Mbeki: still in denial

So Adele: Whats you point with all the Pharma psycho babble? Blah Blah Blah

carter - You call it Pharma psycho babble, I call it data. Duesberg's 20-60uM on the other hand is an opinion based on a calculation based on a seriously flawed premise. In science, data trumps opinion which is why the vast majority of scientists stopped paying attention to Duesberg - at least when he was writing about HIV and AIDS.

At 1501 comments, this is an impressive thread in quantity, but Alas, now a sadly one sided series in terms of quality. The recent revelation that Chris Dale Adele etc are the scientific equivalent of chickens clucking and squawking as they peck at backyard dirt is somewhat depressing.

One had hoped that there was something serious in what they had to say, so that the attention they have demanded by flapping their wings and clucking so vigorously would be justified.

Instead, we find that their attempted corrections of their giant superior Peter Duesberg are getting more and more miniscule and now approach vanishing point in significance. This follows their embarrassing attempts to rewrite reality and deny the absence of viable virus in HIV positive healthy people, and rehabilitate AZT as the latest fashionable culinary spice.

Evidently none of these people deserve any scientific standing whatsoever in this debate, even the ones that can spell. As a humble science critic and journalist I find it is becoming now a trifle embarassing to visit this scene, since just to come here suggests that one lacks judgement as to what is important in this arena of paradigm challenge.

Till now the few remaining contributions by MM MEC and Houston justified a return visit, along with the increasingly horrifying extent of the diminution of the Adele Buffalo gang, which has just reached a low point with the disordered drivel registered by Adele above.

But these heavy guns of scientific critique are increasingly absent for lack of worthy targets, and the only remaining interest is the entertaining series of rocket grenades launched by Carter and Cooler, but Alas they too are running out of worthy targets.

All in all it is time to return to a seriously critical if also satirically amusing site such as www.ScienceGuardian.com and move on to evaluating news of greater significance such as Mbeki's loss of party leadership to an unworthy rival today, which Adele is surely thrilled by.

Yea right. Useless data to begin with and you've got it backwards just like Adele with her panties, because the severely flawed premise is yours.. To you HIV actually means death and dying, a club to which you subscribe. Shame on you Dale you should be smarter than that.

Truthseeker.. Where were you when the illustrious J P Moore was on the scene? That was interesting, you know, seeing the granddaddy of em all spewing forth propaganda from the AIDS Pulpit upon high. Your right, I gots to admit the lame ass posts by the almighty followers and believers in the faith presently as I said before out loud, lack wisdom. Truly they do. I see none of it. If so they all want to so be assured of how right they are, surly there'd be something other than circular reasoning and illogical arrogant misconceptions. Wouldn't you think?

I sorta like it here watching these fine but diminished anonymous folks. They actually think they know all which is going on. Funny, sad but true. Hey.. but that's OK, although there's a better blog I would like to be a part of... Do you know which one that might be?

carter writes Useless data to begin with

Now you're being funny! You do realize, don't you, that this is part of the same literature that YOU claim argues AGAINST a causal relationship between HIV and AIDS?

truthseeker writesAs a humble science critic and journalist I find it is becoming now a trifle embarassing to visit this scene,

I understand TS. Your emperor, Duesberg, has been exposed as having no clothes and as his defender you find that embarassing. By all means, retreat to lick your wounds.

It's entertaining for sure Carter, especially with you around. Visit ScienceGuardian and comment or post by all means, have to resume full speed there now as circumstances permit, given the huge backlog that has piled up. Don't mean to slow this thread any if it has more energy in it, just hoping for more substantial points to reply to, With three major breaches in their credibility in the last three weeks however it seems that even the reckless pharmadweebies probably have to be more cautious now, sorry to say. But come on Adele, et al, you can do it, Somewhere you can dig up another embarrassingly wrong complaint about the critics of the least likely paradigm in history.

The great blog in the sky where you can sit to the right of your prophet the Lord Duesberg?

Your a cup short of a cupboard. Away with the fairies.

Dale wrote: anti HIV antibodies is strongly suggestive of the presence of virus

I asked: Instead of "strongly suggestive," why not detect actual virus in actual high titre?

Dale wrote:

Because very few AIDS patients wish to jump in a Waring blender or have intestinal biopsies. Because detecting actual virus in actual high titre is riskier to lab personelle and far more expensive than using ELISA and Western blots. Because the purpose of diagnosis is not to prove the existence of HIV to dissidents but to assist in the treatment of a patient.

Well, surely, you don't speak for AIDS patients or lab personelle (sic). Let's assume the patient was rich, and expense was not a barrier.

It seems to me, that given the drastic consequences of an HIV+ diagnosis, and the potential for cross-reactivity of anti-bodies, one might want to actually confirm the presence of the virus, irrespective of cost.

So, tell me again, why detecting actual virus in sufficiently high titre (as opposed to anti-bodies and viral) is to be avoided?

So, tell me again, why detecting actual virus in sufficiently high titre (as opposed to anti-bodies and viral) is to be avoided?

Because it's unnecessary and in many cases probably technically unfeasible.

Unnecessary? I totaly disagree. Based on the Serrano verdict alone, any sane person who became HIV+, would likely mortgage their home just to confirm whether or not they were infected with the virus.

Technically unfeasible? You mean a virus that is furiously replicating billons of times in your T-4 cells or lymph nodes, which replication will eventually wreck a sophisticated immune system, built over 3 billion years of evolution and, and yet it remains "technically unfeasible" to detect this while it is happening? Culturing a blood sample is "unfeasible"?

Sounds odd.

Does Adele bother to read what she writes? She cited several studies in which plasma levels of AZT temporarily reached the Duesberg estimated range of 20-60 microM for AZT monotherapy. In other studies she cited, it reached his in vitro testing level (10 uM), or surpassed the level of the studies he cited which found inhibition of T-cells and bone marrow cells at 1 to 4 uM of AZT. This would seem to be cause for concern about the safety of AZT, yet Adele seems to think the only relevant point is her petty attempt to impugn Prof. Duesberg, who in fact appears to be vindicated by several of the studies she cited in terms of peak levels.

He was doing an in vitro study, not a clinical phamacological trial. As Adele and others surely know, the oral bioavailability of AZT is high at 64% (PDR), as Truthseeker pointed out, but its plasma levels are rapidly lowered by the formation of several metabolites and by renal clearance and protein binding. Thus, the plasma half-life is only about an hour or so. Higher levels can occur in those with kidney or liver impairment, and the studies actually show a wide range of variation in plasma level by different individuals. None of this is new, so why does Adele pretend to be clueless?

It would be rather odd not to want the virus cultured since we are told that we have to take toxic drugs for the rest of our lives, for what, antibodies? I am trying to do that very thing, if my doctors can find a way. In fact, I made them an offer to induce them too, if you can find real, "live" virus, I will consider taking your drugs as I am not too worried that they can find a live virus. If its possible, they will find a way so we can put this to rest once and for all.

On the main topic of the blog's tread.

Mbeki just lost the election for ANC president in South Africa.

It is ironic that he was criticised for being both the supporter of big business and against the use of anti-retroviral drugs.

Unnecessary? I totaly disagree. Based on the Serrano verdict alone, any sane person who became HIV+, would likely mortgage their home just to confirm whether or not they were infected with the virus.

As far as I can tell Serrano was misdiagnosed because confirmatory tests were never done. She was a victim of medical malpractice.

Although the sample size would be small perhaps we could ask noreen, if she is still reading, whether she is planing to mortgage her home to arrange to have her virus cultured? What is she prepared to accept as evidence of 'live' virus? Will p24 production in co-cultures convince her or will she want EM pictures of purified virus isolated directly from her blood? The former is technically feasible, the latter wouldn't be.

Mbeki just lost the election for ANC president in South Africa.

You are not aware that I just mentioned this? I understand, don't worry. Everyone here is reading only half the material. No wonder the two sides don't meet.

However, anybody read the thread can read both sides and make up their mind. On the one side, barnyard clucking. On the other, reliable summary of what the scientific literature says, expressed clearly and accurately, without fear or favor.

Meme ruled truthtwisting, inconsistency and pretzel shaped "it's all a mystery" paradox vs common sense and a consistent picture of scientific reality.

QED.

Reverend Houston says
Does Adele bother to read what she writes?

Who cares what I write or cluck or if I'm gay or wear underwear inside out, it's the data is important.

She cited several studies in which plasma levels of AZT temporarily reached the Duesberg estimated range of 20-60 microM for AZT monotherapy.

Yes in mice and monkeys who got a few weeks worth of AZT in one dose. And sub-q for the monkeys not oral.

And temporarily!! Duesberg wan't saying peak concentration for twenty minutes of 20 to 60 micromolar. the important thing is, what is the steady concentration you can get. In people it was about a micromolar on high dose, only nanomolar on later lower doses.

So my example closer to life for Reverend Houston, Duesberg talks about his friend's Reverend Houston's church, what's that like the First Church of Christ, Denialist. He says it's a huge church, they have revenue average of $20,000 to $60,000 a day from the offerings.

So then I go to the church and see their financial stuff, they really only got like $6,400 a week all of it on Sunday, duh. Average $900 a day. Duesbergs way off. And that was in the 1980s before the church split up, now they just get a couple thousand a week.

So then I tell Reverend Houston and he's like, no way you fat heathen witch, repent and pray to Lord Duesberg for your passenger virus soul, we got $14,000 one Sunday at Christmas in 1988 so Duesberg is totally right on!! See if you pretend Duesberg said per Sunday not per day and max ever not average per day, and you say 14,000 is kinda close to 20,000 to 60,000 well then Duesberg is right!!

Sheesh. Duesberg was wrong like Dale and Elk said he was thinking about human body like a bucket of water. Availability metabolism secretion all that stuff he just ignored also all the studies he could of read in 1995.

May be you can find us a paper where they have there people in 20-60 micromolar all the time. Or even peaks! OK Rev. Houston.? Thing is, every thing says people in 1995 were nanomolar, people in eighties were maybe 1 or 2 micromolar. Peaks ten max may be for a few minutes not that high on 1200 mg per day. May be Duesberg lied, may be he was being a crappy scientist when he said it, who cares. It's wrong. We all make mistakes, you should admit he made a mistake and move on like carter did.

Who said move on? Funny how the great arguers of failed science seriously think that its just all scientific hubabalu and that, damn, we should be bowing to the god almighty AIDS Inc for salvation. After a few months living in the AIDS Zone, I've come to realize one should not sit buy quietly and let theses spewers of faith just keep getting away with it. Ah, but what happens is their unquestionable faith in the dogma spurs forth angry venom, nasty comments and profound illogical statements. For really these inflamed followers have one idea in mind, protect the almighty unquestionable science at all costs. Im not going anywhere.

Adele,
could you take a little more care editing what you write; it is really hard to follow your thoughts.

For really these inflamed followers have one idea in mind, protect the almighty unquestionable science at all costs.

You're confused carter. Scientists question the science all the time. If they didn't the entire AIDS literature consist of Gallo's original papers. It's rethinkers who want to ignore the science and accept the opinions of Duesberg on blind faith.

Sorry pat. You can look up the articles, ignore my writing. Articles don't report average concentrations in 20-60 micromolar range in people taking any dose of AZT.

Duesberg was wrong. It doesn't matter I'm a bad writer or fat or wearing my underwear the wrong way. Also now you know why I couldn't get a phd just this stupid masters my work paid for! Oh well.

It's rethinkers who want to ignore the science and accept the opinions of Duesberg on blind faith.

Squawking "ca-caaaaark cuk cuk" doesn't make it so.

By definition rethinkers question the conventional wisdom, and thus do not deal in blind faith.

Your specious habit of flipping the critique and sending it back in the hope that it will work as a reply is automatic, unthinking and inappropriate almost all of the time. Most of the time it is just plain silly. Silly to say skeptics operate from blind faith. Silly to think it is worth writing. Silly to reveal how little you have to offer in the scientific debate.

Scientists question the science all the time.

No they do not, for very good reason. They don't have the time, they can't afford to get into reviewing fundamentals when there is a grant to be justified, and if they did, it would be politically challenging.

Good ones only test the paper they need to rely on and as Walter Gilbert told me are too often taken aback to find it wasn't done right.

You are utterly naive and obviously have little to do with good science or good scientists. Saying that HIV=AIDS scientists habitually question is like saying the Cardinals question the Pope.

What they do do in HIV=AIDS is make quiet admissions in the literature that every pillar of the Meme faith fails when examined and it is all a great "mystery". But they never publicly question the core premise of their field. It would be instant professional suicide.

What do you think all these "I didn't mean it" posts on AIDSTruth are? Proud boasts of findings that contradict HIV=AIDS? Or confesses of sin and repentance?

Wake up, babyface. You are what Gallo would call a "boy scout". Or maybe you know better and are just babbling Meme speak.

wearing my underwear the wrong way

Do you really do this, Adele? It would certainly be consistent.

But how does it happen? I believe you will find a little tag at the back of such garments. Put them on with this at your rear.

Similarly in HIV=AIDS, just remember, HIV does not cause AIDS, or anything to do with people's bodily health, although it certainly boosts the bank account of thoe who dispense advice on how to cure yourself of this harmless and innocent virus by taking damaging DNA chain terminators that kill dividing calls.

Not enough of it in your blood, you say, Duesberg was wrong to estimate there was? Hmmm So the whole flap about AZT, and the 4X lower doses which coincided with a sharp improvement in the health of patients is all chickenshit?

Let's drink to that, you with your AZT milk shake and me with my vitamin drink. But just one question.

If you give a glass to your child, which one would you serve?

Well there you go. If HIV is harmless then you shouldn't take anything, a plain milkshake is too toxic it might be fattening or Vitamin C or fish oil or tanning therapy.

Duesberg is still wrong. People don't get 20 to 60 micromolar AZT concentration in their plasma. Duesberg said that to scare people in his denialist reviewed Genetica issue.

We were arguing about Duesberg's stupid paper ten years ago. Here's good stuff from a guy who writes alot better then me, arguing with Lauritzen.

yarchive.net/med/azt.html

Why can't you admit, Duesberg was wrong but you don't think it matters, like Carter did ,that's what I meant about moving on.

yarchive.net/med/azt.html

this leads nowhere. Is perhaps something missing?

Truthseeker writes ... and as Walter Gilbert told me...

His friends call him Wally.

"20 to 60 micromolar AZT"

Who really cares Adele? AZT is junk chemo rescued by the virus hunters from cancer research that just somehow miraculously became the appointed drug of choice. The sad fact of the matter is that Retrovir, drug of choice still today, which contains a 100mg dose of the good old DNA chain terminator takes a lot more time to kill you. So your mantras about Duesberg are nothing, mean nothing and no one gives a flying rats as about it.

"So the whole flap about AZT, and the 4X lower doses which coincided with a sharp improvement in the health of patients is all chickenshit?"

Yes. The dose was halved in January 1990 and remains the same today (600mg/day). "Sharp improvements in health" occurred when combination therapy arrived (which uses the same 600mg/day dose). AZT was screened because it was a nucleoside analog like the most successful antiviral drug at the time (acyclovir).

From 1974:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedi…

A letter to Nature by these authors, July 11, 1991:

AZT Before AIDS

Sir - Our early work on azidothymidine provided the first demonstration of its antiretroviral activity and indeed constituted the only research of the time to suggest what would later turn out to be efficacy at treating people with AIDS.

AZT was born via chemical synthesis by J. Horwitz et al (J. Org. Chem. 19, 2076; 1964). After a relatively uneventful early childhood, its biological potential was first clearly recognized in the early 1970s and by its tenth birthday firmly established (W. Ostertag et al, Proc. Natn. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 71, 4980; 1974). In those experiments, we examined the effect of AZT on the replication of a murine retrovirus complex consisting of spleen focus-forming and leukaemia viruses and made the crucial observation that AZT interfered with virus replication quite dramatically but had very little hindrance of cell growth even at relatively high concentrations of 2.5x10-4M.

These observations, showing AZT's high toxicity for the virus but low toxicity for the cell, suggested for it a career of high promise. Indeed, on its twenty-first birthday it came of age when H. Mitsuya et al (Proc. Natn. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 82, 7096; 1985) demonstrated its usefulness against human T-lymphotropic virus type III. It is gratifying that the effects of AZT in a murine retrovirus system have faithfully reproduced with a human retrovirus and, once again, mouse has proved its worth to man.

S.K. Dube
University of Maryland,
College Park, Maryland 20742, USA
W. Ostertag
Heinrich Pette Institute,
2000 Hamburg 20, Germany

carter writes 20 to 60 micromolar AZT"

Who really cares Adele?

Scientists care, carter, because it is yet another example of one of many things that Duesberg has ever said about AZT and AIDS that can be experimentally demonstrated to be incorrect.

Squawking "ca-caaaaark cuk cuk" doesn't make it so.

Do you really think this sort of schoolboyish taunting will cover up the fact that you are completely incapable of dealing with Adele's point about Duesberg getting the pharmokinetics completely wrong?

By definition rethinkers question the conventional wisdom, and thus do not deal in blind faith.

Except that you aren't actually doing any rethinking. You are just blindly repeating St. Duesberg's nonsensensical dogma after it has been shown to be wrong.

A rethinker would also question what he reads on websites such as virusmyth.

Truthseeker writes "... and as Walter Gilbert told me..."His friends call him Wally.
Posted by: Dale | December 19, 2007 1:21 PM

So?

a) every idiot who reads any media coverage knows that b) though I have spent a day with him I am not a friend of his and use proper names c) you are trying to claim you are a friend of Gilbert's? Somehow, that doesn't quite fit with the level of your posts, sorry to say it.

yarchive.net/med/azt.html
Why can't you admit, Duesberg was wrong but you don't think it matters, like Carter did ,that's what I meant about moving on.
Posted by: Adele | December 19, 2007 12:43 PM

Adele, BD, the material you present looks quite convincing if you mean that it argues in an informed fashion that Duesberg overestimated the measures of the virus action in some way, but I hesitate to accept it because I can't evaluate it and time and again I learn that such reversals of general parameters by supposedly correcting details don't stack up in the end. I just have to go with the peer reviewing of the Genetica piece which unlike you I assume was honest and accurate and a fair reflection of what people understood to be correct at the time, and later for all I know. I am certain that Duesberg was not dishonest or incompetent in his review, that's for sure, even if he was misled in some way, which I doubt.

There is simply no way in which we can now reverse the conclusion of everyone in the field that full dose AZT was a killer and that its danger was explained by its nature and action and that is why its dose was reduced. So like Carter I dont think it matters enough to wrestle with the two sides to see what the disagreement arises from.

If you want to change the entire picture and pretend that AZT looks like a pussy to you and that HIV is a Bengali tiger feel free, but on what grounds will you do that I wonder?

One reason to doubt there is anything in it is that there is all this squabbling and wrangling over detail but no clear account of the change in the overall picture that is meant to be involved. Lack of straightforward overall shape in argument is something that as a journalist makes one doubt it is worth pursuing.

Maybe it all goes to show that we have to flip reality but I doubt it. Bottom line is what? That you really think that AZT is a fine medication to attack HIV with? Given all the data that says it is not, it is hard to agree with you.

I really dont think you can argue away a skull and cross bones.

Sorry, meant AZT where I wrote "virus action" above.

" really dont think you can argue away a skull and cross bones."

For heaven's sake TS, you denialists keep harping on about the warning label on a preparation of AZT for experimental use in a laboratory. All reagents used in lab experiments have warning labels - this does not mean they are necessarily toxic or contraindicated for use in humans.

Let's look at the manufacturers' safety warnings on a completely different chemical, shall we:

22: Harmful if swallowed
23: Toxic by inhalation
24: Toxic in contact with skin
25: Toxic if swallowed
26: Very Toxic by inhalation
27: Very Toxic in contact with skin
28: Very Toxic if swallowed
29: Contact with water liberates toxic gas
30: Can become highly flammable in use
31: Contact with acids liberates toxic gas
32: Contact with acids liberates very toxic gas
33: Danger of cumulative effects
34: Causes burns
35: Causes severe burns
36: Irritating to the eyes
37: Irritating to the respiratory system
38: Irritating to the skin
39: Danger of very serious irreversible effects
40: Limited evidence of a carcinogenic effect
41: Risk of serious damage to eyes

This chemical comes with a warning of Xn, or "Harmful"

The chemical in question?
Salicylic acid (i.e. Aspirin)
http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/search/ProductDetail/ALDRICH/W398500

Want to know how Sigma currently categorise AZT?
Well have a look for yourselves:
http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/search/ProductDetail/SIGMA/A2169

Safety:
40: Limited evidence of a carcinogenic effect
Xn ("harmful")

So aspirin is waaay more "toxic" to lab workers than AZT.
If you are going to misrepresent what manufacturers of chemicals state about their products, you need to give the whole picture. I could use these warnings as "proof" that AZT is less harmful than aspirin.

Each time a denialist talks about AZT's "skull and cross bones" label, they are admitting they are nothing but liars, prepared to twist any statement in their favour.

Adele, BD, the material you present looks quite convincing if you mean that it argues in an informed fashion that Duesberg overestimated the measures of the virus action in some way, but I hesitate to accept it because I can't evaluate it and time and again I learn that such reversals of general parameters by supposedly correcting details don't stack up in the end.

Let's get this straight.

You accuse Adele (and everybody else who disagrees with you) of blindly following the "orthodoxy".

You repeatedly cite Duesberg as the ultimate authority.

You say that you are not capable of evaluating the data in Duesberg's papers and Adele's criticisms but nevertheless feel confident in accepting Duesberg's claims.

This demonstrates that in contrast to Adele you are blindly following your chosen authority figure.

It is also obvious that you choose Duesberg as an authority to follow not for any scientific reasons but because he champions the belief that you want to believe that HIV does not cause AIDS.

You are not a rethinker. You just blindly follow Duesberg because his message is one that you find comforting.

Truthseeker asks:

Bottom line is what?

The bottomline Truthseeker, is that Duesberg says: "You can't drink a bottle of wine at dinner because a 55 gallon barrel of pure ethanol will kill you. And look I have the cell culture evidence to prove it!!!

When reality, expermintal evidence, personal experience and every form of test in the world tells us that most of us can drink a bottle of wine without it killing us, some of us can do it daily for years without noticeable effects, many of us will suffer some ill effects after years of drinking, virtually none of us will die from drinking a bottle of wine, though some among us may suffer a raging hangover.

The example is trivial because the fact that you, Carter, Robert Houston, Duesberg, et al. don't understand the point of Adele's criticism is so glaringly obvious. Not because I think HIV, AIDS or AZT and its side effects are similar to drinking, drunkeness, or a hangover.

Except that you aren't actually doing any rethinking. You are just blindly repeating St. Duesberg's nonsensensical dogma after it has been shown to be wrong.
A rethinker would also question what he reads on websites such as virusmyth.
Posted by: Chris Noble | December 19, 2007 7:08 PM

Every single phrase above is a flip of reality. Is there some strange attraction HIV=AIDS reality Denialists have to reversing the truth?

Yes, one has to think. The overall Meme flip induces a permanent desire to flip everything else, to get it all in line with the Big Flip.

Thanks Mr Elbon.

Every single phrase above is a flip of reality

Back to the schoolboyish "I know what you are, but what am I?"

You've just stated that you are incapable of evaluating Adele's criticism of Duesberg but nevertheless choose to believe Duesberg.

You aren't doing any rethinking.

You are completely credulous when it comes to Duesberg. No skepticism! No questioning!

Ultimately it all comes down to what you choose to believe.

Actually Chris,

there was a refreshing moment, about 10,000 words ago, when Truthseeker advanced the:

"I'm rubber, you're glue, anything you say bounces off of me and sticks to you!"

defense.

It was a nice change of pace, though apparently he's reverted to his lagging pace.

So aspirin is waaay more "toxic" to lab workers than AZT. - Elbon

It has a skull and crossbones on its label? Funny, I must have overlooked it.

You repeatedly cite Duesberg as the ultimate authority. No, as a good thinker and excellent scientific mind.

You say that you are not capable of evaluating the data in Duesberg's papers and Adele's criticisms but nevertheless feel confident in accepting Duesberg's claims.
Not incapable, just unwilling to waste too much time disentangling string from twigs when the entire trunk of the tree is dead from poisoned roots,

This demonstrates that in contrast to Adele you are blindly following your chosen authority figure.
I am persuaded by fine logic and careful review of data.

It is also obvious that you choose Duesberg as an authority to follow not for any scientific reasons but because he champions the belief that you want to believe that HIV does not cause AIDS.
No, I would prefer it did cause AIDS and all was honest truth, since it wouldn't then be something beyond solution, instead of based on a reality flip that leaves tens of thousands drinking medical Kool Aid.

You are not a rethinker. You just blindly follow Duesberg because his message is one that you find comforting.

Duesberg presumably is wrong on some things as we all are. However he has been forced to be right on everything to do with HIV=AIDs by the hostile and wholesale criticism he has endured for two decades. You temper iron in white hot flame and you get steel.

Byt the way when have you ever appeared on stage to defend your worthless idea, Elbon? I write idea singular because you have only one.

Duesberg presumably is wrong on some things as we all are. However he has been forced to be right on everything to do with HIV=AIDs by the hostile and wholesale criticism he has endured for two decades. You temper iron in white hot flame and you get steel.

No. If you temper bullshit and lies you end up with fallacious interpretations, errors of omission, cherry picking the literature and a consistent pattern of misrepresentation.

If you compare Duesberg's books, opinions pieces and talks with his articles you will see a trend from outright lies in the books to misinterpretation in the articles.

The shift from blatant lies to calculated misrepresentation and deception is a function of the quality of the review.

Most of the blatant lies in his PNAS papers were removed. The articles were published despite the objections of the reviewers. They were not peer-reviewed in the normal sense. He was allowed to publish them because he was a member of the NAS. They changed the rules afterwards to prevent people like Duesberg and Linus Pauling from abusing the freedom to publish anything including pseudoscientific twaddle.

His "critique" of the Ascher et al study that was published in Genetica had some outright lies about some supposed 45 HIV- AIDS cases. As Duesberg was the editor of this edition I can only conclude that if it was reviewed at all he chose people that either agreed with him or were not experts in the field.

His last paper was published in an Indian journal with a very low impact factor after it was rejected by two or more other higher status journals. The editor responsible for the acceptance of the paper appears to be a friend of Duesberg's. The paper was not tempered by peer review.

Truthiness,

By that measure everybody defending the "meme" is "forced to be right on everything to do with HIV=AIDS by the hostile and wholesale criticism they have endured" from you and your fellow travellers.

Would you like to rephrase your proof of the Lord Duesberg's infallibility?

How did you "carefully review the data" if you are "unwilling to waste to much time disentangling string from twigs", further if you havn't gone close to the tree how do you know it's roots are poisoned? To know this you would : a) have to look at the root; i.e. get your own data, or b) carefully "review the data" available, i.e. be willing to "disintangle the string from the twigs".

Got your logical strings wrapped around your mental twigs?

In all events, what do Arboriculture and kite flying have to do with anything?

Thank you Elbon and Sascha for proving my point exactly, which is that the Meme induces you to reverse almost every aspect of reality to fit in with your single ruling idea, the world's least likely paradigm. You even misstate the part where I agree with you!

The post by Elbon is so blatant in its ugly reversal of reality that one is forced to conclude that our pet computer nerd is the liar he always suspects others of being (naturally, since he bound to displace his guilt to others) or simply so vulgar in his willingness to drag a fine scientist down from a level he will never approach himself that it amounts to the same thing - base abandonment of moral decency and accepted standards of scientific integrity.

Amazing how consistent the others are in doing exactly the same thing. Sascha and Roy - when not huddling together with Chris for emotional comfort - practice exactly the same morally abhorrent purposeful misunderstanding of what is said against their notions. Even when one grants their points it is as if they are not capable of entering genuine debate because they know they cannot afford it - behavior which mirrors Moore's more straightforward version of the same avoidance of genuine response. Moore says he won't debate "denialists", period. These chickenhearted cluckers only pretend to debate, when all they do is flip reality and pretend grotesque misunderstanding of what is said to them.

Or it might be simply they are too dumb to understand, and unwilling to admit it. Even with that excuse however it is too distasteful to hang around such a moral debased venue, and I am forced to leave them to their shame. The sight of Chris Noble once again smearing Peter Duesberg's name with his fingerpainting is too revolting to put up with.

If this is the best set of defenders that the paradigm can produce it speaks for the falsehood of their position in itself.

The sight of Chris Noble once again smearing Peter Duesberg's name with his fingerpainting is too revolting to put up with.

Don't try to pretend that you have the moral highground.

You and other Denialists including Duesberg have absolutely no qualms about smearing the names of thousands of fine scientists.

I responded to your claim that Duesberg must be correct because he has been able to withstand peer-review. This is a fallacious argument.

The only thing that Duesberg demonstrates is his inability to admit that he was wrong despite being, like the Black Knight, reduced to a disembodied head.

Duesberg started with his initial premise that "HIV cannot cause AIDS because I don't like Gallo" and has barely progressed from this level of critique in the last 20 years.

Your worship of Duesberg is completely unrelated to any understanding of the science on your part or lack thereof.

Ah, But Truthseeker, you havent yet asked these bunch of zealots why Merck's highly anticipated V520 vaccine trials which were swathed in outstand hype were shut down when vaccine appeared to be doing more harm than good. I asked and they ignored me.

"The sight of Chris Noble once again smearing Peter Duesberg's name with his fingerpainting is too revolting to put up with.

Don't try to pretend that you have the moral highground. - Posted by: Chris Noble | December 19, 2007 10:28 PM

I dont claim the moral high ground, I merely observe you crawling on the low ground, Elbon. Elbon, you are no Peter Duesberg. Sorry that you are by Kruger-Dunning definition not aware of this incontrovertible fact, but the spectacle of your fingerpainting smears on his name is indeed revolting.

You and other Denialists including Duesberg have absolutely no qualms about smearing the names of thousands of fine scientists.

We on the other hand did not smear them, we merely say they are Meme Raths Outgrabed, though some are more culpable than that. It is not a smear to note that tens of thousands of scientists etc are betraying the science they profess to serve by not reexamining a paradigm belief whose faults were pointed out so immediately and precisely by Peter Duesberg, instead standing aside faint hearted or joining in the lynching led by louts such as yourself, who don't have the capacity to see the big picture and the holes gaping in it.

I responded to your claim that Duesberg must be correct because he has been able to withstand peer-review. This is a fallacious argument.

Peer review is the only test we have at present and the hostile reviewers were unable to find fault with the final versions of the comprehensive Duesberg critiques that say we should pay attention to them and not to the amateur hour response and rationalization advanced by the plodding deniosaurs of Meme land, such as your disrespectful, small minded self.

The only thing that Duesberg demonstrates is his inability to admit that he was wrong despite being, like the Black Knight, reduced to a disembodied head.

Even grossly inaccurate here, eh? - the Black Knight was not disembodied, you poor old language challenged backroom computer programmer.

Duesberg started with his initial premise that "HIV cannot cause AIDS because I don't like Gallo" and has barely progressed from this level of critique in the last 20 years.

It's the level of your critique which is the problem - the unremitting, boneheaded lack of perspective that makes it absurd even to bother to tell you about it, since you are currently the most celebrated prize specimen of Kruger-Dunning known to research.

Your worship of Duesberg is completely unrelated to any understanding of the science on your part or lack thereof.

Yes, I respect academic excellence of which you show no sign at all, either in your writing or logic, so one doesn't expect you to understand the difference between worship and respect, since you are unlikely to earn either as long as your posts remain on the Web to make it clear exactly what your measure is.

Ah, But Truthseeker, you havent yet asked these bunch of zealots why Merck's highly anticipated V520 vaccine trials which were swathed in outstand hype were shut down when vaccine appeared to be doing more harm than good. I asked and they ignored me. - Posted by: carter | December 19, 2007 10:41 PM

Would you ask a Meme monkey to play Chopin, Carter? Why ask one to respond to your fine query?

Truthseeker, if Duesberg must be correct because his papers have withstood peer-review, how much more correct must Moore and Fauci and Gallo be, having withstood far more peer-review?

Even grossly inaccurate here, eh? - the Black Knight was not disembodied, you poor old language challenged backroom computer programmer.

Thanks for correcting my English. At least you have something to contribute.

Peer review is the only test we have at present and the hostile reviewers were unable to find fault with the final versions of the comprehensive Duesberg critiques that say we should pay attention to them and not to the amateur hour response and rationalization advanced by the plodding deniosaurs of Meme land, such as your disrespectful, small minded self.

The reviewers did find fault in his latest paper. They rejected it at least twice. Apparently instead of dealing with the faults he sent it off to a low impact Indian journal where it could be snuck though with bugger all review.

If the paper had been reviwed properly they would have found that the papers that Duesberg cites do not support his claims. For instance Duesberg cites a paper by Palella et al to make his claim that ARVs do not decrease mortality and morbidity in people infected with HIV. If reviewer is already aware of the literature then it would be instantly obvious that the paper by Palella et al shows the complete opposite.

The process of going through peer review obviously weeded out some of the blatant lies and stupidities that Duesberg puts into his books etc. However, no amount of roses will disguise the fact that his claims are ultimately bullshit.

The vast majority of scientists saw Duesberg's bullshit as exactly that a long time ago. Duesberg has simply served up the same steamning offerings reheated again and again in the last 20 years.

Your refusal to even deal with the issues of the pharmokinetics of AZT demonstrate that your criteria for judging the issue have absolutely nothing to do with science.

You aren't interested in the truth. You simply choose to accept Duesberg bullshit.

Chris Noble rants like a demented hate-monger. There is indeed much for him and his cult of HIV mono-causalists to fear in the keen analyses by Prof. Duesberg, which stand as a major challenge to the shaky foundation of the entire HIV/AIDS house of cards on which so many reputations are based.

As for peer review, many scientists have acknowledged (even in a whole issue of JAMA) that the peer review system is seriously flawed and has often been abused by those with predominant views and position to shut out scientists who challenge orthodox opinion.

Regarding AZT, Adelle wrote: "Thing is, everything says people in 1995 were nanomolar, people in the eighties were maybe 1 or 2 micromolar. Peaks ten max maybe for a few minutes not that high on 1200 mg per day. Maybe Duesberg lied..."

Adele doesn't seem to realizse that she's confirming Duesberg's dosage levels, for he was testing AZT in vitro as low as 10 micromoles, at which he found inhibiting effects on T-cells. She also seems oblivious to the fact that toxicological testing is normally conducted not only at average levels but also at much higher levels to find the extremes of adverse effects.

The problem is precisely the peak levels, however transiently they may occur, for toxicity from a risky agent may arise with brief exposures. Adele originally misled readers (perhaps unintentionally) by citing an unpublished conference report (Pereira et al) of nanomolar levels of AZT in a few patients. Later, Adele admitted that various studies found micromolar levels, even in the Duesberg estimated range, yet she continued to denounce him merely for testing in that range. He in fact tested as low as 10 micromoles and cited other studies that found toxicity to T-cells at 4 uM and to bone marrow cells at 1 uM. These are concentrations commonly achiveved in AZT treatment, as she herself admits.

According to a publication of the US Phamacopeia, the peak serum concentration of AZT by intravenous infusion (a better counterpart to in vitro studies) is 2.5 micromoles at 1 mg per kg of body weight (USP-DI. Drug Information for the Health Care Professional, 2001, p. 3047). AZT is commonly given at about 7 mg/kg (500 mg dose). Quantitatively, that could produce about 18 micromoles in serum. This is nearly Duesberg's estimated level of 20 uM and is higher than his lowest testing level of 10 uM.

In terms of attainable serum levels, Duesberg's estimates were thus correct. Sorry, Adele. Duesberg's right - you're wrong.

I see Duesberg's supporters are as computationally creative as he is. That 1mg/kg of body weight AZT infusion that lead to a peak concentraton of 2.5uM? I assume that was 1mg/kg/hour. So if 500mg/hr is required to achieve serum concentrations of 18uM, that would translate to a daily dose of 12grams. I note this is about an order of magnitude higher than the highest doses that were given to patients.

As for peer review, many scientists have acknowledged (even in a whole issue of JAMA) that the peer review system is seriously flawed and has often been abused by those with predominant views and position to shut out scientists who challenge orthodox opinion.

Obviously peer-review is completely flawed except in the case where Duesberg is the guest editor of the edition of Genetica where three of his articles were published.

AZT is commonly given at about 7 mg/kg (500 mg dose)

I've never heard of AZT being given in 500mg doses. Even in the initial high dose regime it was 250mg.

Dont forget to pray!
Our Duesberg who art in Berkeley, hallowed be Thy name.

Ave Duesberg, excreta plena, stultus tecum. Benedictum tu in magibus, et benedictus fructus insaniae tui, mendacium.
Sanctus Duesberg, Pater coniurati, ora pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc et in hora mortis nostrae. Amen

Truthseeker, if Duesberg must be correct because his papers have withstood peer-review, how much more correct must Moore and Fauci and Gallo be, having withstood far more peer-review? -
Posted by: Dale | December 20, 2007 1:21 AM

Withstood hostile peer review from ass-guarding Meme riddled Fauci club members anxious to quibble at the smallest defect. Moore etc get a free pass from the club. You are very unsophisticated Dale. You obviously had a delightfully sheltered upbringing in the country. Welcome to the Big Time and the Big Money.

Even grossly inaccurate here, eh? - the Black Knight was not disembodied, you poor old language challenged backroom computer programmer.- Thanks for correcting my English. At least you have something to contribute.

Elbon accepting a correction?! Are you feeling quite well, Aussie Nobel contender?

Peer review is the only test we have at present and the hostile reviewers were unable to find fault with the final versions of the comprehensive Duesberg critiques that say we should pay attention to them and not to the amateur hour response and rationalization advanced by the plodding deniosaurs of Meme land, such as your disrespectful, small minded self. - The reviewers did find fault in his latest paper. They rejected it at least twice. Apparently instead of dealing with the faults he sent it off to a low impact Indian journal where it could be snuck though with bugger all review. If the paper had been reviewed properly they would have found that the papers that Duesberg cites do not support his claims. For instance Duesberg cites a paper by Palella et al to make his claim that ARVs do not decrease mortality and morbidity in people infected with HIV. If reviewer is already aware of the literature then it would be instantly obvious that the paper by Palella et al shows the complete opposite. - The process of going through peer review obviously weeded out some of the blatant lies and stupidities that Duesberg puts into his books etc. However, no amount of roses will disguise the fact that his claims are ultimately bullshit.- The vast majority of scientists saw Duesberg's bullshit as exactly that a long time ago. Duesberg has simply served up the same steaming offerings reheated again and again in the last 20 years.- Your refusal to even deal with the issues of the pharmokinetics of AZT demonstrate that your criteria for judging the issue have absolutely nothing to do with science.- You aren't interested in the truth. You simply choose to accept Duesberg bullshit. - Posted by: Chris Noble | December 20, 2007 1:21 AM

Nothing to reply to here. Noble obviously stung by the latest deconstruction of his piffle, has resorted to generalities which sound like mantra more than rebuttal. Interesting how he is simply incapable of avoiding disgusting metaphor of the anal type. Is this telling? We believe it is.

Chris Noble rants like a demented hate-monger. There is indeed much for him and his cult of HIV mono-causalists to fear in the keen analyses by Prof. Duesberg, which stand as a major challenge to the shaky foundation of the entire HIV/AIDS house of cards on which so many reputations are based.

Precisely.

As for peer review, many scientists have acknowledged (even in a whole issue of JAMA) that the peer review system is seriously flawed and has often been abused by those with predominant views and position to shut out scientists who challenge orthodox opinion.

Exactly. Listen up, barnyard.

Adele doesn't seem to realize that she's confirming Duesberg's dosage levels, for he was testing AZT in vitro as low as 10 micromoles, at which he found inhibiting effects on T-cells. She also seems oblivious to the fact that toxicological testing is normally conducted not only at average levels but also at much higher levels to find the extremes of adverse effects....The problem is precisely the peak levels, however transiently they may occur, for toxicity from a risky agent may arise with brief exposures. Adele originally misled readers (perhaps unintentionally) by citing an unpublished conference report (Pereira et al) of nanomolar levels of AZT in a few patients. Later, Adele admitted that various studies found micromolar levels, even in the Duesberg estimated range, yet she continued to denounce him merely for testing in that range. He in fact tested as low as 10 micromoles and cited other studies that found toxicity to T-cells at 4 uM and to bone marrow cells at 1 uM. These are concentrations commonly achiveved in AZT treatment, as she herself admits....According to a publication of the US Phamacopeia, the peak serum concentration of AZT by intravenous infusion (a better counterpart to in vitro studies) is 2.5 micromoles at 1 mg per kg of body weight (USP-DI. Drug Information for the Health Care Professional, 2001, p. 3047). AZT is commonly given at about 7 mg/kg (500 mg dose). Quantitatively, that could produce about 18 micromoles in serum. This is nearly Duesberg's estimated level of 20 uM and is higher than his lowest testing level of 10 uM....In terms of attainable serum levels, Duesberg's estimates were thus correct. Sorry, Adele. Duesberg's right - you're wrong.- Posted by: Robert Houston | December 20, 2007 2:38 AM

Read it, barnyard. Learn respect for the literature as a corrective of foolish misreadings of the literature, and wild claims driven by Meme think rather than objectivity.

I see Duesberg's supporters are as computationally creative as he is. That 1mg/kg of body weight AZT infusion that lead to a peak concentraton of 2.5uM? I assume that was 1mg/kg/hour. So if 500mg/hr is required to achieve serum concentrations of 18uM, that would translate to a daily dose of 12grams. I note this is about an order of magnitude higher than the highest doses that were given to patients. - Posted by: Dale | December 20, 2007 3:25 AM

Fact check! AZT may be harmless after all.

As for peer review, many scientists have acknowledged (even in a whole issue of JAMA) that the peer review system is seriously flawed and has often been abused by those with predominant views and position to shut out scientists who challenge orthodox opinion.- Obviously peer-review is completely flawed except in the case where Duesberg is the guest editor of the edition of Genetica where three of his articles were published.

The flaws of the peer review system are well known, especially the collegial clubmanship practiced in the insider group. Naivete rampant here, as a defense of an indefensible attempt to whitewash AZT as harmless.

AZT is commonly given at about 7 mg/kg (500 mg dose) - I've never heard of AZT being given in 500mg doses. Even in the initial high dose regime it was 250mg.
Dont forget to pray! Our Duesberg who art in Berkeley, hallowed be Thy name.-
Posted by: Chris Noble | December 20, 2007 4:29 AM

Fact check! AZT may be harmless after all!

Ave Duesberg, excreta plena, stultus tecum. Benedictum tu in magibus, et benedictus fructus insaniae tui, mendacium.
Sanctus Duesberg, Pater coniurati, ora pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc et in hora mortis nostrae. Amen - Posted by: Sascha | December 20, 2007 5:25 AM

Perfectly revolting pig Latin, Sascha. Rigor mortis setting in, possibly?

Alas! the scientific case is proved, so there is no lesson here except the barnyard flap and squawk after the fox has made off with the chicken.

YaDa YaDa Yada.. all this talk about AZT. The great protectors of the faith are just spewing bull shit over and over again! So what you folks gave up on mono therapy -you're still handing out and prescribing bull shit to patients.

WARNING: RETROVIR (ZIDOVUDINE) MAY BE ASSOCIATED WITH HEMATOLOGIC TOXICITY INCLUDING GRANULOCYTOPENIA AND SEVERE ANEMIA PARTICULARLY IN PATIENTS WITH ADVANCED HIV DISEASE (SEE WARNINGS).

PROLONGED USE OF RETROVIR HAS BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH SYMPTOMATIC MYOPATHY SIMILAR TO THAT PRODUCED BY HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS. RARE OCCURRENCES OF LACTIC ACIDOSIS IN THE ABSENCE OF HYPOXEMIA, AND SEVERE HEPATOMEGALY WITH STEATOSIS HAVE BEEN REPORTED WITH THE USE OF ANTIRETROVIRAL NUCLEOSIDE ANALOGUES, INCLUDING RETROVIR AND ZALCITABINE, AND ARE POTENTIALLY FATAL (SEE WARNINGS).

"WARNING Note: The full safety and efficacy profile of Retrovir has not been defined, particularly in regard to prolonged use in HIV-infected individuals who have less advanced disease (see INDICATIONS AND USAGE, CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY: Microbiology, and PRECAUTIONS: Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, Impairment of Fertility). The incidence of adverse reactions appears to increase with disease progression, and patients should be monitored carefully, especially as disease progression occurs."

With such caring friendly neighorhood AIDS clinics and friends like you, the supporters of such God awful stuff, who needs enemies?

OMG Bob so cool!! You say one to two equals 20 to 60. 10 is 20 to 60. You test peak concentration using steady concentration. You want to model PO by IV.

Duesberg says people on 500 to 1500 mg get concentration 20 to 60 micromolar.

The papers say, 1200 mg a day people peak average at 6 or 7 micromolar. Average steady is 1 to 2.

On 600 mg a day peak is lower, average is nanomolar.

Theres no where people are at 20 to 60 micromolar on a normal dose. Not average not for twenty minutes peak. Peak of ten is not 20 or 60. Average of 1 micromolar or 400 nano is not 20 or 60 micro.

Duesberg could of said about peak concentrations. He could of tested peak cncentrations, its real easy. Put ten micromolar AZT on cells twenty minutes dilute it down like happens in all the papers in people til next dose. Duesberg put 10 or 25 micromolar on cells and kept putting it there no dilution!! He tested average concentration not peaks.

yarchive.net/med/azt.html
Your allowed to see it Bob! You keep making stuff up, I will start copying from it!!

TS,

You are waging a valiant effort against non-thinking, nattering ninnies. Over the past 2 months, we have learned:

A. UNAIDS has been overestimating the number of HIV+ by 7 million people (thru bogus computer modeling) out of pure greed (more government funding)

B. The Merck AIDS vaccine trial increased the risk of HIV infection in the treatment group, over the control group;

C. A woman won a $2.5 Million verdict based on the incompetent work of AIDS doctors and the unreliability of the tests.

That creepy old hags like Adele and other assorted loser wierdos want to prop up this flimsy AIDS paradigm is of no conseqeunce. People intuitively know it's a scam, they just don't understand why or how -- yet.

Hey Truthiness,

Smile, your comment on my pig latin (Quite right by the way, but I like to think of it as "latin de cuisine") was about the only thing in your post that made sense. You got something right! (Mild applause from the gallery).

Since when do blog postings count as scientific references?

Or did you run out of orignal bleatings so you cut and copy the bleating of others?

Mountain Man writes A. UNAIDS has been overestimating the number of HIV+ by 7 million people (thru bogus computer modeling) out of pure greed (more government funding)

B. The Merck AIDS vaccine trial increased the risk of HIV infection in the treatment group, over the control group;

C. A woman won a $2.5 Million verdict based on the incompetent work of AIDS doctors and the unreliability of the tests.

A. Computer modeling is and always has been based on available data. More complete data has led to a downward revision (still leaving 30+ million infected individuals) and if the original estimates were made out of pure greed, why did UNAIDS itself announce the revised figures?

B. The failure of the Merck vaccine trial to reduce HIV infection wouldn't matter if HIV was harmless, would it?

C. The woman was a victim of medical malpractice by a doctor who failed to adhere to standard diagnostic protocols. The tests, when carried out properly, are as or more reliable than most screening tests.

Yup, no doubt about it - Absolute proof that ASPIRIN is waaay more toxic than AZT......

http://www.mpbio.com/product_info.php?cPath=491_1_12&products_id=150245…

A. Computer modeling is and always has been based on available data. More complete data has led to a downward revision (still leaving 30+ million infected individuals) and if the original estimates were made out of pure greed, why did UNAIDS itself announce the revised figures?

Why Dale, ain't that the blessing of independent peer review, getting it "right" a decade or two after the fact -a decade or two after rethinkers, whistle blowers and Harvey Bialy's parakeet had already pointed out the obvious irresistible, irreconcilable, irrepressible fact that you, yes YOU too, have been defending what everybody knew to be crap epidemiology all along?

OMYGODZ DT, no way!! You know most people that died last century in America had aspirin in their lifes? The aspirin killed all of them.

OK now think about AZT and iron.

Carter says AZT is a poison Truthtwister says it kills a cell any where near it!!

Iron is a good supplement we all need it for healthy blood. I take it every day do you.

Weird thing is, AZT and iron have the same 50% lethal dose!! 1500 mg per kg of AZT kills 50% rats who get it, 1520 mg per kg iron kills a person half the time. Tylenol you only need 400 mg per kg, one kid died on 100 mg /kg.

Its all a big cover-up by people that get billions seling iron pills!!

I don't think iron, Tylenol, aspirin, salt, alcohol.. all those thinks you idiots here are referencing are DNA Chain terminators that fuck with your mitrocondria, bone marrow. So get of you high and might AIDS pulpit.

Yup, no doubt about it - Absolute proof that ASPIRIN is waaay more toxic than AZT...... DT

Well that skull and crossbones is worrying, I agree - do the Australians have suicide in mind or what?

Is DT short for Delirium Tremens?

Carter says AZT is a poison Truthtwister says it kills a cell any where near it!!- Adele

Adele, your brilliant posts have convinced me that AZT is harmless stuff even if its target is quite harmless too.

So why is it that 9000 Americans "with HIV" die every year from purely drug symptoms like liver and kidney implosion?

Why don't they die from "AIDS" symptoms?
How come they die from a harmless drug?

I am so confused. If I rely on Adele I have to give up the Meme, or Duesberg, or both?

Is Adele my new guru on "AIDS" or AZT or what?

Enlighten me, O spelling challenged angel of AZT, handing me my sacramental milk shake, spiced up with a little harmless false thymidine.

AZT Oh AZT
Magic, tragic AZT.
I love my harmless
AZT.
AZT's the
drug for me.
So stir a little,
In my tea.
From any risk,
entirely free.
So says Adele,
Authority.
Lovely, spicy
AZT,
Stir a little
In my tea.
AZT's,
The drug for me,

MEC writes getting it "right" a decade or two after the fact -a decade or two after rethinkers, whistle blowers and Harvey Bialy's parakeet had already pointed out the obvious irresistible, irreconcilable, irrepressible fact that you, yes YOU too, have been defending what everybody knew to be crap epidemiology all along?

Not quite MEC. Rethinkers etc. said there was NO AIDS in Africa(just the same old diseases repackaged. 30+ million is a long way from none.

Rethinkers etc. said there was NO AIDS in Africa(just the same old diseases repackaged. 30+ million is a long way from none.- Dale

They still do. Do you know of any reason (outside Meme think) why they should not?

Death rates unaffected by whole new plague? Explain that one.

We can.

Calling TARA SMITH,, Calling Tara Smith.. Why dont you put up another thread on HIV... Come on please think of a good one this time. Adele and Dale are making this one smell like Limberger on a hot summer afternoon.

Followers of the Lord Duesberg=omnipotent & omniscient!

You seem to have dropped the ball on this one. I don't see how the myth of HIV=AIDs, also known as Science=Death, wasn't mentioned in this news piece. Given the vast majority of cheering humanity=victims of homophobia & racism who hang on every one of your posts=incontrovertible truthiness, I'm surprised that they let this one through without a howl=scientific debate and general lynching=justice of scientists=shills.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/dec/21/medicalresearch

Dale, the rethinkers say HIV doesn't cause AIDS. They don't say what you call AIDS doesn't exist.

They have also said the tests are unreliable and the epidemiology crappy.

These are two different things. What can I say, try somehow to fit it into your mono-causal world view.

Truthseeker writes I am so confused.

Now there's a statement I can agree with!

Great Scott!

"They", the shills for astro-fascism, overestimated the age of the moon by over 30 million years! The lying, thieving bastards! So the moon must be made of cheese after all. All bow down and behold another paradigm overthrown!

Herr Gott Donner!

So excited about founding my own church I forgot the link!

http://www.nzz.ch/magazin/dossiers/mond_juenger_1.601793.html

Oh...allow me to point out here to the Tara et al Clan some serious and sheer fucking loony tune madness from the HIV=AIDS camp showing the results from prenatal use of AZT.

RESULTS: MR images from 49 HIV-uninfected children (mean age, 26 months) were available for study. All children were perinatally exposed to zidovudine. Twenty-two had probable or established mitochondrial dysfunction according to their symptoms and laboratory data. Twenty-seven children without mitochondrial dysfunction presented with unexplained neurologic symptoms (n = 14) or nonneurologic symptoms (n = 7), and six were asymptomatic.

American Journal of Neuroradiology 26:695-701, April 2005

You guys are just so pathetic. How could you support such insanity?

Dale wrote: "That 1mg/kg of body weight AZT infusion that leads to a peak concentraton of 2.5uM? I assume that was 1mg/kg/hour. So if 500mg/hr is required to achieve serum concentrations of 18uM, that would translate to a daily dose of 12 grams."

Dale is playing games. No one's advocating a 24 hour infusion. Here's the point again: if, as the USP volume says, 1 mg/kg/hr of AZT produces a peak serum concentration of 2.5 uM, then 7 mg/kg body weight would produce a peak serum concentration of 18 uM on a quantitative basis - quite close to Duesberg's estimate of 20 uM for a 500 mg dose. (Note: a 500 mg dose is the equivalent of 7 mg/kg body weight in a 70 kg adult.)

Chris Noble wrote: "I've never heard of AZT being given in 500mg doses. Even in the initial high dose regime it was 250mg.

Dont forget to pray!
Our Duesberg who art in Berkeley, hallowed be Thy name."

Thank you for that thoughtful benediction, CN. Be sure to repeat it before dinner.

Even the Opal AZT trials in Europe and Australia which CN was touting earlier on this thread used 500 mg doses. According to the 1998 follow-up report:

"Participants were randomized to receive ether ZDV [zidovudine] capsules (...500 mg twice daily in the Opal trials, immediate group) or matching placebo (deferred group)." - Joint Concorde and Opal Coordinating Committee. AIDS 12:1259-65, 1998

Their conclusion was, "The findings of Concorde and Opal trials taken together suggest no evidence of benefit from starting early with ZDV alone."

Adele says Duesberg should have only considered average concentrations of AZT in patients. As she knows very well, however, toxicology studies usually also investigate higher than average levels. These are not irrelevant, for higher levels may occur with slower half-life in some circumstances. For example, according to the USP, the normal half-life of 1 hour for AZT can be tripled to 3 hours in renal impairment and averages 2.4 hours in patients with liver cirrhosis (USP-DI: Drug Information for the Health Care Professional, v. 1, 2001, p. 3047). Furthermore, specific locations, such as the GI tract, may be exposed temporarily to much higher concentrations than those in serum. Obviously, in vivo, the body tries to reduce blood levels of toxic agents through detoxification by the liver and renal clearance, etc.

The main point of the Duesberg and Chiu study in Genetica (95:102-9, 1995) was that the claim of the Broder group that AZT produced no harm to normal cells at <1000 uM was erroneous. Both in the Duesberg tests (at 10-60 uM) and in six other studies he cited (at 1-4 uM), toxic inhibition of normal cells occurred.

Adele kindly referred us to a website with an interesting discussion of these matters by Stephen B. Harris, M.D. and John Lauritzen. Harris, by the way, was the only scientist who agreed to represent the orthodox view in the compendium volume, "AIDS: Virus or Drug-Induced?" edited by Duesberg (Kluwer, 1996). At the website Adele gave us, Harris acknowledged that Duesberg's study, whatever it's relevance, was sound:

"...Chiu and Duesberg find that AZT is toxic to their cell lines at 25 uM... Some other recent studies have found the same result at about the same concentrations (though there is wide variation, with some other studies finding much higher inhibitory concentrations, and a few lower concentrations), but in any case there is no reason to question Chiu and Duesberg's results." - Dr. S. B. Harris

Everyone has been missing the main point of the Duesberg and Chiu study in Genetica (95:102-9, 1995). It was that the claim of the Broder group - that AZT produced no harm to normal cells at <1000 uM - was erroneous. Both in the Duesberg tests (at 10-60 uM) and in six other studies he cited (at 1-4 uM), toxic inhibition of normal cells occurred.

Software gremlins have been blocking my paragraph:

Everyone has been missing the main point of the Duesberg and Chiu study in Genetica (95:102-9, 1995). It was that the Broder group was erroneous in claiming that AZT produced no harm to normal cells at less than 1000 uM. Both in Duesberg's tests (at 10-60 uM) and in six other studies he cited (at 1-4 uM), toxic inhibition of T-cells and bone marrow cells was found. The clinical occurrence of frequent anemia and even occasional leukopenia in AZT-treated patients confirms these in vitro findings.

Truthseeker writes I am so confused
Now there's a statement I can agree with!
Posted by: Dale | December 21, 2007 12:15 AM

Yes, very confused - by what you all expect the world to look like once you have turned it upside down. I am trying on Adele's hat, as I said - and am totally confused. Does she renounce Duesberg, the Meme, or both?
To repeat: why is it that 9000 Americans "with HIV" die every year from purely drug symptoms like liver and kidney implosion?

Why don't they die from "AIDS" symptoms? How come they die from a harmless drug and not from AIDS?

If Adele is right, then AZT is harmless, so they must be dying of AIDS. But they show insufficient symptoms of AIDS, and all the symptoms of AZT. So is Duesberg is right about AIDS not killing people, but not right about AZT killing them? Is the Meme wrong about the Virus killing them? If I rely on Adele do I have to give up the Meme, or Duesberg, or both?

Maybe Dale, who doesn't feel confused since he simply operates oin the principle, ignore any sense from HIV=AZT critics, can tell me how to straighten out my thinking?

AZT Oh AZT
Magic, tragic AZT.
How I love my
Harmless tea
After adding AZT.
Babies love it too I see,
What a welcome to the sea
Of ignorant calamity
That's the world of "AIDS"{to be
Where babies thrive on AZT.
And Adele's the leader that you see
Of the national science academy.

Foolishness is always amusing to engage but when it kills people it is a little sad, don't you think? Isn't it time to admit what Houston has straightened out for you, which is that AZT is not something to fool with, even if you are a fool, like the Meme gang bunch here, now throughly exposed as the utter fools they have always been, but never so clearly as when Chris can't even get his 500mg dose facts straight.

There has to be a special place in the village stocks for those who fool with other people's lives and health, however, minor league they might be. Elbon in particular has a lot to answer for, even if he can plead that his computers are unreliable, and he depends on them to do the work which is beyond his inadequate brain.

Robert Houston writes Dale is playing games. No one's advocating a 24 hour infusion. Here's the point again: if, as the USP volume says, 1 mg/kg/hr of AZT produces a peak serum concentration of 2.5 uM, then 7 mg/kg body weight would produce a peak serum concentration of 18 uM on a quantitative basis

Now you're playing games. If 1/mg/kg/hr of AZT produces a peak serum concentration of 2.5 uM then 7 mg/kg/HR might produce a peak serum concentration of 18uM. I also say might because I don't know that serum concentrations will increase linearly with dose. In any case that was not how AZT was being delivered to patients and so it isn't accurate to say, as Duesberg did that the concentrations he was testing were comparable to what was being given to patients.

As far as your point about Broder, that's true. So why didn't you just say that in the first place instead of trying to justify Duesberg's erroneous calculations?

Now you're playing games - Dale

Dale why don't you just can it, you can't win against Houston, he actually reads every word at PubMed with an open, retentive mind.

Or if you really believe with reversed panties Adele that AZT might spice up your milk shake anytime you feel like a buzz, explain why we are losing 9,000 a year to your numbskull advocacy, dying of DRUG sysmptoms and not supposed AIDS symptoms, even though that list of AIDS symptoms is as long as you guys can make it?

Explain that or at long last, shut up.

(You remind one of the McArthy hearings and that dramatic line about At long last, why dont you get some decency, Senator).

explain why we are losing 9,000 a year to your numbskull advocacy, dying of DRUG sysmptoms and not supposed AIDS symptoms, even though that list of AIDS symptoms is as long as you guys can make it?

TS, I expect that you have had that explained to you many many times. You don't believe the explanation and so you keep asking the question. But because I'm a nice guy, I'll try to answer your question with a simple analogy.

Back several centuries ago, human beings didn't often die of cardiac disease or cancer because they didn't live long enough for those to be a problem. Infectious diseases would get them first. Now with better sanitation, antibiotics etc., people survive long enough to develop problems associated with old age.

It's a similar thing with AIDS patients. Although it doesn't cure them, HAART and other drugs are pretty effective at keeping AIDS patients from dying from OIs so they live longer. In living longer they now die of other causes. Some of those other causes are likely associated with effects of the drugs and some of them are likely just the result of AIDS patients living longer.

You seem to have dropped the ball on this one. I don't see how the myth of HIV=AIDs, also known as Science=Death, wasn't mentioned in this news piece. Given the vast majority of cheering humanity=victims of homophobia & racism who hang on every one of your posts=incontrovertible truthiness...

Ahhh...I see the thoroughly disingenuous Sascha continues to exhibit his/her strong desire to equate questioning HIV with "truthiness" and/or "conspiracy theorists", et al. Well, anyone who's been following this blog for very long knows that Sascha is full of shit; I can't believe that I ever thought you were remotely intelligent. Regardless, Sascha, let's review the accuracy of your slandering "conspiracy" analysis, shall we?

Over the summer, you (along with Adele and others) accused me of being nothing more than a conspiracy theorist for equating the corruption in HIV science to the corruption in the mortgage markets. You all told the world that I was merely a "wackjob" and that I knew nothing about HIV, and even less about economics. (If necessary, I'll dig up the appropriate quotes from past threads.) Yet, such accusations have proven to be quite hollow, haven't they, for my predictions regarding the coming economic turmoil have proven to be ridiculously accurate. In the very least, it should make one wonder if my predictions about the effects of corruption in HIV research are equally salient.

Furthermore, in case all the goons on this blog are once again tempted to express their own very real denial about the economic situation as they are about the failings of HIV/AIDS, here are a few of today's headlines regarding the too little, too late attempts to regulate the corruption that is responsible for the current economic collapse. You might try googling them since I don't want this post flagged for excessive links:

SEC probing three dozen securitization cases: report

Meltdown of World Financial System
Is Fully Under Way

An Eightfold Explosion in Foreclosures

The World's Largest Banks Are Now Trapped

Foreclosures climbing

Hovnanian lost $469.3 million amid housing slump

Bay Area home sales near 20-year low for November

________________________

These are just a few of the headlines available on the matter. Each and every day is filled with new headlines detailing new lows for housing and subsequently for the economy just as I predicted on this blog back in April. Perhaps, Sascha, if there had been a few more "conspiracy theorists" like myself, the severity of the situation could have be mitigated. In the very least, perhaps, you could refrain from posting your infantile slander for a few days in honor of the "conspiracy theorists" among us who have been proven right and who, more importantly, find your lack of wit ever so tiresome.

So, my very basic final point to you Sascha and to you Adele and to you Chris Noble and to you Dale, and to all the other ignorant, but real, Denialists on this blog is that the halcyon days for those of you who have contributed to this sad, present state of destructive corruption are nearing their end, and make no mistake, you've all played your menial roles brilliantly, whether conscious of it, or not. Unfortunately, the system that feeds social myths like HIV=AIDS now depends on continued corruption just to function and expunging corrupting influences at such a high-level of saturation will test the integrity of every public institution, along with each and every citizen, for as I previously predicted, this economic collapse will reverberate the entire world over, and the fallout is just beginning. While that certainly concerns me, it also brings me renewed optimism for our collective future.

And do you know why that is, Adele? I'll tell you why...it's because moronic idiots such as yourself will most likely lose their undeserved status and most importantly, accountability will return to professional occupations that have long-since lost the necessary integrity to healthily contribute to our society. For example, it will be far easier to convince those involved in funding HIV research that they better make damn sure that that research has legs to stand on for, as HIV critics have long pointed-out, vast amounts of money have been spent on researching HIV/AIDS with precious little returns. As the money supply tightens, so will the scrutiny, so enjoy your dubious status while you can, Chris Noble. Things are going to get very rocky, financially, and I'm not sure HIV will survive through these lean times, but then again, what do I know, as long as morons such as yourself control the media, who knows how the sheeple will repsond to real adversity. Besides, I'm obviously a wackjob, right? (oh where art thou, Seth Manapaio?)

Kevin

Kevin send me your address so I can mail you a teddy-bear. Sounds like you need one and a hug.

May be it helps if I say this. I was wrong. I was to optimistic I thought the housing market stuff would work out, it didn't. I say, some day it will. May be we have a recession next year or two years, after that the economy will recover. I hope with a new President. So cheer up we will survive.

Thing is, even housing down 50% does not mean scientists are wrong about AIDS. Can't help you there Kev. Merry Christmas tho!

"Thing is, even housing down 50% does not mean scientists are wrong about AIDS. Can't help you there Kev. Merry Christmas tho!"

Adele, this is your only line of argument dressed in yet again new clothes (i.e. "this is not proof HIV DOESNT cause AIDS"). My assertion that AIDS estimates are way off (UN confirmed) is also not "proof" HIV "doesnt" cause AIDS, that is true but what a nice comfy argument you have found, "proof" being the hardest thing to come by in science whether "for" or "against". Merry Xmas or whatever it is you do.

Things are going to get very rocky, financially, and I'm not sure HIV will survive through these lean times, but then again, what do I know, as long as morons such as yourself control the media, who knows how the sheeple will repsond to real adversity

So the economic shudder due to the mortgage scam coming home to roost somehow proves that HIV=AIDS promoters are going to get their come uppance? Are you sure? They are pretty good at defending themselves, Kevin.

Sorry Dale this post is enough to condemn you out of your own mouth, it exposes the feebleness of your thinking so well:

TS, I expect that you have had that explained to you many many times. You don't believe the explanation and so you keep asking the question. But because I'm a nice guy, I'll try to answer your question with a simple analogy.

Back several centuries ago, human beings didn't often die of cardiac disease or cancer because they didn't live long enough for those to be a problem. Infectious diseases would get them first. Now with better sanitation, antibiotics etc., people survive long enough to develop problems associated with old age.

It's a similar thing with AIDS patients. Although it doesn't cure them, HAART and other drugs are pretty effective at keeping AIDS patients from dying from OIs so they live longer. In living longer they now die of other causes. Some of those other causes are likely associated with effects of the drugs and some of them are likely just the result of AIDS patients living longer.

Posted by: Dale | December 21, 2007 12:37 PM

A invalid analogy followed by an unsubstantiated belief which is out of line with the scientific literature which shows that AZT is bad for you and HIV shows no sign of being toxic or biologically significant in human health in any way.

The sheer feebleness of the grounds offered here for the belief argue against the belief. To interpret the sad decline and fall of AIDS patients on AZT etc as evidence of how AZT etc is rescuing them on the basis of your assumption that HIV is harmful is so feeble as to be evidence of feeblemindeness.

Let's get the AZT thread straight:

Broder perpetrated a rushed study which gave a false result: AZT concentrations in vitro at up to 1000 um were totally harmless.

Duesberg checked and found in vitro it was harmful at 10-60 um. Toxicity studies are usually conducted at higher levels than in vivo, and he was checking Broder, not checking what happened in vivo.
Result: Broder had given a harmful and toxic drug a free pass with a false and incredible study now discredited.

Other in vitro studies found AZT harmful at concentrations as low as 1-4 um. 1um harmed the bone marrow and 4 um harmed T cells.
Result: Broder was discredited, and AZT seen liable to be dangerous.

Subsequent experience in vivo with patients backs this up. 500 g doses in early trials in Europe and Australia yield about 2 um one hour after imbibing, so harm was to be expected. It came. The standard 250g dose now presumably yields half of that so is less harmful. But it harms.

AZT is simply a nasty challenge to the ability of the system to get rid of it like any other poison. The body detoxifies itself all the time as best it can, so after any dose the blood levels will rise and then dwindle. But a repeated dose regimen of AZT is a repeated challenge which defeats weak and vulnerable people.

Only athletes like Magic Johnson can handle it and even he says it made him feel sick, and his wife said she had to keep him at it by nagging. Presumably he takes drug holidays.

If you are unhealthy then AZT concentration will stay higher longer. It becomes a one way ticket to your grave.

But because of their Meme induced fantasy that somehow it is worth the sacrifice because it keeps HIV at bay people like Dale babble as above.

The issue is, can you think straight if you believe fervently that HIV kills?

The answer, revealed at length in this repetitive thread, is no.

TS writes A invalid analogy followed by an unsubstantiated belief which is out of line with the scientific literature which shows that AZT is bad for you and HIV shows no sign of being toxic or biologically significant in human health in any way.

Have a Merry Christmas, TS.

Bob Houston says At the website Adele gave us, Harris acknowledged that Duesberg's study, whatever it's relevance, was sound

Harris didn't say sound Bob. He said he didn't question the results. A sound study would of tested lower concentrations to, got minimums like Harris said. So it was crappy design but Duesey didn't have much practice for ten years so oh well. I don't question the results, I don't denounce Duesberg for doing experiment I denounce him for saying false things. He said his average concentratoins he had on cells are like concentrations people on AZT have. You can't compare steady 10 micromolar and 25 micromolar AZT to 1990 dose peaking low micromolar down to hundreds nanomolar average. He's worse, he says it's like 20 to 60 micromolar!! That is not true.

Low micromolar AZT is some times toxic to cells. Thing is, AZT kills a retrovirus at lower dose over cells. Its more toxic to virus then to cells. So 600mg/day is still good against virus but lower side effects.

AZT is toxic, not like you want to believe. Get AZT pills for six months at pharmacy and take it all tonight and 50%, you will die. TAke the same dose iron supplements, 50% you will die. Same amount tylenol or aspirin, your dead definitely, on a quarter dose even.

Look at it this way, ten times a normal days' dose of tylenol or aspirin kills you. 200 times normal days dose AZT kills you.

They are all toxic they can all kill you, but some times you need iron aspirin, or AZT. Like for anemia arthritis and AIDS. Poison, medicine, its the dose people!!

HIV has no biological significance but AZT kills. Well 1998 data says,

People with HIV and AIDS that don't take any drugs have highest mortality.

People that take AZT monotherapy have second highest mortality.

People that take combination therapy have lower mortality.

People that take combination with a protease inhibitor have lowest mortality.

It's DECLINING MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY AMONG PATIENTS WITH ADVANCED HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS INFECTION Palella F NEJM 1998. The paper sucks so much for deniosaurs if I was one I would lie about it to!!

I certainly don't want or need a teddy bear, Adele. I am an extremely happy and well-adjusted person, especially given that I seem to be one of the minority in this country that cares enough about the most important issues of our time to seek out the truth, no matter how depressing that truth actually is. My experience has been that most of the HIV rethinkers that I've encountered share that desire for truth, no matter the costs; You know, people of integrity like Liam Schreff and Celia Farber who have sacrificed much to objectively report the truth in this age of highly corporatized media. Incidentally, the internet is helping us overcome that bastion of corruption, as well. Look around, the negative effects of our highly-corporatized culture are easily recognizable, but you don't want to see those effects. No, you, Adele appear to be a deeply shallow human being like so many Americans--the majority of which care nothing about the truth so long as their bourgeois lifestyle remains in tact. That's where this story ends, Adele; after all, this housing bubble has been the largest transfer of wealth transfer since the days of the Rockerfellers and the Vanderbilts and we all know how that ended.

Now, I do realize that it might be naive to expect you to understand the nuances of my previous post, given your intellectual limitations, but the willful ignorance of capable posters like Elk Mountain Man and the other apologists on this blog is inexcusable, especially given the clarity of the facts. Nevertheless, let me try to put it in simpler words just for you, Adele:

The poor quality of academic research in the Western world and the subsequent corporatization of human health endeavors that depend on that research is producing a similar endgame as the current housing crisis; therefore, understanding these two topics is made easier by recognizing those similarities. As I explained to you back in the summer, the housing market of the last 5 years was nothing more than a ponzi scheme in much the same way that the scientific research conducted around HIV/AIDS has become a laughably transparent shell game. Both endeavors are dominated by fraud and greed, and both have institutionalized corruption to a degree that threatens the integrity of much larger social systems. As HIV fails to adequately explain AIDS, more and more people are waking up to the realities of that failure and that number will only increase exponentially if indiscriminate HIV testing becomes ubiquitous. It's one thing to scare the gay community into frequent testing, which is really what has sustained this myth all these years, but to blanket test society, at-large, will only hasten HIV's demise as Big Pharma's golden egg. Similar revelations are playing out in the housing market: as more and more people lose their homes to foreclosure (and trust me, 2009 and 2010 will be far worse than even 2008), the masses will invariably wake up to the criminal fraud that is responsible for those foreclosures. You see, Adele, this economic recession will be a doozie, and it just might inspire the masses to take an even larger inventory.

Of course, you, Adele, like so many Americans will shrink away from that reality as long as it is possible to do so. However, the pain for us all will be exponentially worse for your willful ignorance.

Merry Xmas, Adele and good luck in the New Year. I'm sure that a simpleton, such as yourself, needs all the luck you can get your hands on.

Kevin

Adele writes HIV has no biological significance but AZT kills. Well 1998 data says,

People with HIV and AIDS that don't take any drugs have highest mortality.

People that take AZT monotherapy have second highest mortality.

People that take combination therapy have lower mortality.

People that take combination with a protease inhibitor have lowest mortality.

It's DECLINING MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY AMONG PATIENTS WITH ADVANCED HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS INFECTION Palella F NEJM 1998.

The problem for TS isn't the quality or quantity of data in the scientific literature; it's that he refuses to acknowledge the existence of any scientific literature apart from papers authored by Duesberg. I've been told that even some of his dissident buddies find his blinkered view frustrating.

Dale its like these people that say HIV Inc. is over when alot of people get tested. They say BC all these people without HIV will test positive and everyone will know its not real or its harmless.

Problem is, half of adults in USA got tested already!! No huge false positives or angry people tearing down NIH. What's up? What's up is, the tests work, HIV is real, HIV is harmful. There's medicines for it, they work, they have side affects but they are not crazy worse then other drugs for other stuff.

Every one gets it. Except the people one in a million who says 9-11 didn't happen, vaccines and doctors make all the health problems and complain about fluoradation of water. And a couple people like Mbeki that complain about cost of drugs, that's good, but they try to keep drugs from their people, that's very very bad. Also some people with HIV who are in denial that's natural I feel sorry for them I hope they do OK. And a few professors like Duesey and Manu that do it because they hate another scientist. Different ways, their all in denial.

I'm off to N. CA with the family, so Merry Christmas every one!! And all that other good stuff!! See ya in the New Year.

Kevin you seem like the kind of bold confident man I'm looking for. Would you be interested in a $50,000 cash prize?

Who wouldn't be?

All you have to do is predict when the HIV/AIDS paradigm will be overturned in the public mind. You have a window period of +/- 12 months from your predicted date, its free to enter and you can enter as many times as you like.

I've given up on Truthseeker he's useless, he's predicted his own departure from this thread at least a dozen times and still he returns.

So Kevin, we're all very interested, when is the big day?

Priests of the Lord Duesberg,

When asked why the rest of the world doesn't believe your delusions, you fall back to claiming that there is a conspiracy afoot.

-UN overestimates AIDS numbers, ergo conspiracy to attract more funding.
-Scientific consensus rejects Duesberg et al, ergo conspiracy to censure "alternative research".
-Court case crops up, ergo truth about the conspiracy will explode shortly. very shortly. it's coming. just a little setback...
-AZT, ergo conspiracy to wipe out homosexuals and Africa.
etc...

Have a Merry Christmas, TS
Posted by: Dale | December 21, 2007 3:16 PM

You too, Dale. Just don't sip any of that eggnog Adele is handing out, you just never know what she thinks might spice it up!

As I explained to you back in the summer, the housing market of the last 5 years was nothing more than a ponzi scheme in much the same way that the scientific research conducted around HIV/AIDS has become a laughably transparent shell game. Both endeavors are dominated by fraud and greed, and both have institutionalized corruption to a degree that threatens the integrity of much larger social systems. As HIV fails to adequately explain AIDS, more and more people are waking up to the realities of that failure and that number will only increase exponentially if indiscriminate HIV testing becomes ubiquitous. It's one thing to scare the gay community into frequent testing, which is really what has sustained this myth all these years, but to blanket test society, at-large, will only hasten HIV's demise as Big Pharma's golden egg. Similar revelations are playing out in the housing market: as more and more people lose their homes to foreclosure (and trust me, 2009 and 2010 will be far worse than even 2008), the masses will invariably wake up to the criminal fraud that is responsible for those foreclosures. You see, Adele, this economic recession will be a doozie, and it just might inspire the masses to take an even larger inventory.

All good up to the last sentence or two I believe. The mortgage debacle was predictable because it had a built in end, as the payments holiday suddenly ended for buyers and higher rates bust them, if they couldn't sell to a higher bidder, after the bubble burst. Looks like the dot com bubble, or any other bubble - bursts when it stops expanding. Ponzi scheme writ large.

But is HIV/AIDS like that? Will people become disenchanted? Sell off? Hard to see. I predict that the thing will segue into a quiet shift of ground, as I will suggest at Science Guardian. The solution to avoiding exposure has already been found, the way I read it from something that happened recently. I'll post on Science Guardian on what it is so John Moore can know and tell Fauci.

To imagine it as a bubble bursting is wishful thinking, I would say. Not with media complicity, institutional involvement etc rooted as deep as any cancer. No one will lose their job. No one will be held to account. No one will get compensation or their lives back.

That is probably why these Meme monkeys here enjoy sticking it to the honest and upright earnest truthseekers so much and so long. They can't lose anything except respect from the handful of people who think science and medicine should be and could be honest.

Merry Xmas, Adele and good luck in the New Year. I'm sure that a simpleton, such as yourself, needs all the luck you can get your hands on. Kevin

Is Adele real, or a cartoon invention of some more sophisticated player? Seems too adept at the Meme shell game to match the impression given by her bad but very consistent spelling. Adele, for God's Sake, spare us the deniosaurs, would you? It's DINOSAURS. Even if you are faking it, spare us, would you? Have mercy.

The problem for TS isn't the quality or quantity of data in the scientific literature; it's that he refuses to acknowledge the existence of any scientific literature apart from papers authored by Duesberg.

Duesberg's papers are of high intelligence and prove out. Other papers turn out to be stupid and questionable. You want one to treat them as equal?

Have you any idea how much people fiddle clinical trials, either wilfully to get the results they want or unwittingly through incompetence, by not randomizing properly, or by matching incomparable groups, or by using improper controls - or no controls at all as in HIV=AIDS?

Try reading Alvan Feinstein the Yale professor of medicine and epidemiology whose 1977 book Clinical Biostatistics laid it all out (Mosby Co). As one reader says It's thirty years old but its truths are eternal. There is a better chance of cleaning up Wall Street of insider trading than there is of catching this stuff in medical research and stamping it all out.

Poor Duesberg like any other fine critic of the old school who cares about truth is forced to take this data as gospel for the purposes of politely showing it up as inconsistent with the claims of HIV=AIDS, or laboriously dig into it to show why it is incredible, which is another unfair handicap he is burdened with. Time and again it doesn't prove out as good research.

You are not aware of the fact that Palella showed that the new drugs came in too late to claim they were responsible for the improvement in health they were credited for:

"The new protease inhibitors weren't given to more than 2% of patients in mid 1995, when HAART came in. It was mid 1997 before they reached 86%, according to the Palella study. So the fewer deaths were too early for HAART to gain credit If anything the improvement was due to cutting AZT dosage by three times or more. - NAR"

Hey I am quoting myself!

I've been told that even some of his dissident buddies find his blinkered view frustrating.- Dale

This is the argument of a woman. Dale, are you really female?

One can never tell with the constant shift in names in the US between male and female. The Wall Street Journal did a piece on it this week.

Kevin you seem like the kind of bold confident man I'm looking for. Would you be interested in a $50,000 cash prize?
Who wouldn't be? - Roy Hinkley

Who? Well, how about someone who, being used to your mendacity on this thread and presumably in pushing lethal drugs in real life, would wonder if you really would be in a position to deliver when that time comes, let alone willing?

All you have to do is predict when the HIV/AIDS paradigm will be overturned in the public mind. You have a window period of +/- 12 months from your predicted date, its free to enter and you can enter as many times as you like.

This is a typical example of the HIV=AIDS defender's quality of thinking, for a moment's thought would tell even the writer of this dumb paragraph that it doesn't make any sense to imagine there will be a particular moment in the "public mind" when the HIV=AIDS thing will flip.

a) The public mind is mostly bored with and uninformed about even the stock banalities of the incorrect paradigm
to begin with.

b) The moment when this mostly vague amorphous and dimly held belief will flip is therefore probably undefinable - unless Fauci and Gallo are headlined escaping to Rio and the condos they have bought in Ipanema.

However my forthcoming post may well spoil even that happy possibility since I am about to advise Moore etc how they can ease out of their fix without being held culpable for defrauding the public.

I've given up on Truthseeker he's useless, he's predicted his own departure from this thread at least a dozen times and still he returns. So Kevin, we're all very interested, when is the big day?

Roy your and Adele's, Dale's etc posts are so snakecharming that they lure one in, despite oneself, as others also find, they have told me, even though they like me are heartily ashamed of being beguiled into such a useless activity - although I always say you can never be too ready for dumb objections to the obvious, since the human mind is capable of reversing almost any intelligent perception if given a motive, and it is good to know what we might have to deal with on Charlie Rose etc.

Someone open a window, there's too much hot air coming in.

So TS,

From your last sentence is it safe for me to assume you predict the end of the HIV/AIDS paradigm will come within the span of Charlie Rose's life?

I'm going to throw a number out there and say 20 years? Do you think it will take that long TS? Or will it come sooner? Within ten years? Five?

I mean its crumbling right? So flawed amateurs are picking it apart on their blogs at this point.

Come on TS! Do you really think it can possibly survive through 2008? I mean its gone on over 25 years at this point!

When will it end?

Just a date please.

Just a year even.

What is a prediction, afterall, without a time frame?

Its bullshit thats what.

You're not a bullshitter are you TS?

Oh sorry Sascha forgot to mention you, did I?

Blessed am I, for the apostle of Duesberg has used my name!

Thanks be to Duesberg! All hail the messiah!

From your last sentence is it safe for me to assume you predict the end of the HIV/AIDS paradigm will come within the span of Charlie Rose's life?

Yes. I would say within three years. Range of error - 2008-2020.

Roy, are you sure you are not confusing this question with the famous one in HIV=AIDS, when will we have a vaccine?

O great Truthiness,

I have a question for your holiness; is the Lord Duesberg present in spirit or in substance whilst you perform the holy sacrement of The Blog?

Truthseeker

Roy is certainly not confusing the prediction of a vaccine with the prediction of a reversal in the "public mind" (read media). The sudden discovery of a vaccine IS how they're going to ease their well-upholstered asses out this one, intact and ready for the next viral challenge, if you'll forgive the pun.

Btw. Roy have you seen it's already "mainstream" to speculate that it's not HIV but proteins from one dying T-cell that marks the next for the kill?

Cross-presentation of caspase-cleaved apoptotic self
antigens in HIV infection:

We found that the proteome of apoptotic T cells includes prominent fragments of cellular proteins generated by caspases and that a high proportion of distinct T cell epitopes in these fragments is recognized by CD8+ T cells during HIV infection. The frequencies of effector CD8+ T cells that are specific for apoptosis-dependent epitopes correlate with the frequency of circulating apoptotic CD4+ T cells in HIV-1-infected individuals. We propose that these self-reactive effector CD8+ T cells may contribute to the systemic immune activation during chronic HIV infection. The caspase-dependent cleavage of proteins associated with apoptotic cells has a key role in the induction of self-reactive CD8+ T cell responses, as the caspase-cleaved fragments are efficiently targeted to the processing machinery and are cross-presented by dendritic cells. These findings demonstrate a previously undescribed role for caspases in immunopathology.

Now ain't that a pretty picture? Only problem, it's not really clear what HIV is doing so uniquely in it.

Maybe that is why the solution seems to be a vaccine that targets reactivated endogenous retroviruses?

New strategy for attacking AIDS focuses on cell's distress signal

The distress signal itself is created when HIV infects a cell and disturbs the remnants of ancient viruses that have been slumbering inside human genes. About 8 percent of the DNA in the human genome - the blueprint for making all the cells in the body - consists of viral genes inserted millions of years ago.
For reasons that have yet to be understood, some of these fossil genes are activated when a cell is attacked by a modern virus. They produce tiny proteins that float to the surface of the cell, where they present a distinctive signal - like waving a distress flag.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/09/BAQCT7E9P.D…

The time when the HIV meme flips in the minds of those closest to it? I predict it has already flipped, but, just as when they killed God, it will the devotees some time to realize the extent of their deed.

Roy, please tell me when you need the number and SWIFT code for my bank acc.

My prediction is in the next decade. When the new generation of doctors come to realize and see all the information. And sorry to say for you folks that's already started. Doctors are seeing numbers of patients not on therapy who do not have detrimental numbers (you know, those surrogate markers that mean nothing anyway)....

"I'm not happy. I have been asking my doctor for ages if I can go on some kind of HIV drug therapy and I keep getting stalled. I've been pos for 8 years and over time my energy levels have gone down and down, my body is just fighting this virus as it would any other virus, but it seems that my blood counts are still in the 'normal' range, but they keep referring to the numbers like it's a bible or something. "Oh, you're fine right now, your CD4 counts are so and so and your viral load is so and so...... you're fine, let's just wait and see." Yeah right. ...I am going to MAKE my doctor give me something to kill off this virus. I don't care if he thinks my "numbers" are fine or not.......... They have their "recipe", but they really don't know what to think at the end of the day. Only I know my own body and how it feels, and only I know what I should do for it's survival now." taurusthecat (09/24/07 09:23 AM) thebody.com

Some doctors already are starting to wake up and refuse to dispence meds to people who are hypnotized by the Meme. Most likely the same doc may prescribe meds for someone with off "by the book" numbers. But what will eventually happen is HIV positives will always stay healthy and the meds will no longer have a place in therapy, even for guys like this who are ever so hexed. Give this poor sap a placebo sugar pill and he'll be just fine.

jspreen, .... Please do tell me more about cancer, with particular emphasis on kidney cancer if you don't mind.
Posted by: Roy Hinkley | December 12, 2007 6:

I completely missed this one. But luckily I stumbled on it this morning and since Roy's demand provides me once more with the most perfect alibi to trigger an avalanche of posts from my aetiology fan club (Hi Tara, Adele, Johnny pee moore, ignoble Chris, and many others: what's up?) I'm glad to jump on the occasion with both hands.

Tell more about cancer.... Hum, thoroughly answering that query risks to double the contents of this magnificent thread and as such to convince even the most addicted readers to let go. So let's just stick to two particular kidney cancers, one affecting the kidney collecting tubules, the other the renal parenchyma and observe them through the microscope provided by Dr Ryke Geerd Hamer's Germanic New Medicine.

After having carefully read the many marvelous contributions I've send to this wonderful blog, you all know by now that each and every disease:

a) Is caused by a biological conflict
b) Affects psyche, brain and body simultaneously. (Resentment, brain relay and organ are strictly related)
c) Is part of a bi-phase process.

The kidney collecting tubules originate from the inner germ layer, the endoderm, and have their brain relay (hamer herd) in the brain stem. This implies tissue growth (+) (cancer) during the first phase (stress phase) and tissues decomposition (-) (renal tuberculosis!!) during the repair phase. The resentment during the causal DHS may best be described as "having lost everything" or "feeling totally abandoned". The obstruction of the tubules during the stress phase may be interpreted as a biological mechanism to avoid loss of body liquid. It's also the major cause of obesity. It's not the TV and chips all day, my friends. TV and chips all day is merely the result of the resentment of being all alone in a stupid world where the only thing that counts is individual fame and wealth.

The renal parenchyma originates from the middle germ layer, the mesoderm, and has its brain relay (hamer herd) in the cerebral medulla. This implies tissue necrosis (-) during the first phase (stress phase) and tissues growth (+) (kidney cyst!) during the repair phase. The biological conflict is typically referred to as a water- or fluid conflict. Example: a person nearly drowned. Or a person who had a DHS when coming back to his/her house where this happened.

Interesting theories about cancer. So often the mind/body connection is ignored by mainstream medicine. Part of the reason that I have done so well is that I don't believe that diseases such as cancer or AIDS are incurable. When one is told that they have an incurable disease, this plays heavily on one's psyche and can greatly affect the outcome. When one has hope and not such a terminal philosophy in one's mind, then the healing process can begin and great obstacles may be overcome!

O great Truthfulness, I have a question for your holiness; is the Lord Duesberg present in spirit or in substance whilst you perform the holy sacrament of The Blog?
Posted by: Sascha | December 22, 2007 1:19 AM

Sascha, thank you for addressing me with the proper reverence, please forgive my correcting your spelling, and also it is O Great Truthfulness, not Truthiness, that is Colbert's label for AIDTruth.org, Moore's site, which if you have neglected to peruse it, is a refuge for all the best prima facie nonsense advanced in defense of HIV=AIDS which hasn't found a home here, the humungous Aetiology thread which has so well served at over 1500 comments as a drainage sump for drivel from the Meme and the clean, pure water of top flight debunkers of same, mixed into a kind of mud unfortunately but still able to be filtered into the Truth, scientific and political, that we all perceive, whether we publicly acknowledge it or not, that is purveyed by myself and my betters here and on ScienceGuardian, where excellent science is our touchstone and the torch of truth is held up high as the doors of the palace of AIDS falsehood are knocked down in our midnight raids to illuminate the skulking figures of perfidious purveyors of piffle as they run like cockroaches from the light.

Oh sorry Sascha I forgot, you are allergic to hot air unless it emanates from NIAID.

The answer to your somewhat paramoid question is that I do not ever bother the great and exemplary Peter Duesberg with the trivial challenges to his very fine (used as examples at Harvarad graduate seminars taught by Nobel prize winners) papers logically and scientifically eviscerating the most absurd, self-disproving, unsubstantiated hogwash of a paradigm in the history of biological science, namely that HIV causes AIDS, dreamed up by a known rascal and perpetrated by a self serving bureaucrat with the scientific grasp of a gnat on a world he prevents from reviewing it by barring respectable reporters from even mentioning the topic of all the excellent papers in the AIDS literature rejecting the tenets of the overarching but hollow belief, papers written not only by Duesberg but also by none other than Fauci and our heroic debunker basher John "I am not a macaque, but a fine scientist who smears microbicide on the nether regions of macaques" Moore.

Why would you think I talk to Duesberg on these matters? Do you overrate your importance to that extent? Believe me, this is a matter which will be resolved only at the highest level. The comments of people on this thread who try to throw a spanner in the works of the remorseless juggernaut of debunking that is slowly crushing resistance among the elite are as pins thrown at the giant balloon cartoons of the Macy's Thanksgiving Parade, or like air gun pellets trying to bring down a Stealth bomber as streaks overhead to bomb the bunker under the Palace of AIDS where Fauci and his pr goons hide to plot their ineffective resistance.

Why do I boast in these terms when the Harpers bunkerbuster produced absolutely no effect last year, except for Michael Specter at the New Yorker's recent unregenerate reassertion of AIDS bunk in his piece a month or two ago, and now his absurd followup piece in the New Yorker telling us all how AIDS will finally be solved?

Because there is no way in which the one factor that is on the side of debunkers can be stopped from doing its inevitable work, year after year, as it has done so remarkably well to date.

Time.

All you have to do is predict when the HIV/AIDS paradigm will be overturned in the public mind. You have a window period of +/- 12 months from your predicted date, its free to enter and you can enter as many times as you like. -- Roy Whatever

Your "contest" is disgusting, not only because it reveals how ignorant your ilk is of the financial morass that is currently unwinding, but more importantly, you reveal that you are more interested in being right than in true understanding. In that respect, you are very typical of the kind of scientist/citizen that our perverted hyper-capitalist society is now producing. You are, thus, typical but otherwise uninteresting.

Nevertheless, as Truthseeker as already pointed out, suggesting that the exact date of HIV's demise is knowable is highly unintelligible. Only an dull person, such as you Roy, would find such a question/contest relevant. All that the rest of us can surely know is that HIV's "falling away" will most certainly follow sometime after the masses realize that the middle class doesn't exist anymore, that our economy has become a complex, modern feudal system where corporations distribute the bulk our country's wealth amongst a select few. We are almost there, for this housing bubble will quickly cause a massive loss of quality of life, here, in this country. Only then will the masses begin to question all of the half-truths that our greedy society has embraced as gospel during this age of unprecedented consumption. On the other hand, if they never wake-up, then our collective future is much bleaker than I am imagining, and the HIV myth might remain as part and parcel of the fascist society it deserves.

Yet, I am optimistic for taking away the American Dream, quite literally this time, from tens of millions of Americans (and Britons, too) will have major effects on modern society. I just hope some of them are positive, you know, in the sense of that word before HIV perverted its meaning...

Unpaid Credit Cards Bedevil Americans

Kevin

"Duesberg did extraordinary miracles through Duesberg, so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them."

Sasha....
Duesberg>Edit>Delete, Gallo>Edit>Copy>Replace,
is far more fitting to your AIDS religion. Sorry but Duesberg is not a Church. Are you wearing your panties on backwards just like your fake friend Adele?

"They want a King and now they will not be free. For they have rejected me, the Lord Duesberg who gives them freedom"

Ok, Carter seriously,

Show me that there is evidence to back up your claim that HIV doesn't cause AIDS and I will believe that you don't have blind faith in Duesberg. I will believe that there was a reasoned evaluation of all the evidence available that led you to conclude that HIV doesn't cause AIDS.

Hey miss sashey! Are you not even bright enough to understand that a negative is not provable!

You can't prove negatives yah dope. You can't prove something doesn't do something. You can only prove something DOES something. You can only prove positives. So get to proving that hiv causes aids.

Until you do, you are just another feeble minded brain washed numb skulled aids cult of death groupie.

Ms Sasha know it all brains,
evidence to back up your claim that HIV doesn't cause AIDS?

Plainly, take a look at all the mainstream literature. It's all hubabalaloo with some weak correlation thrown in for good measure. Are you another one of those virus chasers too?

handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick

Just some papers, dude, just some papers. That's all a so-called hiv poz needs: the right information.

It really is fascinating that the entire sandcastle paradigm of AIDS is built on 3 bogus measurements, unrelated to health:

If you test "positive" for antibodies (Surrogate Marker 1), then likely your "viral load" (Surrogate Marker 2) will lead to a decline in your Cd4 cells (Surrogate Marker 3) -- then you will get symptoms and die.

It'd be interesting to see what happened if folks just starting ignoring the surrogate markers, and, like in the old days, treated when actually sick.

Ah!
Spirited scientific debate! Measured statements backed with strong evidence! Not.

Just as I thought; nothing to worry about.

Yo momma, I didn't ask for proof. I asked for evidence to back up your claim. All I see is insults. but then I shouldn't expect more from you.

Carter, what I believe is irrelevant. If you truly have something I would have no trouble with your claim. I'd rather HIV didn't exist.

jspreen, yes, the right information is what everybody needs. But there seems to be some debate as to what the right information is. When someone claims something and immediately calls anyobody questioning his claim a bimbo, feeble minded and so on, it's difficult to take them seriously. Not being a virologist or immunologist myself, I have to rely on the "experts". Why should I trust someone you just hurls insults around?

Why should I trust someone you just hurls insults around?

Huh?!!? You're clueless in science, and grammar, too?!!?

So, my being clueless combined with my bad grammar, are evidence that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Yup!

You will go far with that.

Why is it up to me to produce something for you Sasha the classic fake persuader? Truth is, it is not up to me. All one has to do is look at the work of others and mainstream without AIDS rose colored glasses.

Mountain man comments It'd be interesting to see what happened if folks just starting ignoring the surrogate markers, and, like in the old days, treated when actually sick.

What happened can be seen by going to the CDC hiv/aids surveillance reports for years prior to 1986. More than 50% of AIDS patients died within 2-3 years of diagnosis.

So you say again and again and again. Trouble is nobody believes you. I wonder why? Ah, of course, the conspiracy.

Ah, Dale, lying with statistics again. Where do you get that 50% number from? Thin air?

Dr. Darin has already worked these numbers, very clearly, very precisely.

So, look at these numbers and admit that you are flat out wrong.

Prior to 1986, there was only about 18,000 deaths over 5 years. More so, the 2 year latency was wrong, it is now believed to be 10. This epidemic didn't even happen until AZT was unleashed in 1987.

So I say again and again and again, there's no conspiracy Sasha. Just business as usual. The believers such as yourself can't fathom that independent minds can see past the rhetoric. Conspriacy - how could there be? Its not unusual for incorrect science mixed with politics to fly off the handle in the wrong direction. The sad part is if your camp was so right there'd be something useful from the likes of mainstream thought, which we all know there ain't any. Merck's promising experimental AIDS vaccine failed because your science behind it is vastly incorrect along with everything else, humm business as usual once again!

Conspiracy, business as usual, whatever! You're the one bandying the rhetoric and splitting hairs.

You want to disprove the theory, you do the science. Get your data, analyse it, write up your conclusions, publish them. If they are verified, you'll be a hero.

I believe nothing! And that includes you. I act on what I think is the best available evidence, for now it happens to indicate that HIV is a virus that is the causative agent in AIDS. I'm not about to act differently, Just because some guy comes along and tells me this is wrong. Were I that gullible, I'd believe in Atlantis, I'd believe the pyramids were built by aliens, and that the moon landings never happened. I'd believe the earth was no more than 6000 years old, give or take a few biblical generations. I'd believe the King was alive and well and playing in a bar and grill at the end of the universe. I'd believe that Kennedy was killed by a jellybean spider, whatever that is. I'd believe that the metal strip in dollar bills was put there to allow the government to track my whereabouts and that the UN was stockpiling equipment for an invasion of the US. I'd believe there was a secret society of illuminati who rule the world or alternatively that the Zionists are out to get us. I'd believe that the whole scientific community was lying to me about HIV. Etc... I'd believe all that because some guy just told me so. Any one of these claims may turn out to be true, but Hancock, Von Däniken , Ussher, Duesberg et al. have not provided enough evidence to for their claims to be taken seriously.

Until then I see no cause for concern. You've been beating this horse for twenty years and still nothing has changed. The windmills are still turning. You profess to fight blind faith, but blind scepticism is no better. It's still blindness.

Who here believes Conspiracy theory and business as usual mean the same thing like Sasha does?

I act on what I think is the best available evidence, for now it happens to indicate that HIV is a virus that is the causative agent in AIDS.

This statement is absolutely against everything recorded in the HIV=AIDS literature, yet you insist on making it. It marks you as either a dolt or medacious fibber, or both, you choose. There is no science in our saying so, so we won't bother. This is meant to be a scientific discussion, after all.

We just refer you to PubMed and suggest that you read it thoroughly on both sides of the case, Sascha, and if you still think that HIV is the cause of AIDS we have a fine looking bridge to Brooklyn we would like to sell you.

In fact how much money do you have? There are endless possibilities we see here.

No wait:

I'd believe all that because some guy just told me so. Any one of these claims may turn out to be true, but Hancock, Von Däniken , Ussher, Duesberg et al. have not provided enough evidence to for their claims to be taken seriously.

Not provided enough evidence by Peter Duesberg National Academy member in his impeccable unanswered reviews over twenty years to be taken seriously...and you compare him to Von Daniken.... OK I now we see that we will have to face up to the fact that you are indeed completely illiterate, utterly foolish or a barefaced liar, or all three. There is no other explanation for that sentence.

Whether one or all are true, you mark yourself out of your own mouth as utterly unworthy of discussing the issue. Completely unqualified, in fact. You don't know enough even to respect your critic. The fact that you sit at a keyboard and can write posts on this thread that appear in regular font doesn't change this fact. You are revealed as completely unqualified to discuss the matter. Period.

However, you are very qualified to fall for almost any scam, and we hereby ask for your address to begin what should be a very profitable venture.

Truthseeker,
Sasha said "You've been beating this horse for twenty years and still nothing has changed." Don't you think, as do I, the establishment is the one who's been beating a dead horse? Oh, and did you notice I've asked 3 times for an answer or opinion why the Merck vaccine failed and nobody answers? Sasha, would you know? I bet she doesn't because she's just in a trance repeating over and over to herself HIV=AIDS ~ HIV=AIDS.

sascha and adele! Here is a lovely quote from your favorite hiv pseudoscientist that someone posted at New Aids Review:

John P Moore, recipient of $500,000 from an AIDS drug manufacturer and former Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center lab assistant said: "He (meaning the founder of your favorite pseudoscientific belief, Robert Gallo) is grossly overrated as a scientist. If you are dumb enough to believe Gallo's personal propaganda (like sascha, dale, adele, C Noble, tara, elkidiotman), that's your problem. But it reflects badly on your competence...if you swallow his line and waste print space on him. And if you think Gallo had much to do with the chemokine work, you are a fool."

Bob Gallo, the so called hiv discoverer? Or should we say LAV thief?

JP Moore says Gallo "Overated as a scientist"? hahahaahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhhaaaaaaaaaaaa

Aint it the bloomin truth!

Check out the hilarious AIDS bobsey twin pseudoscientist catfight on the following link!

Pseudoscientist JP Moore calls pseudoscientist Bob Gallo "sick and twisted". Bob Gallo lies and denies.

hahahahhahhhahhhhaaaaaaaahhhahaaaaaaaaahhahahhahahahhhhaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhaaaaa

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:z11qGBHVA1EJ:www.poz.com/articles/2…

If gay men and blacks weren't dying by the hands of big pharma/gallo/Aids propaganda and pseudo-science that would be even more hilarious.. Thanks for that, Mr. How do you like me now!

Carter,

Even if I had an explanation for why they failed, you'd not believe me. Any number of papers in the literature, explaining why they failed, would not change your opinion one iota.

By truthseeker's logic, anyone who disagrees with his opinions is a cretin. Do you think that everybody who disagrees with you is a cretin?

Truthseeker implies that if I read the literature I will come to the same conclusion he and you came to. But if I don't, then I am a liar, a fool or whatever. So the test isn't whether I can assess the science and come to my own conclusions, but rather whether I will agree with your position or not. I could do that without reading the science.

Duesberg himself could end up saying he was wrong all these years, you'd disqualify him as a greedy capitalist pig.

There is no scientific debate here.

wow, thanks for that link, copied and pasted from the POZ article.

John Moore, Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center: "He is grossly overrated as a scientist. If you are dumb enough to believe Gallo's personal propaganda, that's your problem. But it reflects badly on your competence as a journalist if you swallow his line and waste print space on him. And if you think Gallo had much to do with the chemokine work, you are a fool."

................................oh btw is anybody going to inform lynn margulis that it was probably john moore who altered her wiki page to make her look like a 9/11 nut, when she had a much longer articulate response that someone from new york edited on nov 17 to cherry pick her quotes.........right after i pasted the message that margulis beleived 9/11 was a fraud moore thanked me for the post and issued a vague warning that I inadvertently helped him and then walla a day later margulis's post here was cherry picked and added on margulis's wiki page. What a bunch of losers these guys like gallo, mooore etc are.

Truthseeker implies that if I read the literature I will come to the same conclusion he and you came to. But if I don't, then I am a liar, a fool or whatever. So the test isn't whether I can assess the science and come to my own conclusions, but rather whether I will agree with your position or not.

Correct, Sascha, if you read the literature and conclude that Duesberg did not bring evidence to bear that disproves the fatuous HIV=AIDS claim, and fail to see that his arguments demonstrate it is a worthless hollow sham which has no good or fundamental evidence on its behalf, then yes, you are either an illiterate fool, a blinkered carthorse of the HIV=AIDS bandwagon, and not worth discussing the issue with.

By that I mean the real issue of how so many people can be so wrong so much of the time and not know it, or if they know it how they can be so disgraceful as to live off what they know to be absurd, and harm other people by it.

Hey Truthiness!

Still arguing with me? But I'm completely unqualified and beneath your contempt. As you say again "not worth discussing the issue with". Can't find anyone "qualified" to debate? Damn, no I forgot. You can't argue with Duesberg for you agree with him. On the other hand he is the only one qualified to argue with you. Ah, the conundrum of the omniscient!

But thanks for making my point. I agree with truthiness, therefore I am.

Yeah, I loved that quote by Moore about Gall0 -- two bumbling thieves fighting over fake stolen diamonds:

John Moore, Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center: "He is grossly overrated as a scientist. If you are dumb enough to believe Gallo's personal propaganda, that's your problem. But it reflects badly on your competence as a journalist if you swallow his line and waste print space on him. And if you think Gallo had much to do with the chemokine work, you are a fool."

Sascha, Merry Christmas! Despite being a moron, there is a place for you in the Kingdom of Christ -- at least according to Huckabee.

Still arguing with me? But I'm completely unqualified and beneath your contempt. As you say again "not worth discussing the issue with".

Arguing? In what way arguing? I was merely stating a truth, which is my job when I find one, to enlighten anyone who might otherwise get the wrong impression from your misplaced confidence that you were qualified to speak on this topic.

According to your very own self, from your very own words, you are not. Too busy trying to stand upright on the bandwagon as it goes over some very rough spots, no doubt.

Of course, what you don't realise is that the wagon is a tumbril.

Hey Saschez, your unquestioning confidence in the "sick and twisted" propaganda of Bob Gallo and his claims that HIV causes AIDS shows you to be lacking of competence, and clearly shows you to be quite "dumb enough", according to HIV pseudoscientist John P. Moore!

One more time, just for good christmas cheer, (and because sashez and friends are a bit slow on the uptake):

John Moore, Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center talks about his good friend, Robert Gallo: "He is grossly overrated as a scientist. If you are dumb enough to believe Gallo's personal propaganda, that's your problem."

hahahhahhahhhahhhahaahhaaaahhhhhhaaaahahahahaaaahhhhhaaaaaa

Merry Christmas to all, even you sashez, and to all a very good night!

So I should rather place unquestioning confidence in you and truthiness? I should follow the true faith, you mean?

As your worships wish! Your delusions shall be my realities! O holy apostles of the Lord Duesberg. Here is my faith and creed!

What is the chief end of man?
To glorify Duesberg and enjoy him forever!
What rule hath Duesberg given to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him?
A. The word of Duesberg contained in his scriptures is the only rule that is to direct us how we may enjoy him.

Sashez, you can start by getting down on your knees, repenting your alegiance to Bob Gallo's ego, confessing your own meanspirited lack of good common sense, and begging for forgiveness.

I'll pass on knocking heads to your deity though. I have my answers now.

Oh and Merry Christmas How? Good night to you too.

Sasha,
In response to you rant -click on carter-
Get over yourself. You're just full of it. I retain independent though unlike your foolish narrow and subservient mind set. Try me - come on now your opinion on Merck's utter failure. Please Miss Sasha, the proverbial poseur, I'm waiting.

So I should rather place unquestioning confidence in you and truthiness? I should follow the true faith, you mean?

Exactly. For those not up to the mental challenges, it is right and meet to follow the path of the master in all things.

Merry 2008, Sascha, enjoying the blessings of your new found wisdom.

Dear Dr. Noble, and other shills,

The reason none of us do any "real" research on "HIV" is because it hasn't been shown to exist as anything other than a retroid, or HERV, or contaminating cellular nucleic acids, proteins, or lipids. You can't study that which doesn't exist, said some of the followers of Plato, unless of course you are talking about "the cave" and the realm of the metaphysical (or supernatural).

As to "conspiracy theories and theorists," I don't agree with the Nobelist and Kenyan ecologist Wangari Maathai hypothesis regarding "HIV" constituting a U.S government engineered virus http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200410/s1216687.htm, because if it were, of course it would be photographable in someone's bloodstream who had a million viral load, and/or isolatable as an an exogenous virus, which of course it isn't according to Bess and Glauchinkoff, and others(see an extended discussion debunking this "Graves/Maathai "HIV" conspiracy theory at: http://www.aras.ab.ca/articles/scientific/20071007-Maniotis-Lambros.pdf.

As I've stated before, I'm more in harmony with the idea that the good white doctors ad pharma shills like you shouldn't feed antiretrovirals to the most vulnerable people on earth without of course giving them atleast some water and food to wash down the toxic, experimental, black-box-label, cytotoxic, immunotoxic, neurotoxic, myotoxic, hepatotoxic, cardiotoxic, rank poisons being referred to as "life-saving AIDS medicines," as indicated by this piece sent to me by a fledgling journalist turned graduate student who investigated this tragic pharmacogenicide happening in Kampala, Uganda:

December 25, 2007

Cases Without Borders

"Food Scarcity and H.I.V. Interwoven in Uganda

By DAVID TULLER

MBARARA, Uganda -- At the AIDS clinic here, the stories are brutal. A young cattle herder, infected with H.I.V. along with his wife, tells me that all four of their
children died before turning 3.

A mother of five, also infected, reports that after her marriage she was forced to have sex with her husband's three brothers, in accordance with tribal tradition.

And most patients I meet say they and their families scramble to survive from meal to meal, never far from the edge of starvation. Many say their H.I.V. drugs have
drastically increased their appetites and made them crave food even more.

"Sometimes I am so hungry," a 44-year-old widow says. "It's intense. My whole body is shivering from hunger. Even when I have just finished eating, I am hungry again minutes later. It's such a problem, because I don't always have
food."

As a journalist turned graduate student in public health, I am in Uganda for five weeks as part of a research team investigating whether "food insecurity" -- a persistent difficulty in finding enough to eat -- undermines the effectiveness of H.I.V. treatment.

I am interviewing dozens of patients -- anonymously, as is standard in such qualitative research -- about what they eat, how much food they have, whether they grow it or buy it and whether the side effects from the medications are worse if they take the pills on an empty stomach. Our team also wants to know whether costs related to treatment limit their ability to cover basic foods and whether hunger
forces women to offer men "live sex," or intercourse without condoms, in exchange for food or money.

The study is part of a collaboration between the University of California, San Francisco, and the Mbarara University of Science and Technology, a prestigious institution in this small, bustling city southwest of Kampala, the Ugandan capital. Other patients will be followed for two years to monitor how food insecurity affects their drug regimens, and illness and death rates.

Western donors have increased the distribution of antiretroviral drugs in sub-Saharan Africa. But they have done little to make sure that the recipients do not starve to death or have to choose between paying for transportation to the clinic and feeding their children. Studies like this one seek to demonstrate that packaging food aid with H.I.V. drugs or reimbursing patients for travel can actually improve health and save lives.

Uganda has been hailed for its success in reducing H.I.V. infection, with adult prevalence falling to just below 7 percent in 2005, from 15 percent in 1991. That success is not apparent from my observation post, a small corner office at the ramshackle clinic here.

Every weekday morning, more than 100 people pack the clinic. About two-thirds are women, many swathed in brilliant colors. Men often refuse to be tested or seek
treatment. The patients cluster on benches in the hallways, jostling infants on their knees and waiting to see clinicians or counselors and pick up their monthly
supplies of medication.

Women, in particular, confront what medical anthropologists call "structural violence," the social, cultural and legal constraints that often rob them of control over their own and their children's destinies.

"Their accounts of beatings, neglect and rape, of unfaithful and absent husbands and boyfriends, do not exactly showcase the human male's most appealing qualities. More than one woman tells me she became infected because her H.I.V.-positive partner had threatened her with abuse or abandonment if she refused his demands for "live
sex."

"I used to tell my husband that we should use condoms, and he outright refused," a mother of four says in a tone more resigned than bitter. "If I wouldn't have
live sex with him, he would refuse to bring home food and take care of the children."

Most of the respondents grow some or all of their own food or they cultivate other people's gardens in exchange for basics. The staples are matoke, a carbohydrate-heavy mush made from green plantains, and posho, a carbohydrate-heavy mush made from maize flour. They are served with "sauce," if available -- beans, a paste made from groundnuts, or another protein source. Meat, chicken and fish are luxuries. Many families can afford them just once a year, if that.

To make ends meet, parents have to engage in a desperate triage, navigating between bad choices and worse ones.

If they let their hungry children eat everything that the family grows, they will have nothing to sell at the market. If they do not sell part of the harvest, they will not have cash for the monthly clinic trip for the medication that keeps them alive.

But every time they go to the clinic, they lose a whole day of gardening or other work and spend cash they could otherwise use for the children's diets.

"I feel bad that I have to spend that money for transport when I could have spent it on something else," one mother says. "And then the days I'm at the clinic, of course, I come knowing that I won't do anything that day."

Listening to the accounts of poverty and deprivation, I feel helpless and miserable. I promise myself I will never again take a decent meal for granted.

I want to empty out my pockets and shove dollars at every patient I interview. Instead, I buy them a cup of chai, a milky African tea, from the clinic canteen. The
chai costs 300 Ugandan shillings, or 18 cents in dollars. For most, that is a luxury beyond their means.

I wonder sometimes what is the point of researching this? Why not just give food to people so obviously in need? But international donors demand data and documentation.
They want proof that an intervention will reduce the total misery index before they will shell out millions of euros for new programs, even if the need appears self-evident.

I get to return home when my work here is done. I will analyze my data, write up my findings and hope that what I have done makes some small contribution to change.

The women and men I have met will trek to the clinic month after month, if they can scrape together $5 or $8 for the bus fare. They will consult with the doctor, grab
their drugs from the pharmacy and wonder where they will find enough beans and matoke to feed the kids tomorrow."

As for 9/11 conspiracy theories, I'm no expert. I wonder still, however, why building 7 in the World Trade Center Plaza fell down when no airplane hit it, and why it fell when when Greenberg, the WTC owner who tried to take 7 billion in insurance weeks before 9/11 happened was filmed on CNN at 5:00 PM that evening saying "pull it" when building 7 collapsed demolition style in its own footprint. I also wonder, as a biologist, how the anthrax that was sequenced as having come from Dugway proving ground and being derived from the Ames strain through Texas A&M was transported into the mail system by some "rabid Arab terrorists" who managed somehow to either grow the identical strain in their labs out there in the deserts of Afghanistan, to be placed into the mail of Tom Brokaw and Senator Daschl on the eve of the homeland security act? There are also other issues such as the put options placed on the airlines the days and weeks before. Someone ought to also explain what Marvin Bush, the chief of the World Trade Center security task force was doing turning off the cameras on the tops of those trade centers that morning, and clearing the buildings during the weeks before for "security checks" that were unprecedented, according to many who were interviewed.

But I'm no expert on this, or why all air flights were canceled following the murder of 3,000 or more of my fellow American citizens, for Halliburton and Blackwater, and now, gang-rapes of women employed by these mercenaries, supported by the Bush regime.

Cheers,and praises to fascisim, Nazism, human experimentation without any basis in scientific theory or evidence, and Merry Christmas, to you, those 1,000,000 civilians my money has helped kill in Iraq, and elsewhere.

Andrew Maniotis

Mountain Man posts Ah, Dale, lying with statistics again. Where do you get that 50% number from? Thin air?

Dr. Darin has already worked these numbers, very clearly, very precisely.

So, look at these numbers and admit that you are flat out wrong.

Prior to 1986, there was only about 18,000 deaths over 5 years. More so, the 2 year latency was wrong, it is now believed to be 10. This epidemic didn't even happen until AZT was unleashed in 1987.

You should look at the actual CDC reports, Mountain Man. The data is really pretty easy to understand. It is given as number of AIDS cases per six month period from Jan 1980 to Dec 1986 and the number of those cases known to have died by Dec 1986. The number of known cases increased each year as did the number of deaths. Of those diagnosed between 1980 and 1983 ~80% were dead by the end of '86. Of those diagnosed in 1985 about 60% had died by the end of 1986. What latency? We aren't talking about time from infection to death, we're talking about time from AIDS to death (the wait until they're clinically ill to treat them model that you apparently favor) and that was about 2 years.

Hell yeah, Dr. maniotis has openly joined Margulis in demanding a new investigation on 9/11! oh yeah yeah! none of you shills has margulis's NAS or Maniotis's Harvard pedigree! You guys are SHILLS who still think there are WMD's in iraq. You think we are alone...................Go to google video, the most viewed video in the world is zeitgeist, a 9/11 conspiracy film, soon after is Loose change part 2 and the final cut......THE GODDAMNED FORMER PRESIDENT OF ITALY said it was an inside job, not to mention over 200 architects and engineers at architects for truth! How do you get all 81 columns in building 7 to fail at the same time when no building has ever totally collapsed due to fire and come straight down, all 81 colummns would have to fail at the same time AT SEVERAL DIFFERENT LEVELS OF THE BUILDING.....

Yes Dr. Maniotis the anthrax story has been buried, Why? Why would al queda send anthrax to the most liberal bush opposing members of congress, wouldnt they go after the republican hawks who wanted to invade all the middle east! Another paradox in the OCT.

All we need now is the hiv fraud and for mycoplasma incognitus to be known as the one of the most dangerous microbes to the human race. every animal shyh ching Lo from the army inoculated sickened/died, mice, monkeys, embryos and he found it no healthy controls.........Dr garth nicolson found it in the blood of 50% of GWI sick vets and CFS patients by pcr, antibody testing is unreliable.....He and his wife claimed that armed defense intelligence agents threatened them to stop their reserach and their phone company said theyve never seen so many taps on a phone, amongst many other strange things. Ive posted much of Lo's peer reviewed work above.

google Project Day Lily to find out how 2 of the worlds top cancer researchers slowly found out that mycoplamsa incognitus/penetrans was part of the bioweapons program.

thanks to murdererers like tara, noble, franklin ,hinkley the blood supply is not safe, and there is an epidemic of mycoplasma incognitus/penetrans induced diseases that have been misdiagnosed as depression CFS etc.

This is not woo, koch told us 100 years ago that microbes that induce disease and death in animals are a much greater threat to humanity than those that dont......the shills on this site are so ignorant of freshman year microbiology.......laughable.........and pathetic.

http://video.google.com/videorankings?type=viewed&range=d2007-12-26&cr=…

check out the most viewed films on the internet at google, the top viewed video is a 9/11 conspiracy film, zeitgeist(the first part is about religion being a fraud, rest is about 9/11)

following after is Loose change part 2 and the new final cut.............It no wonder these videos are becoming so popular, people are not going to belive that a plane is going to virtually dissapear in shankesville, and a terrorists passport and red bandana will survive........the OCT is a joke, i love the fatty big nosed bin laden confession tape.........theres no audio! Didnt the multi billionare bin laden have a camera with audio in 2001? what a joke.

yes, the 9/11 truth, mycoplasma truth and the hiv truth must be exposed to all, they should teach this stuff in grade school all the way into college, so go damn compelling, man those films Zeitgeist and Loose change will blow your balls off, not to mention the bestselling expose of the millenium, the scariest truest book on mycoplasma ingonitus biowarfare testing Project Day lily. The only microbe ever discovered to kill/sicken every animal injected as shyh ching lo showed.

The high school and college cirrculum should be totally changed, every student should be made mandatory to read project day lily, see Loose change, zeitgeist and Hiv fact or fraud, hell why high school, it should be a law that all first graders should be well versed on these oscar worthy/pulitzer prize winning scholary works.

I totally agree with you dude11

sumthin ells thay shood due is replace high schule history books with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It really provides compelling evidens of the way our world werks today.

It reeley is a secret confederacy, confederacy mind you, it is NOT A CONSPEARACY THEORY! Just because a group of people form a secret group with nefarious goals does not mean that there is a conspiracy go damn it!! Andywayt, I knowe its true because i tried to join the freemasons so I could be part of the "loose confederation of secret individuals collaborating for nefarious goals" NOT CONSPIRACY, anmd they told me it didnt e3xist. How much moore proof due you nead!

hahahahaha,
its adele the lying lo life loser is back again, the despicable arab hating racist, barely posts here since i called her out on being a fake lab tech!

Andrew: you claim to have generated proof in your own laboratory that HIV does not exist, that the electron micrographs of HIV depict nothing but microvesicles of cellular origin. Why have you not published this important work? If you care about AIDS patients, the truth, or even your own reputation, you need to publish. Withholding this information from the world, you are at best a coward and, should anyone die from unneeded treatments for a non-existent virus, an accessory to murder. Even Duesberg found an outlet for his "work" on HIV, nothing more than poor-quality reviews. Why are you unable to publish your top-flight research?

"How do you like me now":
Ten years ago, according to a reporter, quoting (allegedly) from an email, written (allegedly) by John Moore in hasty response to allegations that Robert Gallo was trying to shut down ADARC, John Moore (allegedly) had some harsh words about the reporter's apparent understanding of Gallo's work.

I suppose this startling ten-year-old account of an alleged email proves beyond any doubt that...remind me again, "like me now," what does it prove to you?

Elk,
you and your hiv apologists pals have repeatedly terrorized the population telling hiv positive people their plasma is teeming with viral loads of 100,000 per ml of plasma.

Please publish an experiment that proves these patients they are teeming with virus by taking some electron microscopic pictures of these viral loads from patients plasma, please publish this data, Lo was able to do this with mycoplamsa incognitus, take pics from patients tissues (not to mention induce death/ disease in animals), please do what lo did with mycoplamsa incognitus with hiv to confirm these 100,000 ml viral loads really exist by taking some EM pics from a patients blood sample, or are you to afraid that duesberg and mullis are right when they say this is a mathematical formula created on a labratory bench?

911 troof come visit the most viewed page on the interwebz see the real 9/11 truth and who really did it and who's lieing! lolz911troofmycoplasmaz

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

get a job loser

Mbeki: Still in Denial

AIDS Apologists: Still killing patients with AZT

Elkie, my dear mountain man friend,

I suppose this startling ten-year-old account of an alleged email proves beyond any doubt that...remind me again, "like me now," what does it prove to you?

JP Moore's 10 year old alleged rant:

John Moore, Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center and Captain of the good ship HIV Lollipop, talks about his good friend, Robert Gallo: "He is grossly overrated as a scientist. If you are dumb enough to believe Gallo's personal propaganda, that's your problem."

means to me, Elkie,

that, allegedly, JP Moore, as well as allegedly yourself, are allegedly well aware that the founder of your alleged religion of belief that HIV is allegedly the cause of AIDS, is allegedly well known to you and all of your cohorts to have long been, allegedly, a 2nd rate flunkie of a wanna be scientist who also allegedly, takes credit for others work, and allegedly, has no credibility or integrity whatsoever.

Moore's rant (seems to be one of his long standing obnoxious habits), also, allegedly shows YOU, ELKIE, to be just another in a long line of incompetent and an alleged fools for blindly, unquestioningly and ignorantly following Gallo and the rest of these alleged clown princes of scientific ignorance.

Moore's statement also clearly points out that your alleged incompetence and ignorance is most definitely YOUR PROBLEM!

One more thing, Elk. You, in your rant above, said to the fine and integrous Dr. Andrew Maniotis:

Andrew: you claim to have generated proof in your own laboratory that HIV does not exist

Funny thing is Elk, I don't see anywhere in the post by Andrew where he made such a claim.

Andrew is a scientist, quite unlike you, Moore, Gallo, and your other cohorts on the good ship AIDS lollipop. Andrew is quite aware, even if you are not, that a negative is never scientifically provable.

What Andrew, and the rest of us have clearly presented on numerous occasions in our publications and presentations is there is no proof that a retrovirus HIV does exist. Not in test-tubes, not in AIDS patients and not in anyone who is 'HIV' positive. We freely concede that our assertion may be wrong but to date no HIV expert has responded with any argument that has convinced us otherwise. There is a tradition in science that those who propose theories provide the proof. According to this tradition it is up to the HIV protagonists to come up with proof that HIV does exist. A scientist cannot employ the 'Martian' argument. That Martians exist because there is no proof they do not exist. It is our long held view that the laboratory phenomena documented by Montagnier and Gallo in Science in 1983/84 (which are still the best papers on this particular topic) are not specific for retroviruses and do not constitute proof of isolation of a retrovirus.

But have no fear Elkie, for science shall aright itself sooner than later as more and more people wise up to the facts.

Better enjoy your ship of fools while it is still afloat, even though it is surely being dashed slowly but steadily upon the rocks at this very moment, my dear allegedly incompetent and foolish friend.

That's right Elkie! Also, never allow yourself to forget that the moon is made of Swiss cheese.

The pseudoscienctific notion that the moon is a large rock floating in the sky has been rejected by myself and my learned colleagues with no credentials in astronomy. We freely concede that our assertion may be wrong, which indicates our scientific thought, whereas NASA and astronomers around the world deny that the moon COULD be made of Swiss cheese exposing themselves as the pseudoscientific frauds that they are. Afterall, a negative may never be proven, therefore proving that the moon is not made of Swiss cheese is scientifically impossible!

Completing the logical circle of our highly rational and superscientific arguments is our proof that the moon is not a large rock floating in the sky. This fact has been experimentally verified and may be so verified by yourself and your colleagues-selfs by throwing a large rock into the air. I assure you, it will not float. Noself in the history of the world has ever succeeded in causing a large rock to float in the sky as long as the moon has.

Look at the holes Sir Elkie! The holes in the rock Lunar theory are as obvious as the holes formed by bubbles of carbon dioxide clearly visible in the Lunar surface.

Better go out and look at the moon tonight Elkie, it won't be long before your foolish floating rock Lunar theory comes crashing to earth to be replaced by the scientifically obvious, to anyone who looks at the evidence in the sky, and in the dairy isle at the supermarket, the moon is made of Swiss cheese theory.

Here's the National Stats on causes of death for 2004 in the USA

Hmm. I see heart attack, I see cancer, I see stroke, I see suicides, accidents, I see liver failure, I see the dreaded flu with pneumonia, I even see Parkinson's disease!

Hmmm. I wonder if I am missing something, some dreaded epidemic that is supposed to be killing thousands, if not millions of people. Hmm. I wonder what could it be. Is it avian bird flu? No, not there. Is it Herpes? No, this particular virus doesn't kill you, it just irritates you. Is it SARS? Nah, that came and went. Is it a new strain of ebola virus? Nah, you gotta be African to get that one. Is it any disease caused by a retrovirus? A retro-what?!!?

I'm perplexed. I guess the epidemic will not be televised!

I know it's hard for you guys to get used to; but you really must learn to read.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr55/nvsr55_19.pdf

page 8, bottom left.

I too am perplexed!

Where is suicide on the list of causes of death? Surely with all these so-called suicide hotlines and so forth there must be some deaths due to suicide? Or is "suicide" all just a big scam, like HIV, cooked up by Big Pharma to sell "anti-depressants" and other worthless meds that treat imaginary conditions?

I notice that you cannot die in childbirth either.

Of course, to any death rethinker it is obvious that neither suicide nor child birth could cause death. What possible role could suicide play in evolution? Why, the idea runs counter to all biological thought since Darwin. And death in child birth? What possible evolutionary mechanism could that serve?

Thank you Mountain Man for helping to dispel these persistent rumors of self-harm and death during child birth.

Incidentally, I notice that HIV caused 13,063 deaths in 2004. What was the infectious disease that kills thousands of Americans you were looking for Mountain Man?

Boy, you guys are dense. Of course, I know that HIV allegedly caused 13,000 deaths in 2004 in US (population 293 Million).

The point is that the number is negligible, didn't even crack the top 10. So, why is it called an epidemic?

Did you dorks even read the report? Do you not understand that since the AIDS "epidemic", life expectancy has continued to rise? Do you not understand that since the AIDS "epidemic", infant mortality rates have continued to decline?

This ain't a viral epidemic. It's an epidemic of fear and junk science to justify massive expenditures.

13,000 is negligible? I see.

What part of epidemic do you fail to understand?

Epidemic: The occurrence of more cases of a disease than would be expected in a community or region during a given time period. http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=3273

Your point being?

Point Sasha?
I think he meant - It aint a fucking sexually transmitted epidemic. Look up Padian et al for a change dim whit.

Thats right you dim whits!

You wanna see the results of a real fucking sexually transmitted epidemic? You take a look at fucking Syphillis. Do you know how many people died of Syphillis in 2004?

43!!!

Now thats what you can expect from a sexually transmitted disease. 13,000 deaths? Thats crazy talk to say an STD can cause that many deaths.

Sure, sure. Because some guy said so, it must be so.

Harken all ye faithful! The Lord Duesberg has spoken! He knows all, sees all and hears all!

"Unam sanctam ecclesiam duesbergam et ipsam apostolicam urgente fide credere cogimur et tenere, nosque hanc firmiter credimus et simpliciter confitemur, extra quam nec salus est, nec remissio peccatorum..."

episcopus servus servorum Duesberg

But syphillis doesn't exist! It's a meme invented be the evolutionist germ theory shills. You can't compare two memes, that would be like comparing apples with apples!

It's obvious from your post that you have never picked cherries before, otherwise you'd know how to see the trees for the forest.

"Click on my name to find out how
EXTREME BODY PIERCING SAVED MY LIFE!"

I need further explanation...I'm not much of a deductive kind dude :)

No wonder carter is having a hard time getting people on board; that seems to be a very painful way of acceding to the truth.

Happy New Year DT and to all the others who predicted that myself and others would not make it to the end of 2007! Maybe this year you should resolve to seek the truth in the matter. I would suggest that you start at the following link on your journey: http://aras.ab.ca/aidsquotes.htm

Rare sanity on AIDS by the New York Times!

Some have criticized Mr. Bush for requesting "only" $30 billion for the next five years for AIDS and related problems, with the leading Democratic candidates having pledged to commit at least $50 billion if they are elected. Yet even the current $15 billion in spending represents an unprecedented amount of money aimed mainly at a single disease.

Meanwhile, many other public health needs in developing countries are being ignored. The fact is, spending $50 billion or more on foreign health assistance does make sense, but only if it is not limited to H.I.V.-AIDS programs.

Last year, for instance, as the United States spent almost $3 billion on AIDS programs in Africa, it invested only about $30 million in traditional safe-water projects. This nearly 100-to-1 imbalance is disastrously inequitable -- especially considering that in Africa H.I.V. tends to be most prevalent in the relatively wealthiest and most developed countries. Most African nations have stable adult H.I.V. rates of 3 percent or less.

Many millions of African children and adults die of malnutrition, pneumonia, motor vehicle accidents and other largely preventable, if not headline-grabbing, conditions. One-fifth of all global deaths from diarrhea occur in just three African countries -- Congo, Ethiopia and Nigeria -- that have relatively low H.I.V. prevalence. Yet this condition, which is not particularly difficult to cure or prevent, gets scant attention from the donors that invest nearly $1 billion annually on AIDS programs in those countries.

I was struck by this discrepancy between Western donors' priorities and the real needs of Africans last month, during my most recent trip to Africa. In Senegal, H.I.V. rates remain under 1 percent in adults, partly due to that country's early adoption of enlightened policies toward prostitution and other risky practices, in addition to universal male circumcision, which limits the heterosexual spread of H.I.V. Rates of tuberculosis, now another favored disease of international donors, are also relatively low in Senegal, and I learned that even malaria, the donors' third major concern, is not quite as rampant as was assumed, with new testing finding that many fevers aren't actually caused by the disease.

Meanwhile, the stench of sewage permeates the crowded outskirts of Dakar, Senegal's capital. There, as in many other parts of West Africa and the developing world, inadequate access to safe water results in devastating diarrheal diseases. Shortages of food and basic health services like vaccinations, prenatal care and family planning contribute to large family size and high child and maternal mortality. Major donors like the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, known as Pepfar, and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria have not directly addressed such basic health issues. The Global Fund's director, Michel Kazatchkine, has acknowledged, "We are not a global fund that funds local health."

Nutritious food, clean water and clean sanitation would greatly benefit Africa, and neutralize the toxic, greedy fight by rapacious drug companies and mediocre western scientists to "medicalize" the entire continent.

Mountain man,
you forgot about mycoplasma incognitus/penetrans, the only microbe that induces death and disease in every animal inoculated (mice/monkeys/embryos/chimps as military scientist shyh ching lo showed in peer reviewed studies didnt find it in one control..............oooooooooooooooooooh what a new world order trick, have everyone worry about about a harmless retrovirus that doesnt do zilch in animals while mycoplasma slowly culls the population.

If the idiotic scientific establishment only listened to the father of bacteriology koch this nightmare wouldnt have happened, microbes that induce disease in animals are far more of a threat than those that dont.

Montagnier has found a high prevalence of mycoplasma infections in Africa, and there is a reason why Lo happened to know so much about these novel mycoplasmas, he knew it was part of the biological weapons program and was forced to follow some unethical orders, but publishing on the academic points of the microorganism could have saved millions of lives oooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Project day lily.............google it to find out how 2 of the worlds top cancer researchers found out it was part of the biological weapons program............they claim to have confidential sources within the pentagon to make this claim..............and from reading the first chapter one can only think that that CI was shyh ching lo himself...........ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh what has this world come to?

Happy New Year DT and to all the others who predicted that myself and others would not make it to the end of 2007!

Did anyone ever actually "predict" that you would not make it to the end of 2007?

Oh yes, there were two naysayers who want to play being God. They look very foolish now. Let's see if they continue to do so or if they admit that maybe they are wrong in their beliefs. Either way, life goes on for so many of us who have been falsely labeled with a death sentence!

Do you have links to the comments where they predicted this?

Happy New year to every body!!

I was going to make a resolution and to not waste time on deniosaur digging expaditions but then I think about last year 2007!! Different times last year people said I was JEanne Bergman Tara Smith apy, the Elkman a scientist in Utah that is retired. So much fun being all different scientists why should I stop I said. So here I am to bad for you, I am collecting more names. Please some one say I am Bob Gallo or NAncy Padian now!

OK apy I remember they had some stats about how long people survive without drugs when they have high viral load. Some one told Noreen. People that have high viral load in the study, they have a greater chance for death in a year of follow up then when your not on medicine.

Noreen took it wrong, she thought they predicted she would die. They didn't predict it and we don't want any one to die. I hope Noreen lives to 2058!

Why not 2059 Apyele?!?!?!

"Do you have links to the comments where they predicted this?"

He goes by the tag "JP Moore". He said she is in grave danger of dying within the year. Look for it yourself.

" Different times last year people said I was JEanne Bergman Tara Smith apy, the Elkman a scientist in Utah that is retired"

Cool, me too! I am a murderous scumbag, a lawyer for Maggiore,an englishman in New York and whatnotelse. Welcome to the multiple personality club :)

" Noreen took it wrong, she thought they predicted she would die. They didn't predict it and we don't want any one to die. I hope Noreen lives to 2058!"

Not quite true...JP Moore predicted her "grave danger of dying within the year"

"I hope Noreen lives to 2058!"

Surely all hope that but JP Moore would gloat if she didn't; he has a habit of it and keeps a list of names at home of people who didn't. Shit, he even wants a grieving mother in jail for making "wrong" descisions: screw his new year! BTW, that would make her over one hundred, go for it!

It's much fun being all different scientists

Adele, hardly any of the ones you mentioned can be called a scientist by any stretch. Even so, please understand that when we identify them with you we are not trying to flatter you but to insult them.

Happy New Year.

Exact quote:

The survival time for people with HIV infection and CD4 counts below 100 is limited; it varies from person to person, but you are in grave danger of death during the coming year.

http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/11/mbeki_still_in_denial.php#com…

Wouldn't "the coming year" imply in 2008? Not pre-2008?

"Wouldn't "the coming year" imply in 2008? Not pre-2008?"

Not necessarily. "the coming year" could also imply "within the next 365 days". Also, January 2nd is in "the coming year". Now we're splitting hairs.
Congrats apy, you have isolated something. At least we can now all see that Adele was wrong when she said Noreen misunderstood; it was indeed a prediction of HER coming demise based on "averages".

Adele, or BOB if you prefer,
here's a new year's resolution for you:
USE "SPELL CHECK" (...or stop typing with your toes).

People, DT specifically stated that I would not live past 2007 and if memory serves me correct so did Roy. I didn't misunderstand what "they" stated. Nevertheless, I am very happy to prove them and others wrong. Years from now, I will happily be waving that HIV does not cause AIDS banner along with many others, especially those who have lived through it all.

You say you read about Amy Justice on a university website and it was really aliveandwell. Your memory does not serve you to good Noreen!! So when you say people said stuff tell us where they said it. Like "DT said in July 10 on Introduction to HIV denial "Noreen you will die before 2008". And then we can look at it bc your memory is not all that. Sorry just saying.

As more than one poster has pointed out to you multiple times, noreeen, an increased probability of developing a life threatening OI within a specified time frame is not a guarantee that it will happen any more than meandering down a highway guarantees that you will get hit by a car within some arbitrary length of time.

Noreen stated: "People, DT specifically stated that I would not live past 2007"

That is a lie. I never said that, and have never made any forecast concerning your life expectancy.

You could prove me wrong by citing or linking to my post.

Oh, and Noreen, while you are digging out the evidence that you are not a liar, could you also cast your mind back to early December, when you decided that mercury amalgam caused a drop in your CD4 count?

I asked you "Can you provide a link to the "proof" that it lowers CD4 cells? Does it lower all lymphocytes, or maybe CD3-bearing cells? What about its effects on CD4 cells, CD8, NK cells, CTLs etc? Does it affect CD19 populations? I am curious, so would be delighted to be pointed to the studies that have "proven" your claim for you."

You replied by obliquely pointing me to one study. I have now found it.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1971026
This study says that dental students have elevated CD4 levels.

Care to now change your mind?
I know what great store you set on anecdotes, but this is a real, live study, with control groups and all! So much more persuasive, no....? As I write, are you rushing out to ask your dentist to put back all the mercury amalgam fillings he ripped out, and add a few more for good measure?

Dt why don't you contact the dentists who did the studies like I did and learn something for yourself! You are an arrogant, asshole and I hope that you are retired and no longer are practiciing medicine for your patients sake!

Memory serves you poorly Noreen. I never predicted your death, though yes you are at risk of becoming ill as long as your CD4s are low and viral load is high.

Your CD4s are @ 160 now I think. Thats a lot better than 60 but still dangerously low.

Roy, my CD4's have never been 60. The lowest were around 78. They are currently at 145 and yes the so-called viral load is high and has not changed but I am fine without opportunistic infections. Apparently, the LDN is a fantastic immune enhancer as most persons develop colds, etc. from time to time. A drug that can stop the symptoms of AIDS, MS and even stop certain cancers, certainly deserves to be looked into and studied.

"And then we can look at it bc your memory is not all that"
-adele

your memory and spelling stinks.

DT mercury lowers oxygen supply in your blood...figure out the rest...you're the self-proclaimed specialist. I took out my amalgams and did chelation to rid myself of an "off the chart" mercury poisoning and that did more that a ton of aceclovir to reduce my herpes...must have helped my immune system somehow...today I have almost no outbreaks and that without "antivirals"...I forget...I did wooo... ozone therapy...worked wonders. You quote ONE study when you usually require a thousand to back you up.

Dale- meandering down a highway is actually quite "safe" but I can tell you have never done it.

"As I write, are you rushing out to ask your dentist to put back all the mercury amalgam fillings he ripped out, and add a few more for good measure?"-DT

because you would, wouldn't you. Shit, Noreen is right to fire rude broadsides into your stinking ship. That study concludes:
" Further work is underway to examine this possible relationship and it is suggested that dental personnel take adequate measures to reduce their exposure to mercury until the results of these studies are available."

screw your new year too.

Do you even know how to safely meander down a highway safely??? I'll tell you how: you walk in the OPPOSITE direction of traffic!!! (so assholes can see you and you can see the asshole coming at you, simple but effective)

"Do you even know how to safely meander down a highway safely???" [sic] (to please the [sic]! bastards)

redundancy, ooops

Memory serves you poorly Noreen. I never predicted your death, though yes you are at risk of becoming ill as long as your CD4s are low and viral load is high.

!!!!!AS LONG AS!!!!!

What a cunt you are, Roy. Everybody is at risk of falling ill, you asshole.

Dear DT

It is known that heavy metals and mercure in particular induce autoimmune disorders.

Suggest you that before writing ridicule comments as the one above, to make a better read of PUBMED, or even of simple ALDRICH catalogue.

noreen,

Dt why don't you contact the dentists who did the studies like I did and learn something for yourself!

Did you contact the dentist who ran the study? If so, what did you find out? If the dentist who ran the study told you something other than what the published study said, why was the study published? And I would prefer it if noreen would answer this with direct quotations of the dentist rather than guesses or innuendo. A simply "I don't know" would suffice if that truly is the answer.

In other news, I think we have the largest cluster of ad-hom statements in a series of posts.

You are an arrogant, asshole

your memory and spelling stinks.

(to please the [sic]! bastards)

What a cunt you are, Roy. Everybody is at risk of falling ill, you asshole.

I was tempted to include:

As I write, are you rushing out to ask your dentist to put back all the mercury amalgam fillings he ripped out, and add a few more for good measure?

As it seems to be to some degree ad-hom but I'm not sure if a parody counts.

Some people might claims I missed one at:

That is a lie.

But this is not calling anyone a liar so I left it out.

I was divided about including:

screw your new year too.

The 'too' seems to imply there was a "screw you" before it, but I did not see it so I felt it was a bit of a stretch for me to include it. Also, I'm not sure if "screw you" would even be considered an ad-hom, its obviously a very emotional response but not sure it is attacking anyone on a personal level.

Do we have a place to record little gems like this?

And finally,

Braganza:

It is known that heavy metals and mercure in particular induce autoimmune disorders.

pat:

That study concludes: ....

I think you'll both agree that the devil is in the dosage. I just read the abstract so I don't know what level these students are exposed to but that is important. I also think the meat of the point made by DT is *not* if this study is correct or not, or what its ramifications are but rather (assuming DT found the article noreen was referring to) that noreen cited it as having a particular result that is really quite opposite of reality. So there are two issues here:
1) is the study correct?
2) would it be accurate to state that noreen's claims are incorrect given that she cited the study (supposedly, I have not checked) which in reality gave a result opposite of what she claimed.

These issues are independent.

There are thousands of studies, which has shown the link between mercury and health. The following describes some detrimental health effects from mercury amalgams:

http://www.mediaworks1.com/bronze/Simon%20stuff/simon2/New%20Folder/Ext…...

Sorry folks, the above named link will not open. However, Dr. David Eggleston published a report of his work in 1984 in the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. He found as much as 55% increase in T-lymphocytes when the mercury fillings were removed and replaced with non-mercury fillings. Dr. Huggins also found T-cell increase after mercury removal.

Since early last year, when I first started having the mercury removed from my mouth, I had a total of 80% increase in my own T-cells just by doing this as I added no other new factors to my health protocol. If there is anything to this, I should see even better results at the next testing as I would have had added DSMA, chelation therapy, to the regiment, which is a very slow process as one should take the pills for a few days and then has to stop for almost two weeks so not to overtax the kidneys before starting the procedure again.

http://www.mediaworks1.com/bronze/Simon%20stuff/simon2/New%20Folder/Ext…

Seems to be what you were going for. But this is a list of emails from a mailing list.

However, I believe the article you are referring to is mentioned here. That link claims it was published in 1987. I also don't see the 55% you stated in the abstract posted in this mailing list. Is the abstract posted in this mailing list not the actual abstract that would appear on a place like pubmed? This abstract seems much less smoking-gun than you seem to claim.

Eggleston DW, Nylander M: Correlation of dental
amalgam with mercury in brain tissue. Journal of
Prosthetic Dentistry 1987; 58: 704-7.
Data from this project demonstrate a positive
correlation between the number of occlusal surfaces of
dental amalgam and mercury levels in the brain (p less
than .0025 in white matter). This is indirect evidence
suggesting that mercury from dental amalgam fillings
may contribute to the body burden of mercury in the
brain. The toxic levels of mercury in human tissues
have not been sufficiently investigated and the amount
of mercury in human brain tissue from dental amalgam
may or may not be clinically significant. Nevertheless,
dental amalgam exposure should be considered in
monitoring sources of mercury accumulation in human
brain tissue.

Is this the 55% study you were referring to? If not, could you find the abstract and could you find it from a reputable location?

However, you have failed to answer my first question about if you had spoken directly to author of the study DT posted, which you seem to have claimed to do:

Dt why don't you contact the dentists who did the studies like I did and learn something for yourself!

So I repeat, did you contact personally the dentist who did the study DT is referring to?

You also do not answer question 2 that I posted above. Is the study DT has cited the one you were citing? If it is the one you were citing then you have either misunderstood the study or have been deceitful about it, if it is not which study were you referring to?

apy, I think this is the paper noreen was likely referring to.

Eggleston DW. J Prosthet Dent. 1984 May;51(5):617-23

Effect of dental amalgam and nickel alloys on T-lymphocytes: preliminary report.

Preliminary data suggest that dental amalgam and dental nickel alloys can adversely affect the quantity of T-lymphocytes. Human T-lymphocytes can recognize specific antigens, execute effector functions, and regulate the type and intensity of virtually all cellular and humoral immune responses. Normal immune function depends on a proper quantity, quality, and ratio of T-lymphocyte helper and suppressor subsets. Further research may determine the frequency and magnitude of T-lymphocyte reduction and alteration by dental materials.

Apy, I contacted the Higgins site and also Dr. Eggleston, who both assured me beforehand, that I would see improvements. They were right and I contacted them again afterwards to share the good news. I think that you are missing the point here and that is that mercury is certainly harmful to humans. The EPA states that there is no safe level of mercury exposure. The navy found out firsthand what heavy metals can do when painting ships and were among the first to use chelation therapy via IV's to restore the sailors' health.

If you think I am arguing for the safety of mercury then I must respond with the completely unoriginal "you are missing the point".

You have an unfortunate habit of making grand statements without providing the necessary source in order to validate your claim. My responses this morning have almost entirely revolved around extracting trust worthy sources from you. If you are interesting in verbally sparring with people who view empirical evidence as more moving than emotionally laden anecdotes then be prepared to provide such citations otherwise you are simply another weak voice in a noisy room.

Apy I am sure that you are quite capable of typing in the health effects of mercury on the internet and stop wasting our time! Maybe Tara can start another thread about mercury, dental amalgams, flouride, etc. as these are important issues to health, which deserve attention and not take away from the HIV issues.

Noreen Huggins got his licence taken away bc he lied to patients he took mercury out of people who didnt have it!!

We talked about this in October here is what I found out, you never answered.

I don't know how we got on mercury but anyway. Mercury in amalgams, Noreens giving one side of all the research out there. I'm not trying to argue with her I think she knows more about this then me but there is more to think about so any way.

I mean obviously mercury can get to toxic levels and that's very bad but does it do it in tooth fillings?

Noreen says,
The WHO and many studies have proven that the number one cause of mercury toxicity in humans is due to mercury amalgams.

But Osborne JW Adv Dent Res 6:135-138, September, 1992 sasy
the World Health Organization (WHO) allows from 300 to 500 ug of mercury daily, five days per week, with no side-effects and
As has been pointed out by Berglund (1990), this WHO
standard for mercury is 100 times greater than the weekly dose from 12 amalgam restorations.

Noreen says
Two dentists who have shown a connection are Dr. Eggleston, who measured T-cells on patients before and after removing the silver/mercury amalgams. In all cases, the T-cells went up substantially.

Thats David W Eggleston "Effect of dental amalgam and nickel alloys on T-lymphocytes: preliminary report."
J Prosthet Dent. 1984 May;51(5):617-23 who's "all cases" is two patients with mercury amalgam a third one with nickel. "substantially" in the two mercury patients, one was substantial the other one was minor.

Noreen says
He also performed a reverse test by reinstating silver/mercury back into the patients' mouth. In these cases, the percentage of T-cells decreased again. Finally, he removed them and replaced the fillings with non-mercury fillings and the T-cells went up again.

These cases was one person Eggleston talked about in 1984. He didn't do it with the other mercury patient.

Egglestons stuff got tested by Mackert JR jr et al "Lymphocyte levels in subjects with and without amalgam restorations" J Am Dent Assoc. 1991 Mar;122(3):49-53 They did 37 patients not two and they say

The results of this study show no indication that amalgam restorations affect the human immune system nor do they support the "reduced immunocompetence" claim

Noreen talks about all the health problems with mercury no one says that's wrong I sure don't. But she talks about "Dr. Vimy" and sheep experiments with dental fillings. Well Malvin 1991 found out later those sheep were sick because they weren't eating because of other reasons not becuase of the mercury fillings! Problem, the mercury scare people doesn't tell you that, they still use the Vimy paper like its proof of something.

Just the other side of the story. And the one with more evidence!!

Posted by: Adele | October 8, 2007 2:20 PM

Oh did I mention.

Dr. Huggins the second one Noreen said about got his license taken away in 1986.

"During the revocation proceedings, the administrative law judge concluded:
Huggins had diagnosed "mercury toxicity" in all patients who consulted him in his office, even some without mercury fillings.
He had also recommended extraction of all teeth that had had root canal therapy.
Huggins's treatments were "a sham, illusory and without scientific basis.""

Quote from the National Councial Against Health Fraud
NCAHF Position Paper on Amalgam Fillings (2002). Look this up, read about how people like Huggins use manipulated "tests" to convince people they got high levels of mercury and get them to pay lots of money for operations they don't need.

And then your like well Dick Cheney told me to buy HAlliburton stock and Huggins said mercury fillings are bad, wow surprise!!

My perceived ability to use the internet is irrelevant. If you make a claim you must back it up. Given that DT recently posted a link to a study which shows data claiming dental students had a higher count of various immune system cells it would appear that even the most obvious claimed conclusion one can draw should not be taken for granted.

Your general inability to cite a statement extends to things that I am unable to find on the internet as well. On top of providing a means of others to validate your claims you have a record of stating conclusions to studies that do not correspond to the actual study (see Amy Justice posts for example). You providing a citation would also allow you to validate the study agrees with your opinion rather than having others tell you.

Noreen, I will ignore the vitriol and adhoms from your suporters here - I realise they are mere substitutes for facts and a way to avoid answering difficult questions.

My request to you was a plea for information as to why you accept conflicting or anecdotal data as gospel truth (mercury amalgam causing a drop in CD4) but ignore the tens of thousands of hard science papers linking HIV infection with a drop in CD4.
http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/11/mbeki_still_in_denial.php#com…

You avoided answering this.

I also asked for, as you can see, information on what mercury did to lymphocytes. You did link to this commentary
http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/AMALGAM/EN/SCIENCE/bernie_science.html#8
This is a very large document and the only reference I could find about CD4 cells actually says they were elevated, hence my rather tongue in cheek comments and advice to you. Clearly there is a lack of clarity as to exactly what direct effect mercury has on CD4 cells.

But let this not distract you from my main request to you - You have accused me of saying you would not live to see 2008. That is a bare-faced lie.

Are you a person who makes totally unjustified claims without a shred of evidence to support them? If you don't want to be exposed as one, I suggest you find proof I said that, and quickly.

Dear DT/Apy,

Mercury is decreasing the CD4/CD8 ratio, which is a characteristic of an HIV infection.

I am sure that you can find plenty of data backing that, so I dont give any reference.

Removing mercury from an HIV+ patient, or any patient with any form of immunodepression, is therefore useful, as it reduces the expected synergy between the heavy metal intoxication and others (immunodepressive) factors.

Brag, as I clearly stated before the devil is in the dosage. Start talking in dosages and perhaps you'll say something intelligible.

As I have said several times though, my comments were not about if mercury is poison but noreens failure to cite material.

Braganza a brazilian paper says cd4/cd8 change is bc of lower cd4 total. A polish says lower cd4 to 8 ratio bc they both increase but the 4 not as much as cd8. Mercury makes lymphocytes proliferate. It makes autoimmune symptoms start. Autoimmune stuff can cause atrophy. Its important what kind of mercury your getting. Who you are to, if your a brown norway rat you don't get effected by it like a Lewis rat.

The papers all, say mercury like at levels you have with amalgams, is not going to give AIDS symptoms. The way you get higher mercury is, take out the amalgams, mercury goes way up in your blood. ITs lympho-proliverative so right lymphocytes sometimes go up then. So if you have amalgams my god don't take them out!!

All the stuff with more then two patients says, mercury amalgam doesn't hurt you, it's not a public health problem. May be one person gets hurt by it like pat but most people are ok.

Mercury, toxic at some doses. Mercury amalgam don't worry about it.

"Mercury, toxic at some doses. Mercury amalgam don't worry about it."

There is no reason to use amalgams other than for ease of use. If dental student are counseled to reduce their exposure to mercury "until the results of the studies are available" then surely dental patients can be told the same. If you are comfortable with mercury in your face go for it.

Again, in order to talk about this coherently you have to state dosages. What is the average dental students level of exposure to mercury? How does this compare to a person with fillings? Without specifying dosages, any clever retort is wasted.

Best way to measure mercury, urine. Every one has it in their urine bc mercury is everywhere. Its allways under 10 micrograms per liter mostly under five in dentists non dentists people with amalgams and not.

If you don't want amalgam don't get it. If you have it it is more dangerous taking it out then leaving it in, it is surgery and it will make your blood level go way up higher then if you just have it there the rest of your live.

apy, you're the "scientst"(?) you go knock yourself out with "dosages". As far as I'm concerned no dosage of mercury beats any dosage of mercury and I really don't care what pubmed has to say or guess about it. You guys can go have that shit for lunch for all I care.

Adele, I reduced my exposure to mercury with immediate and visible results. Can you explain again why removing amalgams is "dangerous"? Can you explain "dangerous"?

There is some temporary danger if the amalgams are not removed properly by the standard protocol for mercury removal. However, all things considered, it is far more harmful to leave them in the mouth where mercury can travel throughout the body and cross the blood brain barrier. In fact, it is known that mercury amalgams in the mother's mouth is harmful to the fetus. Some states require the dentist to post the hazards of mercury in the dental office. My question to you Adele, if it's not such a big deal then why do physicians test for it and appropriately chelate it out of the body. Do what you like but to me it's a no brainer to get the harmful element out of the body, where it serves no useful purpose!

Not absolutely dangerous. "More dangerous." It's the recommendation of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. The risk associated with amalgam is mainly from the absorption of mercury vapors. During amalgam removal, the oxidized surface is disturbed, and the surface area of the amalgam is increased, increasing vapor release. Also, there is injury to the oropharyngeal mucosae during removal, increasing the absorptive surface. It has been shown that mercury levels in urine and feces increase the day or two after removal, and then begin to fall.

Rather than make a claim to a level of intimacy with the literature I lack, I refer you to the exhaustive review of amalgam and other sources of mercury exposure in humans in Chapter Two of the ATSDR profile:
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp46.html
I have to warn you, even the individual chapters are HUGE pdfs.

Boiled down, the average exposure for people with multiple amalgam fillings is on the order of 1 to 10 micrograms of elemental mercury a day. (We absorb maybe 80% of that, tops.) The average exposure to organic mercury from food is around 5 micrograms a day. The World Health Organization says 40 micrograms a day is acceptable. Some people are sensitive to mercury, and they usually end up having their fillings pulled because of stomatitis, which is no fun.

Nobody says amalgam is the world's greatest stuff - but dentists are more heavily exposed to it than dental patients (because they are exposed to fumes while they shape the amalgam, many times a day), and there is no epidemic of immunodepression among dentists. Apy is right - the devil's in the dosage. Reciprocally, if you're downwind of an industrial incinerator (as many of us who live in cities are), you can avoid deepwater fish, have caries-free teeth, and hide from the vaccine man, and you still will be chock full of mercury.

Now, what did I miss during the holiday comment spam attack that made everyone so het-up about Hg?

As far as I'm concerned no dosage of mercury beats any dosage of mercury and I really don't care what pubmed has to say or guess about it.

Then your opinions are based on whatever your current whim is rather than evidence and you are dealing with people that place more interest in evidence than whims. Is your interest here in trolling or are you both arrogant and stupid enough to think your whims have some affect on reality?

the point is people (me) who get their amalgams removed do so because they already have a case mercury poisoning and removal is followed by chelation so I still fail to see the "danger" but I agree that amalgam is not the only or even worst source of mercury poisoning; that would be incinerators and especially those medical waste incinerators. It just makes no sense to have them if you're sensitive and especially if you grind your teeth.

"According to a report submitted to the OSPAR Commission, in the United Kingdom, annually 7.41 tonnes of
mercury from dental amalgam are discharged to the sewer, atmosphere or land, with another 11.5 tonnes sent for
recycling or disposed with the clinical waste stream. Together, mercury contained in dental amalgam and in
laboratory and medical devices, account for about 53% of the total mercury emissions.-WHO policy paper

Whether it's in your face or not, dental amalgam is shit.

Much better pat, I love you when you state things reasonably and clearly, adhom free.

Could you provide a link to the policy paper you quoted so I can verify it?

Damn it you guys! I miss the mud slinging. Where is Adele with her one sided delusional hodge-podge? Chris Noble with his holier than thou spattering off about nonsense papers.

You tards couldn't even respond with any relative theory why the recent Merck vaccine (failed) trials were called of prematurely. I asked and you never replied, proving now your complete ineptitude.

http://iai.asm.org/cgi/reprint/64/8/3419.pdf

The brilliant Dr. shyh ching lo is at again, inducing death and deformity in every chicken embryo inoculated with mycoplamsa incognitus/penetrans. Now this includes mice, primates, mice, chimpanzees that Lo inoculated with this microbe that all sickened/died and he didnt find it one healthy control. Couldnt be a contamiment bc he saw it in the tissues of dying humans that died of mysterious infections with the EM.

Nicolson is finding it in 50% of misdiagnosed CFS patients etc.
Thanks alot Tara for helping spread this microbe through the population, contaminating the blood bank and ruining peoples lives. Good work Tara! Only focus on microbes that are in 1/10000 cells and do zilch in animals that have 40 year window periods, great work, youd think after all this info she could at least write a blog on the dangers of this infection, but I doubt she never will deviate from Fauci's propaganda, she seems to have a problem thinking for herself.

Tara, why do you like ruining peoples lives with this infection? Why do you cost people their lives with your "mycoplasma denial?"

Pat,
There doesn't appear to be any link to your source on the Ospar home page. Could you tell us where you got that report?

Noreen,

you have had more than enough time to come up with the link in which you claim I forecast your death in 2007.

So where is it?

I will assume that if you do not provide evidence for what you claim, we can all conclude you were wrong. I accept your sincere apology in advance.

It's real easy:

highlight first few words:

ex. "According to a report submitted to the OSPAR Commission, in the United Kingdom, annually 7.41 tonnes of
mercury from dental amalgam"

Ctrl C(PC) or Apple C (mac)

paste in google bar with

Ctrl V (PC) or Apple V (mac)

GO!

it'll be your first hit.

www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/medicalwaste/mercurypolpaper.pdf

don't put that shit in your face, for many internal and external reasons.

The reason that dentists and dental workers of today do not routinely get exposed to mercury and to the bloodborne products of the patients is that federal agencies "NOW" require them to be properly protected. This was not the case many years ago when I was exposed to both and have developed health issues because of this.

DT, I have not had enough time to go through thousands of comments.

I have not had enough time to go through thousands of comments.

Then you should not make repeated claims that are untrue if you cannot be bothered to back them up.
Are you Maniotis in disguise?

How would you like it if I repeatedly claimed that that "Noreen now accepts HIV causes AIDS", and when you deny this and ask for evidence you said any such thing, I reply I am not bothered to find the post in which you said it?

pat,
Why must you be rude when someone asks you a question, they even put please in there. Sascha was in no way condescending or sarcastic with you. Do you think by being rude your point will be communicated more effectively here and people will care more about your opinion which they already hold with little regard? If you want to be rude, fine, but you forfeit any right to be upset when nobody cares about what you think. If you want to have an actual conversation then please source your materials and respect that the burden of proof is on yourself if you make a claim.

carter writes couldn't even respond with any relative theory why the recent Merck vaccine (failed) trials were called of prematurely. I asked and you never replied, proving now your complete ineptitude.

You appear to have answered your own question carter. They were called off because the preliminary data indicated that the vaccine was ineffective.

Pat
Gotcha, wasn't clear you had quoted verbatim and the Ospar numbers were different. No year given for the Ospar source the Who is using.

Just by the by, wasn't it the UN, who slipped on the estimates for Africa? I thought they had no lost all credibility.

Sascha UN estimates on mercury are good if they're high.
UN estimates on HIV and AIDS are all bad except if their zero.

UN scientist a denialist agrees with is a respected scientist.
UN scientist deniosaur disagrees on is a hack.

Guy that makes all his cash hacking mercury amalgams out of peoples mouth and exposes them to high levels of mercury in process, good dentist. Sample size of one, a couple months experiment, good science.
American dental association that makes money if they use amalgam or other stuff, doesn't matter, all hacks. Sample size a billion people with amalgams, oh and 150 years of amalgams, bad science.

Guy that has all income from amalgam quack websites, objective.
Guy that gets two percent from his income from a pharma company, hack.

Through the looking glass, yall!!

pat, Sascha & Adele have pointed an interesting dichotomy in your decision process. Could you please explain why in some cases you feel the UN papers are acceptable and in others not so? Also could you explain why a paper that has a small sample sizes but agrees with your opinion should be taken as more moving than one with a large sample size but disagreeing with your opinion?

If you could respond clearly and completely with sources and as few sarcastic or adhom comments as possible that would be greatly appreciated.

WHY DALE?
"You appear to have answered your own question carter. They were called off because the preliminary data indicated that the vaccine was ineffective."

To be fair, it is not necessarily contradictory to hold the same authority to be erring in one respect but still be credible in others; i.e. Einstein's galactic constant.

Carter
Eat your heart out. Can't wait to see what the Duesberg=truth meme followers make of this.

"Analyses presented today indicate that in those volunteers with pre-existing immunity to the cold virus used as a carrier for synthetic HIV genes in the vaccine, there were more infections in those volunteers who received the vaccine than in those who received placebo. Most of these analyses are considered exploratory in nature, and the reasons for this result are still being studied."

http://www.merck.com/newsroom/press_releases/research_and_development/2…

Sascha, I certainly do not mean to imply all information from a source is either all valid or all invalid. I am asking pat to explain why they hold a paper that agrees with their opinion to be valid when one that disagrees is not. There were reasons to disagree with Einstein, not simply a whim, I hope pat can give concrete reasons as well.

Deniers say one guy is a hack bc he gets money from pharma thats like one percent of his money and another guy is a hack bc he got a pharma grant and its just for equipment in his lab not for him.

A guy who gets all his money by lieing about mercury and giving fraud mercury testing and raising mercury level in people taking their fillings out, they say he is authority.

That's inconsistant.

carter writes WHY DALE?

Why the Merck vaccine failed? I have no idea. I haven't seen the data. I do know though that many clinical trials fail at phase II or even phase III. Moreover, if it were obvious how to make an effective vaccine against HIV it would have been done years ago.

"Just by the by, wasn't it the UN, who slipped on the estimates for Africa? I thought they had no lost all credibility."

"To be fair, it is not necessarily contradictory to hold the same authority to be erring in one respect but still be credible in others; i.e. Einstein's galactic constant."

I guess that answers it.

BTW, Apy, I was not rude to Sascha, I was being humourous and he got my wink...you didn't.

Adele pointed to something? If only I could decipher her garbbled writing. Lets see...

"Sascha UN estimates on mercury are good if they're high.
UN estimates on HIV and AIDS are all bad except if their zero."

I said UN estimates on AIDS are "too high" and I was proven right in mid-thread. I never said they needed to be zero nor that I believe they ARE zero. That is Adeles talking through her "all or nothing" BS world.(Adele, you got the first "they're" right so how come you trip on the second one?)

"UN scientist a denialist agrees with is a respected scientist.
UN scientist deniosaur disagrees on is a hack."

I can't for the life of me make sense out of this. Is it english? As for the rest, well, Adele simply refuses the fact that some people are sensitive to this shit and apparently doesn't mind mercury leeching into every corner of our life. That is all pretty obvious despite the fact that she can't spell it out.

Could you please cite the comment or source that proved you correct?

(For the record I don't recall seeing a "haha" or similar from Sascha so I'm unsure if s/he got the joke, but if it was then my apologies, it is difficult to differentiate sarcastic humerous comments form sarcastic mean comments on these threads)

Noreen,
We are still waiting for proof from you that DT claimed you were going to die before 2008.

It's cool apy, I did get it. I think the humorous jabs are getting very cryptic and hence hard to make out.

"Could you please cite the comment or source that proved you correct?"

Are you fucking serious?

query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01EEDF103BF933A15752C1A9619C8B63

"U.N. Agency to Say It Overstated Extent of H.I.V. Cases by Millions"

Can you now please prove to me that you are NOT a disfunctional spambot?

Pat, have you considered he may be querying your contention that mercury amalgams posed a health threat?

It's outbursts like these that tend to reduce the impact of your statements rather than heighten it. Whether your blogespondent deserves the abuse or not, your own positions are clearer when not drowned in invective. Try parody or sarcasm.

If you want to sound like truthiness, komrad kevinovitch, carter the martyr, the cool aid kid, et al. don't be surprised if people confuse you with them.

No Sascha,
he was asking for a source to back this up:
"I said UN estimates on AIDS are "too high" and I was proven right in mid-thread". I never said I was proven right about amalgams in mid-thread.

I agree that my outburst belittle my POVs but this is like a little child constantly asking "why? how come? where? why? how come? where?why? how come? where?why? how come? where?why? how come? where?why? how come? where?why? how come? where?why? how come? where?why? how come? where?why? how come? where?why? how come? where?why? how come? where?why? how come? where?why? how come? where?why? how come? where?why? how come? where?why? how come? where?why? how come? where?why? how come? where?why? how come? where?why? how come? where?why? how come? where?why? how come? where?why? how come? where?why? how come? where?why? how come? where?why? how come? where?why? how come? where?why? how come? where?why? how come? where?why? how come? where?why? how come? where?why? how come? where?why? how come? where?why? how come? where?" Eventually you blow a fuse especially when he has already been given the source IN MID-THREAD!

parody or sarcasm doesn't work here with most
"it is difficult to differentiate sarcastic humerous comments form sarcastic mean comments on these threads"

No matter how I write or even wether I'm right, "they" will always confuse me with truthiness, komrad kevinovitch, carter the martyr, the cool aid kid, et al. It is hard-wired into "their" brains that there are only TWO sides to an issue; it is what happens in stupid little wars; you are either with "them" or against "them". Nice and easy black and white world "they" have created for themselves.

Pat,

If I go back over this thread, I get the impression you have a safety fuse that keeps tripping.

If you don't want to read "childish" requests for evidence and references then you could always return to "Narr" and their virtual "back patting" and "high-fives" at the impending - just wait for it, son - it's coming - any time now - just another week - you'll see- etc... fall of the "paradigm". Truthseeker will certainly not be asking for evidence as long as you agree that Moore is a macaque and he himself is the greatest living god.

Otherwise
"Si fueris Romae, Romano vivito more; si fueris alibi, vivito sicut ibi" St Albans
(When in Rome, live in the roman way, même si'ils sont fous!)

The above mentioned apostles are proud examples of the with us or against us tribe. I barely open my virtual mouth and I'm labeled a bimbo. Trustmei'vegotabridgetosellyou then goes on to confirm that all I have to do is agree with him and I shall be welcomed amongst the elect. I'd rather settle with two sides to an issue than none at all. Smacks of "Ein Volk (Denialists), ein Reich (Ze Vorld), Ein Führer (Druthiness)."

As to the apy's request in particular, we'll have to wait and see if he responds.

Read St. Ambrose not St. Albans.

I know how you feel. I've opened mine and I was instantly a denialist, murderer, scumbag and a whole load of other shit and all that just because I doubted the old numbers. Apy's request is "childish" because he is perfectly capable of reading the news just like you and me (it made headlines very recently, Nov. 20, 2007)and he is perfectly capable of reading through this thread too where I have already linked to it so asking for it again is like a little child asking "where?wherewherewherewherewherewherewherewherewherewherewherewherewherewherewherewherewherewherewherewherewherewherewherewherewherewherewherewhere?".

"If I go back over this thread, I get the impression you have a safety fuse that keeps tripping."

Agreed.

You don't have to settle for two sides to an issue when there are obviously so many more. I will now blog-off this narrow-minded thread (and all others) and leave it to the flame warriors and conspiracy theorists and their duotone world.

Pat you are correct about what source I was asking you to reference.

You stated:

I said UN estimates on AIDS are "too high" and I was proven right in mid-thread.

Which gave me the impression it was something that happened in the thread, which is why i asked for a link to the "comment" or source for this. There are at least 3 threads of this which go back and forth between being active with comments, I felt asking you was a quicker solution to searching through the threads. While you may find it annoying that I asked, tough. You make a claim, support it otherwise don't make it. If someone asks you for the source then I don't see the problem, would you prefer you simply be written off as a troll and ignored? I realize there is a limit to this where it is prohibiting useful discussion rather than helping, in this case rather than getting emotional and complaining about why one would ask you for a source, calmly suggesting a google search string might suffice. If you look at it from another perspective, I do not follow AIDS news 100% and thus I have no idea if you are spouting some Alive & Well nonsense or legitimate claims. The "AIDS apologists" have continually given the same sources over and over when the opposing side has requested it, it's the way things work so perhaps you should get used to it or stop participating in scientific discussions.

I'm back just for you and just this once (I hope, sigh*).

"Which gave me the impression it was something that happened in the thread, which is why i asked for a link to the "comment" or source for this."

It happened in the news and it was linked to in mid-thread. I have now posted that link twice I think. If you followed the thread you wouldn't have missed it. I understand that this thread is long; too long for late comers to bother with in full. You don't have to search the whole thread; you can take a shortcut and use the "search this page" function. You also get pissed off at having to repeat yourself.

"You make a claim, support it otherwise don't make it"

I did make a claim and supported it but you missed it, probably because it was drowned out in the conspiracy crap.

" would you prefer you simply be written off as a troll and ignored?"

Is there someone here NOT written off as a troll? Its a cheap slurr thrown around gratuitously by everyone. We are all trolls by the definition of "blogsphere".

"calmly suggesting a google search string might suffice"

Calmly? After having been called a murdrous scumbag? And for what? I wish I had more control and I wish people were more careful with their use of adjectives. I don't mean to say that you have ever called me such and I perhaps fired off in haste so my apologies.

"I do not follow AIDS news 100% and thus I have no idea if you are spouting some Alive & Well nonsense or legitimate claims."

Then why would you make the assumption that I am "spouting off" Alive&Well? There are more sides to this than Aidstruth and Alive and well and you know that.

"The "AIDS apologists" have continually given the same sources over and over when the opposing side has requested it, it's the way things work so perhaps you should get used to it or stop participating in scientific discussions"

Again, there are more sides to this than "Aids apologists" and "Aids denialists". Personally I find both of these destinctions very "narrow-minded" and wish not to be associated with either.
I made the claim that Aids numbers dont fit with the body counts and I even argued it on my very own without the help of any "denialist" websites and never even linking to one. I was argued against, sometimes very unflatteringly until the news broke internationally. Suddenly all went silent but I somehow remain a murderous scumbag denialist who thinks Aids cannot exists (see Adele, if you can read it)
I have an opinion on mercury, true and I cant back it up other than through my own personal experience. This is a blog not a peer reviewed publication. People should be able to share their personal experiences and also without having to suffer poorly written fabrications about who or what they are. I am Pat, not anything or anyone else. People here (on "either" side) have a habit of intentionally blurring who is who and now I am tired. I made my point about inflated Aids nubers and I leave vindicated but one needs not worry: none of this means HIV doesn't cause Aids so we can all sleep assured that the world is still "alive and well".

Have fun and remember that not even black and white pictures are black and white; they are many shades of grey and some of the best ones have no black in them and no white.

pat

I am Pat, not anything or anyone else

November 2 denialism they don't remember, pat said
Actaully I am the Maggiore that has been accused of misinterpreting her negative diagnosis for financial gain. I am also the Maggiore who refused to give AZT to my child seeing we were both "obviously" hiv negative and I am also the Maggiore who has then been accused of murdering my child for believing what the TOP dogs of HIV have been saying all along; that I am "obviously" HIV negative. I am the Maggiore who has lost so much more than these characters ever will yet I am somehow "profiting" from all this.

Yeah not always black and white!!

I know adele,
you'll never get what I meant by that bc youz jus to thik!

Bye pat. Remember to take your antacid!! See you soon.

Calmly? After having been called a murdrous scumbag? And for what? I wish I had more control and I wish people were more careful with their use of adjectives. I don't mean to say that you have ever called me such and I perhaps fired off in haste so my apologies.

I never claimed you were a murdrous scumbag or made any such implication. I have solely asked for sources on your claims. If you are upset over such claims and they are affecting the ability to communicate then perhaps you should take a break until you are calmer.

Then why would you make the assumption that I am "spouting off" Alive&Well? There are more sides to this than Aidstruth and Alive and well and you know that.

I never made such an assumption, the statement was that I do not know where you got your information from, which makes it difficult to track down. I never stated that there were only two sides; I used Alive & Well as an example of one of the many sources people here reference which get in the way of finding legitimate claims.

Again, there are more sides to this than "Aids apologists" and "Aids denialists". Personally I find both of these destinctions very "narrow-minded" and wish not to be associated with either.

Certainly the issue is more complex than denialists and apologists, however my post was not intended to get into the nuances of the terms. We are both aware of the the scope of that discussion so I used a term that is succinct but descriptive enough, if that was not clear, my apologies I will try to avoid such ambiguities in the future.

I made the claim that Aids numbers dont fit with the body counts and I even argued it on my very own without the help of any "denialist" websites and never even linking to one. I was argued against, sometimes very unflatteringly until the news broke internationally. Suddenly all went silent but I somehow remain a murderous scumbag denialist who thinks Aids cannot exists (see Adele, if you can read it)

Most likely true but fairly irrelevant to our discussion. I am not arguing that you are dishonest, a denialist, or a murderous scumbag, I am arguing for sourcing material.

I have an opinion on mercury, true and I cant back it up other than through my own personal experience.

I only did a quick search of this thread and found one mention of mercury by you:

DT mercury lowers oxygen supply in your blood...figure out the rest...you're the self-proclaimed specialist.

Not particularly a smoking gun, I know, but I do not believe this is presented as an opinion. To your credit though, it does not appear to be stating anything negative but it does appear to be making some implication, what exactly that is I don't know (what exactly is DT meant to figure out?). On top of that it does appear to be attempting to make some physiological reasoning for whatever your point is rather than stating it is your opinion based on experience.

This is a blog not a peer reviewed publication.

It is not the gossip column either. Not being peer-reviewed does not imply one can make statements without evidence and expect them to be taken as anything more than an anecdote.

The rest of your post is irrelevant to our discussion.

"Bye pat. Remember to take your antacid!! See you soon."

Maybe I'll never leave after all Adele and thank you for using spell check. You can keep the antacid and shove it where the sun don't shine. You are the worst agent provocateur here.

Pat, is this you, an award winning scientist?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_S._Moore

Cooaid! The boy wonder has uncovered another devious conspiracy perpetrated by the "insert conspiracy here - meme". Pat uses the name pat; Patrick S. Moore's name starts with pat. Ergo pat and Patrick S. Moore are the same person! What would we do without avengers like you?

How often does Pat have to state his identity before Darwin's exceptions get it. Adele, even "whack jobs" like pat are capable of sarcasm. ( re your post above concerning pat is maggiore). Coolaid, ? (I'm speechless, somebody help me find my jaw)

Unemployed loser,
He just posted his full name for the first time just above and I was curious
"Posted by: patrick moore"

So you should suck on shyh ching lo's balls or duesbergs balls to gain some intelligence, just some friendly advice,
hugs
cooler

I am Patrick T Moore, one down from S and it is not the first time I post my full name here (apart from the T bit). I am not the founder of Greenpeace and I don't own a telescope (weebls-stuff.com/toons/patrick+moore/)I am not googleable in the least. Your demands for people to suck balls is getting "kinda" repulsive. You seem to suck alot of balls lately and to ask people to suck on them is hardly friendly advice but then again I have nothing to say about "friendly" advice since I am far from friendly myself.
BTW Patrick Moore is a name much like John Smith or Joe Schmoe...a dime a dozen.

One patrick wasn't enough, so they decided to have moore patrick's!

apy: 1
world: 0

Pat,
I was talking to sacha after he/she/it ran her mouth you stupid idiot. So back the fuck off and start respecting you scientific elders Lo, strohamn, duesberg,margulis, maniotis, build your shrine son, build it now ya idiotic boneheads.

I'm the of the few posters here that has any understanding of microbiology, ie microbes that induce disease death and disease in every animal like mycoplasma incognitus/penetrans does are far more of a threat to humanity than those that dont. Im sorry there are some thickheaded boneheads that call me a "conspiracy nutcase" for reminding you of what the father of bacteriology Koch said 100 years ago.

Anecdotes to lighten things up:

I went to get photos developed in London and as I left my name with the clerk he asked humourously if I was this xylophone player. It was in jest as I am obviously too young to be him. He then explained to me that the lead guitarist for Queen (Brian May)decided to return to his original astronomy studies with guidance from Sir Alfred Patrick Caldwell-Moore and he wondered out load why he would care to do so. Someone in the back of the lab then blurted out:
"he just wants to find out if there is a bigger star than himself out there". We fell to the floor laughing.

I also have been called once by a journalist for the Globe and Mail who wanted to know my most recent position on the latest salmon farming legislation in British Columbia. It took us about 10 minutes of telephone conversation for him and myself to figure out the cock-up. Here's the tail-end of that conversation:

Journalist:
"Do you not remember me? we met in toronto last month"
Moi:
"No, I am sorry, I do not remember you and I wasn't in Toronto last month"
Journalist:
"you are Patrick Moore are you not?"
Moi:
"yes, thats me indeed"
Journalist:
"ermmmm, Which Patrick Moore?"
Moi:
"just "A" Patrick Moore amongst the many"

blablabla...sorry for the inconvenience...beter luck next time and so on.

One patrick wasn't enough, so they decided to have moore patrick's!

apy: 1
world: 0

Sorry apy, I don't get it.

Cooler
I am sure mycoplasmas are bad news and I am sorry about your sister. What makes you think they were designed by the military?

besides, I am an atheist and will not be caught dead building a "shrine"

PAt,
Garth nicolson found a microbe that shyh ching lo just published on in the blood of GWI vets that killed every animal injected, even the DOD admits this years later in their rigged antibiotic study. How did it get in their blood? Its possible saddam used biological weapons, but garth nicolson phd who was one of the worlds top cancer researchers was harrased and threatened at gunpoint by armed defense intelligence agents, this is not the way a govt should reposond to a scientist pursuing a hypothesis, unless they had something to hide.

I have no reason to beleive hes lying, Project day Lily google it, here is Nicosolons interview,

"Since I have been working on Desert Storm health issues," he
explained, "I have encountered numerous attempts to prevent us
from continuing our work on Gulf War Illnesses [GWI]. I have
suffered attempts to block my papers and journal articles from
publication, my grant applications have been tampered with, and
my mail, phones and fax have all been repeatedly intercepted."

In a lengthy interview with The Spotlight, Mrs. Nicolson said she
is certain their efforts are being stifled due to business links
that current or former high government officials have with U.S.
firms that have developed chemical and biological warfare (CBW)
agents. She mentioned specifically former President George W.
Bush, former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and current
CIA Director John Deutch.

-+- Under Pressure -+-

"Administrators at my own institution who are close personal
friends of James A. Baker III," Garth Nicolson said, "have also
attempted to discredit me as a scientist and prevent us
administratively from working on GWI. In addition, they have
attacked academic colleagues who came to our defense in the name
of academic freedom."

"For example," Nicolson continued, "I was called to a meeting
with our institutional president and his four vice presidents,
where they attempted to prevent or limit our access to facilities
and materials necessary to conduct research on GWI or collect
data on soldiers who are ill. They also indicated that I cannot
be involved in any professional or public discussion of our
research without first having a special committee appointed by
the administration review the contents of such research. (This is
the first time that such a tactic has ever been used in the
history of my institution.) ... Obviously, this is a gross
distortion of academic freedom and a crude attempt to prevent us
from continuing our research and discussing it publicly."

"The reason for such highly unusual events," he explained in his
letter to Ammerman, "is probably due to the fact that former
President Bush and former Sec. of State James Baker, as well as
the president of UTMDACC [the Anderson Cancer Center], have
financial interests in the local biotechnology companies that we
strongly suspect were selling illegal biological weapons to Iraq
that were subsequently used against our soldiers in Desert
Storm."

"In addition, we have been visited at our hospital by armed
Defense Intelligence agents and warned not to continue our
research."

-+- Thousands "Turned Away" -+-

"At the moment," Nicolson continued, "thousands of very sick
soldiers and their family members are being turned away from
military and VA hospitals without any treatment for their
conditions and are being branded as mentally ill. We strongly
suspect that this is being done to protect a few individuals that
were involved in the decisions to pursue the development of CBW,
even though the U.S. is signatory to international treaties
banning the development and deployment of biological weapons."

I will believe quite readily that warmongers will use every weapon at their disposal. It has been done before and will be done again and again and that people profit from this is pobably older than prostitution. Deadly shit doesn't need to be designed; it's all out there waiting for takers.
Question:
why would anyone design an infectious disease that might catch them in their sleep one day? I hear mycoplasmas are very infectuous, very hard to treat and also that they are invisible to the human eye. Why would Baker and the lot invest in something that will eventually get them unawares too? If I am correct, you said earlier on that most of us are already infected. Why would anyone invest in their own assured destruction?
Could the conspiracy simply be a government not wanting to spend money on helping those who have sacrificed it all? That too is as old as mankind; send in the idiotic "hero" to do your dirty work and then dump him once the job is done. (sarcasm alert) thats what I would do if I were the head cunt; I would hire the idiot in the crowd to shoot the other idiot in the crowd and then wash my hands of both.

Most of us are not infected, infact in miltarys scientists Lo's patents and publications he found it it not one healthy control.

It makes sense for this mycoplasma incognitus/penetrans to be a biological weapon for it kills every animal inoculated and Lo ruled it to be the cause of death in 6 hiv negative healthy people that died and had horrible symptoms in the late stages.

Plus many scientists are sheep, like Tara, that couldnt care less if people are infected with this microbe and are misdiagnosed with depression/cfs........so they get pleasure torturing people theyre sworn to protect, seems like a great biological weapon to me. I hope Dr. Maniotis has read Project Day Lily and spread the word to his collegues, he seems to be a very competent ethical scientist. He has already spoken of Shyh ching Lo's peer reviewed work in high regard, hopefully ethical scientists like maniotis will spread the word of this impending epidemic, unlike murderers and frauds like tara, hoofnagles, orac, will raise more awareness of Lo and nicolsons peer reviewed work ( he found mfi in 50% of cfs patients etc), and nicolsons book Project Day lily. What can be worse than living with an undiagnosed infection that slowly gets worse?

How stupid can these people be?, microbes that induce disease in animals are more of a threat than those that dont.

Coolaid,
When all else fails, spit on it. You might want to get checked for mycoplasma vitriola. You seem to have it in abundance, fortunately it is harmless and cannot be transmitted to other people. In fact it is only found in a mutated branch of the human family: Homo Non Sapiens

Your fascination with scientist's genitalia is rather obsessive, you might want to consult a specialist.

You are a cornucopia of conspiracy theories: 9/11, Day lily, AIDS. What's next? The moon landings. You should wander over to Graham Hancock's web dwelling; he has pyramids and Atlantis. You could look up the "Bosnian pyramids" too; it's underwhelming.

I googled Day Lily. It's beautiful, very old south. I'll try to find some for my better half. She loves flowers.

You make no sense, get a job, damn loser.

Dissidents and Orthodoxy in a hilarious mud slinging tour de force. Oh well!

What to think of all of this? Dissidents claim that, according to Perth, the virus doesn't exist, because they do not meet the Pasteur institutes Standard of 1973. Or the Koch postulates, which where, according to the Koch himself only fit for bacterial pathogens, but not for viral or otherwise. Talk about use of arbitrary or outdated Standards. Duesberg still contents that hiv is harmless, but still non-drug using hiv+ get sick and die. In fact about 3 prominent dissident activists the last year only. Sure because of Stress or...err...covert drug use. Doesnt compute, sorry!

Allright,it is clear that all scientific theorys are- and should be - refutable. But how it is done in the dissident camp is strange. All the talk about padian, when dozens of other papers show otherwise. You know, for every scientific subject you can always find papers who have not found an effect, but its not that a single paper can refute a theory, when there are so many more that do proof it right.

Now to the orthodoxy spanking!
Funny that these mycoplasmas are ignored, and montagnier expelled from the aids conference for not adhering to the dogma. Funny that all the viral load talk, see rodriguez doesnt produce acceptable correlations - still the ho paradigm goes on, when they where just making a mathematical mistake.

What a mess!

fraorlando,
Maybe you can point out to us where the irrefutable hard core proven fact checked paper pier reviewed paper that overwhelmingly proves that HIV cause AIDS. None of them do. Maybe you know the one, maybe two or so? Please, spare us the details of correlation. We know there's correlation like birds on a high wire correlates to power outages, so you don't need to name those papers, they number in the thousands.

We know there's correlation like birds on a high wire correlates to power outages,

carter, you're missing the other part of the HIV/AIDS correlation. If power outages could be predicted by the presence of birds on a high wire, then you'd have a valid analogy.

According to the aids truth site its the original papers by montagnier and Gallo that proved causality, when gallo found signatures of what could be a a retrovirus in 1/3 of AIDS patients, according to aids truth that proved causality.

It didnt bother them that the virus was in 1/1000 cells and didnt do sqwat when injected into animals, and that they extended the window period from 10 months to 10 years when no one got sick, those are the papers they claim proved a causal role, They must have proved a causal role for after these papers every doctor was taught in medical school hiv caused aids, every grant assumed hiv caused aids and no grants were provided for dissenters, billions were spent on a cure/vaccine based on these pathetic papers............sad but true.

Im not making this up, if you go to the aids truth site they claim these papers prove causality, carter, you have to realize how stupid the people running this scam are.

Funny how when DR. lo found a correlation with mycoplamsa incognitus/penetrans the first thing he did was inject experimental mice and monkeys, and they all sickened and died, but Gallo was so stupid he skipped this step and went to the press. What a bunch of fucking stupid idiots these people are, they are an endangerment to the human race with their unbridled stupidity

The trouble is Dale, "If power outages could be predicted by the presence of birds on a high wire, then you'd have a valid analogy," it can't be and niether can HIV.

Immune system abnormalities, resulting in progressive immune dysfunction, can be predicted by the presence of HIV. The trouble for some dissidents is that they don't want to believe it. Or for those who do believe it (like the Perth group and their followers), the trouble is that they refuse to accept that HIV is infectiously acquired.

" Or for those who do believe it (like the Perth group and their followers), the trouble is that they refuse to accept that HIV is infectiously acquired. "

what makes you say that?

What makes "them" say that is because for all their best efforts, HIV has yet to be properly isolated and it's they whom believe any followers of truth simply refuse to accept their beliefs. It's not that these followers refuse to accept, its that these followers of truth are not swayed by propaganda and/or consensus.

The Perth group has set arbitrary criteria that they consider 'acceptable' to demonstrate the 'proper isolation' and thus the existence of a virus. Their criteria are not the criteria used by virologists (even Duesberg believes HIV is a virus) or by epidemiologists. By the Perth group's criteria none of the infectious agents that have plagued human beings for centuries (like leprosy or plague) existed until they were isolated and identified. Does that seem like a reasonable position to you?

carter says
followers of truth are not swayed by propaganda and/or consensus.

Twoofers are not swayed by evidence and logic they are swayed by propaganda and consensus look at deniosaurs and their list of three thousand scientists that say HIV is not real?? Consensus is good for twoofers unless its consensus from people they do not like.

As a prison medical officer in South Africa, I partly agree with President Mbeki's sceptical view of current statistical research into HIV infection and AIDS.1

The research data tend to be formulated from actuarial models and short trials in pregnant women attending antenatal clinics. Pregnancy is known to cause a raised rate of false positive results on testing for HIV infection with enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). The results of such research lead to frightening statistics, giving the impression that the whole of southern Africa will be depopulated within the next 24 months.

In South Africa's prisons there is a vast overcrowded (often 30 people per cell) population in which homosexuality is widespread and condom use practically non-existent. This is the perfect breeding ground for the rapid spread of HIV.

Sexually transmitted diseases are common in the prison where I work, and all prisoners who have any such disease are tested for HIV. Prisoners with any other illnesses that do not resolve rapidly (within one to two weeks) are also tested for HIV. As a result, a large number of HIV tests are done every week. This prison, which holds 550 inmates and is always full or overfull, has an HIV infection rate of 2-4% and has had only two deaths from AIDS in the seven years I have been working there.

The HIV infection rate for all South Africa's prisons is currently 2.3%. The rate in the prison population should be higher than that in the general population, or at least the same. But the figures for prisons in South Africa are way below those generated by actuarial models and antenatal data, which purportedly reflect the incidence of infection in the general population.

A widespread mystical attitude towards HIV/AIDS gives this disease recognition out of all proportion to its incidence (compare it, for example, with the number of deaths in southern Africa from malaria, tuberculosis, malnutrition, road crashes, and murders). The legal and ethical implications of this attitude ensure that no statistical research is based on random testing of the general normal healthy population. Data from this kind of research, were anyone brave enough to conduct it, would probably show figures more like those found in the prisons.

Stuart W Dwyer, part time district surgeon (forensic medical officer).
Postnet Suite #5, Private Bag X1672, Grahamstown, 6140 South Africa swdwyer@eastcape.net

1. Sidley P. Mbeki plays down AIDS and orders a rethink on spending. BMJ 2001; 323: 650[Free Full Text]. (22 September.)

"By the Perth group's criteria none of the infectious agents that have plagued human beings for centuries (like leprosy or plague) existed until they were isolated and identified. Does that seem like a reasonable position to you?" -- Dale

Once again, Dale, it is your inarticulate doublespeak that ends in an unreasonable position. Not surprisingly, you neglect to address several extremely important logical concepts in your "analysis" of the Perth Group's position. Namely, one can posit the existence of innumerable "infectious agents" to explain any illness, but one must still prove that the alleged "infectious agent" is indeed responsible for causing the particular illness. (I've italicized the important concepts that you neglect to address.)

Thus, the considerable burden of proof is on HIV's "cheerleaders" and not the other way around. As such, the Perth Group's concerns are valid. If one wants to attribute the disparate illnesses--currently labeled as "HIV disease"--to a distinct agent called HIV, then one must first prove that this particular agent actually exists as a distinct agent, and physical isolation, as a distinct in-tact specimen, has long-served as the gold standard. Only then, can one proceed, with confidence, to explain how the agent is responsible for causing the disease state in question. However, if one fails to isolate the agent satisfactorily, the ultimate burden of proof is more difficult to meet. One could still establish correlation, of course, assuming the proposed infectious agent's "infectivity" is supported by the preponderance of the evidence, but when the supporting evidence does not actually support the original hypothesis, as is the case with HIV/AIDS, well, the explanatory failure stemming from the lack of isolation is all the more glaring. See how that works, Dale?

You should really work on your argument presentation skills, Dale, and I'd suggest a study primer that focuses less on propaganda techniques and more on achieving clarity.

_________________

Thank you for your very informative post, Stuart. It's just further proof that the actual evidence does not support a link between HIV and AIDS.

Kevin

Hey Kev!! Newsflash Stuart Dwyer didn't post that Its a letter to the editor from 2001. I guess our friend Michael Mountain Man G. pasted it. Plus its wrong. Oh well.

Namely, one can posit the existence of innumerable "infectious agents" to explain any illness, but one must still prove that the alleged "infectious agent" is indeed responsible for causing the particular illness.

No Kevin, I think you're missing the point. Proof that an infectious agent is responsible for causing a particular illness can take many forms and does not rely on the arbitrary set of criteria that the Perth group would like to limit it to.