the really sad thing is noreen that when you hit the ground and die of aids, all the ghouls on this site who advise you that all is ok and that you can just go on falling will then say you died of amoxicillin poisoning or something just as carzy. anything to try to cover the up the fact that you were yet another aids death. it won't matter to you of course as youll already be dead, but there will be endless discussions about what your pathology slides show and whether the local coroner was a fraud. maybe those discussions will help stop someone else make the same mistakes you did, but it would still be a terrible thing if you died many years before you could if you took arv's.
Rob,
you are exactly the same kind of asshole that wonders along and makes great proclamations about Noreens health inspite of all her own very personal testimonials. Why don't you just fuck off to whatever corner of the web you came from or offer something Noreen as a living testifying human being can actually use. How about: "thank the stars you're alive!"
Your story about people falling off skyscrapers is of course nothing like people living with AIDS and you should be tarred, feathered and marched out of town for making such dubious and weak comparisons. Leap off a cliff and report back to us before describing the velocity and freedom of reflection allowed in actual freefall so we can take you for at least remotely believable. Better yet, why don't you get yourself stuck with a health situation so you can make exactly the same agonizing health descisions Noreen has had to make for herself? or Maggiore for that matter!
"you don't have much time left, you're already falling past the tenth floor and the ground is hard when you hit it"
Like you have been there.
Roy Hinkley, you need to be aware of who you are talking to on this site. Molecular Entry Claw is Peter Duesberg's graduate student Gene. His agenda is to try to find even the slightest scientific error in anything you post and use it to try to humilate you. He will also archive it or post it somewhere else on the internet to try to make the case that all AIDS science is flawed just because you, an AIDS scientist, made a mistake. He has no interest in debating science with you or anyone else. He has taken part in many previous internet discussions with AIDS scientists or activists, asking the same questions he asks you and getting the same answers. He rejects the answers automatically. This is just a game to him, not an interest in science or debate.
Pat is a member of Christine Maggiore's legal defense team of advisors. All the questions he asks are designed to obtain information that might be useful in Maggiore's lawsuit against the Los Angeles Medical Examiner. If you respond to him you will not be debating someone with a genuine interest in science, you will be helping the wrong side in a lawsuit. Please be careful here, as things are often not what they might seem to be on this website.
Molecular Entry Claw is Peter Duesberg's graduate student Gene. - pk4
To my certain knowledge totally wrong. So pk4 is the best example of what he warns against, it seems.
The Web reveals the inner nature of so many people, it is a danger to the community.
That's ok Truthseeker, Pat and I have already gleaned a few useful items of political intelligence for the real-world war against HIV/AIDS denialism from these pk4. His characteristically paranoid and ignorant post has been very useful to us in our battles and court cases, although he will never know exactly how he has helped us. The information flow is one way, we won't be revealing our plans, targets and activities here. You'll find out after the fact. We don't issue warnings........
"Pat is a member of Christine Maggiore's legal defense team of advisors. All the questions he asks are designed to obtain information that might be useful in Maggiore's lawsuit against the Los Angeles Medical Examiner. If you respond to him you will not be debating someone with a genuine interest in science, you will be helping the wrong side in a lawsuit. Please be careful here, as things are often not what they might seem to be on this website."
a tad paranoid?
Rob, you are like the Monday morning quarterbacks. It's easy for you to tell folks what they should do but wait until it's your turn. After having 6 lymph node biopsies leaving a 5" scar, numerous tissues biopsies, 22 radiation treatments, 2 radium implants, spinal taps, 2 extremely painful bone biopsies, IVP's, CT Scans, MRI, arterial blood gas tests, tons of blood draws and abnormal blood and liver enzymes, I do think that I know what medical procedures and treatments are best for me.
I wouldn't be surprised if Rob is actually Johnny pee more. Same bullshit and "you're sonna die soon, it's so sad" hypocrisy. They're the people who couldn't care less whether a person lives or dies, the only important things is: Does the patient stick to main stream propaganda and does he or she obediently swallow the life saving killer drugs?
____________________
Angry, me? Yes, very
How cute. Finder-of-no-truth playing the Johnny-pee-more-&-Co role.
Ask any Aids apologist a question, like "How can you know anything about HIV if you never isolated the virus?" The guy won't answer because, if he gives an answer, he will thereafter immediately belong either to the denialists' (he agrees HIV was never isolated indeed and that the question is a good one) or to the ignorant herds of nerds' community (he starts to babble that, on the contrary, HIV has perfectly been isolated).
The Aids apologist simply cannot answer the question and instead switches to the name calling strategy.
Finder-of-no-truth does exactly this when it comes to 911. Ask any question, for instance: "What is the probability a Boeing-757 completely disappeared into the Pentagon through a hole some 20 feet across and leaving no trace behind?" He cannot answer the question because he'll belong thereafter either to the 911-troofers (he agrees that indeed, the probability is as close as one can get to a big fat zero) or to the I-saw-it-on-TV-so-it's-true hillbillies (a Boeing-757 is in fact a cylinder 20 feet across and thus the size of the hole is perfectly normal).
I won't give you an alternative explanation for 9/11 because I don't know for sure what the right idea might be. But I definitely know for sure what the wrong idea is. Answer my question above. Then you will know it for sure too.
For those who would like to read the research of a "real" scientist, the following link provides over 200 articles authored and co-authored by Dr. Zagon, the father of LDN for immune conditions:
http://www.fred.psu.edu/ds/retrieve/fred/investigator/isz1/completepub
This verbiage is a modern day equivalent of a voodoo curse, or perhaps a witch doctor shaking a rattle while chanting a death song to the patient. It may have worked quite well from 1985-1995, driving thousands of drug abusing gays to their deaths by AZT. However, this is 20 years later and the fraud has been revealed for all to see. The witchdoctor has no teeth and is recognized as a clown. HIV is a harmless passenger virus, and those who wisely avoid the toxic drugs are labeled long term non-progressors. How many LTNPs are there? All of them who avoid the deadly drugs.
Posted by: Each_Eye_Vee | November 24, 2007 10:28 PM
Well said, EEV. The phenomenon of a sufficiently widespread belief led by numbskulls and charlatans in authority and leadership positions being enthusiastically and witlessly promoted by crowds of automaton supporters is one of the most interesting if depressing facets of human social nature.
In this case the incantation of one of this species is so fatuous that it defeats itself, but the more subtle examples of this kind of witchdoctoring peddled by ignorant physicians who fail to inform themselves of the correct science they are failing to implement are even more egregious.
A visit a couple of years ago to an expensive Park Avenue doc who tried this on a friend in dealing with his request for a prescription for a harmless malady - suggesting an HIV test just to be sure it was n't part of that umbrella syndrome - still has him brooding about suing the wretch for the return of his fee, given his incompetence at briefing himself properly on an important area of medicine and yet charging an arm and a leg for his incorrect advice.
No doubt if it had not been refused and by some chance was positive the guy would have been urged to take poisonous ARVs and if he refused he would have been pressured to the maximum in the ways described by some of the commentators on Science Guardian, which are so disgraceful they are hard to credit.
But then the censoring activity of the gatekeepers of mainstream science who edit the journals specialists skim but rarely read such as Nature, Science etc, JAMA, NEJ etc is to blame for all this, so one shouldn't castigate them too much.
Ultimately it is Anthony Fauci of NIAID who imposed this censorship on the reporters of the major media explicitly in the first place twenty years ago who has to take responsibility for the HIV=AIDS information debacle, which leads so many people - almost everybody working in the field - to be entirely ignorant of any alternative explanation for the syndrome, as Fauci intended.
Truthseeker, those 9/11 "gullibles" include lynn margulis, heavily influenced by a renouned philosopher David Ray griffin phd, and possibly andrew maniotis,(he has hinted his skeptism to the OCT here) not to mention over 200 architects and engineers, former cia officials like Robert Baer, ray mcgovern, the head of the old star wars program Dr. robert bowman phd from cal tech, the father of regeanomics Paul craig roberts, members of parliament and congress like Micheal meacher and Cynthia mckinney.
Infact the author of the most well made pro dissident film hiv fact or fraud Stephen allen is a 9/11 truther. This single film has been the most effective meausure for raising awareness to the rethinkers views, giving them informed consent.
Not to mention 100 million or so intelligent people around the world who have seen compelling films like Loose change and 9/11 mysteries on google video.
Watch these films
architects for truth google it
Some people are not going to believe that planes vanish into thin air while passports and red bandanas survive like they did in Shankesville etc.
"What is the probability a Boeing-757 completely disappeared into the Pentagon through a hole some 20 feet across and leaving no trace behind?"
Zero. Happy now? Silly question. Doesn't make me a 9/11 crazy, the answer is contained in the question as stated.
I was just trying to give you a chance to retain some shred of general credibility, Spreen, but you have failed me. Now Mr Moore is chortling, as you deserve, and the good points you have made on HIV=AIDS, where you are right, are blown away by your own breath.
Again my notice to onlookers is, it is possible for the logically handicapped to be right on one problem and wrong on another, though their credibility will be severely weakened by their mistakes.
Each case must be judged separately by listeners. In this case, 9/11 is a silly distraction, and an unfortunate blow to the credibility of more than one poster here, when they need all the credibility they can muster, with most of the world against them.
Those of us who see the correct conclusion in reviewing the HIV=AIDS literature, that it supports the answer that AIDS is a drug/conventional disease/nutritional deficit syndrome and not an infectious retrovirus syndrome, do not need their own credibility called into question by the partnership of 9/11 nutters.
I won't give you an alternative explanation for 9/11 because I don't know for sure what the right idea might be. But I definitely know for sure what the wrong idea is. Answer my question above. Then you will know it for sure too.
We have answered. Now, with respect, if you wish to retain any shred of credibility yourself on this thread, and stop diminishing the credibility of others, then you should answer the question posed to you or stop mentioning 9/11, which as an unrelated, non scientific issue is not otherwise relevant in this context.
What is your alternative explanation for the news reports and extensive media and expert reviews of 9/11?
Those who question HIV=AIDS do provide an alternative interpretation, fully supported by the literature. AIDS is a drug/conventional disease/nutritional deficit syndrome.
Main stream news reports and expert reviews of 911 are total bullshit, exactly as is the case on main stream HIV=Aids reporting and expert knowledge.
What do you think, you dummy, that the HIV=Aids nonsense is just some detail bug in the Kingdom of the Just?
Come on, man! The Aids lie was possible, and has kept standing upright throughout the years, only because the whole system is biased. Not only Duesberg is cut out of the mass media all over the globe, every heretic is. In other words: Science and the whole fucking world press is sold out.
People are blind and cannot think. You, for instance, are unable to recognize that the answer "Zero" you just provided, makes you a perfect 911 nut, as you call it.
Because, if the probability is zero indeed, it means that there was no airplane in the Pentagone. Which implies that there's a big lie going on somewhere the whole world press, or at least the part I can see of it, prefers to ignore.
Do I deserve such kindness? Me thinks no. BTW, to enhance clarity, may I suggest His Majesty decides once and for all whether it's I or We, my or Our?
Okay, this far and no further. This is hardly the place to get into a general fight over 911, is it? I just thought a small hint might come in handy for you to stop making an ass of yourself, but maybe it was not such a good idea after all.
____________________
Me, angry? Yes, very
People are blind and cannot think. You, for instance, are unable to recognize that the answer "Zero" you just provided, makes you a perfect 911 nut, as you call it. Because, if the probability is zero indeed, it means that there was no airplane in the Pentagone.
This is your best answer to my request for your alternative scenario to explain 9/11 data? No answer at all?
So what caused the hole in the Pentagone, Jspreen?
If CIA explosives, what happened to the fourth plane run by hijackers, tracked in air space to the Pentagone? Is it penta-gone from your radar?
And how about the large hole in middle American forest land? Was that a CIA explosives preparation cabin which inadvertently exploded as they were building a fuse? Or a plane?
If you cannot answer, could we at least arrange that you post with some alternative moniker when commenting on HIV=AIDS, on which you have the right idea, but only by reason of emotional attitude it appears, not intellectual.
Then Moore will stop crowing happily that only "cranks, cuckoos, flakes and nuts" support a revision of HIV=AIDS into drugs/conventional disease/nutritional deficit=AIDS.
This is not to devalue your perception that something is wrong in HIV=AIDS. Your antennae are probably extra sensitive to that kind of thing, for some reason, but you spread your suspicions over too wide an area, thoughtlessly.
But let us now agree tthat you simply fail to have any alternative coherent explanation for the 9/11 data, so all your suspicions amount to nothing but emotional attitude and the general theme "It ain't true because I don't believe mainstream sources".
Sources such as the media, the official sources or experts who wrote extensive reports presented to a huge conference at Columbia which you didn't attend, and long PBS investigative reports - all in the pocket of the CIA, you apparently believe.
But 200 architects and engineers have detected something wrong here, just like you and Howard Zinn!
In other words, just emotional guff, not much different from the crazies that support HIV=AIDS on the same deluded emotional basis and spout nonsensical imprecations against Noreen, who has more sense in her little finger than you have in your entire mind.
Use a different name, Jspreen, and stop embarrassing HIV critics and delighting John Moore and his friends.
Funny how the many 9/11 truth members when you mention the hiv does not cause AIDS, say the same thing, that youre tainting the movement with psuedoscience.
The 9/11 truth movement has managed to make films like zeitgeist, Loose change and 9/11 mysteries, that have gotten around 50-100 million views on the internet. Whether you agree or not this is an astounding feat, maybe the hiv rethinker movement should learn from them on how to file share, because the idea that hiv doesnt cause AIDS seems crazy to most, while the 9/11 truth movement has millions of beleivers, while the hiv doesnt cause aids is lagging behind it.
It is good to question whether it is AIDS, 9-11 or any other thing that we are "told" is the gospel truth. We know that all the general public is told to swallow is not always accurate information. One problem with the HIV theory is that it has been drilled into us for the past 25 years and the news reporters have not done their jobs properly. So naturally most just accept this because the government states that it is so. It is difficult to change opinions of others who have believed a certain way for a long period of time. Example, most of our lives we were thought that Pluto was a planet. Now, scientists tell us that it is not technically one. So how many of us are still going to consider it a planet? Probably most.
oh my God, this thread is hysterical. It's now become nothing more than one lunatic arguing with another over who is the more crazy!
"I'm a bigger nut than you are!".
"No you're not, I'm the maddest!"
"Liar, liar pants on fire! It's well known that I'm totally insane and you're only mildly flaky!"
It's no wonder jspreen, cooler, noreen, truthseeker, pat, molecular entry claw and their friends can't get anyone in the mainstream world to pay any attention to what they think about HIV and AIDS. As soon as they open their mouths, it's obvious that they're totally deranged! Wonderful stuff to read. Keep it coming! Best laugh I've had in years of looking at science Blogs.
Look at this pathetic junior college flunkee, more ad hominem attacks, no evidence to back his zany theories, cant cite the first 5 papers that hiv causes AIDS, cant cite any evidence for the conspiracy theory of osama and his hijackers besides the fatty bin laden confession tape and that passport that flew out of the hijackers pocket and landed on the streets of Manhattan, strange how they never found the black boxes, thank god for that terrorists passport!
But what else would you expect from a junior college flunkee? total loser.
Any mainstream coverage? The same mainstream media that lied us into Iraq and Vietnam? Thats a really valid argument, dumb loser.
In the Parenzee case Gallo was asked about their original work in the early eighties. Work which has only been supported by later studies using improved techniques.
Posted by: Roy Hinkley | November 24, 2007 2:42 PM
Well, thanks Roy, for confirming that you are aware that Gallo's original work in 1984 proved nothing. Gee, that doesn't cause you any tremors, we gather - that a rich paradigm was initiated by lab work without meaning, later castigated as fraudulent by officials whose punishment of him was only evaded by Gallo's lawyers manging to get a rewriting of the rules.
On April 23, 1984 Margaret Heckler, with a concrete coiffure and severe laryngitis, croaked to a packed press conference in Washington DC that: "the probable cause of aids had been found". This ill-looking US Secretary for Health and Human Services was flanked by gangster, Robert Gallo, somewhat apprehensive and creepy in tainted glasses, a Mafioso fearing being fingered and bumped-off.. Perhaps even then he was anticipating the inevitable ten years of sleaze and stinky revelations of scientific skulduggery that would entertain the cognoscenti. Heckler did not read her prepared statement in its entirety omitting a backhanded acknowledgement that Pasteur scientists had "previously identified a virus which they had linked to AIDS patients," as well as the prediction that the alleged 'French' virus "will prove to be the same" as Gallo's 'HTLV-IIIB'. David Rasnick stated: "With that announcement, Gallo had publicly leapfrogged straight across the scientific process - across peer-review and analysis, across the very checks and balances of sciences. He made no attempt to demonstrate his claim but fed it straight to the global media, which broadcast it without hesitation" ... Serge Lang was alarmed: "I was very upset. The cause of AIDS was discovered by government fiat...then that announcement was made at the press conference. As far as I'm concerned, from that point on AIDS research turned into seedy, criminal politics, and it remained that way." ...In a calculated pre-emptive strike, Gallo seized the initiative in establishing his discovery 'HTLV-III' as the cause of 'AIDS'. It was pre-emptive because the scientific papers concerning its discovery had not yet been published and indeed, the necessary peer review process had not been completed and none of Gallo's colleagues had a chance to assess the work or duplicate his results prior to the all important announcement. The US Government gave official backing to what would turn out to be deeply flawed, if not down right fraudulent research. The 'HTLV-III' ('HIV') hypothesis of 'AIDS' causation was engraved in stone and the qualifying word 'probable' might never have been croaked. So the premature consensus of the press-conference (23 April, 1984) pre-empted the publication of the Gallo-Popovic four Science (4 May, 1984) papers! Had the four 'seminal' Gallo-Popovic Science papers been subjected to rigorous and unbiased peer review they would never have been published and the press conference postponed. Regarding the four fake Science papers, The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) Reports, supported by HIH scientific advisers, found that Gallo and his lab engaged in a number of mal-practices: "lack of laboratory records...lack of attention to details which resulted in false representation...lack of scientific rigor...breached overall responsibility...to ensure the accuracy of the paper...created and fostered conditions that give rise to falsified/fabricated data and falsified scientific reports..." While in spring 1992, the press reported the OSI investigation had cleared Gallo of 'misconduct', criticism of the report soon surfaced and a special panel of consultants nominated by the NAS, at the request of HHS and HIH to oversee the investigation, actually charged Gallo with: "a pattern of behavior...that repeatedly misrepresents, suppresses, and distorts data and their interpretation...intellectual recklessness of a high degree - in essence intellectual appropriation of the French viral isolate..." In a written submission to the investigators, Popovic stated:"I did not agree with Dr. Gallo that the references to the work we did with the French virus should be omitted or even significantly minimized. I thought it was wrong not to credit Dr. Montagnier's group's contribution more clearly." The [NIH] Office of Scientific Integrity (OSI) "Final Report" concerning Gallo's research was revealed in Science & Government Report (June 1, 1992) to be: "a deeply flawed document reflecting an incomplete investigation. The report has been substantially 'watered down' from the hard-hitting draft report. Material apparently damaging to Gallo, including some of his own testimony, has been deleted..." Dr. Sonnabend was sickened by Gallo's dishonesty: "Gallo was certainly committing open fraud. But the point is not to focus on Gallo. It's us - all of us in the scientific community, we let him get away with it. None of this was hidden..." (Spin, June, 1992)
Now Gallo says he was vindicated. Can you explain in what way?
It's no wonder jspreen, cooler, noreen, truthseeker, pat, molecular entry claw and their friends can't get anyone in the mainstream world to pay any attention to what they think about HIV and AIDS.
Posted by: HIVVER | November 25, 2007 10:35 PM
HIVVER, perhaps you need a little more data as to why no one is paying much attention to any dissent in HIV=AIDS, however sound and scientific it might be:
"As AIDS grew in the 1980s into a global, multibillion-dollar juggernaut of diagnostics, drugs, and activist organizations, whose sole target in the fight against AIDS was HIV, condemning Duesberg became part of the moral crusade. Prior to that 1987 paper, Duesberg was one of a handful of the most highly funded and prized scientists in the country. Subsequently, his NIH funding was terminated and he has received not one single federal research dollar since his pre-1987 $350,000 Outstanding Investigator Grant ran out. Duesberg lost his lab facilities and had to move twice within a few years to smaller labs on the Berkeley campus, where he spent much of his time writing futile research grant proposals asking to test his hypothesis that AIDS is a chemical syndrome, caused by accumulated toxins from heavy drug use. He lost his graduate students, who were warned that to emerge from his lab would blight their careers. He was denied and had to fight for routine pay increases by his employers at UC Berkeley, where he has tenure and still teaches. He was "disinvited" from scientific conferences, and colleagues even declared that they would refuse to attend any conference that included him. Duesberg also was banished from publishing in scientific journals that previously had welcomed his contributions, most theatrically by the editor of Nature, Sir John Maddox, who wrote a bizarre editorial declaring that Duesberg would he denied the standard scientific "right of reply" in response to personal attacks that were frequently published in that journal. Prior to 1987, Peter Duesberg never had a single grant proposal rejected by the NIH. Since 1991 he has written a total of twenty-five research proposals, every single one of which has been rejected. "They took him out, just took him right out," says Richard Strohman, an emeritus professor of biology at UC Berkeley. And what was it, exactly, that Peter Duesberg had done? He simply pointed out that no one had yet proven that HIV is capable of causing a single disease, much less the twenty-five diseases that are now part of the clinical definition of AIDS. He pointed to a number of paradoxes regarding HIV and argued that far from being evidence that HIV is "mysterious" or "enigmatic," these paradoxes were evidence that HIV is a passenger virus. "- Celia Farber, Out of Control, AIDS and the corruption of medical science, Harpers, March 2006.
No wonder dissenters are mostly outside the field.
"It's no wonder jspreen, cooler, noreen, truthseeker, pat, molecular entry claw and their friends can't get anyone in the mainstream world to pay any attention to what they think about HIV and AIDS.
Posted by: HIVVER | November 25, 2007 10:35 PM"
You don't even know what I think you stupid little spambot
The problem with stupid spambot programms like HIVVER 0.1 is that they cannot tell the difference between the different points of view nor the people who hold them.
"As soon as they open their mouths, it's obvious that they're totally deranged! Wonderful stuff to read. Keep it coming! Best laugh I've had in years of looking at science Blogs."
I came with the specific claim that AIDS numbers are inflated in Africa. Halfway through the ad hominems about me being deranged, we had the UN support my assertion yet I remain deranged. I am happy that you find this whole discussion on Africa wonderful stuff to read and the best laugh you've had in years, now if only I can get you to READ...
Hey, Truthseeker! Now I understand why Johnny pee more esteems you so much and has no esteem for me at all: it's because you don't criticize 911!
But should I use a different pen name? What difference would that make? I mean, a guy who knows Dr Ryke Geerd Hamer's New Medicine as well as I do plus perfectly recognizes the HIV=Aids lies plus clearly sees through the 911 smoke screens plus writes such witty and marvelous posts with so many typos: I'd be unmasked after two lines of writing. So, jspreen it is and jspreen it will stay.
Besides, I have nothing to hide and am proud of my heretic ideas. ALL of them.
Truthseeker wrote:
Dr. Sonnabend was sickened by Gallo's dishonesty: "Gallo was certainly committing open fraud. But the point is not to focus on Gallo. It's us - all of us in the scientific community, we let him get away with it. None of this was hidden..." (Spin, June, 1992)
This is the same Dr. Sonnabend who later realized that he was wrong, and Gallo was correct. Dr. Sonnabend now recommends antiretroviral therapy for his patients who are progressing to AIDS because of their infection with HIV. See for example:
http://www.aegis.com/pubs/gmhc/2005/GM190903.html
and
http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/16/18/News/feature.html
Besides, I have nothing to hide and am proud of my heretic ideas. ALL of them.
Apologies, Jspreen, this is a fine attitude and so is wholesale skepticism, far better than the kind of teacher's pet automaton mental paralysis that typifies defenders of the status quo. And yes yours and coolers posts are often highly entertaining and even hilarious as they give the smug fellow travelers of power their come uppance. A danger to the keyboards of all coffee drinkers who read them!
You guys are live and kicking and entering into life with gusto and instead of buying everything you are sold you take a second look and kick the tires, and if anyone is in need of rescue you are the kind of guys that will strip off their coats and jump in to save them, while the human sheep baa in terrified unison on land as they get herded in for slaughter.
Good for you. I just hope that discovering the blatant corruption of HIV=AIDS hasn't made you too cynical and distrustful about everything else, there are known to be good people in high positions who take responsibility for others and try to do the right thing, and not all of science, government and corporate leadership is corrupt and willing to sacrifice the health and lives of others for the sake of their pocketbooks.
The human race wouldn't survive if we were all like that. Most of us are decent people who judge others by ourselves and get too easily suckered by charlatans, perhaps, so the tire kickers such as yourselves perform a vital service.
This is the same Dr. Sonnabend who later realized that he was wrong, and Gallo was correct. Dr. Sonnabend now recommends antiretroviral therapy for his patients who are progressing to AIDS because of their infection with HIV. - Posted by: Dr. Duke | November 26, 2007 2:56 PM
Yes, Dr Duke, what you say is true, Sonnabend bended, perhaps even broke, after a fine early history of looking askance at what he was asked to believe and comparing it with what he saw with his own eyes in his patients. He was one of the founders of AMFAR, I believe. But being ostracized for what he thought was an experience which was followed by a change in view. Whether the one followed from the other is hard to say, but each reader can make up their own minds on it.
I didn't write that story, by the way, it was Celia Farber you were quoting I believe, or Alex Russell. But it rings true to me. The political pressure on dissent has been excruciating from the start, as the Duesberg saga shows.
Ever wonder why a valid paradigm would need an Inquisition? Maybe you should.
Ever wonder why a valid paradigm would need an Inquisition? Maybe you should.
How silly! The scientific opposition to people like Peter Duesberg is because he set in train a series of events that caused a lot of unnecessary deaths in South Africa and the USA. Sure, his career was ended as a result, he lost his grants and was ostracized. That always happens in science when you're catastrophically and obviously wrong very publicly on something that has implications for public health. Galileo dissented and was right, so he was a scientific hero, but the big difference here is that Duesberg was wrong on the science. That doesn't make him a Galileo, it just makes him a fool, and a fool whose foolish views ended up killing people.
It's a bit hard telling Denialists apart because they rarely if ever state what their points of view are. The only thing that they have in common is that they deny some part or all of the science describing HIV's role in AIDS
Typical Denialist fantasies. Has it ever crossed your mind that just perhaps Sonnabend has personally seen the benefits of giving his own patients ARVs?
Does your Denialist filter ever allow evidence that contradicts your dogma to enter your brain?
Skeptics change their minds when presented with evidence. Denialists stick to their dogma despite the evidence.
This in short is the difference between skepticism and denialism. This is why it is not correct to refer to you and other demialists as "skeptics", "rethinkers" or even "dissidents". You are not the least bit skeptical, you are incapable of rethinking anything, and the only thing that you are dissenting from is reality.
Sonnabend on the other hand is a rethinker. He looked at the evidence and rethought his position. He was and probably still is a skeptic. He was skeptical about the longterm benefits of AZT monotherapy.
"It's a bit hard telling Denialists apart because they rarely if ever state what their points of view are."
Typical of someone who doesn't give a shit who he is talking to.
My point of view: AIDS in Africa is overestimated ...now UN confirmed. That you didn't even get a remote drift of my point of view says how much you give a shit. You can't tell us apart because it can all only be black and white for you. No disagreement possible. You are a spam bot too.
"The only thing that they have in common is that they deny some part or all of the science describing HIV's role in AIDS".
Well the disease is incontrovertible in description alone. No HIV, no AIDS. Immune supression without is called Idiopathic CD4-T-lymphocytopenia I believe. I wonder how much of that they have in Africa?
"Sonnabend has personally seen the benefits of giving his own patients ARVs?"
Just because "it works" doesn't maker it good or even smart. I think that was someone's quip to Noreen here once and it didn't come from a "denialist".
"How silly! The scientific opposition to people like Peter Duesberg is because he set in train a series of events that caused a lot of unnecessary deaths in South Africa and the USA."
This is silly beyond belief. I understand human's primal need to have a boogeyman to stone or burn or both or worse but you may now snap out of it and join the ranks of those who walk upright.
Your comments are entirely limited to picking flaws real or imagined in the science behind HIV and AIDS. It's never about what you believe but about what you deny. It's completely negative.
It's not clear whether you are just denying that HIV causes AIDS or whether you also deny that HIV exists. Perhaps you also deny the whole germ theory of disease like Jan Spreen. At least he's consistently nuts.
You could help by actually stating what you believe but this of course would mean that you would have to support your views with evidence. It is much easier to be a Denialist and expect everybody else to have to "prove" things to you.
You say that you believe that estimates of HIV infection have been inflated in the past. Does this mean that you accept the current estimate of 33 million? Is it less? Or do you think that HIV doesn't actually exist? Go ahead tell us what your point of view is. Or are you just interested in denial?
Your comments are entirely limited to picking flaws real or imagined in the science behind HIV and AIDS. It's never about what you believe but about what you deny. It's completely negative
Dr. Noble, chill out bro. I'm sure Pat wasn't out to offend your religious feelings.
Here, I believe in freedom of speech and choice, and in brotherhood of man. I don't believe in the magic winter wonder virus.
I believe in a life after the tests, and in my own regenerative capacities. I don't believe in AZT.
How was that for you, at leat two positives for every negative? Now get a grip, be a better loser than you were a winner once upon a time. Here review some expert medical advice and Let me know how it works for you:
I took advantage of being at the seaside to lay in a store of sucking-stones. They were pebbles but I call them stones. Yes, on this occasion I laid in a considerable store. I distributed them equally between my four pockets, and sucked them turn and turn about. This raised a problem which I first solved in the following way. I had say sixteen stones, four in each of my four pockets these being the two pockets of my trousers and the two pockets of my greatcoat. Taking a stone from the right pocket of my greatcoat, and putting it in my mouth, I replaced it in the right pocket of my greatcoat by a stone from the right pocket of my trousers, which I replaced by a stone from the left pocket of my trousers, which I replaced by a stone from the left pocket of my greatcoat, which I replaced by the stone which was in my mouth, as soon as I had finished sucking it. Thus there were still four stones in each of my four pockets, but not quite the same stones. And when the desire to suck took hold of me again, I drew again on the right pocket of my greatcoat, certain of not taking the same stone as the last time. And while I sucked it I rearranged the other stones in the way I have just described. And so on.
"Your comments are entirely limited to picking flaws real or imagined in the science behind HIV and AIDS. It's never about what you believe but about what you deny. It's completely negative."
It is always about the science with you even when it is blatantly about politics but when you screw it up you go scurry behind a pubmed paper that you yourself admit to not understanding. But at least you concede that some flaws are real. Also that you think less AIDS death is completely negative makes you indeed a sad man. Africa let off a collective sigh of relief and you call it "all negative" with me. I believe AIDS in Africa is overestimated; I deny that the estimates were right. The two describe the same opinion...and I was on the "righter" side of the argument than you..
"It's not clear whether you are just denying that HIV causes AIDS or whether you also deny that HIV exists. Perhaps you also deny the whole germ theory of disease like Jan Spreen. At least he's consistently nuts."
I was asked uptop what I believe but of course you didn't pick up on my answer because you are not paid or programmed to read.
here it is:
"So, lets get this on the record, pat. Do you accept that HIV is the causative factor for AIDS?"
Thank you for finally asking and a penalty for JP Moore for foul language based on nothing but his very own prejudice.
Do I have a choice? Do you think I can falsify HIV/AIDS? I have to accept what I am told. I am told by some that HIV is the SOLE causative agent in AIDS while others are saying HIV is not sufficient and none of this comes from any "denialist" sources. If JP Moore says HIV causes AIDS than I must accept it but I do not understand why I MUST be an "AIDS denialist" for defending Maggiore's rights as a parent. Do YOU understand that logic?"
And of course you can't tell whether I am also denying HIV's existance because you have been "at war" for so long you can no longer tell friend from foe from passerby and that really is a big problem for you, Moore, HIVVER, and who-not-else who threw the "denialist weapon-of-every-convieniance" at me. Of course you are also an aggressive programm and find no breach in bitcode to strecht the hallucination into the "germ theory denier"...just like that, out of the blue... and I'm "inconsistantly nuts" for thinking there was less AIDS than you. Chris, you are missing a historic moment. AIDS seems to have peaked!!! They think it peaked in the late 90's!!! even in Africa!!! to quote Churchill:
"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. but it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning".
snap out of your depression.
"You say that you believe that estimates of HIV infection have been inflated in the past".
I now KNOW they were inflated in the past.
"Does this mean that you accept the current estimate of 33 million?"
Time will tell. It is so difficult with AIDS, you know.
"Is it less?"
maybe, hopefully science got it all fucked up... More research and better tools will shed light on it anyway, won't they?
"Or do you think that HIV doesn't actually exist?"
This will never register because nobody need give a shit anyway what I believe, except for you. I accept it exists!!! fuuuuuuuk! you're like a child and this AIDS thing is your lollipop. or is it a spambot access code? Is it an oath?
Go ahead tell us what your point of view is. Or are you just interested in denial?
I am just interested in "denial" what?
WTF does this mean? If I understand your question even only a small tiny little bit I'd say YOU're OBSESSED with denial or are you paid for this crap?
I can't tell what your standpoint is because you never sate what it is. The only thing that you come up with is that you object to other people's standpoints.
Debating denialists is like trying to nail jelly on a tree.
I know what John Moore's standpoint is. I know what other scientist's standpoints are. I don't know what yours is because the only thing you do is take potshots at other people.
Dr. N,
You still don't know Pat's standpoint because you're not paid for your reading skills. What do you want us to do about it? Pay more?
You're now repeating the "you've got no standpoint" line over and over cuz that was today's talking point upload and you guys will employ every silly little maneuver to avoid debating substance at the moment. Better start swimming, Dr. N, or you'll sink like a stone.
John Moore's standpoint is refusal to discuss his standpoint. Is that negative?
How about this, is this a standpoint? It's from 1993 - was there some truth to it? Could Celia Farber's journalistic instinct have been more accurate than John Moore's scientific bloviating? Judge for yourself spambot:
"I also tried very hard to obtain these statistics. Finally. I was told they do not exist. Even in the relatively prosperous Cote d'lvoire, no actual death statistics are kept.
One hesitates to burst a bubble that may he helping people, however inadvertently but in this case, as in most situations like this, the money is being trapped at an administrative level, and hardly trickling down to the people who need it. It may well be that  just as it is argued in the West figures had to be inflated or else nobody would care, but in Africa the consequence of this terror is far from innocuous. It has caused a deep psychological wound that one relief worker, Philippe Krynen, calls ,"AIDS brain," in which people are so convinced they will die they actually get sick, so strong is the belief that a deadly virus has spread like wildfire, and that there is no escaping it.
When Krynen, a French nurse working with AIDS orphans in Kagera, a region of Tanzania near the Uganda border, first came to the area, he realized that the first thing he had to do was get a real answer to the question of how many people were "infected" with HIV, "When I came here," he said, "people had completely given up. Nobody was interested in safe sex  that's only an option if you think you have a chance. So we decided to test everybody to find out who was not infected. I figured that those who were not infected could become leaders and inspire the others. We tested 150 Tanzanians. We were expecting to find up to 50 percent HIVÂpositive. We found 5 percent."
But Krynen reasoned that the sample was not representative of the general population, that the age groups and levels of education were different. So he did another round of testing, this time of 842 people  the entire adult population of a village. Of those, 116 were positive, or 13.5 percent. "We had people who were symptomatically AIDS patients:" Krynen said. "They were dying of AIDS, but when they were tested and found out they were negative they suddenly rebounded and are now perfectly healthy." Krynen even came across an HIVÂpositive sixÂyearÂold, whose parents are both negative and who has never been to a hospital or received a transfusion. The only time she ever had an injection was as part of Unicef's basic vaccine program.
"Everybody talks about development in Africa, but there is no such thing," Krynen said. "There is only survival. And now survival is made more difficult because there is no hope for tomorrow. In the villages where I work, people are totally overwhelmed by the media campaign, which always repeats the same thing-that you're dead. That everybody is infected. This is what they call awareness. We are paying a very high price for this gross exaggeration. The whole community is washed up, despondent, because of this psychological pressure."
Krynen also did a rough count of how many orphans were in Kagera due to AIDS. In Africa, a child is considered an orphan if either or both parents die. Krynen surveyed 160 villages and arrived at a very rough estimate. "Nobody keeps track of the death toll here," he said. "Maybe in some hospitals they do, but they'll only keep the figures for two or three months and then they'll scrap them because they need the paper." He estimated that there would be some 17,500 AIDS orphans in Kagera. "These figures were virtually meaningless," he said. "I made them up myself, but they wound up getting sent off to Kalizizo, and from there to Dar es Salaam, and then to the National AIDS Control Program. Then, to my amazement, they were published as official figures in the WHO 1990 book on African AIDS. After that, every six months the figure just kept jumping up. By now, the figure has more than doubled, based on I don't know what evidence, since these people have never been here. Today they say that there are 50,000 AIDS orphans in Kagera."
Mulondo agrees: "This safe sex business is not working. The rate of promiscuity is increasing because people don't give a damn. They've been told that 80 percent are infected, that they're going to die, there's no way out, so people are trying to enjoy themselves. Many people have said to me, 'What's the point? We're all gone anyway. We're dead.' This is the result of these exaggerated AIDS scare campaigns."
"If people die of malaria, it is called AIDS," Krynen said. "If they die of herpes, it is called AIDS. I've even seen people die in accidents and it's been attributed to AIDS. The AIDS figures out of Africa are pure lies, pure estimate."
"Out of Africa" (part 1) SPIN, 1993, C. Farber
"I can't tell what your standpoint is because you never sate what it is."
never mind chris. it is beyond your programmed skills.
"The only thing that you come up with is that you object to other people's standpoints."
when I feel they are socially and politically rejectable, of course. Tara "meant" to talk about Mbeki btw.
"Debating denialists is like trying to nail jelly on a tree."
you must be either a denialist or a jelly fish.
"I know what John Moore's standpoint is."
Yes, he made his position clear and he is pro sensorship, severe prison terms for scientific dissent and anti freedom of choice for the individual as it is written in the law of his adoptive land (still today despite much recent onslaught). He is a liar and a slanderer and is completely unsuited for the public's trust. He should retreat to his lab and stay there unless he has something, ANYTHING to say other than "he won't say". He is a parody of himself and his political ranting are seriously extremist in nature and your blind support of it betrays your own inner convictions. If HIV/AIDS really is the big deal you say it is, it is people like you and Moore who need to be removed as the "unofficial" spokespeople for it because you two clowns cause way more polarization than the world cares for.
If there is anyone capable of convincing Noreen or anyone else that HIV doesn't cause AIDS then it is Moore, Wainberg, Bergman, HIVVER, Rob, Noble, Smith, etc and co. A "denialist leadership" is superfluous to achieve your collective results. You are creating the fuel and momentum of your own "war"
Sonnabend on the other hand is a rethinker. He looked at the evidence and rethought his position. He was and probably still is a skeptic. He was skeptical about the longterm benefits of AZT monotherapy. - Chris Noble
He told Lederer at POZ magazine in April 2006 that high initial AZT doses had killed thousands needlessly. At least he held to that. Given the fact that anyone at all who reads the literature over the last 20 years can see that the HIV as cause has failed, except you, it seems, we doubt if he has any genuine faith in it. But perhaps he is too busy seeing patients to study up.
So Chris, tell us, why wouldn't you take the drugs if you are such a fervent believer in the dread fantasy of HIV causing death? We ask merely for information, since as an intelligent judgement it seems inconsistent with your loyalty to the cause of rank illiteracy in AIDS. Have the papers in the journals you are so familiar with revealed something to you which suggests they may be dangerous and give you a buffalo hump, and rot your liver fatally, as they do each year in half the US AIDS deaths?
Perhaps you should read the papers Mr Moore has written that remove four main pillars of the HIV unproven hypothesis, which we are about to write up on New AIDS Review. They would confirm what appears to be your niggling suspicion that something in wrong in AIDS, though like Moore you are reluctant to admit it publicly.
You could help by actually stating what you believe but this of course would mean that you would have to support your views with evidence
I can't speak for Pat, but here's what I believe:
1. A small group of young, gay men in NY and LA and SF were partying pretty hard in the 70's, using way too many poppers at discos;
2. Several of them wrecked their immune systems and got sick, some got Kaposi Sarcoma;
3. Gallo and the virus hunters who had been toiling away for a decade trying to find a pet disease to attribute to their bogus leukemia retroviruses won a political power struggle at the NIH;
4. A scaremongering, propaganda campaign was unleashed (fatal virus will kill you thru icky sex) on the public.
5. Homophobic right-wingers like Anita Bryant and Jerry Fallwell tried to blame the disease on gays; this caused a backlash and push to falsely state that "we are all at risk"
6. For political reasons, the money finally started to flow from the NIH;
7. The tests, originally designed to screen the blood supply, were bogus and over-sensitive, giving fatal HIV stigmas on a lot of innocent, healthy people;
8. Failing to produce a vaccine, Sam Broder of NCI and Burroughs Wellcome, started making enormous amount of money selling AZT (toxic cancer chemotherapeutic DNA-chain terminators) to many AIDS patients (which further wrecked their immune systems by killing neutrophils and other white blood cells)
9. Big Pharma realized it could make fortunes off of AIDS patients by scaring them, testing them and selling them toxic drugs. Mediocre scientsts realized they could make careers out of valiantly fighting AIDS (to no good end).
10. The virus never spread into the general population. Magically, straight white men and heterosexual housewives almost never get the disease, so the AIDS cabal turned their attention from gays and blacks in USA, to a potentially huge market in Africa.
Here we are today.
Bogus science, fueled by corporate greed, cultural stigma and Macchiavellian politics.
You are being deceptive again. As usual you take the "admission" that all antiretrovirals have toxicities and some more than other and run with it as far as you can. All the "orthodox" scientists are very upfront with detailing the known toxicities of these drugs. But denialists go to great lengths to exagerate these toxicities and to pretend that no benefits exist.
A reasonable decision on taking these drugs requires a balance of harm and benefits. Denialists dishonestly say that they are so incredibly toxic that they kill in months and have no benefit. They spend an inordinate amount of time "rethinking" studies that have evidence that contradicts their believes.
I can not honestly say what my personal decision would be in some ill-defined hypothetical case. What I do know is that I would not delude myself by pretending that HIV doesn't exist or that it doesn't cause AIDS.
The only thing that you demonstrate in these puerile exercises is that you are incapable of understanding the science that you criticise. Have you managed to convince John that he is really a closet Denialist? Who have you convinced?
Why don't you get some of the Denialists with scientific training to help you?
Moore has no respect left anymore, after the way I humiliated him in our debate he ran away like a little frog whos lost his balls.
Scroll back and get your balls ready for the intellectual toure de force of humilation I gave moore. So he ran away, with his girlfriend jim. They couldnt handle my power.
The only thing that you demonstrate in these puerile exercises is that you are incapable of understanding the science that you criticise. Have you managed to convince John that he is really a closet Denialist? Who have you convinced?
What was it that we salute as the Kraft-Dunning effect, again? Let's see... Oh yes, that the slow witted think they are in the fast lane. Right. How about, the earnest are unaware they lack a sense of humor? Or are those two ideas much the same?
Either way, Chris, you are the finest example extant of the Kraft-Dunning effect known to all of science, that has to be said. Perhaps this is the time to award the Kraft-Dunning prize for 2007, since the likelihood of there being a better candidate in the next five weeks seems non existent.
So what shall we say in our award speech. How about, To Chris, earnest duffer, sweet natured but confounded by the problem of combining the uphill task of defending the status quo in HIV=AIDS as if it actually benefited anybody, with reading the literature in the topic, even in easy spoonfuls in POZ magazine.
Ah well. We'll have to help out. Chris, Joseph Sonnabend not only sadly evaluated the prime AZT era as iatrogenic murder - iatrogenic means physician perpetrated, Chris, as you know - but contrary to your unread assertion just a few comments back, he also compared the ARVs - which you imagine he respects as much as you do - with AZT.
"They are doing the same thing as with AZT. People who are not sick ... are being placed on these drugs with no evidence whatsoever that they're going to be helped by them. And those people may actually be hurt because of long term toxicity."
What is there about these words that you do not understand, Chris? I even edited out a hard word (asymptomatic).
"No evidence whatsoever that they are going to be helped by them."
What is there about these words that you do not understand, Chris?
What is it about the 10 points the Mountain Man listed above that you do not understand, Chris?
What is it about the twenty year critique of HIV=AIDS that you do not understand, Chris? Are 25 books not enough for you?
A multi weekend series in the Sunday Times of London? 15 pages last year in Harpers? Innumerable Words from the Front in SPIN over a decade? Challenges by Serge Lang? Harvey Bialy's book Oncogenes, Aneuploidy and AIDS? Harvey Bialy's blog, You Bet Your Life? Are not ten critical unrefuted peer reviewed articles by Duesberg in the top journals enough for you to get a glimmer of what is going on? At least FIVE articles by John Moore detailing the fundamental problems with HIV=AIDS that vitiate the paradigm and its research? The reviews by Fauci and others giving up on any sensible explanation of the "conundrum" of how HIV could possibly cause T cell decline except by some magic of indirection, mechanism unknown? The book by Montagnier saying that by itself HIV is a gambolling kitten, for only cofactors introduce illness? The paper of Abraham Karpas of Cambridge agreeing that ordinary levels of antibodies seen in any healthy person exposed to HIV are sufficient to defeat it?
Pat may have some excuse for not being entirely sure that HIV is not causing some part of AIDS but you?
So the question is, are YOU familiar with the literature, scientific and lay? Excuse us if we doubt you can truly understand any of it except as trees in a wood whose shape you still cannot discern after tramping it for two decades.
All that earnest effort and so little result. Chris, we feel genuinely sad, since we admire those who try so hard to inform themselves.
Any help we can offer, just ask. Try reading Science Guardian/New AIDS Review. We make a special effort to make what the literature says discernible to those who are... what shall we say?...science challenged. It's our raison d'etre.
Working together, we can beat this thing. No charge. View it as our Christmas present to you, in recognition of all the effort you have put in so far.
Those that seek the truth shall find it.
I see you're sticking to the "I know you are, but what am I?" level of rhetoric that most people above the age of 12 grow out of.
This quote is ten years old. There is now much more evidence both about the toxicities of PIs and the benefits including the reduction in morbidity and mortality.
The question, as always, is how to best balance the harm and benefits. The answer is definitely not to delude yourself that HIV does not exist or that HIV does not cause AIDS.
The only thing that somebody could learn from your fanciful misinterpretations of papers that you fully admit not to understanding are the inner workings of your deluded mind. This isn't somewhere that I care to go.
This is a perfect example where you are either blatantly lying or you completely incapable of understanding the paper that you purport to critique. The paper most definitely does not say that the human immune response is sufficient to defeat HIV. Karpas lists the mechanisms by which HIV evades the immune system leading to a persistent chronic infection. None of these mechanisms are in anyway unique to HIV.
"A reasonable decision on taking these drugs requires a balance of harm and benefits."
Except for Maggiore, she's denied such liberty.
"I can not honestly say what my personal decision would be in some ill-defined hypothetical case."
But you can say, with the comfort of 20/20 hindsight, what Maggiore's descision SHOULD have been in her "well defined" case.
No, this liberty was denied to her daughter. Her mother had delusions about the risks of HIV infection.
I don't know for sure if there's a direct relation (but I think there is) with the heroic denialists' postings over here, but since a few days I read all over the place that The Aids-epidemic is receding. Today's headline in the French press: « Enfin, l'épidémie de sida reflue »
Why would the epidemic give in? Did I miss some recent scientific break-through? Some new vaccine they shot down the veins of everybody but me?
Wrong. The epidemic is receding because the Aids-apologists are getting aware that, as expressed above, they not only get further up shit creek each and every day, but also, that their paddle-less and leaking, heading the wrong way canoe also starts gaining speed. Me thinks they're trying to get there noses away from the stench and their asses from the flames of hell by this rather coward attempt of backing out.
Chris, Rob and a host of others have not had to make difficult choices when it comes to health care or they would not be so critical of others. Maybe if they had to do so they would be more open-minded and try other approaches instead of the poisons that are prescribed today and most of these drugs are supposed to be swallowed for the rest of one's life, which makes no sense whatsoever. Personally, I would rather listen to someone who has been there as opposed to those who only read about it.
The following link has a nice ring to it, The Epidemic that Never Was... see what political correctness has helped to accomplishs:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_articl…
"No, this liberty was denied to her daughter. Her mother had delusions about the risks of HIV infection."
It is simple Chris, SHE had to make a final descision based on a very poorly defined personal diagnosis. You disagree with her but you are basing your opinions on hind-sight and that makes your opinion gratuitous and worthless. Before EJ died you were only too happy to tow Bergman's line that she is an HIV negative liar and AIDS profiteur. EJ's HIV test can determine if she died of AIDS pcp. Remember, no HIV, no AIDS! It is in the definition! and the coroner refuses to release it unless he is subpeana'd, what an asshole!
I see you're sticking to the "I know you are, but what am I?" level of rhetoric that most people above the age of 12 grow out of.
I see you're sticking to your three favorite scientific arguments, Chris - that a statement you have no answer to is juvenile, and/or that it is lying, and/or that it is stupid.
To offer you the Kruger-Dunning prize for 2007 is juvenile humor if you like, but it arises from a genuine and very clear perception that you do not understand the lay of the land in HIV=AIDS, cannot see the overall shape of it, because you resolutely refuse to question the basic premise.
Yet that premise is exactly the point being discussed. You cannot manage a useful discussion because you do not address the key issue, the validity of your universal premise. You really are the center stage, classic example of a person invaded by the AIDS HIV meme. Post after post, you demonstrate that it has visibly taken over your brain, rendering you psychologically incapable of questioning the assumption we are questioning. You are a tennis player who cannot see the ball in play.
Only when you show you can do so, will your deadening inability to review your own thinking be removed as a constant signal of your duffer status, and allow us to take you seriously.
This is a perfect example where you are either blatantly lying or you completely incapable of understanding the paper that you purport to critique. The paper most definitely does not say that the human immune response is sufficient to defeat HIV. Karpas lists the mechanisms by which HIV evades the immune system leading to a persistent chronic infection. None of these mechanisms are in anyway unique to HIV. - Chris Noble
No we are not lying, that is the correct reading of what Karpas writes. HIV is put down by the natural antibodies produced by the immune system in response to it. Anyone who cannot see that, and that he is correct, is an example of Kruger-Dunning in action.
Where do you think the latent period comes from, by the way? Why do you think it extended with time, from what it was originally, two or three years, to ten, twelve or more? Do you really think it was the result of killer drugs, which even Sonnabend was able to see were lethal?
It was because HIV is put down by the ordinary response of the immune system. Any problem has to wait for a "co-factor", ie some other factor, as Montagnier says in his book, which you haven't read. Evidently among gays here in the US this was drugs, and those who enjoyed too many of these, or who took high doses of AZT, died young. Those who didn't take so many died later. Those who didn't take any didn't die at all.
Reduce the impact of drugs = extend the latent period. Give the lower impact cocktail, not the high impact dose of AZT, and they last longer. Take drugs away, and any other "co-factor" which causes illness, and the patient remains healthy indefinitely.
Oh gawd, don't tell us he has special genes which somehow counter HIV. Don't try to escape the impact of simple sense because you are stuck on the very premise under review. Don't be Ptolemaeic, Chris. Spare us the ellipses of your travels in outer space. You are merely imitating 9/11 conspiracy theorists, stuck on their own premise that the obvious cannot be accepted.
Perhaps we ought to stick to the only issue that counts, which is your only half way scientific claim in what you write, that those who don't share your faith that HIV is a deadly virus and that ARVs rescue us from its depredations don't understand the science and misinterpret the data.
To demonstrate that you have to be specific.
This quote is ten years old. There is now much more evidence both about the toxicities of PIs and the benefits including the reduction in morbidity and mortality.
Yes it's from 1997. Yes like so many people Sonnabend may have given up the unequal struggle against group think and been overwhelmed by the Niagara of papers based on the unquestionable premise. He is not exactly the sharpest tack in the tin, to revert to your way of thinking. ARVs have short term benefits.
But to suggest that the papers of the last two years reflect reduced morbidity and mortality is to be as close to lying as anything you state, Chris, sorry to say it. Are you asleep? You dont read JAMA and NEJ?
The only historical improvement in the progress of AIDS patients proper ie US gays that there has ever been coincided very well with the reduction of the AZT dose, and its rep-lacement with a less damaging cocktail, which doesn't seem to have borne any fruit in the last ten years.
Sonnabend from what one can judge without talking to him seems to be one of those who fall for the idea that because people perk up when given ARVs they must be showing the benefit of knocking down HIV.
There are much better reasons to account for the effect. Read New AIDS Review to see them. When people are ill in this way, poison can get rid of parasitic infestation of the digestive system and ARVs bump up nutritional absorption in other ways too, it appears from studies.
What is also clear is that those who leap out of bed and climb Table Mountain and join the herd in denouncing Duesberg and crying the blessings of these poisons also will relapse and die of liver rot unless they have drug "holidays", which most are driven to do.
ARVs have short term benefits. Perk up and die.
Half the AIDS deaths in the US are due to drug symptoms of this kind which have squat to do with the claim that HIV wrecks the immune system in some unknown way, against all logic and science. None of these symptoms are on the HIV=AIDS list.
This is a perfect example where you are either blatantly lying or you completely incapable of understanding the paper that you purport to critique.
You often accuse people of lying, Chris. But the lying seems to be on the other side. How's this statement in Wikipedia look to you? Did you write it?
Critics of the AIDS denialism movement question the qualifications of its proponents, including those with scientific credentials that have never worked with HIV. Nicoli Nattrass, writing in the Sept/Oct 2007 Skeptical Inquirer, points out that Peter Duesberg has never conducted any scientific research on HIV, and has never presented any evidence that support his claims to a peer-reviewed scientific journal. - Wikipedia
No evidence presented by Duesberg in a peer reviewed publication that supports his claim that the deadly effects of HIV are iatrogenic, not natural? What else have his papers consisted of? Movie reviews?
Who are the "liars"? Who are the "murderers"? But let's stick to the science, shall we? That's the science you insist we have wrong.
Odd how you haven't contradicted it on the site. Did you get discouraged by your previous failure to peddle misleading interpretations?
It is true that bad arguments and data get short shrift at NAR. That's what it exists for - to use the literature to check emoty claims.
> It's called the German New Medicine. The discoverer
> is called Ryke Geerd Hamer. Predictability.
> Reproductibility. Falsification criteria. Verification
> criteria. You name it, it's all there.
Neue germanische Medizin tranlates into Germanic New Medicine, not German New Medicine. The German word "germanisch" means either ancient tribes like Franks, Lombards, Goths and the like when used in a historical context, or all germanic languages, incuding English and scandinavian, when used in a linguistic context.The modern state of Germany is always called "Deutschland".
Mr. Hamer uses the term "germanisch" because it sounds archaic and mythological, thus making his theories sounding deeper and more ancient. It also appeals to neo-nazis, of wich there are quite a few among Mr. Hamers new-age, neo heathen esoteric clientele (like all good crackpots, Mr. Hamer considers himself the victim of a jewish conspiracy).
Mr. Hamer himself has claimed that the secrets of his new medicine were told to him in a dream, by the ghost of his dead son (Hamer jr.
had the bad luck to be killed when the Italian crown pretender shot at him - accidentaly or otherwise). Very testable indeed!
Now that's exciting knowledge, Johannes! Germanic New Medicine and not German New Medicine! I didn't know, really, and I feel a much better man now I got away from that ignorance. You're a linguisitic expert, aren't you? That's good. I'm a Germanic New Medicine expert so we can teach each other many things, I figure. You can teach me how we should call the thing, I can teach you what the thing really is.
I must admit that you also make me a happy man because now somebody else brought up Dr Ryke Geerd Hamer's Germanic (thanks again!) New Medicine, inciting me to do some more writing about what an exciting revolution this Gemanic New Medicine really is. I felt a bit lonely here being the only one to mention Dr Hamer and his fantastic discoveries, but now you've joined the party I feel reborn and am ready to go for many other rounds.
You taught me something very helpful, so now I owe you a lesson! Let me tell you something about myocardial infarction ( better known by most people as heart attack) according to the GNM.
The myocardial infarction (MI) is not an independant stand-alone disease caused by some blocked blood vessels, but a very special part of the second phase of a two-phase disease, caused by a biological conflict of territory loss. This biological conflict causes, during the first phase, among other things, necrosis of the heart arteries and a socalled Hamer herd in the right cerebral cortex. During the second phase the reparation of the previous necrosis may be too luxurious and cause the plaques which are later interpreted as the cause of the attack ( !!! ). The Hamer herd in the brain is also repaired during the second phase and the water in the oedema is violently expelled by electric discharge during the socalled epileptical crisis of the repair phase. It's exactly this crisis we better know as a myocardial infarction. And thus, as a matter of fact, the cause of MI is not in the blood vessels of the heart, but in the brain!
Oh, Johannes, BTW: If you want to use your linguistic capacities to word my description above much better: Go ahead, please! English is not my mother tongue and I experienced some major difficulties while writing down my first lesson to you.
It's true that the dreams starring his son Dirk Hamer play a capital role in the discovery of the GNM, but should we judge that as something which automatically disqualifies Hamer? I mean, if I showed you that I could play the classic guitar like a wizzard, like say John Williams, and then told you that I learned to play in my dreams, would that make my playing inaudible? Of course not, the music would stay the same.
But... I just read your post again. Am I wrong or do I suddenly hear some hateful undertones in your message? A crackpot, Hamer? Mr. Hamers new-age, neo heathen esoteric clientele What are you talking about, Johannes? So many people got away from so-called severe diseases thanks to Hamer's GNM, but I never thought of them as neo heathen esoteric
Uh uh.... Wait a minute... Ha, ha, ha, ha! Oh, sorry, couldn't help laughing. I suddenly understood that I got your message all wrong. You didn't write to teach me something, you wrote to spill your bile. Stupid silly me, always taking people on first sight for what they are not: kind.
OK, you are not lying, you are just a scientifically illiterate and self-deluded idiot.
Here's an idea for you. You could contact Karpas and ask him whether he agrees with your "interpretation" of his paper.
What do you think he would say? If he disagrees with you will you simply stick to your misinterpretation and claim that Karpas is a closet Denialist?
just keep asking these boneheads for the first 5 scientific papers that prove hiv causes aids, moore is such a retard, he talks about proving a microbes pathenogencity its like a rocket ship, sorry idiot, koch had original experiments that proved casuation, so did shyh ching lo.
Pretty simple, find a correlation, and inoculate animals, if they dont get sick, better have some long term studies that control for confounding factors such as azt mycoplasmas, drug use, etc especially when youve exteneded your window period from 1 year to 10 years.
I guess aids inc bypassed all these steps because heckler got desperate, needed a quick political answer, and had the power to create a self perpetuating industry that had no scientific standards whatsover, when of hundereds chimps inoculated didnt die, they just extended the goalposts and made hiv species specific, when the amount of tcell infection was discovered to be so low, 1/1000 or so they blamed the immune system, or they imagined it wth the pcr, get confused which one they beleive now, got any electron microscopy pics from a patient confirmimg these high plasma loads?.............of course not, the corrupt industry just carries on.
All the meanwhile Lo's mycoplasma incognitus/penetrans that killed and sickened every animal inoculated is causing all kinds of chronic multi organic illnesses, people that are healthy are told they are going to die, people that are sick and misdiagnosed with Depression etc and really suffering from mycoplasma infection are told to take a Prozac. You guys are murderers, plain and simple. All rethinkers wantis patients to have informed consent and to proceed accordingly.
Like the former world champion boxer Tommy morrison, he read duesbergs book when he tested positive, and also was seeing world renoun hiv specialist Dr. ho, he found Duesbergs argument more compelling, dumped Ho and is still alive and totally healthy more than ten years later. Informed consent, stop denying us of it and destroying peoples lives.
Date Tue, 27 Nov 2007 1:15 PM ( 44 mins 31 secs ago ) Text view
Print view
From "Darin Brown"
To "J D" [Add]
Cc xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject RE: HCV isolation Show full header
JD,
You've got a LOT of nerve, you know. A LOT.
I AM *NOT* HANS. HOW *DARE* YOU ASSUME MY IDENTITY AND PRESUME TO RESPOND TO ME BASED ON SUCH AN ASSUMPTION. HOW *DARE* YOU??
You don't even have the god-damn motivation or initiative to do a simple google search which takes less than 10 seconds:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=revolver%40fastmail.fm&btnG=Google…
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=darin+revolver&btnG=Search
And yet YOU (*YOU!*) have the audacity to say:
"However, the ability to admit to ourselves that we do not know it all is what enables us to learn. The disrespectful attitude (not just to myself but to the researchers in general) displayed on the board was another reason for leaving."
You hypocritical little punk. You pathetic hypocritical punk.
I came to you with *SCIENTIFIC* questions, if you hadn't noticed. Millions of people are being HCV antibody tests and told that they're infected with a virus that causes hepatitis. Millions of people are given a diagnosis like that. Their lives are put in disarray and they are given a SENTENCE from the mouths of their doctors. They are scared shitless and persuaded into taking antiviral drugs into the bodies. Based on the QUESTIONS that *YOU* refuse to answer or even dignify with a response.
And YOU have the AUDACITY to get in a huff because you think people are rude, because people have a certain "tone of voice" in their postings, because they like to use CAPS or *BOLDFACE* or they swear occasionally or they even make accusations that other people don't know what they're talking about. "OH MY GOD!! I can't take it any more! No, I can scare millions of people into taking antibodies tests and putting toxic drugs in their bodies, but I'm DEEPLY DEEPLY offended if someone god forbid uses the f-word or raises their voice or types in caps or uses sarcasm or literary allusions or says people are 'lying' or carrying out 'fraud'. CRY CRY CRY."
What the hell happened to the days of the 60s and 70s (not that I'd, know, but I've been told by others) when scientists were able to engage in free-wheeling good-natured discourse with each other, without fear that (god forbid!) SWEARING or (god forbid!) SARCASM or LITERARY ALLUSIONS would cause their opponent(s) to become faint of heart and cry "foul"??? Are you people really so THIN-SKINNED nowadays??
HOW DEEPLY HYPOCRITICAL AND PATHETIC.
You said: "Prevalence of viremia [sic] (viremia is in fact a correct word, by the way)"
THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT OF MY EMAIL, did you bother to even read it??
The whole point of the HCV antibody tests is that you say someone is infected when they have "viremia" and I am asking what you mean by this -- if you had bothered to read what I wrote, I noted:
1. In one point of the paper, the authors clearly imply that they consider using RT-PCR as they did equivalent to proving HCV viremia.
2. In another point of the paper, they state that RT-PCR cannot be used to absolutely prove HCV viremia.
Thus, my use of the term "sic" above.
Saying things like:
> "Nevertheless, the authors continue, displaying the
> following dazzling display of footwork, which would make Bill Clinton or
> Tony the Paper Tyger proud:"
>
> Such attitude is one of the reasons
> I decided not to debate on the board anymore.
Why don't stop addressing the ATTITUDE and start addressing the SCIENTIFIC QUESTIONS?? Oh, that's right, you have all the answers and I'm so ultimately misinformed or misguided or ignorant or stupid that you can't even STOOP below your god-damn pedestal to even acknowledge such questions.
MAY I REMIND YOU, I ASKED YOU A QUESTION RELATED TO *MATHEMATICS*, (concerning the meanings of the words "sensitivity" and "specificity"), A SUBJECT I HAVE A FUCKING DOCTORATE OF PHILOSOPHY IN.
And YOU sit up on your perch and REFUSE to answer a question in a domain I have Ph.D. in. You little SHIT.
You give absolutely no indication that you even grasp the faintest edges of my argument. You give no indication that you understand my point that the authors of the 1993 paper use the terms "sensitive" and "specific" (MATHEMATICAL terms) in a way which indicates they have absolutely no idea what the meaning of these words is.
"I will however inform you that the objections you have to the paper seem to be based on your misunderstanding of the material, not fraud on behalf of the researchers."
Geez, you are one piece of work.
I NEVER ACCUSED THE AUTHORS OF FRAUD. SHOW ME EVEN ONCE (remember, I am not "Hans") WHERE I ACCUSE THEM OF "FRAUD".
I ACCUSED THEM OF STUPIDITY AND IDIOCY, NOT FRAUD. And if THEY'RE the researchers who are teaching the next generation, it's no wonder pathetic pieces of shit like you are what's being produced by modern biomedicine.
GOOD DAY.
darin
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:08:59 +0000, "J D" said:
>
>
> Darin,
>
> I read your e-mail. Unfortunately the "unpleasant" experience at
> AME was due to more than one person and was mainly because of people with
> little or
> no knowledge acting as if they knew everything but refusing to learn
> anything. I understand that not everyone will be at the
> same level of knowledge on any given topic. However, the ability to
> admit to ourselves that
> we do not know it all is what enables us to learn. The disrespectful
> attitude (not just to myself
> but to the researchers in general) displayed on the board was another
> reason
> for leaving. Accusing or implying fraud
> or lying is rarely productive in a debate, ESPECIALLY if it is based
> solely on
> the accuser's lack of knowledge in the topic discussed. I will assume at
> this point
> by your writing style that you are Hans. Unfortunately the
> offer to continue this by e-mail was deliberately not directed towards
> you because
> you were one of those people as is further evidenced by your last e-mail.
> Saying things like:
>
> "Prevalence of viremia [sic]" (viremia is in fact a
> correct word, by the way)
>
> Or
>
> "Nevertheless, the authors continue, displaying the
> following dazzling display of footwork, which would make Bill Clinton or
> Tony the Paper Tyger proud:"
>
>
>
> Such attitude is one of the reasons
> I decided not to debate on the board anymore. I
> extended an invitation to RT to continue because, while he does not know
> everything about molecular biology (I am not claiming I do either), he
> admits
> this and is respectful both to myself and of the authors we are
> discussing. Despite disagreeing with Deusberg's ideas, I
> have never insulted him or accused him of lying by e-mail or on the
> board. It was clear to me that you could not do this and this is why I
> did not invite you to continue this discussion by e-mail. I will however
> inform you that the objections
> you have to the paper seem to be based on your misunderstanding of the
> material, not fraud on behalf of the researchers. With that, good luck
> in your future learning.
>
>
>
> -BioLad
>
>
>
>
> > From: revolver@fastmail.fm
> > To: BioLad007@hotmail.com
> > CC: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: HCV isolation
> > Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 19:50:58 -0800
> >
> > Biolad,
> >
> > Sorry you have an unpleasant experience at AME recently. I'm afraid you
> > were on the receiving end of a lot of frustration caused by OTHER people
> > -- namely, HIV researchers, from whom many of us have been trying for
> > 20+ years to get simple, straightforward answers -- all to no avail.
> >
> > But let's not talk about HIV now. 8-)
> >
> > I've been following the recent thread of HCV at AME, and although it's
> > stretching the bounds of my genomic knowledge, I still have some pretty
> > straightforward questions that I'm curious to know your response.
> >
> > In "Prevalence and significance of hepatitis C virus (HCV) viremia in
> > HCV antibody-positive subjects from various populations.", J Clin
> > Microbiol. 1993 May; 31(5): 1189-1193, M Francois et al stated:
> >
> > "However, in the absence of an in vitro system to isolate the virus, or
> > an immunoassay to identify HCV antigen in blood, an ongoing acute or
> > chronic HCV infection can be diagnosed only by detection of HCV RNA by
> > polymerase chain reaction."
> >
> > This statement strikes me as rather curious, to say the least. In the
> > first part of the sentence, they admit that there is an ABSENCE of "an
> > in vitro system to isolate the virus", nor does there exist any
> > immunoassay to identify HCV antigen (i.e. actual virus PARTICLES) in
> > plasma. Yet they go on in the next part of the sentence to use the term
> > "HCV RNA", which implies the existence of "HCV antigen" (i.e. using the
> > term "HCV RNA" implies that the RNA is known to have originated in HCV
> > virus particles). Or is it possible to have "HCV RNA" without "HCV
> > antigen" or "HIV particles" in the first place???
> >
> > There exist antibody tests for "HCV infection". It takes 5 seconds to
> > find dozens of papers on HCV antibody tests at Pubmed. Numbers are given
> > for "specificity" and "sensitivity". Now, the use of the words
> > "specific" and "sensitive" starts to encroach on MY domain, namely
> > mathematics. 8-) These words have precise mathematical meaning. They
> > only make sense when a well-defined gold standard is used. In other
> > words, whenever one is trying to compute the "sensitivity" or
> > "specificity" of an antibody test, one must have a well-defined
> > procedure for determining whether the "HCV virus" is actually present or
> > absent. NOT to have such a gold standard would be as absurd as marketing
> > a pregnancy test without being able to tell whether a woman was 7 months
> > pregnant or not!!
> >
> > Now, I have a very (VERY, very, very) simple question for you:
> >
> > When testing (in Val Turner's SECOND meaning of the term, i.e.
> > calculating the accuracy of an antibody test) the "HCV antibody" tests
> > (in Val's FIRST meaning of the term, i.e. a binary classification test)
> > for specificity and sensitivity, what is used as the "gold standard" for
> > "HCV infection"?
> >
> > It appears that M Francois et al in the above 1993 paper are deeply
> > confused on this matter. I quote directly from the introduction of the
> > paper:
> >
> > "Patients infected with HCV develop antibodies to various structural and
> > nonstructural viral proteins. Detection of antibodies to HCV is the
> > easiest method to identify patients who are or have been infected."
> >
> > So far, so good!! Let me note at this point, for future reference,
> > however, the authors imply that:
> >
> > 1. There is a well-defined method to determine which patients are
> > "infected with HCV" and which are "not infected with HCV". After all,
> > without such a method, how could one possibly declare a certain subset
> > of patients "infected with HCV"??
> >
> > 2. Indeed, such a method is SO well-defined that one can even
> > differentiate "structural" from "nonstructural" viral proteins.
> >
> > 3. I will forgive the lapse of logic in the phrase "detection of
> > antibodies to HCV". This is a gross abuse of language which
> > unfortunately has permeated medical discourse for many years. There is
> > no such thing as an "antibody to HCV", or, equivalently, an
> > "HCV-specific antibody". Specificity is a trait of a TEST, NOT of an
> > object. Nevertheless, I will forgive this common lapse and interpret the
> > statement by the authors in the most parsimonious way possible: that a
> > well-defined binary classification test has been set up, with a
> > well-defined gold standard (as alluded to in point #1 above), and that
> > such antibodies have been shown to be highly specific to the gold
> > standard.
> >
> > Continuing,
> >
> > "However, it is not possible to know whether an anti-HCV-positive
> > patient is a virus carrier or has recovered from a past infection."
> >
> > Oh, no!!! SAY IT AIN'T SO, JOE!!!
> >
> > This is the precise point at which ALL confidence in this paper plummets
> > to zero. Because if a well-defined gold standard was actually available,
> > as implied by the authors above, it would be a trivial matter to
> > determine "whether an anti-HCV-positive patient is a virus carrier or
> > has recovered from a past infection".
> >
> > IF, as the authors clearly state, it is "not possible" to know "whether
> > an anti-HCV-positive patient is a virus carrier or has recovered from a
> > past infection", then "being a virus carrier" cannot possibly be the
> > afore-implied gold standard. I have to admit, at this point in the
> > paper, I feel left in the dark as to what exactly the gold standard
> > they're implying must be.
> >
> > Nevertheless, the authors continue, displaying the following dazzling
> > display of footwork, which would make Bill Clinton or Tony the Paper
> > Tyger proud:
> >
> > "Lack of a convenient culture system for HCV implies the use of
> > molecular biology to assess viremia. Direct hybridization of serum
> > samples is possible but is hampered by the low virus concentration in
> > most patients. Amplification of viral nucleic acid by PCR provides a
> > HIGHLY SENSITIVE [my emphasis] and ANTIGEN-ANTIBODY INDEPENDENT METHOD
> > [my emphasis] to detect ongoing viral infection. Although a positive PCR
> > assay is not absolute proof of HCV viremia, it STRONGLY SUGGESTS [my
> > emphasis] active virus production within the body (numerous
> > references)".
> >
> > A few points:
> >
> > 1. "but is hampered by the low virus concentratin in most patients"
> > seems to affirm Duesberg's conclusion in his 1992 "Latent Viruses and
> > Mutated Oncogenes" paper in Progress in Nucleic Acid Research and
> > Molecular Biology, that the "viremia of HCV" is insufficient to account
> > for clinical hepatitis.
> >
> > 2. "Amplification of viral nucleic acid by PCR provides a highly
> > sensitive and antigen-antibody independent method to detect ongoing
> > viral infection."
> >
> > Now, WAIT A ****ING MINUTE. CLEARLY, the authors of this paper have
> > ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what the meanings of the terms "sensitive" and
> > "specific" mean.
> >
> > As a recap:
> >
> > "Specific" and "sensitive" are properties of a TEST. To say that
> > "amplification of viral nucleic acid by PCR provides a highly
> > sensitive... method to detect ongoing viral infection" IMPLIES THAT
> > AMPLIFICATION OF VIRAL NUCLEIC ACID BY PCR IS THE ***DIAGNOSTIC***,
> > ***NOT*** THE GOLD STANDARD!?!?!? Yet in the "results" section later,
> > the authors state:
> >
> > "Prevalence of viremia [sic] in HCV-seropositive patients: 58% of the 98
> > samples were positive by nested PCR... All 19 anti-HCV-negative patients
> > of the control group were negative for HCV RNA. The prevalence of HCV
> > viremia as assessed by RT-PCR ranged from 25.9% in blood donors to 92.0%
> > among hemophiliacs."
> >
> > and in the "discussion" section even later, the authors state:
> >
> > "In the absence of an in vitro system to isolate the virus or an
> > immunoassay to identify HCV antigens in blood, HCV viremia can be
> > detected only by RT-PCR. The aims of the present work were (i) to
> > evaluate the presence of HCV viremia in HCV-antibody positive patients
> > belonging to different populations and (ii) to study the correlation
> > between HCV viremia, the immune response to various structural and
> > nonstructural HCV antigens, and elevation of ALT indicating hepatic
> > lesions."
> >
> > IT IS CLEAR, FROM THE ABOVE TWO DIRECT QUOTES, THAT "HCV VIREMIA" =
> > "USING RT-PCR".
> >
> > So, my question for you, Biolad, would be:
> >
> > IS RT-PCR AS USED IN THIS CASE, THE *DIAGNOSTIC*, (as indicated in the
> > quote "amplification of viral nucleic acid by PCR provices a highly
> > SENSITIVE [my emphasis]...") OR IS IT THE *GOLD STANDARD* (as indicated
> > in the quote "In the absence of an in vitro system to isolate the virus
> > or an immunoassay to identify HCV antigens in blood, HCV viremia can be
> > detected only by RT-PCR.")
> >
> > WHICH IS IT???????????????
> >
> > I await your response.
> >
> > darin
> >
> > --
> > Darin Brown
> > revolver@fastmail.fm
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Your smile counts. The more smiles you share, the more we donate. Join
> in.
> www.windowslive.com/smile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_Wave2_oprsmilewlhmtagline
--
Darin Brown
revolver@fastmail.fm
Date Tue, 27 Nov 2007 1:15 PM ( 44 mins 31 secs ago ) Text view
Print view
From "Darin Brown"
To "J D" [Add]
Cc xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject RE: HCV isolation Show full header
JD,
You've got a LOT of nerve, you know. A LOT.
I AM *NOT* HANS. HOW *DARE* YOU ASSUME MY IDENTITY AND PRESUME TO RESPOND TO ME BASED ON SUCH AN ASSUMPTION. HOW *DARE* YOU??
You don't even have the god-damn motivation or initiative to do a simple google search which takes less than 10 seconds:
[Google "revolver@fastmail.fm"]
[Google "darin and revolver"]
And yet YOU (*YOU!*) have the audacity to say:
"However, the ability to admit to ourselves that we do not know it all is what enables us to learn. The disrespectful attitude (not just to myself but to the researchers in general) displayed on the board was another reason for leaving."
You hypocritical little punk. You pathetic hypocritical punk.
I came to you with *SCIENTIFIC* questions, if you hadn't noticed. Millions of people are being HCV antibody tests and told that they're infected with a virus that causes hepatitis. Millions of people are given a diagnosis like that. Their lives are put in disarray and they are given a SENTENCE from the mouths of their doctors. They are scared shitless and persuaded into taking antiviral drugs into the bodies. Based on the QUESTIONS that *YOU* refuse to answer or even dignify with a response.
And YOU have the AUDACITY to get in a huff because you think people are rude, because people have a certain "tone of voice" in their postings, because they like to use CAPS or *BOLDFACE* or they swear occasionally or they even make accusations that other people don't know what they're talking about. "OH MY GOD!! I can't take it any more! No, I can scare millions of people into taking antibodies tests and putting toxic drugs in their bodies, but I'm DEEPLY DEEPLY offended if someone god forbid uses the f-word or raises their voice or types in caps or uses sarcasm or literary allusions or says people are 'lying' or carrying out 'fraud'. CRY CRY CRY."
What the hell happened to the days of the 60s and 70s (not that I'd, know, but I've been told by others) when scientists were able to engage in free-wheeling good-natured discourse with each other, without fear that (god forbid!) SWEARING or (god forbid!) SARCASM or LITERARY ALLUSIONS would cause their opponent(s) to become faint of heart and cry "foul"??? Are you people really so THIN-SKINNED nowadays??
HOW DEEPLY HYPOCRITICAL AND PATHETIC.
You said: "Prevalence of viremia [sic] (viremia is in fact a correct word, by the way)"
THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT OF MY EMAIL, did you bother to even read it??
The whole point of the HCV antibody tests is that you say someone is infected when they have "viremia" and I am asking what you mean by this -- if you had bothered to read what I wrote, I noted:
1. In one point of the paper, the authors clearly imply that they consider using RT-PCR as they did equivalent to proving HCV viremia.
2. In another point of the paper, they state that RT-PCR cannot be used to absolutely prove HCV viremia.
Thus, my use of the term "sic" above.
Saying things like:
> "Nevertheless, the authors continue, displaying the
> following dazzling display of footwork, which would make Bill Clinton or
> Tony the Paper Tyger proud:"
>
> Such attitude is one of the reasons
> I decided not to debate on the board anymore.
Why don't stop addressing the ATTITUDE and start addressing the SCIENTIFIC QUESTIONS?? Oh, that's right, you have all the answers and I'm so ultimately misinformed or misguided or ignorant or stupid that you can't even STOOP below your god-damn pedestal to even acknowledge such questions.
MAY I REMIND YOU, I ASKED YOU A QUESTION RELATED TO *MATHEMATICS*, (concerning the meanings of the words "sensitivity" and "specificity"), A SUBJECT I HAVE A FUCKING DOCTORATE OF PHILOSOPHY IN.
And YOU sit up on your perch and REFUSE to answer a question in a domain I have Ph.D. in. You little SHIT.
You give absolutely no indication that you even grasp the faintest edges of my argument. You give no indication that you understand my point that the authors of the 1993 paper use the terms "sensitive" and "specific" (MATHEMATICAL terms) in a way which indicates they have absolutely no idea what the meaning of these words is.
"I will however inform you that the objections you have to the paper seem to be based on your misunderstanding of the material, not fraud on behalf of the researchers."
Geez, you are one piece of work.
I NEVER ACCUSED THE AUTHORS OF FRAUD. SHOW ME EVEN ONCE (remember, I am not "Hans") WHERE I ACCUSE THEM OF "FRAUD".
I ACCUSED THEM OF STUPIDITY AND IDIOCY, NOT FRAUD. And if THEY'RE the researchers who are teaching the next generation, it's no wonder pathetic pieces of shit like you are what's being produced by modern biomedicine.
GOOD DAY.
darin
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:08:59 +0000, "J D" said:
>
>
> Darin,
>
> I read your e-mail. Unfortunately the "unpleasant" experience at
> AME was due to more than one person and was mainly because of people with
> little or
> no knowledge acting as if they knew everything but refusing to learn
> anything. I understand that not everyone will be at the
> same level of knowledge on any given topic. However, the ability to
> admit to ourselves that
> we do not know it all is what enables us to learn. The disrespectful
> attitude (not just to myself
> but to the researchers in general) displayed on the board was another
> reason
> for leaving. Accusing or implying fraud
> or lying is rarely productive in a debate, ESPECIALLY if it is based
> solely on
> the accuser's lack of knowledge in the topic discussed. I will assume at
> this point
> by your writing style that you are Hans. Unfortunately the
> offer to continue this by e-mail was deliberately not directed towards
> you because
> you were one of those people as is further evidenced by your last e-mail.
> Saying things like:
>
> "Prevalence of viremia [sic]" (viremia is in fact a
> correct word, by the way)
>
> Or
>
> "Nevertheless, the authors continue, displaying the
> following dazzling display of footwork, which would make Bill Clinton or
> Tony the Paper Tyger proud:"
>
>
>
> Such attitude is one of the reasons
> I decided not to debate on the board anymore. I
> extended an invitation to RT to continue because, while he does not know
> everything about molecular biology (I am not claiming I do either), he
> admits
> this and is respectful both to myself and of the authors we are
> discussing. Despite disagreeing with Deusberg's ideas, I
> have never insulted him or accused him of lying by e-mail or on the
> board. It was clear to me that you could not do this and this is why I
> did not invite you to continue this discussion by e-mail. I will however
> inform you that the objections
> you have to the paper seem to be based on your misunderstanding of the
> material, not fraud on behalf of the researchers. With that, good luck
> in your future learning.
>
>
>
> -BioLad
>
>
>
>
> > From: revolver@fastmail.fm
> > To: BioLad007@hotmail.com
> > CC: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: HCV isolation
> > Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 19:50:58 -0800
> >
> > Biolad,
> >
> > Sorry you have an unpleasant experience at AME recently. I'm afraid you
> > were on the receiving end of a lot of frustration caused by OTHER people
> > -- namely, HIV researchers, from whom many of us have been trying for
> > 20+ years to get simple, straightforward answers -- all to no avail.
> >
> > But let's not talk about HIV now. 8-)
> >
> > I've been following the recent thread of HCV at AME, and although it's
> > stretching the bounds of my genomic knowledge, I still have some pretty
> > straightforward questions that I'm curious to know your response.
> >
> > In "Prevalence and significance of hepatitis C virus (HCV) viremia in
> > HCV antibody-positive subjects from various populations.", J Clin
> > Microbiol. 1993 May; 31(5): 1189-1193, M Francois et al stated:
> >
> > "However, in the absence of an in vitro system to isolate the virus, or
> > an immunoassay to identify HCV antigen in blood, an ongoing acute or
> > chronic HCV infection can be diagnosed only by detection of HCV RNA by
> > polymerase chain reaction."
> >
> > This statement strikes me as rather curious, to say the least. In the
> > first part of the sentence, they admit that there is an ABSENCE of "an
> > in vitro system to isolate the virus", nor does there exist any
> > immunoassay to identify HCV antigen (i.e. actual virus PARTICLES) in
> > plasma. Yet they go on in the next part of the sentence to use the term
> > "HCV RNA", which implies the existence of "HCV antigen" (i.e. using the
> > term "HCV RNA" implies that the RNA is known to have originated in HCV
> > virus particles). Or is it possible to have "HCV RNA" without "HCV
> > antigen" or "HIV particles" in the first place???
> >
> > There exist antibody tests for "HCV infection". It takes 5 seconds to
> > find dozens of papers on HCV antibody tests at Pubmed. Numbers are given
> > for "specificity" and "sensitivity". Now, the use of the words
> > "specific" and "sensitive" starts to encroach on MY domain, namely
> > mathematics. 8-) These words have precise mathematical meaning. They
> > only make sense when a well-defined gold standard is used. In other
> > words, whenever one is trying to compute the "sensitivity" or
> > "specificity" of an antibody test, one must have a well-defined
> > procedure for determining whether the "HCV virus" is actually present or
> > absent. NOT to have such a gold standard would be as absurd as marketing
> > a pregnancy test without being able to tell whether a woman was 7 months
> > pregnant or not!!
> >
> > Now, I have a very (VERY, very, very) simple question for you:
> >
> > When testing (in Val Turner's SECOND meaning of the term, i.e.
> > calculating the accuracy of an antibody test) the "HCV antibody" tests
> > (in Val's FIRST meaning of the term, i.e. a binary classification test)
> > for specificity and sensitivity, what is used as the "gold standard" for
> > "HCV infection"?
> >
> > It appears that M Francois et al in the above 1993 paper are deeply
> > confused on this matter. I quote directly from the introduction of the
> > paper:
> >
> > "Patients infected with HCV develop antibodies to various structural and
> > nonstructural viral proteins. Detection of antibodies to HCV is the
> > easiest method to identify patients who are or have been infected."
> >
> > So far, so good!! Let me note at this point, for future reference,
> > however, the authors imply that:
> >
> > 1. There is a well-defined method to determine which patients are
> > "infected with HCV" and which are "not infected with HCV". After all,
> > without such a method, how could one possibly declare a certain subset
> > of patients "infected with HCV"??
> >
> > 2. Indeed, such a method is SO well-defined that one can even
> > differentiate "structural" from "nonstructural" viral proteins.
> >
> > 3. I will forgive the lapse of logic in the phrase "detection of
> > antibodies to HCV". This is a gross abuse of language which
> > unfortunately has permeated medical discourse for many years. There is
> > no such thing as an "antibody to HCV", or, equivalently, an
> > "HCV-specific antibody". Specificity is a trait of a TEST, NOT of an
> > object. Nevertheless, I will forgive this common lapse and interpret the
> > statement by the authors in the most parsimonious way possible: that a
> > well-defined binary classification test has been set up, with a
> > well-defined gold standard (as alluded to in point #1 above), and that
> > such antibodies have been shown to be highly specific to the gold
> > standard.
> >
> > Continuing,
> >
> > "However, it is not possible to know whether an anti-HCV-positive
> > patient is a virus carrier or has recovered from a past infection."
> >
> > Oh, no!!! SAY IT AIN'T SO, JOE!!!
> >
> > This is the precise point at which ALL confidence in this paper plummets
> > to zero. Because if a well-defined gold standard was actually available,
> > as implied by the authors above, it would be a trivial matter to
> > determine "whether an anti-HCV-positive patient is a virus carrier or
> > has recovered from a past infection".
> >
> > IF, as the authors clearly state, it is "not possible" to know "whether
> > an anti-HCV-positive patient is a virus carrier or has recovered from a
> > past infection", then "being a virus carrier" cannot possibly be the
> > afore-implied gold standard. I have to admit, at this point in the
> > paper, I feel left in the dark as to what exactly the gold standard
> > they're implying must be.
> >
> > Nevertheless, the authors continue, displaying the following dazzling
> > display of footwork, which would make Bill Clinton or Tony the Paper
> > Tyger proud:
> >
> > "Lack of a convenient culture system for HCV implies the use of
> > molecular biology to assess viremia. Direct hybridization of serum
> > samples is possible but is hampered by the low virus concentration in
> > most patients. Amplification of viral nucleic acid by PCR provides a
> > HIGHLY SENSITIVE [my emphasis] and ANTIGEN-ANTIBODY INDEPENDENT METHOD
> > [my emphasis] to detect ongoing viral infection. Although a positive PCR
> > assay is not absolute proof of HCV viremia, it STRONGLY SUGGESTS [my
> > emphasis] active virus production within the body (numerous
> > references)".
> >
> > A few points:
> >
> > 1. "but is hampered by the low virus concentratin in most patients"
> > seems to affirm Duesberg's conclusion in his 1992 "Latent Viruses and
> > Mutated Oncogenes" paper in Progress in Nucleic Acid Research and
> > Molecular Biology, that the "viremia of HCV" is insufficient to account
> > for clinical hepatitis.
> >
> > 2. "Amplification of viral nucleic acid by PCR provides a highly
> > sensitive and antigen-antibody independent method to detect ongoing
> > viral infection."
> >
> > Now, WAIT A ****ING MINUTE. CLEARLY, the authors of this paper have
> > ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what the meanings of the terms "sensitive" and
> > "specific" mean.
> >
> > As a recap:
> >
> > "Specific" and "sensitive" are properties of a TEST. To say that
> > "amplification of viral nucleic acid by PCR provides a highly
> > sensitive... method to detect ongoing viral infection" IMPLIES THAT
> > AMPLIFICATION OF VIRAL NUCLEIC ACID BY PCR IS THE ***DIAGNOSTIC***,
> > ***NOT*** THE GOLD STANDARD!?!?!? Yet in the "results" section later,
> > the authors state:
> >
> > "Prevalence of viremia [sic] in HCV-seropositive patients: 58% of the 98
> > samples were positive by nested PCR... All 19 anti-HCV-negative patients
> > of the control group were negative for HCV RNA. The prevalence of HCV
> > viremia as assessed by RT-PCR ranged from 25.9% in blood donors to 92.0%
> > among hemophiliacs."
> >
> > and in the "discussion" section even later, the authors state:
> >
> > "In the absence of an in vitro system to isolate the virus or an
> > immunoassay to identify HCV antigens in blood, HCV viremia can be
> > detected only by RT-PCR. The aims of the present work were (i) to
> > evaluate the presence of HCV viremia in HCV-antibody positive patients
> > belonging to different populations and (ii) to study the correlation
> > between HCV viremia, the immune response to various structural and
> > nonstructural HCV antigens, and elevation of ALT indicating hepatic
> > lesions."
> >
> > IT IS CLEAR, FROM THE ABOVE TWO DIRECT QUOTES, THAT "HCV VIREMIA" =
> > "USING RT-PCR".
> >
> > So, my question for you, Biolad, would be:
> >
> > IS RT-PCR AS USED IN THIS CASE, THE *DIAGNOSTIC*, (as indicated in the
> > quote "amplification of viral nucleic acid by PCR provices a highly
> > SENSITIVE [my emphasis]...") OR IS IT THE *GOLD STANDARD* (as indicated
> > in the quote "In the absence of an in vitro system to isolate the virus
> > or an immunoassay to identify HCV antigens in blood, HCV viremia can be
> > detected only by RT-PCR.")
> >
> > WHICH IS IT???????????????
> >
> > I await your response.
> >
> > darin
> >
> > --
> > Darin Brown
> > revolver@fastmail.fm
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Your smile counts. The more smiles you share, the more we donate. Join
> in.
> www.windowslive.com/smile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_Wave2_oprsmilewlhmtagline
--
Darin Brown
revolver@fastmail.fm
OK, you are not lying, you are just a scientifically illiterate and self-deluded idiot.
Here's an idea for you. You could contact Karpas and ask him whether he agrees with your "interpretation" of his paper.
What do you think he would say? If he disagrees with you will you simply stick to your misinterpretation and claim that Karpas is a closet Denialist?
Posted by: Chris Noble | November 27, 2007 7:38 PM
Ask Karpas, indeed... even you can imagine what he will say. Look what happened when we asked Nancy Padian what she meanst with her study showing that HIV positivity is not transmitted by heterosexuals. She retreated on AIDStruth to saying it happened 1 in 1000-10,000 'close encounters'.
Gee, that must have gone down well with John Moore. But we don't think he has noticed, yet. It's still there:
HIV is unquestionably transmitted through heterosexual intercourse. Indeed, heterosexual intercourse is now responsible for 70-80% of all HIV transmissions worldwide (2). The current likelihood of male to female infection after a single exposure to HIV is 0.01-0.32% (2, 3), and the current likelihood of female to male infection after a single exposure is 0.01-0.1% (2).
Check it out at http://aidstruth.org/nancy-padian.php. (Oh but it's more in the developing world... 20%, even... Why we haven't really worked out yet, though we have offered gruesome possibilities based on our reasonable assumption that black Africans as very different human beings from us...).
OK Chris, it is becoming clear that your insults reflect the frustration you have with catching up with what is really going on, and your dim and resentful awareness that perhaps you are not as scientifically and politically sophisticated as you need to be.
Look, we sympathize - it must be quite a prospect to face to realize that the axe you have ground so simplemindedly for so many years is liable to cut you instead of the your intended targets because you have it back to front and have been sharpening the wrong end. And all this in public, recorded for all time on the Web which never forgets, either through Google cache or Wayback Machine.
We want to help. First, we suggest a reading list. After all, if you don't understand what is going on, why not just give up, and buy a good book on the topic? Have you ever read Bialy's book? If you haven't, that would certainly account for your resolute naivete in this discussion.
There really is no point in any discussion with you until you read it, twice. This is a field where politics has distorted what people say and what they write. That is why John has had to be subtle and quietly record his awareness of the problems that defeat HIV=AIDS in journals where nosy journalists (if there are any left in science) never go.
We were about to explain all this on New AIDS Review by examining his five unpublicised papers on the topic but you keep interrupting.
Apparently you are not aware of the political factor, and think papers can be read straight. So when you are told of the correct interpretation, you grow resentful and hurl insults such as "scientifically illiterate and self-deluded idiot", without realizing that these apply to yourself, as host to the HIV-AIDS meme and Kraft-Dunning syndrome both.
The title of the book is Oncogenes, Aneuploidy, and AIDS: A Scientific Life and Times of Peter H. Duesberg, by Harvey Bialy, you can order it on Amazon for very little.
Perhaps it will be too subtle for you, though. Bialky does have a wicked sense of humor, one of the litmus tests of intelligence in this arena, we have noticed (floreat 'cooler'!)
If so, we suggest Serge Lang's Challenges. A bit more expensive, but well worth it as the finest and most revealing exposure of the egregious bending of information by academic and press poobahs in print today.
You need to get up to speed, Chris. Combining the HIV meme and the credulity of a down under ingenue won't do it. This is the table where the big boys play for very high stakes.
That's why Nancy Padian writes this for the Moore HIV defense site::
Finally, it is a complete fallacy to allege or insinuate that this work has been "suppressed" or "ignored" by the AIDS community or unsupported by UCSF or any other institution with which I have worked. To the contrary, these findings have been seen as central and seminal to the problem of heterosexual transmission rates and the development of interventions to lower the rate of transmission and infection worldwide, many of which are being conducted by my research group. The success of my working group has been fueled, not hindered, by our research on the heterosexual transmission of HIV, attested to by our long record of peer-reviewed publications.
You don't admit the meaning of your paper in public if it challenges HIV, you add boiler plate every other paragraph saying it doesn't.
You don't realize this, Chris? You have us concerned. This is not subtle. This is science politics 101.
darin writes There is no such thing as an "antibody to HCV", or, equivalently, an "HCV-specific antibody". Specificity is a trait of a TEST, NOT of an object.
One is sorely tempted darin to just dismiss you as an idiot. However, in the spirit of the season, I will point out that in the language of immunology which is what one is speaking when one talks of antibodies, there is indeed such as thing as an antibody to HCV. Whether "HCV-specific antibodies" have any meaning in the language of mathematics is irrelevant.
Speaking of dazzling footwork, you've gotta admire Nancy's combined escape clause and conflation of prevalent scientific belief and objective truth in the phrase,
The current likelihood. . .
The tempest in a teacup today between Truthseeker of New Aids Review and Dr. Chris Noble could be easily resolved by calling in Prof. Abraham Karpas of Cambridge University to act as judge and tell us what he actually believes. Indeed, Dr. Noble has suggested that we do just that.
Let's recall that Truthseeker had referred to "the paper of Abraham Karpas of Cambridge agreeing that ordinary levels of antibodies seen in any healthy person exposed to HIV are sufficient to defeat it..."
Chris Noble responded, "This is a perfect example where you are either blatantly lying or you are completely incapable of understanding the paper that you purport to critique. The paper most definitely does not say that the human immune response is sufficient to defeat HIV."
Are these learned disputants talking about the same paper? What does it actually say? In his review, "Human retroviruses in leukaemia and AIDS," in Biology Reviews 79:911-933, 2004, Dr. Abraham Karpas states the following, which I believe was the basis for Truthseeker's remark:
"The immune response to HIV can be compared to that of a live viral vaccine. It explains why most HIV-infected individuals remain well for many years."
Karpas further notes that this response to HIV occurs "in nearly every infected individual" and describes it as "a vigorous immune response that is protective for many years."
Any fair reader can see that Truthseeker's interpretation was a reasonable reflection of what Karpas actually wrote. The conclusion by Karpas was based on the average 10-15 years sans AIDS after HIV infection.
Dale,
One of Darin's point was the unfathomable illiteracy of you guys: in the spirit of the season you immediately set out to confirm his observation.
Let me try to make it even simpler for you:
Darin was speaking about the word(s),
"specific", "specificity".
Darin was NOT speaking about the words,
"antibody", "HCV".
Now try again Dumbo.
A great new blog by Dr. Henry Bauer. Much better than this rat-hole of moronic, ass-kissing conformist AZT idealogues.
A great new blog by Dr. Henry Bauer. Much better than this rat-hole of moronic, ass-kissing conformist AZT idealogues.
Posted by: Mountain Man | November 27, 2007 11:55 PM
Please, MM, do not put people off from reading this exciting thread carefully. How otherwise would they know the qualities and style of those infested with the HIV meme, which make it clear how seriously they should be taken (not).
Thank you Robert Houston for producing chapter and verse to show that we are right in being concerned for the mental health of Chris, who for so many years has been plagued with the HIV meme and the Kraft-Dunning syndrome, not to mention the Turett-like phenomenon of spouting powerful insults under the impression they are scientific arguments.
Apparently this powerful combination of mental handicaps has prevented him from actually reading the papers that he says we misinterpret, although this may be the path to a cure..
Since Moore also exhibits the latter habit of freely insulting HIV critics without actually debating any science with them (dissidents are "denialists" etc) perhaps it should be recognized as the third component of Mr Noble's mental ailment, hereby named the Moore-Noble Syndrome.
Of course, this overwhelming combination of mental challenges is what leads to poor Chris's habit of denouncing our interpretation of papers he has apparently not actually read, such as the Abraham Karpas acknowledgement of the suppression of HIV by the antibodies of any normally healthy person's immune system.
Dare we predict that the reply to our rubbing in the total defeat he has just endured will result in another fireworks display of the Moore-Noble syndrome? Let's hope not.
After all, if he takes our prescription of reading Bialy, Lang and the papers under discussion he can free himself of all these problems at once.
We love ya, Chris, you familiar mule, you - get better soon.
Here's a definition of 'obstinacy' from Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary to solace you in yourr travail:
Obstinate: adj. Inaccessible to the truth as it is manifest in the splendor and stress of our advocacy. The popular type and exponent of obstinacy is the mule, a most intelligent animal.
See? He's on your side.
Robert Houston has commented on the divergent interpretations of Karpas (2004) offered by Truthseeker and by Chris Noble.
Houston tries to resolve this dispute by quoting from the Karpas paper:
But what does Karpas really say?
What happened Houston? Was your head buried too deeply in the sand to notice the last half of that sentence from which you quoted?
Did you miss the part of the sentence where Karpas stated that in nearly every infected individual HIV manages to evade the immune response and lead to death?
Or did you feel that "any fair reader" would simply ignore this part of the sentence?
Hmmmm. Let's see. What were our choices to explain the Denialist interpretation of Karpas?
Oh yeah: "either blatantly lying" or "completely incapable of understanding the paper".
Hmmmm. Which one????
Any "fair" reader?
HIV is not "defeated" by the human immune response.
The amount of viral replication declines after the initial infection period. However, HIV continues to replicate at all stages.
The "setpoint" which is attained after the initial acute infection is one factor that determines the time to progression to AIDS.
Liversidge, agrees above that Karpas would not agree with his characterisation. Go ahead and contact him if you want. Just try not to sound like a lunatic crank when you do so.
You could also try reading some of his other papers for clarification.
Molecular Medicine Today
Volume 4, Issue 6, 1 June 1998, Pages 244-249
This paper has a section titled 2.Why does the immune response to HIV eventually fail?
It details the main mechanisms whereby HIV evades the immune sytem.
The human immune response does not defeat HIV as the ironically selfnamed "truthseeker" claims.
Before anybody starts waffling about HIV breaking the laws of virology or any such nonsense you should do some research on other lentiviruses such as EIAV that also give rise to persistent infections.
Perhaps you should reread darin's post, MEC. darin says that there can be no HCV-specific antibodies because only tests can have specificity, not antibodies. darin's pronouncement not withstanding, in the world of immunology that antibodies inhabit, that is nonsense.
But what does Karpas really say?
(1) in nearly every infected individual, despite a vigorous immune response that is protective for many years, eventually one or more mutants emerge that manage to evade the immune response and lead to disease progression and death
Sorry, franklin, you are hung by your own yard arm. The "one or two mutants emerge" notion is pure imagination, just the usual conciliatory "We salute HIV=AIDS" behavior that keeps Weiss, Fauci et al out of your hair when you make a true observation that will upset them royally. You don't see this?
Certainly sorry to hear it, then you have the HIV meme and the Kraft-Dunning glitch in situ as well, please look out for the Moore-Noble syndrome kicking in if you get too frustrated.
We speak with the utmost personal respect, of course.
Liversidge, agrees above that Karpas would not agree with his characterisation. Go ahead and contact him if you want. Just try not to sound like a lunatic crank when you do so.
I do not. He would not agree publicly. But what he thinks, is in the paper. Read it. Or is the HIV meme interfering with your ratiocination?
This paper has a section titled 2.Why does the immune response to HIV eventually fail?
It details the main mechanisms whereby HIV evades the immune sytem.
Not "it details...". "It speculates as to...".
The Kraft-Dunning syndrome is running riot here, while the meme cracks the whip.
The immune system defeats HIV. All intelligent and honest scientists have seen this from the start, which is why they are not surprised by the utter shambles of the hopeless vaccine effort.
Hey, but it needs more funds, right?
This is written for the benefit of the 80 out of 100 who read but do not post, so they can see how the 20 have no objective view of the politics, let alone the science.
Anyone who doesn't have an objective understanding of the politics and how it affects the literature is disqualified from a proper assessment of the paradigm.
This is Kuhnian paradigm politics par excellence, the greatest example in all the world of science.
But invisible to the Kraft-Dunning sufferers, unfortunately.
So excuse, but have to pick up my marbles and go off to New AIDS Review to deal with Moore, who is refreshingly aware of the politics, as his every move shows.
Truthseeker (sic), are you denying that Karpas says that:
If so, you are becoming veritably Maniotisidian in your inability to quote from published works.
If you do not deny that the quote comes from Karpas, how do you reconcile this accurate quote with your characterization of the paper as:
He says, that in nearly every infected person HIV is able to evade the immune response and lead to death.
You claim that he says that the "levels of antibodies seen in any healthy person exposed to HIV are sufficient to defeat it".
How deeply does your head have to be buried in the sand to be able to ignore the fact that those are mutually incompatible propositions.
Darin,
In addition to Dale's comment, which is absolutely rightt, I'd like to address your question about the sensitivity of the assays.
""amplification of viral nucleic acid by PCR provides a highly
> > sensitive... method to detect ongoing viral infection""
Here, sensitivity is referring to sensitivity (in the mathematical sense) for detection of HCV RNA molecules.
The gold standard for these assays is simply to create a standard curve using serial dilutions of HCV RNA and to measure the sensitivity of the assay by amplifying DNA from a known initial quantity of template RNA or DNA.
Infection with HCV is a diagnosis. These tests detect the presence of Hep C RNA or antibodies to Hep C proteins; specifically, and with great sensitivity (both in the mathematical sense). Positive results on these tests are used to make a positive diagnosis.
The paper you cite makes the point that antibodies may be present even after an infection has been defeated. Therefore antibody tests alone are not sufficient to distinguish an active infection from a cleared infection. RT PCR can be used to make that distinction because there is no reasonable way viral RNA will be present in the absence of a replicating virus. In other words, in this sentence:
"Although a positive PCR assay is not absolute proof of HCV viremia, it STRONGLY SUGGESTS..."
the words "absolute proof" should be read as whatever the mathematical definition of "absolute proof" would be, and the words "strongly suggests" should be interpreted as the colloquial definition of absolute proof.
I have read it. It does not support your preposterous misinterpretation. You expect everybody to believe that Karpas is a closet Denialist and that nothing that he says to the contrary will convince you otherwise.
"All intelligent and honest scientists". For a scientifically illiterate idiot you do have a lot of arrogance. But anyway you have captured the essence of HIV Denialism. You are arguing that the vast majority of scientists are stupid or dishonest and that you somehow have a magical gift to see the truth despite your total lack of any scientific understanding.
Get a text book on virology. Read the section on persistent viral infections.
Here's something available online.
Medical Microbiology Section 2. Virology 46. Persistent Viral Infections
Sorry Chris, as we have repeated more than once, the HIV meme, the Kruger-Dunning effect and the Moore-Noble syndrome do not add up to any scientific or even political argument.
Good luck, though. Maybe some ARVs would help?
So, you will just keep on insisting that your bizarre misinterpretation is correct despite the text in the article, despite many other papers by Karpas on HIV.
Not even a public disavowal by Karpas himself would convince you otherwise.
What an insular fanatsy world you live in.
If you want to know what Karpas' actual beliefs are you could read this letter.
AIDS plagued by journalists. A. Karpas. Nature 368, 387 (1994).
(1) in nearly every infected individual, despite a vigorous immune response that is protective for many years, eventually one or more mutants emerge that manage to evade the immune response and lead to disease progression and death
Franklin, yes, that seems to me to be precisely what I was pointing out - that Karpas was confirming that natural antibodies to HIV-1 work very well for many years. The point is that this is what HIV vaccine researchers are always anxious not to have to admit. It makes the whole vaccine effort look idiotic, as Duesberg has long pointed out.
Why do you think that Gallo and Ho have been emphasizing for years that we cant be sure it won't take many years to find a vaccine and may never happen? Because people vaccinate themsleves. They are already vaccinated. With HIV.
Of course if you are infested with the HIV meme this concept cannot find its way into your brain. But we are objective truthseekers, right? We are open minded, because we know that science can always be wrong, as Bill Clinton has remarked to me.
The global antibody epidemic
Lookit, Chris, lovable duffer. The immune system defeats HIV quickly and for many years, so that it is hard to find any at all and you have to "AIDS test" for antibodies, which are a trifle hard to pass on to someone else, wouldn't you say?
Hey folks, you believe in an antibody epidemic! Maybe you would like to hit that Internet textbook, Chris, and tell us how that works.
Sure, Karpas tried to rescue the situation with the notion that HIV mutates successfully away from the immune system, but that imagined solution to the predicament of HIV=AIDS enthusiasts was defeated you will find by a large study on HIV mutation in vivo which noted that the vigorous immune response to HIV caused the mutation, of course, kept up with it, and had no trouble keeping HIV down. The mutated virus doesn't survive antibodies any better than the original.
Someone else showed me the paper but cannot recall the title, sorry. Anyway Karpas himself in his review notes that mutation is an insufficient explanation for the virus suddenly becoming harmful in humans, when this doesn't happen in monkeys. By definition there has to be some other factor involved.
You may also find that Moore himself has published a paper recently confirming that antibodies neutralize HIV for a long time.
Stop reading Internet textbooks Chris and catch up with what is happening.
just keep asking these boneheads for the first 5 scientific papers that prove hiv causes aids, moore is such a retard, he talks about proving a microbes pathenogencity its like a rocket ship, sorry idiot, koch had original experiments that proved casuation, so did shyh ching lo.
Pretty simple, find a correlation, and inoculate animals, if they dont get sick, better have some long term studies that control for confounding factors such as azt mycoplasmas, drug use, etc especially when youve exteneded your window period from 1 year to 10 years.
I guess aids inc bypassed all these steps because heckler got desperate, needed a quick political answer, and had the power to create a self perpetuating industry that had no scientific standards whatsover, when of hundereds chimps inoculated didnt die, they just extended the goalposts and made hiv species specific, when the amount of tcell infection was discovered to be so low, 1/1000 or so they blamed the immune system, or they imagined it wth the pcr, get confused which one they beleive now, got any electron microscopy pics from a patient confirmimg these high plasma loads?.............of course not, the corrupt industry just carries on.
All the meanwhile Lo's mycoplasma incognitus/penetrans that killed and sickened every animal inoculated is causing all kinds of chronic multi organic illnesses, people that are healthy are told they are going to die, people that are sick and misdiagnosed with Depression etc and really suffering from mycoplasma infection are told to take a Prozac. You guys are murderers, plain and simple. All rethinkers wantis patients to have informed consent and to proceed accordingly.
Like the former world champion boxer Tommy morrison, he read duesbergs book when he tested positive, and also was seeing world renoun hiv specialist Dr. ho, he found Duesbergs argument more compelling, dumped Ho and is still alive and totally healthy more than ten years later. Informed consent, stop denying us of it and destroying peoples lives.
So lets say your ye elderly English deniosaur. What to do, start a blog of course. Only three people read it Claus Heinrich and Gene. So you can't show enough people how youre ignorant. So you come to Tara's blog and annoy every body there to!! And then your three readers come here!! Yay for you tony tyger but please bring some one next time we can argue about science with.
That Karpas letter? here it is (we are not at the library)::
AIDS Plagued by Journalists
Nature (03/31/94) Vol. 368, No. 6470, P. 387 Karpas, A.
A. Karpas of the Hematology Department at the University of Cambridge finds it bewildering that journalist Simon Jenkins, in a Dec. 18 article in The Times, would challenge HIV as the cause of AIDS. Karpas is especially surprised that Jenkins would issue such a challenge when it is a known fact that AIDS develops in all recipients of contaminated blood or blood products who are not categorized as members of the "lifestyle high-risk group." Scientists know that 90 percent of those in the high-risk group will, in fact, develop the disease within a decade of infection; however, Karpas says Jenkins fails to appreciate that more than 90 percent of the men and women around the world are not in this group because they contracted the virus via normal heterosexual activity. It is incomprehensible, says Karpas, that Jenkins can write that "no causal chain has been proved" between HIV and AIDS when it has been established for more than 10 years. Scientific and medical progress is based on earlier knowledge, and any claim to discovery must always be reproduced by others in the same field before it is accepted. Therefore, Karpas contends, it is absurd for Jenkins to assume that all AIDS researchers and scientists are wrong. Jenkins' implications about the lack of a cure after a decade of intensive research is equally absurd, charges Karpas. Considerable progress, but no cure after many years of research is also true in the case of the common cold, various herpes infections, and some major cancers. The Times and Sunday Times, through irresponsible, misinformed journalism, could mislead readers about AIDS and encourage them to ignore risks. With no cure, prevention is the most effective tool against AIDS. Informed, responsible journalists can be crucial to reducing the spread of the disease, Karpas concludes.
Karpas is "bewildered" that anyone would question the meme, which took root in his brain the very instant he became the first Briton to isolate HIV. However, being at a premier university, the alma mater of no less a scientist than John "I am not a macaque, I am a very hard working microbicide researcher" Moore, Karpas retains some critical faculties. He was very unkind to Dr. Gallo, for instance, castigating the hero of AIDS science for his fraudulent lab work, which must have seemed exceedingly uncollegial in spirit for a man in the Club.
Now he is caught red handed saying that the immune system puts down HIV very well for 10-15 years, exactly what Duesberg has always said. Luckily he caught himself saying this before Fauci did, so he was able to speculate about how this desirable state of affairs somehow falls apart after a decade or more. This is in obeisance to the one overriding principle of HIV=AIDS, that no matter what, one cannot conceive of questioning the unproven hypothesis, that HIV is the sole cause. But right there he is saying that something else causes AIDS, since HIV by itself is not enough.
What could it be? How can we rescue the blind faith of Chris Noble, and prevent him as well as Karpas being humiliated by the collapse of this paradigm to which they have been married to for so many years? Must be a co factor! Yes! That's what Montagnier has always said, and he discovered the little bug, as Dr Gallo finally was forced to admit only after official investigation and legal row including lawyers for two nations, the US and France. Karpas deals with all this exciting stuff about how shady Gallo is in his great review paper, the one we are talking about, which is enjoyably frank in that regard too.
Getting back to science. It's a co-factor! But you won't get any kudos from Bob Gallo for saying this. He has always known what is obvious, which is that if you need a co factor, it raises a question, do you need HIV, if the co factor can be shown to work all by itself? This is dangerous stuff, even if one co factor he liked to suggest was HTLV-I, his other pet non working retrovirus.
HIV is the sine qua non of the whole funding rationale off which everyone has been living for the last twenty years. It's also the sole claim to fame of poor Chris Noble, who otherwise would be completely absent from public affairs of any kind as far as we know, though he has managed one or two papers on using computers to analyze chemistry, or somesuch. Maybe he will start a blog. We hope so. It is just that he seems to have such difficulty in discerning the politics of the science. You would think that he would somehow dimly perceive them. After all, John Moore now leads the Denialist movement, the one that Denies there is anything wrong about HIV=AIDS, even though taxi drivers can see it makes no sense at all, and John deals in nothing but the politics of his own Denialism.
This he perpetrates like Anthony Fauci at NIAID via the simple strategy of Denying the deniers a public voice, and trying to give the false impression that they include no scientists in their ranks, when the finest scientist in virology, Peter Duesberg, sacrificed his Club status in insisting on the truth of the matter, only to be beset by a horde of activists and paradigm defenders who say he is incorrect, but somehow never publish anything at the peer reviewed level to demonstrate why.
Till they do, one can only say to Mr Moore and Chris Noble both, Mr Moore, Mr Noble, you are no Peter Duesberg. And your claim to be defending good science and the health of AIDS patients is contradicted by the HIV=AIDS literature including the papers which you, Mr Moore, Fauci, and Karpas have written for your colleagues.
Let's sum up and say quite it straightforwardly in honor of World AIDS Day, December 1. The entire HIV=AIDS facade is built on a literature which contradicts it, as Peter Duesberg has never stopped pointing out. But the answer to him has always been the same answer as the response to all critics of HIV=AIDS, the true crackpot paradigm absurdity built on the intellectual equivalent of quicksand.
It is "Stop that man! He is crying Fire! in a crowded theater!"
A theater filled with Moores all lining up to get their funding from NIAID and the drug companies who make expensive, useless and harmful drugs. But don't mistake us. We approve of Moore, who is a hero of leaky dissent, like Karpas, even higher in our book, since he doesn't bother to argue the science, knowing very well that he would have to talk nonsense to do so.
So yes we think that Moore is a closet dissident and we can show you why we think so, in the very papers he has written criticizing HIV research in core areas as worthless.
The other paper saying antibodies stop HIV
Here is the paper we referred to last night:
Rapid evolution of a neutralizing antibody response to HIV type 1 infection.
It is by Douglas Richman et al of the University of California at San Diego, in PNAS 100:4144-9 April 1 2003.
Here's a quote:
"In most patients, potent neutralizing antibody responses are generated early after infection, at first to the autologous infecting HIV variant and then to subsequent variants."
The reason this is not well known to Chris Noble and his colleagues in purblind paradigm defense is that technical means needed to prepare stocks of HIV and variants from specific individuals were missing, which prevented us from estimating the effectiveness of a specific individual's antibodies to particular HIV variants.
Nowadays, as the paper says, we know there is a
"rapidly evolving neutralizing antibody response"
which adapts to new mutations.
Let's repeat the key word, Chris.
POTENT.
So lets say your ye elderly English deniosaur. What to do, start a blog of course. Only three people read it Claus Heinrich and Gene. So you can't show enough people how youre ignorant. So you come to Tara's blog and annoy every body there to!! And then your three readers come here!! Yay for you tony tyger but please bring some one next time we can argue about science with.
Posted by: Adele | November 28, 2007 1:36 PM
This is so cute! This is the reason why this thread is so entertaining. It is often sweetened by this kind of self revealing squeak from one of the field mice trying to avoid getting trod on by the deniosaurs.
We love field mice and will be more careful in the future, Adele, we promise. We are just sorry that we have to leave you, like Mr Moore did, to your own devices, because the real world calls.
Sometimes the Web redeems itself.
Your good sport tony I just wish you know something about science. BC then you can understand the DOUBLE HONEY BUN VIRAL SIGNATURE CHALLENGE DHBVSC means you win against Baeur and Semon and MAni-Otis. You can thank me for DHBVSC BC its defending you and your god Duesberg whose in the deniosaur minority about if HIV is real.
You figured out by now. Most deniosaurs think your'e wrong and Duesbergs wrong they most think there is no virus. A HIV test measures stress not a virus they say.
So I gave a challenge. That's how deniosaurs prove stuff they have a dumb challenge and when no body takes it they win. right. When some one takes it they still win, they ignore the challengersaurus. like Perth ignores the Duesberdactyl. But my challenge is real and its a real experiment. http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/10/denialism_they_dont_remember…
If its just stress makes HIV then stress on cells can make HIV so do the experiment!
I gave out the cahllenge again
http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/10/denialism_they_dont_remember…
Then I made it EASIER!!! AND I made it two honey bunns!!
http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/10/denialism_they_dont_remember…
A month ago! Still nothing! So their all wrong and you are Right HIV is a real virus. See come on were on the same side Tony Tyger!! HIV is real you know it I know it the age of the Perthy 9-11 Twoofersaurus is over.
right about virus, Sad you are wrong about neutralizing antibody. So there's a neutralizing antibody response. Yay!! Hows it make moore deniosaur, it doesn't Virus spreads any way. Know why, simple reason if you don't know ask somebody here. Oh also Ask Tara may be she can make a page for donations to buy you a immunology book. And a biology book, biochemistry book to so you understand some words when you get to immunology.
Now you are arguing that Richman is a closet denialist too? Have you emailed him to ask if he agrees with your mis/interpretation.
Richman lists three other viruses that survive as persistent infections despite the generation of antibodies. All three totally destroy Duesberg's dogmatic assertion that viruses cannot cause disease after an immune response has been mounted.
If you read more of the paper than the sentence that you quoted then it is obvious that it completely contradicts your mis/interpretation.
HIV continues to replicate despite the generation of antibodies. HIV is not defeated.
HIV continues to replicate despite the generation of antibodies. HIV is not defeated.
Not only is HIV notoriously defeated, but if you haven't noticed this fundamental poblem of the paradigm in twenty years of discussion God help you, Chris, because only God can.
You are the 21st century equivalent of the Pisa professor who refused to look through Galileo's telescope.
The irony is killing me.
The very papers that you cite as evidence for your claim that "HV is defeated" show that HIV continues to replicate despite the production of neutralizing antibodies.
It is the Denialists who refuse to look through Galileo's telescope.
They refuse to look at evidence that HIV exists.
They refuse to look at the evidence that it causes AID.
They refuse to look at the evidence that ARVs are effective in reducing mortality and morbidity caused by HIV disease.
The very papers that you cite as evidence for your claim that "HV is defeated" show that HIV continues to replicate despite the production of neutralizing antibodies.
Good heavens, Chris, did God tell you that we have overlooked this point for twenty years, and you are right all along?
OK we can't argue with God and your faith in God, even if that God looks suspiciously like the HIV meme.
We sit at your feet, Show us, O scientific Moses, the parts in the paper which say that for 10-15 years HIV replication carries on without being slowed and stalled and in effect reduced to a replication rate slower than your neurons take to understand anything the "denialists" say.
So this doesn't happen in three to six weeks and last for years? Abraham Karpas is quite wrong then? Maybe you woud like to write to HIM and tell him so. He would be mightily pleased to know your view on this. There could even be a correction credited to Chris Noble. That would be a fine thing, would it not, to cap your avocational career of standing up for HIV against the heinous denialists who threaten the superbug's virtue?
We sit at your feet, Noble, to be instructed. Please proceed as we respectfully listen. The question is, is Karpas wrong, are we wrong, is everybody but you wrong, in claiming that HIV is put out of action by antibodies in three or four weeks maximum and becomes extremely hard to find in the body so that you have to find it with needle-in-the-haystack PCR, if you can at all?
What an excellent researcher you are. This is a headline finding, if you can back it up. Kindly wash your feet and put on clean socks since we will want to kiss your feet.
Wait! maybe that is going too far. But we will at least bow in admiration of your brilliance and dedication to sorting out the truth in this mess.
Please proceed.
This is a typical Denialist trick. You falsely claim that Karpas states that HIV is defeated and then pretend that I am disagreeing with Karpas. I am not disagreeing with Karpas. I am disagreeing with your blatant misinterpretation. Before you put words into somebodies mouth do the honourable thing and ask them whether they agree with your statements. Go ahead write to Karpas. Just don't be surprised if he calls you a raving lunatic.
The rate of HIV replication falls after the initial acute infection stage but in the vast majority of people it does not fall to zero. It continues to replicate at all times. The "setpoint" that is reached plays a significant role in determining the time till progression to AIDS. On average, the higher the setpoint the faster the progression to AIDS.
Chris, when a >100,000 viral load does not progress to full-blown AIDS and CD4's in the 80's for going on two years now, how in the world do you stick to the claim that it is replicating and doing great harm. You folks have missed the true cause of AIDS years ago and continue down your dead end path. In the end, you will lose because more and more HIV+s are speaking out and learning the truth. You will have to find another cause to beat up on as this one has just about runs it course along with your gloom and doom scenario.
Richman lists three other viruses that survive as persistent infections despite the generation of antibodies. All three totally destroy Duesberg's dogmatic assertion that viruses cannot cause disease after an immune response has been mounted.
Dr. N. Relax get some new sucking stones,chill and take it step by step. I the end I'm sure you'll understand. First of all, would it be this dogmatic statement, where Duesberg fully explains his position so even the biggest boneheads can understand it, that is being destroyed by Richman?
For a virus to be reactivated, the. immune system first must be destroyed by something else - the real cause of a disease. A reactivated virus would just contribute an opportunistic infection. Thus, there are no slow viruses, only slow virologists.
A conventional virus could, however, be slow acting in a defective immune system. Indeed, some exceptional victims suffer pre-existing health problems that prevent their immune systems from reacting decisively against the virus, allowing it to continue growing and damaging the host for a long period of time. This can happen with virtually any type of virus, but it is extremely rare. When such a chronic infection does occur, as with a small percentage of hepatitis cases whose immune system is damaged by alcoholism or intravenous drug addiction, the virus keeps growing abundantly in the body and can easily be found by experimental tests.
Other germs, like herpes viruses, can hide out in some recess of the body, breaking out periodically to strike again when the immune system passes a seasonal low. In both examples, only the weakened immune system of the host allows the infection to smolder or occasionally reappear from hibernation. By contrast, a slow virus is an invention credited with the natural ability to cause disease only years after infection - termed the latent period - in previously healthy persons, regardless of the state of their immunity. Such a concept allows scientists to blame a long-neutralized virus for any disease that appears decades after infection. The slow virus is the original sin against the laws of virology.
Duesberg is simply wrong as the examples given by Richman show. EIAV, Visna-maedi and SIV all cause disease after the initial acute infection despite the generation of antibodies. These are all persistent chronic infections and are not latent.
Simply open a virology book. Read the section on persistent viral infections. Contrast this with the Duesbergian dogma that you regurgitate.
Duesberg is simply wrong as the examples given by Richman show.
Dr. N,
You were supposed to read what I posted, not just reassert dogmatically. That's not the way to go about showing Truhseeker is unscientific and you're not.
You're absolutely right, I can open any virology book, or google "lentivirus", or what have you, and see that there's a general belief in those things almost as feverishly fanatical as your own. But again Dr N, you don't refute Duesberg's critique of the textbook stuff by asserting that the stuff he criticizes is found in the textbooks. To the contrary.
Now steady your trembling hands, grab a beer and a sucking stone, contemplate the grandeur of the universe and your own insignificance for a while, then attempt to compose a real argument. This is not a race, it won't lose you any points if you take a day or so to get back to us. Quality over haste is the rethinker motto.
This is a typical Denialist trick. You falsely claim that Karpas states that HIV is defeated and then pretend that I am disagreeing with Karpas. I am not disagreeing with Karpas. I am disagreeing with your blatant misinterpretation. Before you put words into somebody's mouth do the honourable thing and ask them whether they agree with your statements. Go ahead write to Karpas. Just don't be surprised if he calls you a raving lunatic. -Chris Noble
Please don't capitalize Denialist when referring to those who deny that the paradigm makes scientific, logical or common sense. Denialist with a capital D refers to people who refuse to discuss the irrationality of the paradigm with its critics and who support the paradigm either through stupidity or venality and prolong its attack on the health of those who are mismedicated under its regime.
You at least have turned yourself into a professional apologist for HIV=AIDS and are willing to make a show of discussing it, even though you show no sign whatsoever of understanding any problem with the paradigm, let alone granting it, except for your one remarkable admission at Science Guardian/New AIDS Review that you would not take ARVs yourself.
Even so, in your case it is becoming hard to avoid the conclusion that you simply cannot hack it intellectually, Chris. Anyone who had the brains to understand that what he was saying was logically incompetent and only produced by the refusal ever to reexamine his constant and confounding premise would be too embarrassed to continue, surely. That is what Moore shows, after all. He doesn't embarrass himself by arguing the science. He knows he would only look foolish.
Like Moore clever people would surely find some other way to peddle what in your case amounts to forty different ways to salute HIV=AIDS without the capacity to take both sides of the argument into account and compare them without prejudice. You are, mentally speaking, pure HIV meme. You have, in fact, become the meme, Chris. You are the HIV meme, embodied.
In a Kafka-esque transformation, you have turned into the intellectual equivalent of a giant insect, that is to say, a rationalizing machine which devours and digests and reinterprets every single facet of the AIDS data you contemplate as a support for HIV=AIDS. This is only what happens to everybody involved in this grand social illusion, of course, they rationalize and even reverse every mental input so they can put it all into the same box, labeled HIV=AIDS.
Now, HIV=AIDS critics do the same thing to a great extent, consistently viewing the data in their own frame and always proving to their own satisfaction they are always right. So how is an outsider to choose? They have to evaluate the style as much as the substance, I would say, unless they can follow every point. One telling indication however is how well each side shows that they read and understand the other. This is where you fail.
Here we have Karpas telling you one thing, and you claiming another, and by God you have made a sausage which contains both of them! Well, you may have to fry it and eat it yourself, Chris, because let's face it, there really is very little point in anyone trying to enlighten you if you simply cannot ever examine your own premise.
Whether it is genuine stupidity, bad faith, blind faith, or even actual insanity only you know for sure. But with this current point under review I fear you are now revealed as a lost cause, incapable of having a productive discussion that can teach you anything. The point is just too clear, two top mainstream people are making it for us, yet you cannot see it.
However, I believe you can teach me and others something. There is not in all of HIV=AIDS a better example of the HIV meme in action than you. In this respect, you reign supreme.
If that is wrong, and you do have the power to examine your own premise, ever, then prove it now. Show us that you can do anything more than peddle your premise, and always refuse to acknowledge a better alternative.
Take the above statement by you, for example. There is no misinterpretation, is there? Come on. Karpas and Richman both have acknowledged that HIV is kept down for years by a potent counter attack from the immune system. Do you know even what they mean in ABC terms? The virus is prevented from entering cells by the action of antibodies and therefore cannot replicate, which it needs to be in a cell to do. After an initial burst almost all of it is inactivated in this manner and cleared from the system. You cannot find it very easily or at all for that reason. This becomes the steady state of the system, for years. It is entirely the normal process carried on by the body in such instances of encountering foreign elements. They are stopped at the border, and their passports taken away from them, and they are sent back whereever they came from, or killed.
Chris, it is hard to know what level of baby talk you can absorb. But here you are simply putting yourself in the position of arguing that because one or two spies or terrorists might evade the immigration inspectors, they can enter the US and blow up Congress and the White House. Retroviruses do not work that way. Viruses do not work that way. Yoiu need an army of them. If you keep almost all of them out, or kill them, they cannot do anything to Washington, New York and Los Angeles.
Having had to acknowledge this state of affairs, Karpas and Richman have to speculate with a sort of fairy tale that maybe after years the few terrorists who get into the US have married and had babies and somehow after generations they are numerous enough to wreak some serious havoc in some mysterious way we don't yet understand because they all seem to be unarmed.
What Duesberg is saying is that this is a fairy tale and the only way you can get an army of foreign soldiers into the US is by weakening the INS so it can't do its job at the borders. It is damage to the immune system which is the only means by which the simple process of effectively barring HIV in the first place can get compromised.
Since you cannot seem to understand this utterly simple concept, one can only conclude that you argue from your wish to your data, and not vice versa. Nothing new can enter your head. And that is the problem with the entire field, and always has been. As MEC points out the fact that this backwards thinking is now enshrined in textbooks is simply a consequence of this, not a proof that it is correct.
That you don't and won't understand this even after twenty years suggests the Kraft-Dunning effect where someone is not aware of their own inability to comprehend what they need to comprehend.
What possible point is there is engaging you then, other than to demonstrate this?
I don't have the time to read the entire thread, so...
Mr. Noble, could you please answer me this:
You say that after the initial acute infection the remnants of the virus still cause disease because of their ability to mutate, evade and debilitate the immune system. If that is so, why are the serum samples tested with the same constant set of viral proteins, that are recognizable by the immune system?
Why is the immune system able to recognize these proteins in the first place?
Shouldn't the inability to respond to these viral proteins be the basis for HIV evasion?
Why does the virus only attack T helper cells and cause inevitable and irreversible immune dysfunction?
Isn't the bone marrow the heart and soul of the immune system and the birthplace of most white cells, including T helper lymphocites?
Where's the damaged bone marrow in HIV positives and AIDS patients that explains the inevitable immune failure?
I have more questions that I wish to be answered. But these will suffice.
I thank you in advance.
Rezaf,
I am happy to see that you are interested in understanding the mechanisms by which HIV can evade the immune response as well as the mechanisms by which HIV infection leads to immune dysfuction.
I can also appreciate that your time is too short to be able to read this entire thread.
In fact, if you desire the answers to those questions, I would strongly recommend that you leave this thread and read an immunology textbook.
Such a textbook is freely available on the web through PubMed, and this link will take you to the chapter on AIDS:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?highlight=Acquired%20immune%2…
Many of your questions are addressed in this chapter, which is less than 7,000 words long. Please feel free to use the search function to fiind answers to your other questions.
I hope that you find reading this chapter to be an efficient use of your time.
On a positive note, perhaps those who wonder if the textbooks have it right, even though franklin appears to think they have biblical authority in an area (HIV=AIDS) where they are disputed by the finest scientific mind in the field, Peter Duesberg, might like to look again at this story from way back when the unproven hypothesis could still be called into question by upbeat stories like this:
BABIES GIVE LIE TO AFRICAN AIDS
Of course, they all probably died later, when they were taught the real effect of HIV from American health workers.
So franklin, since you cannot answer Rezaf's questions yourself, perhaps you could tell us why such a report exists. What was the scientific mistake here? Were the HIV tests wrong? Is the reporter being misled?
He wrote a book too. Did you ever read that? Did you ever read any book challenging the orthodoxy? Did you ever read Bialy?
Please do not use real scientists such as Karpas and Richman as hand-puppets. There is a major difference between a persistent chronic infection and "defeating HIV". Neither Karpas nor Richman have stated that HIV is "defeated". Both clearly state that although HIV is kept at bay for a variable anount of time that eventually HIV "wins".
Proteins such as p24 are on the inside of the virus particle. Antibodies to HIV p24 are therfore not protective because the virus particle has to be already destroyed before the immune system can "see" the protein. There are many conserved epitopes in various HIV proteins but none of these are exposed on the outside of the virus particle. The greatest rate of evolution is seen on the regions of the surface proteins that are exposed. This demonstrates the selective pressure from the immune response that drives this evolution.
Viruses such as influenza and HIV bind to particular receptor sites on specific host cells. If cells do not have these receptors then the virus cannot infect them.
You are mixing up B-cells and T-cells. The B stands for bone and the T stands for thymus.
There are characteristic changes that can be seen in lymph nodes. Seriously all you have to do is open a textbook and you would be able to find all of this by yourself.
Why do you come and demand that people answer your questions before you have done any research of your own.
You could have even just read this thread where many of your questions are already answered.
Open a textbook yourself, Chris Noble. You'll find that Rezaf whom you criticized was correct: T cells as well as B cells have their "birthplace" in the bone marrow. The T cells are subsequently processed in the thymus. Moreover, lack of active thymic hormone (thymulin) due to deficiencies of vital trace nutrients, particularly zinc and selenium, has been shown to produce a decline of helper T cells and reversal of the helper/suppressor ratio, such as is seen in AIDS. By an odd coincidence, there have been repeated findings of zinc and selenium deficiencies in AIDS patients. Look it up.
Also, look up the definition of "defeat," the word that has caused such outrage here since Truthseeker mentioned "the paper of Abraham Karpas of Cambridge agreeing that ordinary levels of antibodies seen in any healthy person exposed to HIV are sufficient to defeat it."
According to the American Heritage dictionary (at Answers.com), the verb "defeat" means: "1. to win victory over; best. 2. To prevent the success of; thwart." It does not necessarily mean to triumph over permanently. When a native army is said to defeat an invading army in a battle, not all the enemy soldiers are necessarily killed - their efforts to conquer have simply been thwarted in that battle but they may come back to conquer later. In this sense, Truthseeker's use of "defeat" is applicable to the decade on average for which Prof. Karpas asserts that the "immune response...is protective."
In the same review paper in Biology Reviews. 79:911-33, 2004, Dr. Karpas, who is professor of virology at Cambridge University, further asserts that such natural immune control is preferable to HAART:
"In most HIV-infected individuals, the immune system manages to limit the damage caused by the virus for many years - far longer (on average nine years) than any drug cocktails available that have the added disadvantage of being toxic."
No one has claimed that Karpas is an AIDS dissident. In fact he's a believer that HIV causes AIDS and a pillar of AIDS research in Britain. On several issues, however his views have been remarkably similar to those of AIDS dissidents: Gallo's research perfidy, AZT's increase in death rates, and the effectiveness of the immune response in the prolonged control of HIV. Read his review!
Robert is completely correct about the origin of T-cells. My mistake again.
Here is a book chapter on the
Immunopathogenesis of HIV Infection
It describes the reservoirs of HIV infection in lymphoid tissue and the inflammation and damage seen in these organs.
These silly word games are getting tiring. I know very well what "truthseeker" and Duesberg mean by "defeat". They mean that HIV has been banished and cannot cause any disease. This is most definitely not the position of either Karpas or Richman.
Well, I trust everyone had a good Thanksgiving holiday... As it seems the good ol' Franklin/Noble pair are still up to the task of defending the prevailing yet failing paradigm.
But Chris, please - come on now, explain what "Duesbergian dogma" is. Or is that just another AIDS speak tactic devised to intimidate?
So now since this tread is supposedly about Mbeki and the African phenomenon - I'd like to get your guys take on the latest story of how UNAIDS revised downward the infection rates in Africa, you know, that little 7 million decrease in its estimate of the number of HIV-infected people? Go a head say what you will, I'm interested to hear, however deplorable they might be, what your explanations might be.
I'd say this new report just goes to show how stupid and retarded the whole idea that there's such thing as the so called "AIDS Pandemic." What Pandemic? There isn't any! If there's truly any pandemic in Africa, its the one instantiated by a series of re-labeling poverty to suite the needs of mainstream AIDS business as usual programs to push toxic money making therapies on to unknowing, uneducated and impoverished populations that are known best to test reactive on bogus HIV tests.
" Here we have Karpas telling you one thing, and you claiming another, and by God you have made a sausage which contains both of them! Well, you may have to fry it and eat it yourself, Chris, because let's face it, there really is very little point in anyone trying to enlighten you if you simply cannot ever examine your own premise."
Please do not use real scientists such as Karpas and Richman as hand-puppets. There is a major difference between a persistent chronic infection and "defeating HIV". Neither Karpas nor Richman have stated that HIV is "defeated". Both clearly state that although HIV is kept at bay for a variable anount of time that eventually HIV "wins".
Posted by: Chris Noble | November 29, 2007 8:32 PM
Nice phrasing, Noble. Like the Bone cells and the Thymus cells idea. So the thymus makes cells? Wow, we live and learn.
But Karpas and Richman are not puppets of mine, they are fully paid up members of the HIV=AIDS elite, who have made a concession of fact followed by a claim attended by speculation.
The concession is precisely what Duesberg, Bialy, Brown, Culshaw, Bauer, Maggiore and everyone down to your local taxi driver have quickly found out when they first smell a rat in the palace of HIV=AIDS.
The concession they have made to reality is that the healthy immune system gets rid of HIV in a few weeks so effectively that only the barest trace of it remains, so little that you have as much trouble finding it as finding a needle with a magnifying glass in a hayfield. Only Mullis's great invention PCR can magnify into a significant amount what is a negligible amount to start with. No one has a test sensitive enough for it apart from PCR, which is why all the tests are for antibodies to it, antibodies which signal the body's victory over the harmless little crittur, who has never bothered anybody, just like any other retrovirus to this day.
This near eradication of HIV to a negligible level where most of it is inert anyway - 9,999/10,000 - continues for years until the unfortunate patient falls ill from SOME OTHER CAUSE, and the weakened immune system is beset with opportunistic infections of which the residual HIV is one.
If you believe it causes the conditions for its own resurgence you are speaking with the voice of the HIV meme, and brazenly contradicting the blindingly obvious, for which you have no evidence other than the speculation of your valiant apologists Karpas and Richman, who have the scientific honor not to contradict the data but when given a chance to speculate will create castles in the air on the foundation of HIV=AIDS, because that is the motto of their elite club which has cornered all the funding for dealing with AIDS for 23 years and counting.
You have become a dedicated supporter of this imaginative and baseless claim, and so you hold some responsible for its consequences, wouldn't you say? Yet your support of it is so uncritical that you dismiss the success of the immune system in dealing with HIV with a desperate sidestep to the speculation of Karpas and Richman as THEY try desperately to make sense out of what you and they are forced to claim, that somehow HIV comes back from nowhere to defeat a healthy body that has kicked its ass to the max and kept it on the ground with a foot on its neck for as long as twenty years.
You could explain this to a child of ten and it would laugh at you. Try it in the local schoolyard sometime. You'll soon find them skipping round you chanting "Hello Mister Noble, Living in a bubble, Always causing trouble! Silly Mister Noble!"
It's interesting how you quote textbooks as if they were gospel. When reassessing your silliness, if you ever do, why don't you consider where the text in text books comes from?
Keep the salt cellar handy when reading texts where the sources are those championing the status quo, when there is an unsuccessful paradigm being explained. A pinch of salt is necessary.
Or maybe we should say in the case of HIV=AIDS, a pinch of smelling salts.
Well don't try to use them as such. When you say "The paper of Abraham Karpas of Cambridge agreeing that ordinary levels of antibodies seen in any healthy person exposed to HIV are sufficient to defeat it" you are putting words in his mouth that he would not agree with.
Dr. N, let me return if I may, to this statement, from Karpas I believe, valuable for its neat simplicity:
It seems to imply a stalemate between HIV and antibodies, until... until what exactly, Dr. N? What is it about these "one or more mutants" that so utterly
confounds the rapidly developing antibody reponses,
often after more than a decade of protective reponses?
The concept of naturally occurring "broadly neutralizing antibodies" is well known in the vaccine efforts. Why do these kinds of antibody responses start to fail all of a sudden?
We were told just above that the cunning virus, when presenting itself in the form of the hypothetical intact virion, hides all the conserved regions from the antibodies (but somehow not from the CD4 receptors). However, I was also under the impression that it's been argued here recently that shedded proteins from defective viruses is one of the many cell killing mechanisms employed by HIV.
As the illustrious closet Denialist Prof. John P. Moore of Weill Cornell, has demonstrated, these are very effectively neutralized by antibodies - perhaps because they cannot, as you just suggested, turn their conserved parts away into the not present virion? Regardless, they are effectively neutralized.
Oops. Let me give you that again including the quote I was referring to:
Dr. N, let me return if I may, to this statement, from Karpas I believe, valuable for its neat simplicity:
in nearly every infected individual, despite a vigorous immune response that is protective for many years, eventually one or more mutants emerge that manage to evade the immune response and lead to disease progression and death
It seems to imply a stalemate between HIV and antibodies, until... until what exactly, Dr. N? What is it about these "one or more mutants" that so utterly
confounds the rapidly developing antibody reponses,often after more than a decade of protective reponses?
The concept of naturally occurring "broadly neutralizing antibodies" is well known in the vaccine efforts. Why do these kinds of antibody responses start to fail all of a sudden?
We were told just above that the cunning virus, when presenting itself in the form of the hypothetical intact virion, hides all the conserved regions from the antibodies (but somehow not from the CD4 receptors). However, I was also under the impression that it's been argued here recently that shedded proteins from defective viruses is one of the many cell killing mechanisms employed by HIV.
As the illustrious closet Denialist Prof. John P. Moore of Weill Cornell, has demonstrated, these are very effectively neutralized by antibodies - perhaps because they cannot, as you just suggested, turn their conserved parts away into the not present virion? Regardless, they are effectively neutralized.
MEC,
Just give it up.
Read the immunology textbook.
Learn something, before trying to spout off scientific-sounding phrases.
Rezaf I will answer your questions we answer them every month but oh well
You say that after the initial acute infection the remnants of the virus still cause disease because of their ability to mutate, evade and debilitate the immune system. If that is so, why are the serum samples tested with the same constant set of viral proteins, that are recognizable by the immune system?
What? remnants of the virus? Its not remnants its real viruses!! You must be reading to much from lil becky. She knows less about viruses then I know about real estate market!! Ask kevin i dont know much about that!! I admit it!! Also you are confused on tests. ELISA and WEstern blot look for antibodies to virus proteins. Not virus proteins. So it detects antibody for virus. Oh and it doesn't say the antibody works to stop a virus just it recognizes. May be it got made for a free protein from a virus but on a real virus its all sugarcoated and the antibody cant see it. It sees it in the test because its not all glycosilated like that. But a second thing theres regions of protein that are conserved or preserved like claus says if they mutate the virus is dead so that stuff is almost the same in viruses. And a third thing the tests don't measure virus ability to evade immune system they just say if antibody is there. And a fourth thing there are tests for proteins, their getting common now and the protein is there not just antibody.
Why is the immune system able to recognize these proteins in the first place?
Umm just like it recognizes any thing else.
Shouldn't the inability to respond to these viral proteins be the basis for HIV evasion?
Why's that buddy? Go to a virology class some time. Every virus has ways it gets around immune systems. Your body recognizes herpes or varicella but they evade it right? Same thing on HIV.
Why does the virus only attack T helper cells and cause inevitable and irreversible immune dysfunction?
Who said that, your getting bad info dear! HIV infects lots of cells not just CD4 cells, it attacks more cells then it infects. BC it messes up immune system markers like cytokines and other cells get affected by that. Also put some tat or gp on some cells, see what happens. Not nice!
Isn't the bone marrow the heart and soul of the immune system and the birthplace of most white cells, including T helper lymphocites? Where's the damaged bone marrow in HIV positives and AIDS patients that explains the inevitable immune failure?
Wow. So people die, does that mean hospitals are all damaged. BC people are born in hospitals, so how do they die unless hospitals are damaged. Wow thats funny logic even in denialism.
Truthtwister says
He wrote a book too. Did you ever read that? Did you ever read any book challenging the orthodoxy? Did you ever read Bialy?
Umm, Noble and me read Duesberg his book and his other crap. We read bialy to. That stuffs real impressive for people who don't know about biology like you and Rezaf and Robert Houston. You wanna believe and you find some nutjob who tells you stuff you like. For Noble and me its not so much impressive.
Duesberg his book, huh? Well, if your reading is as illiterate as your writing, I figure you rarely understand much of what you read.
Must be nice for you folks to be on the side of John pee more. You can treat, per "Scientific Community" definition, any denialist as a no-brainer, thus promoting yourself to never dreamed of hights of intelligence. Peter Duesberg, Kary Mullis, Etienne de Harven and the like: just some low-lifes compared to yourself, aren't they?
Why don't you learn to write correctly instead of spreading dumb shit all over my screen, Adele?
Adele,
nice flamejob. Just keep driving them away and into the hands of "denialists".
HIP! HIP! HURRAY!
"Wow. So people die, does that mean hospitals are all damaged. BC people are born in hospitals, so how do they die unless hospitals are damaged. Wow thats funny logic even in denialism."
talking about damaged hospitals...
what does AZT and ARVs do to the "hospital" in the long run?
LOL! Franklin,
Were my last questions too scientific sounding for you? Better not answer then, or JP might have you thrown out of the club.
But I must say your threshold is very low; that didn't even look very scientific to me, and I thought you were an expert.
In fact Frankie darling, that was everyday prose right out of the virology textbook you gave me to read, with an absolute minimum of technical terminology, no convoluted arguments, and only two trick questions - and still you're afraid to go down that road.
That speaks volumes.
Adele honey bun, please, it's Noble and I, ok? Noble and I, not "Noble and me". Move outta the sticks girl.
I'm going to say it again - not everyone here has English as a milk tongue. All of us have made grammar and spelling errors, and typos. It's a very petty nit to pick with each other, and it makes the pickers look just as bad as the people who made the original mistake. It's an ineffectual rhetorical tactic.
(Jspreen, I am surprised and disappointed by your picking, especially. You read and write at least three languages, but you still have trouble with "their," "they're," and "there," so you should know better than to associate someone's reading comprehension with her typing and syntax.)
Adele,
Thanks for answering me. Even though it's the nth time you do answer this kind of questions. But then again, did you answer me at all?
Let me see...
"What? remnants of the virus? Its not remnants its real viruses!! You must be reading to much from lil becky. She knows less about viruses then I know about real estate market!! Ask kevin i dont know much about that!! I admit it!! Also you are confused on tests. ELISA and WEstern blot look for antibodies to virus proteins. Not virus proteins. So it detects antibody for virus. Oh and it doesn't say the antibody works to stop a virus just it recognizes. May be it got made for a free protein from a virus but on a real virus its all sugarcoated and the antibody cant see it. It sees it in the test because its not all glycosilated like that. But a second thing theres regions of protein that are conserved or preserved like claus says if they mutate the virus is dead so that stuff is almost the same in viruses. And a third thing the tests don't measure virus ability to evade immune system they just say if antibody is there. And a fourth thing there are tests for proteins, their getting common now and the protein is there not just antibody."
When I meant remnants, I meant remaining viruses, not fragments. And yes, I know that ELISAS and WB just detect anti-HIV antibodies. BUT, these in order to react need the antigen, aka, the viral protein or glycoprotein (hence the constant set of recognizable viral (glyco)proteins).
"Oh and it doesn't say the antibody works to stop a virus just it recognizes. May be it got made for a free protein from a virus but on a real virus its all sugarcoated and the antibody cant see it."
"Maybe"? "free protein from a virus"? Which virus? Does it have to be just HIV? "sugarcoated and the antibody cant see it"? My point exactly. If the antibody can't see it, then it cannot bind to it. So why is a positive HIV test bad? Oh, it's because anti-HIV antibodies can see free proteins from A virus (any virus?) and not glycoproteins from REAL viruses. So a positive ELISA is not a proof of infection by a REAL virus, is it? Maybe? I don't pay my doctor to give me "Maybes" and that kind of uncertainties, lady.
" It sees it in the test because its not all glycosilated like that"
What is the point of testing people with something that is not EXACTLY like the original? Shouldn't the antigen set used in tests be exactly like the ones found in a REAL HIV virus?
"Why's that buddy? Go to a virology class some time. Every virus has ways it gets around immune systems. Your body recognizes herpes or varicella but they evade it right? Same thing on HIV."
But Herpes and varicella are caused by DNA viruses, not by retroviruses. and in case of Herpes, outbreaks only occur when the immune system is weakened by other factors. And by that, just because it is latent, does not mean it is invisible to the immune system and it is not being fought. It is reactivated when the immune system is weakened by other conditions. "Same thing in HIV"? How "same" is that? Oh, you mean, it remains in a latent state until the immune system is weakened by other factors, other than HIV. Weakened enough to be reactivated and do what it is supposed to do in the first place: destroy the immune system. So HIV needs a push. How big is that push?
"Wow. So people die, does that mean hospitals are all damaged. BC people are born in hospitals, so how do they die unless hospitals are damaged. Wow thats funny logic even in denialism."
Actually, mothers give birth to people. If mothers are damaged, in the right way, they may not give birth to more babies. Dead mothers don't give birth to also. Did a hospital give birth to you, Adele? Is a hospital a prerequesite to give birth? I know people that were born on the way to a hospital. Others, in other place that were not hospitals. But were all give birth to by a mother, which is an important prerequesite. Why did you think of an hospital, which neither gives birth or produces, and it is only a place that provides the conditions needed for proper care of the newborn and mother, during and after the labor? Hospitals don't give birth or produce. They are ridden with doctors and nurses that take care of you and me when we get seriouly ill.
Which makes me return to my initial question, altough rephrased:
Isn't the bone marrow the heart and soul of the immune system and the birthplace of most white cells, including T helper lymphocites? Where's the damaged/altered bone marrow and/or thymus in HIV positives and AIDS patients that explains the inevitable immune failure?
I hope now you can properly enlighten me? I'm only asking...not demanding. With that kind of answers you give, no wonder people just keep asking.
I do know that ARVs kill mothers, though.
That could be your (n+1)th time you answer this. But don't be afraid to get technical with me.
Oh, and your attitude doesn't earn sympathies from innocent bystanders such as myself, who are just concerned and curious. It's easy being tough behind a keyboard. Try behaving like that in front of a real and curious person or patient and see what happens.
Textbooks can only do so much. I prefer to hear it from the people in the field.
Don't think I'm the only average Joe out there posing these kind of questions just because I want to know what the hell have people like you been doing in the past 23 years.
The textbooks are written by people in the field.
Whooa!! Stop hurtin' me already Frankie! You've got me convinced.
Only one more question, what are you guys doing here in the first place? Why not just post a link to a virology textbook and repost it once at the start of every new thread?
Given the general reactions on my "Long live the Germanic New Medicine" and other "fuck the germ theory" prose, I am very surprised I can still surprise someone. But I agree, I should have left out the first phrase or two of my previous message. That was silly. I'll never do that again, promise.
Now, that said, anybody interested in transforming this thread in some exciting discussion, leave the "Yes/No ; You asshole/No, you're the asshole yourself" mud and access the extremely exciting world of Ryke Geerd Hamer's Germanic New Medicine? No, really? Is that nobody, at all?
...sigh...
Okay, I've tried. Be back another time, I guess, maybe tomorrow, maybe tonight. See you later then...
...snif...
Why not just post a link to a virology textbook and repost it once at the start of every new thread?
Why not just read a virology textbook and then we wouldn't have to argue at all??
Rezaf says
But Herpes and varicella are caused by DNA viruses, not by retroviruses. and in case of Herpes, outbreaks only occur when the immune system is weakened by other factors.
Right actually varicella is a herpes, but why's it so important if it's a RNA or DNA virus? HIV, herpes they're all kind of parasites, they all hide out in the body try to get to new hosts. They evade immune system. Immune system declines, they go crazy. HIV herpes what ever.
Actually, mothers give birth to people.
Right again I made a dumb analagy. So mother is thymus, offspring is T-cell. You can kill a person without killing their mom. You can kill a T-cell without killing the Thymus.
Right actually varicella is a herpes, but why's it so important if it's a RNA or DNA virus? HIV, herpes they're all kind of parasites, they all hide out in the body try to get to new hosts. They evade immune system. Immune system declines, they go crazy. HIV herpes what ever.
Three BIG KISSES to Adele X-X-X.
She has just agreed wih Rezaf that HIV logically must be an opportunistic infection. No need for the metaphysical concept of lentiviruses
"Oh, and your attitude doesn't earn sympathies from innocent bystanders such as myself"
These Blackwater "monkey poop" grub miners don't give a shit about innocent bystanders like you, razaf. They only need a place to vent their professional frustrations. The reason why they do this online is because they would get a fistfull out in the real world, as you suggest.
Congratulations, Adele. Keep them coming!
"So mother is thymus, offspring is T-cell" -Adele
Wait, I thought bone marrow was mother...now I'm confused.
MEC, Just give it up. Read the immunology textbook. Learn something, before trying to spout off scientific-sounding phrases.
Posted by: franklin | November 30, 2007 10:01 AM
So cute. Love these displays of illiteracy. So revealing. There must be a new name for these little field mice. How about weebies?
Here's another weebie:
Truthtwister says
He wrote a book too. Did you ever read that? Did you ever read any book challenging the orthodoxy? Did you ever read Bialy?
Umm, Noble and me read Duesberg his book and his other crap. We read bialy to. That stuffs real impressive for people who don't know about biology like you and Rezaf and Robert Houston. You wanna believe and you find some nutjob who tells you stuff you like. For Noble and me its not so much impressive. Posted by: Adele | November 30, 2007 12:02 PM
So CUTE. Like icing on this otherwise not always sweet cake. Of course, who's to say this is a real female know-nothing, and not just some gay activist who likes to get a kick out of a female name? My bet would be 20/80 on that one.
Poor John Moore, he must be embarrassed by the devotees he has attracted. No wonder he fled. Well, he might like to put his ear plugs in for the bunkerbuster about to be dropped on him at www.Science Guardian.com.
Needless poison
Oops, maybe we shouldn't be so easily amused when people health and lives are at stake. Read that Karpas' review for the really gruesome truth about AZT. This stuff not only gave them AIDS, it gave them superAIDS, since it knocks out the production of blood cells from the marrow.
Top virologist - one of two leading in England, one of most respected in world - Karpas' admissions are a revelation of how vicious the result of eg Chris Noble's misleading support of HIV=AIDS can really be.
And by the way, Chris, he notes that live HIV is entirely eradicated from the system. Your viral load is all dead HIV in healthy asymptomatic patients - not a trace of infectious HIV in the blood even though substantial PCR readings of viral rna load. Complete immune control.
VIRUS DEFEATED, as I said.
PCR cannot distinguish between live and dead virus. H E L L O...? PCR cannot distinguish between live and dead virus. All that latent virus in the serum is dead. The viral load is thus meaningless as any indication whatsoever in asymptomatic patients of any threat to their welfare. Even John claims only 1 in 10,000/10 million in the lab stock of cloned virus he used was infectious.
The active virus inside cells can't do any permanent damage - only 1 in 1000 to 10,000 helper T cells harbor virus, Fauci tells us - because the immune system can replenish much faster - 500x - than the infection rate, and any new virus generated will be zapped by the immune system and is mostly defective, as Moore has shown.
If you drug healthy patients you are using your chemical flamethrowers on dead mice and burning the barn down.
REPEAT
If you drug healthy patients you are using your chemical flamethrowers on dead mice and burning the barn down.
Well done, Chris, quite a few lives, not to mention buffalo humps and shot livers, on your account balance. Try a little MRI on yourself, and see if your conscience shows any sign of activity at all, why don't you? It may be a dead zone, like your heart and brain.
Read Karpas through if you don't know what I am talking about.
Bad science in this arena is not morally free of blame, don't you know? You are ruining people's lives, people's health, and killing them, whether out of stupidity or unwillingness to doublecheck what you think.
Impossible to read Karpas and not make that point against you.
His prescription was to use somebody else's antibodies against live virus in vivo. Works very well. But oh no, drug companies cant package it into a drug. Sorry, folks, have to take your AZT cocktails.
Courtesy of Chris Noble, for one.
Truthseeker (sic) attempts to "summarize" Karpas's position:
Here is what the Karpas review paper actually says:
So he not only fails to claim that HIV is defeated by the immune response, he says that HIV is probably never even latent!
He says HIV just keeps replicating along, evading the immune response, until it eventually leads to death!
Somehow Truthseeker (sic) fails to see that Karpas's words directly contradict Truthseeker's (sic) interpretation.
But what about the PCR results? Viral load vs. infectious virus? Do these establish the immune control of the HIV that Truthseeker (sic) claims?
Truthseeker's (sic) remarks on viral load vs. infectious virus appear to reflect statements Karpas makes not about "defeat" of HIV by the immune system but about the effect of anti-retroviral therapy on the level of infectious virus isolated from plasma:
So Karpas is discussing the effectiveness of HAART in reducing production of infectious virus, and Truthseeker (sic) pretends that Karpas is referring to the effect of the immune system on HIV!
I guess there still might be two possibilities to explain Truthseeker's (sic) inaccurate description of Karpas's essay, although one of them seems much more likely:
Webbie attack! Webbie attack! Incoming from franklin!
Here is what the Karpas review paper actually says:....I guess there still might be two possibilities to explain Truthseeker's (sic) inaccurate description of Karpas's essay, although one of them seems much more likely:
"either blatantly lying" or "completely incapable of understanding the paper"
Posted by: franklin | November 30, 2007 5:44 PM
Hey franklin, thanks for lobbing back the grenade we flung into your bunker. But what's with the "lying"? Where's the dignified confidence of those who know that they are right? Why "lying" anyway? Do you mean we purposely misstated a fact and misled the audience? Where would you get such ideas from? Surely not from your own example?
We wouldn't know, of course. We cannot see inside you. But where else do you get such ideas from? We ask merely for information, as Oscar Wilde wrote. Such calumny wouldn't occur to us. We respect your honor.
Nor do we think it is the second factor you mentioned that handicaps you. We just think you read everything with the HIV meme sitting on top of your head like some monkey. Any contradiction of the meme and when you start reading it the monkey puts it hands over your eyes.
Anyhow, the first point has already been worked over, and we stand with Karpas:
(1) in nearly every infected individual, despite a vigorous immune response that is protective for many years, eventually one or more mutants emerge that manage to evade the immune response and lead to disease progression and death;.
As to the second quote
2) After varied periods of HAART treatment in many patients there is a significant increase in the PCR plasma viral load without a decrease in the CD4+T-cell count and without clinical deterioration. We assayed for infectious HIV-1 in the plasma from such patients but failed to detect any infectious virus. In order to try to explain this observation we undertook the molecular characterisation of the plasma HIV-1 genes of such patients. Our molecular studies revealed signficiant deletions in several of the viral genes which could explain why the plasma HIV-1 is not infectious (Saurya, Lichtenstein & Karpas, 2002a, b, 2003a, b).
we suggest that perhaps you should go back and check the Karpas review we are referring to, Human retroviruses in leukaemia and AIDS: reflections on their discovery, biology and epidemiology in Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2004 Nov;79(4):911-33. We will give you the answer quote when we get to the library tomorrow, the full paper is not with us.
If we can't, and we screwed up, we will admit it as handsomely as Chris Noble admitted his error just now. We hope you will do the same.
It really makes no difference to the analysis anyway - there is negligible HIV in the system of healthy HIV+s however you look at it. Since this lasts for up to twenty years, the likelihood of any sudden decline in health being triggered by the teeny 9 kilobase HIV in the face of a healthy immune system that has kept it down to vanishing point for two decades is nil.
Which gene would you say harbors the incubating breakout and its timing whereby the teeny virus suddenly gains the power to overcome its suppressor, the immune system that has knocked it to the ground and kept its foot on its neck for up to two decades?
Any change is OBVIOUSLY due to other factors.
No healthy person has any real reason for concern if he is HIV+ unless he is trapped in this group iatrogenic fantasy and succumbs to the huge pressure on him/her from the propaganda, social attitudes and insistence from the misinformed medical community that it proves he/she will die from HIV's sudden attack on the immune system up to 20 years after he was exposed to it, and therefore taking dangerous and certainly heavily damaging drugs early is wise.
No proof of this from any angle has yet been produced in the scientific literature, despite the imaginative statements of Karpas who is as we have agreed is a beribboned, meme controlled general of this global attack on the well being of all patients labeled as suffering from "AIDS".
The UN cures AIDS
Here to celebrate World AIDS Day tomorrow is a quote you will like from the abstract of Karpas's paper:
Sexual intercourse has now spread the virus around the World; and there are probably some 70 million infected. 90% of those infected with HIV develop the deadly disease of AIDS within ten years of infection: the death toll from the disease has been enormous.
70 million infected. Now the UN says sorry, everybody, only 33 million infected.
Gee, seems that 37 million have been cured since 2004 November, the date of publication of Human retroviruses in leukaemia and AIDS: reflections on their discovery, biology and epidemiology in Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2004 Nov;79(4):911-33.
That's pretty good! By 2010 we will have have cured them all! Well done, the UN.
Of course, that means a nice chunk of the $30 billion Bush is trying to hand out now will go straight into the pockets of the likes of you and Chris Noble, is that right, now that it is no longer needed to combat the dread fairy tale Virus?
Don't tell us that Moore will forget your deserving pockets in the excitement of this triumph.
If Karpas's essay means "VIRUS DEFEATED" (as you said), why does he say that the virus eventually kills most infected individuals?
Somewhere in that contradiction is either a blatant lie or a complete inability to understand the essay.
Franklin, the passage you quoted from Prof. Karpas regarding PCR in HAART was not the one relevant to Truthseeker's remarks. You'll find such on the preceding page of the Abraham Karpas review in Biology Reviews 79:911-33, 2004:
"We have assayed for the presence of neutralising antibodies in over 100 healthy HIV-1 infected individuals and without exception found that the sera contained significant levles of such antibodies... Our sudies have demonstrated that healthy HIV-1 infected individuals who were not viraemic had high levels of neutralising antibodies against the virus...
"Studies from the USA of long-term survivors have also found high levels of neutralising antibodies... Although PCR assays for the presence of HIV-1 RNA in the plasma revealed significant levels of RNA in some individuals, the biological assay for viral infectivity failed to reveal the presence of infectious virus, suggesting that the HIV-1 in the bloodstream had been inactivated by the neutralising antibodies. In addition, this indicates that PCR does not distinguish between infectious (live) and neutralised (killed) virus."
Somewhere in that contradiction is either a blatant lie or a complete inability to understand the essay.
Posted by: franklin | December 1, 2007 12:23 AM
Exactly, franklin, you have as usual hit the nail straight on the head. We now have a choice. Is Dr Karpas' statement a self-contradiction? Yes. It is. Is it a lie? Well, franklin, you used that word, not us. We don't think so. Not quite.
Oh, we see that you look as baffled as usual, so I suppose we have to explain.
First, Karpas and all of us all except you and the monkey meme on your head and Chris and his monkey meme agree with the first part of his statement, that the healthy immune system knocks the virus out of the ring, flat, unconscious, inert for as long as twenty years. For some reason you don't want us to use the word "defeated" for this setback for your much loved, billion dollar virus, reduced to total inactivity, so use whatever word you like. Karpas was unable to find any virus in a healthy HIV+ that wasn't dead, ie inactivated. Your supervirus turned out to be a dead mouse. Dead mice everywhere he looked in more than a 100 patients, as Robert Houston posts above.
VIRUS DEFEATED. That's part 1.
How about part 2? Virus resurges and kills the host:
If Karpas's essay means "VIRUS DEFEATED" (as you said), why does he say that the virus eventually kills most infected individuals?
Why indeed. Yes, the virus rises up from the dead and smites the immune system with some mysterious power as yet not ascertained, according to Karpas's imagination, and yours. Is this a contradiction of his finding that the immune system effectively stops every virus dead? Yes.
So, yes, you have a contradiction.
Now franklin, you used the word "lie" again. Please, franklin, have some respect. We must respect Abraham Karpas as one of the most distinguished scientists in the world of HIV=AIDS, a fully beribboned general of the movement to which you and Noble subscribe with such enthusiasm.
It is not right for you to intoduce the word "lie" anywhere near Dr Karpas. This is not the kind of civility and manners we are used to at the top of the HIV club, especially in Cambridge.
Poor Dr Karpas is merely feeling a sense of collegial responsibility and anxious to fit in with their scheme, once he has had his say as a decent scientist and acknowledged that the MOST LETHAL VIRUS IN HISTORY (according to the Council of Foreign Relations expert Laurie "The Coming Plague" Garrett) gets its ass kicked by any healthy immune system so badly that he could not find any still active in any patient he sampled..
Therefore he imagines that something or other in the dead virus gives it new life, and it rises up and beats the immune system that inactivated every last one he inspected.
Of course, he and everybody else knows perfectly well that it is the decline in the immune system from some other cause of sickness that allows the virus to finally make only the feeblest sort of reappearance in sick and dying people, which forms no parallel whatsoever with a resurgence powerful enough to defeat an immune system that already proved it could easily overcome the virus.
Is Karpas a liar?
So is Karpas lying when he embarks on this approach to the phenomenon of people with HIV falling sick after years and years of hraboring nothing but dead virus that he could find? Saying that it is the virus turning from a lamb into a lion, and not feebly resurging with help from some other factor which radically weakens and finally kills (with the help of the doctors you peddle this stuff to, franklin) its host? Like drugs, say, of the recreational kind, or multiple infections, or nutritional deficits of a key kind?
No, sir, he is not lying, per se. He is merely a man with a monkey on his shoulder, the HIV meme, like the monkey on your head, franklin.
Apologize to the man.
TS,
Perhaps your inability to find the truth you seek is rooted in your complete lack of objectivity?
Consider the quote you just gave us from Karpas:
"90% of those infected with HIV develop the deadly disease of AIDS within ten years of infection"
Lets repeat: "90%...deadly...10 years"
You DO realize the statements about being unable to find live virus in Karpas' paper that you are abusing concern a specific subset of HIV infected individuals? Those who go an extended period without illness? Less than 10% of those infected with the virus. The other 90% having been dead over ten years by your 20 year time point.
Taking data from this small subset and trying to claim that it is representative of HIV infected individuals generally is called, if one is being very charitable, selection bias. Karpas is not the one who does this. It is you.
Are you lying to us? Misreading? Misunderstanding? Or merely, as Adele suggests, a twister of the truth?
Seek Objectivity. Once you find that, you may have some chance of seeing the truth.
By the way,
"Where's the dignified confidence of those who know that they are right?"
Is that how you would describe Darin Brown's screeching above?
http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/11/mbeki_still_in_denial.php#com…
The confidence of us who know we are right is mainly in the fact that we get up and live to fact another day even after this HIV diagnosis. Unfortunately, there isn't any studies about us or the most important study was never done in the first place. What have you great scientists been doing with all of the AIDS funds?
To borrow from the Beatles or Paul, I believe:
So it's World AIDS day and what have we done
to feed the world's hungry, the old and the young.
So it's World AIDS day, and its our greatest sin
instead of wearing red ribbons, when will the feeding begin?
So here's to happy AIDS Day, be of good cheer
while others are starving, pass the pretzels and the beer.
So it is AIDS day, now what have we done
25 years later, not a cure for a one.
So keep on sending money for a magical cure
When good food and a home-life would grant one for sure!
The credit for the above tune goes to John Lennon.
"What have you great scientists been doing with all of the AIDS funds?"
Gee Noreen, for someone whom I've seen, on multiple occasions, attribute her survival to the use of ARVs to recover from a period of severe illness; I would think you would be more aware of the benefits created by HIV research.
Also, as I mentioned to you above, If you are truly interested in the body of literature on Long term non-progressors, to which group you do not belong, you might benefit from reading some of that literature, or at least counting it.
There is not much knowledge on long term non progressors. We dont know much about ltnp'ers bc there hasnt been one study done by independent scientists that look at people recently infected with hiv with no other risk factors such as mycoplasmas, AZT, Severe stress/drug abuse get aids, which is what you need to prove a specied specific microbes pathenogenicity in humans, when most every animal inoculated, such as the hundereds of chimps, dont die of AIDS after 20 years.
For all we know everyone with HIV without other risk factors could be a LNTP, or on the other hand maybe most will progress to AIDS. So no one knows these answers, including the hacks on these blogs, which means more studies by normal scientists, not defend the paridigm at all cost maniacs that troll these blogs, are needed.
If Karpas's essay means "VIRUS DEFEATED" (as you said), why does he say that the virus eventually kills most infected individuals?
Somewhere in that contradiction is either a blatant lie or a complete inability to understand the essay.
Posted by: franklin | December 1, 2007 12:23 AM
Truthseeker (sic), Dr. Karpas's statement that the virus eventually kills most infected individuals despite the host's immune response is not self-contradictory.
But it does contradict your characterization of his essay as:
In that contradiction between Karpas's essay and your characterization of his position resides either (1) the lie that you are perpretrating about Karpas's essay or (2) your inability to understand his essay (or both).
Robert,
You may be correct that Truthseeker (sic) was referring to Karpas's descritpion of the work of Cao (1995) and Pantaleo (1995) rather than the studies of patients receiving HAART.
However, if Truthseeker (sic) was referring to these papers, then his statement is even more decieving, because while he characterizes Karpas paper as:
the papers by Cao and Pantaleo are about long-term nonprogressors, a group of people who are far from representative of "any healthy person exposed to HIV."
Both of these papers explicitly describe this group of patients as a small fraction of HIV-infected patients, and Karpas provides no indication that he considers the findings in these patients to represent what would happen in "any healthy person exposed to HIV."
Cao et al. (1995) N Engl J Med. 332: 201-8:
Pantaleo et al. (1995) N Engl J Med. 332: 209-16:
Karpas (2004) Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 79: 911-33:
So, if these are the studies to which Truthseeker (sic) is referring to, he must either (1) be lying or (2) have no scientific understanding of these papers.
Dale wrote:
"darin writes There is no such thing as an "antibody to HCV", or, equivalently, an "HCV-specific antibody". Specificity is a trait of a TEST, NOT of an object.
One is sorely tempted darin to just dismiss you as an idiot. However, in the spirit of the season, I will point out that in the language of immunology which is what one is speaking when one talks of antibodies, there is indeed such as thing as an antibody to HCV. Whether "HCV-specific antibodies" have any meaning in the language of mathematics is irrelevant."
THANK YOU, DALE, for speaking so openly and directly on this issue. You have helped me to reveal that the problem is a lot beyond just HIV or HCV but is a fundamental problem with immunology in general. The entire field of immunology has made great strides in technical development and empirical description of phenomena, but it is nevertheless marked by imprecision, fuzzy thinking, unwarranted assumptions, gross abuse of language, and invalid logic. Appealing to the entire field of immunology as justification for its own practices is circular, and one should expect that an outsider pointing out these flaws would be dismissed an an "idiot".
"I will point out that in the language of immunology which is what one is speaking when one talks of antibodies, there is indeed such as thing as an antibody to HCV."
There is no such thing as the "language of immunology". There is only language, per se. If language is used properly, it does not need to justify itself by recourse to subject-specific self-labelling.
Let's examine this phrase "antibody to HCV". First, however, I want to quote directly from an undergraduate immunology textbook, that category of discourse so highly prized by many of the contributors here. Normally, I don't find textbook writing very eloquent or worth reproducing, but these passages are true exceptions:
"The serum antibodies produced in response to a particular antigen are heterogeneous. Because most antigens are complex and contain many different antigenic determinants [epitopes], the immune system usually responds by producing antibodies to several of them. This response requires the recruitment of several clones of B cells. Their outputs are monoclonal antibodies, each of which specifically binds a single antigenic determinant. Together, these monoclonal antibodies make up the polyclonal and heterogeneous serum antibody response to an immunizing antigen. Although the polyclonal antibody produced in vivo is beneficial to the organism, IT HAS NUMEROUS DISADVANTAGES FOR IMMUNOLOGIC RESEARCH AND CLINICAL APPLICATIONS THAT DEMAND PRECISE CONTROL OF ANTIBODY QUANTITY, PROPERTIES, AND SPECIFICITY [my emphasis]."
-- Kuby's "Immunology", 2001, p 83, chapter 4, "Immunoglobulins: Structure and Function"
"Antigens, which are generally very large and complex, ARE NOT RECOGNIZED IN THEIR ENTIRETY BY LYMPHOCYTES [my emphasis]. Instead, both B and T lymphocytes recognize discrete sites on the antigen called antigen determinants or epitopes. Epitopes are the immunologically active regions on a complex antigen, the regions that actually bind to B-cell or T-cell receptors... The humoral branch (B cells) recognizes an enormous variety of epitopes... The cell-mediated branch (T cells) recognizes protein epitopes displayed together with MHC molecules on self-cells, including altered self-cells such as virus-infected self-cells and cancerous cells... The antibody on a B cell can recognize epitopes on macromolecules with incredible precision."
-- Ibid., p 14, chapter 1, "Overview of the Immune System"
There is NO SUCH THING as an "antibody to HCV", nor is there any such thing at all as "antibody to XXX", where you can replace "XXX" with your favorite antigen. If there is such a thing as an "antibody to XXX", the "XXX" is an EPITOPE, not an antigen. This failure to remember that antibodies are produced in response to EPITOPES, NOT WHOLE ANTIGENS, is perhaps the most common mistake made by immunologists.
This fact has been yelled and screamed about by Val Turner for years and years, when he notes that EVEN MONOCLONAL ANTIBODIES ARE CAPABLE OF PRODUCING CROSS-REACTIONS.
"Whether "HCV-specific antibodies" have any meaning in the language of mathematics is irrelevant.""
Again, there is no such thing as "the language of mathematics". There is only language, per se. If language is used properly, it does not need to justify legitimate arguments against itself by recourse to subject-specific labelling. (In other words, valid arguments against "immunological language" cannot be dismissed because the arguments are put in the terms of "mathematical language".)
What immunologists and you Dale do not seem to understand is that PRECISE usage of the terms "sensitive", "specific", and so on, in the "mathematical" sense, is EXACTLY what is needed to have clear ideas about immunological phenomena, PRECISELY because of the fact that I mentioned above, that antibodies are produced in response to epitopes, not whole antigens. Because antibodies do not have any "antigenic essence", so to speak, the precise language of binary classification testing is NECESSARY to state these relationships clearly.
Unfortunately, immunologists, and as far as I can gather, most working biologists in general, have absolutely no conception what the meaning of words like "specific", "sensitive", and "gold standard" mean. They throw around these words and terminology without any regard for what they are actually saying.
Roy Hinkley said,
"Darin,
In addition to Dale's comment, which is absolutely rightt, I'd like to address your question about the sensitivity of the assays.
""amplification of viral nucleic acid by PCR provides a highly
> > sensitive... method to detect ongoing viral infection""
Here, sensitivity is referring to sensitivity (in the mathematical sense) for detection of HCV RNA molecules.
The gold standard for these assays is simply to create a standard curve using serial dilutions of HCV RNA and to measure the sensitivity of the assay by amplifying DNA from a known initial quantity of template RNA or DNA."
Roy, you have just demonstrated that you have absolutely no conception what the meaning of the word "sensitive" means. Nevertheless, you have brought such a misconceived understanding into full light, and for that I thank you.
Sensitivity does NOT mean: "We could find something that we couldn't find before." (i.e. a test is not more "sensitive" because it finds something new or postulated to be new.)
Sensitivity does NOT mean: "We could find something smaller than we found before." (i.e. a test is not more "sensitive" because it detects bits of nucleic acid, which are smaller than antibodies.)
Sensitivity does NOT mean: "We could find something more often than we found before." (i.e. a test is not more "sensitive" because it reports a positive finding more often than previously.)
And MOST importantly, sensitivity MOST CERTAINLY does NOT mean: "We could find something in smaller quantities than we found it before." (i.e. a test is not more "sensitive" because it can detect 5 to 10 units instead of 50 to 100 units.) SENSITIVITY IS NOT DETERMINED BY QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS.
"Infection with HCV is a diagnosis. These tests detect the presence of Hep C RNA or antibodies to Hep C proteins; specifically, and with great sensitivity (both in the mathematical sense). Positive results on these tests are used to make a positive diagnosis."
If "detect the presence of Hep C RNA" is "used to make a positive diagnosis", (i.e. if "detect the presence of Hep C RNA" is the gold standard), THEN IT IS ABSOLUTELY NONSENSICAL AND ABSURD TO SPEAK OF "HCV RNA" AS A "SENSITIVE" DETECTION OF HCV.
If "HCV RNA" really is a gold standard for "HCV infection" or "infection with HCV", then BY DEFINITION such detection has 100% sensitivity, not some alleged "high sensitivity". EVERY gold standard has 100% sensitivity by definition. You know the sensitivity of a gold standard without performing a single experiment, you already KNOW that.
"The paper you cite makes the point that antibodies may be present even after an infection has been defeated. Therefore antibody tests alone are not sufficient to distinguish an active infection from a cleared infection. RT PCR can be used to make that distinction because there is no reasonable way viral RNA will be present in the absence of a replicating virus."
ALRIGHT, so now we come to the fundamental predicament and difference of opinion. I want to thank both Dale and Roy for articulating (albeit inadvertently) so overtly the fundamental disagreements between opposing camps here.
YOU REGARD THE PRESENCE OF ANY NUCLEIC ACID WHICH IS DETERMINED BY YOU TO BE "FOREIGN" (whatever that means) AS ORIGINATING IN AN EXOGENOUS VIRUS.
Regardless of whether you can actually SEE such a virus, regardless of whether you have a way of detecting virus particles or even "virus-like particles" (whatever THAT means!!!, I read some papers from just a few years ago on "HCV-virus-like particles" being FINALLY (finally!!!) detected, 20 years on now...)
THE NUCLEIC ACID SEQUENCE IS YOUR GOD-KING, YOUR DEITY, YOUR SOVEREIGN. YOU WORSHIP IT.
"In other words, in this sentence:
"Although a positive PCR assay is not absolute proof of HCV viremia, it STRONGLY SUGGESTS..."
the words "absolute proof" should be read as whatever the mathematical definition of "absolute proof" would be, and the words "strongly suggests" should be interpreted as the colloquial definition of absolute proof."
I know what mathematical proof is. It ain't perfect, it's subject to human error, it's subject to all the other things that make the human race fallible and forever falling short of Platonic ideals. But at least we mathematicians have a notion of what "proof" is for us -- however imperfect, we use it, we live by it, we produce a body work that has lasted for centuries by it.
But I'm not sure what immunologists or biologists in general mean by "proof". It goes beyond human error or fallibility. You guys don't even seem to have a real notion of what you mean by "proof" in your own minds. And that's what bothers me.
It's one thing to set a Platonic ideal and fall short of it in the real world. It's another thing never to have such a Platonic ideal in the first place.
The situation is made even more pathetic by the fact that such ambiguities and unresolved concerns over "proof" are not academic -- this is not some existential argument or debate being conducted in the confines of a monastery somewhere. You are telling MILLIONS of people they are "infected" with a lethal virus (HCV) and then giving them antiviral drugs with known toxicities, drugs that interfere with the basic life processes and are teratogenic.
"By the way,
"Where's the dignified confidence of those who know that they are right?"
Is that how you would describe Darin Brown's screeching above?"
HOW ELSE WOULD YOU RESPOND TO SOMEONE LIKE THAT? Someone whose actions are so totally in conflict with his statements??????
darin
darin:
Dale:
darin:
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 3rd Ed. (1992) Houghton Mifflin Company: Boston. p 173:
specific 6. Immunology. Having an affinity limited to a particular antigen or antibody.
Yes, antiretrovirals did help me when I had symptoms but probably any combination of drugs would have helped, which I was not immediately given. My question to you is this, if HIV is so deadly then how have I managed to survive for almost two years with a high viral load and low CD4's and without antiretrovirals? Is HIV on holiday?
Darin,
You're dismissed.
Idiot.
Noreen,
With all do respect, as well as wishes for your continued good health:
Since stopping antiretrovirals your CD4 cells have been in continuous decline to the point where they are now in the double digits. At the same time your viral load has continually climbed to what now? 250,000 copies per ml?
As you've pointed out in the past, low CD4 cells do not mean instant infection and death, so at this point your situation is following exactly the path one would predict based on the conventional understanding of HIV/AIDS.
That same conventional understanding of HIV/AIDS tells me that if you do nothing to arrest the decline in your CD4 cell count, you will become ill.
My CD4's stay around 100,000 and secondly why do you place so much stock in a CD4's when "symptoms" are the key here? Why would you even give any importance to viral loads and CD4's, which according to the medical journal, are only 6 to 9% accurated in the first place? Even if I believed in HIV, wouldn't a normal complete blood count, liver enzyme test and good-old fashioned symptoms be a better yarstick to gauge one's health?
Correction:
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 3rd Ed. (1992) Houghton Mifflin Company: Boston. p 1730:
specific 6. Immunology. Having an affinity limited to a particular antigen or antibody.
Noreen,
Surely you must recognize that you are confused about some of the things you just wrote?
Have you actually read the Rodriguez paper in its entirety? Do you honestly feel that you understand and can interpret what the Rodriguez paper says?
Roy, once again you are placing to much stock in a study. The medium term baseline was a poor predictor to AIDS - 2.9%, half of the CD4 decline measured were >130 cells and CD4 only predicted 7.1% of subsequent CD4 decline. My CD4's have stayed consistent, mid 80's, for almost two years except one time climbed around 50 points. Mine are holding their own and have stablized and are not declining. I will let you know on Wednesday the latest count.
I would like to add that I haven't had any opportunistic infections at all, no AIDS symptoms whatsoever, irregardless of what my CD4's may be.
Noreen Reports:
Somehow she doesn't count December 2003, a period in which she has previously reported that:
Are you still prolonging this stupid charade. Nobody is accusing Karpas of being a liar. I am saying that you are either deliberately misinterpretting Karpa's paper or you are so completely incapable opf understanding it that you do not realise you are misinterpretting it.
Do not try to enlist Karpas as a Denialist. You know that he does not support your claims. No amount of obfuscation will change this.
Duhhhh. Another concept for you is "affinity". It isn't a black and white distinction between binding and not binding. Large amounts of non-specific antibodies with a low affinity for the antigens can cause cross reactions. Amazingly, scientists are actually very well aware of this and they design tests to minimize this - by using blocking agents such as Bovine Serum Albumin for instance.
This, of course, is one of the reasons why Roberto Giraldo's efforts at stuffing up antibody tests stuffed up so well. He omitted the step that involving the BSA blocking agent.
There are antibodies that are specific for HCV antigens. They have high binding affinities to certain epitopes on the protein.
So, if these are the studies to which Truthseeker (sic) is referring to, he must either (1) be lying or (2) have no scientific understanding of these papers.
Posted by: franklin | December 1, 2007 2:11 PM
So what happened to our deal, franklin, that if you were wrong, you would offer a handsome apology to me, and vice versa?
You were shown exactly what I claimed was asserted by Abraham Karpas in the paper under discussion.
Instead of apologizing like a man, you simply show you are suffering from the Moore-Noble syndrome, which results in an effusion of insults instead of the gentlemanly concession which is normal between respectable members of the civil community.
This is disappointing. In fact, it is very disappointing. There is in fact very little which will excuse it. Does your mother know?
On the other hand, I suppose you like Noble cannot afford to be detected in such a fatuous error, one that indicates you never read the paper we were talking about.
Then you have the effrontery to try and weasel out of your fix by quoting from other papers that back up precisely what we said.
HIV+ people are healthy for years, until SOMETHING ELSE HAPPENS OTHER THAN A MIRACULOUS RESURGENCE OF HIV, according to all reports, studies, and discussion except that which goes on in your brain, the one with the monkey sitting on top of it and pulling your hair out when it isn't clapping its paws over your eyes whenever enlightenment is offered by your betters.
John Moore is proud of you and grateful, I am sure. After all, he has received our heartiest congratulations over at www.Science Guardian.com today for fooling the entire world with his absurd meme. You and other foolish people who seem unable to understand plain English are a pillar of his accomplishment, so you are to be congratulated too.
However, since your nature and upbringing precludes you from offering the handsome apology due to all here for your error, we will restrain ourselves from giving you the acknowledgement you deserve until you rise to the occasion, and behave properly.
Otherwise we shall tell your mother, if we ever meet her.
Meanwhile your privileges are revoked and we will not be able to respond to your need for enlightenment on the science of HIV?AIDS until you snap to, shape up, and get rid of the monkey on the top of your skull.
Sorry, but some standards have to be maintained here in honor of the blog owner, the delectable Tara, who for some reason has removed her lovely photo from the blog.
Noreen Asks:
And:
Perhaps Table 5 from an essay by C. Bradley Hare, MD, University of California San Francisco, might help you understand why physicians place importance on measurements of CD4 T-cell numbers and HIV viral loads. (The Table comes from a section entitled Natural History of Untreated HIV Infection)
Please notice the strong relationships between initial CD4 T-cell counts, initial viral load, and progression to an AIDS-defining illness.
According to these data, the greatest risk of developing an AIDS-defining illness over a three year or nine year period was for patients who had CD4 T-cell counts less than 200 cells/microliter and viral loads greater than 30,000 copies/ml (86% over 3 years and 100% over 9 years).
This can be contrasted with patients who had CD4 T-cell counts less than 200 cells/microliter but viral loads less than 10,000 copies/ml (14% over 3 years and 64% over 9 years).
It can also be contrasted with patients who had viral loads greater than 30,000 copies/ml but CD4 T-cell counts greater than 350 cells/microliter (40% over 3 years and 85% over 9 years).
The group with the most favorable outcome included those with CD4 T-cell counts greater than 350 cells/microliter and viral loads less than 10,000 copies/ml (7% over 3 years and 54% over 9 years)
Noreen, as you may be able to see, viral load and CD4 T-cell counts both provide important prognostic information with respect to progression to an AIDS-defining illness.
Likewise, you may be able to see that the situation that you report with respect to your own health over the past two years is far from unique.
86% of patients with CD4 T-cell counts less than 200 cells/microliter and viral loads greater than 30,000 copies/ml suffered an AIDS-defining illness over a three year period.
This, of course, means that 14% of such patients did not suffer an AIDS-defining illness in that time frame.
On the other hand, 93% of patients who had CD4 T-cell counts greater than 350 cells/microliter and viral loads less than 10,000 copies/ml did not develop an AIDS-defining illness over a 3 year period.
Your experience in no way establishes that CD4 T-cell counts and HIV viral loads are unimportant for AIDS prognosis.
Do not try to enlist Karpas as a Denialist. You know that he does not support your claims. No amount of obfuscation will change this.
Posted by: Chris Noble | December 1, 2007 10:01 PM
So you still argue with Karpas himself, or cannot bear to read what he writes?
Chris, there is a monkey sitting on top of your head, the spit image of the monkey sitting on top of franklin's nut.
Can you explain? It seems to prevent you from understanding any point that undermines the HIV meme.
Your demonstration that you, supposedly a reasoning being with some training in science, or at least computers, cannot see what Karpas is saying, and only accuse others of misinterpretation when it is brought to your attention, leaves us with one sad conclusion only: you identify with the HIV meme.
You and the monkey are brothers, it seems. No wonder it likes sitting on your head.
Unfortunately, we agree with Karpas, a good enough scientist to know when there is a flaw to be explained away in the HIV meme, instead of thinking it has none.
Sorry you are not a good enough scientist, or even logician, to deal with the point he tries to explain away, or even see it.
However, please curb your tendency to burst out in insults to our intelligence when you are exposing yourself in this manner.
Take a tip from Karpas and cover up. It is rather embarrassing to see a grown man naked of all camouflage in mixed company, and stand revealed to all the world as incapable of understanding what is going on in a paper under discussion, even when it is quoted to him.
Perhaps you could go over the posts and the paper speaking the words out loud one by one and using your finger to keep your place?
This is what we do, and we find it helps a lot, especially if we keep a dictionary handy for all the long words.
Try it, Chris, you might yet catch up with the rest of the world in understanding that HIV=AIDS needs to be explained if people with HIV do not fall ill unless some other attack on their immune system takes place.
You weren't aware that this is the fundamental difficulty?
Karpas does, and that is why he speculates in his paper.
But you can't see that, right?
Truthseeker (sic):
I missed that. Exactly what did you claim was asserted by Abraham Karpas in the paper under discussion?
Truthseeker (sic),
My understanding is that you asserted the following:
Robert Houston suggested that you based this assertion on the following quote:
As I already pointed out, for you to extrapolate from these statements about long-term non-progressors to all asymptomatic patients can only be explained by (1) you telling a blatant lie, (2) your inability to understand the essay, or (3) both.
Duhhhh. Another concept for you is "affinity". It isn't a black and white distinction between binding and not binding. Large amounts of non-specific antibodies with a low affinity for the antigens can cause cross reactions. Amazingly, scientists are actually very well aware of this and they design tests to minimize this - by using blocking agents such as Bovine Serum Albumin for instance.
This, of course, is one of the reasons why Roberto Giraldo's efforts at stuffing up antibody tests stuffed up so well. He omitted the step that involving the BSA blocking agent.
Dr N, this is intriguing. Are you talking about Giraldo's experiments with less than 400 fold dilutions of the ELISA?How do you know he omitted other crucial steps in the procedure?
"Although the polyclonal antibody produced in vivo is beneficial to the organism, IT HAS NUMEROUS DISADVANTAGES FOR IMMUNOLOGIC RESEARCH AND CLINICAL APPLICATIONS THAT DEMAND PRECISE CONTROL OF ANTIBODY QUANTITY, PROPERTIES, AND SPECIFICITY [my emphasis]."
You are aware of the fact that highly specific antibodies can be produced against any antigen of interest, both polyclonal and monoclonal right? Also there is this thing called controls that all experiments have to have. Considering these two points, I'm not really sure why you think the above sentence was worth emphasizing.
"If there is such a thing as an "antibody to XXX", the "XXX" is an EPITOPE, not an antigen. This failure to remember that antibodies are produced in response to EPITOPES, NOT WHOLE ANTIGENS, is perhaps the most common mistake made by immunologists."
Hold on now, bear with me as this is a very difficult concept to grasp. Epitopes are part of antigens. Get it? There are even different types of epitopes, linear, which recognize a specific amino acid sequence, and conformational, which recognize certain amino acids within the context of the proteins tertiary structure. How would you expect a protein as small as an antibody to recognize the entirety of a protein many times its size? It can't due to the limitation of the size of its recognition domains.
And do you actually know enough immunologists to even remotely back up the final statement above? Immunologists remember it well, they just don't play childish word games.
"when he notes that EVEN MONOCLONAL ANTIBODIES ARE CAPABLE OF PRODUCING CROSS-REACTIONS."
What's your point? Again, controls.
Franklin,
I'm intrigued once more. Are you saying that in some HIV+ persons, notably LTNPs, viral load testing is admittedly meaningless, whereas in others it is a correct measure of infectious virus and predictor of progression to AIDS and death? I'll be darned if they didn't forget to mention that on the kit inserts I've seen.
So if the person has not yet progressed to AIDS or death, and since the viral load - CD4 decline correlation is not ermm... nearly as reliable as we would all like it to be, how can you tell in each case if the viral load is meaningful? - and how meaningful it is exactly?
Franklin, I am not denying that I had many AIDS-defining diseases but the point that I am making is that when I had these diseases my viral load was high and CD4's were low, just like now but I presently have no symptoms whatsoever and without antiretrovirals! So these viral loads and CD4's must work only somtime to harm the patient? Most inconsistant, wouldn't you say?
The blocking agent (Bovine and Goat Sera) is in the diluent. If you don't use the diluent you don't use the blocking agent.
This silly game only demonstrates your dishoensty. Karpas does not say that the human immune system defeats HIV. HIV continues to replicate after the initial acute infection. After a period of time HIV causes CD4+ cell depletion, immune suppression, and AIDS.
There is nothing in Karpas' writings that suggests otherwise. If you really think that Karpas believes that HIV is defeated then please write to him and ask him this question. Until then stop putting words into his mouth.
I suspect that you know very well that you are wrong and that you are just afraid to admit it.
As I already pointed out, for you to extrapolate from these statements about long-term non-progressors to all asymptomatic patients can only be explained by (1) you telling a blatant lie, (2) your inability to understand the essay, or (3) both.
Posted by: franklin | December 1, 2007 10:59 PM
Franklin, I am not your mother, fortunately, so I have no personal stake in your ineffectual disrespect. Not that I wouldn't applaud if she spanked your tiny botty for your behavior, and that of the monkey jumping on your scalp.
The point which you miss, just as you miss the scientific point we are discussing, is that people who accuse others of "lying" when they make counter assertions in a scientific discussion suggest that they occupy a lower plane.
It makes you seem unsuitable to partner in any friendly intellectual effort to work things out, for the following reasons:
a) It suggests you don't really aim at working things out
b) It suggests you have no sensitivity to language.
c) It suggests - in fact pretty much proves - that you learned your science at an inferior college, if any college at all. Was it a correspondence course?
All this makes one realize that probably nothing can be accomplished, however hard one tries.
But this is not the fundamental reason why one gives up. It is simply that "lying" is a stupid accusation which doesn't make any sense.