 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / September 2005Questions are the cornerstone of science
Here are some questions for people that believe that questioning is important. http://www.duesberg.com/papers/chemical-bases.html Table 4 "Prediction" 11 AIDS spreads by infection of HIV. "Fact" 11 But, contrary to the spread of AIDS, there is no spread of HIV in the US. In the US HIV infections have remained constant at 1 million from 1985 (29) until now (30), (see also The Durban Declaration and figure 1b). By contrast, AIDS has increased from 1981 until 1992 and has declined ever since (figure 1a). The first thing an enquiring mind would ask is how it was that 1 million people were tested for HIV in 1985. The simple answer is they weren't. Reference 29. the data point for 1985 is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&... The first thing that is noteworthy is that the estimate is 0.5-1 million. For some reason Duesberg takes only the high end of the range. The basis of the estimate comes from the San Francisco CDC cohort study with a total of 6875 subjects. In this cohort the seropositivity was found to have increased from 4% in 1978 to 68% in 1984. In this group HIV prevalence increased from 4% to 68% in six years. Duesberg uses this study as evidence that "there is no spread of HIV in the US". Is Duesberg crazy? Does he think we are stupid? Why did this paper grace the pages of an obscure indian journal? Why is that none of you bother to read the references that Duesberg cites? Can anyone explain how someone can use a paper that presents a rapid increase of HIV prevalence in order to show that "there is no spread of HIV in the US". Anyone? I'm not going to bother to reply to anybody unless they can give me a credible answer to these questions. Chris Noble More questions. Duesberg: stupidity or deception? http://www.duesberg.com/papers/chemical-bases.html "Even HIV-AIDS researchers have inadvertently confirmed our prediction of no AIDS in drug-free HIV-positives. For example, David Ho, signatory of the Durban Declaration, points out that in a group of long-term survivors of HIV studied in his lab, none had received antiretroviral therapy (Cao et al 1995). In a parallel publication, Pantaleo et al studying a group of long- non-progressors of HIV have made the same observation (Pantaleo et al 1995). Ho et al recently attributed longterm survival to some special human proteins, termed defensins (Zhang et al 2002), but acknowledged personally that all long-term survivors had again abstained from anti-HIV therapies (David Ho, personal communication)." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&... What Duesberg doesn't mention is that to satisfy selection criteria for entry to LTNP groups you have to have abstained from anti-HIV therapies. Naturally, researchers studying LTNPs only want to look at people that have not progressed despite not taking ARVs. "Ten HIV-1-seropositive subjects from the New York metropolitan area were referred to us because they met our working definition of long-term survivors of HIV-1 infection: they had no symptoms, normal and stable CD4+ lymphocyte counts, no prolonged use of antiretroviral agents, and at least 12 years of infection." "We studied 15 subjects with long-term nonprogressive HIV infection and 18 subjects with progressive HIV disease. Nonprogressive infection was defined as seven or more years of documented HIV infection, with more than 600 CD4+ T cells per cubic millimeter, no antiretroviral therapy, and no HIV-related disease." Again I ask the question, is Duesberg crazy? Does he think people won't read the articles he cites? Why does he "forget" to mention that the selection criteria for these studies included not taking ARVs? How the hell did this crap get published? All these questions and nobody to answer them. Chris Noble Ah, Mr. Noble! I was just looking for you. >"Ho et al recently attributed longterm survival to some special human proteins, termed defensins" Ah so! If you have taken ARVs and you die of liver disease, a nice new virus (HCV) is invented to explain it. And if you have never taken ARVs and you live forever, Ho invents a new protein to explain why you don't die of AIDS... Once a Ho, always a Ho. Tell me more about these defensins, Mr. Noble. Proteins are my strong suit, so I might understand. >Ah, Mr. Noble! I was just looking for you. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Ah so! If you have taken ARVs and you die of liver disease, a nice new >virus (HCV) is invented to explain it. Idiot of the FIRST water. No. HCV exists. It is recognized as a cause of morbidity and mortality in co-infection. The literature is REPLETE with data on co-infection. People with HIV who do NOT have HCV or who do and die of liver related hepatotoxicity related to ARV are both recognized. Nothing is hidden. No one is denying it happens. Yet again, you make a fool of yourself, blubbering your wholly unsupported platitudes and nonsense. George M. Carter >"Idiot of the FIRST water. No. HCV exists. It is recognized as a cause of morbidity and mortality in co-infection. The literature is REPLETE with data on co-infection." Mr. Carter, would you be kind enough to show me where to find a paper describing the discovery and isolation of HCV (pretty please, with sugar on it)? Your partner in crime, Mr. Stein presented me already with 29 references. But they all ASSUME that HCV exists and attacks your liver. "HCV exists. It is recognized... bla bla bla" Recognized... BY WHOM? I have asked an "official" institution for hepatic diseases about HCV. They mumble something about "9 main classes and more than 100 sub-classes" Not a word about the virus itself; it's existence, its physical properties. Wouldn't you rather be selling snake oil? This HIV/HCV business seems hopeless. >>"Idiot of the FIRST water. >No. HCV exists. It is recognized as a cause of morbidity and mortality in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >describing the discovery and isolation of HCV (pretty please, with sugar >on it)? Oh go f.ck yourself you stupid a.shole. For you to claim that it does NOT exist implies you've read papers that you had a meticulous analysis of which leads you to that conclusion. That is, presuming you were intellectually honest, which you have proven again and again that at the very least, your VASTLY defiicent to be making any such claims. George M. Carter >"Oh go f.ck yourself you stupid a.shole. For you to claim that it does NOT exist implies you've read papers that you had a meticulous analysis of which leads you to that conclusion." Aw, that ain't fair, Mr. Carter. I never laid a claim. Things don't exist until somebody proves they do. So I asked you (in a very sweet way) for the paper(s) that prove the existence of this virus. And now you're treating me this way... I'm hurt. I even wrote an orthodox liver disease institute in Hollnd for the same information. They just tried to baffle me with bullshit. Now do you really work my way through thousands of publications, looking for something that's not there? I think I'd rather go f.ck myself. >>"Oh go f.ck yourself you stupid a.shole. >For you to claim that it does NOT exist implies you've read papers that >you had a meticulous analysis of which leads you to that conclusion." > >Aw, that ain't fair, Mr. Carter. I never laid a claim. You claimed to be some kind of expert. Turns out, you're an idiot. > Ah, Mr. Noble! I was just looking for you. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Tell me more about these defensins, Mr. Noble. Proteins are my strong > suit, so I might understand. The question was Can anyone explain how someone can use a paper that presents a rapid increase of HIV prevalence in order to show that "there is no spread of HIV in the US".? It is a very simple question. All of the questions were simple. You gave no answers. Chris Noble >"Can anyone explain how someone can use a paper that presents a rapid increase of HIV prevalence in order to show that "there is no spread of HIV in the US".? >"It is a very simple question. All of the questions were simple. You gave no answers." I don't think you adressed that question to me, Mr. Noble, or I would have answered it. I love simple questions. You mention "a paper that presents a rapid increase of HIV prevalence" That doesn't give me much to go on. Which paper do you mean? I know various methods of showing an "increase in HIV prevalence". More frequent testing is one of them. Linear or exponential extrapolation of statistical data is another. I read somewhere that a cat named Thompson had said that there are 1 million HIV-infected persons in the U.S. Many of them don't even know they're infected. Well now, something doesn't jibe here: If these people don't know it themselfves, how does Thompson know it? Could extrapolated estimates have something to do with it? Anyhow, this figure of 1 million was already floating around 10 years or so ago. So maybe nothing much has changed after all. Say! You're not going to claim there really IS an epidemic going on, are you? > >"Can anyone explain how someone can use a paper that presents a rapid > increase of HIV prevalence in order to show that "there is no spread of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I don't think you adressed that question to me, Mr. Noble, or I would have > answered it. I love simple questions. The question was directed at all rethinkers. > You mention "a paper that presents a rapid increase of HIV prevalence" Read the first post in this thread. The correct link to the abstract is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=2996395&query_hl=10 Can you answer the questions? Chris Noble > >"Can anyone explain how someone can use a paper that presents a rapid > increase of HIV prevalence in order to show that "there is no spread of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > answered it. I love simple questions. > You mention "a paper that presents a rapid increase of HIV prevalence" http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.aids/msg/9df479644e67314b Can you answer these questions? Chris Noble More questions. http://www.duesberg.com/papers/chemical-bases.html Table 4 "Prediction" 5 With an RNA of 9 kilobases, just like polio virus, HIV should be able to cause one specific disease, or no disease if it is a passenger (22). "Fact" 5 But, HIV is said to be the sole cause of AIDS , or of 26 different immunodeficiency and non-immunodeficiency diseases, all of which also occur without HIV (table 2). Thus there is not one HIV-specific disease, which is the definition of a passenger virus! Why does Duesberg completely "forget" to mention CD4+ cell depletion? Why does he present a strawman version of the HIV/AIDS relationship? Is it because be doesn't understand the simple concept that HIV causes immune suppression and that the manifestation of this immune suppression can be a number of different opportunistic infections? Or is it because he wants to deceive his audience? Chris Noble Chris Noble >"Is it because be doesn't understand the simple concept that HIV causes immune suppression and that the manifestation of this immune suppression can be a number of different opportunistic infections?" Maybe it's because immune suppression can have a number of different causes. And a retrovirus is the least likely of them all. The Perth Group has claimed in may of their writings that the genomes of all RNA viruses vary by less than 1%. They have used this claim as an argument for the nonexistence of HIV. For example "By comparison, two RNA containing viruses (polio and influenza, the latter after 27 years of dormancy,) vary by less than 1%..." http://www.theperthgroup.com/POPPAPERS/yinyang.html Notice this paper is published in the prestigious Nexus journal! The reference that the Perth group provide for this claim is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=3318675&query_hl=2 Not only does the paper not state what the Perth Group claim - it says the opposite. "It is clear from sequencing data now available that despite the presence of some strongly conserved genomic stretches, well over half of the nucleotide poistions in many RNA viruses can be substitued without loss of virus viability" Did the Perth Group read the article that they cited? Why did they give this article as a reference for their claim when it directly contradicts it? How is it possible that the Perth Group turn: "well over half of the nucleotide poistions in many RNA viruses can be substitued without loss of virus viability" into: the genomes of rna viruses vary by less than 1% Why does this article appear in a magazine full of conspiracy theories and alien abduction stories? Is it possible that if a reviewer took the time to read the references they would find that the references do not support the Perth Group opinions? Chris Noble The reference quoted has only one significant sentence in its abstract: >"These rapidly mutating populations can remain remarkably stable under certain conditions of replication." The rest is troolalalala. I've tried so many times already to pound the simple fact in several dene skulls that these frequent mutations of RNA-viruses with such a small genome mean nothing. The mutants simply don't replicate further, so only the wild type prevails. Has anybody in the plant virus world ever complained about "rapidly mutating viruses", causing "pesticide-resistant strains"? Plant viruses (which all contain RNA) are genetically very stable. But then, there are no billions of dollars going on in plant virology. >"Why does this article appear in a magazine full of conspiracy theories and alien abduction stories?" For the same reason Liam Scheff had to publish his stirring articles in The Weekly Dig. Because the "respectable" journals all have sold their souls to AID$ Inc. Dr Al-Bayati another "rethinker" said in an interview http://www.mercola.com/2001/jul/11/aids.htm "Dr. Al-Bayati: My investigation was focused on finding the causes of AIDS and the link between HIV and AIDS. When I found that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, then the issue of the HIV test became unimportant. In fact, I have found that the majority of people who participated in the major four AZT clinical trials that were conducted in the USA between 1986-1992 were HIV-negative prior to their treatment with AZT and their diagnoses were based only on clinical symptoms." "The four published clinical trials are (1) Fischl et al., The New England Journal of Medicine 317 (4): 185-191 (1987); (2) Fischl et al., The New England Journal of Medicine 323 (15): 1009-1014 (1990); (3) Volberding et al., The New England Journal of Medicine 322 (14): 941-949 (1990); and (4) Hamilton et al., The New England Journal of Medicine 326(7): 437-443 (1992). Briefly, a total of 2,482 patients participated in these studies, and only 22% were HIV-positive prior to their treatment with AZT and the rest of the subjects were HIV-negative (62%) and untested (16%)." I have read all of these papers and they clearly state that all patients were HIV positive. This is clearly stated in the selection criteria. Why does Al-Bayati say something that isn't true? Did he think people would not read the articles? Why does he not admit this when confronted with the truth? Why was his response per email "I am the expert"? Why does he publish this in a book targetted to a lay-audience? Why doesn't he publish his theories in a peer-reviewed journal? Chris Noble >"Why was his response per email "I am the expert"? Because he is. >"Why does he publish this in a book targetted to a lay-audience?" Because that's the audience the rethinkers want to reach. The "HIV-scientists" are too corrupt to listen. >"Why doesn't he publish his theories in a peer-reviewed journal?" Because his "peers" are too corrupt, and the respectable journals have sold their souls to AID$ Inc. More questions. Duesberg: stupidity or deception? http://www.duesberg.com/papers/chemical-bases.html "Even HIV-AIDS researchers have inadvertently confirmed our prediction of no AIDS in drug-free HIV-positives. For example, David Ho, signatory of the Durban Declaration, points out that in a group of long-term survivors of HIV studied in his lab, none had received antiretroviral therapy (Cao et al 1995). In a parallel publication, Pantaleo et al studying a group of long- non-progressors of HIV have made the same observation (Pantaleo et al 1995). Ho et al recently attributed longterm survival to some special human proteins, termed defensins (Zhang et al 2002), but acknowledged personally that all long-term survivors had again abstained from anti-HIV therapies (David Ho, personal communication)." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=7808485&query_hl=49 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=7808486&query_hl=52 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=12351674&query_hl=40 What Duesberg doesn't mention is that to satisfy selection criteria for entry to LTNP groups you have to have abstained from anti-HIV therapies. Naturally, researchers studying LTNPs only want to look at people that have not progressed despite not taking ARVs. "Ten HIV-1-seropositive subjects from the New York metropolitan area were referred to us because they met our working definition of long-term survivors of HIV-1 infection: they had no symptoms, normal and stable CD4+ lymphocyte counts, no prolonged use of antiretroviral agents, and at least 12 years of infection." "We studied 15 subjects with long-term nonprogressive HIV infection and 18 subjects with progressive HIV disease. Nonprogressive infection was defined as seven or more years of documented HIV infection, with more than 600 CD4+ T cells per cubic millimeter, no antiretroviral therapy, and no HIV-related disease." Again I ask the question, is Duesberg crazy? Does he think people won't read the articles he cites? Why does he "forget" to mention that the selection criteria for these studies included not taking ARVs? How the hell did this crap get published? All these questions and nobody to answer them. Chris Noble Hey, that's exactly the same post again that I already answered, Mr. Noble. Are you playing games? The reference for the initial post was truncated. The correct link is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=2996395&query_hl=10 Chris Noble >"Preventing transmission among sexual partners, ... yadda yadda yadda..." Who was teaching these people's science classes, John Calvin? Jerry Falwell? They just ASSUME the cause (whatever) of immunodeficiency is transmissible, and they take it from there. More questions. http://www.theperthgroup.com/SCIPAPERS/MHMONT.pdf "At present it is accepted that HIV plays no role, either directly or indirectly, in the causation of KS [20,21]." [20] Beral V, Peterman TA, Berkelman RL, Jaffe HW. Kaposi s sarcoma among persons with AIDS: a sexually transmitted infection. Lancet 1990;335:123 8. [21] Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner VF, Papadimitriou JM. Kaposi s sarcoma and HIV. Med Hypotheses 1992;39:22 9. The first reference is to a paper by Valerie Beral. She definitely does think that HIV plays a role in Kaposi's Sarcoma. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=9709294&query_hl=15 This view is not confined to Valerie Beral. Even a cursory literature review would have shown this. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=16115121&query_hl=19 The second reference is to one of their own papers! Why do the Perth Group misrepresent the accepted thought on the pathogenesis of KS? Did they ask Valerie Beral or any other scientist whether it is accepted that HIV plays no role in KS? Did the Perth Group think that nobody would check the literature? Were they hoping that a lay audience would simply accept what they write as gospel? What happened with the peer-review of this article? When an article claims to review 20+ years of research it is expected that the authors have a) read the literature and b) present a truthful account of it. Chris Noble >"Did they ask Valerie Beral or any other scientist whether it is accepted that HIV plays no role in KS?" It may be accepted, but I remember reading somewhere that they asked the Pope of AIDS: Robert Gallo. And he didn't even believe in a role for HIV in KS. More http://www.theperthgroup.com/SCIPAPERS/MHMONT.pdf "Although no effort has been spared no model of a retrovirus causing AIDS has been forthcoming." Hmmm. The paper was received by the journal in February 2004. Do a literature search for animal models of AIDS. The first papers on AIDS in macaques came out in 1983. If there are no animal models for AIDS what have all these vaccine studies been using. http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=15731236 Why do the Perth Group claim that there are no animal models for AIDS when there clearly are? Who, exactly, are the Perth Group trying to convince? People that have read the literature? People who would prefer not having to deal with the science? Again, how did this paper get published? Chris Noble Ah, a paper that I remember! The macaque story. I wrote some criticisms on that paper before, but you didn't really answer them, Mr. Noble. The worst feature of this study is that no control experiment was done, where the monkeys were inoculated with the whole mishmash, but without the virus. More questions. http://www.theperthgroup.com/POPPAPERS/yinyang.html "...as well as the fact that the only animal model of AIDS is non-infectious. Mice repeatedly injected with foreign cellular proteins develop a dramatic depletion of T4 cells, Kaposi's sarcoma-like tumors and "abundant" retroviral-like particles appear in their spleens.(87)" 87. Ter-Grigorov VS, Krifuks O, Liubashevsky E, Nyska A, Trainin Z, Toder V. (1997). A new transmissible AIDS-like disease in mice induced by alloimmune stimuli. Nat. Med. 3:37-41. This model most definitely is infectious. http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=12414952 This was known *before* the Perth Group published their article in Nexus. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=9209360&query_hl=43 Why do the Perth Group state that this is the only animal model of AIDS? Why do they claim it is non-infectious when it clearly is? Who were the Perth Group targetting when they published the article in Nexus? http://www.nexusmagazine.com/ Scientists? Lay-people? Chris Noble Same flaw as the other paper: No matched control. The authors go out of their way to pellet the supenatant of the cell culture, and test it for all kinds of possible contaminating viruses, and then... >"The RL-MuLV was propagated in BALB/cJ mice older than 5 weeks by intraperitoneal inoculation with plasma from affected mice" They inoculate with plasma, for catsake! Why not suspend some of that superduper clean uncontaminated pellet material in saline solution and inoculate with that? Cleancut experiments seem to be 'out' in HIV-science. And do you know why all of these studies have 10 or even more authors? Is that a form of social job creation? I used to publish alone. Or with one co-author. You get a better grip on what's happening that way. http://www.duesberg.com/papers/chemical-bases.html "Likewise, in 1985, only 1.2% of the 1 million US citizens with HIV developed AIDS (29, 30). Since an annual incidence of 1.2-1.4% of all 26 AIDS defining diseases combined is no more than the normal mortality in the US and Europe (life expectancy of 75 years), HIV must be a passenger virus." Again Duesberg gives a 1 million figure for the prevalence of HIV in 1985. Again he uses the this paper as a reference. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=2996395&query_hl=10 The paper actually gives an estimate of 0.5-1 million. Why does Duesberg take this to be 1 million? The data in the paper shows HIV prevalence increasing exponentially in the San Francisco CDC cohort. Why does Duesberg assume it is constant at 1 million? The ratio of HIV-infected/Aids-cases depends on the point in the epidemic and the time to progression. Early in the epidemic the ratio will be very high. As the epidemic progresses the ratio will decrease. The ratio of HIV-infected/AIDS-cases at this point in this sub-epidemic (the SFCDC cohort) was 28:1. Curran et al assumed that in the US as a whole the ratio of HIV-infected/AIDS-cases was higher - somewhere between 50:1 and 100:1. They then took the US cumulative number of AIDS cases ~10,000 and multiplied it by the magic number to get an estimate of between 500,000 and 1,000,000. Thus the 1 million estimate comes from assuming that for 1985 the estimated 10,000 AIDS cases represent 1-2% of the total HIV infections. Why does Duesberg act surprised that "in 1985, only 1.2% of the 1 million US citizens with HIV developed AIDS" when the estimate of 1 million was based on the assumption that between 1 to 2 percent of the US citizens with HIV in 1985 will get AIDS in 1985? Is anyone else amazed that this argument convinced even Duesberg? As far as mortality rates I have no idea what Duesberg is talking about. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statab/mortfinal2001_work23R.pdf The mortality rates for the following age groups are: 15-24 years 0.08% 25-34 years 0.11% 35-44 years 0.20% Duesberg makes the mistake of assuming that mortality rate is constant over a lifetime. Would somebody competent in epidemiology make this mistake? Would someone competent in epidemiology confuse incidence with prevalence as he does in figure 1b. Where are the error bars on figure 1b? The point for 1985 is an estimate with a range of at least 0.5-1 million. PS. The only people that currently that in 1985 there were 1 million US citizens infected with HIV are "rethinkers" and most if not all of them don't actually believe the claim. They only make this claim for rhetorical purposes. This was made abundantly clear by Harvey Bialy who after aguing ad infinitum on the basis that there were 1 million US citizens infected with HIv in 1985 admitted that he thought the HIV tests were meaningless. Chris Noble Chris, looks like you've been a busy boy. Is this your new tactic? Disengaging from the conversation to point out inconsistencies you happen to find amongst the dissident scientists, bringing them back en masse, then expecting us to spend time refuting them? First, I'd like to point out that scientists are not infallible. Even though people like Duesberg, the Perth Group, and cohorts can all make valid points, and are adept at getting us to see that there even ARE reasons to question the HIV=AIDS hypothesis, they are still people, and as such, can be subject to error. I, for one, just agreed with you recently on a point you made about Duesberg. Still, I'm not going to "throw out the baby with the bathwater". I'm more than glad that Duesberg, the Perth Group, Al Bayati, Giraldo, and so on, are out there asking questions, exposing us to other points of view, opening our minds, and helping some of us realize that we don't have to simply submit to an incredibly complex, untenable dogma. So, while you're feverishly pointing out molehills in the backyard of the dissidents, you're able to keep our audience's attention guided away from, oh, let's say... Mt. Gallo. > Chris, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > bringing them back en masse, then expecting us to spend time refuting > them? I am pointing out: a) why "dissident" scientists have trouble getting published in peer-reviewed journals. b) why "dissident" scientists are normally ignored c) how "dissident" scientists target lay-audiences d) why it is important to look at the data, all the data, and not just what the "dissident" scientists happen to include in their papers e) why it is important to read the papers that "diisident" scientists cite to support their opinions. It is of no benefit if the article is "FULLY REFERENCED" if the references contradict the claims. You, Paulee and others think you can play this silly game where you demand everyone else to personally answer all your questions no matter how stupid and rhetorical. I have gone to a lot of trouble to answer as many questions as possible. In this time you have answered practically zero of mine. More than that, Iconoclaster has repeatedly lied about the level of mutation in RNA viruses. I would be a fool if I spent more time conversing with people that have already made up their minds, are unwilling to learn and willing to lie. Many people would say I am already a fool for spending so much time answering your questions. It was obvious to most people from the start that your group came here not with the intention of learning or debating but with the intention of spreading your version of the truth. Paul has specifically said that he will avoid addressing the scientific data at all costs. This is not an openminded person. Why don't you contact Duesberg and other "dissident" scientists and ask them some probing questions? I have pointed out just a few of the many paradoxes that are in their papers. I could list many, many more but as the "dissident" scientists have not been bale to give a credible answer to any so far there is little point making a comprehensive list. Chris Noble "You, Paulee and others think you can play this silly game where you demand everyone else to personally answer all your questions no matter how stupid and rhetorical." Funny how quickly our "stupid and rhetorical" questions are answered/refuted though. "It was obvious to most people from the start that your group came here not with the intention of learning or debating but with the intention of spreading your version of the truth." That's called "projection", Chris. Without "mountains" of "overwhelming evidence", how are we supposed to be spreading "our version of the truth?" Looks like a REAL uphill climb! "Paul has specifically said that he will avoid addressing the scientific data at all costs." Sounds like hyperbole. Did Paul actually say he would "avoid adressing the scientific data at all costs?" Kinda doubt it. "Why don't you contact Duesberg and other "dissident" scientists and ask them some probing questions? I have pointed out just a few of the many paradoxes that are in their papers." Yes, and I bet I would agree with a number of your points concerning things Duesberg has stated. None of these "dissident" scientists are deities to me. Just people who are providing us with information we may not have seen before, and thought-provoking interpretations of the information we may have already seen. > "You, Paulee and others think you can play this silly game where you > demand everyone else to personally answer all your questions no matter > how stupid and rhetorical." > > Funny how quickly our "stupid and rhetorical" questions are > answered/refuted though. That I have answered or refuted many of these questions is a sign of my goodwill. > "It was obvious to most people from the start > that your group came here not with the intention of learning or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Without "mountains" of "overwhelming evidence", how are we supposed to be > spreading "our version of the truth?" Looks like a REAL uphill climb! *And the HIV theory is not science. We all know this! So as a dissident, I come from a "place of knowing" that I am comfortable with.* > "Paul has specifically said that he will avoid addressing the scientific > data at all costs." > > Sounds like hyperbole. Did Paul actually say he would "avoid adressing > the scientific data at all costs?" Kinda doubt it. * What I am teaching my fellow dissidents is that you don't need to argue the HIV theory. Period. Not only is it not wise to go head-to-head with these guys, since they can argue circles around most of us (unless your name is Wilhem Godschalk), it is also pointless.* Paul's tactics are to attempt to debate the scientific theory of AIDS by avoiding any mention of the theory. This is - well - a novel way of debating a theory. > "Why don't you contact Duesberg and other "dissident" scientists and ask > them some probing questions? I have pointed out just a few of the many [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > not have seen before, and thought-provoking interpretations of the > information we may have already seen. What is more revealing about Duesberg is what information he does not provide. It is evident that you and others get most of their information from dissident websites. The same arguments are repeated time and time again. Please spend more time studying science. Chris Noble >"That I have answered or refuted many of these questions is a sign of my goodwill." We're so grateful. >"It is evident that you and others get most of their information from dissident websites. The same arguments are repeated time and time again. Please spend more time studying science." Really? I could've sworn some of the information Paul brought up came straight from publications by the CDC and UNAIDS. "You, Paulee and others think you can play this silly game where you demand everyone else to personally answer all your questions no matter how stupid and rhetorical. I have gone to a lot of trouble to answer as many questions as possible. In this time you have answered practically zero of mine. More than that, Iconoclaster has repeatedly lied about the level of mutation in RNA viruses. I would be a fool if I spent more time conversing with people that have already made up their minds, are unwilling to learn and willing to lie. Many people would say I am already a fool for spending so much time answering your questions. It was obvious to most people from the start that your group came here not with the intention of learning or debating but with the intention of spreading your version of the truth. Paul has specifically said that he will avoid addressing the scientific data at all costs. This is not an openminded person. Why don't you contact Duesberg and other "dissident" scientists and ask them some probing questions? I have pointed out just a few of the many paradoxes that are in their papers. I could list many, many more but as the "dissident" scientists have not been bale to give a credible answer to any so far there is little point making a comprehensive list." I am pointing out: a) why "apologist" scientists are the only ones who are allowed to be published in peer-reviewed journals; b) why "apologist" scientists are normally the only ones being heard; c) how "apologists" scientists terrify lay-audiences; d) why it is important to look at the simple logic, all the logic, and not just what the "apologist" scientists point out in their "overwhelming evidence"; e) why it is important to read the papers that "apologist" scientists cite to support their opinions. It is of no benefit if the article is "FULLY REFERENCED" if the references have a conflict of interest behind the claims. The reason I have stayed "above ground" with my simple logic is that going down the technical “rabbit hole" is a source of great confusion for most "HIV-positives" who may be interested in reading the dissident literature. I feel that everyone has a *right* to differing opinions on any scientific matter, and that they have a *right* to share those opinions with others without being called names, or being belittled, or being told they are lying, or are deceiving, or are causing others to die, when they do express those differing opinions. I assert that the "apologists" are intentionally withholding the "dissident" information by dismissing outright the very valid opinions of highly qualified, highly credentialed individuals who disagree with the HIV theory of AIDS. I came to this forum, and started this debate, specifically to share that information, to allow those who are "HIV-positive" the opportunity to actually consider the views of dissenting scientists and doctors who disagree with validity of the HIV theory. I have intentionally kept the level of this debate simple to allow "HIV-positives" an opportunity to actually see there may be some validity to these dissenting views and to consider them as part of what we have *all been told* for the last twenty years is the actual cause of AIDS. Chris, if you don't want to waste your time answering the simple questions the “dissidents” have about the contradictions we see in the HIV theory, then don't. No one is forcing you to respond. But, personally, I don't think anyone who has simple questions about a theory that is causing people to commit suicide, that is causing parents to have their children taken away from them, that is causing adults to be incarcerated and that is causing children to be forced into taking highly toxic medications is even slightly "silly." -Paul Whiting Portland, Oregon > "You, Paulee and others think you can play this silly game where you > demand [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > a) why "apologist" scientists are the only ones who are allowed to be > published in peer-reviewed journals; The above is simply not true and you know it becuase it has been shown to be false in previous posts to this forum. > b) why "apologist" scientists are normally the only ones being heard; In that they have data yes that makes sense your point would be? > c) how "apologists" scientists terrify lay-audiences; And you don't with your completly unfounded claims about the supposedly deadly nature of ARV? > d) why it is important to look at the simple logic, all the logic, and not > just what the "apologist" scientists point out in their "overwhelming > evidence"; Yes, sadly this is something the denialists seem totaly incapable of doing. > e) why it is important to read the papers that "apologist" scientists cite > to support their opinions. It is of no benefit if the article is "FULLY > REFERENCED" if the references have a conflict of interest behind the > claims. Yes you need to read the studies and educate your self so that you understand what it is your reading. As to the claim that confilicts of interest are somehow a big deal in HIV/AIDS science I have yet to see you provide any evidence that that is the case. > The reason I have stayed "above ground" with my simple logic is that going > down the technical “rabbit hole" is a source of great confusion for most > "HIV-positives" who may be interested in reading the dissident > literature. Simple yes, logical no............... > I feel that everyone has a *right* to differing opinions on any scientific > matter, and that they have a *right* to share those opinions with others > without being called names, or being belittled, or being told they are > lying, or are deceiving, or are causing others to die, when they do > express those differing opinions. Sharing a personal opinion and discussing the merits of a scientfic theory are not even remotely related. Sadly that is something you don't seem to understand...... > I assert that the "apologists" are intentionally withholding the > "dissident" information by dismissing outright the very valid opinions of > highly qualified, highly credentialed individuals who disagree with the > HIV theory of AIDS. No what is dismissed are personal opinions that are not backed up with data. Anyone can state a personal opinion but inorder to be taken seriously in a sceinetific debate one must provide data to back up there ideas something your so called "highly credentialed individuals" on the denialist side have yet to do. > I came to this forum, and started this debate, specifically to share that > information, to allow those who are "HIV-positive" the opportunity to > actually consider the views of dissenting scientists and doctors who > disagree with validity of the HIV theory. When are you going to start were waiting?????? > I have intentionally kept the level of this debate simple to allow > "HIV-positives" an opportunity to actually see there may be some validity > to these dissenting views and to consider them as part of what we have > *all been told* for the last twenty years is the actual cause of AIDS. By simple you meant to say void of facts didn't you????? Gary Stein "By simple you meant to say void of facts didn't you?????" Gary, Would you consider this "simple" enough? All of the HIV test have disclaimers on them nullifying their ability to detect HIV: HIV TEST KIT DISCLAIMERS ELISA Test "At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood." (Abbott Laboratories, ELISA HIV Antibody Test Insert, section "Sensitivity and Specificity") "EIA testing cannot be used to diagnose AIDS... The risk of an asymptomatic person with a repeatedly reactive serum developing AIDS or an AIDS-related condition is not known." (Abbott Laboratories, ELISA HIV Antibody Test Insert, section "Limitations of the Procedure") "Clinical studies continue to clarify and refine the interpretation and medical significance of the presence of antibodies to HIV-1." (Abbott Laboratories, ELSA HIV Antibody Test Insert, section "Limitations of the Procedure") Western Blot Test "Do not use this kit as the sole basis of diagnosis of HIV-1 infection." (Eptope, Inc., Western Blot HIV Antibody Test Insert, section "Limitations of the Procedure") “The clinical implications of antibodies to HIV-1 in an asymptomatic person are not known.” (Calypte, Cambridge Biotech HIV-1 Western Blot Kit, section “Limitations of the Serum and Plasma Procedure”) PCR "Viral Load" Test "The AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR test, is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV infection." (Roche, Amplicor HIV-1 Monitor Test Kit, section "Intended Use") > "By simple you meant to say void of facts didn't you?????" > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > All of the HIV test have disclaimers on them nullifying their ability to > detect HIV: If you actually took the time to understand what you read or any of the basics of HIV science you would understand the labels that you cut and paste from in this post (it is significant that you cut and paste because you don't want your readers to see the whole insert or they might understand your efforts at misdirection isn't it). Yes no single test is approved as a defining diagnostic test for HIV. The combination of ELISA and Western Blot however is accepted world wide by national health agencies and the overwhelming majority of the medical community. Yes Viral Load tests are not used to diagnose HIV infection that was never there purpose in the first place (however I bet you would be surprised to know that hospitals and labs use Viral Load tests for their needle stick accidents as the first test given because it is able to find HIV prior to the development of the antibodies that ELISA and Western Blot find). So your point would be again what????????? Gary Stein "Yes no single test is approved as a defining diagnostic test for HIV. The combination of ELISA and Western Blot however is accepted world wide by national health agencies and the overwhelming majority of the medical community." So, Gary, how can two separate tests that both claim they CAN’T be used diagnose HIV infection become suddenly, and miraculously, able to diagnose HIV infection when they are used together? "Yes Viral Load tests are not used to diagnose HIV infection that was never there purpose in the first place (however I bet you would be surprised to know that hospitals and labs use Viral Load tests for their needle stick accidents as the first test given because it is able to find HIV prior to the development of the antibodies that ELISA and Western Blot find)." Let me get this straight, Gary... The "The AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR test" which the label clearly states "is not intended to be used as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV infection" is somehow still able to find HIV prior to the development of the antibodies that ELISA - which clearly states, "there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood" - and Western Blot - which clearly states, "Do not use this kit as the sole basis of diagnosis of HIV-1 infection" - can somehow still find? Okay! Well, that's as clear as mud! -Paul Whiting > "Yes no single test is approved as a defining diagnostic test for HIV. The > combination of ELISA and Western Blot however is accepted world wide by [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > diagnose HIV infection become suddenly, and miraculously, able to diagnose > HIV infection when they are used together? Do you know anything about disease diagnosis, obviously you don't. There are many disease states that are even more difficult to diagnose then is HIV infection yet I don't hear you denying there existence why is that Paul? > "Yes Viral Load tests are not used to diagnose HIV infection that was > never there purpose in the first place (however I bet you would be [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > not use this kit as the sole basis of diagnosis of HIV-1 infection" - can > somehow still find? What it means is that due to real patient data, not simply the trial data that the test mfg's used in producing there label, the medical community best in a position to understand the uses of the viral load test have found it to be helpful in making decisions about giving a needle stick patient ARV treatment prior to a confirming ELISA and Western Blot test. > Okay! Well, that's as clear as mud! > > -Paul Whiting Yes to you I suppose it is. However to anyone with even a moderately open mind on the issue I imagine it does make sense....... Gary Stein "What it means is that due to real patient data, not simply the trial data that the test mfg's used in producing there label, the medical community best in a position to understand the uses of the viral load test have found it to be helpful in making decisions about giving a needle stick patient ARV treatment prior to a confirming ELISA and Western Blot test." I do consider myself to be a reasonably intelligent person, but that sentence of yours made absolutely NO SENSE whatsoever... Can you say "run on"? Could you PLEASE restate it? > "What it means is that due to real patient data, not simply the trial data > that the test mfg's used in producing there label, the medical community [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Could you PLEASE restate it? I could, but why bother you won't pay any more attention if I did then you are now.... What don't you understand? Gary Stein "What it means is that due to real patient data, not simply the trial data that the test mfg's used in producing there label, the medical community best in a position to understand the uses of the viral load test have found it to be helpful in making decisions about giving a needle stick patient ARV treatment prior to a confirming ELISA and Western Blot test." Tell ya what, Gary, why don't you past that sentence of yours into Microsoft Word and watch all the pretty colors appear... > "What it means is that due to real patient data, not simply the trial data > that the test mfg's used in producing there label, the medical community [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Tell ya what, Gary, why don't you past that sentence of yours into > Microsoft Word and watch all the pretty colors appear... You still haven't explained what you don't understand. I thought we were talking about HIV and AIDS not grammar was I wrong? Gary Stein Gary, did you mean to say, "What it means is that due to real patient data - not simply the trial data that the test mfg's used in producing there label - [that] the medical community [is] best in a position to understand the uses of the viral load test [and] have found it to be helpful in making decisions about giving a needle stick patient ARV treatment prior to a confirming ELISA and Western Blot test"? Now, I would point out to those reading this debate that if the PCR test manufacturers have a disclaimer on their test saying "The AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR test is NOT INTENDED TO BE USED AS A SCREENING TEST FOR HIV OR AS A DIAGNOSTIC TEST TO CONFIRM THE PRESENCE OF HIV INFECTION," then how, precisely, is it useful to the medical community in confirming the presence of HIV? And I would also point out to the readers of this debate, that if blatant contradictions like this one aren’t enough to cause you to question the HIV theory, I don’t know what will. -Paul Whiting > Gary, did you mean to say, "What it means is that due to real patient data > - not simply the trial data that the test mfg's used in producing there > label - [that] the medical community [is] best in a position to understand > the uses of the viral load test [and] have found it to be helpful in > making decisions about giving a needle stick patient ARV treatment prior > to a confirming ELISA and Western Blot test"? No I did not include the words you added nor do they clarify what I said. In the context of the discussion the medical community I was referring to was the one I mentioned in the first post on the subject. That would be the staffs of Hospitals and Medical Laboratories that use viral load tests as the first test on needle stick patients. Those professionals have found the viral load test able to detect HIV earlier then do the ELISA or Western Blot test. > Now, I would point out to those reading this debate that if the PCR test > manufacturers have a disclaimer on their test saying "The AMPLICOR HIV-1 > MONITOR test is NOT INTENDED TO BE USED AS A SCREENING TEST FOR HIV OR AS > A DIAGNOSTIC TEST TO CONFIRM THE PRESENCE OF HIV INFECTION," then how, > precisely, is it useful to the medical community in confirming the > presence of HIV? Because the clinical data shows otherwise. Highly experienced Doctors in this nations best hospitals based on there own experience in the field recommend the viral load test be used on themselves or there staff to detect HIV in people who have experienced a needle stick accident. Now if they did not think the test worked why would they trust there own health to that test Paul? Gary Stein >Now, I would point out to those reading this debate that if the PCR test >manufacturers have a disclaimer on their test saying "The AMPLICOR HIV-1 >MONITOR test is NOT INTENDED TO BE USED AS A SCREENING TEST FOR HIV OR AS >A DIAGNOSTIC TEST TO CONFIRM THE PRESENCE OF HIV INFECTION," then how, >precisely, is it useful to the medical community in confirming the >presence of HIV? It isn't used for that purpose. By asking a question that presumes something false you lie by implication. The biggest lie of all, the Mother Of All Whoppers, is the idea that somebody using deceptive tactics in a discussion cares whether the opinions he encourages others to believe are true or not.  SignatureDavid Canzi "I am not denying anything." -- Celia Farber "It isn't used for that purpose." Okay, David... If the PCR is *not* used as "A DIAGNOSTIC TEST TO CONFIRM THE PRESENCE OF HIV INFECTION," in the form of a "viral load,” then what is it used for? -Paul >"It isn't used for that purpose." > >Okay, David... > >If the PCR is *not* used as "A DIAGNOSTIC TEST TO CONFIRM THE PRESENCE OF >HIV INFECTION," in the form of a "viral load,” then what is it used for? It's used to measure the amount of HIV present after HIV infection has been diagnosed and confirmed by other means. SignatureDavid Canzi "I am not denying anything." -- Celia Farber "It's used to measure the amount of HIV present after HIV infection has been diagnosed and confirmed by other means." Then why is PCR used to detect HIV infection in cases of "needle stick" injuries "prior to a confirming ELISA and Western Blot test”? And would those "other means" to diagnose HIV be the Elisa and Western Blot tests that both have disclaimers nullifying their ability to detect HIV? And., yet, they can somehow – miraculously - detect HIV when they are used together, despite the fact they CAN'T do it when they are used separately... ELISA Test "At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood." (Abbott Laboratories, ELISA HIV Antibody Test Insert, section "Sensitivity and Specificity") "EIA testing cannot be used to diagnose AIDS... The risk of an asymptomatic person with a repeatedly reactive serum developing AIDS or an AIDS-related condition is not known." (Abbott Laboratories, ELISA HIV Antibody Test Insert, section "Limitations of the Procedure") "Clinical studies continue to clarify and refine the interpretation and medical significance of the presence of antibodies to HIV-1." (Abbott Laboratories, ELSA HIV Antibody Test Insert, section "Limitations of the Procedure") Western Blot Test "Do not use this kit as the sole basis of diagnosis of HIV-1 infection." (Eptope, Inc., Western Blot HIV Antibody Test Insert, section "Limitations of the Procedure") “The clinical implications of antibodies to HIV-1 in an asymptomatic person are not known.” (Calypte, Cambridge Biotech HIV-1 Western Blot Kit, section “Limitations of the Serum and Plasma Procedure”) > I am pointing out: > > a) why "apologist" scientists are the only ones who are allowed to be > published in peer-reviewed journals; Not true. In fact, the editor-in-chief of Genetica gave the dissidents a whole edition to air their viewpoints. The major impediment to the publication of dissident articles is the lack of evidence to support their claims. > b) why "apologist" scientists are normally the only ones being heard; The wonders of the internet mean that pseudoscience like creationism, anti-vaccination scare stories and HIV dissidence can reach a far, far greater audience than a journal such as Nature or Science. Dissidents target lay-audiences. Lay-audiences are much bigger than the smaller number of scientists. Dissidents often have glossy websites and are more in tune with how to influence lay-audiences. > c) how "apologists" scientists terrify lay-audiences; The dissidents who show great delight in telling their audiences that "Doctors are the number one killer in America" or "doctors kill more people than guns" or "take ARVs and you'll die" are they teriifying lay-audiences? Paul King has his own personal vendetta against condoms. He attempts to terrify his lay-audience. > d) why it is important to look at the simple logic, all the logic, and not > just what the "apologist" scientists point out in their "overwhelming > evidence"; The only thing simple about your logic is you. I have spent some time carefully explaining when and where your logic has failed you. Spend some time reading relativity newsgroups to understand how logic without understanding can lead you astray. > e) why it is important to read the papers that "apologist" scientists cite > to support their opinions. It is of no benefit if the article is "FULLY > REFERENCED" if the references have a conflict of interest behind the > claims. If all else fails dissidents will claim that the evidence is not important because the authors of the study have some conflict of interest. Iconoclaster showed this. He rejects any paper that is funded by industry or by government (unless of course he thinks it supports his case). This is just a tactic to avoid the evidence. > The reason I have stayed "above ground" with my simple logic is that going > down the technical "rabbit hole" is a source of great confusion for most > "HIV-positives" who may be interested in reading the dissident > literature. Ignorance is bliss. > I feel that everyone has a *right* to differing opinions on any scientific > matter, and that they have a *right* to share those opinions with others > without being called names, or being belittled, or being told they are > lying, or are deceiving, or are causing others to die, when they do > express those differing opinions. Other people have a *right* to argue against your opinions. If you or others state falsehoods people have a right to challenge you about these falsehoods. Remember it is the dissidents that are claiming that "HIV goons" are murdering people with ARV. It is the dissidents that claim that anyone that does not share their views are shills for the pharmaceutical cartels. > I assert that the "apologists" are intentionally withholding the > "dissident" information by dismissing outright the very valid opinions of > highly qualified, highly credentialed individuals who disagree with the > HIV theory of AIDS. How do you know that the opinions of Peter Duesberg are "very valid"? The only possible way of deciding that is to read his papers, read the references he cites and read further about the area. This is what I have done. I have come to the conclusion that Duesberg and other dissidents are wrong. I have provided a number of examples that led me to this conclusion. Science does not ultimately care about "highly qualified, highly credentialed individuals". People arguing with the logical fallacy - argument from authority - do. Before you advance further with your "simple" logic do some reading on logical fallacies. > I came to this forum, and started this debate, specifically to share that > information, to allow those who are "HIV-positive" the opportunity to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to these dissenting views and to consider them as part of what we have > *all been told* for the last twenty years is the actual cause of AIDS. You have attempted to keep the level of the "debate" simple because you are ignorant of the very basics of the scientific theory which you are criticising. > Chris, if you don't want to waste your time answering the simple questions > the "dissidents" have about the contradictions we see in the HIV theory, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > incarcerated and that is causing children to be forced into taking highly > toxic medications is even slightly "silly." What is silly is attempting to argue against a scientific theory that you do not understand or even attempt to understand. Chris Noble "What is silly is attempting to argue against a scientific theory that you do not understand or even attempt to understand." Chris, I understand this: Haunted By AIDS Misdiagnosis http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/30/health/main639393.shtml Jurors Find Texas Hospital Negligent In HIV Misdiagnosis - Woman Misdiagnosed During Pregnancy Wins $52,000 In Damages http://www.thebostonchannel.com/health/4894975/detail.html 01/05/2004 Entry: "Lawsuit over HIV misdiagnosis." http://www.everythingisnt.com/archives/00001024.htm Horror of $20M HIV goof - Misdiagnosis nightmare http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/249007p-213148c.html Doctor Accused of HIV Misdiagnosis http://www.aegis.com/news/ap/1999/AP990110.html Woman sues hospital for alleged HIV misdiagnosis http://www.aegis.com/news/ap/2005/AP050718.html HIV Misdiagnosis Cost Clinic $1.4 Million http://www.injuryboard.com/view.cfm/Article=1184 Mass. Woman Sues Over HIV Misdiagnosis http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/333/8013/373952.html 2004 Cumulative Supplement - AIDS and the Law, Aspen Publishers, Inc. http://www.aidsandthelaw.com/publications/2004%20supplement.htm > "What is silly is attempting to argue against a scientific theory that you > do not understand or even attempt to understand." > > Chris, I understand this: <snip numerous cases of misdiagnosis of HIV> No you don't understand. There are still too many people that are misdiagnosed with cancer. Some of these people have organs removed. Some of these people undergo unnecessary chemotherapy with severe side-effects. This is tragic. These cases are to differing degrees all preventable. However, none of this means that cancer does not exist and that untreated cancer is not serious. Logic should be as simple as possible but no simpler. Chris Noble "Logic should be as simple as possible but no simpler." Chris, Logic is always simple. And if what I've had to say in this debate has not had a great impact on those who are reading it, then the apologists’ reactions have been saying the exact opposite. Let this debate be decided in the courts of law. That is where this debate is heading. And that is where it belongs. Let the juries decide. -Paul "Logic should be as simple as possible but no simpler." Chris, Logic is always simple. And if what I've had to say in this debate has not had a great impact on those who are reading it, then the apologists’ reactions have been saying the exact opposite. Let this debate be decided in the courts of law. That is where this debate is heading. And that is where it belongs. -Paul > "Logic should be as simple as possible but no simpler." > > Chris, > > Logic is always simple. Logical fallacies are always simple and they are always fallacious. > And if what I've had to say in this debate has not had a great impact on > those who are reading it, then the apologists' reactions have been saying [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > And that is where it belongs. You are demonstrating your ignorance once again. Scientific debates are not determined in courts of law. You are sounding like a Creationist again. The validity of evolutionary science cannot be determined by a court case in Kansas. The scientific process involves looking at the data and determining which theory better explains it. There is simply no way that you can a) avoid looking at the data and b) avoid understanding the theory. Chris Noble "Scientific debates are not determined in courts of law. The scientific process involves looking at the data and determining which theory better explains it. There is simply no way that you can a) avoid looking at the data and b) avoid understanding the theory." Chris, I respectfully disagree with you! I think the more people challenge the HIV tests in court, the more it disproves the HIV theory. BOSTON (AP) -- A Fitchburg woman who received nine years of HIV treatments after she was misdiagnosed with the virus is suing the doctors and clinics who treated her. Audrey Serrano, 41, said she was diagnosed with the virus that causes AIDS in 1994 by the Family Practice Clinic in Fitchburg, but six blood tests since Labor Day show she does not have HIV. The lawsuit was filed Dec. 29 in Worcester Superior Court and seeks unspecified damages. "It's nice to not constantly feel like you're going to die, literally," she said. "I'm still tired a lot, though." Serrano claims she's suffered a variety of physical ailments -- including colitis, an inflammation of the intestine -- because of AZT and other harsh medicines she took daily to fight the virus, which attacks the immune system. Emotional distress led to depression, she said. In addition to the Family Practice Clinic (now called All Family Care Inc.), the lawsuit names several doctors and clinics that treated Serrano, including Dr. Kwan K. Lai, who works for the University of Massachusetts Medical Center in Worcester; Dr. Bonnie Laudenbach, who now works in Kentucky; and Women's Medical Associates, formerly of Fitchburg. UMass Memorial spokesman Mark L. Shelton said the hospital did nothing wrong. The hospital has not been notified of the suit, but received a letter from one of Serrano's attorneys alleging negligence and "demanding 'the maximum amount of compensation permitted by law,"' he said. "These allegations are unfounded and UMass Memorial is confident it would prevail should a suit actually be brought and a full and objective review of the relevant records be conducted," Shelton said in statement. "UMass Memorial has not treated anyone for HIV who did not have HIV, and there is no factual basis for reporting otherwise." A call to All Family Care was not immediately returned. There was no answer to calls to Laudenbach's office in Ashland, Ky., and there was no listing in Massachusetts for Women's Medical Associates. Serrano's suit claims, among other things, that her providers failed to periodically retest her to determine the accuracy of the initial test. Serrano, who is divorced and has a 13-year-old daughter who is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said she became suspicious of her HIV-positive status just before Labor Day after obtaining her medical records, and noticing the word "negative" beside a long list of tests. She got retested. "Part of me still didn't believe it, that's why I went for another test," Serrano said. "I kept saying 'one more test."' She's unsure whether the test nine years ago was a false positive, or if it was a record mix up. "It didn't hit me until I got to my car," she said. "I just sat in my car and a I cried. I was numb. I didn't know what to feel." Serrano, an alcoholic who had been sober for three years before the HIV diagnosis, started drinking again. "I ended up totaling my car," she said. She spent 30 days in a women's prison in Framingham for drunken driving. Serrano celebrated nine years of sobriety on Nov. 9. She's unemployed, but is studying to be a paralegal and does AIDS outreach. She said she still suffers side effects from taking more than 20 pills daily for nine years. Bowel problems from colitis require frequent trips to the bathroom, and her strength is limited, she said. One of her attorneys, Ross Annenberg, said there's no specific dollar figure they are seeking. That would be determined later, he said. "(Serrano) incurred great sums in medical expenses, lost significant earnings, and has suffered diminished earning capacity in the future as a direct and proximate result of the defendants' negligence," the lawsuit states. The defendants have about three weeks to respond to the suit. In the story below, the readers of this forum will note that Serrano was treated nine years for her "HIV infection." She took the "harsh medicines," and that means she also had regular PCR tests done to check her "viral load," right? Now, if the "viral load" test can accurately count the actual virus in someone's blood, how is it possible that Serrano could then receive six blood tests that show she does NOT have the virus after being treated for nine years? There are many reasons to question the HIV theory, folks and if this article doesn't get you to seriously wonder what's going on, I don't know what will... Mass. Woman Sues Over HIV Misdiagnosis January 2, 2004 BOSTON (AP) -- A Fitchburg woman who received nine years of HIV treatments after she was misdiagnosed with the virus is suing the doctors and clinics who treated her. Audrey Serrano, 41, said she was diagnosed with the virus that causes AIDS in 1994 by the Family Practice Clinic in Fitchburg, but six blood tests since Labor Day show she does not have HIV. The lawsuit was filed Dec. 29 in Worcester Superior Court and seeks unspecified damages. "It's nice to not constantly feel like you're going to die, literally," she said. "I'm still tired a lot, though." Serrano claims she's suffered a variety of physical ailments -- including colitis, an inflammation of the intestine -- because of AZT and other harsh medicines she took daily to fight the virus, which attacks the immune system. Emotional distress led to depression, she said. In addition to the Family Practice Clinic (now called All Family Care Inc.), the lawsuit names several doctors and clinics that treated Serrano, including Dr. Kwan K. Lai, who works for the University of Massachusetts Medical Center in Worcester; Dr. Bonnie Laudenbach, who now works in Kentucky; and Women's Medical Associates, formerly of Fitchburg. UMass Memorial spokesman Mark L. Shelton said the hospital did nothing wrong. The hospital has not been notified of the suit, but received a letter from one of Serrano's attorneys alleging negligence and "demanding 'the maximum amount of compensation permitted by law,"' he said. "These allegations are unfounded and UMass Memorial is confident it would prevail should a suit actually be brought and a full and objective review of the relevant records be conducted," Shelton said in statement. "UMass Memorial has not treated anyone for HIV who did not have HIV, and there is no factual basis for reporting otherwise." A call to All Family Care was not immediately returned. There was no answer to calls to Laudenbach's office in Ashland, Ky., and there was no listing in Massachusetts for Women's Medical Associates. Serrano's suit claims, among other things, that her providers failed to periodically retest her to determine the accuracy of the initial test. Serrano, who is divorced and has a 13-year-old daughter who is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said she became suspicious of her HIV-positive status just before Labor Day after obtaining her medical records, and noticing the word "negative" beside a long list of tests. She got retested. "Part of me still didn't believe it, that's why I went for another test," Serrano said. "I kept saying 'one more test."' She's unsure whether the test nine years ago was a false positive, or if it was a record mix up. "It didn't hit me until I got to my car," she said. "I just sat in my car and a I cried. I was numb. I didn't know what to feel." Serrano, an alcoholic who had been sober for three years before the HIV diagnosis, started drinking again. "I ended up totaling my car," she said. She spent 30 days in a women's prison in Framingham for drunken driving. Serrano celebrated nine years of sobriety on Nov. 9. She's unemployed, but is studying to be a paralegal and does AIDS outreach. She said she still suffers side effects from taking more than 20 pills daily for nine years. Bowel problems from colitis require frequent trips to the bathroom, and her strength is limited, she said. One of her attorneys, Ross Annenberg, said there's no specific dollar figure they are seeking. That would be determined later, he said. "(Serrano) incurred great sums in medical expenses, lost significant earnings, and has suffered diminished earning capacity in the future as a direct and proximate result of the defendants' negligence," the lawsuit states. The defendants have about three weeks to respond to the suit. >In the story below, the readers of this forum will note that Serrano was >treated nine years for her "HIV infection." snip >"These allegations are unfounded and UMass Memorial is confident it would >prevail should a suit actually be brought and a full and objective review >of the relevant records be conducted," Shelton said in statement. "UMass >Memorial has not treated anyone for HIV who did not have HIV, and there is >no factual basis for reporting otherwise." Well--it may be true, it may not. One case, however, should her claim be true, is pretty thin evidence to justify a belief that HIV doesn't exist or cause AIDS, don't you think? George M. Carter "One case, however, should her claim be true, is pretty thin evidence to justify a belief that HIV doesn't exist or cause AIDS, don't you think?" That's just the point, George, it isn't just one case... Haunted By AIDS Misdiagnosis http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/30/health/main639393.shtml Jurors Find Texas Hospital Negligent In HIV Misdiagnosis - Woman Misdiagnosed During Pregnancy Wins $52,000 In Damages http://www.thebostonchannel.com/health/4894975/detail.html 01/05/2004 Entry: "Lawsuit over HIV misdiagnosis." http://www.everythingisnt.com/archives/00001024.htm Horror of $20M HIV goof - Misdiagnosis nightmare http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/249007p-213148c.html Doctor Accused of HIV Misdiagnosis http://www.aegis.com/news/ap/1999/AP990110.html Woman sues hospital for alleged HIV misdiagnosis http://www.aegis.com/news/ap/2005/AP050718.html HIV Misdiagnosis Cost Clinic $1.4 Million http://www.injuryboard.com/view.cfm/Article=1184 Mass. Woman Sues Over HIV Misdiagnosis http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/333/8013/373952.html 2004 Cumulative Supplement - AIDS and the Law, Aspen Publishers, Inc. http://www.aidsandthelaw.com/publications/2004%20supplement.htm > "One case, however, should her claim be true, is pretty thin evidence to > justify a belief that HIV doesn't exist or cause AIDS, don't you [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Jurors Find Texas Hospital Negligent In HIV Misdiagnosis - Woman > Misdiagnosed During Pregnancy Wins $52,000 In Damages Well as to this one from the URL above we see "The clinic performed its own HIV test on Malone to confirm the first set of results and it came back negative, but that information was never shared with the patient, Pridmore said." So that one says nothing about the HIV=AIDS debate nor does it say anything about the HIV tests accuracy. > http://www.thebostonchannel.com/health/4894975/detail.html > > 01/05/2004 Entry: "Lawsuit over HIV misdiagnosis." As to the one above we see "Two weeks after Johnson gave birth, her obstetrician called and said there had been a mix-up at the lab, operated by Quest Diagnostics, and that she was not HIV-positive..."The person that drew her blood apparently mixed her blood up with someone else's blood," Buttram said." So that one also says nothing about the HIV=AIDS debate nor does it say anything about the HIV tests accuracy. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message