superantigens, autoimmunity, recreational drug use and so forth. You
clearly have not even bothered to LOOK for those data."

Just keeping on, telling the same old lies, eh, Mr. Carter?  Those data
are simply not there.
Every study pretending to investigate the influence of recreational drugs
or auto-immunity on the immune system immediately drags 'HIV' into the
picture.  How the hell could you ever 'prove' that HIV causes a depression
of CD4 cells if the first thing you do is assuming that it does.  Have you
ever heard of circular reasoning?
It goes like this: "A cow is a cow.  Because, if it were not, it would be
something else.  And something else is not a cow.  So a cow is a cow."
Now that's the level of 'logical reasoning' the AIDS researchers use.  The
sloppy argument that was used when that "Super-HIV strain" was found in
N.Y is case in point:
"Crystal meth does not make you sick, oh no!  But crystal meth makes you
more reckless about having unprotected sex.  So your chances of catching
HIV increase.  And THAT makes you sick!"
(Just a moment.  Let me puke...)
Right... So, what I mean is: You can really tell that my teaching days are
over.  During my academic years, none of these Johnnie-come-lately would
have dared to spout such nonsense.

Yes, I am.  It works.  I also condoned (and encouraged) "Burn, baby,
burn!" during the civil rights struggle in the sixties.  It was the only
thing that worked then.
And, after 20 years of repression, I think even more drastic actions are
called for.  We've had it with the HIV-goons.

the statements made in denialist dogma as to what occurred before that
committee."

My, my, Mr. Stein, do you really believe a transcript of a totally
political committe meeting?
I didn't read it, because I would not trust it anyway.  But I did read the
report of Katie Leishman, which appeared in The Wall Street Journal on
Feb. 26, 1988.  You can still find it here:

http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:2thnz_Qz4U0J:www.aidsinfobbs.org/articles/wa
llstj/88/060+%22The+AIDS+DEBATE+that+isn%27t%22&hl=en

Up to that point I had no meaning about the "AIDS epidemic".  It just
didn't interest me.  But when I read in what insolent way Peter Duesberg,
the major authority on retroviruses, was treated by Frank Lilly and his
bunch of nitwits, people who were not even qualified to wash Dr.
Duesberg's glassware, I got imediately interested.  This AIDS hullabaloo
had to be political, I thought.  So I read the original "discovery" by the
Montagnier group, and the would-be discovery by Gallo...  And they could
hear me shout for several blocks: "Bullshit! bullshit!! bullshit!!!  And I
was an instant HIV-dissident.

anything to say that can be supported by a reference to actual facts?"

Do you want that notarized?  I personally know people who tried to post on
orthodox boards, and got banned immediately.  There is the very public
example of peter Duesberg, who suddenly found all his grant proposals and
publications turned down. The only respectable journal he can still
publish in is the Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., because he is a member of the
Academy.  His speaking appointments were canceled, and Tony Fauci replaced
him on several occasions.  
Katie Leishman never published another article in The Wall Street journal.
Liam Scheff had to publish his article about the Guinea Pig Kids in The
Weekly Dig, because the major newspapers would not accept it.
And, as even you should know, it doesn't pay to be a whistleblower at NIH:
You get fired.
Last January, I gave a presentation in Brazil at the International Social
Forum.  My talk came right after a lot of propaganda for condoms, 'safe
sex' and other horseshit.  I'm still laughing about it, but the leaders of
the dissident group who had invited me, got sued by the State Health
Dept.
The unspeakable Mark Wainberg would like to put prominent dissidents like
Duesberg in jail...
So is anyone surprised that it's all-out war?  I won't be satisfied with
anything less than total destruction of the HIV=AIDS myth, and disavowal
of  all those who (profess to) believe in it.

piece of data to back up your beliefs as to the so called "unreliable
tests".

You have the nerve to ask ME for data?  I didn't design those tests.
Those who did are required to provide data to show that they really work
and produce reliable results.  In the case of the PCR method that is used
in newborn babies, it's not even known what it is they are measuring.
They ASSUME it's 'HIV-matrial'  Is it?  Data, please!

long before you did claster, is this another one of those things you just
know to be true because one day you decided that was what you wanted the
truth to be?"

Oh well, did someone use the term before I did?  OK, no problem I won't
lay claim to it, although I  made it up myself.  But then, the term is so
appropriate that other people also came up with the same thing, right?
It's self-evident.

child that is 'suspected' to have died as a result of decisions made by
the parent."

Because the interests of the child were never considered. The 'suspicion'
was completely based on the hatred against the mother, who is one of the
most prominent and successful HIV-dissidents.
If they could only show (or make the moronic majority believe) that the
child dies of AIDS, then... (heeheehee...) They are practically dancing on
the grave of that innocent child.

"You are what I call a Master of Self-Justification.  The intent to attack
was already there and based on motivations other than the pretext you give
us here."

How about me, David?  Do you think I am here because somebody other than
you did wrong to somebody other than me?

I was diagnosed as HIV-positive in November of 2000 at the Multnomah
County Clinic in Portland, Oregon.  And I was *devistated* at being told I
was going to DIE.

I cried so hard I couldn't breath.

I was NOT told, however, *anything* about the information I came across
four years later that seriously questions the validity of the HIV theory
of AIDS.

I was NOT told there are legitimate, qualified scientists and doctors
questioning the HIV theory whose are voices *not* being heard by those to
need to hear them most.

I was NOT told that the HIV tests *all* have disclaimers nullifying their
ability to detect "HIV."

I was NOT told the Elisa and Western Blot tests are highly cross-reactive,
since they detect non-specific antibodies, and can react to any number of
conditions.

I was NOT told that my positive test results were "interpreted" based on
the "risk group" I belonged to, which is how I gained my membership in
Club Dread.

I was NOT told how my close call with a diagnosis of "full-blown AIDS" was
based soley on a standard recognized only by the CDC and not on the
presence of any AIDS-defining illnesses.

I was NOT told about the very *sorted* history of how "HIV" came to be
*touted* as the cause of AIDS nor about the subsequent struggle over who
got credit for the highly-lucrative HIV antibody tests.

I was NOT told how the first scientist to map the genetic structure of
retroviruses, Dr. Peter Duesberg, had been publically questioning the HIV
theory of AIDS since it's early days.

I was NOT told how the creator of the viral load test, Dr. Kary Mullis,
came to find out there were no papers supporting "HIV" as the probable
cause of AIDS, let alone the irrefutable one.

And when I came across all of this information, the questions I asked
myself were:

Why the *f.ck* wasn't I told any of this?

Why the *f.ck* was this information being withheld from the public?

Why the *f.ck* wasn't any of this being reported by the media
"watchdogs?"

So, I am here for one reason and one reason only:

Those who started this crock-of-sh.t scientific theory made an
incalculable error...

..they *pissed* me off.

-Paul Whiting

deserve it.  We deserve it because, you say, somebody other than us did
wrong to somebody other than you."

Oh yes, Mr. Canzi, you deserve it.  Because you allow yourself to be used
as a first line of defense, to shield the real villains.  And if you had
read "The Moronic Majority", you would know that that's the centerpiece
of
my philosophy.  Major criminals would not be able to perpetrate their
crimes without the help they get from the stooges, the sycophants, and
the
collaborators who carry out their evil schemes.  When Bush says: "Go to
Iraq to fight!" all the yahoos rush to carry out his wishes.  When David
Ho says: "Hit hard, hit early!" the HIV-goons comply.
YOU have a personal responsibility for the medical killing that is going
on, Mr. Canzi.  I don't deny that my aggression was there from the start.

But it was not unprovoked, and you do deserve it.