The Story of AIDS
Introduction: The Great Aids Debate
The whole AIDS story is just not as straightforward as we have been led to believe, apparently. There are very good people who have been polarised in two camps for quite some time (25 years and counting) who utterly convinced about the truth and integrity of their point of view and equally disdainful of the 'bad science' and doubtful intergrity of the other side.
Sadly, as we shall see, the debate frequently degenerates into name calling and character assassination, and even more tragically we witness this at the very highest levels of the scientific pantheon.
Sadly, as we shall see, the debate frequently degenerates into name calling and character assassination, and even more tragically we witness this at the very highest levels of the scientific pantheon.
But still, at the end of the day, there is this elusive element called "The Truth" we sincerely hope, will eventually come out, regardless of the desperate efforts of the perpetrators of "The Lie", to suppress the evidence. But. . . we are just not always sure of exactly who the nefarious suppressors of truth actually are. Never before is this most evident in the whole AIDS debate, in my experience anyway. And, more importantly, never before have the stakes been so high, it's not something we can even joke about, people's lives are at stake.
So after my brain cells began to disintegrate from exhaustion in an attempt to understand the issues and problems with the AIDS debate, I can still smell a dead rat in the kitchen . . . somewhere. . .
Twenty Five Years of AIDS research and there a more Questions than Answers
In July 2003, the esteemed science journal Nature Medicine published an article called “HIV-1 Pathogenesis” by AIDS researcher Mario Stevenson of the University of Massachusetts Medical School. The article was part of its “20 years of AIDS science” special edition.
From the introduction:
"Despite considerable advances in HIV science in the past 20 years, the reason why HIV-1 infection is pathogenic is still debated... considerable efforts have gone into identifying the mechanisms by which HIV-1 causes disease, and two major hypotheses have been forwarded."
According to Stevenson, twenty years and 118 billion dollars in AIDS research (“considerable efforts”), have given no reliable proof as to how HIV might cause disease (“the mechanisms” by which HIV is presumed to be “pathogenic”). While it is always claimed that HIV is proven to cause illness, Stevenson spends the bulk of his review article pouring over what he describes as two “major hypotheses”that try to describe how HIV might work.
In science, a “hypothesis” is an idea or proposal about how something might work.
A hypothesis isn’t a fact, it’s a guess that a scientist tries to prove is accurate and true. If a hypothesis fails, it’s discarded, so that new, better, more accurate ideas can be heard.
In the article Stevenson explains that we don’t know how HIV might damage, let alone kill cells, “…it is debatable whether lymphocyte [white blood cell] damage is due to the direct killing of infected cells...” and we don’t have any idea how HIV affects immunity, “…processes contributing to the immune activation state in HIV-1 infection are not well understood..." The HIV hypothesis states absolutely that HIV kills T-Cells, but Stevenson tells us the underpinning of this assertion is still debated.
read more: The House that AIDS Built - by Liam Sheff
The Orthodox viewpoint on HIV/AIDS
10 years later little has changed:
The Orthodox view on HIV/Aids has remained the same for 25 years in spite of many unanswered problems about the nature of HIV and the use of ART's.The Orthodox viewpoint on HIV/AIDS
When I was researching Kary Mullis and his PCR invention, I quite by chance, stumbled on the most amazing controversy that I confess I had never even heard of, but has been raging for quite some considerable time now.
Here's a quote from Kary just to get us started:
“It’s not even probable, let alone scientifically proven, that HIV causes AIDS. If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There are no such documents.” Spin Magazine, Vol. 10 No.4, 1994
If anybody wants to argue the point about scientific medical matters, in which peoples lives hang in the balance, then they had better know what they are talking about right? Especially on this particular subject that is accompanied by so much emotion.
So conscious of the incredible emotional cauldron that is the AIDS debate I cautiously enter into the maelstrom. . .
A call to Investigate. . .
However I have discovered that Kary Mullis is just one of an ever growing number of Scientists who are collectively calling for an investigation into the claims of the AIDS community and if what they are saying is true then the HIV/AIDS story could become one of the greatest hoaxes in history.
Leading biochemical scientists, including University of California at Berkeley retrovirus expert Peter Duesberg and Nobel Prize winner Walter Gilbert, have apparently been warning for years that there is no proof that HIV causes AIDS. The warnings were met first with silence, then with ridicule and contempt.
I want to know why. . .
South Africa in the Thick of it
What is also very interesting is the involvement of South Africa in the whole AIDS debate. Thabo Imbeki president from 1999 - 2008 was heavily criticised for listening to the warnings and advice against the the introduction of ARVs, and invited the leading AIDS denialists to serve on his “Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel”.The Denialists
In an article by Nicoli Nattrass in the Skeptical Enquirer she describes any dissenter as a "Denialist", She did not coin the term but accepts it as 'the correct term' for anybody who dares to disagree with the orthodox establishment.Her issue with the "Denialists" is the connection to what she calls "is a replay of the classic quack-marketing strategy of promoting belief in alternative remedies by sowing disbelief and skepticism about the medical establishment."
In her attack against these "eccentric Denialists" as she calls them she expresses her outrage at their campaign against the use of ARVs . She says they promote the "dangerous views" that HIV is harmless and they allege, that it is not even sexually transmitted.
What is the reason for this? She says these irresponsible people are advocates of fringe medicines advocating herbal cures and vitamins instead of ARV drugs and they promote new age medicine such as “massage therapy, music therapy, yoga, spiritual care, homeopathy, Indian ayurvedic medicine, light therapy and many other methods” according to Nicoli.
A Quick word about Vitamins and Nutrition
The "vitamins" are thrown in together with the "quack" medicines, are vitamins totally irrelevant in healing sick people?This falls under the broader banner of nutrition, we just don't seem to see or hear anything about, in AIDS research.
If we don't eat properly or get enough food. . . as we see in most of Africa, along with poor sanitation . . . surely this will have an adverse effect on our health?
So why is the idea of promoting vitamin supplements to an AIDS patient mocked as "fringe". Surely we are what we eat and to add vital nutrients in the body is important in assisting our bodies in fighting off diseases. One of the issues the "Denialists" have with the AIDS propaganda machine there is little or no mention of this. The other issue is "life style" choices, including hard drugs and promiscuous life styles in which venereal disease and hepatitis are common occurrences. But the medical establishment seem to think that this is irrelevant and continue to pour chemicals into the bodies of sick people without taking into account their nutrition or life style choices.
Fringe Medicine
What about the fringe healing like homeopathy and acupuncture etc? In South Africa there are some really off the wall ideas involving the use of herbal "muti"cures as well as other horrifying ideas. But does Nicoli seriously believe that this is what the "Denialists" are trying to promote in order to make a profit? |
| Throw them bones for the Denialists cure |
I have to say this seems to me to be another tactic to attach "fringe" mentality to Scientists , All of the dissident scientist I have read about are properly trained experts in their respective fields none of them are trying to promote homeopathy or other debatable procedures. They all come right out of the same medical establishment as the orthodoxy but simply do not agree with the prevailing opinions with regard to AIDS on the basis of the science and nothing else.
So Nicoi says these 'dangerous' types are preventing an HIV infected baby from getting their anti AIDS medicine. This would seem very cruel and negligent, if not for the allegation that AIDS medicine is not really what you want to give your worst enemy much less your a baby.
Is that true?
About AZT - Cause for Concern?
Toxic killer or healer?
The debate is usually around why it was stopped as a cancer treatment.
It is alleged (by Peter Duesberg) that it was so toxic it was taken off the list of drugs for cancer but then it became useful again as a treatment for aids.
Lets see what the pro AZT people say.
A doctor called Nick Bennet aidsmyth.blogspot has also taken up the cudgels against the "Denialists"
He claims the reason AZT was taken off cancer treatment was not because it was so toxic, rather he says it was not strong enough to inhibit cancer cells and this is the real reason it was discontinued.
He also argues against the claim that Peter Duesberg makes that the drug has to kill many healthy cells in order to kill the virus infected cell.
Nick Bennet. "All in all, far from being a toxic anti-cancer drug that was abandoned due to toxic effects, it doesn't kill enough cells.
He then adds
It is, unarguably, a nasty drug. Many (perhaps a quarter to a third) of patients require blood transfusions while on it, at least they did on the older doses which were twice those of today.
However, it is quite clearly not, and never was, an anti-cancer drug."
Well OK all we have here are two conflicting accounts about AZT being used as a cancer treatment. I have no way of verifying either one right now (but will try to find out)
The important question : But is it safe for treating people with AIDS?
He does clearly admit AZT is a very toxic chemical.
Why do people need blood transfusions after being administered this drug?
Well because AZT is known to suppress the ability of the body to produce red blood cells (anemia) and white blood cells (penia, e.g. neutropenia -- deficiency of neutrophils or pancytopenia -- deficiency of all types of cells).It certainly seems very Toxic and I would be very reluctant to poison my babies with this drug. Plus the problem with its limited success, it is clearly admitted that it is at best an inhibitor, with varying levels of success. It has horrendous side effects and has never healed anybody from AIDS yet!
Peter Duesberg claims this drug is actually causing AIDS can actually cause cancer cells to multiply and is killing off AIDS patients.
For mored detailed statistics have a look here more detailed report
Printed warning
In addition to their long list of serious and potentially fatal side-effects, all major AIDS drugs also bear a version of this printed warning:“This drug will not cure your HIV infection…Patients receiving antiretroviral therapy may continue to experience opportunistic infections and other complications of HIV disease…Patients should be advised that the long-term effects are unknown at this time.”
what about other drugs?
Duesberg alleges they are all basically have same lethal results
Photos of an infant with Stevens-Johnson Syndrome, a blistering, peeling, potentially fatal skin rash. It is one of the known side-effects of the AIDS drug Nevirapine.
Nevirapine is one of the primary drugs being readied for distribution in Africa.
Scary stuff . . .
Taken from: Liam Scheff - The House That Aids Built
Horrifying story about orphans being used as guinea pigs for cruel and toxic drugs
This article deals with pharmaceutical abuse in a children’s home in NYC. This piece was investigated and written in summer through winter of 2003 and published in January 2004, with occasional updates.The story broke wide in early 2004, with coverage in the New York Post and the New York Press. It served as the basis of investigation for the BBC film "Guinea Pig Kids," and has prompted further investigation by the Associated Press - as well as a pointed attack by the New York Times.
The investigation is ongoing.
Another quote from the article: this one about AZT
Liam Scheff: What led you to question the safety of the drugs
Mona: When I first got Sean at three years old, he was a vegetable. He’d never eaten solid food. He had a feeding tube that went through his nose into his stomach.AIDS medications change the taste buds. AZT, especially, makes it so kids can’t stand the taste of food and won’t eat. The nurses fed Sean AZT, Bactrim and six cans of Pediasure a day through this tube, which stayed in his stomach for over two years. Nobody ever bothered to change it.
. . . Sean had night sweats and fevers 24 hours a day. He had no energy. He couldn’t play. He couldn’t get up for ten minutes without lying down. Nurses came regularly to give him blood infusions to manage the AZT anemia. After the infusions, he’d be nearly comatose for two days. He was like a limp doll.
Every time I gave Sean the drugs, he got weaker and sicker. I didn’t know what to do but I didn’t want him to die. So I stopped everything that appeared to be killing him. I stopped the AZT. I stopped the Bactrim. I stopped the nurse from coming to give the infusions.
Every time I gave Sean the drugs, he got weaker and sicker. I didn’t know what to do but I didn’t want him to die. So I stopped everything that appeared to be killing him. I stopped the AZT. I stopped the Bactrim. I stopped the nurse from coming to give the infusions.
It wasn’t immediate, but Sean started to improve. His fevers subsided. He could eat. He gained weight. Within a couple months, he was actually running and playing with the other children. Sean was born with a chronic lung condition because of his mother’s drug use, but even his lungs improved. I couldn’t believe it. When Sean was born, the doctors told his mother that he was going to die. They told her to buy a coffin for him. He barely survived. When I took him off the drugs, he was healthy for the first time in his life.
Another AIDS researcher John Lauritsen is a well-known gay activist
AZT is toxic, it kills, and we are not being told that. It kills the immune system, it kills healthy tissue.
He points to examples of HIV positive people dying from liver failure after being administered AZT. He says if a strong and healthy person were to take AZT, it would kill them in 3-5 years.
John Lauritsen - interview from controversial "House of Numbers" video
In the research programs for AZT he writes: I took the 3 most important studies to show AZT efficacy, and I showed not only were they very sloppy and bad but it would be completely fair to describe at least two of them as fraudulent and I have held out a challenge to people who advocate AZT, I say show me one study, just one single study, that clearly show benefits for AZT, research that will stand up under scrutiny.
Nobody will do this.
I want to know why. . .
Peter Duesberg
But also is a very high ranking scientist.
What does he stand to gain?
Not much it would seem, defrocked and defunded lost his grants for post graduate students relegated to teaching undergraduate lab courses.But he is far from isolated and far from being the "only qualified" scientist in the debate.
As we shall see many of these so called "denialists" are all top ranking scientists right at the top of their respective fields - surely Nicoli is perfectly aware of this, and yet she sates "most of the outspoken AIDS denialists are journalists or academics with no scientific training and that those who have medical qualifications have never actually worked on HIV."
Er no. . . there are plenty, I found a neat little video in which just a few examples of scientists who are dissenters, BECAUSE they were working on AIDS related projects. . . and . . .there plenty more . . .and the numbers are growing.
She dismisses Kary Mullis by attempting to discredit him: "he, too, has never done any scientific research on HIV or AIDS and, unlike Duesberg, is not active in the AIDS denialist movement. His autobiography (Mullis 1998) documents his skepticism about the relationship between HIV and AIDS as well as his encounters with aliens and his belief in flying saucers and astrology.
Well yeh I did read a bizarre story in his autobiography, he reported on a strange otherworldly experience but clearly this is just a cheap shot at attacking his character.
More importantly why doesn't Nicoli answer his issue? (Presented below). . . Maybe she doesn't have the answer and therefore attempts to find evidence for a 'crackpot mentality' so that we will believe he has no credibility.
But what must surely rankle is the fact that he is a noble prize winning chemist who is far better qualified or at least equally qualified to comment on this issue as anybody else.
Well yeh I did read a bizarre story in his autobiography, he reported on a strange otherworldly experience but clearly this is just a cheap shot at attacking his character.
More importantly why doesn't Nicoli answer his issue? (Presented below). . . Maybe she doesn't have the answer and therefore attempts to find evidence for a 'crackpot mentality' so that we will believe he has no credibility.
But what must surely rankle is the fact that he is a noble prize winning chemist who is far better qualified or at least equally qualified to comment on this issue as anybody else.
 |
| Mullis receives the Noble prize in 1993 |
She goes on to say that "Dissent and critique are, of course, central to science, but so, too, is "respect for evidence" and "peer review."
If there is hard core scientific evidence and peer reviewed papers that prove HIV is the cause of AIDS then there shouldn't really be any argument, should there? Mullis' whole issue is his claim that he couldn't find a peer reviewed article any where he looked.Why all the hysteria about the "dissenters" (Denialists) if this is central to science?
Does she mean "respect for evidence" and "peer review" means the matter is settled and it is not allowed to be questioned? That sounds very ominous when the prevailing orthodoxy cannot be challenged or questioned.
When a conclusion is question by qualified scientists, it is on the basis of "the evidence" and therefore, given the enormous budget AIDS research has been receiving I cannot see the harm in checking and even double checking the results when a fellow scientist is raising serious doubts.
Back to Duesberg
Peter H. Duesberg German American molecular biologist and a professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley. Dr. Duesberg worked together with Dr. Robert Gallo on cancer research, on Duesberg's website he publishes an glowing introduction written by his colleague Dr. Gallo who gives an impressive list of Duesberg's qualities as a scientist. Read it HERE
Again here is Nicoli, knowing full well the high reputation of Duesberg she tries to minimise his objections by the following"The only active AIDS denialist with any major scientific standing is Duesberg, who is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the first person to isolate a cancer gene.
(Personally I think this gives him quite a high degree of credibility)
But his credibility to speak on AIDS is tarnished by the fact that he has never conducted any scientific research on HIV, let alone published it in peer-reviewed scientific journals. He simply does not have any evidence to support his erroneous claim that AIDS is caused by recreational and ARV drugs rather than HIV.
Lets see what Peter Duesberg has to say about the evidence.
10 scientific arguments why HIV can NOT cause AIDS (dr. Duesberg)
Again here is Nicoli, knowing full well the high reputation of Duesberg she tries to minimise his objections by the following"The only active AIDS denialist with any major scientific standing is Duesberg, who is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the first person to isolate a cancer gene.
But his credibility to speak on AIDS is tarnished by the fact that he has never conducted any scientific research on HIV, let alone published it in peer-reviewed scientific journals. He simply does not have any evidence to support his erroneous claim that AIDS is caused by recreational and ARV drugs rather than HIV.
Lets see what Peter Duesberg has to say about the evidence.
10 scientific arguments why HIV can NOT cause AIDS (dr. Duesberg)
10 scientific arguments why HIV can NOT cause AIDS (dr. Duesberg)
Well here is a video featuring Joan Shenton director of the London production company Meditel, she has produced over 50 documentaries on health issues for network television, including 8 on AIDS. Shenton's programmes have been made for the BBC, Channel 4, Thames TV and Central TV.
Here she was given a rare opportunity to face a panel with Peter Duesberg and other dissenters debating the issue with the academics and journalists.
Joan Shenton's Website HERE
Here's Kary Mullis again. . .
Here's Kary Mullis again. . .
“Where is the research that says HIV is the cause of AIDS? There are 10,000 people in the world now who specialise in HIV. None has any interest in the possibility HIV doesn’t cause AIDS because if it doesn’t, their expertise is useless.”“People keep asking me, ‘You mean you don’t believe that HIV causes AIDS?’ And I say, ‘Whether I believe it or not is irrelevant!
I have no scientific evidence for it.’
I might believe in God, and He could have told me in a dream that HIV causes AIDS. But I wouldn’t stand up in front of scientists and say, ‘I believe HIV causes AIDS because God told me.’ I’d say, ‘I have papers here in hand and experiments that have been done that can be demonstrated to others.’ It’s not what somebody believes, it’s experimental proof that counts.
And those guys don’t have that.” California Monthly, Sept 1994
Don't have it? Seriously?
So What started Kary off on this debate? Did he need money? It seems he was doing pretty well, Did he need fame and recognition? He won the Noble prize for PCR for heavens sake how many scientists achieve this?
He had absolutely nothing to gain whatsoever.
So why did he begin to question the AIDS hypothesis?
Kary Mullis interview kicks off this video.
He describes how he was working as a consultant in this laboratory in Santa Monica on a project in which they were trying to measure HIV in people's blood. At some stage he needed to write a paper to renew their grant and he had to place a header on his paper saying "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS". Since this is stated as a fact, the correct procedure would be to ask for a "peer reviewed" or "scientifically researched" paper to reference. He then describes how there was a strange "pass the buck" situation in the lab where basically everyone he asked assumed that somewhere this 'paper' existed but nobody new where it was. . .As it turned out he discovered there simply was no such paper. . . and Kary began to develop serious suspicions.
He goes on to discuss a meeting with Dr. Luc Montagnier
Dr Luc Montagnier is credited along with Dr. Robert Gallo for having discovered HIV as the infectious agent responsible for AIDS
There is a really crazy story about Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier facing up to each other in a legal dispute over who was the one who found the virus that caused AIDS.
Since the famous announcement was made by Margaret Heckler (US secretary for health) that HIV was the "probable" cause for AIDS, Montagneir suddenly woke up to the idea that fame and fortune was within his grasp if not for Robert Gallo claiming he found it first!
As it turns out Montagnier was apparently the one who apparently found it first and was ready to take Gallo to the cleaners for "stealing" his patent - the embarrassing situation became so volatile it was eventually ended only when presidents Ronald Reagon and Jacques Shiraque met and agreed to share the Glory.
This does give us some idea as to high up the political ladder the whole AIDS story has travelled.
There is a lot at stake here.
Can you imagine the repercussions should the whole HIV/AIDS hypothesis is revealed as a scam?
 |
| Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier kissing up at news conference. . . but there is no love lost here. . ! |
Since the famous announcement was made by Margaret Heckler (US secretary for health) that HIV was the "probable" cause for AIDS, Montagneir suddenly woke up to the idea that fame and fortune was within his grasp if not for Robert Gallo claiming he found it first!
As it turns out Montagnier was apparently the one who apparently found it first and was ready to take Gallo to the cleaners for "stealing" his patent - the embarrassing situation became so volatile it was eventually ended only when presidents Ronald Reagon and Jacques Shiraque met and agreed to share the Glory.
This does give us some idea as to high up the political ladder the whole AIDS story has travelled.
There is a lot at stake here.
Can you imagine the repercussions should the whole HIV/AIDS hypothesis is revealed as a scam?
Back to Montagnier and Mullis
So all Montagnier had to do is give Mullis his proof, in the form of a published peer reviewed paper in which he proves categorically that HIV is the virus that causes AIDS. So. . . .Since by this stage it was an established scientific fact, and . . . he is the scientist credited for establishing this scientific fact. . . this should not have been a problem . . .right?
Wrong! According to Kary Mullis. . . the best Montagnier had to offer him was a recent study paper which described an experiment in which a retrovirus was injected into a chimpanzee, the result of which killed the Chimpanzee in about a week. Was this was the absolute evidence Mullis was looking for? This study had no demonstrable connection to AIDS at all as far as Mullis was concerned .It was, in fact, not even remotely similar to AIDS.
Even at this stage Mullis was fully expecting someone to produce the answer for him, but Montagnier was in fact the highest point of enquiry one could reach, and still Mullis had no reference to cite for his paper.
Duesberg and Gallo
They knew each other very well apparently and worked as Colleagues together in cancer research.
So now Duesberg has made an enemy out of his former colleague and friend. . . Who by this stage had risen to the very pinnacle of fame and recognition. Who would have the courage to stand up before a highly mobilised and politicised campaign that involved literally millions and millions of dollars and speak out saying "hey the science doesn't add up here"?
Instead of his old colleague agreeing to check out the claims he declared him a person non grata. Duesberg was told to shut up and various attempts (all unsuccessful) were made to discredit him in the same underhanded way, this is ongoing still 25 years later.
There is evidence that Duesberg and other dissenters were even offered bribes to keep quiet.
In the letter written by Joel A. Schwarz to Duesberg we read
"A growing body of evidence indicates that governmental agencies, acting directly or through the Public Health lobby, have been attempting to hide the AIDS controversy from public knowledge. According to this evidence, various Public Health officials have used influence, bribery, and intimidation to silence dissent among scientists, in the communications media, and in other public forums."
The whole letter is pubished on Duesberg's site HERE
So now Duesberg has made an enemy out of his former colleague and friend. . . Who by this stage had risen to the very pinnacle of fame and recognition. Who would have the courage to stand up before a highly mobilised and politicised campaign that involved literally millions and millions of dollars and speak out saying "hey the science doesn't add up here"?
Instead of his old colleague agreeing to check out the claims he declared him a person non grata. Duesberg was told to shut up and various attempts (all unsuccessful) were made to discredit him in the same underhanded way, this is ongoing still 25 years later.
There is evidence that Duesberg and other dissenters were even offered bribes to keep quiet.
In the letter written by Joel A. Schwarz to Duesberg we read
"A growing body of evidence indicates that governmental agencies, acting directly or through the Public Health lobby, have been attempting to hide the AIDS controversy from public knowledge. According to this evidence, various Public Health officials have used influence, bribery, and intimidation to silence dissent among scientists, in the communications media, and in other public forums."
The whole letter is pubished on Duesberg's site HERE
What does Robert Gallo have to LOSE
Viewers of ABC's 1993 Day One special, on the cause of AIDS. . . almost the only occasion on which network television has ever covered the controversy. . . saw Robert Gallo, the leading exponent of the HIV theory, stomp away from the microphone in a rage when asked to respond to the views of Gilbert and Duesberg.Stomped away in a rage?
A public tantrum by the leading exponent of HIV/AIDS. . . Wouldn't you expect a calm and confident response from the unassailable position of knowing the indisputable truth?Having had his thesis accepted by his peers and government endorsement followed with funding. Certainly if this was true there is no reason to feel threatened. . . But thats exactly what this kind of behaviour seems to indicate.
Such displays of rage and ridicule are familiar to those who question the HIV theory of AIDS. Ever since 1984, when Gallo announced the discovery of what the newspapers call "HIV, the virus that causes AIDS," at a government press conference, the HIV theory has been the basis of all scientific work on AIDS.
What are the implications if Duesberg is right?
If the theory is mistaken, billions of dollars have been wasted-and immense harm has been done to persons who have tested positive for antibodies to HIV and therefore have been told to expect an early and painful death.A misdiagnosis is one thing but it doesn't end there . . . how many people may have died as a direct result of being treated with AZT and other lethal substances? We are looking at malpractice here which has resulted in culpable homicide. Culpable may have extenuating circumstances but actually if Duesberg is right then what he knows is also known by Gallo and has been ignored
The furious reactions to the suggestion that a colossal mistake may have been made are not surprising, given that the credibility of the entire biomedical establishment is at stake.
So what happens if they can be proven wrong then one has to agree with Kary Mullis "These guys are out on a limb, I wouldn't want to be there with them!"
Back to the Video
Dr. Rodney Richards - Another bleeding heart tree hugger? No not really. . .
PhD, Biochemist founding scientist for the biotech company Amgen, which was developing a diagnostic test for HIV. He describes inviting "persons from both sides of an issue" to give their input. So he invited Dr. Peter Duesberg to present his case.After listening to Duesberg he became convinced the AIDS hypothesis was false.
We can easily see that Dr. Richards is not some easily deceived gullible kid, he is a highly qualified scientist actively involved in the AIDS project and he was convinced on the basis of the evidence. . .
Some snippets from "the other side of AIDS" featuring Dr. Rodney Richards and others.
Neville Hodgkinson is next
Not a scientist this time but a medical correspondent for the Sunday Times who describes his reluctant transition from the mainstream viewpoint to becoming convinced that he had been wrongly reporting the AIDS issue.
Neville Richardson interview from "Positively False"
Dr Christian Fiala
PhD Austrian specialist in obstetrics and gynaecology, he enters the debate from a different angle related to sexuality and his query is with regard to the development of AIDS transmission from gay men to heterosexual people he was told, the target group has all been infected so the virus gets clever and changes its mode of transmission , he says this is not true since the behaviour of a virus is predetermined and does not just decide to change.
Does he have some weird alternative medicine he is trying to push? Like the other people involved they have absolutely nothing to gain except to question the science, that is all.
Back to SA we meet Rian Malan a journalist, writer, musician among other things.
Great article about Rian in "the nation"
Malan grew up in a middle-class and pro-apartheid Afrikaner family in a white suburb of Johannesburg. From an early age he rebelled against the apartheid system, at a time when racism was firmly entrenched in the mentality of most south africans. To avoid being called up to the army, he moved to Los Angeles in 1977 and worked as a journalist.
I first heard of him in the 1990's when he brought out a controversial auto-biographical book called My Traitors Heart
written upon his return to South Africa. In this book he describes his history from a prominent Afrikaner background and race relations in apartheid South Africa.
He had to be conscious of his "betrayal of his own race" in which he would be perceived as betraying his own flesh and blood with its history and heritage.
It is this book which gives us a clue to the kind of people we are dealing with with regard to these 'Denialist' allegations. Some one who had the courage of their convictions back then just doesn't wash as some opportunistic alternative type attempting to climb on the band wagon of this "Denialist" allegation.
During the presidency of Thabo Mbeki (as was previously mentioned by Nicoli Nattrass), he had been affected in his decision making by the "Denialists". Rian talks about the quarter million deaths that had allegedly occurred in SA in 1999 as a direct result of Mbeki's refusal to allow the use of ARV's in the country.
Just like everyone else he had been fed the orthodox viewpoint through the media and simply assumed the statistics were accurate.
Just like everyone else he had been fed the orthodox viewpoint through the media and simply assumed the statistics were accurate.
So he decided to 'prove Mbeki wrong' which surely would be easy enough by making a couple of enquiries and phone calls to verify the facts and in his words this would be "forcing Mbeki and the Denialists to retreat into a corner wearing Dunce Caps".
But. . .Where are All the Dead Bodies?
So he began to do his job and research the outcries against Thabo Mbeki's alleged incompetence.
Instead of simply accepting a statistic he read on someone's paper, like a good reporter he went out to find the 300 000 bodies and to his amazement . . . came up with nothing. This makes me wonder about the other statistics we have thrown out at us as "conclusive evidence"The reason for this? In Rian's opinion. . .Funding! High statistics means more money . . .
there we go again . . . follow the money.
He also mentions the fact that South Africa is unique in having anything approaching a viable registration system on the basis of which one can draw conclusions. As regards the statistics for Africa he says the numbers are totally unverifiable.
I'm pretty sure Rian Malan was not greatly pleased at the prospect of being thrown into the pit with the "Denialists", he initially set out to expose. . .
what does he have to gain ?
But clearly, his previous work demonstrates his very strong sense of justice and his journalistic integrity in which he unflinchingly sifted through the lies and conjecture in order to find the truth.
This is the motivation for his rejection of the reports he received about AIDS, they were quite simply fabricated and unfounded.
But these statistics are still being cited today as proven facts, as we can see in the article I have pasted below!
those with HIV are living long, full lives because of early detection and new and improved treatments. Countries that have launched vigorous testing and treatment programmes – like Brazil and Botswana – have reduced suffering, prolonged life and saved billions in healthcare costs. In places like South Africa, where testing and treatment programmes were stalled because of former President Thabo Mbeki's denialism, the result was 300,000 unnecessary deaths and over 35,000 infants infected with HIV. Harvard researchers quantified the death toll in a vast paper, but still, Mbeki kept a vow of silence. It must have been hard to find the words to express grief over 300,000 senseless deaths caused by your own dragging feet.
She is quoting the same statistics that Malan checked out 10 years ago!
Quoted here with such confidence that this is undisputed fact! Even after they were exposed as fabrications in 2004!
But yet they remain . . . uncontested. . . !
what does he have to gain ?
But clearly, his previous work demonstrates his very strong sense of justice and his journalistic integrity in which he unflinchingly sifted through the lies and conjecture in order to find the truth.
This is the motivation for his rejection of the reports he received about AIDS, they were quite simply fabricated and unfounded.
But these statistics are still being cited today as proven facts, as we can see in the article I have pasted below!
look at this blog: Let's Be Clear About This: HIV Denial Kills by Eleanor Morgan
she says . . .those with HIV are living long, full lives because of early detection and new and improved treatments. Countries that have launched vigorous testing and treatment programmes – like Brazil and Botswana – have reduced suffering, prolonged life and saved billions in healthcare costs. In places like South Africa, where testing and treatment programmes were stalled because of former President Thabo Mbeki's denialism, the result was 300,000 unnecessary deaths and over 35,000 infants infected with HIV. Harvard researchers quantified the death toll in a vast paper, but still, Mbeki kept a vow of silence. It must have been hard to find the words to express grief over 300,000 senseless deaths caused by your own dragging feet.
She is quoting the same statistics that Malan checked out 10 years ago!
Quoted here with such confidence that this is undisputed fact! Even after they were exposed as fabrications in 2004!
But yet they remain . . . uncontested. . . !
what conclusion can we come to at this point
Not one of these dissenters mentioned here can be accused of promoting "quack medicine" or "alternative remedies" or "vitamins" or any of the wacky ideas that Nicoli Nattrass alleges in the Skeptical Enquirer.
She also thinks there is a "misunderstanding of the Science of AIDS" but again here we see all the scientists and doctors mentioned are experts in their fields that have the right training and knowledge to make informed queries about these specific areas, it seems a bit of a stretch to say that they misunderstand the science.
She mentions the extreme distrust of the Denialists against opportunistic pharmaceutical companies who make millions through serums and inoculations on ignorant masses of people in Africa as portrayed in the movie "the Constant Gardener".
Again I say follow the money and sooner or later you will find out who has the real vested interests.
Climbing up the wrong Tree
Mechanistic world view destroys lives
Mechanistic world view destroys lives
Ex pharma Rep speaks out about Pharma and their real motivations and lack there of to cure , heal and care for you or your best interests. Only to cure the space in their pockets not yet filled with your cash.
My own suspicion is directed towards a malfunctioning world view that had in my opinion already failed by the early eras of the 20th C, this is the materialist world view that firmly believes the the universe is mechanical. That consciousness is purely chemical and just like when machines get broken we too can be fixed with mechanical and chemical tools.
This world view permeates the whole of medical science and its attempts to solve medical problems are always doomed to failure because they look for mechanistic solutions that do not include the full spectrum of human nature.
Of course the sarcastic tone of medical reports is ridiculing the approach of alternative medicines, as idealistic but totally unscientific and therefore ignoring the hard fought and tested discoveries by true science.
But if so called scientific endeavour is blinded and biased in its presuppositions, this will taint and colour all the research with a particular angle of reality that could perhaps lead us all up blind alleys.
This is illustrated by the research put into cancer that tried so hard to find a virus that could be the mechanistic problem which could subsequently be solved by a chemical solution.
Makes me wonder about Cancer treatments
We need to check out the whole Cancer research system and the vicious chemo therapy that costs megamillions but is totally deadly and toxic . . . But somebody is getting very rich.
Makes me wonder about Cancer treatments
We need to check out the whole Cancer research system and the vicious chemo therapy that costs megamillions but is totally deadly and toxic . . . But somebody is getting very rich.
