Christine Maggiore dies from pneumonia at age 52

The death of Christine Maggiore is tragic just as her life was tragic.

She was mislead by Peter Duesberg and David Rasnick and other AIDS Denialists. Ultimately she promoted their pseudoscience at her own peril. Many others were harmed by her relentless promoting of false information that confused people about HIV testing and treatment.

We should respect the decision of an informed person to refuse treatment for any serious medical condition. But the problem with AIDS denialism is that people are making testing and treatment decisions based on misinformation and disinformation spread by AIDS pseudoscientists and conspiracy theorists.

The sad story of AIDS denialism that enmeshed Christine Maggiore is told in a new book Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy (all Royalties donated to buy HIV medications in Africa) for more information visit http://denyingaids.blogspot.com/

Oh Jesus - Jiminy Crickets - Here we go round the mullberry bush once again!

Lets start off with a real reminder of the deceased AIDS activists, treatment advocates and celebrities
who died owing to or despite taking AIDS medications

I -- Pre-HAART

Hollywood Icon Rock Hudson Dies of AIDS
On 2 October 1985, actor Rock Hudson, 59, became the first major U.S. celebrity to die of AIDS. Hudson's death raised public awareness of the epidemic, which until that time had been ignored by many in the mainstream as a "gay plague". It's of interest that Hudson's partner, Marc Christian, with whom he lived and from whom he withheld the serious nature of his condition, never tested HIV positive as a result of their unprotected, intimate contact.

Liberace Dies at 67 from AIDS
On 4 February 1987, Walter Valentino Liberace, world-renowned pianist and entertainer, died after falling into a coma. The official cause of death was complications of AIDS, though those close to him refused to acknowledge that he ever had AIDS.

Barry Gingell, Medical Director of Gay Men's Health Crisis, Dies at 34
Dr. Barry Gingell, 34, who became medical director of the Gay Men's Health Crisis organization in New York and a noted advocate for improved treatment of AIDS patients, died of AIDS on 28 May 1989 at a hospital in New York City.

Keith Haring, Artist/Cartoonist, Dies of AIDS at 31
When artist Keith Haring died on 16 February 1990 of AIDS, he left behind an astonishing artistic legacy. In his 31 years, Haring had gone from being an anonymous graffiti artist who drew chalk figures on New York City subway posters, to being called the successor to Andy Warhol and Roy Lichtenstein.

Ryan White Dies of AIDS at 18; His Struggle Helped Pierce Myths
9 April 1990 -- Ryan White, the Indiana teenager who put the face of a child on AIDS and served as a leader for gaining greater understanding and compassion for those with the deadly disease, died today at age 18, in Riley Hospital for Children, owing to complications of AIDS. Ryan, a hemophiliac who contracted the virus through a blood transfusion, had entered the hospital on March 29 suffering from a respiratory infection. His death continues to be used to raise "awareness" and funding for AIDS.
White had been taking AIDS-treatment drugs. Other sources attribute his death to internal bleeding as a result of hemophilia.

Rock Singer Freddie Mercury Dies at 45
24 November 1991 -- Freddie Mercury, lead singer of the rock band Queen, died of AIDS-related pneumonia on Sunday at age 45. A day before his death, Mercury released a statement indicating that he had the disease: "I felt it correct to keep this information private to date in order to protect the privacy of those around me." He added that he wanted everyone to join him and his doctors to combat AIDS.
As with Rock Hudson, Mercury's long-term partner never tested HIV positive.

Kimberly Bergalis, AZT Victim
After testing HIV positive, Bergalis was treated with AZT at the University of Miami. Suddenly she started a precipitous decline in health. In an angry letter, she partly ascribed her symptoms to the toxic drug: "I have lived through the torturous ache that infested my face and neck, brought on by AZT. I have endured trips twice a week to Miami for three months only to receive painful IV injections. I've had blood transfusions. I've had a bone marrow biopsy. I cried my heart out from the pain". This was only the beginning. The yeast infection that led to her AIDS diagnosis worsened after AZT treatment and became uncontrollable; she lost more than thirty pounds, her hair gradually fell out, her blood cells died and had to be replaced with transfusions, and her muscles wasted away. Her fevers hit highs of 103 degrees, and by late 1990 her T-cell count had dropped from an average of 1,000 to a mere 43. She looked just like a chemotherapy patient -- which she now was. She developed AIDS just two years after testing HIV positive, and died shortly thereafter (on 8 December 1991).

AIDS Activist, Artist Alison ('Ali') Gertz, 26, Dies
8 August 1992 -- Alison Gertz, who was exposed to the AIDS virus during her first sexual experience at age 16, died Saturday at her parents' home in Westhampton Beach, N.Y. Gertz went public with her disease, giving lectures, founding an AIDS-awareness group called Love Heals, and allowing the airing of a television movie based on her life. To keep her functioning normally, Ms. Gertz each day took AZT, Ganciclovir, and Bactrim.

Arthur Ashe: The Gentle Warrior, 1943-1993
6 February 1993 -- Ashe was ranked the number-one tennis-player in the world in 1968. He contracted the AIDS virus from an unscreened blood transfusion during his second open-heart surgery in 1983. Later he organized the Arthur Ashe Foundation for the Defeat of AIDS. Arthur Ashe died at age 49 in New York Hospital as a result of AIDS-related pneumonia.
In his book, Black Lies, White Lies, journalist Tony Brown -- a close friend of Ashe's -- reveals that in the last months of his life, Ashe concluded that the AZT therapy he took in response to testing HIV positive was at the root of his descent into illness.

Bruce Voeller, NGLTF Founder, Loses Battle with AIDS
13 February 1994 -- In the 1970s, Bruce Voeller founded the National Gay Task Force (NGTF), which in 1986 changed its name to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF). It was Voeller who had suggested the name AIDS, "Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome", instead of GRID, "Gay-Related Immune Deficiency", which he considered both stigmatizing and inaccurate. Voeller lost his own battle with the disease and died at his Topanga, CA, home, assisted by his life partner, Richard Lucik.

MTV Star Pedro Zamora Dies at 22
11 November 1994 -- AIDS activist Pedro Zamora died of AIDS at age 22. Zamora said he became infected with HIV through unprotected sex when he was 17. He testified at a congressional hearing, appeared in a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention television commercial about AIDS, and was featured on MTV's "The Real World".

Elizabeth Glaser Dies at 47; Crusader for Pediatric AIDS
4 December 1994 -- Elizabeth Glaser, who waged a tireless campaign to draw attention to pediatric AIDS, died yesterday at her home in Santa Monica, CA. She was 47. The cause was complications from AIDS, said Josh Baran, a spokesman for the family. Mrs. Glaser, the wife of Paul Michael Glaser, a director and actor who starred in the "Starsky and Hutch" television series, was one of several public figures to bring AIDS to the forefront of the 1992 Presidential campaign. She had contracted the virus through a blood transfusion in 1981. Thousands of delegates, dignitaries, and guests stood frozen in place at the Democratic National Convention in New York City as she told of the death of her 7-year-old daughter, Ariel, in 1988 from AIDS.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Glaser's autobiography, In the Absence of Angels, reveals that prior to starting the AIDS drug treatment that she had delayed for many years, her T-cell count was in normal ranges and she was enjoying normal health.

II -- During the HAART period

ACT UP DC Founder Steve Michael Dies at 42
Steve Michael, founder of ACT UP of Washington, DC, died of AIDS complications on 25 May 1998. Michael's partner of seven years, Wayne Turner, gave the order to disconnect Michael from life support after his condition severely worsened. Michael had spent almost four weeks in the intensive care unit at Washington Hospital Center for treatment of AIDS-related pneumonia. He was 42 years old.

AIDS Activist Simon Nkoli Dies
30 November 1998 -- Nkoli died on the eve of World Aids Day, and in news articles was described as "only 41 years young". Nkoli was the first South African to declare openly that he had AIDS.

Singing Star Ofra Haza Dies at 42 of AIDS Complications
Ofra Haza, popular Israeli singer, died on 23 February 2000 at the age of 42. Although initial reports suggested that Haza was only suffering from pneumonia or an extended bout with the flu, The Jerusalem Post reports that she suffered from liver and kidney failure.

Kiyoshi Kuromiya, Leading HIV/AIDS Activist, Dies
Kiyoshi Kuromiya, one of the world's leading AIDS activists, died on the night of 10 May 2000, owing to complications from AIDS. To the last, Kiyoshi remained an activist, insisting on and receiving the most aggressive treatment for cancer and the HIV that complicated its treatment. He participated fully in every treatment decision, making sure that he, his friends and fellow activists were involved with his treatment every step of the way.

Stephen Gendin, Activist and Writer, Dies of AIDS at 34
Stephen Gendin, who was at the center of AIDS activism for fifteen years and whose provocative writing in POZ magazine as a gay man struggling with HIV sparked community controversies, died on 19 July 2000 at New York City's Roosevelt Hospital. He was 34. Gendin's death was caused by cardiac arrest while undergoing chemotherapy for AIDS-related lymphoma.

Nkosi Johnson, Young AIDS Activist, Dies at Age 12
1 June 2001, South Africa -- Nkosi Johnson, a boy who was born with HIV and became an outspoken champion of others infected with the AIDS virus, died Friday of the disease he battled for all of his 12 years. Nkosi had collapsed in December with brain damage and viral infections. His foster mother, Gail Johnson, said he died peacefully in his sleep. Nkosi is featured in the documentary film, Questioning AIDS in South Africa.

Frances 'Dace' Stone, AIDS Activist, Dies at 48
20 August 2001 -- Longtime AIDS activist Frances "Dace" Stone, 48, died of undisclosed causes last Wednesday in Washington, DC. Stone had been involved with the Whitman-Walker Clinic for nearly 20 years as a volunteer, board member, and former president of the board of directors.

Gay Columnist Lance Loud Dies of AIDS
Lance Loud, the openly gay columnist probably best known for his role in An American Family and as a columnist for various magazines, including The Advocate, Details, Interview, and Creem, died at age 50. Lance entered a hospice suffering from AIDS and died on 22 December 2001.

AIDS Activist Belynda Dunn Dies
13 March 2002 -- HIV-positive activist Belynda Dunn, whose crusade for a new liver pitted her against a big insurer and won the support of Boston's mayor, died yesterday in a Pittsburgh hospital, four days after she received the second of two liver transplants. She was 51. Doctors at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center believe a blood clot clogged her lungs.

Project Inform Board Member Linda Grinberg Dies
27 May 2002 -- One of AIDS activism's greats, Linda Grinberg, died on Memorial Day of a heart attack, the result of AIDS-related pulmonary hypertension. She had just turned 51. Grinberg served on the board of treatment-advocacy-group Project Inform.

Barbara Garrison, AIDS Activist, Dead at 45 from AIDS Complications
28 May 2002 -- Barbara Garrison, an AIDS activist and former blood technician, died from complications of AIDS at Bronson Methodist Hospital in Kalamazoo. She was 45. She had been diagnosed as HIV-positive in December 1995 and became involved with the Michigan Persons Living with AIDS Task Force, and at the time of her death headed the group's membership and management committee.

AIDS Activist Javier Contreras Dies at 33
March 2003 -- Javier Contreras, a Chicago AIDS activist, died of AIDS complications at age 33. He had worked at a counselor and case manager and was also a member of the HIV Prevention Planning Group of Chicago.

AIDS Activist Evan Ruderman Dies at 44
Evan Ruderman, an AIDS activist, died on 18 November 2003 from complications of AIDS. She was 44. Ruderman helped create the Foundation for Integrated AIDS Research and worked to obtain equal access to treatment for HIV patients around the world.

AIDS Activist Carlton Hogan Dead at 42
Carlton H. Hogan, age 42, of Minneapolis, died at home on 18 November 2003 after a long fight with AIDS. He had worked for the Community Programs for Clinical Research on AIDS Statistical Center, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota.

ACT UP Legend Keith Cylar Dead at 45 of Heart Trouble
Keith Cylar, a 45-year-old ACT UP legend, died of heart trouble on 5 April 2004. Cylar and his partner, Charles King, founded the one-stop New York social-service-and-activist powerhouse, Housing Works.

Positively Aware's Charles Clifton Dies at 45 of Heart Attack
Clifton died on 15 August 2004 of a heart attack at age 45. He was executive director of Test Positive Aware Network and edited the influential publication Positively Aware.

Heart Attack Claims AIDS Activist Gigi Nicks
Gigi Nicks, the patient advocacy director at Chicago's CORE Center, was well known for her pioneering activism on behalf of positive women and children. She died of a heart attack on 19 August 2004 at age 52.

Nelson Mandela Says AIDS Led to Death of His Son, Makgatho Mandela
Johannesburg, 6 January 2005 -- Former South African president Nelson Mandela announced Thursday that his son, Makgatho Mandela, 54, had died that morning of an undisclosed illness related to AIDS. Makgatho had been receiving antiretroviral treatment for more than a year.

AIDS Activist, Speaker Debbie Runions Dies
Debbie Runions, a prominent AIDS activist and patient who called for governmental response to the spread of AIDS, died of AIDS-related complications on 16 October 2005 at age 55. Runions found out she was HIV positive in 1992 and spent the rest of her life promoting AIDS awareness and prevention.

Jerry 'Grant' Lewis, 19 December 1979 -- 17 January 2006
Grant was born with hemophilia and at the age of 11 learned that he was infected with HIV. Grant was an experimental pediatric-HIV-drugs research patient at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda (MD) for 5 years, and he was the first adolescent in the world to introduce one of the new protease inhibitors into his body. Grant made several appearances on the Phil Donahue, Montel Williams, Jenny Jones, and Maury Povich shows, and along with Magic Johnson and Greg Louganis he was the subject of a feature story on an ESPN segment about sports and HIV. Grant died at age 26.

Jeff Getty, AIDS Activist, Passes Away
16 October 2006 -- AIDS activist Jeff Getty passed away in California at age 49. Getty died of heart failure in Joshua Tree, CA, following a cancer treatment. He became famous after doctors at San Francisco General Hospital transplanted bone marrow from a baboon into him in 1995. The experiment was termed a failure, yet Getty regained his health and continued to offer himself as a guinea pig for several other experiments.

Pioneering Atlanta AIDS Activist John Granger Dies
John Granger, a local AIDS activist and community volunteer, died on 29 January 2007 at Tucker Nursing Center, of AIDS-related complications owing to multifocal leukoencephalopathy, according to Dr. Jesse Peel, his former partner of 10 years. Granger was 52.

Gay/AIDS Advocate Bob Hattoy Dies of Heart Attack
3 March 2007 -- Bob Hattoy, 56, died in his sleep at his home in Sacramento, CA, apparently of a heart attack. The environmental-political-gay-AIDS activist became perhaps the most widely known openly gay member of the Clinton administration. He addressed the 1992 Democratic National Convention as a person living with AIDS. Hattoy was a long-term survivor of HIV.

John Campbell, Founder of People Living with HIV, Dead at 39
30 May 2007 -- Britain lost a national hero yesterday when John Campbell succumbed to an HIV-related neurodegenerative disease. Campbell shot to prominence in the gay activist community when he and three peers founded the UK Coalition of People Living with HIV and AIDS in 1993. Campbell also founded Positive Nation, an HIV-focused magazine. A former male prostitute, Campbell was also a special government HIV advisor.

Brett Lykins, Celebrated AIDS Activist, Dies at 28
1 August 2007-- To say that Brett Lykins was a familiar face would be an understatement. For nearly all his life, he was the young man at the head of the AIDS awareness movement in Georgia. He first made headlines in 1989 when he was in third grade, revealing to his Gwinnett County classmates during show-and-tell that he was HIV-positive. Brett took to his celebrity like a pro, leading marches and rallies and rubbing shoulders with big-name stars like Sir Elton John during the Atlanta AIDS Walk. On Wednesday night, at his mother's home in Duluth, Brett Lykins finally succumbed to illness, surrounded by relatives and friends.

Presidential AIDS Advisor Dr. Scott Hitt Dies at 49
Dr. R. Scott Hitt, an AIDS specialist and the first openly gay person to head a presidential advisory board, died on 8 November 2007, at age 49, of colon cancer at his home in West Hollywood, according to John Duran, the city's mayor and a longtime friend. Hitt was chairman of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV and AIDS during President Clinton's administration in the 1990s.

Thomas Morgan, Journalist and Activist, Dies at 56
27 December 2007 -- Thomas Morgan III, a former reporter and editor at the New York Times and a president of the National Association of Black Journalists, died on Monday in Southampton, MA, aged 56. The cause was complications of AIDS, his partner, Tom Ciano, said.

Dallas AIDS Activist Don Sneed Dies
Don Sneed, who will undoubtedly be remembered as the city's most colorful and controversial AIDS activist ever, died on 4 January 2008, aged 54, after a brief hospitalization at the Veterans Hospital in Dallas. He reportedly was in a coma at the time of his death, which was owing apparently to an HIV-related illness.

Saturday, 20 December 2008 at 9:18 pm

Another sad death of an HIV+ treatment advocate:

"Dan Dunable, longtime Atlanta AIDS activist and HIV treatment educator, died unexpectedly at home October 4th. He was 51."
http://www.thebody.com/content/art38369.html

"The medical examiner says that Dan died from a stroke. . . . Dan's T-cell count was good, he was adherent to his meds, he went to the doctor, and he exercised ... so I don't understand why he is dead. Did he die because of his HIV, because of the medications ... or was it something else?"
http://www.thebody.com/content/art45171.html

--- Believing the death of Christine Maggiore was due to an untreaded HIV infection is same as believing Jesus died to save our sins. Haven't we had enough of your religulous HIV mantras? ----

Brian,

A list of people dying of a serious illness doesn't strike me as demonstrating that the illness is inconsequential, or mythical (as religious beliefs are) as you seem to want to make out in your final sentence. I think it suports the opposite position, somehow ;-)

Being a Queen fan, I was amused in a horrified way to see the following "fact" (in bold) in the above diatribe:

Rock Singer Freddie Mercury Dies at 45
24 November 1991 -- Freddie Mercury, lead singer of the rock band Queen, died of AIDS-related pneumonia on Sunday at age 45. A day before his death, Mercury released a statement indicating that he had the disease: "I felt it correct to keep this information private to date in order to protect the privacy of those around me." He added that he wanted everyone to join him and his doctors to combat AIDS.
As with Rock Hudson, Mercury's long-term partner never tested HIV positive.

The reality?

Hutton, who himself tested HIV-positive in 1990, lived with Mercury for the last six years of his life, nursed him during his illness and was present at his bedside when he died.

Somehow I have the feeling that many of Brian's other "facts" are equally false.

So if people die of cancer, that means they don't have cancer? Help me out, Brian!

No, just kidding. Put a sock in it. Consider the rest of my comment to be unstated as hominem.

Brian,
people wearing seat-belts still die in car accidents. Does this mean that seat-belts don't save life or that car accidents don't exist?

Who can say for sure that Christine was in fact HIV positive? No one can be so sure of it. The many HIV tests she took were all contradictory which is exactly what propelled her into becoming a skeptic. Jeanne Bergman even stands by this: "but of course Maggiore has no 'fear of AIDS' -- she doesn't have HIV".

Bloody grave dancers you all are.

I knew Charles Clifton, a lovely, generous, intelligent and kind man. I miss him. He never took HIV treatments because he never needed to (he was healthy and asymptomatic). He died from complications of a pulmonary embolism.

BD sums it up. You don't need HIV to explain the cause in anyone period. People die plain and simple and in the case of Christine, testing positive on an antibody test 16 years ago and not being unable to overcome a bout of double pneumonia proves nothing.

God Bless Christine, and her family. After her daughter died of an obvious anaphilactic shock from her first time on antibiotics, Christine was attacked on the internet, on tv, and in the worldwide press as a denialist monster.

She was scheduled to testify in court this week, only 3 days after she passed, and no doubt the enduring stress of coming through a Christmas without her daughter, and fearing that she would be the one put on trial instead of the coroner, and enduring nonstop attacks against her was taking its emotional and psychological toll.

Just a few weeks prior, the tv show Law and Order SVU, had done an episode based on Christine, that portrayed a psychotic mother who was the cause of her childs death by not giving the child aids meds. At the end of the episode, the mother also died. Christine very much internalized this by saying "That is what they want me to be. They all want me to die".

The only thing that surprises those of us who knew her, was that she had come this far without a major emotional and physical breakdown.

Rest in peace, Christine. My heart goes out to her husband and son.

And for all of you who do not understand the impact of stress and health:

Studies have shown that people with Type A behavior (unusually aggressive, competitive, work-oriented, and urgent behavior) have a much higher incidence of heart attacks than do Type B people, who exhibit fewer of these traits. In addition, Type A behavior is associated with high cholesterol, triglycerides, glucocorticoids; a greater insulin response to glucose; increased severity of coronary artery lesions; and greater range and magnitude of blood pressure and catecholamine responses to timed tests (Elliott & Eisdorfer, 1982). As stated earlier, stress increases catecholamines, and the increase of plasma catecholamines enhances platelet aggregation, lowers the threshold to cardiac arrythmias, induces narrowing of the blood vessels, and suppresses insulin secretion (McEwen & Stellar, 1993). All of these combined can lead to a very high risk of heart attack or angina.

Psychological stress has also been shown to increase susceptibility to viral infection. Subjects exposed to stress showed increases in infection rates from 74% to 90%, and clinical colds rose from 27% to 47%. Earlier studies have shown that medical students have an increased risk of mononucleosis during examination periods (McEwen & Stellar, 1993). This is not surprising, as stress does suppress the immune system; latent viruses then have an easier time resurging, since the body cannot defend itself as well (Brosschot, et al, 1994). This is supported by studies showing that colds and other infections manifest themselves on weekends after busy and stressful work weeks. Additionally, studies on monkeys have shown that ulceration showed up most severely during the rest and recovery periods, rather than during the stress period itself (McEwen & Stellar, 1993).

In conclusion, psychological stress does have a significant affect on the immune system. It raises catecholamine and CD8 levels, which suppresses the immune system. This suppression, in turn, raises the risk of viral infection. Stress also leads to the release of histamines, which can trigger severe broncoconstriction in asthmatics.

Christine Maggiore died AIDS and that is sad. What is more sad is all of the deaths she caused because of her denial. It's one thing to choose to ignore science but it's quite another to try to convince others and bring them down with you. Her ignorance is a tragedy although I am sure all of the other HIV infected people out there in denial just as Christine was will continue to insist that HIV-infected 3 year-olds die from antibiotics and that Christine, at 52 died from a cleanse or natural causes, even though she was HIV infected and refused treatment. Christine chose her path and these are the consequences. She could be alive today if she had accepted medical advice but her legacy will not be as an AIDS alternative activist as much as a Jim Jones of sorts, by intervening and successfully causing the blocking funding to pregnant women in Africa treatment, causing many more deaths than her own. RIP Christine Maggiore.

Hi Tara! Happy Happy New Year to you and yours!

By the way, the New Year always brings the opportunity to begin anew. Out with the old and in with the new!

Here is a very interesting subject that I thought you as an aetiologist would enjoy investigating, and a great one for you to investigate and present on your blog and to your students this year:

Causes of Bovine Pneumonia: http://www.cobactan.com/Bovine-pneumonia-Causes.asp

The aetiology of Bovine Pneumonia is multifactorial, stress and infectious agents both play a major role.

Stress in intensive cattle production

Conclusion: Stress is a major predisposing factor to Pneumonia outbreaks.

Had most of you not conspired to make her life so utterly miserable perhaps she wouldn't have become a skeptic in the first place. If Christine bears any responsibility, then all you who accuse her bear just as much. This is such immature behavior comming from grown adults. John, you stand accused of stupidity and arrogance for you do not know her HIV status...nobody does. So to all of you showing fake sadness and distress and wishing her to rest in peace then the best thing you can do is to shut up about her already and actually LET her rest in peace.

Dear Tara Mother Dear,

I see your heart goes out to Maggiore's family. Did you contact to offer your condolences personally? did you contact to ask them about what you have written above? do you know any of them? You are on record saying that Maggiore's death was preventable, although nobody knows if it was AIDS-related. What will be your response if it is decided that her death was not AIDS-related?

Will you apologize? Will you call up the family and humbly apologize? Please tell us now before the fact, Tara Mother Dear.

Since all he facts are still not ou, since you did not consult original sources, how are going to defend yourself against charges of grave-dancing? How?

"her daughter died of an obvious anaphilactic shock from her first time on antibiotics"

So not remotely true.

Christine was always very cagey about the source her own HIV infection, as anything tawdry would have spoiled her Madonna of alt-science image. That Dr. Fleiss played along with her is his own shame.

Don't try and rope my words into your despicable, crazy crusade against reality, Mr. Carter. Some conditions are caused by HIV-induced immune deficiency, others are not. Maggiore actually had no compunction about speculating regarding the dead, the partner of Rex Poindexter (one of Maggiore's followers who changed his mind about denialism after getting sick) got very upset with her about it.

Tara,
My heart goes out to the Maggiore family. AIDS denial kills! It's as simple as that.
What do you have on Hep C and Sarcoidosis? Those are my personal dragons.

Ken

Who can say for sure that Christine was in fact HIV positive? No one can be so sure of it.

Pat, Christine's story was at the heart of "Alive and Well." If she wasn't HIV+, why did she sell herself as such? Why didn't she go in to have her viral load measured, to see if there actually was any detectable HIV in her system? Eliza Jane *did* show HIV in her system--therefore I think we can safely say that Christine was positive as well.

Alice, no, I did not contact the family, as I do not know her husband personally, though Christine had commented here previously and emailed me before. Regarding the role of HIV in her death, I hope there will be an autopsy performed and the record can be settled. If the results from that show everything was normal, sure, I'd note that here. However, if the results show that the pneumonia was AIDS-related, as Eliza Jane's was, will the deniers admit that HIV contributed to Maggiore's death, or will they have Al-Bayati come up with an "alternative version" of her autopsy report as he did Eliza Jane's, and keep sending HIV+ mothers and children to their deaths?

As expected, numerous Internet postings have emerged that adamantly state she did not die of AIDS. The family has stated that she was diagnosed with bilateral pneumonia and did not overcome it. And of course, her death from pneumonia had nothing to do with AIDS. How likely is that?

In the US, deaths from pneumonia under age 65 are exceedingly rare except in AIDS patients. Among people 65 and older, influenza and pneumonia combined account for less than 3% of all deaths. Across all age groups, including infants and the elderly, pneumonia ranks 67th among all causes of death in the US. In 2004, 58,564 people in the US died of pneumonia, of which 3,649 (6%) were under the age of 55. We can extrapolate to conclude that around one in three of young people who die of pneumonia have AIDS.

The denialists will have us believe that this 52 year old woman who had at least at some point tested HIV+, refused treatment, made AIDS denial her cause, and tragically had a baby die of a what the LA coroner ruled AIDS...that this woman succumbed to pneumonia that was not AIDS-related?

Nothing will ever stop these people, not even this.

Seth Kalichman, http://denyingaids.blogspot.com

Tara, you ask very good questions!

#1 If she wasn't HIV+, why did she sell herself as such?

#2 Why didn't she go in to have her viral load measured, to see if there actually was any detectable HIV in her system?

And though you didn't ask, #3, Why did she not have her T-cell counts taken?

The answer to #1 "If she wasn't HIV+, why did she sell herself as such?", is fairly obvious.

She was not the one who claimed she was HIV+, those who gave her the hiv tests pronounced that judgement upon her. She simply demanded the proof that antibody tests or PCR prove she was "infected". Those demands went unanswered.

The answer to #2 "Why didn't she go in to have her viral load measured, to see if there actually was any detectable HIV in her system?", is also quite easily answered. See: VIRAL LOAD AND THE PCR/Why they can't be used to prove HIV infection/By Christine Johnson/Continuum Nov. 2001

And of course the question you did not ask, #3, "Why did she not keep track of her T-cell counts?", is also quite easily answered by Rodriguez et al,

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/296/12/1498

Conclusions Presenting HIV RNA level predicts the rate of CD4 cell decline only minimally ( a rather meaningless 4 to 6% if I do say so myself) in untreated persons. Other factors, as yet undefined, likely drive CD4 cell losses in HIV infection. These findings have implications for treatment decisions in HIV infection and for understanding the pathogenesis of progressive immune deficiency.

Rather too easy to answer your very well thought out and overwhelmingly complex questions with just the tiniest bit of effort, don't you think, Tara?

Finally, a word of truth from the official and much needed shrink for the aidstruthiness brigade:

Nothing will ever stop these people, not even this. Seth Kalichman

L&K,

Pneumonia is a several different types of infections sharing common symptoms of lung inflammation and fluid. The infection causes the disease symptoms. Stress may well add to the outcome of the infection, but it cannot replace the infectious elements.

(The page you refer to says the same, albeit not in the directly-worded fashion that someone without a background in biology and a bias might need to understand. My reading of this is that you are taking your bias to have this mean something it is not saying.)

Likewise, as Seth indicated, an issue with AIDS is that it makes the person susceptible to secondary infections that otherwise be of only moderate impact. You can play words games to the effect that these people died of the secondary infections, but you cannot play word games to have the secondary infection replace the primary infection, as these secondary infections on their own have more modest outcomes in the absence of AIDS infection.

Seth my man, can't you conceal your impatience for appeances at least? You'll get your AIDS victim surely. In the meantime is Mr Scovill not allowed to say Maggiore was diagnosed with bilateral pneumonia? Must he say she was diagnosed with AIDS, even if she wasn't?

You can always gate crash at the funeral and demand that cause of death be referred to as AIDS, only AIDS and nothing but AIDS until proven innocent, but pull yourself together now, all good things come to those who can wait a couple of weeks before they start the grave dance.

I see you argue that because pneumonia is rare it must have been AIDS. TB is very common in Africa, are you going to follow your own logic and claim that if an African has TB it couldn't be AIDS? Is it not rather that regardless what Maggiore had died of, it must have been AIDS?

You know osteoporosis is more common in HIV+ I bet if it turns out Maggiore had broken an ankle you will come on here and rai against denialists who dare call it a bone fracture when it's obviously AIDS.

Tara, what I asked was,will you apologize for your unparalleled-by-anyone-but-Seth-Kalichman hypocrisy in pretending you care about the Maggiore family in a post that begins "well, shit", and proceeds with accusing their mother and wife of being a babykiller, and appends "my
heart goes out" as a callous punchline?

Funny, HIV denialists, but from where I sit the coverup is on Maggiore's family's part. Occam's razor, you know.

According to the CDC like 90,000 people died of pneumonia in 1999.

"Pneumonia is a lung disease that can be caused by a variety of viruses, bacteria, and sometimes fungi. The U.S. Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention (CDC) estimate nearly 90,000 people in the United States died from one of several kinds of pneumonia in 1999."

If you have HIV antibody and pneumonia you have AIDS, w/o is pneumonia. A hypothesis solely based on correlation thats an artifact of the definition! Even a 100% correlation doesn't prove anything since all people that die of old age have wrinkles, it doesn't mean wrinkles cause death in old people!

And the HIV hypothesis is far less than a 100% correlation that since most HIV people are totally healthy, but the CDC can extend the latent period from 10 months to 10 years like they did to get around that!

No animal model, no viral load ever photographed from a pateint with the EM, a virus that in 1/1000 cells, never has a wild animal died of SIV.

The basis of the hypothesis is some correlation where the cause and effect are seperated by in this case almost 20 years. Well I'm sure all those people who died of pnemumonia had eaten ice cream 20 years ago. There is a near 100% correlation between people who eat ice cream and people that die of pneumonia! It must be the cause when its the there, and when it isn't the original disease is then responsible!

I see that the frozen troll (aka cooler) is still stuck on his (her?) bizarre idea that only photographs can be evidence. (That this poster keeps repeating this after the fallacy of it has been pointed out to them, simply shows that they are a troll...)

Melanoma shows a correlation of severe sun burn in teenage years to disease, which typically occurs in the 40-50+ age group. There are plenty of other examples of correlations over long time periods. Greater length of time between (putative) casual factor and effect does not automatically rule out correlations, as cooler tries to imply.

The 100% correlation "example" is patiently silly, of course. But that's trolls for you!

Cancer isn't solely based on correlation, you can see the cancer cells corroding the patients, the tumors, skin lesions etc, you can't EM any HIV from a person.

Carcinogens are said to cause a disease in thew organ exposed, such as the lungs with smoking and skin with the sun where the cancer is found in abundance, HIV is barely found at all and is said to cause 30 previously known diseases 12 years later.

Viruses are known to be fast like Ebola, Flu, mumps, measles, chicken pox that cause disease in weeks and are nuetralized by antibodies while cancers are known to be slow.

If one smokes a pack of cigarettes a day for a few months you are not given a 100% death senatance and told to take toxic drugs the rest of your life, you're given a lot of hope that you'll be fine, with HIV you're given no hope at all and told you die. So the correlation, even if accepted, shouldn't instill the same terror and hoplessness that HIV does.

Also with HIV the correlation is further skewed because you're giving patients cell killing chemotherapies like Combivar, they're drugged out, and infected with mycoplasmas.

So your analogy is totally wrong.

Cancer isn't solely based on correlation

And either is the AIDs-HIV link :-) And other supporting evidence doesn't make the correlations observed invalid or worthless on their own.

you can't EM any HIV from a person.

Still banging on about that? It's stupid and you've been told that plenty of times. Molecular diagnostics is certainly sensitive and specific enough. Incidentally, the same techniques are applied to cancers too :-)

Viruses are known to be fast like Ebola, Flu, mumps, measles, chicken pox that cause disease in weeks and are neutralised by antibodies while cancers are known to be slow.

This is very silly: trying to make out that what is true for some, is true for all when it's not. Either that, or you are being (deliberately?) ignorant of the nature of viruses. It'd be like saying that all people can see because the only examples you want to list are people who can see, "conveniently" leaving blind people out of your list. There are plenty of examples of viruses with long latency periods. Quite a few cancer-associated retroviruses have latency periods of years, even in species with relatively short lifetimes (e.g. cats, rats, mice).

I also can't help thinking on reading your post that you are unaware that viruses can be a carcinogen, as it were, and that, in some respects, these viruses have parallels to HIV.

So your analogy is totally wrong. What a joke! :-) You haven't even addressed it. But then, you are a troll. You have written a bunch of things that have nothing to do with establishing correlations instead. I pointed out a correlation over a long time period that is well-established. The correlation is statistical: it involves the incidence of two events. A smokescreen of irrelevant stuff about this, that and the other won't change that :-)

Anyway, I'm have to leave, so you might want to direct your trolling to someone, or someplace, else.

I for I'm in the last sentence, sorry (bad editing).

Tara,
Love and kisses answers your questions about her HIV status. She never sold herself as HIV+ but you and others do and it is done with utter carelessness with regards to facts and family. Her testing history points out the fact that she was HIV+,HIV- and HIV indeterminate. Not exactly an accurate test, if you ask me.

Even AIDS truthinessers can't agree on her HIV status. Jeanne Bergman, a member of AidsTruth, seems to be at odds with the rest of her buddies over there. Is Jeanne Bergman guilty of murder for planting suspicion in Christine's mind?

Brian, you're correct - the cover-up has always been on the Maggiore side.

1) Maggiore took her daughter to 3 separate pediatricians in 3 completely separate practices when she was ill. Who does that?! I'll tell you who - someone concerned that taking her back to the same doctor will allow said doctor to review the child's illness with collective vision vs. just seeing the child once, noting she's ill and being told by the parent upon follow-up call that the child is better. The child died weeks later, she NEVER GOT better! See interview where Dr. Jay Gordon speculates why Christine took Eliza Jane to various doctors:

http://justiceforej.com/RyanInterview.html

2) Hiring Al-Bayati to do an "impartial" evaluation of the coroner's report and cause of death of AIDS. How can a man who has already determined that HIV CANNOT CAUSE AIDS be asked to review a cause of death that may be AIDS?! I mean, it's like asking a Holocaust denier to provide an "impartial" evaluation of the existence of a massive bone yard in Auschwitz. I mean, he's NEVER EVER EVER going to agree it was from the Holocaust. How impartial is that?!

Christine was a manipulative, lying, conniving, science-distorting, snake-oil selling, evil woman who helped take the lives of hundreds of thousands before her death, not the least of which was her daughter, an innocent soul who deserved ANY other mother.

Good riddance!

So HG,
Are you telling us it is bad to get second or third opinions? Thats a first.

Is Jeanne Bergman guilty of murder for planting doubts about Christine's HIV status in her mind? Or is it the HIV tests that are guilty of murder for comming up with contradicting results and causing distress and uncertainty? You just can't have both ways you know.

But thank you for your hysterical post. It serves as a reminder to all that we have a right to ask: WTF???

Pat:

We have been through this with you many times before. Jeanne Bergman's essay was based upon an analysis of Maggiore's own incomplete statements. However, when Maggiore's daughter died of AIDS, it removed all doubt about Maggiore's own HIV status--at least among rational observers.

Your clinging to this one statement of Bergman serves to illustrate the irrational nature of your position.

I was obviously completely wrong in 2005 when I speculated that Christine Maggiore was not HIV+. I did not know when I wrote the piece in question that her daughter Eliza Jane had already died of AIDS-related pneumonia. Assuming that the little girl had no risk factors other than (almost entirely preventable) mother-to-child transmission, the daughter's diagnosis confirmed the mother's HIV status.

I came to the erroneous conclusion that Maggiore was HIV negative from a close reading of Maggiore's own statements about her experience with HIV testing and the inconsistent results over several tests. I made a judgement call between two possibilities. Either Maggiore was dissembling and was in fact HIV negative and knew it, but had embarked on this new career trajectory that was based on her personal story (my family and I are alive and well despite my HIV diagnosis), or Maggiore had was in fact HIV-infected, knowingly put her own children at risk, and urged other HIV+ pregnant women to expose their children to the same risks. I gave her too much credit: I didn't think a loving mother would let her child die needlessly. Sadly, I was wrong.
Jeanne Bergman

People that die of pnuemonia are elderly people that have weak immune system and they live in nursing homes or they are in hospital a long time. Young people that die of it have AIDS or they are transplantpatients on steroids or they have real, real bad other health problems.

Jeanne:

I do understand why you questioned Christine Maggiore's HIV status. Yes, it's difficult to imagine any mother using her child as a guinea pig in her lethal ideology. You did give her far too much credit - her arrogance was unparalleled (remember, this is a woman who disagreed even with Peter Duesberg, a retrovirologist, himself, who claims that HIV has absolutely been proven to be a retrovirus - Christine did not agree that had been proven). I guess having no college degree, never mind a science degree, gave her better perspective.

Maggiore was also very crafty in saying that she "tested positive" and would quickly toss out there that she'd also tested negative and indeterminate.

Let me just toss this out there, 'cause it seems that we've all been too kind in believing pathological liar Christine Maggiore. She NEVER produced evidence of having tested negative or indeterminate after her first positive result. Never!

Until proven otherwise, Christine Maggiore tested HIV+ at some point and never tested anything but positive after that.

Pat, L&K, Cathy, and other Denialists...

There is really no controversy that Christine Maggiore tested HIV positive and it is hard to imagine that she did not die of AIDS.

Her HIV positive status was the very basis for her refusing AZT when to prevent transmission to her baby.

The AIDS Rethinkers tell us..."Many people hide their HIV status and actions they might take based upon rejecting its meaning, but Christine was always up-front, open and honest. She talked publicly about having two babies without AZT, about having natural births, and about breastfeeding her children, knowing that authorities might come after her."

Being HIV positive is what brought her to the world's attention.

It is why she consulted Peter Duesberg and git hooked into the pseudoscience behind AIDS denialism.

It was the whole idea behind 'Alive and Well; and living healthy without treatment (until 12/27.08)

David Crowe (who may not exist) has said:"Christine was a beacon of hope for many people whose lives, like her own, had been turned upside-down by an HIV-positive diagnosis. When she received this devastating label in 1992..."

Before jumping at the idea that she was not HIV positive you might read her book.

And what she died of was pneumonia, according to her family. You can see my note above about the unlikelihood that a 52 year old dies of pneumonia without AIDS.

Our scientific mother Celia Farber has further updates on Christine, a personal email from her right before she died, seems if she engaged in a intense "holistic" cleanse that ravaged her.

http://www.deanesmay.com/2009/01/02/in-her-own-words-a-dec-19-email-fro…

There is no point try to have an intelligent conversation with the denialists. As was evidenced by Ms. Maggiore's own denialism that her own daughter, her own flesh and blood died of AIDS, then no amount of scientific evidence we can present to these sad, desparate souls, will help. I found that out four months ago when I discovered these people still existed. I tried constantly to make them see reason, but alas, it never happened.
I have gone back several years and read threads that seemed as if I had just read them yesterday. It is the same people spouting the same mis-inforamtion.
Until they themselves die, they will not admit the truth.
J. Todd DeShong
www.dissidents4dumbees.blogspot.com

If that link to Dean Esmay's site and the email Celia posted is correct, then it's become even more clear it really was pneumonia that killed Christine - and it sure didn't ravage her over a weekend, but rather weeks of illness.

I'm just amazed the denialists haven't claimed Christine was allergic to the antibiotics she was given as her cause of death. I mean, why not, Eliza Jane was said to have died from anaphylaxis even though the kid had never previously had an antibiotic (note: anaphylaxis requires sensitization caused by prior exposure to allergen).

Hey, maybe Eliza Jane was beamed up to the space ship from the aliens Kary Mullis says visit and speak with him. And now they came for Christine too, cause her daughter missed her. Why can't that be what happened?

"I was obviously completely wrong in 2005 when I speculated that Christine Maggiore was not HIV+. I did not know when I wrote the piece in question that her daughter Eliza Jane had already died of AIDS-related pneumonia. Assuming that the little girl had no risk factors other than (almost entirely preventable) mother-to-child transmission, the daughter's diagnosis confirmed the mother's HIV status.

I came to the erroneous conclusion that Maggiore was HIV negative from a close reading of Maggiore's own statements about her experience with HIV testing and the inconsistent results over several tests. I made a judgement call between two possibilities. Either Maggiore was dissembling and was in fact HIV negative and knew it, but had embarked on this new career trajectory that was based on her personal story (my family and I are alive and well despite my HIV diagnosis), or Maggiore had was in fact HIV-infected, knowingly put her own children at risk, and urged other HIV+ pregnant women to expose their children to the same risks. I gave her too much credit: I didn't think a loving mother would let her child die needlessly. Sadly, I was wrong.
Jeanne Bergman"

As a man who has known several individuals die of AIDS and has whole-heartedly remained steadfast to the mainstream paradigm. I have one thing to say to all of the media, scientists, Pharmaceutical industries and others.

You fucking pieces of shit. You have _failed_ me and everyone else. You lying worthless assholes who know everything before us laymen have twisted and spewed shit out to your own advantage.

How are you any different from the current Bank and Auto bail-out scandals?!?!? Oh, wait, you've been doing this for _20+_ years.

For all of you and especially Mrs. Bergman (was _certainly NOT alone in coming up with the concept that Ms. Maggiore was HIV-), I hope there is a special place in Hell for the evil, cowardly tactics you have applied. Your condescension of my fellow layman brothers and sisters has costed us hundreds of thousands of lives.

BTW, how is it that the 99% fail-proof tests can register positive,negative,indetermine and back again?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
And your treatment _all_ of you, of this woman who you all were slavering to denigrate as an opportunistic HIV- preying on the fears of HIV+ over her child?!?! You filthy pieces of shit. How many strings did you pull once you heard of her child's death?

And why did Ms. Maggiore die just three days before she was to testify against Dr. James Ribe? A coroner who has proven himself an embarrassment time and again repeatedly in cases completely exclusive of the the Maggiore child?!?!

I don't know who to believe. I can't agree with the denialists. Yet I actually peruse _every_ paper that comes out, instead of just relying on the mainstream media. I used to trust you fuckers, but ever since the past year of economic bail-outs, to subjects as obscure as Aetogate. I have realized the whole field of mainstream human endeavors is now thoroughly corrupted at various levels for personal greed, profit and whining complicity to the PTB.

Fuck you all. ERV, PZ Meyers*, Tara Smith and so many,many others. You have failed, and failed miserably.

*Okay, I don't begrudge you for chewing out the ID/creationists idiots, but that's as far as I go.

Jeanne Bergmann,

Your argument is that you wrote about a person whom you believed to be lying about her HIV status, but that you were wrong about your assumptions, and it's not your fault you didn't verify the story independently, because you couldn't have known that the person you were accusing of lying was unreliable - oh and by the way you didn't know her daughter was dead, because you didn't bother doing any independent research but chose to rely solely on the words of the person you believed to be an unreliable witness.

That is actually your defence in this case? Are you sure you're a lawyer, Ms, Bergman?

What say Seth Kalichman; does he believe in the existence of Jeanne Bergmann the lawyer, or Jeanne Bergmann the bad joke?

Well, Ms. Bergmann, why don't you let a fellow lawyer make it shorter for you:

You proceeded with blatant disregard for objective facts, then as now. Case closed.

Or perhaps you have confirmed that Christine Maggiore lied about her test results? Can you prove it? How could you base your judgment about another person's serostatus on anything but the test results? We're not in Bangui you know.

You don't have a shred of a case. Or do you? I can arrange for you to come over and prove it everything paid for.

Just let me know and I'll fwd you contact details.

Ben,

Issuing vitriol accusing others of corruption, etc. may satisfy some sense of frustration it doesn't add anything positive ;-)

Many other current problems haven't been solved in much longer than 20-odd years and many now solved problems took much longer before they were resolved. Slow progress can frustrate everyone, scientists included, but that it doesn't make it corrupt. It happens. (And in some areas slow progress is the norm.)

I could point at the current media and television presentation of science as unhelpful and unrealistic. The "instant science" in any of number of crime or medically-oriented drama series doesn't help, never mind the apparent absolute certainly of their "results". Molecular biology can move surprisingly fast in cases, but it's not a miracle machine :-)

On a separate note, to address the 99% confidence of the test, etc., you'd have to give people more details, e.g. exactly what test(s) you are referring to and where you got the 99% figure from and exactly what it means.

Just poking a little fun: your claim to read every research paper that comes out is an exaggeration ;-)

PubMed reports 193531 articles with the keyword 'HIV'. Leaving aside that strictly speaking this won't be all of the literature, if allowed 20 minutes on average to read a paper, it'd take well over 7 years of non-stop reading 24/7/365 to get through them! 20 minutes allows for less time to eliminate less useful papers; it'd take much longer to read a paper properly. You can fiddle with the numbers, but the point is that it'd come out to several years of full-time reading to cover the existing literature completely.

More realistically, limited it to papers with 'HIV' in the abstract of title, under the AIDS-related topic, limited to humans, only in the core clinical journals and only English articles, there were "only" 7799 papers published in 2008 listed in PubMed, i.e. averaging a little over 21 for every day of the year.

Have fun, don't get too wound up! ;-)

Heraclides, I will directly quote from one scumbag piece of shit to another scumbag piece of shit (you)

Jeanne Bergmann from here New York Press Piece.

"False-negative HIV tests are extremely rare, while false positives are much more common, though infrequent. This fact and all the other available evidence strongly indicate that Maggiore was never infected with HIV, ... Most people would be thrilled to learn they were uninfected, but Maggiore was unwilling to give up the spotlight. This HIV pretender twisted her good health and the marginal incidence of false positives into a lucrative new racket--selling HIV denialism and bragging about her good life 'without pharmaceutical treatments or fear of AIDS.' But of course Maggiore has no 'fear of AIDS'--she doesn't have HIV. She has since had two children, now three and seven years old, whom she boasted to Scheff 'have never been tested. ... They don't take AIDS drugs. And they're not in the least bit sick.' But of course Maggiore didn't want them to be tested: she knows that they are not at risk and that their being uninfected would lead people to question her own status. And of course they don't take 'AIDS drugs'--they don't have HIV or AIDS.

"Christine Maggiore isn't living proof that HIV doesn't cause AIDS; she's just another lying AIDS profiteer, exploiting the real fears of those who actually are infected with HIV and the real suffering of those living with AIDS to get public attention, sell books and pick up well-paid speaking gigs. This might matter less if she wasn't telling parents and caregivers of children who really are HIV-infected to take the kids off difficult but life-saving antivirals. Maggiore has never had to make agonizing treatment decisions for herself or for her children."

Jeanne Bergmann and the others who were just beginning to eagerly take up this mantle before the ever so convenient death of Eliza Jane Scovill are all disgusting, worthless vacillating pieces of shit.Btw, It is ever so convenient for Dr. James Ribe that Christine Maggiore croaked just three days before his trial.

I've seen the disgusting PTB scream for the enforcement of free-markets and ultra-capitalist deregulation. Then quickly turn around and whip the government into shape when they "failed" so as we Taxpayers shelled out $700-800 billion of our dollars with very little representation.
(Actually, the total cost will be in the hundreds of trillions) This is not some weird assed conspiracy, it's been splashed across the world for months.

The Madoff Ponzi scheme was decades in the making and it barely scratches the surface of Wall Street corruption.

The unholy stink that I and many,many others are getting from the financial and government sectors WILL soon be joined with the sciences, as we realize that EVERYONE in the top 25% has taken us for a ride.

Go ahead and laugh, go ahead and tell me to calm down. Go ahead and post your worthless emoticons, rebuttals whatever the fuck. I am a layman who is reaching his limit and I am not alone.

Take your personal attacks some place else please. I had the decency to try write well when I didn't have to and you go and twist my words around, e.g. "Go ahead and laugh, go ahead and tell me to calm down.": I did not "laugh and tell you calm down".

Nothing I wrote was about Bergmann's piece or Maggiore either, i.e. your quotation isn't relevant. (And I'm not inclined to attack people, as you seem to be so inclined.)

I'll wait for an apology.

Heraclides,

Putting a stupid grin after every paragraph does not constitute good writing or civil communication (-; It's just childish doodling (-; Try a creative writing class and come back in a few years (-;

In the meantime, if one has to try to decipher "sentences" like this:

"Have fun, don't get too wound up! ;-)"

I'd say advising people not to get wound up followed by an idiotic doodly thingie is pretty darned close to laughing and telling people to calm down (-;

I'm waiting for an apology, not only for sliming my screen, but also for avoiding the substantive issue (-;

Very Sincerely Yours

)-;... Nah just kiddin', take it easy (-;

Christine Maggiore did
NOT have AIDS Pneumonia

Fintan Dunne presents some compelling evidence that recently deceased Christine Maggiore was very unlikely to have had AIDS-related PCP Pneumonia, contrary to widspread speculation on the Internet.

LISTEN : http://AidsIsOver.com/audio/aidsisover090102.mp3

Christine's healthy respiratory function in an audio recorded just weeks prior to her death belies implications drawn from the L.A. coroner's office statement asserting she had been treated for pneumonia in the previous six months.

Evidence indicates Magiore was pneumonia symptom-free as late as 10th December, making it extremely unlikely she suffered a fatal AIDS-related pneumonia in a mere 17 days up to the date of her death at home on the 27th December, 2008.

Fintan: Shame on your lies!

Below is a snippet of an email from Christine to a friend, per Celia Farber on Esmay's site:

Maggiore sent email on December 19th:
"I lost my appetite almost completely about 10 days ago and for some weird reason could only tolerate hot tea and hot chicken broth......Then I started to have trouble breathing, I was feeling winded after the most simple task like making the bed."

http://www.deanesmay.com/2009/01/02/in-her-own-words-a-dec-19-email-fro…

So Fintan, I don't know. Seems odd she herself describes "feeling winded" on what would be 12/9 - the day before you describe her as "pneumonia-symptom free." Develop a timeline around Christine's email and you'll see she not only has symptoms of pneumonia for weeks before her death but she was unable to eat, had weakness, difficulty sleeping and when she was diagnosed with "a very serious case of bi-lateral bronchial pneumonia," she expressed no distrust in the diagnosis or apprehension to be treated for it.

Fintan, why don't you get your story synchronized with Celia before you go posting your "evidence" which is CONTRARY to the reports of Christine Maggiore herself!

Altice, Pat, Brian, whoever...

The Perth People will probably say Christine Maggiore died of stress and you seem to agree.
Peter Duesberg tells you her HIV was harmless and you believe him.
Celia Farber says she died of a coffee enema, and you believe her?
If Henry Bauer told you Christine was eaten by the Loch Ness Monster, would you believe him?
If Kary Mullis said she was abducted by aliens, would you believe him?

David Crowe says she was HIV positive, do you believe him?
Her family says she died for pneumonia, do you believe them?

I believe Crowe and her family.

By medical definition, HIV + Pneumonia = AIDS

Lets stop stigmatizing people with HIV/AIDS and at least recognize this disease for what it is.

Seth Kalichman
Go to http://denyingaids.blogspot.com/ to see more wacky explanations for this poor woman's death

RIGHT ON SETH!

I absolutely agree with you! You said, and I quote:

"By medical definition, HIV + Pneumonia = AIDS. Lets stop stigmatizing people with HIV/AIDS and at least recognize this disease for what it is.

The disease we all call AIDS is obviously not a reality. It is so obviously, now even according to you, a non-existent disease but is nothing more than a mere medical/scientific relabeling of every illness ever to be suffered by those diagnosed hiv positive all lumped together and called AIDS.

Christine agreed with you too, as she so often pointed out that anyone who is hiv negative and dies of pneumonia, simply died of pneumonia.

BUT

All who are labeled as hiv positive by the non-specific hiv tests who die of pneumonia, strangely, died mysteriously, of the new label created specifically for them: AIDS.

Thanks again, Seth, for pointing out so clearly that AIDS is nothing but the relabeling of other actual diseases that is put upon any who are fooled or foolish enough to buy into the bullshit and take an hiv test!

Has anyone googled Mr. Fintan Dunne?
Please do and form your own opinion, as I do not want to disparage people here.
All I have to say is, hopefully Mr. Dunne will replace Ms. Maggiore as one of the leaders of these "re-thinkers".
He will fit in nicely with the others such as Henry Bauer, Clark Baker, Gary Null etc...(crack pots) OOOPS, sorry. That slipped out.
J. Todd DeShong
www.dissidents4dumbees.blogspot.com

And Sethie, I also fully agree with your statement:

"Lets stop stigmatizing people with HIV/AIDS and at least recognize this disease for what it is."

Lets DO stop all this stigmatizing labeling and re-labeling Sethie. Lets do stop scaring and stressing the most vulnerable into sickness and death.

Lets fully and all recognize, Seth, just as Christine pointed out, that the bullshit labeling of people as hiv poz or as AIDS is just that, bullshit labels. And they are indeed as Christine so often pointed out, stigmatizing, stress causing, self-creating labels for common and fully treatable illnesses that so often manifest in times of high stress, which the labeing and stigmatizing fully contribute to.

And by the way, Sethie, it might also be something for you to think about, as to exactly how you and your label and death promoting cronies fully contributed to Christines stress and eventual death.

You and your buddies did this Seth. Not intentionally, but with full malice in your hearts. Did you ever wish Christine health and well being? No you did not, nor do you wish any of the rethinkers health and well being. You simply wish they would all go off and die.

To all who attacked Christine for her choice and for speaking her own truth:

You are all, individually and collectively, whether medical doctors, so-called scientists, or laymen who attacked, ridiculed and excoriated Christine on the net, TV, or press, you are all fully responsible for the early death of Christine Maggiore's beautiful and gentle spirit. You are all fully responsible for the ongoing terrorizing of her and the eventual tragedy suffered now by her family. If she were not so terrorized by the likes of you all, she would have had a peaceful and uplifting life, and likely had more clarity to make sound decisions for her children and herself. She likely would have sought good medical care for both herself and her daughter, instead of spending full time trying to fend off your attacks.

But I myself do forgive you Seth, and surely so does Christine, as we know you are unable and as yet unwilling to help yourself to be any other than who and how you all are, but it would really be nice if you and your cronies learn your lessons sooner rather than later, and understand that your so obvious hatefullness is doing no-one, including yourself, any good whatsoever.

And I only hope that one day, you will understand that your stigmatizing and labeling of those who you convince to take hiv tests, and those you convince to believe have hiv/aids, and those you convince to take black label/known toxic drugs for their entire lives, has never done anything but contribute to their sickness and death, by your unrelenting promotion of a sexual terror boogeyman called hiv and by stressing them to breaking, and by convincing them of impending sickness and death, and by convincing them to take the very toxins that are so well proven to cause liver failure, kidney failure, heart failure, and death.

VooDoo medicine and science at its best, and Seth Kalichman has verified himself to be one of the witchdoctors in promoting this sickness, death, and self poisoning.

For the sake of GOD, Seth, wake up and see what you have done.

God to Caine, and Christine to Seth: "What have you done? Your brothers blood cries out to me from the ground."

With sadness and grief, with forgiveness in my own heart, I do hope you will all wake up soon.

Love and Kisses or Pat, Altice, Brian whoever

What is wrong with you?

AIDS is a collection of diseases that people with healthy immune systems dont get or dont die from.

HIV destroys the immune system allowing 52 year olds to die from bacterial pneumonia.

What about this do you not understand?

How many more Christines, EJ's, Pasquales, have to die early deaths for you to get it?

I suppose you would also say that people dont get cancer either, they just have too many chromosomes (Aneuploidy). Cancer is just a thing label that some Big Pharma exec made up.

Oh, and the world is flat and the Holocaust was a hoax, right?

Seth Kalichman
http://denyingaids.blogspot.com/

Why Mr. Todd DeShong,

Are you not the leader of the AIDstruth Movement - the one somebody even as articulate as Seth Kalichman has to listen to?

Tood, why does Seth not want to comment on Jeanne Bergmann's ontological status? Is it because that word has too many syllables, or does he just not think it is amusing? That would be a bit strange, since he's repeated the cracker about David Crowe at least a dozen times.

Todd, are you and your group afraid of something? I have invited Jeanne Bergmann to prove her allegations against Christine. You can send Seth in her place if you think he'll fare better.

You know what, I'll pay for both of them to come over, radio, TV, interview by a journalist, court case would be yummy. It's up to you Todd. What are you and your minions afraid of?

Since ChickenSeth may not have the necessary medical or scientific background to answer, maybe you, Todd, can tell us, what do you call osteoporosis + Hiv positive? That's a double dare, Toddy, can you tell us? I bet you can't

Love and Kisses, I mean Michael Geiger

Good to know its you.

Sethie,

There is no one here saying pneumonia is not real, its pathogens are well seen in cultivation.

There is no-one here saying cancer does not exist, it is well observed.

It is you who fully admit, but then turn back and deny that hiv/aids is merely a label given out, as a death sentence, by you and your cronies, with no cultivation and no well observed evidence of hiv's existence.

One more time, Sethie, "What have you done, your brothers blood cries out to me from the ground".

Indeed, what have you done, Seth, but terrorized, stigmatized, stressed, and poisoned your brothers by convincing them of impending doom by your bone-pointing of them as "infected".

As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.

What have you, Seth, planted into the thoughts and hearts of your most vulnerable brothers and sisters but sickness and death, while profiting from the grants and studies, while promoting those who profit from promoting black label/proven toxic drugs as "life extending"?

Indeed, Seth, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?

L&K

I don't know why you bother with Seth Kalichman. He doesn't even know the official definition of "AIDS"

I hope Todd DeShong does; he seem to be the most intelligent AIDStruther around.

Maybe Tara can help? Tara, why don't you tell us which AIDS disease Christine Maggiore is supposed to have died from?

I bet you can't.

Well, Alice, I think you're right!

Surely we should follow the yellow brick road of hiv/aids science all the way to the end, and visit the wizardess of ooze, and seek the answers from the great Taraetologist of this site herself!

Ohhh, great and powerful wizardess of ooze, please do share? What in heck aids disease and culturable pathogen did the gentle but harassed to death Christine Maggiore die of?

Was it her lack of T cells of courage? Her lack of a tin cupful of haart? Did Seth's house full of hiv land on her because she was a wicked witch?

Please tell us the way back to Kansas, or at least the hog farms of Iowa. We promise not to let Toto pull back the curtain!

That's what you think, Dorothy!

I dare the great "Taraetologist of Ooze" or even the wicked witch grave dancer Bergman to open their mouths. And Tara ain't no wiz. Just another of the multitude of flying pseudoscience monkeys like JP Moore and Seth disguised as scientists in lab coats that desperately need to uphold the big scary boogeyman of hiv or lose the billions from the promotion of fear and terror that funds them.

;-)

is a wink, plain and simple, not a laugh or a "stupid grin" or an "idiotic doodly thingie". Phrases like "stupid grin", "idiotic doodly thingie ", etc. are just cheap (and weak) attempts at loading meanings on to my words that I didn't write. To me, that is childish.

"It's just childish ... Try a creative writing class and come back in a few years." I doubt most people consider put-downs and sarcasm like you repeatedly use are "civil communication". It isn't wise to accuse others of what you do yourself, particularly when the others have gone out their way not to and have indicated as much.

Ben wrote: "You fucking pieces of shit", "You lying worthless assholes", "scumbag piece of shit", "Fuck you all.", etc. Good writing? Civil? It seems quite a double standard to accuse me of much.

"I'm waiting for an apology" I didn't use juvenile name-calling, as Ben did to me, nor did I accuse him of things he obviously hadn't done.

My words had no malice and can be read by themselves just fine: it should be self-evident that the emoticons were added to emphasise that I meant well. If you want to ridicule or misconstrue someone who is going out of their way to make clear they mean well, even after they have said so, what does that say about you?

The IMMORTAL WORDS of Heraclides:

Who had the audacity to say "And I'm not inclined to attack people, as you seem to be so inclined".

immediately following having posted such gems as:

"I see that the frozen troll is still stuck"

"But then, you are a troll".

and...

"direct your trolling to someone, or someplace, else".

But has the audacity to put into print, in Heraclide's own words.....

And I'm not inclined to attack people

Take your own medicine Hera: "If you want to ridicule or misconstrue someone, what does that say about you?"

( : Do tell, what DOES it say about you? ; )

There is no one here saying pneumonia is not real, its pathogens are well seen in cultivation.

There is no-one here saying cancer does not exist, it is well observed.

It is you who fully admit, but then turn back and deny that hiv/aids is merely a label given out, as a death sentence, by you and your cronies, with no cultivation and no well observed evidence of hiv's existence.

No-one denies the existence of the HIV virus, nor that it infects: these are observed. The query of Duesberg, etc., was with if it caused disease.

Ummm, dear heraclides, there are 2 schools of thought in the dissident camp, and both are valid questions, and worthy of consideration, and at the very heart of the matter.

Yes, there is the Duesberg belief that a retrovirus, that had come to be named hiv exists, but is not the cause of immune dysfunction,

And the 2nd school of thought, that it is not verified by isolation from any peripheral blood of a single "AIDS" patient, and whatever it is that is being registered, whether strands of RNA or bits of DNA are certainly not the cause of immune dysfunction.

Either way, no-one has ever taken apart Duesbergs thrice peer reviewed works, and we are all awaiting both the isolations directly from sera of those said to be "infected", as well as any proof with any high degree of possibility, that any such pathogen being found by PCR or any other "modern method" is the actual cause of what is called Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.

And unless you are willing to submit such proofs which are as yet unknown to the rest of us, you are indeed simply stating your belief, and not any fact that is verified by science.

Would you please share with us what proof you have that hiv exists and that it is the cause of aids? By the way, mere evidence of RT activity in cord blood cultures is certainly insufficient, as is PCR magnification of who knows what bits and pieces of genetic material.

Would you kindly show us the EM's of HIV that have been repeatedly taken of any such pathogen directly from the sera, and common to the most severely affected "AIDS" patients?

Would you show us a single T cell that has been proven to have been killed by this pathogen?

Would you back up your belief with evidence?

Would you back up your statement that "No-one denies the existence of the HIV virus, nor that it infects: these are observed."

Not true at all. Many deny the very existence of HIV virus, because it has not been cultured from the peripheral blood of a single aids patient as other retroviruses have.

There are many bits and pieces of genetic material that were found to be "infectious" among cells. Please verify to us that any of it is a retrovirus and that it is the cause of aids. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9031280/

Please show us the proof that these genetic pieces of RNA are indeed an infectious retrovirus that causes aids.

HC:

Cooler is well known for trolling here. Calling a troll what they are is just saying who they are. For the record, I wrote that to make it clear I wasn't "falling for a troll", but that I knew that s/he was.

"immediately following": these post have dates on them... (They're posted over several days.)

By the way, not inclined means not disposed to, not "do not" as you imply. My reference to cooler follows from their previous posts in threads from some time ago. If you don't have that context, fine.

Regards my previous post, the italics should span all of the first three paragraphs, but the blog software has incorrectly stripped it off the second and third: the three paragraphs should be one quote. I'll try a blockquote next time... (Should have used preview, too!)

Regards HC's latest post, given it's tone (dear heraclides, etc.), why would I bother? The literature is already there to be read, after all. In any event, as a practical matter your "2nd school of thought" is so garbled I have no idea what you are trying to say. You might want to try backing your own claims first in any event.

Parroting coolers' lines on EM's is silly and makes me consider that you might be cooler using another name. Its a pity that sciblogs don't assign unique IDs to avoid people pulling that little stunt.

So is cooler a troll because

A: you disagree with him

B: he has repeatedly pointed out some very astute facts that you have no answer for

or

C: Because you are parroting the original handful of hiv retrovirologists as they attempted to bamboozle the world by declaring how meaningless actual EM's of a retrovirus from the blood sera of the supposedly "infected" are?

Either way, Heraclides, you are a bucket of laughs in an otherwise serious conversation.

The Nobel Prize in medicine has been recently awarded to Barre-Sinoussi and Montagnier for Âthe discovery of immunodeficiency virus "(HIV)".

This award is, to a large extent, based on a paper published by the laureates et al. in May 1983, in «Science» (vol 220, pp 868-871). The conclusions presented in this paper result, in a large part, from observations made by transmission electron microscopy. Having been responsible for research on electron microscopy of retroviruses, at the Sloan Kettering Institute of New York from 1956 until 1981, I do have scientific competence to raise the following questions related to the significance of the paper under reference.

This 1983 paper is illustrated (Fig. 2) by an electron microscopy image of thin sections of virus-producing cord lymphocytes. Three day old cultures of T lymphocytes from two umbilical cords had been «infected with the cell-free supernatant of the infected coculture». This «coculture» consisted of cultured human normal T lymphocytes admixed with lymphocytes that originated from the lymph node biopsy from one patient «at risk for acquired immune deficiency (AIDS)». The author's interpretation of Fig.2 is that it demontrates that cord blood lymphocytes had been successfully infected by retroviruses from that patient.

Unquestionably, Fig 2 illustrates typical retroviruses (C-type), budding from the surface of a lymphocyte.

Highly questionable, however, is the origin of these retroviruses.

The authors of the report claim that they originate from the patient lymph node, via the «cell-free supernatant» of the coculture.

This interpretation is not satisfactorily supported by the data presented.

Indeed, if this interpretation was correct, one would have expected :

1) evidence, by electron microscopy, of the multiplication of retroviruses in this «coculture», and
2) evidence, again by electron microscopy, for the presence of retroviral particles in the «cell-free supernatant of the infected coculture».

Since 1) and 2) evidences are totally missing, how could the authors of this paper justify their claim for having «infected» the cord lymphocytes with the «cell-free supernatant of the coculture» ?

The authors have regarded their «coculture» as «infected» only on the basis of reverse transcriptase activity in sucrose fractions from the supernatant. Sucrose fractions at density around 1.16, however, are known to contain large amounts of cell debris that can readily account for the observed transcriptase activity. In short, one is asked to believe that cord blood lymphocytes have been sucessfully infected with the supernatant of a coculture the viral infection of which has not been demonstrated.

As indicated above, Fig. 2 of the paper shows typical retroviruses (C-type) budding from the surface of a lymphocyte. Where are they coming from, if it is not from the «cell-free supernatant of the coculture» ?

There is another possible explanation for the viral electron microscopy evidence of Fig. 2, an explanation that did not, obviously, received the slightest attention from Barre-Sinoussi, Montagnier et al.

The observed cultured lymphocytes came from cord blood, and therefore originate from the placenta. It is well known, since the late 1970's (Sandra Panem's work, in Current Top Pathol, 1979, 66 :175-189), that the normal human placenta contains loads of C type retroviruses (HERVs). Placental lymphocytes are, therefore, likely to contain the same HERVs that, when placed under stimulating culture conditions, may bud from cell surfaces and form complete retroviral particles (C-type) recognizable with the electron microscope (Fig. 2). Barre-Sinoussi et al. avoided to explain why their experiment apparently wouldn't work with lymphocytes from the peripheral blood, instead of those from cord blood? The simple explanation is that human peripheral blood lymphocytes do not harbor HERVs.

In my opinion, Fig. 2 illustrating the paper under consideration totally fails to convincingly demonstrate that the observed retroviruses originated in the lymph node of one patient «at risk of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome». There is no scientific reason, therefore, to refer to these particles as «LAV» nor as «HIV». Referring to these particles as «LAV» or «HIV» mislead the Nobel Committee, and resulted in a seriously questionable award of the Nobel prize.

Etienne de Harven, MD, Emerit. Prof, Univ. of Toronto.

Love and Kisses - a/k/a Rodd "sweetie" Knolls. Aren't you withering away somewhere, sans HAART?

Heraclides,

So you are merely winking at people all the time? In that case it's back to AIDStruth Charm School for a few years, you disgusting pervert!! This is a serious discussion forum, not a gay pick-up truck for people with Greek monikers.

For Heraclides and any lurkers who may be new to this, as you can see, even the HIV deniers can't convince each other of their differing beliefs on something as basic as the very existence of HIV. cooler and Michael Geiger ("Love and kisses", "Dorothy," "Toto," "Heraclides conscience," etc etc) just repeat themselves over and over again on here, despite Michael's promise to leave after they lost the Parenzee case.

Yes, HIV deniers are loony tunes. If that were true I could easily get answers to a couple easy questions.

In 1987 Cell killing drug that can induce blood tranfusions AZT that was designed for cancer chemotherapy in the 1960's was approved by the FDA. Every prestigious medical school taught the HIV killed nearly everyone infected during the mid eighties. The IOM dedicated billions for research in 1985. Can someone provide me the overwhelming evidence that HIV kills nearly everyone infected from this time period that would justify these measures?

Can someone please cite and breifly summarize them (so people can make sure you even read them) the scientific papers that you read that convinced you hiv kills nearly every person infected? Spamming a website in not evidence, it just proves HIV defenders, like creationists, have taken the hypothesis on faith, without critically reading scientific papers. Waiting.

HC: Neither A, B, nor C. And silly swipes to try dismiss me are, well, silly!

Alice: Continuing to twist others' words and dismissing them with silly personal swipes is silly, too! I don't belong to any sort of AIDS group, for, against, or whatever either.

Tara: Thanks for clarifying who HC is. I'm pretty easy about most of this. It's interesting to compare the deniers conflicts here with that of creationists elsewhere on the WWW. Different types of denial seem to run in similar lines!

I have to leave as I'm supposed to be doing other things (!) but, perhaps someone who has the time I don't can expand for the lurkers how the combination of labelled cells and/or cell sorting, etc. (to verify the cell types being observed), and HIV-1 polymerase-specific and/or HIV-specific tests (to rule out other kinds of retroviruses and other polymerases) and other approaches contribute to the present understanding of the overall picture.

(As used, for example, in PMID 18991626 and PMID: 17609262. I only mean these as examples of use of these general type of techniques.)

Poor Heraclides was doing a pubmed search for "peripheral blood" and "HIV" to find some verified isolations from peripheral blood of hiv positives, and is now down to cell sorting/labeling of t-cells, as if that will show isolation.

Poor baby tried really hard too, but gave up the good try, and is now urging Tara to finish the unfinishable with the closing line to the effect of "Perhaps someone can do it, Tara, but I have to leave, supposed to be doing other things!"

Nice try, but the failed attempt will at least give Heraclides something to think about.

Tara is this how you conduct epidemiology? Start from an unproven a priori assumption and twist the data to fit? What kind of mendacious psuedoscience is that?
Christine is barely cold and you, with your Marvel Comic X-Ray goggles can look into this and tell us how she died. No need for an autopsy then? Just ask Tara "C the cause of death" Smith.
Does your institution know you have taken clairvoyance up as a second career? Or that you shamelessly admit to massaging statistics? Grounds for being sacked I'd say.

"In the US, deaths from pneumonia under age 65 are exceedingly rare except in AIDS patients. Among people 65 and older, influenza and pneumonia combined account for less than 3% of all deaths. Across all age groups, including infants and the elderly, pneumonia ranks 67th among all causes of death in the US. In 2004, 58,564 people in the US died of pneumonia, of which 3,649 (6%) were under the age of 55. We can extrapolate to conclude that around one in three of young people who die of pneumonia have AIDS."

Seth there is a special place in the dunce corner for you - now go and sit there, face the corner and THINK about what you have done.
Do you really think pneumonia + "HIV positive" deaths get coded as death from pneumonia? If you die from accidentally falling into a slushy machine and you are "pos" you get classified as death from "HIV infection". And no they can't code you as both because that's not allowed as any "real" scientist would know.
The number of deaths in the 45-54 age group for "HIV infection" in 2005 was 4516 and the number of deaths for the same age group from pneumonia was 2138. Given more than half treated "HIV" positives now die from treatment adverse effects, your argument for "pneumonia" alone being as rare as Tara's compassion, versus "HIV" positive + pneumonia being as common as DeShong's fish-wife impressions is starting to look as strained as a shot-putters jockstrap.
In one sentence you quote over "65 years" and in another less than "54 years" - did you think nobody would spot your sly shenanigans Seth? Perhaps when Tara gets the sack for her statistical sophistry and soothsaying you could take her place as associate professor.
In fact, no Seth the dunce corner is too good for you - anyone who would use the death of another human being as a means to plug their poorly selling book needs to go to the "skin stripped off while still alive" corner.

Herclacides,

Don't listen to your Conscience; it's just pulling your leg. We all understand you have to leave. Somebody has to do the life-saving out in the real world, right?

I don't think lurking is very nice either, although Tara obviusly prefers that type, but if you feel you have time another day, do feel free to drop in and tell us all about how the HIV-specific polymerase became the HIV-specific polymerase. Because, and I might tell you this right away now that we're doing the personal introductions, Tara isn't going to do it. That link to the Parenzee Case, which she hasn't read the transcripts of, is probably the most articulate and coherent argument she has ever made.

Well, we all know Tara is a bit on the young side, and academic degrees are not what they used to be. But I did expect something more from Jeanne Bergman and Seth Kalichman, who are both older and uglier than Tara. Alas, they grew awfully quiet when I asked if they would like to defend publicly the piece of garbage Bergman has written on Christine Maggiore's serostatus.

For shame, Seth, never mind young Tara, didn't even stoop to tell us which AIDS-defining condition Christine Maggiore
is supposed to have died of.

Why do you think that is Heraclides? Do you think it is because they might be too busy dancing? Or is it the AIDStruth star lawyer Jeanne Bergman, now wiser than when she wrote her infinitely embarrasing smear-piece on Maggiore, who has advised against it? (-;

Do you really think pneumonia + "HIV positive" deaths get coded as death from pneumonia? If you die from accidentally falling into a slushy machine and you are "pos" you get classified as death from "HIV infection". And no they can't code you as both because that's not allowed as any "real" scientist would know.

Look at this death certificate for an example of a cause of death coded as both pneumonia and AIDS--the death is ascribed to:

A. Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia due to or as a consequence of
B. Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

I just noticed there are a total of two denialists, or three if you count cooler and I don't, who have contributed to this thread using different names. We all know their real names, we all know they have been making the same arguments for many years, and we all know they live for hijacking threads like this one as the only places where anyone who doesn't agree with them actually argues back.

Dear oh dear Seth
"Currently, malignancies are the most frequent underlying cause of death (around one-third) of HIV-infected patients. Since the introduction of combination antiretroviral therapy, the incidence of Kaposi's sarcoma and cerebral lymphoma (among AIDS-defining cancers) decreased in parallel with AIDS-defining infections, whereas the incidence of systemic non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and cervical cancer decreased less than others and remains higher in HIV-infected patients than in the general population."[1]

From the SMART study (yes, the one that is constantly rammed down "denialists'" throats as "proof" drug holidays are not a good idea).

"As previously reported, only four of 55 deaths in the DC [drug conservation] group and three of 30 deaths in the VS [viral suppression] group were attributable to opportunistic diseases."[2]

Underlying cause of death for both groups* in the SMART study:
AIDS - 8.2%
Cancer (excluding AIDS- related cancer) - 18.8%
Cardiovascular disease - 12.9%
Infection - 4.7%
Hepatic disease - 3.5%
Renal disease - 3.5%
Chronic obstructive lung disease - 2.3%
Haematological disease - 2.3%
Digestive system disease - 2.3%
CNS disease - 1.2%
Respiratory disease - 1.2%
Substance abuse - 9.4%
Accident/violent/suicide - 8.2%
Cause unknown (unwitnessed) - 21.2**/11.7%
* You want the differential stats go look for yourselves you lazy gits - that isn't the point of this post.
**10% of these were deemed CVD death by investigators from interviewing family, making CVD deaths 23%.

So Seth how'd you come to that calculation of "1 in 3 AIDS deaths due to pneumonia" again? Oh yes, you pulled it out of your hirsute bottom. Ready to eat your yarmulke now???

Now for all the rest of you ghoulish grave-dancers - the odds of dying from pneumonia as an HIV-negative seem manifold higher than dying from PCP-AIDS.

And Franklin - what do you suppose the CDC does with a certificate that says PCP secondary to AIDS huh? They can't code as both in death statistics or they'd be doubling the actual number of deaths - duh! They don't have an ICD-10 code for AIDS (hint - check the coding for "immune disease")! The fact that you don't KNOW that beggars belief!!! All "AIDS-related deaths" - i.e. anyone who ever tested positive to the crappy non-specific tests will come under the codings B20-24 (which includes PCP Mr Jerkoff Kalichman and which also covers all 26 "AIDS-related" causes of deaths). Case closed.

And BTW Heraclides - below is an example of how you are supposed to reference studies.

1.Bonnet, F. and G. Chene, Evolving epidemiology of malignancies in HIV. Curr Opin Oncol, 2008. 20(5): p. 534-40.
2.Kuller, L.H., et al., Inflammatory and coagulation biomarkers and mortality in patients with HIV infection. PLoS Med, 2008. 5(10): p. e203.

Soaringsorearse
So what am I huh? The two studies I cited were from 2008 - where does that leave your argument that we have been "making the same argument for many years". Oh, wait - we have Tara "C the future" Smith's Marvel Comic X-ray goggles and our crystal bollocks to look into.
Oh no - we "denialists" expect to come to this establishment site and expect people to just agree with us. No, we never expected any resistance (slaps head against forehead). The fact that you lot argue back is just so traumatic for us.
Seth, Seth, stop eating your yarmulke - you have PTSD "patients" on the way.

Actually Alice I think you may be on to something. In the old days we had graphologists to analyse handwriting but now pretty much everything is electronic so a new school of emoticonologists has sprung Phoenix-like from the ashes of handwriting analysis. I personally know one of the emoticonologists and she agrees without reserve that Heraclides is a disgusting pervert. She does go a little further though and suggests he isn't just looking for "any old gay" but seriously decrepit ones. From her astounding insight, he and DeShong would make excellent lifelong partners. Go for it Toddly boy!

I don't understand denialists. Wouldn't the fact that people with HIV die from opportunistic diseases after a collapsing in the immune system kind of suggest that maybe all the little science bits works?

Of course you don't understand Tat. You simply swallowed the belief, like most in the world, and never investigated the evidences yourself. But fortunately for you, many others have.

Actually, Tat, what becomes obvious to "denialists" is that upon investigating any of those who collapsed, it always turns out that they had so many other reasons for doing so, that any point in blaming their illness or death on hiv becomes utterly ridiculous, and very childlike and simple minded.

Such as chronic stress (often due to the diagnosis itself) which is well proven to affect ones immune system, poverty, malnutrition, drug abuse, drug effects, toxicities of aids drugs, other pre-existing illnesses and conditions that had nothing to do with their hiv or their immune system, and on and on and on. After all, the leading cause of death in the US in hiv positives since 1995 has been liver failure. This has nothing to do with hiv. It has to do with toxicities of the liver. Followed by suicide (certainly a stress indicator), followed by kidney and heart failure, again nothing to do with any virus.

So what is there not to understand Tatarize?

With all of the other problems, that fortunately for you, you have not endured and have no understanding or experience, dear sheltered one, upon opening your eyes, you will find hiv is not at all necessary nor usually even remotely plausible to establish the actual causes of sickness or death for any of them.

And of course Tat, the Number One reason that you "do not understand", would simply be because you, just like the majority of those who have even heard of the so called "denialists", do not, have not, and will not, even ATTEMPT to understand.

And certainly without your own desire or willingness to understand, you never will, and most likely you too will remain in many ways a childish, immature individual, just like the rest of the masses you so often criticize, while being one of them, including many of those you look up to for answers to your questions about the world around you.

Seems I remember some appropriate old sayings about going through life with blinders on or as John Lennon had sung, "living is easy with eyes closed".

Attention all AIDS Denialists!
Gary Null has announced a special on Coffee Enemas.
Since Celia Faber proclaimed that Christine Maggiore died of a radical detox, coffee enema sales have gone down the toilet.
This special will not last - these things are going like shit through a goose!
Poor Gary Null, he was just about to announce a whole new product line of specialty enemas... Crappuccino, Iced Poopuccino, Asspresso and the ever popular Assresso Fartte
Hurry Now!

Seems denialists can't handle others being honest. Must make life hard.

So far, what denialists have offered includes silly efforts to plant things on people that they clearly didn't do, posing as several people, making out that perfectly fine things are "wrong", and issuing personal attacks. All as if these somehow "scored a point". (How pathetic.) Some of the personal stuff is in the gutter.

But they should by all means continue. They are doing a great job of showing readers that the standards of (their kind of) HIV-AIDS denial are stunningly low.

HC (aka Michael Geiger): You are wrong on all of your guesses, to the extent that I have to admit I laughed when I read your post. Someone can't fail something they didn't do.

Just a clarification for other readers: I wasn't asking Tara to do anything, as HC made out, but suggesting it for anyone who had time and was so inclined. HC has contradicted the results of the papers referred to also, but that's not new or surprising.

SoaringSaurus: Their silence over the last couple of days makes your point, I think.

WTF Hera?

Perfectly fine? What a lie. Joyce Ann Hafford - Perfectly fine? Vaccine trials - Perfectly fine? Incarnation Children's Center - Perfectly fine? Death by AZT poisoning - Perfectly fine? Telling people they have a deadly incurable disease when no one can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the patient has such a virus said to cause a lumped sum conglomerate of 30 other known diseases years later and that too is perfectly fine?

You're the one who's pathetic.

After her daughter died of what was described in an autopsy as AIDS-related pneumonia, I guess there was no way she could live with herself if she changed her mind.

Funny how the World War I and the Great Depression never caused AIDS. We had to get that harmless virus from sooty mangabeys(?) or green monkeys before stress caused AIDS. Coincidence? I think not!

"Funny how the World War I and the Great Depression never caused AIDS".

What is funnier to me, is how a massive flu epidemic spread in 1918 toward the end of world war I. Matter of fact, there were 675,000 Americans, 10 times the number killed in the war, are said to have died from that epidemic. Was the country stressed out? Yes. Coincidence? I think not!

The great depression coincides EXACTLY with the majority of the polio outbreak being the most spreading disease during the duration of the depression. Was the country stressed out during the great depression?

Is there a mental connection or stress connection? You tell me.

As you said Monado, "Coincidence? I think not!

What I fully realize and know, is how intensively we gays were attacked by the religious fundamentalists just before and during the worst years of AIDS.

Another stress connection? Coincidence? I think not!

The only sooty green monkeys spreading aids that I can see is those who have eyes but fail to see.

History Question, Great Grandpa Michael:

How many Spaniards who died from the "Spanish Flu" were "stressed out" by the First World War? (Hint: Spain was one of the few neutral European countries in WW I.)

And given that most deaths worldwide from the "Spanish Flu" occurred in the year after the First World War ended, wouldn't it be more accurate to hypothesise that the real cause was not "stress" but "relief and celebration"?

And your constant whining that a specific and often fatal immune system disease is caused by internalised oppression suffered by gays is not only absurd, narcissistic psychobabble, but is actually pretty insulting to the vast majority of homosexuals like yours truly who like to live in the Land of Reality. How come lesbians aren't getting AIDS defining illnesses in large numbers? Or any other group in society that experiences prejudice?

It's a friggin virus, stupid. Most gay men I know figured that out more than 20 years ago, and adjusted to the biological reality without getting into dumb blame games, or turning into patsies for an oppressive hegemony.

It's a virus that spreads in particular ways (sexually, especially through unprotected anal sex; through blood contacts including sharing injecting equipment, and perinatally). Deal with it. Everyone else has.

Why haven't you?

Snout, you asked:

"How come lesbians aren't getting AIDS defining illnesses in large numbers?"

Because the differences between lesbians and gay men are obvious except to the more simple minded:

First of all, there are many physical illnesses and mental/emotional issues that are much more prevalent among lesbians than in heterosexual women. The doctors themselves, in the following video, ask if this has something to do with homophobia:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGOY8tYef2M

As for AIDS defining illnesses and stressors, first of all, lesbians did not recieve anything close to the harsh homophobic treatment that many gay men did and still do. I have known hundreds of lesbians, and never knew even a single one that was ever disowned by their parents for being lesbian, while I have known dozens of gay men who were disowned, dozens who were kicked out of the military or lost their jobs, and many who were the object of direct physical harm for being gay. While these surely do happen to some lesbians, they have not been anywhere nearly as high, percentage wise, as the harms suffered by gay men.

Lesbians, as far as I know, are not exposed to all of the pathogens that gay men are. After all, I know of no lesbian bathhouses nor have I ever seen a lesbian at a bathhouse.

Lesbians also do not abuse drugs anywhere near the extent that many gay men often do. I have known many gays who often did poppers, but poppers have never been popular in the lesbian community. Crystal meth addiction has been common in the gay community since late 1980 (coinciding exactly with the first gay men being diagnosed as AIDS in June of 81). Yet, regular crystal meth abuse has also been uncommon in the lesbian community.

Sexually, I know many gays who indulged in fisting, while not a single lesbian who I know does so. Lesbians are also not indulging in nearly as much anal sex, with its own common bacterial sharing that gay men do.

Lesbians, other than common herpes, also have far fewer std infections than gay men, and therefore also have far fewer treatments with antibiotics for repeated syph, gono, etc.

However, they do have a higher rate of diagnoses of "hiv" than heterosexual women. They are also more likely to be depressed, to be alcoholic, and to have injected drugs at some point, however, still nothing close to what is seen in the gay male communities.

Snout, then, in regards to "getting AIDS defining illnesses", you continue with: "Or any other group in society that experiences prejudice?

Newsflash! Take a look at the historic health problems of the inner city lower class black community wherein illnesses and early death are much greater percentage wise, than the white community. Take a look at the health of the more priviledged classes of blacks or whites in South Africa versus the poor and stressed who are living in ghetto's and slums, and see where 99% of the so-called "aids" cases are.

While your own low self esteem sees my perceptions as being a "blame game", to me, Snout, it is more about dealing with and addressing the direct underlying issues such as homophobia, self loathing, mental health and well being, societal equality, etc, etc, etc, in order to end, or at least minimize the root causes of illness in our gay and black communities, while all YOU are doing is hyping stress, and further disempowering your fellow gays by paralyzing them with fear, paranoia, and belief in inevitable death due to the boogeyman killer virus that you yourself cannot even find a single paper to verify that the cause of illness is due to any such thing.

YOU, Snout, are indeed exactly what you accuse me of. You are a traitor to your gay community,

Just the same as the gay media who has been bought off with page after page of big bucks advertising for black label/known to be deadly toxic/never placebo tested/fast tracked drugs. Just the same as the bought off gay/lesbian centers. Just the same as all of the rest of the "do-gooders" who have done nothing but promote disempowering fear, paranoia, distrust for each other, terrorizing your fellow gays with beliefs in inevitable sickness and death, and beliefs in themselves and the gay community as "infected" social lepers.

YOU, Snout, You and all like you ARE the VIRUS!

Gotta love it. Snout is now parroting the discredited David Ho by again proclaiming "It's the friggin virus, stupid."

Yes, indeed, Snout, this is exactly what David Ho proclaimed just before he instigated his "hit hard/hit early" with the very drugs that caused the disfigurement of hundreds of thousands of your gay brothers with buffalo humps and lypodystrophy and neuropathy and bone loss, and lots not forget death by liver failure, kidney, and heart failure.

Then Snout sums it up with "Most gay men I know.... adjusted blahblahblah, without turning into patsies for an oppressive hegemony.

Funny, Snout. To me, that seems to describe you and the majority of gays who bought into this, hook-line-and sinker, to a Tee.

A Patsy indeed for an oppressive hegemony is exactly what you seem to be, and what most gays have been. Just like the gays who meekly responded to homophobia by meekly responding to the attacks on us by Anita Bryant and Jerry Falwell's "moral majority" in the 80's and 90's, by assuming the role of the patsy victim and by wearing pink triangles while being scared, cajoled, terrified, and panicked into ever increasing stress and terrors, and by their own willingness to accede to self destruction by self inflicted destructive behaviors and by accepting the pronouncements of the homophobic elites of science and medicine as they led us to our own willing final chemical exterminations.

And you Snout, truly remind me of a jewish guard at Auschwitz, who survived the extermination of jews by becoming an SS guard over your captured brothers, who points toward the chemical extermination chambers and says to your gay brothers "go on in, have a nice shower, the water's fine, and do it now, cause you'll die if you don't."

You don't need to be an ss guard, Snout. You don't need to be a meme virus. You don't need to terrify and disempower your own gay community. There are other choices for all who are willing to step out of their own paranoia and societal programming, and simply look at the bigger picture.

Stopped reading here for a while since it became INSANELY boring responding to the same old "questions" about HIV/AIDS. Responding with new papers and data to answer questions, only to have the whole thing disregarded because some figure didn't have a large enough percentage change or something ridiculous like that, purposefully missing the forest for the trees. I see it hasn't changed.

"it always turns out that they had so many other reasons for doing so, that any point in blaming their illness or death on hiv becomes utterly ridiculous, and very childlike and simple minded."

You still think stress can cause AIDS? If stress and fear of painful death over long periods of time can cause AIDS, why don't we have large numbers of our servicemen returning with AIDS? No matter how bad the gay community may have it here in the US, it in no way is comparable to the stress undergone by soldiers wondering if they were going to make it back from patrol alive EVERY DAY. And yet, no large numbers of AIDS in the absence of HIV amongst military personnel.

On topic: It's too bad Christine more than likely died a preventable death. It's too bad her supporters are too intellectually dishonest to allow for another test to determine her status, viral load and T cell counts. If she didn't die from AIDS, surely these tests should show normal results, won't they? Scientists have put their money where their mouth is day in and day out by producing new data to support and treat the HIV/AIDS disease model. Why can't the denialists do the same? Here's your chance.

Great Grandpa Michael says:

Lesbians, other than common herpes, also have far fewer std infections than gay men

Gosh gee, Gramps, I think you might be on to something there. Could it be that AIDS might have something to do with a sexually transmissible infection? Has anyone ever investigated this possibility?

And you Snout, truly remind me of a jewish guard at Auschwitz, who survived the extermination of jews by becoming an SS guard over your captured brothers

You fail the interwebs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_Law#Corollaries_and_usage

Got news for you Snout, anyone using the word "denialist" to define the dissidents has origninally "failed the interwebs", as you yourself have done so many times. I will be glad to point it out to you with each mention of such a label coming from you in the future.

And even in your accusation that I "fail the interwebs", you fail it yourself as you obviously skipped over the qualifying statement:

"However, Godwin's Law itself can be abused, as a distraction or diversion, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate.

A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that Godwin's Law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons."

"However, Godwin's Law itself can be abused, as a distraction or diversion, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate.

A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that Godwin's Law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons."

Considering your comparison is hyperbole, isn't actually appropriate and is not valid (and therefore subject to ridicule), you still fail.

Ahhhh, Jim, Jim, Jim, Jim, Jim!

You presented yourself as such an obvious example of being exactly what I said: "utterly ridiculous, and very childlike and simple minded," that I did not even bother to respond.

However, the main point of your childlike dribble was "why don't we have large numbers of our servicemen returning with AIDS?"

Well, Jim, the fact is, we do, minus of course the fact that none of these people are given repetitive hiv tests, pcr viral tests, and t-cell counts. And of course minus the fact that when they do have an hiv test, if they are heterosexual, as most are, the tests are simply deemed to be "false positive", unless they are also found to be classified as in any "high risk group" of blacks or gays or drug abusers.

And here is the proof of those battle weary soldiers you mention as fully suffering from acquired immune dysfunctions:

Similar syndromes have been seen as an after effect of other conflicts -- for example, 'shell shock' after World War I, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after the Vietnam War. A review of the medical records of 15,000 American Civil War soldiers showed that "those who lost at least 5% of their company had a 51% increased risk of later development of cardiac, gastrointestinal, or nervous disease.

Many U.S. veterans of the 2003 Iraq War have reported a range of serious health issues, including tumors, daily blood in urine and stool, sexual dysfunction, migraines, frequent muscle spasms, and other symptoms similar to the debilitating symptoms of "Gulf War Syndrome" reported by many veterans of the 1991 Gulf War.

Gulf War illness (GWI) is an illness reported by combat veterans of the 1991 Persian Gulf War typified by symptoms including immune system disorders and birth defects.

About 30 percent of the 700,000 U.S. servicemen and women in the first Persian Gulf War have registered in the Gulf War Illness database.

The US Institute of Medicine, released their conclusions in a September 2006 report writing that although roughly 30% of service men and women who served either have suffered or still suffer from symptoms, no single cluster of symptoms that constitute a syndrome unique to Gulf War veterans has been identified.

Except, as I and many others have so often posited and well demonstrated, stress itself, and the individual stressors, levels, and intensities of stress, differ from group to group.

There is a world of difference between the stress of being disowned by ones family or being publicly shamed by being kicked out of the military. Such shaming induces often induces self loathing, and even more often induces internal death wishes. Such self loathing and internalized self hating shame is certainly different from that of the stress of apathetic hopelessness, which is different from that of chronic fear which is different from that of chronic anger.

But one thing is for sure. None of these stresses "feels good" and indeed every one of them "feels bad". Furthermore, the physical symptoms themselves often come just months to years after the greatest intensities of emotional stress, as if the body itself remembers and has not let loose of the emotional stress. At least until just one more straw finally breaks the camels back, and the stresses ultimately manifest in a breaking down of the physical body, primarily the immune system.

And of course the stress upon gays is completely different from the stress upon soldiers. Soldiers do not experience being disowned and shamed by their families, nor do they usually suffer from internalized self loathing, nor of hopeless apathy and helplessness, nor of internal death wishes as was and sometimes still is so characteristic of so many of the victims of "AIDS" in the ostracized gay community. Those gays diagnosed as hiv positive and given a death sentence by their doctors in the 80's and 90's suffered an even greater shock of and were sent straight to the depths of hopeless apathy by the diagnosis itself. I should know, I and close friends of mine have even carried some of them home after receiving their diagnosis.

Then there was the added grief for so many others of losing most or all of their friends who succumbed to this, just as those veterans who lost all of the other friends and troops in their battalions.

Jim, the stress on the gay community for all those involved was and often is yet quite intense. And certainly nothing you, as you have been so protected all your own life, could ever understand or empathize with.

And of course, it goes without saying, that soldiers are also certainly not exposed to the same pathogens, drug uses or abuses, fisting, repetitive std's, antibiotic overuse, etc, etc, that are so prevalent among the affected in the gay community.

Therefore, Jim, thank you for demonstrating yourself as another shining example of childlike simplemindedness as I pointed out in my earlier post, the post that you, quite naturally, found so "insane."

Snout
Looking at the stream of comments it would seem you are making progress. The Denialists admit there is such a thing as a virus. Albeit you, at least they are recognizing germs exist. Which is good.
Now if only they realized viral infections are responded to with antibodies.
Antibodies allow for testing.
Testing offers a diagnosis.
Diagnosis offers prevention and treatment options.
Prevention means EJ would be alive.
treatmemt means Christine could be well.

These denialists, they just cannot get out of denial.

But at least now they recognize viruses exist.

However, the main point of your childlike dribble was "why don't we have large numbers of our servicemen returning with AIDS?"

Well, Jim, the fact is, we do, minus of course the fact that none of these people are given repetitive hiv tests, pcr viral tests, and t-cell counts.

Oh, and also minus anything that bears any clinical resemblance to an AIDS defining illness.

In other words, in Grandpa Michael's kooky world "AIDS" is any kind of illness he chooses to call "AIDS". And it's all caused by psychological "stress". Except that gay men (but not gay women) have a special kind of "stress" that has something to do with fisting, poppers and Anita Bryant. This is the exact same species of stress experienced by IDUs of both sexes, and large numbers of Africans who also they get this special kind of "AIDS". I see. It all makes sense now.

And of course minus the fact that when they do have an hiv test, if they are heterosexual, as most are, the tests are simply deemed to be "false positive", unless they are also found to be classified as in any "high risk group" of blacks or gays or drug abusers.

So let me get this straight. You're saying if a white heterosexual non drug user has a repeatedly reactive EIA and positive Western Blot this is automatically deemed a "false positive"?

Nope. That's a positive test result whether you are gay or straight, black or white, IDU or not.

You are just making stuff up. Again.

In ten years of practice, I have never seen anyone die of "stress". I've seen plenty of heart attacks, bullet wounds, stab wounds, car crashes, pulmonary emboli, drug overdoses, metastatic cancer, and AIDS. I've never, ever seen anyone die of "stress".

If a coroner put down "stress" on a death certificate, he'd be laughed out of office. It just doesn't happen.

And of course minus the fact that when they do have an hiv test, if they are heterosexual, as most are, the tests are simply deemed to be "false positive", unless they are also found to be classified as in any "high risk group" of blacks or gays or drug abusers.

Why don't you get all of your HIV+ friends to go and get retested and present themselves as non-drug using heterosexuals? See how many come back with a HIV- diagnosis.

"Ahhhh, Jim, Jim, Jim, Jim, Jim!

You presented yourself as such an obvious example of being exactly what I said: "utterly ridiculous, and very childlike and simple minded," that I did not even bother to respond. "

With such a pompous opening, I expected something good. Needless to say, I was let down.

"However, the main point of your childlike dribble was "why don't we have large numbers of our servicemen returning with AIDS?""

And childlike as it is, you almost completely fail to address it.

"Many U.S. veterans of the 2003 Iraq War have reported a range of serious health issues, including tumors, daily blood in urine and stool, sexual dysfunction, migraines, frequent muscle spasms, and other symptoms similar to the debilitating symptoms of "Gulf War Syndrome" reported by many veterans of the 1991 Gulf War...an illness reported by combat veterans of the 1991 Persian Gulf War typified by symptoms including immune system disorders and birth defects...no single cluster of symptoms that constitute a syndrome unique to Gulf War veterans has been identified."

I see you take "immune system disorders" to mean AIDS, whereas I see it as a broad term that can mean anything from lymphomas/leukemias to autoimmune to immune deficiency. But that's probably just a mistake in my childlike mind. Call me when they begin to develop secondary infections similar to HIV+ cases and at similar rates because otherwise you're being obtuse and playing word games.

"But one thing is for sure. None of these stresses "feels good" and indeed every one of them "feels bad". Furthermore, the physical symptoms themselves often come just months to years after the greatest intensities of emotional stress, as if the body itself remembers and has not let loose of the emotional stress. At least until just one more straw finally breaks the camels back, and the stresses ultimately manifest in a breaking down of the physical body, primarily the immune system."

Now it just sounds like you're making stuff up to fit your argument. Isn't that something you denialists claim we evil scientists do?

"And of course the stress upon gays is completely different from the stress upon soldiers."

Oh right, it's because gays have a SPECIAL stress that only occurs to them and is the ONLY stress that causes AIDS. It's funny, all the gay friends I've had (not many admittedly) have battled with some of the issues you mention, but yet they are HIV- and haven't developed AIDS. Again, you're making stuff up.

"And of course, it goes without saying, that soldiers are also certainly not exposed to the same pathogens, drug uses or abuses..."

Or anal sex I would assume. Do you not see WHY this supports HIV as causing AIDS? If what you say is true, soldiers are less likely to partake in behaviors that will expose them to HIV and therefore the incidence of AIDS is correspondingly lower. Seems pretty easy to me.

"another shining example of childlike simplemindedness as I pointed out in my earlier post, the post that you, quite naturally, found so "insane.""

What's truly childlike and simpleminded is you're obstinate adherence to an idea that the gay community is subjected to some special stress that causes an increased incidence of AIDS while ignoring the damn near airtight correlation with HIV status. What I found insane was not your post (so don't flatter yourself), but the denialist mindset and the constant repetition of the same tired arguments that have been answered over and over and over.

And unless you have a new argument about the antibody tests or PCR save it. I've heard the arguments against them and they show one thing: ignorance of the methodology and science behind why the tests work. Show me you have even the slight fundamental knowledge of immunology and molecular biology and maybe I'll take your criticisms seriously.

On a similar note, anyone know how Noreen (only remember her first name, posted here quite a bit in the past) is and whether or not she's ok? I seem to remember her ideas falling along similar lines to Christine's.

Jim, Noreen is just fine, she's just made a lot of posts on Oracs blog and she's feeling splendid.

Jim, since you told me once you were in grad school studying microbiology, could you help please help me answer a couple questions.

In 1987 Cell killing drug that can induce blood tranfusions AZT that was designed for cancer chemotherapy in the 1960's was approved by the FDA. Every prestigious medical school taught the HIV killed nearly everyone infected during the mid eighties. The IOM dedicated billions for research in 1985. Can someone provide me the overwhelming evidence that HIV kills nearly everyone infected from this time period that would justify these measures?

Can someone please cite and breifly summarize them (so people can make sure you even read them) the scientific papers that you read that convinced you hiv kills nearly every person infected? Spamming a website in not evidence, it just proves HIV defenders, like creationists, have taken the hypothesis on faith, without critically reading scientific papers. Waiting.

Jim,
The Gay community is not solely exposed to stress, they are also exposed to cell destroying Chemotherapies like AZT, Mycoplasmas, severe drug abuse, nitrite inhalants. Just answer the questions asked above to make your case that all these other things are harmless and only HIV is to blame. waiting.

Brian:

I didn't make any of the claims you listed. In fact, with the possible exception of the last, I don't think anyone in this thread has made the claims you mention. Making out that people have said things they haven't reminds me again of the parallels between the HIV denialists here and creationists arguing against evolution.

So does the "demanding of others" without presenting anything, let alone even checking for themselves first, thing that cooler does.

AFAIS, only Etienne has even tried (I'm not saying that I agree with him), but his objections seem to be more of a particular paper rather than the standing of the field at the present day.

Willliam the Coroner:

Dying of stress sounds like something that the Pythons would base a skit on! Along the same lines, Michael Geiger (aka Love and Kisses and a few other random aliases) apparently once told this blog that AIDS was due to loneliness. Or at least that's the title of a previous article on this blog says (I haven't time to read the article itself, never mind the comments). I can't imagine you have many death certificates with 'Loneliness' as the cause of death either!

Every prestigious medical school taught the HIV killed nearly everyone infected during the mid eighties.

You are making this up, or you are confusing HIV infection and the immune system disease AIDS.

The prestigious medical school I went to in the mid 1980s taught that no-one knew exactly how many people with HIV would go on to get AIDS, but that AIDS itself had an annual mortality in the range of 60 to 70 per cent (which it did back then, and this was before AZT or any other antiretroviral - fortunately treatment is much better these days).

By the late 1980s it was clear (based on testing of stored blood samples from the late 70's) that roughly half of untreated people with HIV would develop AIDS within about a decade after seroconversion: it varies a little from country to country, but not by orders of magnitude. By two decades the rate of progression to AIDS for people with untreated HIV infection is significantly higher, but of course no one could have known the 20 year survival rates in 1985.

"By the late 1980s it was clear (based on testing of stored blood samples from the late 70's) that roughly half of untreated people with HIV would develop AIDS within about a decade after seroconversion"

Reference please.

Also, be sincere, doctors were not telling their patients in the mid to late eighties if they tested positive that they had a good chance of notting getting sick, they were told they were going to die, which is why they prescribed AZT, why else would any person take such a dangerous drug, unless the disease was a death sentence.

The Gay community is not solely exposed to stress, they are also exposed to cell destroying Chemotherapies like AZT, Mycoplasmas, severe drug abuse, nitrite inhalants.

You forgot antibiotics, cigarette smoke, loneliness, syphilis, HHV6, factor VIII, foreign proteins and candida. I'm sure I've left many out too. If you listen to "rethinkers" then practically everything causes AIDS. Anybody who dies from AIDS is bound to fit into one of these categories but so does everybody else. The one factor that can be used to predict who gets AIDS is HIV.

"Jim, Noreen is just fine, she's just made a lot of posts on Oracs blog and she's feeling splendid."

Good for her. And I mean it sincerely.

As for your questions, cooler, I don't have the time nor the motivation to make an annotated list of papers for you to read (particularly considering your question is apparently based on false premises). I have read a fair amount of HIV literature (my field is not HIV) and did HIV research for about 2 years during my undergrad. During that time I saw the affects of HIV infection in multiple cell types in cell culture. I helped make viral stocks from nothing but plasmid DNA and then used those stocks to productively infect uninfected T cells. I watched those T cells die and was able to detect multiple forms of the HIV genome and was able to accurately predict what forms would be present depending on what treatment conditions I added. My experimental results along with the collective reading and seminars I've attended since then have led me to accept the HIV/AIDS model as correct and for the most part beyond question.

"In the late '70s, blood samples were drawn from 6,875 sexually active gay men in San Francisco. Scientists had never heard of AIDS or HIV when they froze the blood for research on hepatitis B. But in 1985, when the HIV antibody test was licensed, all that six-year-old blood from the highest AIDS risk group in the nation suddenly became critically important. Sure enough, 67.3 percent of the samples turned out to be HIV-positive. It's now been 11 years since the first blood samples were taken. Only half of the infected men have been diagnosed with AIDS.

That figure, Root-Bernstein argues, suggests that HIV alone is a poor explanation for AIDS. But it gets even more complicated: Almost all the frozen blood samples were from men who also had hepatitis B, syphilis, gonorrhea and herpes. Their immune systems were already in chaos from the massive assault-which makes them terrible predictors of how HIV would operate in healthier blood"

Is hiv guilty Miami Herald 1990
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/ebhiv.htm

So this study is what convinced you in medical school HIV was so deadly and that people needed to take chemotherapies like AZT the rest of their life? A correlation (that can't really ever prove anything) that didn't control for confounders like AZT, Drug use mycoplasmas etc. Real impressive.

Jim, nice dodge, it's great to know you saw HIV do horrible things in culture, so does hhv-6, which is totally harmless in a human being. Chris! maybe you can answer the questions that Jim chickened out on, here they are again!

In 1987 Cell killing drug that can induce blood tranfusions AZT that was designed for cancer chemotherapy in the 1960's was approved by the FDA. Every prestigious medical school taught the HIV killed nearly everyone infected during the mid eighties. The IOM dedicated billions for research in 1985. Can someone provide me the overwhelming evidence that HIV kills nearly everyone infected from this time period that would justify these measures?

Can someone please cite and breifly summarize them (so people can make sure you even read them) the scientific papers that you read that convinced you hiv kills nearly every person infected? Spamming a website in not evidence, it just proves HIV defenders, like creationists, have taken the hypothesis on faith, without critically reading scientific papers. Waiting.

"Jim, nice dodge, it's great to know you saw HIV do horrible things in culture, so does hhv-6, which is totally harmless in a human being. Chris! maybe you can answer the questions that Jim chickened out on, here they are again!"

It's not a dodge or anything else. You're asking for something that is completely unreasonable and basing it on false premises to begin with.

As for HHV-6 and HIV, you're comparing apples and oranges. You can't simply take another virus, particularly another virus with a COMPLETELY different life cycle, and say "see what this does, everything must do it too."

--- Believing the death of Christine Maggiore was due to an untreaded HIV infection is same as believing Jesus died to save our sins. Haven't we had enough of your religulous HIV mantras? ----

People sometimes die in accidents despite wearing seat belts. By your logic, that means seat belts are useless and that slamming into dash boards does not actually harm people, and therefore, Mr. Carter, I politely request that you put your money where your mouth is and cease wearing yours.

Reference please.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1664363

Yes the San Francisco City Clinic Cohort provides strong evidence that HIV causes AIDS. Only those who were HIV+ got AIDS. Over time almost all the people who were HIV+ progressed to AIDS.

http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102218051.html

"By the late 1980s it was clear (based on testing of stored blood samples from the late 70's) that roughly half of untreated people with HIV would develop AIDS within about a decade after seroconversion"

Reference please.

Oh, alright then.

"But in 1985, when the HIV antibody test was licensed, all that six-year-old blood from the highest AIDS risk group in the nation suddenly became critically important. Sure enough, 67.3 percent of the samples turned out to be HIV-positive. It's now been 11 years since the first blood samples were taken. Only half of the infected men have been diagnosed with AIDS."

http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2008/12/christine_maggiore_dies_from_…

For those who aren't familiar with cooler's "debating" style, it goes like this:

1. cooler: "Can someone provide me the overwhelming evidence that HIV kills nearly everyone infected from 1985?"

2. everyone else: "No one was claiming that in 1985. However people with AIDS had an annual mortality of 60-70% then. By the late 1980s there was evidence that untreated HIV infection progressed to AIDS in about half of infected people within a decade."

3. cooler: "Prove it!"

4. everyone else: [quotes the studies, including cooler's own post]

5. cooler: "Can someone please cite and breifly summarize them (so people can make sure you even read them) the scientific papers that you read that convinced you hiv kills nearly every person infected? Spamming a website in not evidence, it just proves HIV defenders, like creationists, have taken the hypothesis on faith, without critically reading scientific papers. Waiting."

6. return to (2.) Continue ad infinitum.

http://letterstotheempire.wordpress.com/2009/01/04/aids-bottom-feeders-…

I have been an AIDS dissident since 1992. Never took an AIDS test (I do practice safe sex since I dont want to catch Syph or Gono.) since the tests are absolutely meaningless. This is due to the fact that HIV has not been isolated and identified according to established scientific procedures. Having said that, I gave up discussing and or arguing with the AIDS orthodoxy a long time ago. It's as though a new religion has taken hold. There but for the grace of my God go I. What is sad is that people are denied the opportunity to ask questions about AIDS so they can make an informed decision. Thankfully I had that opportunity a long time ago.

Based on what you said above, it sounds like you made a disinformed decision.

It's genome has been cloned (multiple ones in fact from clinical settings) and that is as good if not better than purification of actual virions. I'm pretty sure even Duesberg disagrees with you on that one.

It's as though a new religion has taken hold.

As any discussion of a politically charged scientific issue grows longer, the probability of a comparison between the consensus position and a "religion" approaches one.

In some cases, the thread is then closed and the participant making the religious comparison is deemed to have lost the debate.

So the best you guys could come up with is a correlation that didn't even control for confounding factors that came out 3 years after AZT was approved. So the study wasn't necessary to administer a chemotherapy, regardless even 100% correlations don't prove causality. Nice try.

What about all the studies that came out since that time that contradicted the hypothesis.
The Padian study that proved that HIV was the least contagious microbe ever.

The special retirement for the hundereds of chimpanzees infected.

A window period that was extended by 10 months to 10 years(There goes your 100% correlation)

Never has a wild animal died of SIV

The Piatak study that stated that a 60,000 viral load corresponds to one peice of viable HIV

The heterosexual pandemic that never happened

The vaccine that was supposed to come out 20 years ago, and if it ever does come out we'll all test antibody positive.

The direct cell killing theory was thrown out because it was found out in the early 90's that hiv in the early stages infects 1/10000 cells and in the late stages 1/40 cells.(scientific american 1993)

Pretty sad the entire hypothesis is based on a partial correlation, since most HIV positive people are totally healthy. Can I get the Nobel prize for discovering that wrinkles cause death in old people? This is a 100% correlation!

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

All of those have been answered before, Cooler. I've seen the answers posted here and I've seen you and others neglect to read/address them but yet continue to repeat them ad nauseum.

Jim, you're so intellectually bankrupt you can't even cite and summarize the papers you read that convinced you HIV kills nearly every person infected, all you can do is spam a website.

Secondly, when pressed for an answer, your pals can only offer pathetic partial correlations. If thats all I had I'd be making excuses to.

What is sad is that people are denied the opportunity to ask questions about AIDS so they can make an informed decision.

I think there's an element of truth to this, but it is also true that most "dissident" questions have nothing to do with seeking answers or information - they are a rhetorical device to promote their ideologies without ever making a positive statement that could itself be challenged. I say ideologies [plural] because dissident assertions are not only vague and ill-informed, they are also in many cases mutually contradictory.

Sincere questions seek answers and clarification. They are unfortunately rare on discussion like this.

Most "dissident" questions have been answered again and again in discussions like this. Many are based on elementary misconceptions, misreadings and misrepresentations that circulate uncorrected, particularly on "dissident" websites. This has been going on for years, and it doesn't matter how often the canards are challenged, they keep popping up again. Most mainstream scientists quickly learn that debating dissidents is really more like a game of "whack-a-mole" than a genuine exchange of information.

If you have sincere questions, then I hope you can find people who will answer them. If you are simply promoting a fixed belief system, then you are right, you are wasting your time.

Snout

'Most mainstream scientists quickly learn that debating dissidents is really more like a game of 'whack-a-mole' than a genuine exchange of information.'

Aren't you the guy who said "debating Dissidents is like nailing jelly to a wall"? What I don't get is, if someone is in an intellectual loop, say a Jehovah's Witness, or a Hare Krishna, & I get all knotted up "debating" them - doesn't it reveal as much about me as about them? I don't think the archive of discussions like this prove that Dissidents are "denialists" i.e. intellectually gridlocked amateurs who just don't get it: rather, that you lot have a very, very hard time just keeping up.

Speaking of which, the genie is out of the bottle - the more you guys "debate the denialists", the more the knowledge that there is a controversy (for so long effectively hidden, censored & suppressed in scientific publication & the mainstream press) is disseminated in the public consciousness. As the Zen saying goes,

The affirming of Reality is the denying of it
The negation of illusion is the affirming of it.

You guys are doing us a service - in your greed to cash in on Christine's death, you have just advertised our Cause. Keep it up!

http://letterstotheempire.com/2009/01/04/aids-bottom-feeders-line-up-fo…

Aren't you the guy who said "debating Dissidents is like nailing jelly to a wall"?

I don't think I was the first.

What I don't get is, if someone is in an intellectual loop, say a Jehovah's Witness, or a Hare Krishna, & I get all knotted up "debating" them - doesn't it reveal as much about me as about them?

I don't think "all knotted up" is an apt description. It's more like realising the unalterable fact that some kinds of discussions will not result in a shift in understanding in your opponent. Perhaps you might feel the same about me, although I reckon I've learned a lot from reading and sometimes participating in exchanges like this, particularly about the rhetorical techniques, logical fallacies and tricks that cranks use to argue their positions, and especially about how memes spread via the internet. These exchanges would be fascinating to anyone interested in the psychology of belief, and the cognitive structures and processes that underpin crankery. They also illustrate something important about the nature of specialised scientific knowledge and how that's perceived by lay people (and I'm only scientifically semi-educated at best).

I'm also interested in the related ethical questions: particularly about the ethics of promoting crank ideas to people who lack the scientific background to examine them critically, and who can be harmed if they make health decisions based on accepting such nonsense.

You guys are doing us a service - in your greed to cash in on Christine's death, you have just advertised our Cause. Keep it up!

Well, I have no financial investment one way or the other in AIDS science.

Christine lived her life very publicly: it was her decision to make her life and health choices a public example of her ideology. Personally, I think that was a tragic and disastrous choice, but having done so I don't think it's reasonable that the circumstances of her death should be regarded as a purely private matter. Her death is part of her story, and like it or not she chose to live in the spotlight.

As for "advertising your cause", well there are some schools of thought that suggest that denialism should just be ignored: from a denialist point of view bad publicity is better than no publicity. Others think that denialist nonsense should be confronted as it appears, for the benefit of any lurkers who might be otherwise swayed by uncontested assertions. I don't know the answer to that, but I suspect it depends on the context. And context is often hard to pick accurately on the net.

You guys are doing us a service - in your greed to cash in on Christine's death, you have just advertised our Cause. Keep it up!

Christine Maggiore, an HIV-infected woman who denied the role of HIV as the cause of AIDS and who was under the care of a physician who is "not at all into the HIV paradigm," died several weeks following a reported clinical presentation highly suggestive of Pneumocystis pneumonia.

What could possibly be better for your "Cause" than to make people aware of Maggiore's fate?

Now, everyone will want to jump on the Denialist Bandwagon.

ALICE, ALICE, ALICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please OH, Please read down this far!! And please tell me I am THE Todd you are referring to above when you invited me to debate along with Jeanne Bergman. I'll let you fly me anywhere and I am sure I (and Jeanne, if she wants to) can prove how Ms. Maggiore died. At least my proof will be more logical and believable than whatever you denialists can drag up.
I am only a lowly Medical Technologist, well, not even, but in four months I will be. I am also HIV+ for 14 years and I am sure that I know more about HIV/AIDS than ANY denialist!! (Well, hell, even my Min Pin, Newton does...can I bring him along? He can bark his answers more legibly than the denialist we'll be debating.)
Come on, Alice, put your money where your mouth is. We can even do a Pay-Per-View!
You can reach me at my blog (which I would love if Tara would link permanently)
J. Todd DeShong
www.dissidents4dumbees.blogspot.com
Currently, I have a some great facts on Gallo's Egg "supposed" author, Clark Baker.

Lowly Medical Technologist = TRAINED SEAL. If I throw a ball can you balance it on your nose, Todd?

So, Mr. Hiver' know it all of the world,

Please tell me something if you would be so kind; From Rodriguez (JAMA. 2006;296:1498-1506.) only a small proportion of the rate at which CD4 cells are lost could be explained by plasma HIV RNA level. So telling the truth; the 90 percent of CD4 cell depletion that remains enigmatic, would mean that you would have to be say that progression is one BIG FAT guessing game. Am I right? What other big fat guessing games are there? Opps - I remember one: Abbott Lab's famous test kit disclaimer, "At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood" - I bet you might be able to find some more big fat guessing games laid out so prevalently in your learned 14 years. Come on now fess up.

This is so sad.

Sorry to repeat myself, but most "dissident" questions have been answered again and again in discussions like this. Many are based on elementary misconceptions, misreadings and misrepresentations that circulate uncorrected, particularly on "dissident" websites.

Brian Carter has kindly presented us with a specimen.

Actually several specimens jumbled into the one barely coherent stream-of-consciousness post, but I'll leave "trained seal" and "Rodgriguez" to someone else, if they can be bothered.

...Am I right? What other big fat guessing games are there? Opps - I remember one: Abbott Lab's famous test kit disclaimer, "At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood" - I bet you might... blah blah blah...

Veterans of similar "debates" against creationists and other pseudoscientists will immediately recognise this as the rhetorical device known as "quote mining".

The misrepresentation is calling the quote a "disclaimer", rather than part of a straightforward description of how senstivity and specificity were calculated for this particular test. This is obvious when you read the quote in its original context.

The misreading stems from failing to realise that "recognised standard" has a technical meaning in discussions of sensitivity and specificity.

The misconception is that the absence of a "recognised standard" indicates anything at all about the significance or ontological status of the entity being tested for (HIV antibodies).

As for its circulation anyone interested in doing a Google Advanced Search for the quote will bring up a fair representation of current denialist websites, and can track its propagation through the net via the main intellectual tool of denialists: the Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V keys.

For the benefit of any lurkers unfamiliar with quote mining see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quote_mining

Talkorigins also has an excellent article on it.

We went through the cause of AIDS on Tara's blog last year. I still can't see anything different or new from the denialists, except that their shreiks of denial have risen several octaves higher since Maggiore's death.

Speaking of which (since this is what the thread is supposed to be about) people here should be aware that the denialists are trying to airbrush history yet again. Celia Farber, denialist journo, has belatedly realised that she made a massive error in releasing the contents of an e-mail Christine wrote 8 days before her death. Farber did this in the hope it would deflect people away from the conclusion Christine died of AIDS, and would implicate her "detox cleanse" as the cause of the problem.

"She had apparently been on a radical cleansing and detox regimen that had sickened her and left her very weak, dehydrated, and unable to breathe. She was shortly thereafter diagnosed with pneumonia and placed on IV antibiotics and rehydration. But she didn't make it."

Farber's article on Deansworld truly let the cat out of the bag. There, in all it's glory, stood evidence from Christine herself that she had probably died from AIDS.
http://www.deanesmay.com/2009/01/02/in-her-own-words-a-dec-19-email-fro…

All too late, Farber pulled the article, which is why the above link will not work. One has to look at the google cache to find it.
http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:8sjDs_vchccJ:www.deanesmay.com/2009…

Farber has tried to lamely explain why she pulled the article, stating

"I want to contribute toward a much needed silence."

Nice one, Celia. Why don't we believe you?

Maggiore's e-mail reads as follows:

"Regarding my health, I finally figured out what's going on...but it got really scary. Here's the scoop I just sent a friend: I have been through the absolute worst health nightmare ever. The cleanse, while definitely bringing about some profound benefits, left me feeling weak and dehydrated. I lost my appetite almost completely about 10 days ago and for some weird reason could only tolerate hot tea and hot chicken broth. I had been in touch with the cleanse doc who said all was typical, uncomfortable but typical. Not one to quit, I kept going. Then I started to have trouble breathing, I was feeling winded after the most simple task like making the bed. This last Sunday, I stopped being able to sleep at all. So finally, genius that I am, I made an appointment to see my MD who is really smart and very well versed in natural health care and not at all into the HIV paradigm.I could only get in to see her yesterday. She said I was totally dehydrated and having a reaction to the herbs in the cleanse which she thought were suspicious. I asked her to check my lungs and she said they sounded clear. I told her I thought I should have a chest Xray anyway, just to be sure, but she was skeptical because I hadn't had a cold, flu, cough or fever. But I insisted so she wrote me up to go to a radiology place that would give an immediate reading. By then I felt so ill I had to ask my neighbor to drive me and thank god he was there with me because I never would have made it to the radiologist without his help. As it turned out, the Xray showed a very serious case of bi-lateral bronchial pneumonia. The doctor immediately gave me IV rehydration, IV natural cortisone, and IV antibiotic. She said if I did not improve by the next day, I would have to go to the hospital which I argued would give me worse treatment, lousy food and maybe a MRS infection as a parting gift. I went back again today, had more IV treatments and she said if I can make it through the weekend without having to go to the hospital, she will be very happy. She also said I'm pretty tough to have had such severe pneumonia and keep going. I have three natural cortisone treatments I am to take everyday, and today I started with another antibiotic called Z pack which is different from the one used in the IV. It's a little scary because she asked me if I am allergic to the antibiotics she's giving me but I've never taken them, so I don't know. She stayed next to me during the IV antibiotic to make sure I was not going into reaction which sort of made me feel like I might be having a reaction! But I didn't and I slept for the first time since Sunday last night.My appetite is getting back to normal and I am on total bed rest for two weeks. I can't imagine doing otherwise.
Christine."

This enables a time line of events to be built up:

Early December: Maggiore [feeling unwell?]undergoes a cleanse detox, which "profoundly benefits" her but leaves her feeling weak and dehydrated.

9th December: Loses appetite, reassured by cleanse doc that this is "typical"

Sometime between 9th and 13th December: Becomes breathless with minimal exertion.

14th December: Unable to sleep.

18th December: Sees own MD (who is "really smart and well versed in natural health care" and who does not believe in the "HIV paradigm"). Told she is dehydrated from reaction to the cleansing herbs. MD finds chest is clear, but Maggiore insists on an X-Ray [presumably concerned about her persisting breathlessness], which reveals "a serious case of bilateral bronchial pneumonia". Begins treatment with IV antibiotics and natural steroids. Specifically says she had no allergic reaction to the IV antibiotics.

19th December: Has further IV antibiotics and steroids, and also given another antibiotic, oral azithromycin. Is able to sleep for the first time in 5 days.

27th December: Dies at home of pneumonia.

The significant aspects of this story can be summarised thus: Maggiore died following a four week illness, characterised by increasing breathlessness on minimal exertion over three weeks. Her chest sounded clear to examination, but X-Rays revealed pneumonia present in both lungs. An antibiotic regime was commenced which would cover bacterial pneumonia (and which would also cover atypical pneumonia organisms such as Chlamydia, Mycoplasma and Legionella since a macrolide had been prescribed). Her pneumonia ultimately fails to improve, and Maggiore died 8 days later.

If Maggiore had been suffering from a bacterial pneumonia, then IV antibiotics would have been expected to lead to clinical improvement. Similarly, one of the "atypical" pneumonia such as Mycoplasma or Clamydia pneumonia, which are seldom so severe as to cause death, would have been expected to respond to the azithromycin she received. It is possible Maggiore had Legionella pneumonia (Legionnaires disease) which can be very serious and spread to involve both lungs, and although azithromycin is an effective treatment for Legionella, a severe case usually requires additional antibiotics. Alternatively, she could have had a viral pneumonia, which can in some instances be fatal (e.g. severe influenza A infection).

However, with all these types of pneumonia, the chest does not sound clear, since there will be crackles evident (from fluid build up within the lung) and with bacterial pneumonias there may also be an additional, diagnostically characteristic noise heard over the affected lobe of the lung (bronchial breathing). Should Maggiore have had a pneumonia severe enough to affect both lungs radiologically, I would have expected there to have been plenty of evidence of abnormalities on examination (auscultation) of the chest. Radiologically, these pneumonias are confined to one lung, (often only one lobe of one lung, although Legionella and viral pneumonias can involve several lobes). Pneumonias such as bacterial pneumonias and the atypical/viral pneumonias are characteristically short and sharp in their effects. Bacterial pneumonia is typified by a short duration (i.e a few days) of symptoms with productive cough and high fever. Likewise Mycoplasma, Chlamydia, Legionella and viral infections, although the cough may be dry and non-productive.

There is another type of pneumonia however, the features of which appear to fit almost exactly with the clinical story in the case of Christine. It is a more insidious pneumonia, typically taking 2 to 3 weeks to gradually increase in severity. The cardinal symptom is one of breathlessness with minimal exertion, so everyday tasks (like making a bed) are exhausting. It typically causes very little by way of cough, although it can cause a fever. The lungs are characteristically clear on examination, even when radiological changes are quite marked. By the time X-Ray changes are evident, the pneumonia is usually moderately severe. On X-Ray, there is a bilateral infiltration of several lobes of the lung. This pneumonia will not respond to standard antibiotics. It may, with the help of steroids, temporarily improve, but without specific specialised antibiotics it is always fatal. The name of this pneumonia? Pneumocystis jiroveci (PCP)

It is no wonder that the denialists are now attempting to airbrush their articles from the historical record. With every medically-incompetent attempt of theirs to show Christine Maggiore did not die from an AIDS-related pneumonia, they merely ended up showing how likely it is that she did die from AIDS.

Note the nine day gap between seeing the doc on the 18th December and beginning treatment for an ultimately fatal pneumonia, and dying on the 27th.

Nine days is a very long time in the context of this story.

A lot happened in that time, including not going to hospital.

Note the nine day gap between seeing the doc on the 18th December and beginning treatment for an ultimately fatal pneumonia, and dying on the 27th.

In a comment on an LA Times article JMo writes

I spoke to her husband christmas night. I told him to get her to a hospital and start meds.

Why is it that the week before she died Christine Maggiore sounded like so many other AIDS denialists who fall ill and post at the AIDS Myth Exposed message board? Celia Farber's reporting above tells us why AIDS denialism is so tragic, as do the many others posted at Brian Carter's AIDS Myth Exposed site. The similarities provide an inside view of AIDS denialism discussed at http://denyingaids.blogspot.com/

"9th December: Loses appetite, reassured by cleanse doc that this is "typical"

Sometime between 9th and 13th December: Becomes breathless with minimal exertion."

Well look here! PCP was first discovered in malnourished kids during World War 2!

"Pneumocystis first came to attention when it was found to cause interstitial pneumonia in Central and Eastern Europe during World War II in severely malnourished and premature infants."

Medscape

Its also caused by Chemotherapy, which can explain why so many AZT patients got it.

Say what?
There is obviously no limit to the depths of denialism.
PCP is an opportunistic illness....it afflicts when the immune system is compromised.
AZT does not suppress the immune system like cancer chemo.
HIV does suppress the immune system.
Why is this so hard for you?
Why can you not face this and get help?
http://denyingaids.blogspot.com/

Whatever, thats why during the infamous rigged fischl trial they were 30 blood tranfusions in the AZT group and 5 in the placebo group, and these 5 were probably due to patient initiated drug trading(They got so desperate, they traded drugs)

So if you count the tranfusions as deaths, as you should, for they would have died without them, more people died in the AZT group. 1 death plus 30 blood tranfusions =31 deaths in the AZT arm, placebo group 19 deaths plus 5 blood transfusiions =24 deaths!

31 deaths in the AZT group, 24 in the placebo group when you count tranfusions as deaths! And of course you should since without tranfusions they would have died!

Source. Peter Duesberg lecture

When you get sick, cooler, do you go to a doctor? Or do you try and get a referral to a deranged organic chemist?

Thank you, Tara, for all your hard work at correcting misconceptions and myths about HIV in the face of such resistance from those "dissenters" who nevertheless dog this blog out of a sense of insecurity about their denialism. I am astonished that anyone would demand that you "apologize." Fight on.

Yes, Duesberg is really deranged. Member of the National academy of sciences. California scientist of the year, Recipient of the Outstanding Investigator grant. Expert on retroviruses where Dr. Gallo has said no one knows more about retroviruses in the world than Peter Duesberg in 1985.

Recieved support over the years From Nobel lauretes in science like Kary Mullis, Barbara Mclintock, Walter Gilbert, and also members of the National Academy of sciences like Lynn Margulis, Harry Rubin, Serge Lange, Military pathologists like Dr. Douglas Wear and Dr. Shyh Ching Lo.

All of these people have read far more papers on HIV than your average infectious disease doctor, and have made sounder arguments.

Duesberg suddenly became a nut because he didn't think finding HIV in 26/72 AIDS cases proves anything, and was not satisfied that so many people with this virus were totally healthy, making the CDC invent the long latent period, which was 10 months, now it's 10 years.

Proven that Malnourishment that Maggiore was experiencing can cause PCP. From Medscape

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/490562_2

"The first clinical cases of PCP were reported during World War II in orphanages in Europe. These cases of "plasma cell pneumonia" were common among malnourished children and were later reported in children in Iranian orphanages. The disease was then recognized in patients who were immunocompromised because of malignancies, immunosuppressive therapy, or congenital immunodeficiencies. Solid organ transplantation increased the number of patients at risk for PCP, although rates diminished after chemoprophylaxis was introduced. Without chemoprophylaxis, rates of PCP are 5%-25% in transplant patients, 2%-6% in patients with collagen vascular disease, and 1%-25% in patients with cancer"

Cooler, so a loss of apetite one day, and showing the symptoms of pneumonia the next equate to malnutrition severe enough to precipitate PCP?

Pull the other one. We have independent testimony from her husband and Fintan Dunne that Christine was fine at the begining of December, not some malnourished husk of a human being.

Oh, and by the way, nice to see you accept she likely as not had PCP. Welcome to a little reality.

No, she was ravaged for days with the detox, experienced loss of appetite,her immunity went with the radical detox, just faced the same stress those world war 2 kids did. Poor thing. Sad fact is if she took AZT in 1992 she would surely be dead long ago.

Cooler, at least I am impressed by your intransigence. Why don't you read Christine's e-mail?

"I lost my appetite almost completely about 10 days ago and for some weird reason could only tolerate hot tea and hot chicken broth. I had been in touch with the cleanse doc who said all was typical, uncomfortable but typical. Not one to quit, I kept going. Then I started to have trouble breathing, I was feeling winded after the most simple task like making the bed."

So a couple of days of having tea and chicken broth left her malnourished enough to get PCP? Sure, that sounds like "kids in WW2 concentration camp/orphanage-type starvation" to me.

Perhaps the coincidence of respiratory symptoms and loss of appetite are linked causally, in that as people start to succumb to PCP, they lose their appetite?

Oops, I forgot you can't wield Occam's razor, as you are not allowed to have any sharp objects.

"I lost my appetite almost completely about 10 days ago"

10 days of having no appetite is very serious, this preceded the Pneumonia symptoms, infact im sure those orphans experienced similar, or even less harsh conditions. 10 days of Malnourishment is very serious, I thought you were an expert, but your're a quack from planet flak.

Are you from this planet?

Cooler
Take 2 coffee enemas and rub garlic on your foot and call me in the morning.

I hate to troll-feed, but a few hours without chicken broth and cooler might die of PCP......

Read the email. Christine talks of losing appetite, then becoming breathless (sometime within the next 4 days). Sorry cooler, but in my hospital people with neurological problems, strokes, gastrointestinal disorders etc. can do just fine without any nourishment whatsoever for a few days. They don't get PCP. I see old ladies whose only source of nourishment appears to be cups of tea and soup, for years on end. They don't get PCP either. And neither did I when I was laid up with an attack of influenza last year for a week, during which I lost nearly a stone.

But this is all ridiculous semantics. Fact is it looks like she got PCP. Now what is more likely, that it was due to underlying immunodeficiency from her longstanding HIV, or because she had only had chicken soup for a couple of days?

Answers on a postcard please.

Hey Brian Carter,
I LOVE that you call me "Lowly Medical Technologist..."
Are you aware that you heroine Elena Popodoulas (or however you spell her Greek name) of The Perth Group, is a "lowly MT.."????? Actually, she is even lowlier (is that a word??)
as her only job at The Royal Perth Hospital is to test patients to see if they have been exposed to too much radiation? However, she puports to be a Physicist!!! Oh, God, I LOVE how much these denialist's exaggerate their positions and educaion!!
Yes, Brian, let me spell it out for you. You worship EP, but you call me a lowly MT. However, my education just in MT alone, far surpasses EP's education in Australia. (And do not let it be lost on you that my I TOTALLY WORSHIP OLIVIA NEWTON-JOHN, who is from Australia) Of course, I worship her for her Gay Icon Status, along with her beauty and talent for SINGING...NOT her talent for denialism!!!!
Try to keep your worship in check, you faggott!!!
(Please all, do not lose sight of the fact that I, myself, am a faggott of the first order!)
However, I know who to worship and for what!!!
God, you denialists' are such a joyous source of my entertainment!!!
Sincerely,
J. Todd DeShong
www.dissidents4dumbees.blogspot.com
Please see my blog for other completely irreverential posts where I call Maggiore a "toddler killer" and Henry Bauer a "kike"!!!

Steroids, 10 days of near starvation, antibiotics, untested cleanse, one could easily see these factors depleting immunity.

Of course, I would support more investigation. If it was truly HIV that killed her, her viral load would have been sky high. All you would have to do is isolate her high virus load by spinning it in a centerfuge and taking EM pics of this. Of course, according to Dr. David Rasnick this has never been done on anyone. He claims HIV has never been found in a human being because of this.

Until you prove her body, or anyone else's body was teeming with HIV, you can not lay blame on HIV.

Oh, and by the way Tara keeps saying the reason she doesn't waste to much of her time on dissidents anymore is because the debate was setteled in the peer review literature 20 years ago. Tara, can you provide the overwhelming evidence that proved HIV's causality that won you the debate 20 years ago? It must exist for AZT was approved in 1987. Waiting.

settled

"can do just fine without any nourishment whatsoever for a few days" Says DT.

Brilliant advice from a doctor. Don't eat for a few days and you'll be fine. This has to be one of the dumbest statements ever. Glad your not my doctor.

Maybe you can lecture schoolkids DT on how you dont need to eat or drink for days and you'll be just fine!

Cooler, I am just pointing out that going a few days with only tea and chicken broth for nourishment is not going to damage anyone's immune system so significantly that they develop severe opportunistic infections.

Is your theory that a couple of days of this dietary regimen can cause serious immunodeficiency? Can you point us to relevant literature citation as evidence? I'm not greedy, any one paper will do.

You are full of bs, as usual, plucking one wildly implausible fallacy after the other out of thin air. Don't worry if it is self-evident complete nonsense, the main criterion should be that it completely exonerates HIV. As long as it does that, it must be true!

Cooler

I have gone for days at a time without eating. If you're not exerting yourself, a human without any underlying disease can eat nothing for about a month. They will lose weight, more at the end of the month, but they will survive. A person needs to drink more often, but it is perfectly possible to go without drinking for 24-48 hours. Athletes who wish to be in a lower weight class do this routinely, it was common practice amongst wrestlers in college and high school.

This, by itself, does not cause serious immunodeficiency. HIV infection does.

This is all very interesting, but I am not sure what it has to do with Christine Maggiore dying of HIV/AIDS? I am also not so sure it matters what Christine Maggiore died of, although being HIV+ and dying of pneumonia is dying of AIDS. Arguing this point is akin to debating whether HIV causes AIDS. There is a new posting on this issue at http://denyingaids.blogspot.com
The argument seems pointless.

Yes, Duesberg is really deranged. [...]
Posted by: cooler | January 7, 2009 2:15 PM

Those familiar with correcting the "views" of creationists and other pseudoscientists will recognise cooler's use of Duesberg's name as a variant of the "argument from authority" or "argument by appeal to authority". The fallacy of this is that it is not the "authority" itself that matters, but the evidence they present.

[...] Tara keeps saying the reason she doesn't waste to much of her time on dissidents anymore is because the debate was setteled in the peer review literature 20 years ago.
Posted by: cooler | January 7, 2009 9:59 PM

Notice how Tara's position is based on the evidence, i.e. what is relevant in making the decision.

Those familiar with correcting the "views" of creationists and other pseudoscientists will recognise cooler's repeated strategy of "demanding of others" without presenting any evidence for his/her position, never mind evidence pointing to a reason for their "demand". That cooler almost invariably ends the posts with one of these empty "demands" is one of the key reasons I view cooler as a troll. It's a classic attempt to bait readers.

Yes, I'm a real troll for pointing out that before a dangerous long term chemotherapy like AZT should be approved there should be overwhelming evidence of causality in the scientific literature for the disease that the drug is supposed to treat. Since you guys can't come up with anything, you guys are the trolls.

Worse, you guys are probably reposnsible for the tremendous increase in AIDS deaths after this drug came out in 1987.

I must say, it's nice to have cooler around to add a little levity to the discussion.

The story of Christine Maggiore is so unremittingly tragic, because by all accounts she seems to have been a rather nice young woman who suffered the great misfortune of HIV infection, and, like many confronted with the prospect of a a serious illness, retreated into a delusion of denial. And in the grip of that denial, she led many to suffering and death, including her own daughter and ultimately herself. There may be irony there, but little humor.

But cooler, at least, we can laugh at. I presume that he is not himself HIV+, because if he were, like Maggiore, his own anecdote for nonprogression to AIDS, he would not hesitate to trumpet that fact. Rather, he seems to be just an all-around crank, a believer in virtually every paranoid conspiracy theory that comes down the pike. I suppose that this too is a kind of mental illness, but it is more funny than tragic. It is hard not to laugh at a guy who, when faced with an HIV+ individual dying from pneumonia that shows all of the hallmarks of PCP, rejects the well-established HIV-AIDS-PCP connection in favor of the contention that 10 days of eating chicken broth equates to the level of malnutrition experienced by concentration camp victims after months of starvation (and of course, ignoring entirely the question of why Maggiore's appetite was failing in the first place).

They were not concentration camp victims, they were in orphanges. What's really funny is your correlations that are delusions of your mad obsession with HIV, a microbe that's never been obtained and photographed from a human being, thats never done anything when injected into an animal. A hypothesis that's solely based on a partial correlation, pretty pathetic don't you think?

Like 60,000 people die of pneumonia a year, steroids, starvation, etc all increase the risk. When this people die of pneumonia its pneumonia, when its hiv antibody with pneumonia its AIDS.

Christine led a long happy life, no disfiguring drugs, no chemotherapies like AZT that would have killed her years ago, no fear of viral load tests, t cell counts blah blah.

Think of how pathetic the HIV hypothesis is. According to it, Christine lost about 800 T cells in a period of 16 years. Do the math. 16 years is 832 weeks. So according to the official story she lost about 1 tcell a week in the past 832 weeks!?

How is this even possible when T cells can regenerate at 5% a day according to Duesberg? It's totally crazy to blame HIV for her death. But I think it's a form of mass mental illness that, like in Orwell's 1984 has afflicted thousands of people since Gallo's press conference. Sadly it's affected you people as well, for this has nothing to do with evidence, it has to do with obedience to authority.

I find it curious that such attempts are made to dismiss pneumonia as a benign illness in healthy persons while explaining the tragic death of a young woman... yet those same people are guilting others into vaccinating for such diseases becaue they can "kill and maim". Which is it?

Sara

Very few people under 65 die of pneumonia in the US unless they have AIDS. Pneumonia is a serious condition for sure. Read earlier posts on this long blog. Besides, it really does not matter what she died from. She was an AIDS denialist. She was HIV+. She had pneumonia. The math is pretty simple. But regardless, even if she died of a detoxinated coffee enema that would not change the known facts of HIV and how it causes AIDS.
http://denyingaids.blogspot.com/

Well Seth et al why dont you explain why it takes 10-16 years to cause AIDS?

If the body was teeming with virus and direct cell killing was how HIV worked, you'd be dead within weeks not years, if the body is not teeming with virus you won't get a disease.

Since T cells can regenerate at 5% a day its impossible for them to be slowly depleted over a period of 15 years, for that is plenty of time for T cells to regenerate.

Its like arguing the case that a person died after getting a few paper cuts a week at work for 15 years.

It is not my job to argue back and forth with AIDS denialists.
Why would I argue with a group who draws their ideas from Peter Duesberg, David Rasnick, Harvey Bialy, Kary Mullis (is he still abducted?) and Henry Bauer (and his Loch Ness Monster)?

I would prefer to expose AIDS denialism for what it is. Prevent more babies from needlessly dying. Maybe help people make informed rather than disinfomed decisions. Try to undo the damage that denialists like Maggiore have done. And in doing so I will donate all of the royalties from book Denying AIDS buy HIV meds in Africa.
http://denyingaids.blogspot.com

Like 60,000 people die of pneumonia a year, steroids, starvation, etc all increase the risk. When this people die of pneumonia its pneumonia, when its hiv antibody with pneumonia its AIDS.

Yes, when she dies with pneumonia symptoms that are characteristic of a specific type of pneumonia that is almost never seen except in people who are immunocompromised due to very severe malnutrition--or AIDS. And when her daughter's death was found at autopsy to be due to the same type of AIDS-associated pneumonia.

Pictures of the "non-existent" HIV, the microbe that has "never been photographed or obtained from a human being" (Just one paper from hundreds)
http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/full/77/22/11896?view=long&pmid=14581526

"non-existent" HIV, the microbe that has "never been photographed or obtained from a human being"

There are 13 micrographs of HIV at http://denyingaids.blogspot.com

No real controversey about whether HIV exists.

But what is missing is David Crowe, the mythical AIDS denialist. A reward has been offered for his proof, but no proof has been submitted yet.
So it seems David Crowe probably does not exist. Why would you believe anything at the Alberta Reappraising AIDS or Rethinking AIDS websites if there not even proof that David Crowe exists?

LOL, all of these pictures are from heavily stimulated labratory cultures, not isolated from a patient's high viral load. Nice try!

Those are from heavily stimulated labratory cultures, not from a patient's high viral load!

Electron-micrographs of HIV, published in 1994. EMs in figure 1 are pictures of HIV isolated from patients' viral load.

Time to shift the goalposts, cooler.

P.S. Sorry if this ends up posting twice. I'm guest-blogging for Ed Brayton over at Dispatches from the Culture Wars this week, and apparently being logged in for that gives me permission errors over here.

Unfortunately Cooler's arguments are based on the LACK of knowledge rather than evidence. His reasoning goes as so: "I don't know how this could be possible/don't know if said evidence exists, thus it can't be true/can't possibly exist". When someone does bother to give him the evidence that proves him wrong yet again, he works hard to try to rationalize it away just so he won't have to admit to himself he is wrong. This type of thinking is what led people to drink the cool-aid in Jonestown. Drink up, Cooler!

And So Cooler will say...
"those pictures are not of pure virus. They are of biological material associated with the cells. Show me purified virus separate from all other organic matterâ
I love that. It is what Henry Bauer would say. It was DeHarven would say. The pure virus myth illustrates that denialists will push the goal posts into the absurd. The pure virus myth is central to denying AIDS.
Seth Kalichman
http://denyingaids.blogspot.com

Read page 5 under "results" of the EM study that was posted. It basically says that HIV from patients was barely found, it was found at a rate less than 1/10 than the artificially infected semen.

This is consistent with other studies that have found HIV in a very small fraction of cells (Between 1/10000 to 1/40). I asked for EM pics of teeming virus, everybody already knows HIV, like other microbes that have been knocked out by antibodies is present in very small amounts, I'm sure if one had billlions in funding you could EM tiny amounts of Flu, measles chicken pox etc from the blood and sperm, the key is finding it in abundance. To bad this study is sorely lacking in that regard.

By the way, both Bernie Mac and Jim henson died of Pneumonia in their early 50's, I beleive Jim henson suffered from pnemonia and proceeded to organ failure, and none of these 2 had been starving themselves for 10 days, Also Christine was precribed immno supressive cortisone, had Jim henson and Bernie Mac been HIV postive, they's be counted as AIDS deaths.

Once again, cooler provides a bit of levity to the discussion.
Watch the goalposts move!

cooler: "HIV, a microbe that's never been obtained and photographed from a human being"

dt: Here are pictures of HIV obtained from a human being and photographed

cooler: Those don't count because "Those are from heavily stimulated labratory cultures, not from a patient's high viral load!"

Seth: Here are pictures of HIV obtained from a patient and photographed

cooler: Those don't count because "it was found at a rate less than 1/10 than the artificially infected semen."

So photos from culture doesn't count because HIV is at artificially high levels. Never mind that Koch's Postulates, beloved of HIV denialists even though they're so old that they predate the very discovery of viruses, specifically allow for the use of culture to identify an infectious agent.

And photographs of HIV from patients don't count because HIV is not at an artificially high level.

The goal posts are out of the ball park.
What a great example of denialism.

Show me the scientific proof?
Here it is.
No, not that proof.
Ok, then here it is.
No that is not the proof.

If a denialist were to accept the proof they would be a dissident scientist, not a denialist.

Cooler, can you please stop this silliness and let us get on with the serious business of proving that the AIDS denialist David Crowe actually exists? No proof of that so far for sure.
http://denyingaids.blogspot.com

cooler, many of the EM's of HIV - which one can easily find with just a bit of looking - are from lymph tissue. I wonder if you could tell us why that is? What is it about lymph tissue that is of special interest when one is considering HIV replication and viral loads?

Hint - the answer is quite relevant to your January 15, 2009 4:44 PM post. If you don't already know the answer, given your ongoing arguments about viral loads, then your ignorance is appalling. If you do already know the answer, then your dishonesty is appalling.

Which is it, I wonder?

For all of her verbal diarrhea, Christine Maggiore NEVER provided evidence that she EVER tested "negative" and "indeterminate" after her positive result. Yet that was supposedly the foundation by which she converted and it was the story she used ad nauseam to entice others into believing the tests are non-specific and subject to common testing errors.

The witch is dead - one good thing.

I am still wondering why it took Christine 16 years to die of AIDS. So she started out with 800 t cells or so per ML and then lost 1 t cell per ML per week in each of the past 16 years.

This is impossible since T Cells can reproduce at 5% a day. It's like arguing that somebody died of dehydration because they took a leak 3 times a day for the past 16 years! What a joke! Whatever cells she lost could easily be regenerated. Like Duesberg says there are no slow viruses, only slow virologists.

Anyone care to explain why and how it took 16 years for her t cells to be depleted?

I am still wondering why it took Christine 16 years to die of AIDS. So she started out with 800 t cells or so per ML and then lost 1 t cell per ML per week in each of the past 16 years.

This is impossible since T Cells can reproduce at 5% a day. It's like arguing that somebody died of dehydration because they took a leak 3 times a day for the past 16 years!

You are reaching new heights of humor. Now you pull some arbitrary numbers out of your butt, and then argue that because your own ridiculous numbers don't make sense, then it must be impossible.

Why a loss of 1 cell per ml per day? That's a pretty high number, particularly if, as you like to claim, only a fraction of the cells are infected. So why not a loss of 5.05% of her cells per day, just a tiny bit faster than the reproduction rate, for a net loss of 0.05% per day? For that matter, who says that the loss rate even needs to be linear with time?

"I am still wondering why it took Christine 16 years to die of AIDS. So she started out with 800 t cells or so per ML and then lost 1 t cell per ML per week in each of the past 16 years.

This is impossible since T Cells can reproduce at 5% a day. It's like arguing that somebody died of dehydration because they took a leak 3 times a day for the past 16 years! What a joke! Whatever cells she lost could easily be regenerated. Like Duesberg says there are no slow viruses, only slow virologists.

Anyone care to explain why and how it took 16 years for her t cells to be depleted?"

Cooler, once again you use the fact that you don't understand/know/some other simile for ignorance as "proof to yourself for why something cannot be true. As shown with your previous request for pictures of HIV straight from a patient, simply because you don't understand something doesn't mean that you are correct in your assumption of it's falsehood. And just as you moved the goalposts from your previous request, we all know you will do the same for this one (as you had ad nauseum in the past). Do yourself a favor; open your mind a bit to the possibility that maybe, just maybe, you AREN'T smarter that the 99.999999% of doctors,, biologists, virologists, ect... If you can't do that then just line up for the cool-aid.

and lest my grammar be attacked "simile" should have been "synonym". Darn my english as a second language!

There is an entire literature in medicine and science (so you have to trust a little) on long term survivors, or slow progressors and non-progressors. Search PubMed. Go the www.thebody.com and do some reading. What you do not understand find someone who does â really does.
The CDC estimates that the number of people age 50 and older living with HIV increased by 77 percent between 2001 and 2005 and that this population now represents more than 25 percent of all HIV and AIDS cases in the US. Much of this is because of effective treatments. So she was slow proressor. Nothing earth shattering there. You answer me this⦠Christine, tested HIV+ within a year of Magic Johnson. They both had good health care, live in LA, are parents, etc. He has been taking HIV treatments all along, even started earlier than most people do now, and have you seen him lately? Looks like he is doing pretty well. Christien Maggiore is dead. HIV+ PLUS Pneumonia = she died of AIDS. I know lots of people with near zero CD4 cells and this can go on for some time. Depends on so many factors, what you are exposed tom, health care, etc. Why is this so hard for you to understand? What makes it so difficult to trust an entire medical and scientific enterprise? Why would you buy into the pseudoscience and quackery that is AIDS Denialism?
Be a dissident, not a denialist, and know the difference.
http://denyingaids@blogspot.com

Sorry, ttrl HIV would have to infect 5% of blood t cells to cause blood cell depletion, it doesn't. Nice try at speculation and pulling numbers out of thin air.

"All that has changed. As Warner C. Greene, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, explained in the September 1993 Scientific American, researchers are increasingly abandoning the direct cell-killing theory because HIV does not infect enough cells: "Even in patients in the late stages of HIV infection with very low blood T4 cell counts, the proportion of those cells that are producing HIV is tiny-about one in 40. In the early stages of chronic infection, fewer than one in 10,000 T4 cells in blood are doing so. If the virus were killing the cells just by directly infecting them, it would almost certainly have to infect a much larger fraction at any one time."

What Causes AIDS? By Nobel prize winner Kary Mullis. Our scientific father. I think I have embarassed all of you enough, Kool Aid drinkers like poodle stomper, the ultimate shill ttrl, I think it's time to shut down the thread. This is too easy.

Cooler-aid,
Really? Are you serious? You're going quote the guy who claims he saw glowing raccoons and was abducted by aliens as an authority on a subject in which he never performed research?
Sorry the only person you are embarrassing is yourself. Sadly you are the only one who can't see it.

There are many reasons why direct cell-killing is not viewed as the only method by which HIV kills cells. All these reasons fall under the umbrella of one word. The one word denialists like you can't use because you just plain don't understand it. Ready for it? That word is EVIDENCE. There are several lines of well designed experimental evidence that show this is not the only method HIV can kill. That is why. Not because "The Man" is trying to keep down the luminescent-raccoon spotting UFO abductee or a self described Nessie expert. No, experimental evidence has lead to those conclusions. Now please don't change the subject. You've been given EM photos of HIV from cultures and direct from patients with no culturing. You have been wrong about the lack said evidence. How much do you have to rationalize reality to pretend you are right?

The quote is From a UCSF AIDS researcher, not Mullis, please learn some reading comprehension, the article is by Mullis, the quote is From Dr. Greene, a mainline HIV expert.

Cooler-aid,
Even if the quote were accurate, the interpretation implied from it was Mullis'. he is the one trying to use such a quote to disprove HIV/AIDS. It is Mullis is the one claiming that "researchers are increasingly abandoning the direct cell-killing theory" while the quote by Greene says "If the virus were killing the cells JUST by directly infecting them" (emphasis mine). No one is saying that HIV doesn't kill cells by direct killing. What is said is that it isn't the ONLY way. Not much of an abandonment. And again, experimental evidence supports such a conclusion. Maybe if you took the time to read the actual quote and not Mullis' assumption and cherry picking you'd learn a bit. But then I'm not holding my breath. Get in line for the cool-aid.

Cooler is citing Duesberg citing a 1977 textbook chapter written by Jonathan Sprent:

J. Sprent, in B and T Cells in Immune Recognition, F. Loor and G.E. Roelants, Eds. (Wiley, New York, 1977), pp. 59-82.

The understanding of T cells has progressed a bit since then. Jonathan Sprent is also still at Scripps, so cooler could ask him his question if he wanted (although he wouldn't like the answer because Jonathan Sprent, like every other legitimate scientist and rational person in the world, understands that HIV causes AIDS).

http://www.jci.org/articles/view/17533

Subpopulations of long-lived and short-lived T cells in advanced HIV-1 infection

Marc K. Hellerstein1,2, Rebecca A. Hoh2, Mary Beth Hanley3, Denise Cesar1, Daniel Lee1, Richard A. Neese1,2 and Joseph M. McCune2,3,4

"Indeed, death of cells that might otherwise have been long-lived is sufficient to account for CD4+ T lymphopenia of HIV-1/AIDS. By reducing 2 cells/μl/d, the production of long-lived m/e-phenotype cells that have an average life span of 3 to 6 months would reduce the T cell pool by 200 to 400 cells/μl. In contrast, the production of short-lived m/e-phenotype T cells, by 5 cells/μl/d (life span 2â3 weeks), can increase the T cell pool by only 70 to 100 cells/μl. Thus, not all forms of T cell turnover are equal: some T cell proliferative pathways can effectively contribute to immune repletion, whereas others cannot (7, 8, 17). Combadere et al. (30) recently reported that more than 90% of Ki67-positive T cells in HIV-1âinfected patients represent cytokine-secreting effector-like cells that are not progressing through the cell cycle, but are arrested in G1-phase. Cells of this type could not contribute to CD4+ T cell repletion."

"For all of her verbal diarrhea, Christine Maggiore NEVER provided evidence that she EVER tested "negative" and "indeterminate" after her positive result."- Hanna

what evidence do you have that she ever tested positive?

What evidence do you have that she ever tested positive?

Well......., let's see now.....
We could take her own claims about this. On the other hand, maybe she was lying all along.

In 1992, I took what is commonly referred to as an HIV test. I had no symptoms of illness, no particular risks or fears, just a new doctor who insisted the test should be part of a regular medical exam. What began as a simple check up turned from routine to life altering when my results came back HIV positive. Putting aside my shock and shame, I immediately sought out an AIDS specialist. This doctor declared that my test was not positive, not enough to be considered conclusive, anyway. Frightened and confused but hopeful, I followed his recommendations to take the test again along with other lab work to evaluate everything from my cholesterol to T cells. According to the specialist, the results of this second HIV test were indisputably positive.

http://whatifeverything.com/whatif/the_author.html

so there is no evidence for any of her tests. Glad we sorted that one out.

You mean that Maggiore was a pathological liar? Yes, that is sorted.

But you don't have to look for her HIV results to show this, a look through her book would easily confirm this fact.

"so there is no evidence for any of her tests. Glad we sorted that one out."

Since she never made public her copies of the test result, no there is no written evidence. However her daughter's death from AIDS points quite clearly to Maggiore having been HIV+ herself. Paperwork of her tests, no, but evidence that she was HIV+, yep.

Thanks a lot

Teknoloji Haberleri

It is a known fact that Christine Maggiore tested HIV+. Not even the denialists deny that she was HIV+. It is harder to figure out what happended after she tested positive and was an AIDS activist. Whether she retested, what she tested, who knows. What I find remarkable is the repeated statements that her husband and son have tested HIV negative. Why is that a big deal? Why did they even bother to test if the HIV test is invalid?
The whole Maggiore story was hard to follow even before she died of AIDS and is now even more convoluted.
But as I have said at my blog, it really does not matter how people believe she died.
Seth Kalichman
http://denyingaids.blogspot.com

"Why did they even bother to test if the HIV test is invalid?"

...uh...because Social Services threatened to remove charlie and put him into (GASP!) foster care! You would know this if you ever bothered reading or listening to anything she has ever said.

"...uh...because Social Services threatened to remove charlie and put him into (GASP!) foster care! You would know this if you ever bothered reading or listening to anything she has ever said."

Any evidence of this other than the word of a woman who has made a career of bending the truth?

Oh, sure. Of course. Like Social Services can force a parent to run a medical test on a kid but wont prevent her infecting another. I must have missed that. Like they force Christian Scientist parents all the time. They could not even force the kid on the Law and Order version of the Maggiore story to get tested.
And I suppose her Husband Robin was tested by some federal mandate? Court order? Or kidnapped by Kary Mullis' alien abductors and tested?
There are no limits to AIDS denialism.
Seth Kalichman
http://denyingaids.blogspot.com

Its the glowing raccoons, I tell ya! They're behind it all!
I work for a pharmaceutical company that makes blood-derived therapies for things like hemophilia and other diseases (nothing to do with HIV though) and its amazing how much time and money is spent testing donor's blood for HIV prior to acceptance and viral-inactivating steps for received plasma prior to further processing. Its especially amazing since all us pharma-shills are in on the scam... I mean that the CEOs ok all these costly steps really shows their dedication to the lie. Yep, all one giant global conspiracy.

What a scam! Clearing blood of fraud infectious agents before giving them to hemophilia patients. Poodle Stomper, you are next in line for the Whistle Blower and Clean Hands Awards. But then again, you are part of the lie and keep your job doing the unethical just to get a paycheck. Sort of like what you call me? I wonder how attentive you are to the process? Whether you skip steps because they are just a lie anyway? Do you let things slide? Does it really matter? Now be honest Poodle Stomper, dont let you'r whole life become a lie like Christine Maggiore did.
Seth Kalichman
http://denyingaids.blobspot.com

You're right Seth! I will stomp right up to our CEO and tell him to stop wasting all that money! After all, what harm has ever come from using unscreeened blood products? It isn't like its ever hurt anyone, right? I will be all like "Hey! Stop trying to deactivate fake viruses when instead we can put the money to good use advancing our pharma-shilly agenda"!

Now to make this story work we'll have to come up with some convoluted reasoning why all these non-AIDS related pharmaceutical companies (like the one I work for) still spend money, time, and manpower controlling for HIV and other viruses. I'll say that the AIDS-relevant pharmaceuticals pay us a yearly fee to keep quiet. Yeah, that will work. All these people know about it and no one in 20+ years blew the whistle. Yep, that will make a believable story!

Horrible sarcasm aside, hurry up with that book Seth. The wife and I want to read it.

Back after a long absence and I see the Coolaid Kid is still at it. It's like watching Groundhog Day over and over again. All the hardcore delusionals seem to have given up though, I wonder if that's a good sign.

If you think grave dancing isn't hardcore then yes, they are gone.

Seth, from 20/20:

"CONNIE CHUNG (voice-over): Maggiore didn't know it then, but her public display of her private convictions would backfire. When Charlie was two and a half, an anonymous call was made to the LA County Department of Children and Family Services. The caller complained that Charlie was malnourished and was being breast-fed by his HIV positive mother.

CHRISTINE MAGGIORE (video footage): As we speak, a representative from Child Protective Services is approaching our front door.

CONNIE CHUNG (voice-over): The woman coming to the door was a county social worker with the power to take Charlie away."

they have the power to scare the shit out of anyone. Don't make Social Services all sunshine.

Pat,
Wait a sec here. Where is the footage of the woman saying that if they didn't test Charlie he'd be taken away? It seems that the claim being investigated is the claim of malnourishment, not HIV status. Do they have "the power to take Charlie away"? Sure they do. Did they threaten to do so if he and his dad weren't tested? I don't see any evidence for this, even in your own post. It seems to me you are reading way too much into this and taking Maggiore's sensationalized claims without any sort of research of your own. Show me the footage of the woman saying "If you don't have your husband and child tested for HIV we'll take him away". Don't have that? What about a notice mailed to them? No? It seems to me that claims of malnourishment is indeed worthy of being investigated, regardless of the HIV status of the person in question. You say "don't make Social Services all sunshine" I say don't villainize them for simply investigating and doing their job...unless of course you have those threats about forced HIV testing on tape but I won't hold my breath for those.

AIDS denialists like Pat seem to deny everything.... even the potential harm caused to children of denialists! Is it a wonder why AIDS denialism is of the same mold as Holocaust Denial and 9/11 Truth Seeking?
And in case there are questions about the conspiracy thinking of denialists, here we see it again...'the evil Social Services... a Gov agency forcing parents to test their kids for HIV so that Gallo can get more money from the hoax test...
Anything new, Pat? Please.

"It seems that the claim being investigated is the claim of malnourishment, not HIV status." -Grave Stomper

Is your ADD acting up?

"The caller complained that Charlie was malnourished and was being BREAST-FED BY HIS HIV POSITIVE MOTHER."

That is the basis of the complaint. Trust me, when the social services show up at your door you will do anything to make them go away; like, uh duh, getting tested.

"AIDS denialists like Pat seem to deny everything.... even the potential harm caused to children of denialists!"

Ok, Seth. Show us the depth/shallowness of your wisdom. What in your mind should have been done to Charlie? Are you also one of those who know only screaming but when asked to step up to the plate with ideas they simply blend into the background? Thank the Almighty Tea Pot that the law picks up where much common sense trails off into clinical hysteria.

"And in case there are questions about the conspiracy thinking of denialists, here we see it again...'the evil Social Services... a Gov agency forcing parents to test their kids for HIV so that Gallo can get more money from the hoax test...
Anything new, Pat? Please."

I said they were not all sunshine and you loose the plot and put words on my keyboard. You are definitely seeing things I did not write. Is there a medical term for this condition? Do not diagnose yourself though, headshrinkers are known to be incapable of it.

"Is it a wonder why AIDS denialism is of the same mold as Holocaust Denial and 9/11 Truth Seeking?"

Nice potpourri, you should have become a florist. And BTW, what exactly am I in denial of, Herr Oberheadshrinkerfuehrer?

"Is your ADD acting up?

"The caller complained that Charlie was malnourished and was being BREAST-FED BY HIS HIV POSITIVE MOTHER."

That is the basis of the complaint. Trust me, when the social services show up at your door you will do anything to make them go away; like, uh duh, getting tested"

Sorry Pat, but I DON'T trust you because you are blind to common sense or the idea of burden of proof. You are saying that she was threatened with the removal of her children due to her HIV status so prove it. Prove to us that the *HIV status* was in fact the reason for the visit not the malnourishment claim. I know of a LOT of cases where malnourishment cases are investigated without any other cause (such as HIV). Just because the complaint included breastfeeding doesn't mean that this was the reason for the visit. Prove to us that she was threatened with losing her children if she didn't have him and her husband tested. Don't just assume and claim it as fact.

And no, I don't have ADD but thanks for your concern.

Really Pat. Who cares? Obsessing over Maggioreâs 20/20 whatever interview is like the whole Gallo and Padian tunnel vision of Denialists. âLets pick an obscure twig and take it out of context to make it into a forest.â

Maggiore is responsible for the deaths of unknown numbers of people who bought into her wholesale marketing of Duesberian pseudoscience in support of denialist wishful thinking. The pain and suffering she brought upon herself and her family is just not something I get concerned too about.

This whole state of affairs is sad, least of which is a child protection worker trying to help the son an impaired parent.

Seth Kalichman
http://denyingaids.blogspot.com

Seth, from 20/20

That interview is from 2001. They didn't test Charlie until 2006.

"That interview is from 2001. They didn't test Charlie until 2006."

So:
1) wrong year
2) no proof of any threats related to removing children if HIV tests weren't performed.
3) no proof her HIV status was even the reason Social services even visited.

Damn, is there any truth at all to little conspiracy/explanation there Pat?

You guys are all about proof when at the same time you do nothing but speculate about the health records (which you have never seen)of people you have never known.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-me-christine-maggiore1…

"The county Department of Children and Family Services last year investigated whether Maggiore and Scovill should keep custody of their other child, Charlie, now 9."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/sep/26/usa.aids

"The leader of an American movement challenging conventional science on Aids is being investigated for child endangerment after her three-year-old daughter died of the disease.

...The newspaper reported that the Los Angeles police were investigating the couple for endangering their daughter's life, and the local social services were considering whether the couple should be forced to test their eight-year-old son, Charlie."

According to these papers the S-S were considering it and that is enough to send shivers down the spine of any parent and it seems the Scovils having been living with this kind of harrassment for years, enough to screw up anyone's mental health. Your lack of awareness in the important details on this matter is alarming.

"Damn, is there any truth at all to little conspiracy/explanation there Pat?"

I made all of this up, right Grave Stomper?

"Maggiore is responsible for the deaths of unknown numbers of people...blablabla" -Seth

Seth acording to an overwhealming pile of evidence it is HIV that is responsible for unknown numbers of death and nothing else. Remember HIV is the SOLE cause of Aids. You should know that by now. You use the words "unknown numbers" to obscure the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about. What you need to do is redirect your efforts in the fight against this disease away from the messengers and back to the message that HIV kills. This bit of wisdom is super-dupper-hyper old and I am surprised you are unaware of it. You are loosing "unknown numbers" of people to the "denialists" with your faulty schoolyard strategy.

Seth,
I asked you to step up to the plate and sure enough you chose to blend into the background. You are a screamer incapable and afraid of making hard descisions.

Next I would like to address the anti-semitic outbursts of your new-found friend JT deSchong if you have the time and/or nerve.

Actually, to make my point more clearly.
Magfgiore is dead.
Which is good for global public health... one less vocal denialist to harm people.
Lets let her rest and never log on her sorry life again.

Thanks for proving my point that you are nothing but a hysterical public screamer with no ideas for change and only hate. Keep up the despicable grave dancing and keep disgusting normal and compassionate human beings into wondering if there is anything to what "denialists" have to say. You are loosing your own self-imagined war through your own show of inhumanity. Now we are just waiting for a psychological profile in hard cover of masturbating grave dancers like you.

You do not want to address your ally's anti-semitism, why? Are you a closet anti-semite yourself or is it simply too embarrassing to get into for you? My guess is that it is just way too embarrassing for you and you are too cowardly to address it. You have no honour Seth.

Pat, I haven't seen any antisemitic posts from any DeSchong person on this thread. Even if there were, why would you think it is the resposibility of Seth to comment on them? You are merely trying to make us tilt at windmills as a distraction from the core issues here (which you avoid addressing), and are criticising us for not complying to your stupid demands.

Tell you what. I'll respond to any antisemitic posts (if you can show me where they are) just as soon as you have responded to cooler's ravings. Deal?

Deschlong's anti-semitism is on his blog which Seth likes to visit and give his support. Why would any decent human being do such a thing and not call him on his racism, especially a person obsessed with mixing Aids denialism and Holocaust denialism? Why would anyone want to mix with a self-confessed racist? (BTW don't bother with his blog because he is a shear embarrassement to the cause; he is angry, inarticulate, loose with facts and fast on insinuation).

"You are merely trying to make us tilt at windmills as a distraction from the core issues here (which you avoid addressing)"

Which core issues am I refusing to address? Speak (type) what is on your mind.

"and are criticising us for not complying to your stupid demands."

I made stupid demands from you? Come on speak plainly and be precise, I do not follow you. I was the one critisized for failing to prove my "stupid" point about social services threatening the Scovils. I have now provided evidence which supports this and Seth then just expresses his gratitude for her death and the others have yet to respond.

Why would I have to respond to cooler's ravings? I don't care much for that guy. I don't know or care what he is on about. I take issue with the blatent disinformation surrounding CM's person and motivations and the despicable treatment she is recieving even now after her death.

Maybe you can point to one of cooler's ravings I should take issue with and I'll give it a thought, deal?

i will read this post later. i have to sleep now.

"The newspaper reported that the Los Angeles police were investigating the couple for endangering their daughter's life, and the local social services were considering whether the couple should be forced to test their eight-year-old son, Charlie"

Sorry Pat but considering something is not the same as threatening to do it. Please post the evidence of Social services telling them that they must test Charlie or lose him.
Also I see nothing in here about why Robin would have to get himself tested, although I hope for Charlie's sake that Robin gets himself re-tested to make sure he didn't contract the virus from Maggiore since his last test.

Thanks for your post Pat.

It does not take a genius to figure out that I wonât be provoked into a denialist debate. Not about HIV causing AIDS, or whether Maggiore should have had her kids removed, or whether a blogger is anti-Semitic. I donât need to show that you are not playing with a full deck, Pat. You do an excellent job of that yourself.

Every time you post you show what AIDS Denialists are all about. No different thank any other denialists â including Holocaust Denialists. It is just the truth. Pretty sad cases you are, really.
You should be sure to read my book. It may motivate you to leave your computer and go for some help. That is my hope.

Seth Kalichman
http://denyingaids.blogspot.com

Pat, the issue was whether Maggiore was HIV positive . The topic then was diverted by you onto issues such as Charlie and social services, while at the same time you asked Seth to respond to the comments from someone on another blog, which is quite irrelevant. All I'd like to do is stick to the issues raised here in this thread.

Maggiore said she was HIV positive (you still seem to deny she was). In fact the entire edifice of whether EJ or Charlie had/might have HIV is dependent upon this assumption.

By getting retested and displaying her "negative" status, she would have proved neither EJ nor Charlie could be HIV pos. She never took this opportunity. Why not? Because she had already tested positive, and knew she would still be positive if tested again, that's why.

"i will read this post later. i have to sleep now"

Sleep tight!

"Sorry Pat but considering something is not the same as threatening to do it."-Grave Stomper

Pardon? When the state is weighing action against you it is a lot like a threat, so then why not preemptively test?

"You should be sure to read my book. It may motivate you to leave your computer and go for some help. That is my hope."-Seth

I'm sorry Seth but it is you who needs to get your head checked. When people rejoice over the death of confused HIV victims then we just might be dealing with sociopaths. I guess we'll never agree and I will never want to be caught dead in your company. So is life. And no, I shall never read you pseudo-science headshrinking trash.

"The topic then was diverted by you onto issues such as Charlie and social services" -DT

Sorry DT but this is what I was responding to. No diversion on my part:

"Why did they even bother to test if the HIV test is invalid?"-Seth

"Maggiore said she was HIV positive (you still seem to deny she was)."-DT

I do not deny it or acknowledge it either way. I make no claim to any knowledge of her health status. It is rather you folks who deny she ever recieved conflicting test results. The only "proof" of her HIV status is a declaration by the coroner about the cause of death of EJ, a coroner mind you, that has a less then perfect score when it comes to honesty and testimonial consistancy. Now, if in fact she did recieve confliction tests results then this would explain why she became utterly confused about her treatment options and those for her children and also go on to write a book about "what if?". Keep in mind that these medications are not candy and do come with warnings that make any descision difficult for a parent especially when they do not have the benefit of hindsight about their health status which is what you people only now have since EJ's demise. Please do remember that before any of you had any conclusive "proof" of her status, mindless bloggers the world over were arguing high and wide as to her true health status including Jeanne-"I came to the erroneous conclusion that Maggiore was an HIV negative poseur for profit"-Bergman's famous speculative flame job. If she can get so confused then why can't Maggiore be?

"It does not take a genius to figure out that I wonât be provoked into a denialist debate."-Seth

Btw Seth, I am not trying to debate denialism with you on this one but merely your association with a self-confessed anti-semite. I will take this to your own blog so as to spare the present company your embarrassing endorsement of this creep.

Pat.
I think these guys have a point.
Press a denialist hard enough for the facts and you jump topics. Maggiore dying of AIDS was only a shock to those who denied she was living with HIV for 16 years. Everyone else knew it was coming. I figure her autopsy report confirms she had PCP, Thrush, and HSV and that is why it is not posted at Rethinking AIDS. EJâs autopsy report was sure exploited by the denialists and it even confirmed that she died of AIDS.
It would be good to discuss the âself-confessed anti-semiteâ somewhere else, because I have no clue what you are referring to.
Seth Kalichman
http://denyingaids.blogspot.com

"Everyone else knew it was coming."

not until her daughter died. It was only then that suddenly all were certain.

"I figure her autopsy report confirms she had PCP, Thrush, and HSV and that is why it is not posted at Rethinking AIDS."

You figure? You figure she had thrush and HSV? Did you pull this out of your crack? Where is this posted. You demanded proof of what I was saying so perhaps you can now reciprocate and back up your I-figure-based science.

As for your new friend you might want to re-evaluate your relationship:

dissidents4dumbees.blogspot.com/2008/12/dr-henry-bauer-is-liar-what-else-is-new.html

"Yet, Dr. Bauer, the lying, cheating, KIKE..."

This is how I know you have read his material:

"Seth Kalichman said...
Anyone interested in the psycho-basis for AIDS denialism (including the entire cast of characters portrayed on the recent Law & Order SVU 'Retro' episode) should check out a new book coming out called Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy being published by Copernicus / Springer Books. This is the first psychological analysis of the AIDS denialist movement. It provides the inside scoop on the strange world of AIDS denialists like Christine Maggiore and pseudoscientists like Henry Bauer and why they have attracted such a following. All of the royalties from sales of Denying AIDS are being donated to purchase HIV treatments in Africa . Check it out.
springer.com/medicine/book/978-0-387-79475-4"

DeSchlong defending his use of the word kike after a protest (not yours):

"jtdeshong said...
Oh, do not worry, I stand by the KIKE comment.
Thanks for playing.
JTD"

on another thread:

dissidents4dumbees.blogspot.com/2008/11/denialists-killed-335000-south-africans.html

"He would not post my comments, so I made the above blog, which Old Kike Bauer must have read and been offended by, because now when I post there, I go straight to "discarded"!!! Which, of course, completely validates my point!!!"
December 6, 2008 4:20 PM

"I also called Dr. Bauer, the Jew, a âKIKEâ and a âPUSSYâ"

and then of course this gem:

jtdeshong said...

Oh, you sad, impotent little bee~ach!
I never called every Jew a kike, just Bauer.
Try not to generalize, it demeans us all!
JTD

December 24, 2008 3:28 PM

sorry for airing the dirt here, I just couldn't care to go elsewhere after all.

Seth, he has his head so far up your rear that he might just listen to you if you went over there to straighten him out. I think he is more of a detriment than an asset in your prosecution of this war on denial. Just trying to help.

"Pardon? When the state is weighing action against you it is a lot like a threat, so then why not preemptively test?"

Like I said, considering anything is not the same as threatening to actually do it. Since you have failed to produce an actual threat to them (other than assumptions) I will assume that you simply don't have one and move on (until you prove it otherwise).

As for Social Services, they needed to consider whether such a thing is legally feasible as ethically justifiable. Were they wrong in such a consideration? Their job includes protecting children and in a case where you have parents whose refusal of preventative medical treatment to one child already resulted in death, are you saying that it is unreasonable to see whether there exists a threat to the remaining child, regardless of the parents intentions?

Pat, now I see.
I did not read the comment by JTD as anti-Semitism. Sorry, did not register. I saw JTD attempting to find a word to describe the loathing that Henry so inspires. I saw JTD reaching into the depths of the gutter, digging around in a lexicon cesspool to simply describe Henry. Calling Henry a Kike does not make JTD any more of anti-Semitic. I would not have chosen that word for him, personally. I believe Henry is best described as Loch Ness Monster Poop â a fake stinking turd.

Pat, stop with the denialist distractions and answer the reality call from Poodle Stomper.
You know, about Maggiore having HIV and putting her kids at risk.

Seth Kalichman
http://denyingaids.blogspot.com

"Like I said, considering anything is not the same as threatening to actually do it."

I disagree; A family feels threatened when the authorities are considering taking a child away; the Scovils were under social siege for years. But either way it explains why they went to get charlie tested which answers Seth's question about why they bothered with the test in the first place.

"As for Social Services, they needed to consider whether such a thing is legally feasible as ethically justifiable. Were they wrong in such a consideration?"

No, it is part of their job as you say and it also explains why they went to get charlie tested and why ultimately no action was taken against them. It was ethically unjustifiable.

" I saw JTD attempting to find a word to describe the loathing that Henry so inspires. I saw JTD reaching into the depths of the gutter, digging around in a lexicon cesspool to simply describe Henry. Calling Henry a Kike does not make JTD any more of anti-Semitic."

I agree, I belive hate for Bauer is driving his insanity and not the fact he is Jewish but surely that can be no excuse. So what are you going to do about it? Can JTD call Mbeki a "nigger" and make sense? Will it make sense to you? Where do you draw the line?
You can make apologies for JTD but I doubt many people will appreciate his ethno-logic (intentional or not) and I doubt they will appreciate you thinking it is ok for him to rumage around the dark corners of his gutter-brain.

Many people love to point out Bauer's homophobia but convieniently forget that Bauer was at least man enough to make a public mea culpa and recant his views on homosexuality. You can view it here below.

henryhbauer.homestead.com/Iwaswrong.html

Now if we could just get JTD into making a similar public apology for his ethno-slap-arounds then I will call it progress. He will listen to you, btw.

Pat, chill out! Take a green tea and listen to ocean sounds or something. Try yoga. I do not even know JTD. You have latched onto this like a Rasnick on Duesberg. Try to find someone to talk you down to reality Pat. Turn off your computer. Take a walk. Do something.
And Bauer only recovered from his homophobia when it was discovered in his crazy memoir (required reading for every Abnormal Psychology course). How can he be a caring truth seeker of AIDS causes and hate homosexuals? He had to deny his homophobia to fit in with the AIDS denialists. Double Denial points for Henry Bauer.
By the way, you brought up the Bauer homophobia thing. I actually prefer to discuss Henryâs honest belief that Loch Ness Monsters exist. He really does. He told me so.
Seth Kalichman
http://denyingaids.blogspot.com

"No, it is part of their job as you say and it also explains why they went to get charlie tested and why ultimately no action was taken against them. It was ethically unjustifiable."

So let me get this straight...you believe it would be unethical for social services to ensure that a child is not at risk of dying from lack of proper medical treatment after it happened once before to his younger sibling? It sounds to me to be exactly what social services was created to do. If they dropped the charges when they found that no such risk existed (i.e. his parents weren't a threat to him because he didn't have HIV) then where is the lack of ethics? They dropped their investigation when it was clear that his parent's ridiculous misinformation on HIV was not going to endanger him.

Many of the parents in Jonestown believed it was best for their children to drink the cool-aid (yes technically it was actually Flavor-Aid) but that didn't make it so. In both cases the parent's sentenced their children to death based on their flawed beliefs. Fast or slow, it ended the same. Maggiore may have had good intentions but that doesn't alter reality. She was a threat to EJ and was ultimately (even if not intentionally) caused her death. She had also deluded herself enough as to be impervious to reason so that had Charlie been HIV+, she would have let him die, too. Sometimes children need to be protected from their own parents, no matter how well-intended they are. this was one of those cases.

Poodle Stomper, what is the point? You cannot possibly think that a denialist like Pat will suddenly say "oh, I get it. Now I see. LA county showed that Maggioreâs denialism endangered and harmed EJ , so of course LA Child Protective Services acted to protect her brother.â If Pat could see the light Pat would not be a denialist. So now we wait to see Patâs response which would be entertaining if we knew that Pat did not have a child that was in the same danger that EJ was placed in.
To better understand Maggiore, Pat should take a break from the many blogs Pat (he or she?) posts at and watch the Law and Order SVU episode âRetroâ
Seth Kalichman http://denyingaids.blogspot.com

I am the "DeSchong" supposed Anti-Semite being discussed above by the Pat person, who by the way, has never attempted to discuss this with me on my blog, that I recall. Besides the fact that he/she is taking pot shots at me at another blog, but also taking my comments out of context, typical denialists tactic. My blog, as I have stated on my blog, is 100% IRREVERENT! Why? Because I have ZERO respect for these denialists and their lying and killing. What I had said there is that I had called them Liars, Killers, Murderers and HYPOCRITES (which is the worst kind of human being, in my opinion) but no one cared about those names, but they were upset with stupid words like kike, spic, FAG (which I proudly am, a FAG that is) and how impotent these words are. Does anyone remeber a genius named Lenny Bruce??
Try to keep to the topic and try to respect each blog for what it is. Tara's blog is not for this type of mud wrestling. Mine is. So bring it there where so I can wipe the floor with you. Where? Glad you asked,
www.dissidents4dumbees.blogspot.com
J. Todd DeShong

Using racial slurs to characterise someone is not irreverent, it is offensive. You shouldn't be surprised if Pat believes your an anti-semite.

I will have to agree with Sascha. Is he an idiot? Yes. Is he a hyporcite? Yep. But these are all things he has chosen to be by virtue of his actions. Being Jewish is in no way related to these lesser aspects of his being. I'd say keep the racial comments out as there are so many relevant things about Bauer that are repulsive. Yes he is a woo-peddling, biologically-illiterate hyporcite but that has nothing to do with being Jewish.

As for Pat you still haven't answered my last question.

Thank You God Of Abraham! It has been over 24 hours since Pat last blogged. I think he/she/whatever took my advise and broke away from the computer. Asked for a day pass from the ward and went on a walk or something. I hope we get back a more stable, clearer thinking Pat.
Seth Kalichman
http://denyingaids.blogspot.com

I've lived in the Castro district for years, and dissident theories have been getting pretty popular around here. I read a few of the books a couple years ago and became a skeptic and have convinced most of the people I care about about the HIV scam.

I've realized that debating the orthodoxy is waste of time, all they do is sling insults and act like psychopaths. I used to debate them once in a while, but realized it's a waste of time. Now I just laugh and feel sorry for these people, they are not worth the time.

Many holocaust deniers and young-earthers say the same about their respective "orthodoxes". The funny thing is that like them, HIV denialism is based on lack of understanding of the subject and the feeling that they "won" the debates/discussion soley because they just don't realize how poorly their regurgitation of the denialist mantras truly stand up to scientific evidence. In truth, we are all well aware that very little can convince them that they are wrong until its too late but we can always hope.

Here is the bottom line, Daniel. There is no debate about HIV causing AIDS. There is science and scientists refusing to debate pseudoscientists. Daniel, your comment is about the saddest I have seen because I believe you when you say you are convincing your friends to not get tested, ignore their test results, and avoid treatments. That is the message of Duesberg/Rasnick/the late Maggiore and the rest of the denialists. We have 56,000 new HIV infections in the US each year, at least. And Gay men continue to suffer more than any other US group from HIV/AIDS. Spreading AIDS denialism is the last thing we need. If you choose to turn away from AIDS science/medicine and see what you want to see â that HIV is a harmless hoax - then please, please keep it to yourself.
Seth Kalichman
http://denyingaids.blogspot.com

Again, fellow posters,
If you have an issue with my style of blogging, take it up with me at my blogspot, www.dissidents4dumbees or else stick a kike/faggot/spic/dot-head/nigger/chicken-head/rubber-hose up your nose!!
Get a sense of humor and try to see the Ann Coulter/Rush Limbaugh in how YOU view the rest of us!!!!!
Love and Kisses,
J. Todd DeShong

poodle stomper,
The social services did what is right, for sure but the difference between them and some on this blog is that they found nothing illegal or ethically objectionable in Maggiore's behavior. Cooler heads prevailed there where utter hysteria is endemic here. But I thank you for at least finding the nerve to agree with Sascha; is it because seth labeled me a "denialist" that no one can think straight?

"Poodle Stomper, what is the point? You cannot possibly think that a denialist like Pat will suddenly say "oh, I get it. Now I see. LA county showed that Maggioreâs denialism endangered and harmed EJ , so of course LA Child Protective Services acted to protect her brother.â-Seth

This is what you don't get:"LA county failed to show that Maggiore endangered and harmed EJ , so of course LA Child Protective Services felt no need to act to protect her brother."

What you wrote above is wishful thinking and what I wrote is recorded history

"Thank You God Of Abraham! It has been over 24 hours since Pat last blogged. I think he/she/whatever took my advise and broke away from the computer."- Seth

sorry to disappoint but unlike you I have a life aside the blogsphere. You should try it some day.

Seth, I find it worrying that you would have some advice for me for my mental health but find absolutely nothing to say about your obviously unhinged friend JTD who's hate for the world and himself is overwhealming. Surely you, as a trained psychologist cannot find that behavior "normal". Maybe you are a fake? God forbid...a Quack?

ps:

I will be AFK again for some days due to having a life.

thanks admin super infos

Youâre missing the point, pat.

You claim that "LA county failed to show that Maggiore endangered and harmed EJ, so of course LA Child Protective Services felt no need to act to protect her brother." Not quite true.

LA county concluded that EJ died from AIDS. Her HIV infection was almost certainly transmitted perinatally or through breast feeding; Maggiore refused advice and treatment to ameliorate this risk, and then failed to seek appropriate medical care to establish whether EJ had HIV, and if so to treat it. Within a child protection framework, that constitutes neglect.

Aside from her HIV/AIDS denialism, however, there is nothing to suggest that Maggiore and Scovill were deficient in their parental care, and there was nothing to suggest Charlie was at any risk of ongoing harm unless he had HIV â in which case there would have been serious concerns given his parentsâ neglect of that condition in his sister.

The issue then became whether Charlie had HIV or not. As it turned out, he was one of the 75% or so of children born to untreated HIV+ mothers who donât get infected. (His sister was not so lucky). But from Child Protectionâs point of view, Charlie was not at risk from Maggioreâs nutty ideas about HIV because he didnât have it. Once that was established, there were no grounds for any child protection intervention. But they had to establish that first.

As for Henry Bauer, I think you are probably right that he feeds off the opprobrium he attracts for his loopy propaganda about HIV and AIDS: it makes him feel special. The problem is that he is smart enough to frame his theories in such a way that they seem plausible to the audience he is overtly targeting â people who donât have sufficient scientific background to approach his assertions with a critical eye. There are also a lot of people who have been traumatised by HIV/AIDS who would love to believe him. Because of that, he can do a lot of damage, particularly when he targets people with HIV/AIDS, or people at high risk of infection. What bugs me is that in the course of trying to make himself feel special he spreads misinformation that endangers peopleâs lives and health. That is profoundly unethical, in my view,

I agree that attacking him for his ethnic or religious identity or his since-repudiated homophobia are unlikely to help people to view his ideas critically. Which is why Iâve set up a blog, âReckless Endangermentâ explaining exactly where his thinking has gone off the rails. At their core, Henryâs ideas are based on a failure to understand some basic principles of epidemiology, and a profound ignorance about the science of HIV in general, solidified by his own arrogance and lack of insight into the deficiencies in his knowledge. When heâs challenged on these he does the usual denialist rhetorical dance of goalpost shifting, gish galloping and claiming persecution: I think itâs unlikely he will ever change, but itâs still important that his public nonsense doesnât go publicly unchallenged.

http://snoutworld.blogspot.com/

Damn, I hadn't seen that Pat had posted anything here but yes, as Snout pointed out the Maggiore-Scoville couple, while completely scientifically illiterate, weren't bad parents to their children outside of their lack of anything even remotely resembling education about HIV. Indeed, since Charlie was HIV-, they posed no threat to him. Had he been HIV+, I would hope to the high heavens that he would be taken to a family that would be more responsible. Scoville and Maggiore (well only Scoville now) shouldn't be allowed to parent HIV+ children anymore than peoples who believe that tea is a great alternative treatment to chemo should be allowed to parent children with cancer.

ok... you all talk about "pseudoscience" as you would know you are certain of what you are talking about... well, i ask for only one, and only one, photo! I want you to find, by any means possible, a photo of the virus alone. That´s required by science to certify that a virus exists (and other 3 photos)... i only request one!

Is there a question about the virus looks like? I thought that was well sorted out. What is the controversy?

"LA county concluded that EJ died from AIDS. Her HIV infection was almost certainly transmitted perinatally or through breast feeding; Maggiore refused advice and treatment to ameliorate this risk, and then failed to seek appropriate medical care to establish whether EJ had HIV, and if so to treat it. Within a child protection framework, that constitutes neglect." -snout

If that is so then why did they shelve the investigation? By all accounts they couldn't find evidence of neglect.

"Had he been HIV+, I would hope to the high heavens that he would be taken to a family that would be more responsible."

some foster care statistics for you before you start praying to the high heavens:

-Children are 11 times more likely to be abused in State care than they are in their own homes.

(National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect (NCCAN)

-Children died as a result of abuse in foster care 5.25 times more often than children in the general population. 2.1 percent of all child fatalities took place in foster care.

(CPS Watch Inc.)

anyway, I'm glad we managed to answer Seth's question as to why they bothered getting tested in the first place.

damn, I got close to a pooter while away...

Hey Manuel, I'm not sure who's been telling you how viruses are identified, but here's a nice EM of HIV.

http://www.aids-info.ch/bilder/schule_aids/jpg_bilder/koch6_1.jpg

"some foster care statistics for you before you start praying to the high heavens..."

I said "hope" not "pray" but even the 5.25 times abuse is better odds than those Charlie would have faced living with Maggiore and Scoville had he been HIV+. They were too impressed by their own sense of superiority to admit they could be wrong and that placed his sister in danger with expected and tragic result. Had Charlie been HIV+ he would have had the same fate, seeing that the death of one child couldn't convince them.

"Hey Manuel, I'm not sure who's been telling you how viruses are identified, but here's a nice EM of HIV."

Snout, we've posted pics of HIV from cultured cells as well as direct from the donor with no culturing but the goalposts just keep moving. Don't expect any amount of EMs to ever be good enough for them. Any excuse will do for them to continue their self-deceiving.

Here (http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2008/12/christine_maggiore_dies_from_…) you can find this situation. The conversation basically goes as such

Cooler: No pictures exist of from a human HIV.

Us: here is a paper with EMs of HIV.

Cooler: LOL, all of these pictures are from heavily stimulated labratory cultures, not isolated from a patient's high viral load. Nice try!

Us: here is a picture of HIV taken from the patient and not cultured.

Cooler: It basically says that HIV from patients was barely found, it was found at a rate less than 1/10 than the artificially infected semen...I asked for EM pics of teeming virus...

So are we to assume now that cooler admits the existence of EMs of HIV and thus it's existence (albeit not in the quantities he wants) from this paper or do the goalposts get shifted to another planet altogether? This is the equivalent of saying that a zoo enclosure with two zebras doesn't prove they exist because we demand a whole herd as proof. Silly.

Nobody is moving the goalpoats. Common sense, and Koch's first postulate says the microbe must be found in abundance in the affected tissue/fluid. You guys show me an EM of one sperm cells out of thousands of unifected cells and thats supposed to explain how HIV brings down the entire immune system?

Show me these million per ml viral loads in a pateints blood. Waiting.

"Nobody is moving the goalpoats. Common sense, and Koch's first postulate says the microbe must be found in abundance in the affected tissue/fluid. You guys show me an EM of one sperm cells out of thousands of unifected cells and thats supposed to explain how HIV brings down the entire immune system?
Show me these million per ml viral loads in a pateints blood. Waiting."

What you may think qualifies as "common sense" is nothing of the sort. As so many others have stated before me, You do realize that Koch's postulates were written BEFORE the discovery of viruses...right? Modifications were made since as new types of organisms were found. Believe it or not there are some (and note I do not say ALL) bacteria would not fulfill Koch's postulates because as obligate intracellular parasites they require host cells to grow while Koch's original postulates stated that the microbe in question must be grown in CELL FREE medium. You need to realize that modifications have to be made as new discoveries are made. That said I am glad to see that when you say:

"You guys show me an EM of one sperm cells out of thousands of unifected cells and thats supposed to explain how HIV brings down the entire immune system?"

you have at least admitted (albeit not intentionally) to proof that HIV exists, although not in the quantities you desire.

Did Coolaid just sneek the goalposts further again?

How about this. Just cite and breifly summarize the scientific papers you read that convinced you that HIV kills nearly every person infected. Waiting.

Spamming a website isn't evidence. If you went to trial as a prosecutor or defense attorney, or were a presidential candidate in a debate, and said we don't need to have a trial or debate, all I need to do is spam a website to win the case/debate you'd get laughed out of the room!

Senator John Kerry, please tell us why you should be president.

"Well I don't need to explain myself I've already won the debate, you can find out why at this URL, there is no need to have a debate"

Mr. Defence Attorney, please explain why your client is not guilty.

"This trial should end now because I've Spammed a website that says my client is not guilty"

What a barrell of laughs AIDS "science" is!

"Spamming a website isn't evidence"
Hilarious! You used this before not too long after you spammed the ARAS site's giant list of misrepresented papers that refuted what you were trying to prove. Answer this truthfully, Cooler. Do you ever truly even read and understand the papers and references that people cite to you when you ask questions such as these?

Also, please don't change the subject.

As I asked before, do you understand the relevance of Koch's postulates? Do you understand why they needed to be adapted for, say, organisms that DIDN'T EXIST BACK THEN? Do you even know the history or number of changes that Koch's postulates went through? Do you realize that Koch himself changed them several times? Does any of this make any sort of sense to you or will you continue to blindly regurgitate denialist statements without ever truly looking into them? So far that's all you've shown you can do. So here I am giving you a challenge: Look into the history of Koch's postulates. Look at what they were intended to discern and try to figure out if such rules could, in fact apply to all organisms. If impossibilities following these rules strictly occurred (viruses, obligate intracellular parasites, ect...) would it be justifiable to alter them as new organisms are made? Try doing some research on your own without the denialist mindset. Hopefully you will come to understand why PCR detection of nucleic acids is the same as a EM photograph as far as identification of the organism per Koch's postulates. (If you can't admit this then it may surprise you to learn that your buddy Wakefield used PCR as his method of identifying measels DNA when he claimed that MMR caused autism. Surely you can't accept PCR as proof in one case but not another...right?

Yes, Koch's postulates might be out of date. But it doesn't change the fact the correlations don't prove causality. And the only evidence in support of HIV is correlation, not even a 100% correlation prove causality, and the HIV hypothesis is far less than that since most everyone with hiv is healthy, which is why the window period was extended from 10 months to 10 years.

You would expect in a viral or bacterial disease for the microbe to be found in abundance in the affected area, like TB and smallpox , the hallmark of a passenger virus is one that infects only a very small % of cells, like HIV does.

âYes, Koch's postulates might be out of date. But it doesn't change the fact the correlations don't prove causality. And the only evidence in support of HIV is correlation, not even a 100% correlation prove causality, and the HIV hypothesis is far less than that since most everyone with hiv is healthy, which is why the window period was extended from 10 months to 10 years.
You would expect in a viral or bacterial disease for the microbe to be found in abundance in the affected area, like TB and smallpox , the hallmark of a passenger virus is one that infects only a very small % of cells, like HIV does.â
Cooler,
You see, the problem is that people have gone through this with you before. It ahs been explained to you before butt every time it is you seem to simply pretend it never happened and repeat the same old fallacy over and over again.
However, since you have accepted that Kochâs postulates need to be modified in cases of new organisms (in this its case viruses) let me build off of that. Please look up Quantitative RT-PCR. The basic concept is that you have RNA standards of known concentration or numbers of starting RNA molecules. You run your sample (in this case plasma or serum from an HIV infected person) and your standards simultaneously. The signal obtained from the different concentrations of RNA standards will form your standard curve which is used to determine the initial copy numbers of your unknown (sample). These systems are validated (which means that they have gone through extensive testing where multiple people from multiple labs run blind samples and the results are compared to the actual initial starting which is unblinded at the end of the validation period). Since PCR, RT-PCR quantitative PCR and, in the case of RT-PCR, is an accepted method of detecting the presence and amount of pathogen in accordance with the modified Kochâs postulate, this should be just as suitable of proof as your request for an EM of a sample âteeming with virusâ. Also, please do some self-research rather than bothering to quote denialist misunderstandings on RT-PCR. People will respect you a lot more on this board if you show you can think for yourself. If you can do this you will have your answer about the quantities of viruses in patients. When youâve accomplished this, since youâve admitted to the existence of HIV, we can move on to causality. Until you can understand even the most basic things though, weâll leave at that.

"You would expect in a viral or bacterial disease for the microbe to be found in abundance in the affected area, like TB and smallpox , the hallmark of a passenger virus is one that infects only a very small % of cells, like HIV does."

Cooler,
I'm also curious if you can cite a credible source for this. In naturally infected African Green Monkeys (to whom their version of SIV actually is harmless), the viral load ranges widely and can reach up to 800 thousand copies per milliliter. To them, the AGM version of SIV is in fact a harmless passenger virus (although it is still lethal to other monkeys) and yet the viral loads are not always low.

refer to the following paper if you so desire.

Another paper here.

Damn, link died. here. This one also shows that in primates adapted to their virus that the viral load can be very high and still not affect them. In these cases their SIV is a harmless passenger virus but, again, high VL.

You are just parroting the Ho/shaw Line, if you bothered to read any of Duesbergs papers/Piatak and of many other scientists you will see they debunked the viral load hypothesis. Basically a 60,000 viral load corresponded to 1 peice of viable hiv.

I suggest you read the papers by Piatak, and also use your brain a little more, if these viral loads were true, every t cell would be infected and soon dead, and there wouldn't be any explanation for the 10 year lag, an HIV patient would be dead within weeks.

Also, read the Rodriguez papers where viral loads barely predicted T cell decline. Try using your brain a little more, are you open to being taught, or are you going to be like those trailer park dwellers that defend Bush no matter what? A scientist could easily get elected into the NAS if they published EM's of these monster viral loads, one has to wonder why its never been done. The EM can't lie, its not a massive xerox machine that produces millions of copies and relies on bogus methodology, you can see it with your own eyes, thats the tool to use to truly prove a microbe is in abundance.

Also, someting you should learn is the viral loads measure "virus" in the cell free plasma, when HIV is detected in t cells its barely found in them as I tried to explain to you.

One has to wonder why HIV found in cell free plasma where no T cells are present matters much, even if the viral loads are true. Anyways I'm tired of trying to inform scientifically illiterate people common sense. I'm starting my own blog, you'll have to reach me there from now on. I've come to the conclusion that you guys are all psychopaths that have no personality whatsoever, which is why you mindlessly beleive whatever your told. I'm out.

Cooler,

Sad...you still turn to Duesberg as an authority despite his BS hypothesis being debunked time and again. I find it hilarious that you would accuse other people of being scientifically illiterate when you have made it clear time and again that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. You parrot the Koch's postulate denialism BS over and over only to be forced to admit later that you were, in fact, wrong and that they did need to be modified. You claim that the "hallmark of a harmless passenger virus" is that it is present in low amounts when 3 seconds of research brings up many papers (two of which were mentioned above) that shows you are quite incorrect. You do nothing but regurgitate denialist BS after denialist BS and when you realize you've lost you run away as usual. You truly are a lost cause. You are blind to everything except that which you believe supports your beliefs (at least until it is shown that you have misinterpreted them and they don't support your beliefs at all *hint, the list from the ARAS site*). You are blind, for example to the fact that the "massive xerox machine that produces millions of copies" also produces millions of copies of the standards of known concentrations used to produce the standard curve to determine the unknowns or that the "bogus methodology" is in fact thoroughly researched, documented, and validated methods. Have you ever done any of these? Have you ever performed assay validation? Have you ever even touched an RT-PCR machine or do you simply take your denialist gospels as fact. On second thought, don't answer that. I think we all know the answer. So put on your tin foil hat in case I try to read your mind with government radio waves or something and enjoy your little fantasy world.

"I'm starting my own blog, you'll have to reach me there from now on. I've come to the conclusion that you guys are all psychopaths that have no personality whatsoever, which is why you mindlessly beleive whatever your told. I'm out."

Somehow I get the feeling this will be a heavily moderated blog to keep out those pesky scientific papers and people who truly know what they are talking about. Nope, don't think I'll be wasting brain cells there any time soon.

Cooler, why is that you appear and Pat disappears? Its like watching an old Jerry Lewis movie where he plays multiple characters, you never see them together. Hey maybe you are also playing David Crowe! Could be the resolution of the Missing Denialist Mystery!
Glad you are starting your own blog. Looking forward to lots of laughs!
Seth Kalichman
http://denyingaids.blogspot.com

That's probably why Moloch's priests demanded the sacrifice of the first-born child (or son). Once you've given him that, you're never going to repudiate Ol' Moloch: it would be too painful.

AIDStruth.org has posted Christine Maggiore's death certificate on our website, along with the analysis below. The death certificate is a chilling document: disseminated herpes is a horrible and unusual way to die, and in her last days Maggiore herself must have understood that she really did have AIDS, and that she could have saved her daughter's life. I cannot imagine a worse death.

Christine Maggiore died of AIDS
Posted 9 March, 2009 - 12:11
News
[Update: death certificate now attached.] Christine Maggiore's death certificate states that the immediate cause or condition resulting in her death was disseminated herpes viral infection. Bilateral bronchial pneumonia is given as the underlying cause, and oral candidiasis is given as a significant condition contributing to death. Based on her statements and her career, Maggiore was HIV-positive (see her book, and note that Alive and Well, the group she started, is described on its website as having been "founded in 1995 by a group of HIV positive diagnosed men and women"). In HIV-infected people, all of the above conditions are AIDS-defining opportunistic infections, and in combination they are hauntingly typical of AIDS in the years before ARVs. Many people who have died of AIDS shared the same constellation of opportunistic infections that killed Ms Maggiore. HIV-negative individuals almost never have all of these opportunistic infections simultaneously.

Maggiore's physician in the weeks prior to her death was Ilona Abraham, MD, of Encino, California. She signed the death certificate and states that Maggiore was in her care from December 16, 2008, to December 23, 2008, when she last saw her alive. Abraham graduated from Semmelweis Medical School in Budapest, Hungary, in 1967. She has an extensive history of malpractice cases and disciplinary actions, and no expertise in HIV. Abraham practices bogus "anti-aging" medicine, and treats her patients with untested and unproven treatments such as chelation and homeopathy. Abraham supported Maggiore's denialism and clearly misdiagnosed and mistreated her.

Maggiore's daughter, Eliza Jane Scovill, also died of AIDS when she was 3. This cause of death, following an autopsy, was recorded on the child's death certificate. Eliza Jane had no known risk of HIV exposure other than perinatal transmission from her mother. Maggiore's husband, Robin Scovill, reached an out-of-court settlement last week in a case he and Maggiore had brought against the Coronor's office. Maggiore stated on various denialist web sites that her lawsuit was a challenge to the finding that Eliza Jane died from HIV/AIDS. In fact, the revised lawsuit was not about the cause of her daughter's death, but about whether the LA Coroner's office and its staff violated the family's right to privacy after the child died. We note that the Maggiore family chose to make public many details of the lives and health of the whole family - mother, daughter, son and husband - so there is an irony in any lawsuit that alleges a privacy violation. The lawsuit was settled for $15,000, with no admission of wrongdoing, presumably to save the cost of a trial. Hence the LA Coroner's verdict that Eliza Jane Scovill died of HIV/AIDS remains the official verdict on, and the truth about, the death of Eliza Jane Scovill.

Unfortunately, no autopsy was performed on Maggiore's body, and she was cremated. Presumably, her family made these decisions. AIDS denialists often claim that they are victims of conspiracies and cover-ups. But they have been anything but transparent in the way they have handled the horrible and unnecessary death from HIV/AIDS of Christine Maggiore.

Christine Maggiore's name has been added to AIDStruth.org's list of Denialists who have Died of AIDS.

Let the denialism damage control teams begin anew. I predict either 1) "So what, everyone dies of disseminated herpes" or 2) Nuh uh! The coroner was corrupt and paid off by John Moore through a fund started by the Aetiology CIA pharma-spooks.

I think it may be worth re-posting this. I posted this on another blog from someone who reviewed Seth's book. While current denialists will likely never change their minds perhaps this will offer perspective to those who are seeking the truth.

The question HIV+ denialists (and those who are considering accepting the denialist gospel) should ask themselves is this:

"Why follow the teachings of someone who claimed to have all the answers and yet, following her own advice, still died the same way so many other AIDS victims did?

If she truly knew all the answers wouldn't she still be alive? Why, instead, did she die of symptoms characteristic of severe immune depression? In the end, Maggiore joins so many other HIV+ denialists as tragic victims of the denialist propaganda machine."

If you check the news, the LA coroner has settled with Christine's husband over releasing the fact that Eliza Jane died from an AIDS related disease. If the child was HIV+, which no HIV test was ever performed on her, then why would they settle with her family and no charges were brought up against the family. The coroner's office has egg on their face and maybe will think twice before labeling a death due to AIDS without sufficient evidence!

Noreen, the City of LA settled for a paltrey $15,000, and only because the Coroner violated the family's privacy by going public with the finding that Eliza Jane died from HIV/AIDS, and because settling is much less expensive in Counsel's time and City money than going to trial. The papers filed by Maggiore and Scovill did NOT seek a determination that there was another cause of death (although the parents did not in those papers concede the fact that Eliza Jane died from AIDS-related PCP), nor was any such determination made. While apparently no HIV antibody test was performed on the child's fluids, the tests for the presence of HIV in her system were conclusive, and, as you know, they are even more reliable than the very accurate antibody tests. Stating that no HIV antibody tests were performed and that therefore there is no evidence of HIV is a red herring fallacy intended to divert the focus from the hard facts, and I think you know that.
Jeanne

Only in denialism can one take a lawsuit filed for releasing an autopsy report to mean that the AIDS diagnosis and thus the entire autopsy was incorrect. As mentioned above the lawsuit had nothing to do with the cause of death and everything to do with the release of the report to the public. At least try to stick to the facts.

Bergie,

Besides being exceedingly homely and physically unattractive (as in repulsive to behold), you are one cold blooded and nasty lesbanian jackass ghoul to yet continue dancing on Christine Maggiore's grave and to continue portraying Christine as the murderer of her child.

The suit was settled only because Christine's husband

A: does not have the funds to take on the city, and

B: Is in grief over the loss of his beloved wife who passed away less than 3 months ago and wanted to put it behind him and move on with his life.

And either way, this does not change the fact that YOU and your cohorts, not hiv, was the cause of Christine's death. Christine Maggiore is dead because of the unrelenting public attacks against her that were instigated by and fueled by you and your hiv obsessed cohorts.

You and your cohorts publicly tried her and found her guilty via attacks in the public media, internet, and even on tv shows such as CSI portraying her as the cause of her childs death.

You and your cohorts are the very individuals who publicly labeled her as the guilty murderer of her own child undoubtedly fueled the hundreds of harassing and threatening emails and phone calls to her.

Yeh, Bergie the Ghoul. Christine Maggiore is dead. And regardless of pneumonia and disseminated herpes, she was stressed beyond human endurance to emotionally and physically breaking point and sickness and death by the unrelenting attacks on her by you and your fellow grave dancing ghouls.

Just for clarification:

A ghoul is a mythological monster from ancient Arabian folklore that dwells in burial grounds and other uninhabited places. The English word comes from the Arabic name for the creature: اÙغÙÙ ghÅ«l, which literally means "demon". The ghul is a devilish type of jinn believed to be sired by Iblis.

The female form is given as "ghouleh" in one collection of Palestinian folk tales. The plural is "ghilan".

Other myths describe the ghoul as a corpse brought back to life by a witch or some demon to do tasks. A ghoul is said to be very strong and fast. Ghouls tend to drink the blood and eat the flesh of young children. Many ghouls are mindless and can only kill or do labor for their masters. It is said that the only way to kill a ghoul is by burning them until they are naught but ash, also some think they have a fear of a cross. Ghouls have to obey the orders of the person that brought them back to life.

The ghoul is a desert-dwelling, shapeshifting demon that can assume the guise of an animal, especially a hyena. It lures unwary travellers into the desert wastes to slay and devour them. The creature also preys on young children, robs graves, and eats the dead.

Because of the latter habit, the word ghoul is sometimes used to refer to an ordinary human such as a grave robber, or to anyone who delights in the macabre.

"And either way, this does not change the fact that YOU and your cohorts, not hiv, was the cause of Christine's death. Christine Maggiore is dead because of the unrelenting public attacks against her that were instigated by and fueled by you and your hiv obsessed cohorts...she was stressed beyond human endurance to emotionally and physically breaking point and sickness and death by the unrelenting attacks on her by you and your fellow grave dancing ghouls."

Just for laughs, do you have any evidence for this? I ask this because I have yet to see a single case ever of someone being mocked/attacked/televised into a state of disseminated herpes. This type of spread of the virus happens only in extremely immune suppressed individuals such as those on immune suppressants for tissue transplants and advanced AIDS. Stress alone is not enough to cause this. Maggiore also had none of the typical denialist "causes" of AIDS. She wasn't:

1) Poor (at all)
2) Malnourished (ate healthy organic food)
3) Wasn't African
4) Wasn't on anti-HIV medication
5) (I'm not even going to speculate either way on the Perth group's "anal exposure to semen" ideas)

Many women have experienced worse media exposure for child killing than her but never developed AIDS.

But just for grins, do you have any precedent to this "stressed to disseminated herpes" story or is this just mindless grasping at straws? Please cite ONE medical case of anyone stressed to death from disseminated herpes.

So again I ask Why follow the teachings of someone who claimed to have all the answers and yet, following her own advice, ended up with the same immune suppression that so many other AIDS victims have?

Hey poodle shit moron, I mistakenly thought you were a scientist, and not simply an attention starved needy juvenile.

You are assuredly a lazy cork licker! I must be mistaken to think that you are bright enough to research any of the hundreds of studies and thousands of papers on emotional stress affecting and triggering both pneumonia and herpes outbreaks for yourself.

If you are capable of reading, let alone understanding: Chronic stress herpes, in PubMed will retrieve 62 records. Chronic stress pneumonia, in pubmed will retrieve 101 records.

If you are not bright enough to find any of the well researched studies, then just google the 2,740,000 pages that come up when searching for "STRESS" and "HERPES".

Or the 1,730,000 google pages that come up when searching for "STRESS" and "PNEUMONIA".

So Pood, just for grins, come up with another poorly thought out and ridiculous comment, so we can all once again re-affirm what a jack-wipe you really are.

Poodle is a Punk,

Oh but Punk, you should know that herpes and disseminated herpes are two entirely different things. A cold sore can be triggered by stress, yes, but disseminated herpes is when the immune system is so severely depressed that the infection spreads to other areas of the body such as the organs. Disseminated herpes occurs in severe immune depression such as AIDS, not from stress...unless of course you can cite a medical case of such an occurrence from your "2,740,000" pages? Surely your Google University degree can provide this much? As for me, yep I'm a scientist, which is why I can tell the difference quantitatively and qualitatively between a normal herpes outbreak and disseminated herpes. But hey, you don't have to believe me, ask a doctor (although I'm sure you will counter that you don't have to because you are soooooo much smarter than all those docs).

Alternatively here is an article in medscape on herpes. Allow me to quote them:

"Herpes simplex infections are asymptomatic in as many as 80% of patients, but symptomatic infections may be characterized by significant morbidity and recurrence. Moreover, infections can cause life-threatening complications, particularly in immunocompromised hosts....Dissemination of infection occurs in people with impaired T-cell immunity such as organ transplant recipients and individuals with HIV-related disease."

Then again, hey what do i know? I'm just someone that doesn't qualify for your pseudoscience definition of a scientist and for that I thank you.
But please feel free to spout more unsupported and incorrect medical BS, it gives readers everywhere a pretty accurate idea what denialism is all about.

-Poodle Stomper.

Oh, and just because it hasn't been answered yet, let me ask again:
Why follow the teachings of someone who claimed to have all the answers and yet, following her own advice, ended up with the same immune suppression that so many other AIDS victims have,?

I'm a month late in joining this part of the conversation but since it references a comment a made a month before that, I think I can be forgiven:

Cooler: No pictures exist of from a human HIV.

Us: here is a paper with EMs of HIV.

Cooler: LOL, all of these pictures are from heavily stimulated labratory cultures, not isolated from a patient's high viral load. Nice try!

Us: here is a picture of HIV taken from the patient and not cultured.

Cooler: It basically says that HIV from patients was barely found, it was found at a rate less than 1/10 than the artificially infected semen...I asked for EM pics of teeming virus...

So are we to assume now that cooler admits the existence of EMs of HIV and thus it's existence (albeit not in the quantities he wants) from this paper or do the goalposts get shifted to another planet altogether? This is the equivalent of saying that a zoo enclosure with two zebras doesn't prove they exist because we demand a whole herd as proof. Silly.

Posted by: Poodle Stomper | February 15, 2009 1:26 PM

Nobody is moving the goalpoats. Common sense, and Koch's first postulate says the microbe must be found in abundance in the affected tissue/fluid. You guys show me an EM of one sperm cells out of thousands of unifected cells and thats supposed to explain how HIV brings down the entire immune system?

Show me these million per ml viral loads in a pateints blood. Waiting.

Posted by: cooler | February 15, 2009 1:39 PM

First, we didn't claim that the picture explained how HIV brings down the immune system. It was you who claimed that without that picture, we didn't have the evidence required to back up our explanation. I merely showed that your claim was false. This left you three options: 1) admit you were wrong and accept the evidence, 2) admit you were wrong but try to show how the evidence doesn't back up the claim, 3) claim that wasn't the evidence you were seeking. You of course opted for option 3, dishonesty.

However, you at least did make more concrete claims about what you are seeking in EMs of HIV direct from patients. Armed with that knowledge, I can indeed show that the EMs I provided support the HIV->AIDS claim. It all comes down to numbers.

First, we need to get a handle on what the various counts actually mean. Counts are measured in cells or viruses per mL. An HIV viral load is considered high starting around 5,000-10,000 (depending on the test used) and treatment is recommended starting at 30,000-50,000 (again depending on the test), and tops out at a bit over 1 million. A normal CD4 count ranges from 700-1,000. A normal sperm count is anything over 20 million.

In other words, an HIV+ man qualifying for treatment with normal sperm motility, such as those in the study I linked, should have anywhere between 20 to a thousand uninfected sperm cells for every virus (assuming that the viral sperm load is comparable to the viral blood load). This is entirely in keeping with the study results.

Now compare the CD4 count to the viral load. If an HIV+ person with a high viral load (sufficient to recommend treatment) had a normal CD4 count, there would be 30 to a thousand viruses for every CD4 cell. Based upon the HIV->AIDS claim about what HIV does to CD4 cells, that would go a long way towards explaining how the immune system is brought down.

Another consideration. cooler wants EMs "teeming wit HIV" yet objects to artificial means of boosting the numbers for detection. Does this include concentrating the sample? Remember, the counts are given per mL, which is equivalent to a cubic centimeter. But HIV is so small it requires an EM to be seen. An EM takes a very thin slice of the sample, usually 60-90 nanometers thick. That means that there are over 100,000 slices in a cube-shaped 1 mL sample. Our HIV+ man will have less than 10 virus centers per slice, possibly less than one per slice. And HIV is 100-150 nanometers in diameter, so any given virus will only show up in 2-3 slices. So we can only expect 1-20 viruses per slice. To put that in perspective, that's like looking for 1-20 marbles in a field a mile square! Not exactly teeming. Unless you take measures to increase the number of viruses per slice, that is.

Cooler left. He couldn't hack it here. Sorry.

Hey Guys! I decide to check back and walla you guys are still talking about me. Anyways, HIV is barely found in T cells at all. Poor piddly Poodle Stomper is going to have to lie and cheat and be his usual incompetent self. This has been confirmed many times over.

"All that has changed. As Warner C. Greene, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, explained in the September 1993 Scientific American, researchers are increasingly abandoning the direct cell-killing theory because HIV does not infect enough cells: "Even in patients in the late stages of HIV infection with very low blood T4 cell counts, the proportion of those cells that are producing HIV is tiny-about one in 40. In the early stages of chronic infection, fewer than one in 10,000 T4 cells in blood are doing so. If the virus were killing the cells just by directly infecting them, it would almost certainly have to infect a much larger fraction at any one time."

Poor piddly Poodle Stomper the guy who throws Koch's postulates out the window, can't name a single or collection of scientific papers that he's read that proves HIV is fatal Disease and the best the kookball can do is spam a website. Also no one has ever cited the overwhelming evidence that Proves HIV causality that justified AZT's approval for use in 1987. And poodle says I can't hack it?

Here evidence that HIV fails most All of Koch's postulates.

1. There is no Correlation between HIV and illness because most HIV infected people are totally healthy. You can't evade this lack of correlation by extending the window period from 10 months to ten years. The microbe must be found in abundance as well, see above quote, it is barely found in T cells at all.

2. I guess some could argue it has been isolated, so it might pass this postulate barely, but I would like to read the paper on how Gallo or whoever isolated it. Someone please post the abstract on HIV isolation.

3. They had to build a special retirement home for the over 100 chimpanzees infected and never has a wild animal died of SIV. Failed postulate 3 miserably.

You guys never answered the question, if the body is teeming with virus, why is there a 10 year lag? Wouldn't the person be dead within weeks?

Also you guys seem a little desperate using Magiorre's death to prove the HIV hypothesis.

Champion boxer Tommy Morrison had a tcell count of 17 and HIV positive test, he had full blown AIDS like 10 years ago, read Duesberg's book, fired David Ho, still alive.

Greg Louganis, tested positive in 1988, said in 1997 to stay of drugs, still alive 20 years later.

"The real trick is to get off the medication. I felt I was losing quality of life..."

Greg Louganis, HIV positive Olympic Gold Medalist,
The State, April 15, 1997

"Five years ago, when The Magazine profiled him in its inaugural issue, Tommy Morrison was wasting away. His T-cell count had dropped to 3. (Normal is 700-1,000. Under 200 is considered AIDS.) He was doing crank. He refused to take his HIV pills. He was married to two women at once. He refused to use condoms. He carried a gun.

Five years ago, Tommy Morrison was a dead man. A dead man, guaranteed. A bevy of doctors refused to treat him back then, telling him if he didn't take his medication, it was no use, no use at all. Boy, would he like to see them now.

Five years later, he's got some news. Some breathtaking news. And it's not that he's still here, because he still thinks HIV's a crock. And it's not that he's at his former fighting weight of 225 pounds, because that's partly due to the prescription steroids he takes. And it's not that his T-cell count is now 371, because he's not at all proud of that. No, Tommy Morrison has some other news. News he wants to tell you, your neighbor, that "Hitler bitch" and the Centers for Disease Control:

The wife is pregnant."

Espn the magazine 2004, therefore Morrison had 3 t cells with an HIV positive antibody test ie full blown AIDS in 1999, ten years later he's still alive. What a barrel of laughs!

"In a transcript of the ABC "20/20" interview released Wednesday, Louganis said that "according to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) standards of AIDS versus HIV, I do have AIDS," and that he tested positive for the AIDS virus six months before the 1988 Games in Seoul after discovering that a former companion was dying of AIDS."

Olympic Diver Louganis Reveals That He Has AIDS; Sports: The gold medalist says in a TV interview that he has had the virus since before the Seoul Games in 1988.

The Times Mirror Company; Los Angeles Times - February 23, 1995, Thursday, Home Edition PAGE: A-1 TYPE: Profile
John Weyler; Times Staff Writer

Wow, full blown AIDS in 1988, still alive 20 years later.....no drugs (Only AZT was out then anyways)....... you can't even say he's an elite controller because him and Morrison had full blown AIDS.....shunned the drugs and still alive. I thought the Orthodoxy said full blown AIDS was a 100% death sentence? What a barrell of laughs.

Two slight corrections. Louganis tested HIV positive in 1988 and then had full blown AIDS in 1995.

That interview from ESPN was entitled "Rematch" by Tom Friend was in March of 2003 not 2004, therefore Morrison had a T cell count of 3 in 1998. He just fought recently. Amazing for these two to live over a decade with full blown AIDS with no drugs.

Cooler,

"Amazing for these two to live over a decade with full blown AIDS with no drugs."

While I know nothing about Morrison (boxing is not an interest of mine) Louganis is in fact on medication for HIV and said in an interview back in October of 2008:

"I take my HIV meds in the morning and the evening, and thatâs about as much as I think about it. I have my appointments with my doctors and - good news, bad news â I leave it at that. I leave it there; I donât live it. I donât live my HIV status 24/7."

He has also stated he took medication much earlier on as well if you bother to look back a bit. He is by no means living with "no drugs" and is in fact an outspoken activist on HIV.

This begs the question "Why would you, Cooler, lie and pretend he wasn't taking anything when a 3 second search shows he was?" And second to that, "If you a) lie about such things and/or b) make uninformed statements as if they were fact without any sort of research, then can anything you say be taken at face value?"

I think the answer to that is obvious.

Instead of lying and then accusing other of doing so try doign some research for once in your life.

I am including this second link in a seperate post as my last one had too many links and didn't post right away.

Here is an earlier article about Mr. Louganis stating he is on meds from 1999. I'm sure you can do the math even if he truly did "had full blown AIDS in 1995" that is is not 10 years. Again though, anything you say is highly suspect since you can't seem to gt your facts straight.

And as for what Mr. Louganis believes:

"Today, Louganis is actively promoting AIDS awareness in schools. He was a guest speaker with the American Psychiatric Foundation, discussing his depression following the diagnosis. Pharmaceutical company Hoffman-La Roche Inc. partnered with Louganis in the Gaining Optimal Adherence for Lifeâ program, or GOAL, which encourages other AIDS/HIV-positive individuals to take their medication daily. His message: a few missed doses can put a person at risk for developing a mutant strain of the virus, while maintaining consistency allows someone to live a full life."

Anyone want to place money on how quickly Cooler drops Mr. Louganis from his argument?

Greg Louganis, 2008, in his own words:

Unfortunately, now a lot of young people are seeing a lot of the progress in HIV treatment as a silver bullet. And so that is the reason why it is important for me to go out and talk to people and share what itâs like: my drug regimens and the side effects from some of the medications. Itâs important for young people to understand that weâre progressing with treatment with regards to HIV and AIDS, but it shouldnât be thought of as a silver bullet. My message to young people is to love yourselves enough to protect yourselves.

Seems Louganis changed his mind about not taking meds. Assuming that isn't a quote mine - I note that cooler's quote never actually stated that he stopped taking the drugs.

As far as Morrison goes, the story cooler quotes from also mentions that he went on HIV drugs while in prison and stayed on them for at least three years (at the time of the story, he was still taking them). And it now turns out that he tests HIV negative on the DNA and RNA tests. The older test was for HIV antibodies, which means that he may be testing as a false-positive for one of several possible reasons.

You know, cooler, it might behoove you to not claim that people have survived being HIV+ without taking meds when they actually were taking meds. It kinda destroys your credibility. Especially when the story you are quoting from explicitly mentions that the person is taking the meds.

I also saw a NYT article from 1995 in which he stated he immediately started taking AZT. Cooler's sentence-and-a-half quote is the only indication that Louganis even considered going off the meds. I bet if we saw the full quote, it would be something about finding a true cure, rather than a treatment.

W. Kevin Vicklund stated about Morrison that he was taking anti-HIV meds. The story Cooler quotes does in fact say:

"What's different now is that he wears a pager, a pager set to ring every morning and evening at 8:30. And when it buzzes, Tommy walks dutifully toward a blue rectangular case and takes his HIV pills. "Been on 'em for three years now," he says.

It's a combination therapy similar to the one Magic Johnson is on. Morrison takes Trizivir, Viramune and an antibiotic called Bactrim in the morning, and Trizivir and Viramune with a multi-vitamin in the evening. He's still dismissive of HIV, calling it "no more of a nuisance than diabetes," but he never skips a dose."

Tommy Morrison has never taking the drugs. Taken from ESPN article "Then Mistmatch" in 2008.

"Never felt better," brags Tommy Morrison. "And I've never had one pill."

It's either suicide, denial, or he's on to something.

Tommy Morrison, the former World Boxing Organization heavyweight champion and the poster boy for alternative HIV medicationâas in, no medicationâtook his last blood test nine months ago and, according to his father and uncle, had a T-cell count of 18. Most physicians seeing a count that low make a clinical diagnosis of AIDS. Morrison says his doctorâJames Hutton of Tulsaâtold the boxer last June that unless he took the medication, he would only have a year to live.

"Just laughed at him," Morrison says.

The way the boxer sees it, he has a virus, he has his faith, and he has two years before the world ends anyway. The way the boxer sees it, AZT will kill you, pizza will not, and doctors are up to no good anyway.

"I'll trust an attorney before I'll trust a doctor," he says.

"You unravel that little piece of paper in the bottle, and you read about the side effects," he says, "and they match identical to the symptoms of AIDS. So it's the medication that's killing people. HIV's never been proven to cause AIDS. HIV ain't ever killed anybody."

"Don't take the drugs, and that's all you essentially need to do," Duesberg says when asked how to treat HIV. "It's the drugs that are killing people. Sex is not as dangerous as taking AZT.''

"That was all Tommy Morrison needed to hear. Duesberg is a rebel, and the boxer has been a rebel ever since his father first balled up his fist at the dinner table. He brought Dawn back home. They continued having unprotected sex, and they stopped answering the telephone, and they fed their pet monkeys, and they counted up the money left from his $12-million boxing career. And the former champion spent the next year on his couch
smoking dope."

As far as Greg Lougnanis he was not on the Drugs when He had Full blown AIDS in 1997.

"The real trick is to get off the medication. I felt I was losing quality of life..."

Greg Louganis, HIV positive Olympic Gold Medalist,
The State, April 15, 1997

In 2008 this is what Poodle Stomper left out of that interview.

"I also share my experience with my medications, because itâs important for young people to understand; that I do wouldnât wish my drug regimen on anyone. Some of the treatments I have been through have been really debilitating. I stopped taking my meds at one point for a year and a half because I was just tired of having to be near a restroom. The side effects of a lot of medications interfere with the quality of your life."

1999 excerpt

"It's very difficult," said Louganis, who was diagnosed with HIV in 1988. "Some of the medication needs to be taken on an empty stomach, some with a meal. It's so easy to leave the house and forget your noon dosage."

Drug company Hoffman-La Roche Inc. is sponsoring Louganis' visit to the U.S. Conference on AIDS, which opened Friday in Denver."

So Louganis wasn't on drugs in 1997 when he had full blown AIDS, and then went on them, but takes long holidays due to severe side effects. He is also being employed by Hoffman La Roche to preach about medication adherance, which might imply when he doesn't take his drugs, he might not brodcast that fact openly. In his more candid moments before he was employed by a drug company he said he ditched the drugs in 1997 and then again ditched them for a year and a half later, and this is what he admits to, I would suspect if he takes another long holiday we won't know about it.

Back to Morrison says in 2008 he's never taken one pill, HIS T-cell count was 3 in 1998, went back up to 300 in 2003 and in 2007 dropped to 18. So he shows how useless T cell counts are. He tested positive twice in 1996, he claims to be negative but his trainer says thats not the case and provided evidence he tested positive in 2007, regardless one would have to question the value of these tests if they switch from postive to negative so quickly, if Morrison is Negative, that means he would have had an extremely low t cell count twice, ie AIDS without HIV, something that's not supposed to happen.

"Compromised or not as a witness, Lang alleges that Morrison and Woodard are engaged in their own subterfuge, insisting that they tampered with blood that was submitted for testing. When Morrison pulled out of a planned four-rounder in mid-January 2007 in Arizona, it was reported that he had suffered a hand injury. Lang maintains that the bout was actually cancelled when Morrisonâs blood tests came back HIV-positive. âLike we have the power to walk into a lab as if weâre scientists?â Morrison responds. âThereâs no way we could do that, thatâs crazy.â But this has been suggested as a possibility by several eminently qualified physicians in the state of Nevada, where Morrison was first diagnosed as HIV-positive. According to contemporary reports, even his own doctor confirmed these results. Dr Margaret Goodman, formerly the chief physician at ringside for the big bouts in Nevada, is adamant that the pathologist who conducted the original tests in 1996 for Quest Diagnostics in Las Vegas told her unequivocally that they were positive. It is an established medical fact that HIV cannot be cured, so how does Morrison explain the discrepancy in his various diagnoses, all those years apart?"

January 6, 2008
Tommy Morrison: Iâve never had any symptoms of HIV
Timesonline

Anyways, it's noted that none of you could respond to my post About HIV failing all of Koch's Postulates.

I have comments locked in moderation that Prove Morrison never tested negative. Read this recent article.
by Norm Frauenheim on 8 January 2009
Morrison goes down under ; Will an HIV-Test follow?

"So Louganis wasn't on drugs in 1997 when he had full blown AIDS, and then went on them, but takes long holidays due to severe side effects."

Thanks Cooler, that pretty much kills your argument then, doesn't it? He had full blown AIDS, went on the drugs and now no longer has symptoms of full blown AIDS. Pretty much says it all doesn't it? All medications have risks of side effects, that is not in question but the fact that he had symptoms of AIDS which went away when he started the meds certainly puts a pretty big dent in your idea that the meds themselves cause AIDS or at the very least are useless. Thanks Cooler!

"Back to Morrison says in 2008 he's never taken one pill, HIS T-cell count was 3 in 1998, went back up to 300 in 2003 and in 2007 dropped to 18. So he shows how useless T cell counts are."

That kinda contradicts the other story you cited where he was on anti-HIV drugs. So which is correct or is it just whichever you decide works better for you/

"He is also being employed by Hoffman La Roche to preach about medication adherance, which might imply when he doesn't take his drugs, he might not brodcast that fact openly"

He is employed by them, eh? Got any proof of this? They may sponsor AIDS outreach efforts but that doesn't exactly make him an employee. Oh and it "MIGHT IMPLY, He MIGHT blah blah" is nothing more than Cooler word-salad for "I have no evidence to support this but in my conspiracy-driven mind it must be true"

"Anyways, it's noted that none of you could respond to my post About HIV failing all of Koch's Postulates."

I actually posted a response to this but it had too many links and hasn't been accepted yet. It basically goes as such:

You have already demonstrated that you have no clue what Koch's postulates really signify in terms of diseases. You already had to admit after a long long time that Koch's postulates did in deed need to be changed. It took you a while to do that. In short, for you to argue Koch's postulates with anyone you need to actually go out and learn about them instead of regurgitating denialist BS. It has already been explained to you and others many times why and how HIV fulfills them. Just because you are too ignorant to understand them doesn't mean anyone wants to waste more time on you.

I didn't ever say Koch's postulates should be changed, I just decided to give you a little bait that you further embarrased yourself with. Anyways, I've also never received a response to the overwhelming evidence of HIV's causal role that justified AZT being released in 1987.

Pretty pathetic your sorry ass hasn't read one scientific paper, you haven't read Gallo's papers, Duesberg's, Piatak, David ho's. Padian, Rodriguez etc. You and your pals are just a bunch of grave dancing sickos can only spam a website when asked for evidence, something that would get you laughed out of a courtroom. By the way poodle, What were the scientific papers you read that convinced you HIV is a fatal disease and briefly summarize them so we know you read them? Never recieved an answer, just can spam a website? Yeah that's what I thought.

Oh and you guys are lying about the EM issue. Army scientists have photographed M. incognitus in abundance damaging the damaged organs of AIDS and Non AIDS patients dying, here is an quote from Dr. Maniotis, A Harvard trained virologist. So even though you came up with your own weak pathetic version of Koch's postulates, it still fails.

"If "HIV" were an exogenous virus, then why is PCR needed to "amplify" the molecular signature when 1,000,000 virions are "detected" chemically in the blood stream of an "HIV" positive with "viremia?" PCR shouldn't be
needed at all-one should be able to extract the blood of the "infected"
waif, put it on a light microscope slide, and then stain with RNA-binding
dyes, and see-behold, hundreds of thousands of particles. We used to do
this with other viruses and see them at "the light level" (enhanced with
dyes you can see objects that are 100 nanometers in diameter without too
much trouble.)

(Dr. Andrew Maniotis)

Since you can't answer a single question, there is no point in debating anything.

"Thanks Cooler, that pretty much kills your argument then, doesn't it? He had full blown AIDS, went on the drugs and now no longer has symptoms of full blown AIDS. Pretty much says it all doesn't it? All medications have risks of side effects, that is not in question but the fact that he had symptoms of AIDS which went away when he started the meds certainly puts a pretty big dent in your idea that the meds themselves cause AIDS or at the very least are useless. Thanks Cooler!"

No you liar, he was not having any symptoms then went on the drugs and got sick, then gave them up his symptoms went away. There is not one study that shows HIV positive people not on AZT, severely abusing drugs, malnourished, co infected with other microbes die vs matched controls.

âI didn't ever say Koch's postulates should be changed, I just decided to give you a little bait that you further embarrased yourself with.â

Hmm so when you said: âYes, Koch's postulates might be out of date...â, you were just lying to let me âfurther embarrassâ myself?
Well Iâm glad you are admitting to deliberate lying on a public forum. It speaks a lot about your character that you would stoop so low. Of course I donât believe it for a second. I find it much more likely that you are simply back-peddling as you so often do.

But letâs put aside reality and pretend for a moment that you truly believed that Kochâs original postulates should not have been changed. This would mean that you believe that antiquated versions of the postulates, not applicable to viruses, obligate intracellular parasitic bacteria, and more, and written even before the discovery of viruses should be applied toâ¦viruses? Laughable. Cooler you just keep backing yourself into corners left and right. I think your attempts at embarrassing people have backfired.

As for your Maniotis quote, he says a lot of stuff (for example that he is a professor of pathology) but that doesnât mean it is true.

âWhat were the scientific papers you read that convinced you HIV is a fatal disease and briefly summarize them so we know you read them?â

If I had to cite them the post would be way too long. I took a semester of âBiology of AIDSâ in college where we started by reading the very first HIV papers and went forwards through the evidence for it as the causal factor of AIDS. You of all people, however, are the last to question who has read what papers as you have an extensive history of quoting/citing papers that you yourself admit to having never read (again, the ARAS list comes to mind). So this makes you a liar and a hypocrite. So far not so good.

âPretty pathetic your sorry ass hasn't read one scientific paper, you haven't read Gallo's papers, Duesberg's, Piatak, David ho's. Padian, Rodriguez etc.â

Really!? Wow I should get my tuition for that Biology of AIDS class back, especially since I aced it. But heck what do I know since Cooler states this isnât so. Perhaps you should read the papers you yourself cited. Padian and Rodriguez, for example have personally spoken out about how denialists who misquote their papers (like you) are pretty much biologically illiterate.

Also I see youâve now decided to avoid the whole Louganis issue since youâve been proven wrong (again/still). Typical.

"If "HIV" were an exogenous virus, then why is PCR needed to "amplify" the molecular signature when 1,000,000 virions are "detected" chemically in the blood stream of an "HIV" positive with "viremia?" PCR shouldn't be
needed at all-one should be able to extract the blood of the "infected"
waif, put it on a light microscope slide, and then stain with RNA-binding
dyes, and see-behold, hundreds of thousands of particles. We used to do
this with other viruses and see them at "the light level" (enhanced with
dyes you can see objects that are 100 nanometers in diameter without too
much trouble.)

Oh, like the bDNA test? Except it uses a DNA-binding dye, rather than an RNA-binding dye. More sensitive than the older PCR test. Did you know that M. incognitus was discovered using PCR?

Noted that not a single paper has been referenced on HIV's causal role that justified AZT's release, on isolation or on the papers you read that convinced you HIV was a fatal disease. Pretty laughable how weak your arguments are when you can't spam a website.

M incognitus was also identified in the damaged tissues in abundance with the EM. Bdna testing measures the amount of glow from a sample, Maniotis method would identify millions individual stained particles.

Oh and you guys are lying about the EM issue.

I stand by my math. I am not lying, you are simply innumerate. The results from the study are in line with what is expected if the viral load count is accurate.

M incognitus was also identified in the damaged tissues in abundance with the EM.

That's nice. And irrelevant.

Bdna testing measures the amount of glow from a sample, Maniotis method would identify millions individual stained particles.

I take it you agree that they are measured in the same way? Not surprising, since the only difference is that one binds to DNA and the other to RNA. Although it saturates at about a million, so it's more like hundreds of thousands. Gotta keep track of those units.

"That's nice. And irrelevant."

You're the one that brought it up that a microbe cannot be seen in abundance with The EM not me, too bad I proved you wrong.

Anyways I stand by my comment that you guys are all Mentally ill psychopaths. It would be a great honor if Tara would ban me from this pathetic blog that barely anyone uses, a blog that barely has any new posts and when they do come every other month they are a paragraph long.
I'm doing really well and have a life. It was such a relief not to have to deal with you losers for a month............please ban my IP address. Thank you.

Aww Cooler decided to avoid the issues of his lying, his Lougaini blunder and went back to mycoplasmas. Well guess what, Cooler? I have news for you! Believe it or not, Mycoplasma incognitus FAILS Koch's original postulates! Yep, since you decided that they did not need to be modified, the original ones apply to M. incognitus as well and they fail the criteria set by Koch back in 1876.

His original third rule states:

3) For each different disease, a morphologically distinguishable microorganism must be identified.
(refer to Carter's translation "Essays of Robert Koch" p. 19-56)

You see, this third one is the one that screws you over on your M. incognitus claim because not only do M. incognitus have several morphologies, not one (Lo himself described them as having "a smaller spherical particle size and occasional filamentous morphology") but Lo determined that M. incognitus was distinct from other mycoplasmas not through morphological means but rather through a combination with non-morphological ones(such as nutrient requirements, genetics, and antigenic profile using *gasp* antibodies*), clearly violating Koch's postulates! I say we go protest Lo for his obvious blasphemy of science! Who's with me!?

best sites

No he isolated it and grew it in culture and photographed the culture, and stated it's size in nanometers and shape, injected monkeys got them to die, found it in the damaged tissues of 22/34 AIDS with the EM patients and found it in the damaged tissues and ruled it to be the cause of death in 6 previously healthy adults that died in 1-7 weeks. So you are lying again.

Anyways too bad you guys have had billions of dollars with HIV and can't find the microbe in abundance in damaged tissues with the EM, have an animal model, can barely find hiv in t cells, thats why you can only rely on correlation. You guys need help. Show me the same evidence for HIV, found in abundance in the damaged tissues with the EM,a paper where its isolated, an animal model and maybe you'll be on your way to prove causality. Too bad you failed.

We've argued this to death, I always win. No one can handle my power.

"No he isolated it and grew it in culture and photographed the culture, and stated it's size in nanometers and shape"

But you cannot tell M. incognitus apart from all other mycoplasmas definitively by morphological methods alone. Thus it fails the postulate. You lose, no mycoplasma for you, one year!

cooler, provide a link to the study, and I'll run it through the same analysis I used on the HIV study. Assuming that they actually provide the level of detail necessary for that analysis. For example, what if the bacterial load in the diseased tissues is 30 million per mL? We'd expect to see a lot more M. incognitus if the same methods were used.

"found it in the damaged tissues of 22/34 AIDS"

Also fails Koch's postulates. It needed to be found in 34/34 to pass. Sorry you lose again!

"Areas of the necrotizing lesions which immunostained most positively for M.
fermentans incognitus specific antigens were examined by electromicroscopy.
Particles with characteristic ultrastructural features of M. fermentans
incognitus were directly identified in all the lesions. These particles in
the areas of necrosis, morphologically resembled M. fermentans incognitus
previously identified in Sb51 cells (Example 4) and in the tissues of
experimentally inoculated monkeys (Example 10). The particles were
heterogeneous in size and shape, with most particles being spherical and
about 140 to 280 nm in diameter. At the margin of necrosis, the M.
fermentans incognitus particles were located in the cytoplasm of cells with
apparently no cytopathic changes, or in fragments of cytoplasm from
completely disrupted cells (FIG. 24). FIG. 24 shows electron mircographs of
tissues derived from areas highly positive for M. fermentans
incognitus-specific antigens. FIG. 24A is an electron micrograph at a
margin of necrosis in adrenal gland tissues (Bar=1,000 nm). FIG. 24A.sub.2
is a higher magnification of 24A (Bar=100 nm). FIGS. 24B.sub.1, and B.sub.2
are electron micrographs of the peripheral zone of necrosis in lymph node
tissue (Bar=1,000 nm). FIG. 24B.sub.3 is a higher magnification of
24B.sub.2 (Bar=100 nm)."

Association of the Virus-like Infectious Agent Originally Reported in Patients with Aids with Acute Fatal Disease in Previously Healthy non-Aids Patients
Shyh-Ching Lo, Marilyn S. Dawson, Perry B. Newton, III, Mary Ann Sonoda, James Wai-Kuo Shih, Walter F. Engler, Richard Yuan-Hu Wang AND Douglas J. Wear
American Registry of Pathology, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Washington, DC; and Warren Grant Magnuson Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland

here is an excerpt from the data on the deaths of 6 previously healthy people that died in 1-7 weeks.

I agree Poodle stomper, Mycoplasma fails Kochs postulates as the Cause of AIDS. Infact some scientists think that AIDS isn't one disease and has multiple causes, nevertheless, HIV fails Koch's postulates in a much more dramatic fashion.

It is barely found in T cells at all, chimps injected are just dandy, its never been found in abundance with the EM in a damaged tissue, and solely relies on correlation that doesn't exist because most HIV infected people are healthy which is why the window period was extended from 10 months to ten years.

Sorry Cooler,

"Areas of the necrotizing lesions which immunostained most positively for M. fermentans incognitus specific antigens were examined by electromicroscopy."

Immunostaining involves *gasp* antibodies and is not morphology.

"The particles were heterogeneous in size and shape, with most particles being spherical and about 140 to 280 nm in diameter"

"Heterogeneous shapes" = more than one morphology and a two-fold range in size no less! Postulate 3 fails again. Maybe it is contaminated...dun dun dunnnnn! This couldn't possibly show a pure pathogen since there is more than one shape and size to these alleged mycoplasmas. You fail postulate 3 based on this alone.

"FIG. 24 shows electron mircographs of tissues derived from areas highly positive for M. fermentans incognitus-specific antigens"

Are you relying on those pesky "non-specific" antibodies again? What hypocrisy! Morphology only!

Sorry but to pass postulate 3 you have to be able to show a pathogen that is morphologically different from others and you should also show it pure (according to you and Perth)! Thus, there are clearly more than one pathogens here. Show me a study where there is only one morphology and size. This one has many. Methods other than morphology to prove it isn't a different mycoplasma fails Postulate 3.

Man you're CRAZY and are making no sense. Have you thought about sucking on Duesberg's balls for power? How about taking a cum explosion in the face from Nobelist Kary Mullis? You need it. Anyways, Tara made an oath to ban trolls like me that "shit" on her pathetic blog that no one uses.

Tara, please ban me! You guys are totally nuts!

See, now you what everyone who "debates" you feels about your responses. Hope you learned something (but not holding my breath).

Oh hey I must have missed a post of yours while you were typing...

"No you liar, he was not having any symptoms then went on the drugs and got sick, then gave them up his symptoms went away. "

Then why did you say:

"So Louganis wasn't on drugs in 1997 when he had full blown AIDS, and then went on them, but takes long holidays due to severe side effects."

Seems like you are contradicting yourself again (unless you are lying again so that I can "embarrass myself" and for someone who outright admitted to lying in order to let me "embarrass myself" you are being hypocritical in calling others liars =)

Full blown AIDS is a CDC construct, you can have it and have no symptoms at all, and his symptoms went away when he quit the drugs, if the drugs made him feel so much better he wouldn't have dumped them for 18 months, you ball sucking moron.

"I agree Poodle stomper, Mycoplasma fails Kochs postulates as the Cause of AIDS."

And yet you continue to claim that mycoplasmas are the cause. Do you understand now why no one bothers giving you references? You don't even know what YOU believe.

"Infact some scientists think that AIDS isn't one disease and has multiple causes, nevertheless, HIV fails Koch's postulates in a much more dramatic fashion."

A belief you have only because, as shown above, you have no idea what Koch's postulates really mean or how to use them.

"Full blown AIDS is a CDC construct, you can have it and have no symptoms at all, and his symptoms went away when he quit the drugs, if the drugs made him feel so much better he wouldn't have dumped them for 18 months, you ball sucking moron."

Now now, don't get all angry at me for pointing out the flaws in your arguments. He had side effects from the meds he was on but that doesn't mean those were AIDS symptoms. And despite all that he is still on more modern meds and hasn't died of AIDS, even if as you claim he was diagnosed with AIDS in 1997. Again, if the meds caused AIDS wouldn't he be dead now instead of living and actively speaking out to encourage people to stay on them. Your arguments are baseless as always Cooler...and hilarious!

There is a lot of evidence that m. incognitus is pathogenic in it's own right, Since it was found in abundance in the damaged tissues and ruled to be the cause of death in 6 previously people and causes a fatal disease in monkeys.

But as a cause of AIDS, since it can only be found in about 70% of cases it can't explain the entire disease, but I would not be surprised if it could masquerade as many other disease and play some role in AIDS. You are too stupid and have been drinking too much of the kool aid to realize this.

The NEW WORLD ORDER knows that the day lily was developed as a biological weapon, which is why the Nicolsons suffered several assasination attempts when they found in the blood of sick gulf war vets.

Now back to the topic at hand. Have you ever contemplated sucking on Duesbergs balls for power? He's won California scientist of the year award, you've won nothing.......do you think this will help you become more intelligent? You need it. What about a cum explosion in the face from Garth Nicolson, he's won the outstanding investigator grant from the National Cancer Institute, again you've won nothing.

You might want to try these things, it might be your clear path to total health. (just collapsed in complete laughter)

"There is a lot of evidence that m. incognitus is pathogenic in it's own right.."

A I pointed out though, it fails Koch's postulates automatically because you cannot isolate a sample with a single pure morphology so, no, by your use of Koch's postulates they have NOT been proven pathogenic. In fact, by your criteria of isolation (which you quote so often from the Perth group) M. incognitus has never been isolated as a pure organism either because there are always strange differences in culture morphologies and sizes.

"But as a cause of AIDS, since it can only be found in about 70% of cases it can't explain the entire disease, but I would not be surprised if it could masquerade as many other disease and play some role in AIDS..."

"I wouldn't be surprised if..." = Cooler speak for "I have no evidence at all but I want to believe this so i will".

"The NEW WORLD ORDER..."

Keep it up Cooler, this doesn't make you look like a foil-hat wearing nut at all...

"Now back to the topic at hand. Have you ever contemplated sucking on Duesbergs balls for power? He's won California scientist of the year award, you've won nothing...Garth Nicolson, he's won the outstanding investigator grant from the National Cancer Institute, again you've won nothing ... (just collapsed in complete laughter)"

Ah yes but you most likely laugh alone as that was not the most clever thing to leave your keyboard today. Personally I find your attempts at logic much more hilarious.

See, I don't think that a person's awards and papers are the be all and end all of whether they are smarter or not but let's say for a moment that I did. In this case I have you beat with an advanced graduate degree in molecular biology with background in virology as well. Oh hey, there goes the debate because by Cooler-logic you've already lost. And what about all the people you've been trying to down play like John Moore, Chris Nobel, everyone with more than a high school diploma? Well guess what? They all have you beat. Wow, thanks for setting that kind of criteria although you kinda shot yourself in the foot.

It's credentials and superior arguments that matter, you have neither. Don't you think it's high time to get your GED, or are you too busy humping your dog because it gives you giggles? At least the dog won't run away, unlike most of the girls :) (just collapsed in complete laughter)

Cooler, don't you have some grade school girls to stalk?

"It's credentials and superior arguments that matter, you have neither."

Judging by the spectacular lack of biological knowledge you have displayed, the complete lack of credentials and the fact that you have no educational base by which to judge whether an argument is superior or inferior, I'd say you lost yet again.

"Don't you think it's high time to get your GED, or are you too busy humping your dog because it gives you giggles?"

Since you're obviously foreign to the concept of a graduate degree (or college for that matter), you need a high school diploma before you can get even an Associates degree. Take the time to read that over a few times, it will make sense the 30th or 40th time around. You may want to figure this out before you try to get into college as it is somewhat important.

"At least the dog won't run away, unlike most of the girls :) (just collapsed in complete laughter)"

Hmmm..I'm waiting for the originality here. Obviously you are much more easily amused than I am. Just like your admissions to lying, back-peddling, self-contradictions, and lack of anything resembling education in biology, this says a lot about your (lack of) character. Keep it up, though. If anyone was considering denialism they've most likely changed their decision just by reading your rambling and incoherent posts. Your posts are quite possibly the best anti-denialism information ever. Thanks Cooler!

To anyone who even bothers to read Cooler's posts this is the usual course of any discussion:

Cooler: Tries to argue something based on lack of knowledge

Someone Else: refutes cooler completely.

Cooler: Changes the subject/ignores previous responses.

Bravo, Cooler. Keep up your routine. You are the ultimate anti-denialism!

Poodle stomper
You never once denied that you hump your dog. What a coincidence.

Infact I have overwhelming evidence that poodle stomper humps his dog at poodlestomperhumpsdogstruth.com

I took a class in college that was all about poodle stomper made love with canines.

There is overwhelming consensus by a vague group of nameless experts that beleive poodle stomper humps dogs.

Yes, but Mr Cooler, can you describe in your own words the evidence that Poodle stomper humps his dog?

No, go to poodlestomperhumpsdogstruth.com

A very dangerous chemotherapy was approved for the epidemic of dog humping in 1987, can you provide the overwhelming evidence that justified this Mr Cooler?

No, I can't, go to poodlestomperhumpsdogs.com

That is you guys in a nutshell defending HIV, what a bunch of clowns!

Yes people, this is the face of denialism. Please give us more Cooler. For those who ask "Why don't scientists debate denialists", the above post should be answer enough. Thank you for making my point for me, Cooler.

Hey guys, I just wanted to apologize for my vulgar behavior yesterday. I started Celebrating Spring Break a little early and drank a little too much Jack Daniels. I can't believe some of the things that I said, and this does not in any way represent the Dissident movement. I'm catching a flight to Vegas tonight and will be gone for a week and I just had apologize before I left. Although I disagree with Poodle Stomper on many issues, using the vulgarities I used yesterday is inexcusable. I hope Poodle stomper accepts my apology.

On one final note, Mr. Stomper, have you ever thought about sucking on Duesberg's balls for power? Don't you think it will make you more intelligent? Isn't this what you need in your life? (just collapsed in complete laughter)

In case anyone is still being fooled by Cooler's attempt at changing the subject, the last question posed to denialists was whether there was any proof that Maggiore, who founded Alive and Well based on the idea that HIV is harmless/not even real died due to stress.

Maggriore died of disseminated herpes and this type of spread of the virus happens only in extremely immune suppressed individuals such as those on immune suppressants for tissue transplants and advanced AIDS. Stress alone does not cause this.
Maggiore also had none of the typical denialist "causes" of AIDS including

1) Poverty
2) Malnourishment
3) Wasn't African
4) Taking anti-HIV medication

In fact the only risk factor she had was being untreated and HIV+ (something to which she herself admitted).
So I ask if there is any precedent to this "stressed to disseminated herpes" story that denialists cling to?

Regardless of what one believes, one fact remains:

Maggiore built her organization around the idea that if you have HIV and follow her advice you won't get AIDS. Even though she recommended homeopathy, acupuncture, and other "alternative treatments". In the end, even though she followed her own advice, she still died of a disease attributable only to severe immune suppression; the kind she claimed HIV+ people like her could avoid by following her example.

So again I ask to anyone with HIV+ looking into denialism for false hope: Why follow the teachings of someone who claimed to have all the answers and yet, following her own advice, ended up with the same immune suppression that so many other AIDS victims have?

Yah know, Pood, it appears to be obvious that you are not interested in truth, and that you seem to be only interested in being "right" regardless of whether your perception of being right is true or not.

You just made the following claim, as if it is a fact. So prove it.

"Maggriore died of disseminated herpes and this type of spread of the virus happens only in extremely immune suppressed individuals such as those on immune suppressants for tissue transplants and advanced AIDS. Stress alone does not cause this."

So prove it, pood. Prove to us she died of disseminated herpes, and that this does not happen except as you claim. Prove to us that the stress she was under, compounded by pneumonia, compounded by the stress she was obviously under, was insufficient to be the cause of death unless she had "AIDS".

You claimed it to be a fact, so you prove it. Until you do, you are a pseudoscientist making your own false claims.

After all, she was perfectly healthy for 19 years, and even after 2 years of being attacked by you aids apologists all over the net and in the media.

Pneumonia is not even an aids defining disease unless it is recurrent. She had never before been diagnosed with pneumonia until 2 weeks before she passed away.

And yes, her pneumonia then became compounded by disseminated herpes. And, by the way, disseminated herpes is nowhere on the CDC list of aids defining diseases either, but herpes outbreaks, as well as their severity, are also commonly and well known to be triggered by stress. Undoubtedly she was under intense stress as her case against the coroner was scheduled to proceed just a few days after she passed. Certainly she was well aware she would be going up against irrational people such as yourself who already had her tarred and feathered as a child killer. She was certainly aware that SHE would be on trial, and not the coroner.

So prove it, pood! Prove to us she died of "aids" and not of all of the other complications in her life!

This in a NUTSHELL is EXACTLY the problem with all of you moronic aids apologists, who continually ignore every other quite obvious factor any time anyone who is said to be hiv positive is ill of anything.

An hiv positive could stub their toe, and people such as you, poodle, would claim it was due to aids dementia.

And by the way, poodle, just who left you in charge of what truth is, pood? As if you could even care what truth is.

What your rants and claims to knowing what reality and truth is, and what you have spouted endlessly on this page really show, is that you are ruled not by a desire to know truth, but by your ego, and that you simply want to argue and that you care nothing for finding the highest truth.

Your claims of what "facts" are, as usual are fully unsubstantiated by anything but your childish and demanding to be right ego and its imaginations. With the low maturity level of so many people like you involved in science, it is no wonder that the integrity of science sinks lower every day, with every conflict of interest and every fraudulent study uncovered.

As becomes apparent to most any rational and thinking individual by simply looking at our vast current humanitarian problems such as failing higher educational systems, failing financial systems, greed driven corporate enrons, vast conflicts of interest of so many of our so called scientific researchers and professors, with corporatocracy and lobbyists ruling our government, our current society apparently is mostly filled with those who are ruled by their ego, only out for themselves, in it for what they can get, and who fully yet lack integrity, intelligence, higher values, or simple common sense.

Our society is being overrun by mediocre nonintegrous individuals in positions of authority who create and support more problems than they ever solve.

And speaking of the lack of maturity and the lack of integrity and the egocentric behavior of such a vast number of the babbling voices found in science and education these days, the hiv defenders and aids apologists are certainly king of the hill at their public displays of unsupported babble for anybody who takes the time to investigate it.

Do check out all of the anti "aids denialists" web sites such as aidstruth, or the childish professor Seth Kalichman's web blog "Denying Aids" on so called aids denialists, or look at J.Todd Deshongs pathetic site. Not even a SHRED of supported scientific defense of the hiv-aids theory is offered or to be found.

But the anti-dissident sites are FILLED with nothing BUT never-ending ad hom attacks, appeals to authority, demands that consensus means correctness, demands that they are right simply because they say they are and because there are so many of them, and yet nearly all of the authors of these anti-aids dissident sites are loaded with conflicts of interest, or are eating out of the same hog trough of public funding for hiv/aids.

Most of the hiv positives themselves are or become also loaded with their own conflicts of interest in the form of self pity, pity from their friends, government checks, free medical care, free housing, and on and on.

The entire paradigm, as well as all of its supporters, as well as most of those who allow themselves to be diagnosed as hiv or aids, from top to bottom, STINKS to High Hell!

None of the anti-dissident sites have even a single rebuttal to the vast teardown of the hiv/aids connection as is so fully and well presented and backed up by countless citations, supported by thousands of highly integrous individuals who, unlike Seth Kalichman and friends, are free of any conflict of interest, and the proof is found on any of the aids dissident sites such as Peter Duesberg's site, the Perth Group's site, Rethinking Aids, New Aids Review, Virusmyth, etc, etc.

Anyone who aligns themselves with such obvious lack of integrity, cowardice, and immaturity as the anti-denialists display, is obviously of the same egocentric, childish, and nonintegrous mentality.

Obviously Ms. Maggiore could NOT have been diagnosed with AIDS, because NEITHER HER DISSEMINATED HERPES, NOR HER PNEUMONIA WERE RECURRENT, which is a REQUIREMENT OF THE CDC in order to diagnosis the illnesses as AIDS!

BOTH CONDITIONS would HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN RECURRENT INFECTIONS to have been diagnosable as hiv related aids defining conditions.

Yet, Ms. Maggiore suffered NEITHER of these conditions prior to the last two weeks of her life.

So sorry Pood, better luck next time.

Poodleknowsall,
âProve to us she died of disseminated herpes, and that this does not happen except as you claim. Prove to us that the stress she was under, compounded by pneumonia, compounded by the stress she was obviously under, was insufficient to be the cause of death unless she had "AIDS". You claimed it to be a fact, so you prove itâ (emphasis mine)

Wow, talk about silly. The burden of proof is on the one claiming the positive, not the negative. You cannot prove that something cannot be but only that something can be. This is basic to the burden of proof. Since denialists have claimed that the stress she endured from attacks, being on television, ect⦠is enough to cause disseminated herpes it is up to them to prove this. All that is required is previous cases of such events.

However, proving she died of disseminated herpes is as simple as looking at her death certificate, and that it only occurs in the extremely immune suppressed such as those on immunosupressive therapy and AIDS is a matter of medical history.

âAfter all, she was perfectly healthy for 19 years, and even after 2 years of being attacked by you aids apologists all over the net and in the media.â

If she were healthy even after âafter 2 years of being attacked by you aids apologists all over the net and in the mediaâ then it certainly puts doubt on your âstressed to disseminated herpesâ idea, doesnât it? The outward appearance of health doesnât tell all. A person may feel healthy while their T-cell count drops until the point where they begin immune distress. This is no different that a person with clogged arteries saying he feels fine up until the point where the obstructions cause a heart attack.

âAnd yes, her pneumonia then became compounded by disseminated herpes. And, by the way, disseminated herpes is nowhere on the CDC list of aids defining diseases either, but herpes outbreaks, as well as their severity, are also commonly and well known to be triggered by stress.â

Then you should have no trouble showing cases of people getting disseminated herpes from stress, right? Disseminated herpes is not the same as a cold sore. It is only found in those with severe immune suppression. Of course if you can show otherwise Iâd love to see it.

âUndoubtedly she was under intense stress as her case against the coroner was scheduled to proceed just a few days after she passed. Certainly she was well aware she would be going up against irrational people such as yourself who already had her tarred and feathered as a child killer. She was certainly aware that SHE would be on trial, and not the coroner.â

âUndoubtablyâ¦Certainlyâ¦â all express nothing more than your grasping at straws with no evidence. Find us proof that such things will result in her illnesses.

âThis in a NUTSHELL is EXACTLY the problem with all of you moronic aids apologists, who continually ignore every other quite obvious factor any time anyone who is said to be hiv positive is ill of anything.â

The âproblemâ is that denialists are so entrenched in the idea that HIV could not possibly cause AIDS (or sometimes even exist) that you will find medically unprecedented reasons to assign as a cause of death rather than accept the truth.

Stomps on poodlestomper,

"Obviously Ms. Maggiore could NOT have been diagnosed with AIDS, because NEITHER HER DISSEMINATED HERPES, NOR HER PNEUMONIA WERE RECURRENT, which is a REQUIREMENT OF THE CDC in order to diagnosis the illnesses as AIDS!"

Where does it say that disseminated herpes must be recurrent? Disemminated herpes, as mentioned before, only occurs in the severely immune suppressed.

"BOTH CONDITIONS would HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN RECURRENT. Yet, Ms. Maggiore suffered NEITHER of these conditions prior to the last two weeks of her life."

Perhaps you should read the facts a little better. Maggioreâs pneumonia was recurrent. See here where it is stated quite clearly:
âOn Saturday, Maggiore died at her Van Nuys home, leaving a husband, a son and many unanswered questions. She was 52.
According to officials at the Los Angeles County coroner's office, she had been treated for pneumonia in the last six months.â

So Iâm glad you admit that by your own requirements she did die of AIDS.

Poodle, again blatantly displays that he is a subscriber and upholder of Zombie Science.

Christine was, not ever diagnosed with pneumonia prior to 2 weeks, just shortly before, she passed. There are even radio interviews with through-out the supposed 6 month time period including an interview that she posted on the net just 3 weeks she passed away. For someone who supposedly was suffering of pneumonia, she does not cough or even wheeze!

And, there are far too many living witnesses to the fact that she had absolutely no sign of pneumonia until just 2 weeks before she passed, and that it was not until just before she passed that she was ever diagnosed as having had pneumonia.

So why would poodle and the coroners office have stretched the truth? Ummmm, could it be that they will say anything to make themselves appear right? Could it be that little lawsuit that Christine had against the coroners office that caused them to stretch the truth again????? Nahhhh, LA county employees would NEVER do that, now would they?!!

Just because the coroners office, who Maggiore had an impending lawsuit against, stretched the truth and instead of being fully honest, called the 2 weeks "in the last six months", still does not make it anything but one more of their classic and documented cases of stretching of the truth when it suits their purposes. Just as Poodle himself does.

That Poodle uses this well proven to be falsely claimed "in the last six months" time period as his own "evidence" that she somehow died from a sudden raging hiv gone wild infection, again clearly shows us all just how false and dishonest he is.

Again, Poodle clearly shows us his childish immaturity and that his ego's sole interest is to be right, not truthful.

Zombie science: A sinister consequence of evaluating scientiï¬c theories purely on the
basis of self-interest:

http://www.mantleplumes.org/WebDocuments/Charlton2008.pdf

"So why would poodle and the coroners office have stretched the truth? Ummmm, could it be that they will say anything to make themselves appear right...That Poodle uses this well proven to be falsely claimed "in the last six months" time period as his own "evidence" that she somehow died from a sudden raging hiv gone wild infection, again clearly shows us all just how false and dishonest he is.

Moi, stretch the truth? Where exactly is the recurrent pneumonia "well proven to be false"? The claim that it had to be recurrent was made and the evidence that it was has been presented.

I'm still waiting for the evidence that stress will cause disseminated herpes. In the end, as I have said before Maggiore died of symptoms attributable only to severe immune suppression; the kind the claimed she could help people prevent. And why then, would anyone continue to follow someone who died of exactly what she claimed she could prevent? This makes no more sense that taking weight-loss advice from a 500lbs man.

Ahhh yes, and the AIDS ZOMBIE poodle again babbles incoherent meaningless dribble after his latest feasting on Christine Maggiore's dead body.....

This link http://www.mantleplumes.org/WebDocuments/Charlton2008.pdf brings a PDF clearly describing Poodle's Land of the walking dead.

âZombie scienceâ is âwalking deadâ, sustained by external infusions and not by inherent scientific value. Points that are particularly pertinent to HIV/AIDS:
â Early adoption of the theory brought generous research funding, publication in prestigious journals, and founding of âa raft of new second-string specialist journalsâ
â âeven the most conclusive âhatchet jobsâ done on phoney theories [think Duesberg] will fail to kill, or even weaken, them when the phoney theories are backed-up with sufficient economic muscle in the form of fundingâ
â Anomalies are explained away by increasingly complicated ad hoc add-ons, and the very complexity makes clear disproof ever more difficult to achieve
â âtechnical disasters [think AZT and HAART] can sometimes themselves be explained-away â and thereby covered-up â by yet further phoney theoretical elaborations, especially when there is monopolistic control of informationâ
â Zombie science marks, and is made possible by, the break-down of disinterested peer review as the reviewers are motivated by self-interest, which outweighs allegiance to the abstraction of âscientific truthâ

On a couple of points, Charlton seems to me too optimistic:
â The existence of multiple competing sources of research funds could break zombie monopolies.
Maybe sometimes, but with HIV/AIDS every funding source seems to compete with others to support the monopoly.
â âproper medical science is underpinned by the effectiveness of medical treatments based upon its theories and resultsâ
Not with HIV/AIDS, where the complexity (among other things) allows the mainstream to claim that HAART is beneficial (which also confirms the validity of the theory) whereas HAART kills, just more slowly than high-dose AZT alone did.

âAhhh yes, and the AIDS ZOMBIE poodle again babbles incoherent meaningless dribble after his latest feasting on Christine Maggiore's dead body.....â

I notice no evidence has yet been given that proves disseminated herpes can be caused by stress or that the coronerâs office lied about her prior treatment for pneumonia. This is not surprising.

As for âfeasting on Christine Maggiore's dead bodyâ I should like to point out that the only ones to do any sort of parasitizing of her were the HIV- denialist leaders; the Duesbergs,the Bauers and the Perth Groups that sat up there comfortably reassured that they themselves would never succumb to AIDS even if they were wrong.

They convinced Maggiore that sheâd be fine and never get AIDS because it was a lie but what did they have to lose? Duesberg did the same with Raphael Lombardo in his book âInventing the AIDS Virusâ; parading him around as proof that his BS claims were right. Just as with Maggiore, Duesberg promoted Lombardo as a poster child for the cause (even to the point of including him in his book) until Lombardo died of AIDS anyway. And then what happened? Duesberg simply stated that Lombardo must have lied and been secretly addicted to drugs. Classy.

So who will be the next lucky poster child? Does anyone want to volunteer?

And so I ask again: Why follow the teachings of a woman who died of the very symptoms of severe immune suppression she claimed she could avoid? If the prophet was wrong then what should that mean to her followers?

Nice rant pood, and your 3rd hand declarations of causes of death of people are sooooo scientific!

And where oh where to start? How about with your false claim that anyone "died of aids" when AIDS is defined as a syndrome not as a disease and not as any actual cause of death. No-one has ever died of "aids". People die of actual causes of death within the syndrome defined as aids, such as organ failure or acute infections.

Let's move on to your rant about Peter Duesberg!

So now it is all Peter Duesbergs fault that Christine got pneumonia and herpes and died. Please explain to us how Peter caused her to become so run down that she broke out in pneumonia and herpes!

Stranger still, that Duesberg was very top on the list of speakers chosen by Christine's husband to speak at her memorial. Followed by many other notable dissidents who were able to attend. And Peter was even given a standing ovation by the hundreds who attended the service!

And stranger still, not a single one of the hundreds of attending individuals, including Christine's own mother, brother, and entire family, believe she died of anything due to hiv, so it would certainly seem that the Duesbergs, Bauers, and Perth Groups were correct!

Do you suppose they all plotted out Christine and her daughters death together?

And then you further rant that Duesberg somehow convinced Ralph Lombardo that HIV was nonsense, when the following is a direct quote from Lombardo's original email to Peter and clearly shows that Lombardo made his own choice before he ever heard of Peter Duesberg:

To: Dr. Peter Duesberg
From: Raphael Sabato Lombardo
Date: May 30, 1995
Subject: Life without AZT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Dear Dr. Duesberg,
My name is Raphael Sabato Lombardo, 33 years old and from Cape Coral, FL. I am writing in regards to the enclosed magazine article from this month's issue of Men's Style. I was thrilled to read that there was someone in the medical profession who shared the same views I've had for so many years......."

Hmmmm. So Lombardo himself had the same viewpoint for "so many years" before ever even hearing the name of Peter Duesberg!

So there goes your bunk theory that somehow Duesberg et al twisted anyone's arms. Unlike you, some people are capable of thinking for themselves and making their own decisions.

I do agree with you that Duesberg blaming Lombardo's death on lying about drug use was wrong and as a mistake. Peter obviously did not know any more than you do about what the actual cause of death of Ralph Lombardo was. Nor did he know what the contributing factors to the death were, nor did he know what stress Lombardo was under before he passed. Nor did he know Lombardo's personal will to live or die.

I myself see Lombardo's early passing in the same light as Christine. People can lose their will to live when they become overly depressed or stressed. Such inner grief and apathy often precedes death just as it does in those who have been brainwashed into believing that they are sexual and social hiv infected lepers. This is the very reason that suicide is the 2ND LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH in American HIV positives. Suicide is quite often passive, wherein a person feeling overwhelmed by apathy or grief often does not have the wherewithal to take the next appropriate step to stay alive.

As for Duesberg's statement about Lombardo's death, I attribute the rashness of Duesberg regarding Lombardo's death as the result of attempting to defend himself from emotionally unstable people such as yourself and other exuberant aids nazi's who wrongly placed blame for Lombardo's death on Duesberg and verbally attacked him for it. At least the man has the humility to admit when he is wrong, unlike yourself!. And he DOES have every right to defend himself against pusilanimous fools and to defend himself from attacks by such fools.

What a strange little fantasy world of victims you live in, where just because you are incapable of thinking for your own self, as you repetitively prove, you assume everyone else is the same as you.

And you ask who will be the next lucky poster child and who will volunteer?

I would offer to volunteer myself, but I already volunteered as a dissident more than 20 years ago.

And as a dissident, I am also personally aware of many who have already recently volunteered, even since Christine's passing.

I also regularly read many of the dissident blog sites such as Aids Myth Exposed, and notice that not a single contributor to the site has changed their dissident mind because of Christine's passing.

So fear not, Pood, Christine has now attained full martyr status among the dissidents, as a beautiful human being that gave her absolute all, including eventually giving to such a degree that the stress and toll of it all even cost her own life, in her valiant and determined struggle against aids zombies such as yourself, and in her commitment unto death to bringing mankind out of the dark ages of hiv/aids zombie pseudoscience.

So to answer your childishly repetitive question: "And so I ask again: Why follow the teachings of a woman who died of the very symptoms of severe immune suppression she claimed she could avoid?

Simple! Because she was right and because YOU ARE WRONG.

âNo-one has ever died of "aids". People die of actual causes of death within the syndrome defined as aids, such as organ failure or acute infections.â

What a fabulous display of ignorance. Thank you for demonstrating your ability to regurgitate back the party line with no effort at independent thought. I suggest you go back through the posts where this has been answered so many times before.

âI also regularly read many of the dissident blog sites such as Aids Myth Exposed, and notice that not a single contributor to the site has changed their dissident mind because of Christine's passing.â

Thatâs why it is called DENIALISM and not DISSIDENT. Denialism blinds itself to any fact against its current belief. It wonât matter that maggiore died. It wonât matter that Continuum folded when its editorial staff died and it wonât matter how many other denialists die. All you will do is try to rationalize away their unusual deaths with pseudo-medical BS like âstressing themselves to AIDSâ

âHmmmm. So Lombardo himself had the same viewpoint for "so many years" before ever even hearing the name of Peter Duesberg!â

A view which was encouraged by Duesberg to the point of death. Duesberg was also the person cited by Maggiore as being her reason to become a denialist leading to the same and sadly predictable end.

âSo to answer your childishly repetitive question...Simple! Because she was right and because YOU ARE WRONG.â

Was she right? If she truly held the key to living with HIV and not succumbing to the immune suppression it causes then she would not have died of symptoms so characteristic of said severe immune suppression. It doesnât take a genius to figure this out.

All her organic eating, her lack of faith in HIV=AIDS, her avoiding anti-HIV drugs, her lack of poverty, and her use of âalternative medicineâ lead her straight down the same path as her daughter and so many HIV+ denialists. And yet the HIV- denialists like Duesberg (who endured the stresses of being âcensoredâ and watching his career go down the crapper) is still alive.

But hey if you want to be the next poster child go contact Duesberg. Iâm sure heâll be more than happy to find a replacement.

"I suggest you go back through the posts where this has been answered so many times before."

Exactly what post or posts are you referring to, because as far as I am aware, no mechanism by which supposed hiv rna destroys any T-cells leading to immune suppression has ever been identified. This mystery is the SOLE REASON that thousands of people do not believe hiv is the cause of aids. A real scientist would not ignore this blatant inconsistancy.

But perhaps you will be the first to explain this mysterious mechanism that has eluded 250 billion dollars worth of research.

So please do explain how HIV RNA that becomes at one with one in ten thousand T Cells causes AIDS. And explain how this has eluded science for 25 years.

Until you do explain this in full, you are ignorantly upholding and promoting zombie pseudoscience.

Then you say: "If she truly held the key to living with HIV and not succumbing to the immune suppression it causes then she would not have died of symptoms so characteristic of said severe immune suppression. It doesnât take a genius to figure this out."

Poodle, if you were right, that all instances of immune suppression were due to hiv, or those on immune suppressants for tissue transplants, then nobody in this world who is hiv negative would ever die of any bacterial, fungal, or viral infection either.

Your logic, as usual, makes no sense except in your own childish imaginations.

And you have the audacity to call yourself a "scientist"? Real Scientists question everything and seek only highest truth, and do not ignore it when inconsistencies threaten their prior beliefs.

Poodle, you have been ranting on the internet for months that HIV is the cause of AIDS.

So prove it!

Explain to us all how hiv rna, which as Cooler pointed out repeatedly is only found in one in ten thousand T Cells even in the sickest of aids patients, enters T cells, becomes at one with the DNA in those cells and has never been proven to kill them, but then suddenly turns into a killer 20 or 30 or whatever years later.

Just how does HIV control the immune system? By what mechanism? Does hiv keep T cells from proliferating in the blood marrow or does it keep them from maturing and being released from the thymus gland?

How, fool???????? What the f**k is the mechanism you imbecile?

And explain to us why the death of one in every ten thousand T cells would even matter, when t cells have a short lifespan anyway and when they are continuously reproducing in every otherwise healthy persons bone marrow and maturing in the thymus gland, and doing their presumed job in every other way.

Just how does hiv rna keep them from doing what T cells normally do?

How you jackwipe zombie? Explain yourself for once!

Explain your pseudoscience now and prove it or shut the F**k up with your unproven droning and ranting and regurgitations of the outdated proclamations of other pseudoscience zombie zealots, and go back to zombieland and back under the gravestone you crawled out from under.

Prove it (whose rants sound an awful lot like cooler),

Sorry but I have no plans of explaining yet again what has been explained to you so many times before, especially with your infantile behavior, since odds are that you still won't understand it.

Even if you can't (or won't) understand it, the following facts still hold true:

A) Christine Maggiore claimed to be able to show people how to live without getting immune suppression.

B) Christine followed her own advice.

C) Christine died anyway with disseminated herpes, a disease attributable ONLY to severe immune suppression, such as seen in the final stages of AIDS.

Like I said it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize she was just plain wrong. Those who cannot see this are indeed in denial and that kind of denial makes explanations of how HIV kills cells or why it has in fact been isolated totally useless. You have blinded yourself to anything but what you want to see.

Poodle. Exactly where is the mechanism by which HIV supposedly causes aids explained?

Exactly which post describes this mechanism?

Hiding behind your lie of "I have no plans of explaining yet again what has been explained to you so many times before", won't cut it until you point to exactly what post or posts anywhere throughout all of the discussions on this or any other site describe the mechanism(s) by which hiv supposedly causes immune suppression.

A bit odd that Tony Fauci and Robert Gallo and every other hiv researcher admit that this mechanism has never been found, but YOU claim it is posted somewhere in this discussion.

PROVE IT. Put up or SHUT UP!

Until you do tell us where in this discussion such evidence that even the major researchers claim is missing, you are again revealed as a zombie science Punk who is all mouth and ego with no evidence.

How laughable!

Poodle said, as if he is any authority: "The following facts still hold true: A) Christine Maggiore claimed to be able to show people how to live without getting immune suppression."

And exactly WHERE, in exactly WHAT QUOTE FROM HER, did Christine Maggiore ever claim to show people how to live without getting immune suppression?

You claim that she claimed this so PROVE IT. WHERE OR WHEN DID SHE EVER MAKE SUCH A CLAIM?????

This is just one more of your lies and BLATANT FABRICATIONS of your childish imagination.

You also said: ""Even if you can't (or won't) understand it".

You say I do not or will not understand it?!?!?

Well then you better prove to us that YOU understand it by presenting us with the mechanism of how hiv causes immune suppression.

Then you say: "Like I said it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize she was just plain wrong."

Was she really? Then Prove to us that HIV was the cause of her death by explaining exactly how it caused her immune suppression!

You said: "Those who cannot see this are indeed in denial and that kind of denial makes explanations of how HIV kills cells or why it has in fact been isolated totally useless.

Can not see what? No, we cannot see the mechanism by which hiv would have caused her immune suppression. Please do explain exactly how this occurred.

Then, and most laughable of all, you said: "You have blinded yourself to anything but what you want to see".

Go say that to your own self repeatedly while standing before a mirror until you realize you are projecting upon others and attempting to teach what YOU YOURSELF most need to learn.

So back to it, where is your proof for just how hiv affects t cells and causes immune suppression? Surely after 250 billion has been spent on this question and after hundreds of thousands of research papers, you must be able to come up with it somewhere,

so, PUT UP OR SHUT UP ZOMBIE BOY!

Ahahahahahahahahahahaaaaa,

The always to remember words of the aids zombie Poodle:

He said: "that kind of denial makes explanations of how HIV kills cells totally useless."

Please explain to us how HIV RNA kills cells after it has successfully integrated with the cells DNA and does nothing for years thereafter!!! At what point does the mastermind criminal hiv suddenly decide to launch a concerted attack on the one in ten thousand t cells that it infects?

By the way, moron, although it has been BELIEVED for 25 years that hiv kills T-cells, the FACT is that HIV has yet to be proven to kill any T-cells at all!!!

Do you not know the difference between speculations and hypotheses versus well supported and proven facts????

So if you are going to continue the pseudoscience speculation that HIV KILLS T CELLS as being a fact, THEN PROVE IT! Where is the proof that hiv kills T-cells in vivo????

Show us the proof that HIV kills T-cells!

After all, that is what the top hiv researchers have fruitlessly been attempting to do for 25 years, with no conclusive proof for this hypothetical claim ever having been found!

After 25 years of hearing this bullshit hypothesis spouted as if it is a supported fact, and 250 BILLION TAXPAYER DOLLARS THROWN IN THE TOILET, along with every hiv meme brainwashed unthinking moron like yourself parroting it as being true, either PUT UP THE PROOF OR ADMIT THAT IT IS ONLY A SPECULATION that hiv kills T cells, or SHUT UP.

To all the random and incoherent demands for proof:

If you can't understand or accept the past 20+ years of research then I have no illusions that I can penetrate that thick wall of your denialism. Thanks but I'll waste my time elsewhere. If you really wanted to learn how it works (and you obviously don't) you can look in pubmed.

"Do you not know the difference between speculations and hypotheses versus well supported and proven facts????"

Hilarious! Denialists speculate that Maggiore has either been stressed or holistic treatment-ed to a state of disseminated herpes yet have no proof this is even possible! Hypocritical, don't you think?

Like I said before:

A) Christine Maggiore claimed to be able to show people how that tested positive for HIV how to live and not die of AIDS (immune suppression). This was after all the whole premise behind Alive and Well, of which she is now neither.

B) Christine followed her own advice as is evident by her visiting her "alternative medicine" doctor and avoiding HIV medication altogether.

C) Christine died anyway with disseminated herpes, a disease attributable ONLY to severe immune suppression, such as seen in the final stages of AIDS. Her ONLY risk factor for this was her untreated HIV. Of course if you can find a "stressed to disseminated herpes" case feel free to cite it.

"To all the random and incoherent demands for proof"

They are only incoherent demands to someone in denial of the fact that they have no such proofs.

"If you can't understand or accept the past 20+ years of research"

I myself fully understand that science changes every day, as it is built upon or destroyed by proofs and lack of proofs, and obviously you are the one stuck in 20 year old science failures with no proof for your 20 year old claims.

Your avoidance of my request for evidence and pointing to pubmed claiming that it is found somewhere therein is evidence in itself that you have no proofs to support your claims of fact.

You say: "Christine Maggiore claimed to be able to show people how that tested positive for HIV how to live and not die of AIDS (immune suppression).

Again, you are lying and repetition of lies still does not make them true. So I ask you to prove it again. Where in all of her printed words did she claim to be able to show people how to live and not die of aids?

You said: "B) Christine followed her own advice as is evident by her visiting her "alternative medicine" doctor and avoiding HIV medication altogether.

And what exactly is your point other than to speculate that she would be alive if she did something differently. Again, nothing supported by facts, just more of your speculations and imaginations and rants.

And finally, You said: "Of course if you can find a "stressed to disseminated herpes" case feel free to cite it".

Fine, I will. See: Disseminated herpes simplex virus-1 infection in a previously healthy man1 Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Volume 50, Issue 3, Page P110

And I found that one in about 3 seconds. Undoubtedly there are many more easily found, and I would speculate that there have likely been many thousands of such cases that have never even been written up in any journals, as only a tiny percentage of the millions of past deaths or illnesses has ever even been written or reported to any journals.

Also, at this very moment is a current study now enrolling that itself is looking at hiv negative disseminated infections including herpes infections. The very criteria for joining is that they are hiv negatives:

http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00814827

Also note this study is taking place in a poverty stricken 3rd world country where the difficulty of daily life itself presents high stress levels.

How strange, I can support every word I write, and Poodle the Zombie, as usual, supports nothing, but declares that the answers he does not know and can not prove are found somewhere in the current thread or somewhere in Pubmed, though he knows not where.

Poodle, you are a driveling zombie with nothing but ad homs, appeals to authority, citing hypotheses as facts.

For the dozenth time, Poodle is proven to be false.

You can not support anything that you claim is truth. You are a proven liar, a zombie, and a complete and total fraud just like those whose fraudulent zombie science you follow. Little wonder. Birds of a feather regurgitate bullshit together.

From the New York Times, March 12, 2009:

"The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that by 2005, MRSA was killing more than 18,000 Americans a year, more than AIDS".

Well, how strange, MRSA is killing more people than AIDS!!!!!!, Especially considering that most of the AIDS deaths were due to liver failure from the medications!!!! And even more especially since in 2005 the CDC also reported that fully half of American hiv positives do NOT even take anti-hiv drugs!

How strange indeed!

And to think that MRSA is now rampant and fast becoming the leading killer in America directly due to the overuse of antibiotics that those damned "AIDS DENIALISTS" have been screaming bloody murder about for 20 years!!!!!!!!!!!!

No wonder poor Christine Maggiorre was even to paranoid to use them at all, ESPECIALLY after her own daughter even died 2 years ago from reactions to amoxicillin!!!!!

But surely we should ignore all this and throw even more money away by giving it all to fraudulent denialist liars and zombies like Poodle to support dead and dying Zombie Aids Science!
;~)

âWhere in all of her printed words did she claim to be able to show people how to live and not die of aids?â

Maggiore made her message quite clear. On Alive and Well: If its not HIV, for example she states:

âFor many people handed an HIV positive diagnosis, these brief pages provide their first awareness that a normal, healthy life is not something they can only hope for, but something they can choose to achieve. Unfortunately for most people who test positive, the AIDS education they receive portrays their choices as being limited to toxic drug therapy or devastating illness, and encourages chronic fear, sadness, and resignation to an early death.

There are thousands of HIV positives who lead healthy lives without toxic AIDS drugs. What they have in common is not some unique, mysterious gene or a weakened strain of the virus, but an open-minded approach to information, an understanding of basic principles of medicine and science, and the knowledge that the responsibility for their well-being is ultimately their own.â

The message is quite clear: those who have âopen mindsâ to her treatment options and ideas (See Alive and Well: If you tested positive) can join those âof HIV positives who lead healthy lives without toxic AIDS drugsâ. Maggiore was one of these people and yet her treatments failed.

âFine, I will. See: Disseminated herpes simplex virus-1 infection in a previously healthy man1 Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Volume 50, Issue 3, Page P110â

And what did the paper conclude? Was his condition caused by stress (this is what I asked you to show, remember)? Did you even read it or just Google it?

âAlso, at this very moment is a current study now enrolling that itself is looking at hiv negative disseminated infections including herpes infections. The very criteria for joining is that they are hiv negatives.

Indeed, and the study is interesting indeed. The key word however is that they are looking. It doesnât mean they have found any of these people (with disseminated herpes). If you bother to read the entire page (and I doubt you did) this is a study aimed at testing the hypothesis about people with autoantibodies against Interferon Gamma. The hypothesis being that targeting this particular cytokine can result in severe immune deficiency, capable of leading to OIs. Thus, they are searching for people with OIs not common in NON-IMMUNE SUPPRESSED people. Do you understand how even your own citation refutes your belief that disseminated herpes is somehow either not indicative of severe immune-suppression? You need to read a bit more than just a Google entry.

âAnd what exactly is your point other than to speculate that she would be alive if she did something differently.â

My point did not even have to be that HIV caused her death (although it was the only risk factor she had for her symptoms and is beyond a doubt the cause). The point was that she promoted herself and her organization as the source of knowledge and information on how to live a healthy life and yet she still died of symptoms attributable to AIDS and just as one would not take weight loss advice from a 500lbs man, one should think twice on taking advice on how to live a healthy life from a woman who died of immune suppression. Especially if everything she says directly contradicts scientific evidence.

âFor the dozenth time, Poodle is proven to be false.â

Simply because you a) do not understand science and /or b) choose to blind yourself to anything outside your own beliefs does not mean that anyone is lying. Your choice of incessant ad hominum attacks are also VERY telling. Thank you for making that point for me.

PUOSU (probably Cooler),

âNo wonder poor Christine Maggiorre was even to paranoid to use [antibiotics] at all, ESPECIALLY after her own daughter even died 2 years ago from reactions to amoxicillin!!!!!â

Really? She never used them at all? That is really strange since, in her email to Farber, Maggiore (you misspelled her name, way to go) specifically stated that she went on antibiotics, saying:

The doctor immediately gave me IV rehydration, IV natural cortisone, and IV antibiotic. She said if I did not improve by the next day, I would have to go to the hospital which I argued would give me worse treatment, lousy food and maybe a MRS infection as a parting gift. I went back again today, had more IV treatments and she said if I can make it through the weekend without having to go to the hospital, she will be very happyâ¦I have three natural cortisone treatments I am to take everyday, and today I started with another antibiotic called Z pack which is different from the one used in the IV.

Kinda makes me wonder just how much you actually research stuff, Cooleâ¦I mean PUOSU.

âBut surely we should ignore all this and throw even more money away by giving it all to fraudulent denialist liars and zombies like Poodle to support dead and dying Zombie Aids Science!â

Sorry Iâve never worked with HIV or vaccines or anything like that so Iâm not getting any money for it. Sure wouldn't mind the extra income though.

Again by inferring something that is not there, you evidence yourself as a liar who is unwilling to admit that he is wrong. Nowhere in the statement you presented by Christine does it say she claimed to be able to show people that tested positive for HIV how to live and not die of AIDS (immune suppression).

Furthermore peanut brain, where did you ever get the idea that it is my belief that Christine's disseminated herpes is somehow not indicative of her having severe immune suppression? Of course I think she was suffering from severe immune depression.

Where did you imagine that I have stated this, since it is nowhere in anything I have posted? This is yet one more evidence of your lying and imagining.

Of COURSE I THINK SHE HAD SEVERE IMMUNE SUPPRESSION you fool. And after having personally read dozens of studies linking high stress and chronic stress to immune suppression, elevated cortisol levels, elevated adrenal levels, depleted nutrient levels, as well as the drastic effect that stress can have on the thymus gland where CD4 T CELLS mature, to the point of severe shrinkage of the thymus by as much as 50 percent in as little as 24 hours, including the many studies linking high stress levels to illness even in several studies that were done on hiv positives by the way, your own foolish and ridiculous insanity portraying that stress plays no part in human health or immune systems or in the lives of any hiv positives or in Christine's life with all she had going on, becomes utterly ridiculously laughable and reveals you to be nothing less than simple minded, don't you think? Especially considering so many hiv researchers themselves have correlated high stress with illness especially in hiv positives????????

Are you even aware that Niaid director Tony Fauci's graduate thesis was on the effects of stress causing high cortisol levels which in turn caused immune suppression???

And are you aware that having written that thesis as a grad student, and then having completely disregarded the effects of stress of the aids hype of the early 80s proves that the only bigger zombie than you is the director of niaids himself.

And please do not confuse my calling a spade a spade as ad hominem attack. I sincerely meant every word that I have said and every label I have put upon you, including imbecile, zombie, unthinking, irrational, egotist, and several others.

At least some people are bright enough to know they do not know all truth, whereas you are just simple minded enough to believe that you do. You clearly evidence this again by such statements as: "although it was the only risk factor she had for her symptoms and is beyond a doubt the cause".

Well golly gee, Mr. Zombie! I didn't know that you were a personal confidant of Christine's or that you were so privvy to everything about her in that she even confided in you all of the personal details of her life! But somehow, and quite mysteriously, even though you had never met her, you somehow know more about her than her own family, closest friends, or doctors!

Your statements of being all knowing of the intimacies of Christine Maggiore are the very epitomy of a know-it-all and egotistical jackass.

Now would you be so kind as to point out the post where-in you claimed that the mechanism by which hiv causes aids or kills T-cells, as you claim has been discussed in this thread or is found on pubmed.

You claimed it as true, so you get to prove it. Or is your refusal to present evidence of your claims to be assumed by all who read this as full admission by you to be more of your lies and bullshit imaginations?

Did it really bother you that I said Christine was too paranoid to use antibiotics? And where in the words "too paranoid" did you read that I had ever said she "never used them at all".

Nowhere did I say that she never used them. I am well aware that she was given them for the pneumonia, and I am also well aware that she was very paranoid of ever using them.

You really do seem to have comprehension and reading problems. You claim people wrote something you imagined. You claim they said things they never said. You claim hypotheses as if they were supported by facts.

Are you on psych drugs, or do you just have a naturally low IQ?

By the way, I am still waiting for the location of the posted discussions of how hiv causes aids and how it kills T cells. It has now been 3 hours of back and forth from you and you have yet to present your evidence.

Please do so now present the proof of your statements that I have asked for repeatedly and that you repeatedly claim is found somewhere, for I grow tired of arguing with a zombie who lacks integrity, honesty, comprehension, or usefulness.

The precise mechanisms by which HIV kills T-cells and destroys the immune system are the focus of continuing research. Scientific knowledge is a cumulative process. But not having a complete explanation for a phenomenon does not mean that phenomenon does not exist. Exactly how the first nucleic acids formed on earth is similarly the focus of intense research, but an incomplete scientific understanding of that chemical process does not mean that life does not exist. Human knowledge of a phenomenon is not a condition for the existence of than phenomenon.

âNowhere in the statement you presented by Christine does it say she claimed to be able to show people that tested positive for HIV how to live and not die of AIDS (immune suppression).â

Not directly, no. This is very good from a legal perspective as the families/partners of the dead HIV+ denialists who followed her could have sued her if she had explicitly claimed this. The message however is very clearly implied.

âDid it really bother you that I said Christine was too paranoid to use antibiotics? And where in the words "too paranoid" did you read that I had ever said she "never used them at all".â

Hmm, lets see you said, and I quote, âNo wonder poor Christine Maggiorre was even to paranoid to use [antibiotics] at all, ESPECIALLY after her own daughter even died 2 years ago from reactions to amoxicillin!!!!!â

Iâm not sure what part of this was supposed to be unclear. If she was âtoo paranoid to use antibiotics at allâ she by definition wouldnât have used them now would she? Clearly she was not too paranoid to âuse them at allâ since she used them three times in the weeks before she died. Either she was too paranoid and would not have used them âat allâ or she was not too paranoid to use them âat allâ. Are you back peddling, trying to cover for bad grammar, or simply trying to cover up yet another lie?

âOf COURSE I THINK SHE HAD SEVERE IMMUNE SUPPRESSION â¦your own foolish and ridiculous insanity portraying that stress plays no part in human health or immune systems or in the lives of any hiv positivesâ¦especially considering so many hiv researchers themselves have correlated high stress with illness especially in hiv positives????????â

All your little name calling aside, I have not said that stress does not affect the immune system. What I said is that stress does not cause immune suppression of the magnitude required for the dissemination of herpes. This is something found only in those severely immune suppressed such as those on immune suppressants or those with advanced AIDS, not merely those stressed.

On the other hand it is funny that you would suddenly accept those studies by AIDS researchers when you think it supports your beliefs but ignore them as frauds the rest of the time. Which is it? This is the classic cherry picking seen in all forms of denialism (be it AIDS, moon landing, holocaust, or flat-earthers). This is, again why debating with denialists is useless. You cherry pick what you want to believe, toss the rest out, and never truly understand any of it.

âPlease do so now present the proof of your statements that I have asked for repeatedly and that you repeatedly claim is found somewhereâ

Do a search in Aetiology for HIVâ and âKillsâ. Iâm sure youâll find it but I personally have no interest in taking the time to go find the specific locations for you. After all, anytime you are proven wrong/lying you either ignore or try to rationalize it away. Waste your own time.

The question still remain however:

If Christine herself died of AIDS, then why would anyone with HIV follow her example?

If she died from the âholistic treatmentsâ then why would anyone take her âalternate medicineâ advice?

If she died of stress then why would anyone take any of her advice?

Regardless of how you look at it, she clearly did not have the answers to a long and healthy life, making her yet another false prophet of AIDS. And while her many blind and willing followers will no doubt continue to try to rationalize her death with medically unsound stories, the fact of her death and those of her daughter will be forever immortalized in history.

"Stranger still, that Duesberg was very top on the list of speakers chosen by Christine's husband to speak at her memorial. Followed by many other notable dissidents who were able to attend. And Peter was even given a standing ovation by the hundreds who attended the service!"

And then everybody followed Peter into the spaceship and they set off on the trail of Hale-Bopp.

Here's one example of the fine honest service Duesberg offered the family. Eager to dodge any responsibility for the death of Eliza-Jane, Duesberg & Bialy write to the LA Times, saying:

"A post mortem finding of PCP in the lungs means nothing since it is 100% ubiquitous in human beings" (http://www.justiceforej.com/ej-chronology.html)

Is this true? No, it is an egregious lie. PCP may be ubiquitous, that doesn't mean it's found at autopsy absent severe underlying immune deficiency (which Eliza-Jane had no other risk factors for).

http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite?page=kb-00&doc=kb-05-02-01

"At the National Cancer Institute, only 7 of 2,887 consecutive autopsies revealed PCP, a prevalence rate of only 0.2% in a high-risk population. (43)"

43.Vogel CL, Cohen MH, Powell RD, DeVita VT.
Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia. Ann Intern Med. 1968 Jan;68(1):97-108

This population was at high risk for immune deficiency because of cancer.

Hey Pood, At this point I have given up on expecting you to present even a single piece to back up your claims. So lets move on to the birds of a feather you flock with....

Where has your buddy, the psychopathic Seth Kalichman pseudopsychologist been? You know, the guy that wrote the book you are just dying to read: "Denying Aids".

By the way, have you ever looked at his research where he tells hiv positives how stress can make them physically ill?

http://socialpsych.uconn.edu/HIV%2B_Risk_Reduction_Guide.pdf

Other than being an astoundingly juvenile piece, at least he got something right!

Here is an excerpt:

Begin with a discussion of stress factors in life. We all have things that create stress in everyday life.

⢠Some stressors are minor and easy to deal with, while other stressors are significant and can be overwhelming. (*Unless your name is Christine Maggiore or you are an aids denialist, then whatever is thrown at you is because you had it coming and is not the cause of your illness because only hiv could do that. Amazing how he easily notices stress can overwhelm, except for Christine Maggiore, who Seth has portrayed as having had no stress at all after her daughter died of a reaction to amoxicillin and after she was relentlessly attacked in nationwide newspapers and magazines and blogsites and labeled an aids denialist mother whose aids denial and refusal to have her daughter tested or on aids drugs and thereby stood publicly acused and convicted as having caused the death of her daughter*)

⢠HIV can be a long-term stressor that is difficult to deal with.

(*How astute. Is Kalichman aware that suicide, both passive and direct, is the leading cause of death in those diagnosed as hiv infected sexual lepers? No mention anywhere by Seth of just how stressful such a diagnosis can be. And of course, if one is an aids dissident, then one's greatest stress often becomes how to stop the insanity of the hiv pushers such as Seth from destroying your life or the lives of those you love*)

⢠In either case, HIV can present added problems and stress for you
that can effect your health.

(*WHAT??? Did I read that right? Seth Kalichman fully and publicly admits that STRESS can affect physical health??? If that is what he believes, then why did Seth completely ignore this when Christine was stressed to breaking? Why did he fight vehemently to portray Christine's only problem as being that of an HIV positive and a lack of aids drugs? Why does he ignore that she was endlessly attacked in the media, by emails and phone calls, including by him? Why does he ignore she had just been portrayed as a murderous denialist mother in a recent Law and Order episode just one month before she became ill? Why does he ignore the stress Christine was facing at the trial of the coroner that she was scheduled to testify at the week after she got ill and died? Why does Seth conveniently ignore the massive nonstep grief and stress that Christine was faced with?*)

But most hilarious of all is when Seth exposes his motivations in the following statement:

⢠Sometimes we all try to hide things about ourselves or things weâve done from
others and this can be stressful. (*Ah Ha! Just what is it Seth is hiding about himself?*)

o just what IS IT THAT SETH the pseudopsychologist IS HIDING ABOUT HIMSELF? What seeming vile thing has he likely partaken in or that he is tempted to partake in that he has hidden even from his wife? Did he play the girlfriend role for his older brother or father when he was 10? Is it that Seth cruises the park at night for gay sexual encounters? Just what is it that Seth has done, as he is clearly informing us that he too is hiding something from his loved ones? And furthermore, is it that Seth also uses his own fear of the hiv boogeyman to keep from acting out his own fantasies and desires? Does Seth, just like so many of those who push the hiv paradigm also personally NEED the fear of aids to keep from acting out his fantasy desires?

Obviously SOMETHING is driving this man to rant endlessly about aids dissidents. Something he keeps well hidden. And whatever his motivation is, it is certainly not about being a loving compassionate would be savior to hiv positives nor is it a benevolent desire to save the world from suffering death by aids. Not for Seth. For Seth this is a very personal crusade. Is it the money that motivates Kalichman, or is he using fear of hiv to keep his deviant desires in check? Or both?

As for Seth's "scholarship"..... Read the paper. The astoundingly juvenile nature of his "best works" in psychology that seems to be directed at kindergarteners gives me sincere question as to how someone such as Seth ever got a degree at all, let alone a professorship, in of all things, psychology!

PUOSU,

Are you completely blind or just illiterate? No one (including me) ever said that stress has no effect on health. It is known that it does and it is also known, at least in part, how it does. I never claimed otherwise. However, if denialists are going to claim that stress alone (or in conjunction with "holistic treatment") can cause a state of immune suppression that it can lead to disseminated herpes then the burden of proof is on you/them.

Secondly I find it telling that you guys put so much emphasis on her being stressed by a TV show and a reputation. Do you have any proof of the extent of the stress this placed on her? I hear all of you parroting this line over and over ("stress killed her", "Law and Order killed her") but do any of you have proof of this or just more speculation? Yes she suffered from immune suppression, the symptoms of which are typical of AIDS, but where is your proof that the stress caused this? Is there any?

Until then, as you put it yourself; Put up or shut up.

o just what IS IT THAT SETH the pseudopsychologist IS HIDING ABOUT HIMSELF? What seeming vile thing has he likely partaken in or that he is tempted to partake in that he has hidden even from his wife? Did he play the girlfriend role for his older brother or father when he was 10? Is it that Seth cruises the park at night for gay sexual encounters? Just what is it that Seth has done, as he is clearly informing us that he too is hiding something from his loved ones? And furthermore, is it that Seth also uses his own fear of the hiv boogeyman to keep from acting out his own fantasies and desires? Does Seth, just like so many of those who push the hiv paradigm also personally NEED the fear of aids to keep from acting out his fantasy desires?

Michael, it sounds like you are projecting your psychological problems onto other people again.

It does seem to be a habit of yours.

Though I am also aware that he is likely a true believer in an HIV threat and that his zealousness is likely driven by a moral crusade that is likely founded in both his paranoia of AIDS and a deep internalized self-loathing for being gay that would create a lack of compassionate understanding of the self-destructiveness inherent in so many self-loathing gay men. I also find that many gays seem to have a need for the boogeyman of HIV to be real, in their own efforts to keep themselves from acting out sexual addiction that they may also often be prone to.

Anyway, I thought I was the megalomaniac, fascist, alcoholic, drug addicted, closet gay homophobe.

Anyway, I thought I was the megalomaniac, fascist, alcoholic, drug addicted, closet gay homophobe.

No, Chris. Apparently thereâs a whole bunch of us, and Michael has us all lined up for his very own *groan* 12-step meeting.

Personally, I was hoping for a slightly more exotic therapeutic experience. As a Snout, what I would really enjoy is a psychosexual analysis based theoretically on the late 19th century
correspondence between Freud and Fleiss*.

*Thatâs Wilhelm (not Heidi) Fleiss.

GOOD LORD ALMIGHTY!!!!!!!!

Is this the missing evidence showing the creationists must have gotten it right!!!

Evidently there must be a GOD!!!!!!! Poodle Stomper is the living evidence!!!

The words of Poodle shall one day be IMMORTALIZED at the base of a new statue of him to be unveiled at the steps of the NIH/NIAIDS

"No one (including me) ever said that stress has no effect on health. It is known that it does and it is also known, at least in part, how it does. I never claimed otherwise."

Surely it follows Poodles brilliant line of thinking, that Acquired Chronic Stress affecting physical health and the immune system to the point of it being a syndrome of stress caused immune disfunction would equate to an Aquired Stress Caused IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME!!!!

Poodle, you are so brilliant in that you will now go down in history as the brilliant AIDS scientist who discovered the missing causative factor of immune suppression in AIDS!

The syndrome will even be renamed, and shall now and forever by termed SCAIDS for Stress Caused Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome! All thanks to the brilliant Poodle Stomper!!!

Allow me to be the first to suggest it: I hereby elect Poodle and his assistant Seth Kalichman to share the next Nobel Prize!!!!

My congratulations to all!

No, that is not evidence of God, it is evidence of EVOLUTION!

Congratulations to both Poodle and Seth on both their being living examples of evolution, on their solving the mystery of AIDS, and also on their subsequent nomination for the next Nobel Prize.

Congrats Poodle!

Remember me in your Nobel speech.

You finally solved what causes aids! Wow...

PS: Peace on you! Peace all over you!

I would do it myself if I ever met you.

"Surely it follows Poodles brilliant line of thinking, that Acquired Chronic Stress affecting physical health and the immune system to the point of it being a syndrome of stress caused immune disfunction would equate to an Aquired Stress Caused IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME!!!!"

So are you illiterate or just an idiot? Your assumptions and misunderstanding lead you to very illogical conclusions. If you have proof that stress, chronic or acute, was the causative factor (with or without the "holistic treatment") Maggiore's disseminated herpes, please feel free to share it. However, until such a time please stop displaying so much of your ignorance at once. It gives me headaches.

Yes, Poods, here is a very easy way to prove this.

Lets take one of your mothers children or grandchildren and hide the child away, then all accuse YOUR MOTHER of having murdered the child. Lets post your mothers name across the nation in newspaper articles, and books, and make TV shows portraying your mother as guilty of the crime. Then we will create dozens of blog sites accusing her of the murder. Then lets orchestrate regular telephone calls and emails to her accusing her of the murder. Then lets threaten to remove all her children and grandchildren from her custody, and propose to her to take those who accuse her of murder to court.

Then we will steadily increase the harangue and put pressure on her for years, and see how long she stays healthy.

How long do you think she will remain healthy for Poodle? How much stress will your own mother take before her health breaks????????

What illnesses do you suppose she might eventually come down with? Has she ever had herpes? Will she get pneumonia by next winter? How is her heart?

And when would you like this science experiment to begin????

Thanks! Thank you for making my point for me yet again. You have demonstrated that your claim that Maggiore's disseminated herpes was due to stress is based on nothing more than speculation. Did you have evidence or facts that proved your case?

Nope!

All you have is baseless speculation and hypothetical questions like "What illnesses do you suppose she might eventually come down with...?"

I'm not asking for you to speculate. I am simply asking for proof that Maggiore's disseminated herpes was caused by her stress. You'd think you guys would have said proof what with most denialists having turned to simply parroting this as a way to avoid having to face the truth.

So where is it? Where is your proof that this was the cause? Do you have any or are you simply regurgitating what you want to believe because it fits in your preconceived notions?

I have known people who have survived the concentration camps of Auschwitz and yet still lived on to old age. Did they have less stress in their lives, seeing their families destroyed and under constant threat of death than Maggiore did in her cushy house? Or maybe it is just that they didn't internalize it, right? But you must be right; seeing scores of people being buried in mass graves and knowing you could be next must be less stressful than being fictionalized on Law and Order.

Did stress also not exist before the early 80's that these AIDS defining illnesses such as KS were so rare?

You need to do a bit of research not only on the effects of stress but also into your own insane claims. But I am patient. Feel free to come up with said evidence whenever you have the chance.

"Congrats Poodle!

Remember me in your Nobel speech.

You finally solved what causes aids! Wow...

PS: Peace on you! Peace all over you!

I would do it myself if I ever met you.

Posted by: cooler | March 26, 2009 2:07 PM"

Tara, I did not make this post. Somebody else is puppetting me. Check the IP addresses. I guess I will have to change my pseudonym if I post here again.

...and yet the elusive proof that stress caused Maggiore's (or anyone's) disseminated herpes remains elusive.

...and yet the elusive proof that hiv caused Maggiore's (or anyone's) lowered immmune system remains elusive.

"...and yet the elusive proof that hiv caused Maggiore's (or anyone's) lowered immmune system remains elusive."

Which is of course your way of avoiding the proof of "stress caused her disseminated herpes". As st about HIV's ability to kill T-cells. Some aspects of it are well understood and some are still being researched. You simply lack the ability and, more importantly, the desire to learn.

So any proof for that little stress claim of yours? I thought not.

For a group of people who like to think of themselves as "rethinkers" you guys don't do much thinking in terms of the party lines you swallow.

Just for grins here is an article I came across a while back that may interest anyone reading Cooler/PUOSU/other crazy denialists' rantings.

No, I don't think it will change their minds but it is interesting nonetheless.

In short: Mice are grafted with (given) a human immune system. Some (experimental group) were then injected with HIV while others (control group) were injected only with the medium (liquid in which HIV was suspended). Any guesses what happened?

In the words of the authors:

Within 1 wk after HIV-1 infection, a sharp decline of the engrafted human CD4 cells (_80%) was observed
in T- or M-tropic HIV-1-infected Trimera mice in contrast to the medium-injected Trimera animal controls.
The percentage of human CD8 cells remained constant throughout the experiment in both the HIV-
1-infected and noninfected Trimera mice (40_5%). Accordingly, the CD4/CD8 ratios for human lymphocytes was found to decrease only in the HIV infected Trimera mice from 1.1 (before HIV-1 injection) to 0.1 and 0.02 at 18 and 27 days after infection, respectively. Immune activation, as determined by the proportion of HLA-DR and CD38 positive cells, was also markedly enhanced in the HIV infected animals.

Surprising? Nope.

Will it change the minds of denialists? Doubtful.

Denialism is marked by the ability to simply wave off or rationalize away evidence contrary to their view while clinging to baseless assumptions (like stress as the cause of Marriore's Disseminated herpes).

Just for grins here are some statements from niaid director Tony Fauci that I came across a while back that may interest anyone reading Poodles/Snouts/Nobles/other crazy reality denialists' rantings.

No, I don't think it will change their minds but it is interesting nonetheless.

In short: Dr Fauci communicated to the Proceedings of the National Academy in a chapter on the Immunology of AIDS he wrote for the textbook "Fundamental Immunology"Â, edited by William E. Paul MD and published by Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins in 2003 (p. 1295):

What Fauci confirmed was that the result of HIV arriving in the human body was to touch off and maintain proliferation of T-cells, rather than killing them off.

What happens is that for a 56 fold (5600 per cent) gain in HIV early on CD4 T-cells drop maybe 6% but CD8 T-cells rise 20 per cent. The net increase is there until drugs are provided, in which case this beneficial effect is wiped out. If the drugs are stopped, then the benefit is once again felt.

The total outcome is hidden in the complexity of the immune system - there are other major factors involved in the standard and rather misleading T-cell count, such as rate of production, redistribution, longevity of cells, level of apoptosis and activation induced cell death - but these trends are clear, Fauci pointed out.

In the words of the author:

"Several investigators have demonstrated that THERE IS AN INCREASE in CD4+ T-cell proliferation in both HIV and SIV infection. In certain studies, the enhanced T-cell proliferation that was observed during active disease was significantly decreased following the initiation of anti-retroviral therapy, and proliferation increased again in parallel with plasma viremia following the cessation of treatment in these individuals".

Surprising? Nope.

Will it change the minds of hiv blaming reality denialists? Doubtful.

Denialism is marked by the ability to simply wave off or rationalize away evidence contrary to their view while clinging to baseless assumptions (like hiv as the cause of CD4 cell loss or the cause of Maggiiore's Disseminated herpes).

PS to pood: You mispelled Ms. Maggiore's name in your post above. ; )

Pood, you prove to us fairly well in your statement above; "In short: Mice are grafted with (given) a human immune system",

that MICE ARE NOT MEN, even though some such as yourself seem to be rather mousey if not outright rats.

"that MICE ARE NOT MEN, even though some such as yourself seem to be rather mousey if not outright rats."

You once again show your lack of understanding of science. Mice are not humans but their immune system in this case was! Do you not understand how grafts work?

The cells that made up these mice's immune systems were 100% human. They came from a human donor and were transplanted to them. Upon exposure to HIV (but not in controls)you see the same pattern of decline in CD4 T cells and the same affect on CD8/CD4 ratio seen in people.

Like I said before, however, i don't expect this to convince denialists as the ones that have posted here display ignorance to science as a whole.

So feel free to move the goal posts more or, more likely, display more lack of understanding of biology in general.

Prove it,

Can you cite your quote there?

For anyone who needs a laugh, the post by Prove It is simply a copy and paste job from Here. No need to think for themselves or weigh out evidence, just copy and paste what other denialists say. On the other hand, when HIV is in fact experimentally shown to drastically reduce the CD4 T-cells in a human immune system grafted to an animal model all you get is "but those are mice" and no comprehension of how grafts work.

For anyone who needs a laugh, the post by Prove It is simply a copy and paste job from Here. No need to think for themselves or weigh out evidence, just copy and paste what other denialists say. On the other hand, when HIV is in fact experimentally shown to drastically reduce the CD4 T-cells in a human immune system grafted to an animal model all you get is "but those are mice" and no comprehension of how grafts work.

Considering that one of the Denialist canards is the supposed lack of an animal model for AIDS then it is highly amusing when they turn around and say "but those are mice".

When your sole standpoint is denial then self-consistency isn't a strong point.

There is no evidence Maggiore ever had tcell count below 200, even if she was even HIV positive (who knows she said her tests changed) and unless her medical records are released anyone making claims about knowing what actually is just engaging in ad hoc speculations.

It's what people do when they can't cite any experiments that prove HIV causality that justified AZT's release in 1987.

As far as that pathetic mice study, the controls also suffered t cell depletion (not as much but still 20-50% reduction) All of the mice were "bled" to death, now why would you have to kill the mice? Shouldn't HIV do it itself? Hopefully the scientists did the same bleeding technique on the control animals.

If these scientists were truly looking to prove causality they should have just let observed all the mice and see if they died of AIDS over a long period of time, like is supposedly the case in humans, they didn't, they just killed them off. Massive fail. I'm sure if you injected any mouse with a virus you'd see a lot of changes in immunity, hell even the control animals had a great deal of t cell depletion.

âAs far as that pathetic mice study, the controls also suffered t cell depletion (not as much but still 20-50% reduction)â

Are you complaining because they had controls? Those infected with HIV not only showed antibody production to the virus, high viral load, and also recoverable infectious viruses but also showed an 80% reduction in CD4 T-cell WHEN COMPARED TO THE CONTROLS.

âAll of the mice were "bled" to death, now why would you have to kill the mice?â

To collect blood. This wasnât a causality experiment.

âIf these scientists were truly looking to prove causality they should have just let observed all the mice and see if they died of AIDS over a long period of time, like is supposedly the case in humans, they didn't, they just killed them off.â

Are you high or did you not read the paper? The paper wasnât meant to prove causality. The paper was meant to show that these mice, a low cost animal could be used as a model on which to test antiretrovirals. The claim was made that no paper existed that showed that HIV could destroy T-cells. This paper was provided to show that the person made that claim has no idea what he/she was talking about.

âI'm sure if you injected any mouse with a virus you'd see a lot of changes in immunityâ

The first question is whether the changes would be nearly identical to those observed in humans with HIV (reduction in CD4 cells and inversion of CD4/CD8 ratio) as was the case here. The second question is: Do you have any proof to support why you are âsureâ or are you simply speculating?

So, the claim was that no papers show that HIV can reduce CD4 cell counts. This paper showed a low maintenance cost animal model could be used that had the same characteristics of HIV infection in people. Can you admit to being wrong or will you move the goal posts even further out of the solar system?

So if this paper wasn't designed to prove causality, why are you using it to prove causality you moron?

Secondly, these kinds of experiments are really not related to anything that really goes on in nature. Imagine if you gave an 8 year old boy and rid him of his natural cells and gave him an immune system transplant from a mouse, I'm sure the sheer trauma and shock of such an drastic procedure would make anybodies system respond in a dramatic way to any virus. It's totally irrelevant to anything that goes on in the real world.

"So if this paper wasn't designed to prove causality, why are you using it to prove causality you moron?"

The paper clearly shows that HIV causes a decrease in human CD4 cells in vivo. That is what was requested. The paper was not intended to go over the causality of HIV to AIDS and that is why they did not need to keep the mice alive longer. Please try a bit of reading comprehension before posting. I'll leave readers of even moderate intelligence to determine who the "moron" is.

"Secondly...I'm sure the sheer trauma and shock of such an drastic procedure would make anybodies system respond in a dramatic way to any virus...It's totally irrelevant to anything that goes on in the real world."

"I'm sure..." is of course Cooler-speak for "I have no evidence but will just assume I'm right". Do you have any evidence at all to support this other than more of your BS speculation?

That is why they had controls and the controls did not produce antibodies to HIV nor did they have the classic inversion of CD4 to CD8 ratio, nor did they lose CD4 cells at the same rate as the HIV infected mice.
Cooler you need to get yourself a bit of an education in biology. Junior high level bio classes just don't cut it.

On the other hand I am surprised that you didn't claim the authors of this paper in conjunction with the New World Order secretly infected them with mycoplasmas so you get a point for that.

"It's totally irrelevant to anything that goes on in the real world."

To say that an animal model infected with HIV that displays the same characteristics as people infected with HIV is "totally irrelevant" shows just how much of a role denial plays in denialism. Thank you, Cooler.

Whatever you pathetic moron. I suggest you get an immune transplant from a mouse and then get injected with a virus and see what happens.

Anyways, why are you so reliant on a paper that came out in 2005, I thought you knew HIV was a deadly virus for sure when AZT came out in 1987, or when the Durban declaration came out in 2000?

Anyways, I suggest you read Montagnier's et al study where he treated cells infected with HIV with antibiotics, HIV became harmless, prompting him to say hiv didn't kill cells at all and was harmless. He's waffled back and forth on HIV but his expiremental results speak for themselves.

"Whatever you pathetic moron. I suggest you get an immune transplant from a mouse and then get injected with a virus and see what happens."

Wow, that is some excellent, evidence based rebuttal there. This must be why scientists everywhere fear debating you! Perhaps one day you will graduate from childish insults to being able to accept evidence proving you wrong without hand-waving it away. On that day maybe you will turn from denialist to dissident. I won't hold my breath.

"Anyways, why are you so reliant on a paper that came out in 2005..."

Should the date of the paper affect it's validity? I'm not reliant on it but it was claimed that there were no papers showing that HIV killed CD4 cells

"So if you are going to continue the pseudoscience speculation that HIV KILLS T CELLS as being a fact, THEN PROVE IT! Where is the proof that hiv kills T-cells in vivo????"

so I presented this paper to prove that person to be incorrect. Are you moving the goal posts to include dates now just so you can stick your head in the sand and ignore this paper or are you capable of admitting you are wrong yet again?

"Anyways, I suggest you read Montagnier's et al study where he treated cells infected with HIV with antibiotics, HIV became harmless, prompting him to say hiv didn't kill cells at all and was harmless."

Changing the subject is not really a great way to deal with evidence contradicting your faith in denialism. I suggest you read that paper yourself instead of quoting other denialists. He never said that it was "harmless"...unless you can cite some proof to the contrary? I wonder if you even understand the significance of this paper...actually I don't wonder that at all. It is clearly lost on you.

The obvious fact that Poodle ignores about CD4 T-cell counts is that ONLY those diagnosed as hiv poz even have their CD4 T-cell count regularly counted, followed, or observed.

Years ago, when CD4 counts were FIRST used to declare someone as having aids, any count below 500 CD4 T-cells was considered as aids. Eventually, it was noticed that many hiv negative people, including doctors and researchers themselves, found that their own t-cell count could be as low as 250 t-cells. As the top dogs in hiv research were made aware of this embarrassing fact, the count at which someone was then declared as having aids due to a low CD4 T-cell count was lowered to 200 CD4 T-cells.

Also ignored by Poodel is the fact that anyone who is hiv negative and is found to have a low t-cell count, this low cd4 t-cell count is ignored and the hiv negative individual with a low count is not even considered to be immune suppressed, at least not unless they happen to test hiv positive.

Sometimes, though rare, these cd4 or cd4/cd8 ratio tests may be used to help diagnose or monitor other conditions such as lymphoma, organ transplantation, and DiGeorge syndrome.

However, it is well proven that the CD4 count does not even reflect how someone diagnosed with HIV feels or functions. For example, people with higher counts are often ill and have frequent complications, and people with lower CD4 counts quite often have few medical complications and function well.

Many hiv researchers and clinicians have noted and complained that usage of the markers of viral load and CD4 counts appears in the real world to usually be meaningless and makes no sense as to what they actually see with their patients.

A rational individual would say âif the tests donât actually predict anything, then why use them at all?â, but without the consensus usage of viral load and CD4 counts, then the "experts" would have absolutely nothing at all to use to base research, diagnoses or drug recommendations on.

At this point, the rational individual simply points to this fact and declares the hiv researchers and clinicians to simply be irrational. At which point the researchers and clinicians get frustrated, throw their shoes at the rational individual and scream "you are a nutty denialist".

So here we dissidents are yet today, of course believing ourselves to be the more rational ones, and continuing to point out to all who have ears to hear and eyes to read that use of both CD4 and viral load counts is, to us, simply irrational.

And to point out again and for the umpteenth time, that the only reason for continuing to use them is that otherwise âhiv expertsâ would have nothing to base their research, divinations, prophecies and diagnoses and drug recommendations on at all.

We dissidents also note that if they gave up using viral load and CD4 counts to prophecy, divine, research, diagnose, or make drug recommendations to those testing positive, then the only thing they would be able to use to diagnose or drug their hiv positive patients with would likely be by examination of current cloud patterns, humidity levels, and future weather forecasts.

And strangely enough, quite possibly, if the âexperts did switch to using the clouds, humidity, and weather forecasts, instead of cd and viral load counts, I think that they might actually be more accurate at predicting future illness or health than the CD4 counts and viral load tests, so, at least speaking for myself, I fully encourage this switch.

The only other thing you should know, Poodell....

The CD4 count tends to be lower in the morning and higher in the evening. Acute illnesses, such as pneumonia, influenza, or herpes simplex virus infection, can cause the CD4 count to decline temporarily. Cancer chemotherapy can dramatically lower the CD4 count.

Oh, and one more little itty bitty tiny thing....

Stress has been verified to shrink the thymus gland, where CD4 T-cells mature and are released into the body, by as much as 50% in as little as 24 hours.

I wonder if those mouse researchers stressed out some of those mice? Hmmmm.....

I see the topic has once again been changed. Predictable.

âThe obvious fact that Poodle ignores about CD4 T-cell counts is that ONLY those diagnosed as hiv poz even have their CD4 T-cell count regularly counted, followed, or observed.â

Yep, so obvious that NOBODY could every have compared HIV+ and HIV- T-celll counts. Nope. Never. And they definitely wouldnât have found that, drugs or no drugs, the group that had declining T-cell counts were only those that were HIV+. Nope. Never happened, right? A bit of actual research into your own claims might be useful.

As for the rest of the characteristically citation-lacking BS, please feel free to give some good supporting evidence that hasn't been gone through the denialist filter.

âStress has been verified to shrink the thymus gland, where CD4 T-cells mature and are released into the body, by as much as 50% in as little as 24 hours.â

My goodness you guys must be sharing the same crack pipe or attending the same literacy school! No one said stress has no effect on the immune system. Itâs effect, however, is not the same thing as seen in AIDS patients. I still wait for proof that stress causes the type of immune suppression seen in AIDS.

âI wonder if those mouse researchers stressed out some of those mice? Hmmmm.....â

No more so than the controls. That is why they are called controls, unless of course you have any sort of solid proof that they did. No? I thought not. Its pretty sad the amount of baseless speculation you guys will do just so you can dismiss evidence and continue happily believing what you want.

âThe CD4 count tends to be lower in the morning and higher in the evening.â

Uncited and more than likely irrelevant.

âAcute illnesses, such as pneumonia, influenza, or herpes simplex virus infection, can cause the CD4 count to decline temporarily.â

Again uncited. Are you saying that this is to the same extent as seen in AIDS? Please cite your proof then.

âCancer chemotherapy can dramatically lower the CD4 count.â

Irrelevant as most people with HIV are not taking âcancer chemotherapyâ (For example those people in the paper I cited above for example). Maggiore sure wasnât.

Poordoodle Stumper, please give us your best explanation for Rodriguez et al:

HIV Viral Load Is Not Reliable Indicator for CD4+ T Cell Counts,

Published in the September 27, 2006 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the findings by Rodriguez et al clearly show that high hiv viral load correlated to low cd4 counts in <6% of.

If hiv is killing T-cells and thereby destroying the immune system, then why oh why does a high viral load only correlate to low CD4 T cell counts in less than 6% of ill aids patients?

Why oh why does their study of 2,800 HIV positives conclude viral load measures failed in more than 90% of cases to predict or explain immune status.

If you are going to continue to say that the findings of Rodriguez et al are wrong, then please do explain yourself!

I see the system does not like "less than/greater than signs.

The full sentence was meant to be "the findings by Rodriguez et al studying 2800 actual human patients clearly show that high hiv viral load correlated to low cd4 counts in LESS THAN 6% of aids patients!!!

And who's evidences and proofs of their claims are greater? Who will win this AIDSWorld championship T-cell wrestling match?

Does puddlestomper's little mouse study clearly evidence that cd4 counts are affected by hiv?

Does Stomps on Poodle's Rodriguez et al study of 2800 actual human hiv poz individuals clearly show Puddlestomper to have his head inserted in his anus, and that high viral load has little if anything to do with low CD4 counts? Are CD4 counts and/or use of viral load tests to be understood as Loads of PoodleStomper Crap?

Only the reader can determine the weiner from the winner. Vote now and vote often.

"Poordoodle Stumper, please give us your best explanation for Rodriguez et al: HIV Viral Load Is Not Reliable Indicator for CD4+ T Cell Counts Published in the September 27, 2006 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)..."

I'd love to but I believe that Rodriguez himself is much more qualified than I to answer to that, since it is his work that is constantly being misquoted by denialists. Quoted below is his response to those denialists who, without understanding of basic science, repeat their fallacies ad nauseum:

The full text can be found here. For the sake of post length the most relevant is posted below.

There is absolutely no doubt that HIV is the cause of AIDS; far from challenging the veracity of this statement, our work further confirms it. This is easily appreciated from our initial analysis of the data, which shows that on average, individuals with higher viral loads tend to lose CD4 cells more rapidly that those with lower viral loads. There is no contradiction between this finding and our main message, because the overall trend among a group of subjects cannot be directly translated into a prediction of what will happen to a single individual within that group. Importantly, this finding replicates, rather than disputes, the substance of the seminal paper by Mellors et al (Ann Internal Med 1997; 126: 946-954), which demonstrated this almost 10 years ago. Thus, using our work to claim that those previous conclusions are invalid reveals either a combination of sloppy thinking, sloppy reading or malicious intent. We choose to believe that it is the first two.

I await further hand-waving, topic changing, or flat out denial of facts from denialists everywhere as they believe themselves more qualified to understand the research than even the researchers themselves.

The comical attempt by Rodriguez to save himself from being "DUESBERGED" out of all future NIH research grants by the well known attacks on him by JP Moore, Mellor et al, and dozens of other prominent aids researchers, simply verifies the lack of integrity in current hiv science.

The Failure of Viral Load Tests; JAMA Study Shakes AIDS Science, Angers HIV Advocates A nationwide team of orthodox AIDS researchers led by doctors Benigno Rodriguez and Michael Lederman of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland are disputing the value of viral load testsa standard used since 1996 to assess health, predict progression to disease, and grant approval to new AIDS drugsafter their study of 2,800 HIV positives concluded viral load measures failed in more than 90% of cases to predict or explain immune status.

Published in the September 27, 2006 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the findings by Rodriguez et al shake the foundation of the past decade of AIDS science to its core, inciting skepticism and anger among many HIV adherents.
Belief in viral load spread quickly following the 1996 publication of a paper in the journal Science authored by Dr John Mellors and colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh. Mellor et al claimed that numbers produced by the viral load test could accurately predict progression to disease in HIV positives. Soon, use of this new technology extended far beyond conclusions drawn by the study and its approval by the FDA as a prognostic tool.

Claiming viral load numbers corresponded to actual amounts of infectious virus, scientists used the test as a glib response to unanswered questions about how HIV could cause AIDS (Its the virus, stupid!). Pharmaceutical companies jumped on the bandwagon, using changes in viral load numbers in place of actual health or survival benefits to gain FDA approval of highly toxic protease inhibitors, a primary ingredient of todays HAART. Treatment advocates began using viral load to encourage healthy HIV positives with unhealthy numbers to hit early and hard with the newly approved drugs, while AIDS doctors throughout the world started using viral load for everything from diagnosing illness to confirming HIV infection.

The new uses for viral load emerged and gained popular acceptance despite the fact that, according to manufacturers literature, the viral load test is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic to confirm the presence of HIV infection.

In a September 29th news article regarding the Rodriguez study, Mellors announced he doesn't agree with the paper at all, insisting that viral load is the most powerful predictor of time to AIDS and death." Some AIDS rethinkers note that in defending his opinion, Mellors describes viral load as powerful, an adjective frequently found in the headlines of AIDS drug ads--drugs approved for use based on their ability to affect viral load numbers rather than to produce clinical health benefits or increase survival.

While Mellors and others protest or down play the significance of the JAMA article, Rodriguez's group stands by its conclusion that viral load is only able to predict progression to disease in 4% to 6% of HIV-positives studied, challenging much of the basis for current AIDS science and treatment policy.

For further information see: Cohen J. Study says HIV blood levels don't predict immune decline. Science 313(5795):1868, 2006; Rodriquez B, Sethi AK, Cheruvu VK, et al. Predictive value of plasma HIV RNA level on rate of CD4 T-cell decline in untreated HIV infection. JAMA 296(12):1498-506, 2006

"The comical attempt by Rodriguez to save himself from being "DUESBERGED" out of all future NIH research grants by the well known attacks on him by JP Moore, Mellor et al, and dozens of other prominent aids researchers, simply verifies the lack of integrity in current hiv science."

I assume you have evidence to back this claim up? No? All you have is speculation and conspiracy theories? Well I'm sure that in denialist circles that is more than ample evidence.

Poods, Neither your frantic hand-waving nor Rodriguez's declaration on aidstruth that his study does not discount that hiv is the cause of aids, will change the facts of the conclusion of the Rodriguez et al study, nor will it change the facts of this quote directly from him:

"The dogma has been that if you know how much virus is in the blood, you can know how quickly CD4 levels will go down. If someone had a high viral load, you would assume that person will progress more rapidly to AIDS," said the study's lead author, Dr. Benigno Rodriguez, an infectious disease specialist at Case Medical Center and an assistant professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.

And, he said, in large-scale population studies, that assumption is generally correct. But, Rodriguez said, the researchers wanted to know if the same held true on a patient-by-patient basis.

"When we asked that specific question, based on viral load, how much patient-to-patient variability in progression can we explain? The answer was very little -- 6 percent at most," he said.

And none of your own hand-waving or avoidance of the facts or topic changing or denial of the facts presented by the Rodriguez study, nor even Rodriguez's own aidstruth comment of how there is no doubt about HIV causing aids will change the very words of himself or his study: "The researchers found that only 4% to 6% of an individual patient's CD4 cell loss rate was explained by his or her initial viral load. "These results", Dr. RodrÃguez says, "are at odds with current thinking that the rate of CD4 cell loss in a given HIV-positive person can be accurately predicted by his or her viral load".

And I see that when asked for your own explanation for denying the above facts, "If you are going to continue to say that the findings of Rodriguez et al are wrong and that hiv is causing cd4 loss, then please do explain yourself!", but you quickly run away to hide behind your silly pathetic statement of

"I believe that Rodriguez himself is much more qualified than I to answer to that".

Obviously he is not. And obviously, neither are you. More evidence of your obvious inability to think for yourself. More of your reality denialism. More of your complete zombie-ism.

I await your further hand-waving, topic changing, or flat out reality denial of facts from the hiv/aids zzzzommmmbie PoodleStanker.

"Poods, Neither...will change the facts of the conclusion...nor will it change the facts of this quote directly from him"

The problem with cherry picking and not understanding science is that you come to ridiculous conclusions as shown above.

"Obviously he is not [qualified]. And obviously, neither are you. More evidence of your obvious inability to think for yourself. More of your reality denialism. More of your complete zombie-ism."

Hilarious. Should we assume that denialists, none of whom have ever done any HIV research and most of whom do not have a grasp of even basic biology (as you yourself have demonstrated so nicely) are more qualified than the authors themselves?

I ask you to provide proof of your claim that Rodriguez was simply trying to "save himself from being 'DUESBERGED'" and you come back with what? No proof at all, just speculations and a change of topic. If this is your standard of "proof" (but only when it supports what you want to believe of course) then it is no surprise that you see yourself as truly qualified.

But then I suppose one doesn't need to understand biology, right? I mean what could an understanding of virology possibly have to do with the study of viruses? What use could immunology possibly have when discussing issues dealing with the immune system such as immune system grafting or immune responses?

Pick this cherry, ZombieBoy:

Words of Benino Rodriguez:

"These results", Dr. RodrÃguez says, "are at odds with current thinking that the rate of CD4 cell loss in a given HIV-positive person can be accurately predicted by his or her viral load".

Words of Seth Kalichman:

"In either case, HIV diagnosis can present added problems and stress for you that can effect your health.

Words of PoodleStanker:

"No one (including me) ever said that stress has no effect on health. It is known that it does and it is also known, at least in part, how it does. I never claimed otherwise".

Mmmm, mmmmmm! Poodlestanker now eats his Cherry Pie!!!

And with the award of your Delicious Denialist Fresh Picked Cherry Pie, I surrender.

I fully concede this match to you, Poodle Stomper. I hereby declare you the winner. You are the king of aids.

Congratulations, wiener, I mean winner!

And as was astutely said by cooler or someone disquised as him, PEACE ON YOU! Peace all over you.

Sincerely Yours,

Stomps

Looks like the tinfoil crowd is winning the argument by cloning themselves and spamming. I'm out to by some tinfoil to make hats for me and my family. Also I'm not going to be sending my kids to college. No needto get an education. Truthiness is all that matters now.
Good night and good luck!

"These results", Dr. RodrÃguez says, "are at odds with current thinking that the rate of CD4 cell loss in a given HIV-positive person can be accurately predicted by his or her viral load".

As Rodriguez had to explain to the illiterates misquoting his research viral load predicts progression for a population but on an individual basis other factors can also influence this, making it less reliable. One would think that someone with a background in math could understand this, right Stomps?

"Congratulations, wiener, I mean winner!"

Thank you, thank you.
I'd like to credit an education and actual understanding of the topics being discussed for this victory.

Here is a video of HIV infecting a new cell, transferred directly from an infected cell without the intermediary of free virus.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/03/how-hiv-sp…

Yes, I post this to comment directly on the validity of the "show me a picture" and "viral load shows it isnt HIV" idiot's arguments.

How do you know that's a cell? Or a video? Prove it!

Joe Mandinski, a co-moderator of the "AIDS Myth Exposed" board, went to Benigno Rodriguez as a patient. He'd already had toxoplasmosis but did not want to follow any of Rodriguez's medical advice:

http://forums.aidsmythexposed.com/archive-activism/328-rodriguez-ame-a2…

Mandinski has not posted to the board for a long time, and I have not seen a single expression of concern or interest regarding his health or whereabouts from any of the other board members.

Ahaaaa!

After reading Poodle stompers last post at Seth Kalichman's blog (posted below in quotations), now perhaps I understand why he is irrational and zombie-like. It would seem that Poodle, unbeknown to us all, is either inebriated when trying to read these posts, or perhaps even more sadly, an obvious alcoholic. Well, at least there is help available at 12 step programs for those who suffer from it.

"I want to suggest The Denialism Drinking Game (copyright Poodles). It isn't for the faint of heart...or liver, though. Anytime a denialist quotes some long refuted misunderstanding from a denialist site we take a shot. If they do so but don't even understand what their quote means, we take two....ect... I'm open to more rules but either way I figure we'll all be plastered by the end of the first paragraph!"

-Poodle Stomper

NM,

If you are concerned about some one who used to post a couple of years ago at Aids Myth Exposed, why on earth are you asking about it here on this blog? Don't you think it would be more helpful to have your question answered by posting your question at the Aids Myth Exposed site and perhaps find someone there who knew or perhaps still knows Joe Mandinski?

Lee, thanks for posting your video in consideration of it being used "to comment directly on the validity of the "show me a picture" and "viral load shows it isnt HIV" idiot's arguments".

However, the video is not a picture of hiv. It is of CD4 T-cells, one of which was filled with so-called hiv clone material that has dye producing genes spliced into it.

Now of course, this begs the question of the origination of the clone material, and as to whether or not it is actually doing anything to any T-cell.

We do not have any evidence of the origin of the clonal material having been isolated from any actual aids patients sera, nor do we have evidence that it does anything to any T-cell, nor do we have evidence that whatever the clonal material is, that it is the cause of immune suppression nor if it is sexually transmitted.

For all we know, it is another simple lab contamination or another common herv that is often found in cord blood.

Furthermore, the video does not appear to show the dyed clonal material infiltrating or reproducing in the cell that seems to have received it. Furthermore, we do not see it being further transmitted to any other T-cells.

Your evidence, while interesting, is fully insufficient to make any conclusions about the origin of the clonal material, the transmissability, or even the ability of the clone to cause any disruption to anyone's immune system.

Your Indirect Evidence is hereby fully Denied.

Therefore, your supposition that this video is proof of hiv or that it is proof of its

......Therefore, your supposition that this video is proof of hiv or that it is proof of its ability to cause any disease is fully unsupported and based on nothing but your own faith and speculation.

So you aren't even curious enough to find out what that video shows, before denying it means anything?

The Huser lab has details on their lab page.

The HIV clone is "a highly fluorescent, infectious HIV-1 molecular clone, which carries the green fluorescent protein (GFP) internally within the structural protein, Gag (HIV Gag-iGFP). Since this construct results in the labeling of each virus particle with thousands of GFP molecules, it provides us with a tool to track virus particles with unprecedented sensitivity - even in live cells."

IOW, this clone is simply an HIV isolate with the gene for GFP spliced into GAG. Since GAG is processed by cleavage into P24, P6, P7 and P17, I assume they simply inserted GFP at a cleavage site, so that it becomes one more cleaved product of GAG during processing - I'm looking for the paper to confirm that.

Previous work has shown that HIV-infected T4 cells form 'viral synapses' with other T4 cells. They use that knowledge (and incidentally confirm it), by mixing infected cultured Jurkat T4 cells with uninfected primary T4 cells, taken directly from blood. They then scan the culture to find Jurkat and primary cells that are 'stuck' to each other by a viral synapse. Using fluroescence, they are then able to follow the injection of HIV particles into the uninfected T4 cells, through the viral synapse, and then the subsequent transfer of the HIV material to the opposite pole of the cell, showing that there is active transport and localization of the HIV material.

This does not 'prove' the HIV-AIDS connection. The tens of thousands of step-by-step papers in the literature do that, one piece at a time, creating by now a mountain of evidence.

What this work does, is yet again visualize HIV (can all y'all drop the 'no pictures of HIV' bullcrap yet?) in the cells (yep, it replicates in T4 cells, sure enough). And it also shows that HIV is transmitted form infected to uninfected cells, and that transmission of HIV between an infected an an uninfected cell does not require free virus, so the 'not enough virus' bullcrap y'all keep spouting is also in trouble here.

And it also illuminates the willingness -as 'prove it' just did here - of the denialists to deny evidence they don't yet understand, and incidentally to risk the lives of those they seek to convince.

Hey Lee, put down the booze for a second and LISTEN UP!

You still have not showed us the origin of the supposed clone! You have not proven it is the cause of anything. You have not even proven it is HIV.

So where did the @#$@#$ clone come from????

Is it a HERV? Is it microvesicles? Is is bits of RNA junk that was isolated?

Do you even know what isolated means?

Ohhhhhhhh Lee real impressive. Keep in mind this is all done in the laboratory away from the immune antibody defenses of the host. HHV-6 does horrible things in culture to cells as well, but is totally harmless in a human being. One could conduct this same study on HHV-6 and get even more dramatic results. Pathetic.

Oh by the way Lee, AZT was approved in 1987, can you provide the overwhelming evidence of HIV's causal role in a fatal disease that justified AZT being approved in 1987? waiting.

Hey Lee, at least you fully admitted "This does not 'prove' the HIV-AIDS connection". But then you start babbling unsubstantiated BS by telling us that somewhere buried in some mountain of "tens of thousands of step-by-step papers" this proof is to be found.

And just which of "The tens of thousands of step-by-step papers in the literature do that, one piece at a time, creating by now a mountain of evidence".

Just which of these papers do that?

Have you read these tens of thousands of papers and sorted it all out to verify this connection? If so, you are the first to have done so.

If so, just how many of the tens of thousands did you have to wade through before you found one that convinced you that hiv causes AIDS, was properly isolated, or was proven to cause immune suppression, or was proven to kill any T-cells?

Pleeeeeeaaaase direct us dissidents to these papers as we dissidents have been unable to find them even after going very carefully through all 262,1782 of these papers!

And Lee, kindly remember that dissident scientists, including Dr. Peter Duesberg, who Robert Gallo himself called "the greatest retrovirologist in the world", along with scientists from the Perth Group, Rethinking AIDS, and others around the world have been following this since 1984, ever since the mountain of papers was only about ten total papers, looking for this very proof that YOU, a scientific NOBODY, claims is found there!

Well, boy oh boy, since Lee the Nobody has finally found the proof, we need to contact Duesberg, Perth, RA, and all of these scientists, which by the way includes National Academy of Science members and Nobel Laureates, to report your amazing find!

So spit it out Lee! Where in the mighty mountain are these these things proved, as you so BOLDLY claim?????

shit. I know better than to get caught up in this crap with you idiots.

Prove It: do you know how molecular cloning is done? Do you know the process by which FGP gene would be (was) cloned into an HIV virus genome? Hint - it involves sequencing the genome of the damn thing. That virus is HIV.

cooler: AZT was approved because dying people were begging for it. I know - I attended the funerals. AZT is a nasty drug, thank god we've got better now, and it saved lives. A good friend of mine was dying when AZT was released, with early KS, early PCP, thrush, none of which were responding to attempts to treat. Aggressive AZT therapy reversed this, and gave him back his life. Several years later he was dying again from KS and early PCP, as his virus became resistant to AZT, when combination therapies were released and once again saved his life.

The people who died are the people for whom the therapies came too late, or who developed resistance over the years, or who didn't take advantage of the therapies to control their HIV infection. Like Christine Maggiore and her unfortunate daughter.

Much of the course of HIV progression happens in lymph nodes -we've known this for well over a freaking decade now. This image shows in situ hybridization localization of HIV RNA in lymph node follicular germinal centers, fro a 6 year old publication looking at association of HIV with paradoxical B-cell activation in HIV-infected patients, which is in turn associated with faster disease progression to AIDS. The white spots are silver-stained hybridization of a complimentary probe to HIV RNA, which colocalizes with histochemical markers for follicual germinal centers.

http://medgenmed.medscape.com/content/2003/00/46/73/467314/art-aids4673…

In plain language, those white spots are HIV virus infecting lymph nodes at very high concentrations, precisely in the lymph tissues predicted by the observation of general B-cell activitation during HIV infection, which in turn is predictive of progression to AIDS.

One of many, many thousand of such studies, showing and confirming what happens during HIV infection, and the link between HIV and AIDS.
This stuff isn't hard to find - your aggressive maintenance of your ignorance is your problem, not mine.

I'm out of here - I don' need this crap. Y'all keep masturbating. And if anyone is looking in, wondering what to do - take a close look at that video. That video shows HIV virus being transmitted directly from an infected CD4+ cell to an uninfected CD4+ cell, via a viral synapse. That is what the virus does, that is one of the propagation channels for HIV in CD4+ cell populations that eventually lead to immune system crash in HIV-infected individuals, and THAT is why the vast majority of people with untreated HIV develop opportunistic infections and die horrible deaths - like Christine Maggiore and her daughter did. And like too many of the men I knew did, even back before there was even AZT.

Notice how Lee can't cite a single or collection of papers that proved HIV's causal role that Justified AZT's release in 1987, he just babbles about some random anecdote. What a bunch of clowns. LOL people were begging for AZT? A drug that killed more people than the placebo (when you count transfusions as deaths) in the the crooked trials? Duesberg is your father. Duesberg is your father. Duesberg is your father. Repeat this a hundered times and maybe you will get some real intelligence in yo life. SON.

âHowever, the video is not a picture of hiv. It is of CD4 T-cells, one of which was filled with so-called hiv clone material that has dye producing genes spliced into it.â

Holy Crap! You really are completely clueless to even basic molecular biology! This is of course what happens when denialists try their hand at science with NO CLUE about it. It isnât âdye producing genesâ but rather the insertion of a single gene whose product is itself fluorescent, resulting in a single conjugate of native HIV protein and GFP. This fluorescent protein (GFP for Green Fluorescent Protein) is a very well known and extensively used marker.

âNow of course, this begs the question of the origination of the clone material, and as to whether or not it is actually doing anything to any T-cell.â

Since the GFP gene had to be cloned into the viral genome (as Lee mentioned) the genome must have either been sequenced and the GFP sequence inserted, or the whole genome with the added GFP could have been synthesized chemically. In either case it was known.

âFor all we know, it is another simple lab contamination or another common herv that is often found in cord blood. â

Since youâve already shown you know nothing at all of these types of techniques âall you knowâ doesnât amount to much. hERVs do not contain GFP. In fact, the whole human genome doesnât contain GFP and hERVs do not contain the accessory genes that HIV has as HIV is a complex retrovirus (specifically a lentivirus) and hERVS are simple retroviruses. To date only two known endogenous retroviruses exist. Neither are in the human genome. Of course if you want to cite proof you are welcome to do so.

"nor do we have evidence that whatever the clonal material is, that it is the cause of immune suppression nor if it is sexually transmitted.â

This paper was not geared towards sexual transmission or immune suppression. It dealt with visualizing cell to cell transmission.

âYour evidence, while interesting, is fully insufficient to make any conclusionsâ¦â

Only to one who demonstrates the spectacular lack of knowledge of biology that you have. Perhaps if you understood it everything would be more clear but I donât think anyone here is holding their breaths.

"To date only two known endogenous retroviruses exist." should have read "To date only two known endogenous lentiviruses exist"

Trying to stay out of this, but this one is too kooky to let past, even by cooler's usual standards:

people were begging for AZT? A drug that killed more people than the placebo (when you count transfusions as deaths) in the the crooked trials?

TRANSFUSION=DEATH!!

The Red Cross is complicit in genocide!!

Blood donors are murderers!!

Cooler,
"Notice how Lee can't cite a single or collection of papers that proved HIV's causal role that Justified AZT's release in 1987"

Below are just a few papers. If you are going to try to comment on them please make sure you have actually read all of the papers completely and have also understood their significance both as individual publications and as part of a collection with previous papers. You usually seem to only read a few words of titles or abstracts which is probably not the best study methods.

1. Broder, S., and R. C. Gallo. 1984. A pathogenic retrovirus (HTLV-III) linked to AIDS. N. Engl. J. Med. 311:1292-1297.

2. Brun-Vezinet, F., C. Rouzioux, L. Montagnier, S. Chamaret, J. Gruest, F. Barre-Sinoussi, D. Geroldi4 J. C. Chermann, J.McCormick, S. Mitchell, P. Piot, H. Taelman, K. B. Mirlangu, 0. Wobin, N. Mbendi, P. Mazebo, K. Kalambayi, C. Bridts, J. Desmyter, F. M. Feinsod, and T. C. Quinn. 1984. Prevalence of antibodies to lymphadenopathy-associated retrovirus in African patients with AIDS. Science 226:453-456.

3. Feriono, P. M., H. W. Jaffe, E. Palmer, T. A. Peterman, D. P. Francis, V. S. Kalyanaraman, R. A. Weinstein, R. L.
Stoneburner, W. J. Alexander, C. Raevsky, J. P. Getchell, D. Warfield, H. W. Haverkos, B. W. Kilbourne, J. K. A. Nicholson, and J. W. Curran. 1985. Transfusion-associated acquired immunodeficiency syndrome: evidence for persistent infection in blood doners. N. Engl. J. Med. 312:1293-1296.

4. Klatzman, D., F. Barre-Sinoussi, M. T. Nugeyre, C. Dauguet, E. Vilmer, C. Griscelli, F. Brun-Vezinet, C. Rouzioux, J. C. Gluckman, J. C. Chermann, and L. Montagnier. 1984. Selective tropism of lymphadenopathy associated virus (LAV) for helper inducer T lymphocytes. Science 225:59-63.

5. Sarngadharan, M. G., M. Popovic, L. Bruch, J. Schupbach, and R. C. Gallo. 1984. Antibodies reactive with human T-lymphotropic retroviruses (HTLV-III) in the serum of patients with AIDS. Science 224:506-508.

6. Schupbach, J., M. Popovic, R. V. Gilden, M. G. Gonda, M. G. Sarngadharan, and R. C. Gallo. 1984. Serological analysis of a subgroup of human T-lymphotropic retroviruses (HTLV-III) associated with AIDS. Science 224:503-505.

7. H Nakashima, T Matsui, S Harada, N Kobayashi, A Matsuda, T Ueda, and N Yamamoto. Inhibition of replication and cytopathic effect of human T cell lymphotropic virus type III/lymphadenopathy-associated virus by 3'-azido-3'-deoxythymidine in vitro. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1986 December; 30(6): 933â937.

Pretty pathetic that all these papers are based on partial half assed correlations. So I guess in your deranged mind partial correlations prove causality. Especially Gallo's paper where he found HIV in a whopping 26/72 AIDS patients. And when HIV antibodies popped up in healthy people they just extended the window period from 10 months to 10 years.

These papers prove nothing, thanks for posting them. At most they show some vauge correlation, that every stats class teaches doesn't prove anything.

Good Start Poodle,

Ohhh Goodie Goodie, we can now directly pick all 7 of them apart, one at a time and demonstrate to the world what a buffoon you can be!

Let's start with Number One on your list by Broder and Gallo!

I have read it and reread it and find absolutely no evidence to any degree for what you are claiming this or any of the other papers represents.

Just how does this study show any evidence of isolating hiv from all other cellular debris and endogenous retroviruses or hervs?

How does it to show hiv as the causative factor that is causing aids?

How does it show HIV killing any T-cells?

The closest study you have to showing anything is #5, which simply shows that a mere 36% of "aids patients" showed evidence of RT activity "BELIEVED" to be caused by a retrovirus.

So come on Poods, You are making the claim that all of these studies are somehow adding up to clear evidence, so put down your booze and

PROVE IT!!!!

Please respond as soon as possible. I can always appreciate a good laugh at your expense.

Poodles said:

"If you are going to try to comment on them please make sure you... read... and have understood their significance both as individual publications and as part of a collection with previous papers".

Well yes! Yes indeed, Poods! No doubt by combining the papers with a few shots of your favorite booze and your overly vivid imagination and your paranoia of sexual viral boogeymen, I am sure you can come up with lots and lots of endless conclusions for each of these enlightening "studies"!

Poods,

I just thought of something! Could be very important to your "studies"!

While only 36 percent of Gallo's "aids patients" had evidence of reverse transcriptase activity, a FULL 100% of them were gay men that had been bitten by mosquitoes at some point in their lives!

So obviously ONLY gay men who have ever been bitten by mosquitoes ever get AIDS and with 100% proof!

Come on LOSER! We are all patiently awaiting your elaboration as to how your collection of 7 papers demonstrates anything at all!

This is your chance to shine, Poods! Call all your fellow hiv believers and show us denialists just how we got it all wrong.

OR

Admit that those you have labeled as denialists are correct in ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:

1) THERE IS NO CLEAR CUT EVIDENCE THAT HIV HAS BEEN ISOLATED FROM OTHER CELLULAR DEBRIS AND MICROVESICLES IN ANY AIDS PATIENTS.

2) THERE IS NO CLEAR CUT EVIDENCE THAT HIV KILLS T-CELLS

3) THERE IS NO CLEAR CUT EVIDENCE THAT HIV IS SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED

4) THERE IS NO CLEAR CUT EVIDENCE THAT HIV IS THE CAUSE OF THE IMMUNE SUPPRESSION SYNDROME CALLED AIDS

So come on BatBoy, either PROVE THAT YOUR PAPERS (or any other papers) ARE A REASONABLE EVIDENCE THAT DISSIDENTS ARE WRONG, (and it better damn well be to a very high degree of evidence considering that highly toxic medications are given to the patients)

or

ADMIT THAT HIV SCIENCE AND MEDICINE ARE FAITH BASED and ARE NOT SCIENTIFICLY EVIDENCE BASED NOR SUPPORTED, And ARE ONLY BUILT ON UNSUPPORTED CORRELATIONS AND UNPROVEN HYPHOTHESES.

Yes I am waiting as well Poodles, explain how those papers prove HIV is a fatal infection that justified people Taking AZT the rest of their lives. Waiting.

âOhhh Goodie Goodie, we can now directly pick all 7 of them apart, one at a timeâ¦Let's start with Number One on your list by Broder and Gallo! I have read it and reread it and find absolutely no evidenceâ

Pull your head out of your ass and reread my previous post.

If you are going to try to comment on them please make sure you have actually read all of the papers completely and have also understood their significance both as individual publications and as part of a collection with previous papers.

I also see you decided to avoid the issue of your complete lack of information on GFP and the cell-to-cell transmission paper. Typical. With such a lack of knowledge it truly doesn't surprise me that you don't understand any of the other papers written on the subject of HIV.

Cooler,
"Yes I am waiting as well Poodles, explain how those papers prove HIV is a fatal infection that justified people Taking AZT the rest of their lives. Waiting."

I'm waiting for you to read them all and try to understand their significance (as I posted above). I see no evidence for that yet. Waiting.

Poodles,
It's normal scientific discourse when you present a series of papers to explain their significance. A meta analysis/ review is like a book report, what you did was provide references, but no summary. Nice fail. I guess next time somebody rights a book report, testifies as an expert witness, writes a term paper, or debates somebody they just need to collect a bunch of references and provide no explanation as to their significance.

If this was a class assignment you would fail. The teacher would ask you to write a short paper on what the overwhelming evidence of HIV causal role that justified AZT's release and your paper would contain no written report, just a bibliography! Anyone that was dumb enough like to submit a bibliography with no report is a total moron. Thanks poodles for showing your massive ignorance. Lets try again, how did these papers prove HIV was a fatal disease that justified AZT consumption for the rest of one's life?

Cooler,
"It's normal scientific discourse when you present a series of papers to explain their significance. A meta analysis/ review is like a book report, what you did was provide references, but no summary. Nice fail."

Ah yes, but since you are arguing against HIV I would think you should have first read and understood the papers before coming to a conclusion. I realize this is not the case for you, having simply read denialist websites, but generally one does inform themselves on the topic (at least on the very basics) before coming to a conclusion. Epic fail for you.

"If this was a class assignment you would fail."

If this were a biology class you would have failed a long time ago.

In 1984 and 1985, there were literally hundreds of papers, from fields of epidemiology, virology, immunology, histology, etc, converging on the link between HIV and AIDs. Infected donor-recipient links, identification in non-aids patients of aids symptoms such as adenopathy , associated with HIV loads, progression to AIDS of non-AIDS seropositive people, lab experiments showing the link between HIV infectin and the specific cell types implicated in AIDS progression, and on and on and on.

These hundreds of early papers confirmed and strengthened the conclusions of the founding papers, used better methods to get better results, and extended those results in ways fully consistent with the early papers.

Here are just two of them.

Lancet. 1984 Dec 22;2(8417-8418):1418-20.

HTLV-III in symptom-free seronegative persons.

Salahuddin SZ, Groopman JE, Markham PD, Sarngadharan MG, Redfield RR, McLane MF, Essex M, Sliski A, Gallo RC.

Of 96 patients with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) or AIDS-related complex and healthy individuals at risk for AIDS, 4 had no detectable antibodies to viral proteins, though human T-cell leukaemia (lymphotropic) virus type III was isolated from their lymphocytes. 3 of these subjects were symptom-free and 1 had lymphadenopathy. All 4 were sexual partners of patients with AIDS or AIDS-related complex. The occurrence of seronegative but virus-positive persons without clinical symptoms suggests that assays other than those detecting antibody to virus, perhaps based on detection of viral antigens or immune complexes, may be required to identify all infected individuals.

--
Lancet. 1984 Sep 29;2(8405):711-6.
Determinants of retrovirus (HTLV-III) antibody and immunodeficiency conditions in homosexual men.
Goedert JJ, Sarngadharan MG, Biggar RJ, Weiss SH, Winn DM, Grossman RJ, Greene MH, Bodner AJ, Mann DL, Strong DM, et al.

A cohort of homosexual men at high risk of the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) was monitored to examine the relation between lifestyle, clinical conditions, T-lymphocyte subsets, and antibody to the AIDS-associated human retrovirus, human T-cell leukaemia virus III (HTLV-III). HTLV-III antibodies were present in 35 (53%) of the 66 subjects tested in June, 1982. 4 of the seronegative subjects had HTLV-III antibodies when re-tested one year later, a seroconversion rate of 1.2% per month. In the HTLV-III seropositive subjects, AIDS developed at a rate of 6.9% per year (minimum incidence of AIDS = 4.6% per year) and other clinical signs of immunodeficiency (lesser AIDS) at 13.1% per year. All 6 of the AIDS cases and at least 8 of the 10 lesser AIDS cases had detectable HTLV-III antibodies 1 week to 21 months before diagnosis. Of 24 other subjects with stable lymphadenopathy, 19 (79%) had or acquired HTLV-III antibodies. Lower helper T-cell counts were very closely related to HTLV-III seropositivity (r = -0.53, p = 0.0001), even in the 26 healthy subjects with no clinical abnormalities (r = -0.37, p = 0.07). In both univariate and multivariate analyses, the lifestyle risk factors for HTLV-III seropositivity were large number of homosexual partners (p less than or equal to 0.03) and receptive anal intercourse (p less than or equal to 0.03), with an apparent synergistic interaction between these two activities (chi 2 = 8.71, p = 0.003). These data suggest that frequent receptive anal intercourse with many homosexual partners predisposes to HTLV-III infection with the consequent emergence of lymphadenopathy and the various manifestations of lesser and fully fledged AIDS.

Poodles, your own lack of ability to read or comprehend or even comment on any substantive points of the "studies" that you presented, is fully unworthy of even this much of a response. You did not address a single question about the "list of 7 studies".

But the following posts by the next contributor, Srsly, are most assuredly deserving of full consideration!

Poodle Stomper's point is that anyone arguing about what was known in the early-mid 1980s time frame, should damn well know what those seminal papers say.

The fact that you guys are complaining that he wont tell you what the papers mean, makes his point for him as well as it can be made. Especially when it comes on top of the absurd display of lack of knowledge you guys showed when commenting on the viral synapse video.

@ Srsly,

Thank you so very much for the contributions of your own best evidences of hiv as the cause of aids.

I am well aware that in 84 and 85, immediately following the vast funding that Reagan had approved immediately following Gallo's White House press conference. I am well aware of all of the various papers that soon proliferated.

However, regardless of the quantity, these papers fully failed to converge or agree or verify any link between HIV and AIDs. Particularly, because they all followed Gallo's own failings that I point out anon:

Notice, Srsly, that the evidential studies that you wish to present as being a "high degree of evidence, are not relying on finding or isolating any actual retrovirus that is clearly being found in any of the studied individuals.

Notice that the methods being used to determine presumed "infection in the studies presented by Srsly are as follows:

1) nonspecific antibody tests looking for antibodies that subsequently were very clearly shown NOT to be exclusive to htlv-iii/hiv, but can often be triggered with nearly 70 other conditions/factors that are completely unrelated to hiv.

2) the finding of reverse transcriptase activity that is being falsely claimed at this point in 84/85 as being both exclusive to retroviruses, and also claimed to be the isolation method. Finding RT is NOT viral isolation.

Therefore Srsly, lets look again at these early papers, and the flaws quickly present themselves:

First, your Lancet. 1984 Dec 22;2(8417-8418):1418-20. / HTLV-III in symptom-free seronegative persons.

Notice first of all, the authors of the study, namely, Essex and Gallo himself. Now why would Gallo want to use his own antibody test to verify supposed hiv infection?

To begin with, Gallo patented his original htlv-iii antibody test on the very same day as his white house press conference. He had every financial reason, and very few scientific reasons, to want this test to be the means of determining supposed infection. Several years later, the antibody test as originally used by Gallo, was pulled from use due to the very problems of vast nonspecificity of the test, as is clearly detailed in John Crewdson's book, Science Fictions.

So obviously, we cannot trust any of Gallo's diagnoses, and certainly not the ones with his original test. The test may have been useful for protecting the blood supply from those showing high antibody levels to nonspecific antibodies, but it was a terribly fraudulent way to diagnose any patient.

Furthermore, in this study, Gallo uses RT activity to supposedly "isolate" hiv in the 4 individuals who were not ill. Not too much later, Varmus himself clearly showed that RT activity is far from being specific to any retroviruses.

Now, Srsly, lets look at your second "evidential study":

Lancet. 1984 Sep 29;2(8405):711-6. / Determinants of retrovirus (HTLV-III) antibody and immunodeficiency conditions in homosexual men.

Here-in, we have Gallo's terribly nonspecific antibody test being proliferated by those who followed HIS own Originally Flawed work and methods.

Further, for supposedly examining "lifestyle", the only factor considered was the lifestyle of having gay sexual relationships. No other lifestyle factors are addressed. No former std's, no former high potency overuse of antibiotics usage, no stress levels due to the rising terror and panic in the gay community, no comparing who had taken the experimental LIVE hep B vaccinations that were given, or should I say, pushed, onto the gay community in 1979/1980, and no tests for who was exposed to TB, and no following the drug addictions, or poor diets were addressed. The only factor addressed was that they had gay sex in common.

Furthermore, Hep B vaccinations were notorious for causing false positive hiv antibody test results and substantial literature is available on this fact. No such studies were done on the LIVE HEP B vaccinations that were pushed on the gay community beginning in 79. Gay media from that time period is filled with ads for that vaccine that was promoted in 6 major cities and only promoted to the gay community.

While the study found that lower helper T-cell counts were very closely related to HTLV-III seropositivity, they also found low T-cell counts even in the 26 healthy subjects with no clinical abnormalities.

Furthermore, those running this study seem to have been overly fascinated, perhaps OBSESSED WITH anal intercourse, which becomes obvious in their finding that "these data suggest that frequent receptive anal intercourse with many homosexual partners predisposes to HTLV-III infection with the consequent emergence of lymphadenopathy and the various manifestations of lesser and fully fledged AIDS".

But yet, this anal obsession failed to notice that common STD's, massive overuse of antibiotics leading to fungal overgrowths, massive drug use, poor diets, and high stress lives, were also common to this group. Combined with the failure of the terribly nonspecific antibody tests that were again wrongly used to determine supposed htlv-iii infection.

Upon full consideration of these facts, any rational individual is forced to conclude the following:

THESE TWO STUDIES completely fail to prove or verify any, let alone all of the following;

1) FAILS TO PROVE that HIV is the cause of AIDS

2) FAILS TO PROVE that HIV is properly isolated from blood sera of any aids patients free of other cellular debris, microvesicles, natural endogenous retroviruses, hervs, etc.

3) FAILS TO PROVE that HIV is sexually transmitted

4) FAILS TO PROVE that HIV kills any T-cells

Posted by: Srsly | April 1, 2009 10:20 PM

And who has the courage to present another study so that we may clearly expose its lack of evidence?

NEXT!!!!

Additional information for Mr. Srsly....

By the way, Mr. Srsly, as you seem to be professing to be well versed in the papers and science of the mid 80's, you will also then undoubtedly be:

FULLY AWARE THAT IN THE MID 1980's all the way into the MID 1990's, that a LOW T-CELL COUNT WAS CONSIDERED TO BE ANY COUNT UNDER 500 T-CELLS.

And surely, you are at this point aware that a patient is not considered to have a low count unless they have below 200 T-CELLS, or substantially LESS than what was considered to be a "LOW T-CELL COUNT" in the mid 80's to 90's.

But SURELY you are well aware that many thousands were said to be dying of aids because they only had a WHOPPING 499 T-cells, which was likely far more T-cells than their even 50 year old doctor or Robert Gallo himself had!

Surely you are well aware of this GREAT ERROR OF AIDS SCIENCE, now aren't you?

Hey Srsly,

You said: "Especially when it comes on top of the absurd display of lack of knowledge you guys showed when commenting on the viral synapse video".

May I enqure as to exactly WHAT you found absurd about any comments regarding the video?

None of you have addressed the fact that the very source of the clonal material and its original supposed "isolation" is a big unknown!

For all I know, it is microvesicles, herv, or cellular debris that was cloned.

When you prove to us it is infectious HIV that was properly isolated, then perhaps we will be more than glad to address it in a way you find more palatable!

Until you do prove that there is actually disease causing hiv as the source of the clone, it is only right to point out this lack of clarity or evidence to your and their claims.

To me, their clone is clearly not hiv that was isolated or proved to cause death of t cells, and not proven to be sexually transmitted or cause immune suppression. It is simply cloned cellular debris that is commonly found when attempting any isolations at the range of 1.16.

Furthermore, the video does NOT show anything proliferating in the second cell. It is not even clear that any such synapse activity took place, nor is it clear that the green blob entered the second T-cell.

And just WHAT is so absurd to you about such obvious conclusions as the video DID NOT provide sufficient evidences or background information to make any such claims as you, Lee, and the authors are claiming it does?

As for your claim that the video clone is hiv?

PROVE IT!

PS, do you also have any videos of UFO spaceships to show us? Wow! Videos are proof of UFO's!!!

Do you also have any of the 911'ers video PROOF of government conspiracies!!! Wowsers!!!

Do you have ghost videos to share with us too?

Videos can prove just about anything to some people, now can't they?

Far, far away in a different galaxy, in a different time, many sock-puppets ago a Denialist once wrote:

I will agree to shut up eternally on the dissident issue and I will refrain from ever again posting any dissident beliefs on this or any other site, and furthermore, I will take up arms with the opposing side, and I will henceforward be twice as determined to espouse only the establishment views.

Michael Geiger February 20, 2007 11:22 PM

...furthermore, I will take up arms with the opposing side, and I will henceforward be twice as determined to espouse only the establishment views.

Sheesh, Chris, be thankful for small mercies. Do you really want a moron like Michael Geiger posting his idiot stream-of-consciousness rants as if they supporting real science? It would be a nightmare!

"Poodle Stomper's point is that anyone arguing about what was known in the early-mid 1980s time frame, should damn well know what those seminal papers say.
The fact that you guys are complaining that he wont tell you what the papers mean, makes his point for him as well as it can be made"

It seems that everyone gets the point expect the denialists. I have told other denialists that they need to understand the basics of biology before trying to interpret papers but sadly the prevailing denialist view is that an education in biology seems to be more of a hindrance than a benefit.

The "is HIV endogenous" question is a fantastic example of this. This was answered in the VERY FIRST paper written about HIV by Montagnier. And yet the denialists continue with the "HIV is probably an endogenous retrovirus". Why? Because they most of them never bothered to read the paper and those that do lack the understanding to know what it means.

The following includes more evidence of PROVE ITâs lack not only of knowledge but of desire to learn:

"None of you have addressed the fact that the very source of the clonal material and its original supposed "isolation" is a big unknown! For all I know, it is microvesicles, herv, or cellular debris that was cloned."

Again âfor all you knowâ doesnât seem to be much.

a) You canât âcloneâ a microvesicle.

b) hERVs, as I mentioned above are not lentiviruses and thus do not have the accessory proteins found in HIV. Let me make this more clear for you NO HUMAN ENDOGENOUS LENTIVIRUSES! The human genome and the HIV genome are also both fully sequenced. HIV is not present in the human genome. The issue of whether HIV was endogenous was also addressed in Montagnierâs very first HIV paper. This is why it is important to UNDERSTAND ALL THE MATERIAL, not just what you read on the uninformed denialists websites.

c) Which âcell debrisâ do you suggest was "cloned"?

"When you prove to us it is infectious HIV that was properly isolated, then perhaps we will be more than glad to address it in a way you find more palatable!"

Just like the endogenous issue, this has been solved long ago. Its too bad your head is either stuck too far in the sand or too far up your own ass to be capable of understanding that you need to understand biology to understand these issues. A degree in say, math, does not qualify one to understand this type of complex subject.

I really really really want to hear how one goes about cloning a self-replicating, gene-expressing microvesicle or "cell debris." Or hERVs, for that matter, given that none of them are intact and it appears that none of them are capable of excising or replicating.

ProveIt is proving he ain't it.

Michael simply refuses to acknowledge that HERV's don't replicate. He prefers to imagine that HERVs are infectious and can infect cell lines. Otherwise, the deniers have a little difficulty explaining how Francoise Barre-Sinoussi sent HIV from Paris to Bethesda, where Mika Popovic infected two different cell lines with it, and Matthew Gonda documented productive infection with electron microscopy, and identified it as a retrovirus, and took micrographs of it, which were published in Science.

Ohhh the stoooopid by the hiv faithful. It buuuurrrnnnns.

Me thinks ye doth all protest too much, and attempt to change the subject too quick, so that ye may escape acknowledging, let alone addressing any facts, such as:

Srsly has presented studies that are only showing that the presumed hiv positively diagnosed were diagnosed with nonspecific antibody tests.

But not a word acknowledging this from himself or the protestors.

He failed to show any reasonable proofs of hiv doing anything, but not a word from himself or the protestors.

And Poodles, laughably comes running to attempt a rescue of Srsly by presenting this nonsense:

"The "is HIV endogenous" question is a fantastic example of this. This was answered in the VERY FIRST paper written about HIV by Montagnier",

while ignoring the fact that Montagnier was unable to find anything in any patient's peripheral blood and was only able to culture is supposed find in CORD BLOOD. The observed cultured lymphocytes came ONLY from cord blood, and therefore originate from the placenta. It is well known, since the late 1970âs (Sandra Panemâs work, in Current Top Pathol, 1979, 66 :175-189), that the normal human placenta contains loads of C type retroviruses (HERVs). Placental lymphocytes are, therefore, likely to contain the same HERVs that, when placed under stimulating culture conditions, may bud from cell surfaces and form complete retroviral particles (C-type) recognizable with the electron microscope (Fig. 2). Barre-Sinoussi et al. avoided to explain why their experiment apparently wouldnât work with lymphocytes from the peripheral blood, instead of those from cord blood.

The simple and obvious explanation by Ocam's Razor is that human peripheral blood lymphocytes do not harbor HERVs. But the cord blood Barre-Sinoussi cultured in, IS LOADED WITH THEM!

PS: @ NM, your goofy nonsense above re: HERVs is hereby refuted.

And who has the courage to present another study so that we may clearly expose its lack of evidence?

NEXT!!!!

And to think that the hiv faithful just allowed Montagnier and Barre-Sinoussi to get a Nobel Prize for culturing HERVs in cord blood.

The STOOOPID!

Ohhhh, How it buuuurrrrrrrrnnnnsssss!

âwhile ignoring the fact that Montagnier was unable to find anything in any patient's peripheral blood and was only able to culture is supposed find in CORD BLOOD. The observed cultured lymphocytes came ONLY from cord blood, and therefore originate from the placenta.â

Dead wrong! You need to get your information from places other than denialist sites because you are WRONG AGAIN!

Quotes from the actual Montagnier paper (this is from the second page, yes it helps to actually read it)

Virus transmission was attempted with the use of a culture of T lymphocytes established from an adult healthy donor of the Blood Transfusion Center at the Pasteur Institute. On day 3, half of the culture was cocultivated with lymphocytes from the biopsy after centrifugation of the mixed cell suspensions.
Reverse transcriptase activity could be detected in the supernatant on day 15 of the coculture but was not detectable on days 5 and 10. The reverse transcriptase had the same characteristics as that released by the patient's cells and the amount released remained stable for 15 to 20 days. Cells of the uninfected culture of the donor lymphocytes did not release reverse transcriptase activity during this period or up to 6 weeks when the culture was discontinued.

And later

The cell-free supernatant of the infected coculture was used to infect 3-day-old cultures of T lymphocytes from two umbilical cords, LCl and LC5, in the presence of Polybrene (2 ,ug/ml). After a lag period of 7 days, a relatively high titer of reverse transcriptase activity was detected in both of the cord lymphocyte cultures. Identical cultures, which had not been infected, remained negative. These two successive infections clearly show that the virus could be propagated on normal lymphocytes from either newborns or adults.

So to recap:
1) Both chord blood AND adult cells were used.
2) Control cells for both did not show RT activity, ONLY those which were infected.
3) PROVE IT clearly is either illiterate or lying when he claims that ONLY Chord blood was used.

So which is it? Did you only get your information from denialist sites or did you actually read the paper for yourself?

If you didn't read the paper then why should anyone bother to argue other papers with you since you clearly ignore them anyway in favor of your own baseless conclusions?

If you DID read it why should anyone believe that your conclusions are anymore valid than this latest example of your inability to understand science?

Regardless of how you look at it you aren't a very credible source of information. The stupid...it buuuuuuurns!

prove it reacts to every new piece of evidence just like creationists:
"There's a gap in the fossil record"
"Ok, look at this transitional species filling the gap"
"OMG, there are TWO gaps in the fossil record"
Even if HIV signed a written confession, he'd claim it was coerced.

So how about that autopsy report? Oh, that's right. We'll never see it. Talk about courage.

Is Michael Geiger going to consent to an autopsy report when AIDS finally kills him?

Let's roll the magic 8-ball.

Signs point to no!

Poods,

In using this study by Montagnier, done in early 1983, I do realize that you are attempting to show that a clear-cut isolate [HIV] was obtained.

However, in 1984 Gallo and his colleagues said that Montagnier and his group's 1983 evidence did not prove "true isolation". As late as 1997 Jaap Goudsmit wrote: "The BRU lymph node was first cultured in early January 1983 and, on January 15, it shed an enzyme absolutely unique to the lentivirus groupâ¦The BRU virus grew slowly and with difficulty, but its identity and activity were reported in the May 20, 1983 issue of Scienceâ¦

The Pasteur Group was widely acclaimed but very worried. In the world of virology, finding a new virus is not enough: You must propagate and isolate the organism for analysis by other virologists. The French had not yet isolated their new lentivirus.

As for reverse transcriptase being present in all retroviruses... It is true that this enzyme is present in all retroviruses, including lentiviruses and that the detection of reverse transcription was considered by Montagnier proof for HIV isolation. But it is also true that the enzyme is not unique to these viruses, much less to lentiviruses.

Furthermore, all the HIV experts including Gallo and Montagnier have proven the presence of the enzyme indirectly, that is, by transcription of the synthetic template-primer An.dT15. However, even before the AIDS era, at least Gallo and the principal and second authors of the Montagnier 1983 study were aware that this template-primer can be transcribed by cellular DNA polymerases, and this was also proven by Montagnier himself in 1984.

And strangely enough, the supposedly isolated retrovirus that was EM'ed was found differing vastly in sizes. Impossible to begin with and is exceedingly high evidence of lab artifacts.

Therefore, the indirect method of finding reverse transcriptase See Varmus et al. and certainly is also not acceptable proof of retroviral activity, nor of isolation, nor of causation, nor of contagion, nor evidence of harm to T-cells.

Where's your evidence that the described reverse transcriptase activity is sufficient for determining retroviral proliferation? There is none!

Furthermore, culture contaminations were exceedingly common in BOTH Montagniers and Gallo's labs. Both labs have candidly admitted this fact.

Where's your evidence that these common contaminations and artifacts were not what was being detected? You have none. The evidences you promote are based only on unproven assumptions and assumptions that were later found to have very basic flaws.

Joseph, taking a completely stressed to breaking mothers death, who became deathly ill a month after she was portrayed on national TV as a child killer, and just days before she was scheduled to testify in court against the coroner, as some type of evidence that hiv was the cause, particularly when the finally stressed to breaking mother had been nothing but healthy for 19 drug free years, is nothing but anecdotal evidence, but is surely direct evidence of asinine presumptions, and assumptions by yourself and the hiv faithful.

Would you please present us with any study that evidences

1) hiv as being properly isolated directly from the blood of any of the presumed "infected",

2) hiv as proven to be causing harm or death to any CD4 T-cells

2) hiv as proven to be causing immune suppression

3) hiv as being proven to be sexually transmitted

Mikey,

I have nothing to prove to a California New Ager such as yourself. Apparently, you haven't convinced yourself of your own nonsense yet though. Maybe if you keep posting on here you'll eventually believe your own BS.

Joey,

Maybe you keep posting on here because you already believe your own BS. ; )

And who has the courage to present another study so that we may clearly expose its lack of evidence?

NEXT!!!!

Mike,

For all your pathetic efforts, you're just going to be reduced to a few blog postings some day:

HIV Denialist Michael Geiger Dies At XX

Will you even make it to 60? Probably not if you don't take your head out of your ass.

Joe,

For all your own pathetic efforts, you also a're just going to be reduced to a few blog postings some day:

REALITY Denialist JOEY THE CHUMP Dies At XX

Will you even make it to 60? Probably not if you don't take your head out of your ass by following falsified scientific/medical dogma.

And who has the courage to present another study so that we may clearly expose its lack of evidence?

NEXT!!!!

Mike,

Has the HIV eaten your brain so much that you can't even come up with an original response?

The following "following falsified scientific/medical dogma" bit is highly irrelevant to me since I'm not infected.

âFurthermore, all the HIV expertsâ¦were aware that this template-primer can be transcribed by cellular DNA polymerases, and this was also proven by Montagnier himself in 1984.â

For the last time, read the frickinâ paper for yourself before spouting out denialist crap, you idiot! All you do is regurgitate denialist crap over and over and over again with no self conducted reading of the papers themselves. Is this what you consider to be honest research?

Again from the Montagnier paper (still page 2)

Virus-infected cells from the original biopsy as well as infected lymphocytes from the first and second viral passages were used to determine the optimal requirements for reverse transcriptase activity and the template specificity of the enzyme. The results were the same in all instances. The reverse transcriptase activity displayed a strong affinity for poly(adenylate - oligodeoxythymidylate) [poly(A) - oligo(dT)], and required Mg2+ with an optimal concentration (5 mM) slightly lower than that for HTLV (14) and an optimal pH of 7.8. The reaction was not inhibited by actinomycin D. This character, as well as the preferential specificity for riboseadenylate * deoxythymidylate over deoxyadenylate * deoxythymidylate, distinguish the viral enzyme from DNA-dependent polymerases.

âAnd strangely enough, the supposedly isolated retrovirus that was EM'ed was found differing vastly in sizes. Impossible to begin with and is exceedingly high evidence of lab artifacts.â

There is nothing "impossible" or strange about this. All retroviruses have size ranges when they bud. Where the hell do you get your information?

âWhere's your evidence that the described reverse transcriptase activity is sufficient for determining retroviral proliferation? There is none!â

It wasnât based on RT activity alone. Also, none of the identically treated control cells produce said activity (indicating that it is not endogenous in origin and very unlikely to be contamination). Where is your evidence that you read the paper?

âFurthermore, culture contaminations were exceedingly common in BOTH Montagniers and Gallo's labs. Both labs have candidly admitted this fact.â

"Exceedingly common"? Please cite your source.
This paper was written prior to the arrival of the contaminating strain to the Montagnier lab. A more virulent strain (LAV) contaminated SOME of the samples later (before it was sent to Gallo) but samples of the original BRU strain still exists uncontaminated. These are available for purchase. However, if you are going to claim this was all contaminants you will also have to explain why the identically treated control cells remained mysteriously uncontaminated.

âWhere's your evidence that these common contaminations and artifacts were not what was being detected? You have none.â

We have the control cells you idiot. Again, read the paper.

In summary:
1) PROVE IT still has offered no proof that HIV is endogenous.
2) PROVE IT LIED about only cord blood being used but decided not to bring that back up after being proved wrong.
3) PROVE IT obviously still has NOT read the paper.
4) PROVE IT lacks any sort of biology knowledge.

So tell me PROVE IT, do you consider it honest to go along quoting papers you've obviously never read, much less understood? You've been proven either a liar or illiterate on:

1) Only cord blood cells were used.
2) The RT activity was cell DNA-dependant DNA-polymerase
3) Retroviruses all have only one exact size.

Will you continue your uninformed BS or take the time to learn something?

Poods,

Is there some part of the following that you are unable to read or understand?

However, in 1984 Gallo and his colleagues said that Montagnier and his group's 1983 evidence did not prove "true isolation". As late as 1997 Jaap Goudsmit wrote: "The BRU lymph node was first cultured in early January 1983 and, on January 15, it shed an enzyme absolutely unique to the lentivirus groupâ¦The BRU virus grew slowly and with difficulty, but its identity and activity were reported in the May 20, 1983 issue of Scienceâ¦

The Pasteur Group was widely acclaimed but very worried. In the world of virology, finding a new virus is not enough: You must propagate and isolate the organism for analysis by other virologists. The French had not yet isolated their new lentivirus.

As for reverse transcriptase being present in all retroviruses... It is true that this enzyme is present in all retroviruses, including lentiviruses and that the detection of reverse transcription was considered by Montagnier proof for HIV isolation. But it is also true that the enzyme is not unique to these viruses, much less to lentiviruses.

Furthermore, all the HIV experts including Gallo and Montagnier have proven the presence of the enzyme indirectly, that is, by transcription of the synthetic template-primer An.dT15. However, even before the AIDS era, at least Gallo and the principal and second authors of the Montagnier 1983 study were aware that this template-primer can be transcribed by cellular DNA polymerases, and this was also proven by Montagnier himself in 1984.

This CLEARLY INDICATES that the study you are attempting to use as proof is disqualifed until you present evidence that these very clear factors have been refuted.

testing positive on an antibody test 16 years ago and not being unable to overcome a bout of double pneumonia proves nothing.

Similar to the way that finding a bullet lodged in the brain of a dead man (with no other patholgies/injuries) 'proves nothing'.

Hoo boy, another specimen proving the Dunning-Kruger effect is alive and well.

I popped over to Respectful Insolence for my daily dose of woo, and ORAC alerts his readers this crazy thread is still going on!
How PoodleStomper, Snout, Chris Noble, et.al. have the energy for these intelligence sucking zombies is beyond me!
But keep up the great work. Although, futile it may be!
Now, how about popping over to Henry Bauer's Sekptic site, post some truth that refutes his lies, and when your post miraculously does not get thru Bauer's "moderation", then come on over to www.correctingbauer.blogspot.com and post your comments there!
Don't forget to copy your comments in anticiptation of the inevitible Bauer Magical Moderation!
JTD

Stress has been verified to shrink the thymus gland, where CD4 T-cells mature and are released into the body, by as much as 50% in as little as 24 hours.

Wrong.

T-cells, as with all hematopoietic cells, are generated in the bone marrow. T-cells then traffic to the thymus for education of self vs. non-self.

do you have evidence that the size of the thymus influences the number of T cells in the body? why don't you....wait for it....

PROVE IT?

Let it be known that all of Orac ans Tara's Sycophants could only cite Gallo et al and Levy et al where they could only isolate HIV (26/72 for Gallo) in less than half of AIDS patients and find antibodies in 88% of AIDS patients, of course when these same antibodies turned up in healthy people they extended the window period from 10 months to ten years.

Is this all you have to justify AZT's approval in 1987, the IOM reccomending billions in research in 1985, a press conference in 1984 by the DHHS saying the "probable" cause of AIDS was found and how a vaccine would be developed? Is this all you have a partial piss poor correlation? A microbe that was barely detectable at all Gallo had to steal it from Montagnier because he had great difficulty finding it in an AIDS patient?

cooler,

If you're really convinced that HIV is a harmless retrovirus, then why don't you get exposed to prove your point to the world? I'm sure Mike Geiger would be willing to oblige you.

And where is that blog you mentioned earlier in the thread? We all could use a good laugh.

PROVE IT,
âFurthermore, all the HIV experts including Gallo and Montagnier â¦were aware that this template-primer can be transcribed by cellular DNA polymerases, and this was also proven by Montagnier himself in 1984.â

How dense can you possibly be? This was already answered in my previous post if you bothered to read the quotation from the Montagnier paper that indicates why the RT activity detected was NOT an artifact of cellular DNA polymerase. Here let me repeat what the paper itself said. Maybe if you read it again a second (or first) time youâll understand it:

Virus-infected cells from the original biopsy as well as infected lymphocytes from the first and second viral passages were used to determine the optimal requirements for reverse transcriptase activity and the template specificity of the enzyme. The results were the same in all instances. The reverse transcriptase activity displayed a strong affinity for poly(adenylate - oligodeoxythymidylate) [poly(A) - oligo(dT)], and required Mg2+ with an optimal concentration (5 mM) slightly lower than that for HTLV (14) and an optimal pH of 7.8. The reaction was not inhibited by actinomycin D. This character, as well as the preferential specificity for riboseadenylate * deoxythymidylate over deoxyadenylate * deoxythymidylate, distinguish the viral enzyme from DNA-dependent polymerases.

OK, all clear now!? Do you understand how they knew this wasnât a cellular DNA polymerase or should I make sock puppets and act it out for you?

â Is there some part of the following that you are unable to read or understand? However, in 1984 Gallo and his colleagues said that Montagnier and his group's 1983 evidence did not prove "true isolation".

When did this become about isolation? The subject was about whether there was evidence that HIV was endogenous. I realize you are trying to change the subject but you are the one that brought it up when you claimed HIV could âfor all you knowâ be a hERV.

âThis CLEARLY INDICATES that the study you are attempting to use as proof is disqualifed until you present evidence that these very clear factors have been refuted.â

What seems âCLEARâ to you is obviously a product of your lack on understanding. We were using this paper in discussing whether proof existed of HIV being endogenous, not whether it was isolated at that time isolated.

So here are my questions to you:

1) Do you concede that there is ample evidence that HIV is not endogenous based on
*RT activity in infected but not control cells of cord blood.
*RT activity in infected but not control cells of adult cells.
*The RT activity demonstrated did not fit that of cellular DNA polymerase
* HIV is a lentivirus, of which there are NONE endogenous to humans.

2) Do you admit that you did not bother to read the Montagnier paper but rather relied on denialist BS for your arguments?

Similar to the way that finding a bullet lodged in the brain of a dead man (with no other patholgies/injuries) 'proves nothing'.

How many times do you orthodox pharmashill sheep have to be told CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION. Bullets are the bodies natural response to various stressors such as toxic drugs, self-loathing and oxidative agents. It's the way the body heals itself.

Nice fail Chris, bullets can be found in abundance in a human being with traditional methods and there is no mystery how it kills and hurts people, it tears the flesh, it doesn't cause different symptoms in different risk groups, bullets reproduce the same illness when fired into animals, there is no ten year lag between being shot and having symptoms of being shot. The bullets cause harm to humans is based on much more than correlation.

Now if someone gets shot with a water gun and ten years later gets Kaposis Sarcoma, that is more of accurate description of the piss poor correlation that is the HIV hypothesis.

cooler,

Still waiting for your blog. Or has Burger King been keeping you super busy as of late?

I'm still waiting for you to suck on Duesberg's big balls. He's won California Scientist of the year and got Tenure at Berkeley at the age of 36. At the age of 36 you were courting prostitutes from your mommy's basement, while looking for jobs at the local whorehouse ;)

Cooler,
"bullets reproduce the same illness when fired into animals, there is no ten year lag between being shot and having symptoms of being shot"

EPIC FAIL on you!

Man dies from bullet wounds... 35 YEARS after being shot

Wow one rare exception, nevertheless when the bullet originally caused the wound it was found in abundance in the affected area wreaking havok, now if you could only find the bullet with the PCR and there were no symptoms or damage in the begginning at all until ten years later there would be a problem. Loser/nice fail.....

Cooler, would you be willing to infect yourself with HIV?

"Wow one rare exception, nevertheless when the bullet originally caused the wound it was found in abundance in the affected area wreaking havok.."

One bullet is an "abundance? Show me his body teeming with bullets! Show us how how one small bullet could lead to multiple organ failure!

Sorry Cooler but your exact words were: "there is no ten year lag between being shot and having symptoms of being shot", nothing about exceptions.

And why now would anyone really want to "debate" you when you've already admitted you are willing to lie? Is there any reasone anyone here should take anything you say at face value?

Cooler, nobody is denying that bullets exist. The question is are they the cause of death or merely a symptom.

Can you provide a peer reviewed paper with a double blind experiment that is capable of proving that bullets cause death?

Besides the whole Bullets=Death theory can be falsified by simply plotting the sales of bullets in the US from 1985-2009 and compare that with the alleged gunshot deaths over the same period. No correlation!

Why are African Americans and other racial minorities disproportionately affected by alleged gunshot wounds? Do the bullets somehow know who to kill? Since when are bullets so clever? Huh?

The whole Bullets=Death theory is crumbling. Why do you cling to a failed theory. Who is paying you?

I'm still waiting for you to suck on Duesberg's big balls.

This is obviously your fantasy. After Michael Geiger "converts you to poz", of course.

He's won California Scientist of the year and got Tenure at Berkeley at the age of 36.

What's your point? He didn't win this award for his HIV crankery. Much, much, much, much greater scientists than Duesberg have delved into nonsense. Ever heard of "Isaac Newton" and his alchemy experiments? Or Linus Pauling and his Vitamin C crankery? Duesberg is a scientific cockroach compared to those names.

I can cite studies that show that humans have metals in many of their enzymes. This must prove that the bullets are nothing more than your body getting rid of these toxic metals in response to stress! They are the symptoms!!!! Lots of people have been shot and never died! Visit the Shot and Well site for more info! I don't need evidence because I can just assume it is so!

Cooler must be a shill for the anti-bullet politicians. Notice that they use the bullet=death myth to get elected and paid. Follow the money trail!

cooler:
"there is no ten year lag between being shot and having symptoms of being shot"

There is no ten year lag period between being infected with HIV and having symptoms of being infected with HIV, either. Apparently, cooler is a unacquainted with the symptoms of long-term HIV infection as he is with the molecular and epidemiological data.

Infection causes an immediate flu-like illness, with fever and malaise lasting a few days to a couple weeks. During this period, lymph glands become swollen, and this often persists after the immediate flulike symptoms subside. Persistent lymphadenopathy develops, sometimes immediately and sometimes after a period of time - this is a highly characteristic feature of HIV infection, appearing in the majority of patients, and often persisting for many years before appearance of opportunistic infections signals the onset of AIDS.

I wonder if cooler has ever looked at the time course of untreated syphilis - consistency in his argument regarding latent periods would force him to deny that syphilis is a sexually transmitted fatal disease with a known etiology, because the latent period of syphilis really is symptom free, much more so than hIV infection is.

I'd like to take a moment to lament the loss of the Shot and Well founder who was found last night with a bullet lodged in his head. No one knows the mysterious circumstances that caused him to die (except the anti-bullet lobby who said it was a bullet to the brain stem of course).

cooler is also either lyng or astoundingly unable to follow the conversation.

cooler:
"Let it be known that all of Orac ans Tara's Sycophants could only cite Gallo et al and Levy et al where they could only isolate HIV (26/72 for Gallo) in less than half of AIDS patients and find antibodies in 88% of AIDS patients, of course when these same antibodies turned up in healthy people they extended the window period from 10 months to ten years."

This AFTER poedlestomper cited 7 papers from 1984-1986, and I cited 2 papers from 1984 and referred to the hundreds of others that were published in 1984-85 in fields of epidemiology, virology, immunology, etc.
BTW, cooler, those 'healthy people' had, many of them, symptoms of general persistent lymphadenopathy. And as the reagents got better, and the techniques better, the percentage of AIDS patients with detectable antibodies and virus got much higher than in the founding papers. As one would expect.

Do you have a references for the "acute retroviral syndrome?" Anyways both Magic Johnson and Greg Louganis played professional sports at the highest level while infected with a deadly virus............hell, if an NBA player has the flu they usually take the night off. Doesn't sound like this dud of a virus does anything. Magic only got tested for a routine physical, you would think if ARS was so profound Magic would have went to the doctor, you'll say its mild like the flu, hell how do you know it wasn't the flu?

Chris, just do a you tube search on "deer hunting" you'll see many experiments that prove bullets cause immediate damage to living things.

Cooler, may I ask why you are so passionate about something you know little about? Why do you spend so much time spreading potentially dangerous misinformation?

Poodle Stomper, you have to realize that he was under tremendous stress. People were spreading the vicious rumor that his son had died of a bullet wound, when actually he died from natural causes that simply made it look like he had an entry wound in his head.

That kind of unbearable stress clearly caused his body to mobilize all the metals in his tissues into that mass of metal found in his brain. People die that way from stress all the time, and you are a ghoul for pointing out that it looks exactly like a bullet wound killed him. Bullets never killed anyone.

Cooler,

"Anyways both Magic Johnson and Greg Louganis played professional sports at the highest level while infected with a deadly virus"

We've been over this before. Both of them are on ARVs and have been since they tested positive. If you and your mighty Duesberg were right shouldn't they be dead from the AIDS-causing ARVs (Johnson is still taking AZT)? Why hasn't AZT killed them off? Why do they live now with undetectable viral load and normal T-cell counts? Weren't they stressed by their diagnosis? Why do they live and thrive while Maggiore, her daughter, and a host of HIV+ denialists lie dead despite their organic foods and lack of HAARTs?

Doesn't sound like this dud of a virus does anything.

Put your money where your mouth is. Get infected and prove us all wrong.

cooler:
"just do a you tube search on "deer hunting" you'll see many experiments that prove bullets cause immediate damage to living things."

But Prove It told us that videos aren't evidence - something about UFOs, I believe.
---
oh, and - Michael Jordan, 1997 finals, game 5, 38 points, seven rebounds, five assists, three steals and one block.

Magic played in the NBA finals in 1991 while he was infected was the "deadly" virus and he was not on any drugs, he didn't even know he was positive you moron. Liar.

Anyways is this all you have? Jay levy could only isolate hiv in 22/45 patients. He found antibodies in almost as many non AIDS patients than aids patients? Hell all these people had antibodies to the Measles virus as well, that must be the real cause of AIDS! And when AIDS is not there lets extend the window period from 10 months to 10 years, even though its barely found in about 1/1000 t cells and doesn't do anything when injected into chimpanzees!

All of this is just a partial correlation and doesn't prove sqwaut. Seriously this is one big blunder, there are only a few retards left like JP Moore that would defend these lies.

Isolation of lymphocytopathic retroviruses from San Francisco patients with AIDS
JA Levy, AD Hoffman, SM Kramer, JA Landis, JM Shimabukuro, and LS Oshiro

Infectious retroviruses have been detected in 22 of 45 randomly selected patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) and in other individuals from San Francisco. The AIDS-associated retroviruses (ARV) studied in detail had a type D morphology, Mg2+-dependent reverse transcriptase, and cytopathic effects on lymphocytes. The viruses can be propagated in an established adult human T cell line, HUT-78. They cross-react with antiserum to the lymphadenopathy-associated retrovirus isolated from AIDS patients in France. Antibodies to ARV were found in all 86 AIDS patients and in a high percentage of 88 other homosexual men in San Francisco. This observation indicates the widespread presence of these lymphocytopathic retroviruses and their close association with AIDS.

"Magic played in the NBA finals in 1991 while he was infected was the "deadly" virus and he was not on any drugs, he didn't even know he was positive you moron. Liar."

The stupid, it buuuuurn still! My exact words were: "Both of them are on ARVs and have been since they tested positive." What part of "since they tested positive" means "BEFORE they tested positive" of "before they found out" to you? "Before" and "After" are two different words. Look them up in the dictionary.

And why do you always change the topic when you are proven wrong time and again, cooler?

Classic! Magic played in the 1991 NBA finals at full strength and didn't complain of one symptom while he had HIV with no treatment. If he had any other virus like Mumps, measles the flu etc he would be complaining of symptoms left and right, like when Jordan nearly collapsed on the court in 1997 when he played with the flu, he complained of horrible symptoms but he was never given a death sentence, he was told he'd be fine, and this hope willed his team to victory despite symptoms of his viral infection. There is no mystery why Magic had no symptoms and Jordan did..........the virus Magic was infected with was barely present at all, unlike real viruses like the flu!

And why do you always change the topic when you are proven wrong time and again, cooler?

He's basically just mad about his own irrelevance. Burger King must have passed him up for that big promotion to fry chef yet again. He'll probably have to mop floors for at least another 5 years.

Seriously, what is there to say about someone who clearly understands HIV-AIDS worse than many high school or even grade school students, but still tries to argue about it with his obvious intellectual betters?

There's really no point in doing anything beyond insulting this conspiracy-proffering loser.

"Magic played in the 1991 NBA finals at full strength and didn't complain of one symptom while he had HIV with no treatment. If he had any other virus like Mumps, measles the flu etc he would be complaining of symptoms left and right"

Please cite your evidence that he would have complained.

"There is no mystery why Magic had no symptoms and Jordan did..........the virus Magic was infected with was barely present at all, unlike real viruses like the flu!"

Can you show us his initial VL test to prove this or is this another Cooler ASSumption? Don't forget to answer why hasn't he died from all the AZT he has been taking, y'know since it is a cause of AIDS and all.

Awwwwwwww Joseph C did I hurt your feelings when I spoke the truth about you living in your mommy's basement while Duesberg and Walter Gilbert were winning Nobel Prizes and getting tenure at UC berkeley and Harvard? Did you ever once think of how pathetic it is to speak on Retroviruses when even Gallo said nobody knows more about retroviruses than your Scientific FATHER Duesberg?

Why don't you debate Duesberg so I can laugh my ass off?

Wow. I can't believe the massive collection of lies, half-truths, logical fallacies and just plain burning stupid I see coming out of the "denialist" camp.
the mind boggles.

Cooler,

You're just arguing from authority. And you continue to use the languge of the creepy cultist that you are. Scientific "father"? The members of The People's Temple called Jim Jones "father". But that's not how science works. It's not about hero worship.

Now get back to cleaning the floors. It's clear that you've got a very low station in life and it's going to stay that way. You've probably never even completed a community college level course in science. And you'd clearly fail any basic test in microbiology or biochemistry that we could put in front of you.

Kinetics of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) DNA and RNA synthesis during primary HIV-1 infection. [Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1993]

High titers of cytopathic virus in plasma of patients with symptomatic primary HIV-1 infection. [N Engl J Med. 1991]

Virologic and immunologic characterization of symptomatic and asymptomatic primary HIV-1 infection. [J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol. 1995]

Oh, and cooler, in the paper you cite, Levy found anti-HIV antibodies in 100% of the AIDS patients he tested. He was able to isolate sufficient virus to biochemically characterize it from half of them. He cultured virus from many of those isolates, the cultured virus cross-reacted with anti-HIV antiserum from HIV isolates in France, and the cultured viral isolates were cytopathic to lymphocytes.

In what universe does this indicate that HIV is not associated with AIDS and lymphocyte cytotoxicity?

What Walter Gilbert ended up saying about HIV/AIDS:

"I am afraid that those comments go back to the late 80's. <...> Today I would regard the success of the many antiviral agents which lower the virus titers (to be expected) and also resolve the failure of the immune system (only expected if the virus is the cause of the failure) as a reasonable proof of the causation argument."

Walter Gilbert expressed doubts about HIV in the 80's and 90's on national television. In 2006 he was harrased by a member of AIDS truth (whose goal is to crush dissidents) in a private email, all his public statemants have been of skeptcism. Walter Gilbert is a hero to expose the HIV fraud along with another nobelist Kary Mullis. Private statements induced and intimidated by a group of nutjobs at AIDS truth do not compare to public statements...........

Dr Walter Gilbert, formerly molecular biology professor at Harvard University: One of contemporary scienceâs most outstanding and accomplished scientists, Gilbert won his Nobel for inventing the now foundational modern technique for DNA sequencing. He considers Duesberg to be âabsolutely correct in saying that no one has proven that AIDS is caused by [HIV]. There is no animal model for AIDS, and without an animal model, you cannot establish Kochâs postulates [to prove the role of the suspected pathogen].â He observes, âThe community as a whole doesnât listen patiently to critics who adopt alternative viewpoints although the great lesson of history is that knowledge develops through the conflict of viewpoints, that if you have simply a consensus view it severely stultifies; it fails to see the problems of that consensus and it depends on the existence of critics to break up that iceberg and permit knowledge to develop. This is in fact one of the underpinnings of democratic theory. Itâs one of the basic reasons that we believe in notions of free speech. And itâs one of the great forces in intellectual developmentâ¦The general public accepts what the media tells them. And the media has blown up the virus as being the cause of AIDS, and the scientific community - parts of it - have blown up the virus as the cause of AIDS because it is more convenient to have a neat explanation than to be in that situation in which we often are in science at which the problems, the questions, still face us, and our knowledge proceeds gradually to overcome those difficulties.â

What drives the HIV denialists, anyway? Are they all Ron Paul nutters or what?

What the fuck is a "nobelist"? If you're going to paste bullshit, at least paste bullshit from people who know what the correct term is. And the correct term is "Nobel Laureate".

Gilbert's 'skeptical' quotes date up to as recently as about 1993. Here is what he said in 2006:

-----Original Message-----
From: Walter Gilbert [mailto:wgilbert@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 10:27 PM
To: richard.jefferys@verizon.net
Subject: Re: question

Dear Dr. Jeffreys---I am afraid that those comments go back to the late
80's. At that time I was a skeptic--the argument based on Koch's
postulates to try to distinguish between cause and association.
However, even during that time we had several AIDS projects going within
Biogen--one to try to stimulate T-independent B-cell activation (a pet
approach of mine), another to develop soluble CD4--to use as an
antiviral agent. That second project got to clinical trials (and failed
because the virus in patients didn't have the high affinity for CD4 that
the lab-grown virus had.)
Today I would regard the success of the many antiviral agents which
lower the virus titers (to be expected) and also resolve the failure
of the immune system (only expected if the virus is the cause of the
failure) as a reasonable proof of the causation argument.

yours truly

Walter Gilbert

Richard Jefferys wrote:
> Dear Dr. Gilbert:
>
>
>
> I am exceedingly sorry to trouble you with a possibly trivial and
> tiresome question, but it has come to my attention that advocates of the
> idea that HIV does not cause AIDS are continuing to use quotes from you
> in support of their position. Obviously the high regard in which you are
> held by the scientific community is something they hope will support
> their cause. I would not in any way argue with your right to hold
> whatever beliefs you have, but I thought it would be prudent to try and
> check if youâre still of the mind that HIV plays no causative role in
> the development of AIDS.
>
>
>
> Again, I would much prefer to be asking a question about your scientific
> work and apologize for troubling you with this.
>
>
>
> Thanks and best wishes,
>
> Richard Jefferys

It looks like the denialists all chipped in to make a new movie, House of Numbers, debuting at the Nashville Film Festival this month.

I like the ending where that quack Nobelist, Luc Montagnier, says that we are exposed to HIV all the time and a healthy immune system can simply kill the virus. The gall of that dude!

Even if I was completely ignorant of this subject, I could still pick out which side has the far weaker case. So weak in fact, I'm probably not too far off in calling it nonsense.

There are certain tactics used by deniers whether it be denying climate change, denying evolution, denying moon landings, denying smoking-cancer links, denying vaccine benefits, etc, that aren't used by those who have science to back up their opinions.

The best evidence for the HIV-AIDS link comes from those who deny it exists because you're using the same tactics as all the other denialists (you might want to figure out what you're doing so you can avoid those pitfalls...but I imagine if you did, then you'd have no arguments left).

As it stands I do have some knowledge in biology (taught cell and molecular biology to 1st, 2nd year university students for 5 years, before going back to work in the field), and I'm afraid many posters here have demonstrated such an misunderstanding in this area alone that I'm not sure I would even know where to start in trying to correct their misconceptions.

And some denialists here have out and out lied. If you need to lie to support your position, your position isn't worth supporting. Stop obfuscating.

Incidentally, if your position also requires a large-scale international conspiracy theory to work you automatically lose almost all credibility because you've just demonstrated you know squat-all about how science and medicine work (much less how human nature works).