 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / October 2005Email to my fellow dissidents...
Hey, I am just checking in to see how you two are doing! I need to read the article that "Iconoclaster" sent to me and then get back into the debate. I think it's time to pull out the heavy artillary and start learning the basics of molecular biology. I am in the beginning stages of understanding this whole *new language* and need to learn it *all.* I feel that the "final phase" of this debate (The Coup de Grace, if you will) shall be the dissidents walking the talk right in front of the apologits and actually learning the science, so we can shove it down their throats. I may even venture a little wager... I am going to tell Chris and The Gang, that we accept their offer for a no-holds barred debate. We are gonna take off our gloves and battle this thing out - winner takes all. And I am going to tell them, when the dissidents are through, they will be in prison for what they have done to us. Every single person who knowingly perpetuated this lie is going to be held criminally liable for it. We're going to take them to court and have them prosecuted. That is how high the stakes are now. But first, I need to get ready! I am still going to buy my house and set up "Dissident Central." I am going to start my own business, so that I can have a steady income and be able to devote full-time to bringing down the AIDS paradigm. I am *never* giving up. Yours truly, -Paulee P.S., If anyone is ready to surrender, just let us know. We will *help you* out of this mess! Otherwise, we are taking you down the old fashioned way--in a court of law. > Hey, I am just checking in to see how you two are doing! > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > apologits and actually learning the science, so we can shove it down their > throats. That would be greatly anticipated (a denialist that actually has an understanding of the science, yet still is a denialist has yet to appear) yet highly unlikely to occur. > I may even venture a little wager... > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > That is how high the stakes are now. Bet taken now what happens when you lose? Are you applying the same results to the denialists? Because if your bet is to be taken seriously then when you lose you and your ilk will take the responsibility for the deaths of those who choose to believe your lies and died as a result thus you all will be spending time with Bubba in 10' X 12' cell. > But first, I need to get ready! I am still going to buy my house and set > up "Dissident Central." I am going to start my own business, so that I can > have a steady income and be able to devote full-time to bringing down the > AIDS paradigm. > > I am *never* giving up. So what in 4 or 5 years after you've had a chance to educate yourself you will come back and demolish those scientists that have spent there entire adult lives studying HIV and AIDS, well good luck to you in that I can't wait for the fireworks. It will be fun to see how you try and corrupt science to fit your preconceived ideas. Gary Stein >"So what in 4 or 5 years after you've had a chance to educate yourself >you will come back and demolish those scientists that have spent there >entire adult lives studying HIV and AIDS, well good luck to you in >that I can't wait for the fireworks. It will be fun to see how you try >and corrupt science to fit your preconceived ideas." Science is already corrupt. The HIV theory of AIDS is proof of that. And I am going to prove my theory! *My theory is that the HIV theory of AIDS is actually proof that science is corrupt.* And, with a little help from my friends, I am going to learn Molecular Biology right in front of your very eyes! I am going to be taking a "online class" right here on the talkabouthealthnetwork. And we're gonna start with "Molecular Biology 101," hopefully sometime next week. I don't know how long it will take, but you're going to be witnesses the entire process. You're going to be my witnesses! I like that! And the worst part is, the apologists are going to have to hold your ground the whole time I am learning molecular biology. You're going to have to answer my questions, backed by documentation, if you disagree what what I am being taught by my *professor*. You are going to have to defend your positions because, as I have aptly demonstrated on this forum over and over and over again, I really understand simple relationships. And, guess what, boys! All science is based on *simple* relationships. Science is actually really, really simple. It only gets "complex" (i.e., it gets to be full of "inexplicable paradoxes" which is latin for bullshit) when someone ain't doing their science right. That's why the scientific process includes duplication. You need to be able to duplicate another scientists work and then *agree* with his interpretation of the data. Just having data isn't enough - not even "Mountains of Data." And a scientist's data, along with his/her *correct interpretation* of that data, need to be able to make accurate predictions. That is what meteroligists do! They can predict the movement of objects with a high-degree of probability based on sound science. Are they right everytime? Hell no! But can they predict events with astounding accuracy! Hell yes! It's just like I read in the book "Zero - Biography of a Dangerous Idea." Calculus is actually severely flawed. They have to "fudge" the numbers sometimes because ZERO (the absense of value) keeps collapsing the equations. Yet, calculus, with all of it's flaws can predict the movement of planets with a high-degree of accuracy! It functions as a sound scientific principle, even though it ain't perfect. The problem with the HIV theory of AIDS is that it can't predict sh.t. And I am going to demonstrate why. Paul Whiting ?There is overwhelming scientific consensus that HIV causes AIDS.? ? Dr. Jeffrey P. Koplan, Director, US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) >"Science is actually really, really simple." and..... >"I am going to prove my theory!" With those few words, you demonstrate that you know absolutely nothing about science or scientific theories. For a start, you mean hypothesis, and not theory (if you intend to talk scientifically).... Science looks for explanations of observable phenomena. The scientific method requires that hypotheses are testable and *dis*provable - scientists look for evidence to refute their hypotheses as a means of making scientific progress. You cannot "prove your own theory" >>"Science is actually really, really simple." > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >You cannot "prove your own theory" Ya know, sometimes you guys just *kill me.* I can't even believe you are so insecure in your position that you would actually take the time to belittle someone who says they are willing to learn molecular biology! How desperate can you be? So, what? Now that I am willing to actually accept your challenge to "walk the talk" you're starting me off with a series of put-downs? That's mature! Is that all the apologits have left? Name calling? Sometimes I don't know whether to laugh *at* you, or cry *for* you. Paul Whiting ?There is overwhelming scientific consensus that HIV causes AIDS.? ? Dr. Jeffrey P. Koplan, Director, US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Sorry, I missed the part where I supposedly called you names. I did say that you knew nothing about science, which is self-evidently true. You don't like a few home truths, go play somewhere else. If you want to learn anything, let alone molecular biology, you will have to lighten up and stop over-reacting when someone tries to make you better informed. >Sorry, I missed the part where I supposedly called you names. >I did say that you knew nothing about science, which is self-evidently [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >have to lighten up and stop over-reacting when someone tries to make >you better informed. I have never recieved the impression from *any* apologist that their intention is to *ever* make people "better informed." If the aplogists *really* wanted to make people "better informed," they would allow views of "HIV and AIDS," other than their own, to be heard. The apologists are keeping "HIV-positives" enslaved to their views. Period. We are here to *free them* from their bondage and let them *decide for themselves* what view makes the most sense. Period. Paul Whiting ?There is overwhelming scientific consensus that HIV causes AIDS.? ? Dr. Jeffrey P. Koplan, Director, US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) >>Sorry, I missed the part where I supposedly called you names. >>I did say that you knew nothing about science, which is self-evidently [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > If the aplogists *really* wanted to make people "better informed," they > would allow views of "HIV and AIDS," other than their own, to be heard. How have you been censored here on an unmoderated newsgroup? Who is it that has prevented you from spewing the mountains of bullcrap that you have so far vomited into this newsgroup? > The apologists are keeping "HIV-positives" enslaved to their views. > Period. Just how does that happen please enlighten the world about this vast medical conspiracy to silence the denialists? Gary Stein >How have you been censored here on an unmoderated newsgroup? Who is it that >has prevented you from spewing the mountains of bullcrap that you have so >far vomited into this newsgroup? This is how you censor dissidents: "Who is it that has prevented you from *spewing the mountains of bullcrap* that you have so far *vomited* into this newsgroup?" It's called "belittling," Gary. It's the first, and last, great argument of the apologists. Paul Whiting ?There is overwhelming scientific consensus that HIV causes AIDS.? ? Dr. Jeffrey P. Koplan, Director, US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) >>How have you been censored here on an unmoderated newsgroup? Who is it > that [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > It's the first, and last, great argument of the apologists. How has that prevented you from posting everything you have ever felt like posting to MHA? Nor did you answer the question of just how are the rethinkers are censored by the general scientific community? Please describe in detail the vast conspiracy responsible in your eyes for silencing those scientists you claim exist who do not believe HIV exists. It would seem that they all have been able to become known by you and all of the various so called rethinking websites. An Entire issue of a medical journal was devoted to them at one time, what more do you want. The main reason you don't see them published in scientific journals is because they simply haven't produced any papers that contain data. There letters to the journals are published frequently and that is the appropriate place for personal opinions to appear in scientific journals. To get an article published the scientist has to produce data something the denialists seem totally incapable of doing and the only place to assign blame for that is on those scientists who dispute that HIV exists. It is there duty to back up there claims with evidence. Your claim that the reason they don't do this is that they can't get funded, however that argument simply does not fit the facts. The reason they don't get funded is multifaceted. The main reason being that Duesburg, the Perth Group, Rasnick, nor Mullis and most of the other names on your list have not made a serious application for funding for over a decade. The second most important reason is that in order for the NIH, CDC, or other funding bodies to actually approve a grant the group or individual applying for the funding must have developed a sound theoretical basis for the study, the proposal should utilize generally accepted methods, be statistically valid and use ethically sound methods and procedures and have a reasonable chance of producing meaningful results in the eyes of funding source. Gary Stein >"pauleewhiting" <pauleewhiting@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> "Who is it that has prevented you from *spewing the mountains of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >How has that prevented you from posting everything you have ever felt like >posting to MHA? It hasn't but, then, I am a rebel. Most people, however, find it *very* intimidating to be called names and belittled when they dare to question something. That's why those, who have something to hide, use belittlement when anyone gets too near the skeleton(s) in their closet. And that's why Republicans do things like out CIA agents when anyone starts to question their motivation for going to war in Iraq. If you have nothing to hide, your life is an open book. Wouldn't you agree with that, boys? -Paul Whiting "But of course Maggiore has no 'fear of AIDS'?she doesn't have HIV." From DRUGS, DISEASE, DENIAL By Jeanne Bergman >>"pauleewhiting" <pauleewhiting@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> "Who is it that has prevented you from *spewing the mountains of [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >That's why those, who have something to hide, use belittlement when >anyone gets too near the skeleton(s) in their closet. Every internet nut job hawking a hopeless theory gets belittled. There is a guy who claims to have found fossilized human remains in coal seams and, therefore, that man is as old as coal. He interprets his belittlement as evidence that he's right, because his opponents must feel threatened, that they're protecting their careers. And just recently you implied that Chris Noble's career depends on what he's doing here. Similarly aether theorists in sci.physics.relativity interpret the hostility and belittlement directed at them as evidence that they're right and their opponents are threatened by the truth. Some of them claim that, when the truth -- *their* truth -- finally wins out, all the people who knowingly supported Einstein's "lies" will be going to prison. And not so long ago you said that the people who knowingly support the HIV/AIDS "lie" will be going to be going to prison. Your thinking is like the thinking of the cranks that are found in almost every open forum related to a scientific topic. The most frugal hypothesis for explaining this is that you are a crank.  SignatureDavid Canzi "I am not denying anything." -- Celia Farber > There is a guy who claims to have found fossilized human remains in > coal seams and, therefore, that man is as old as coal. Say, is that the guy that sent the Barbie doll head to the Smithsonian for analysis as a new genus/species proving humans evolved from midgets or something? And the Smithsonian director sent back this rib-splitting *detailed* reply back? B/ >> There is a guy who claims to have found fossilized human remains in >> coal seams and, therefore, that man is as old as coal. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >or something? And the Smithsonian director sent back this rib-splitting >*detailed* reply back? The Barbie doll story was familiar. I can remember speculating that plastic made from petroleum actually might carbon date older than civilization. I did a search and confirmed that we're talking about the same guy. The Smithsonian letter is here: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/msg/08fde9c0e08ec7c9?hl=en SignatureDavid Canzi "I am not denying anything." -- Celia Farber >>> There is a guy who claims to have found fossilized human remains in >>> coal seams and, therefore, that man is as old as coal. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/msg/08fde9c0e08ec7c9?hl=en Thanks, I've been looking for it. And not just for the humor aspect, but for the illustration of how science actually works. B/ >> How have you been censored here on an unmoderated newsgroup? Who is >> it that has prevented you from spewing the mountains of bullcrap >> that you have so far vomited into this newsgroup? > This is how you censor dissidents: > > "Who is it that has prevented you from *spewing the mountains of > bullcrap* that you have so far *vomited* into this newsgroup?" > > It's called "belittling," Gary. Oh you poor thing. Want a cookie? B/ >Oh you poor thing. Want a cookie? No, but I will take a nice, fat settlement check. -Paul Whiting "But of course Maggiore has no 'fear of AIDS'?she doesn't have HIV." From DRUGS, DISEASE, DENIAL By Jeanne Bergman "Who is it that has prevented you from spewing the mountains of bullcrap that you have so far vomited into this newsgroup?" Looks like Paul's touching some nerves again. "you will have to lighten up and stop over-reacting when someone tries to make you better informed." Interesting way of putting it. Somebody *tries to make you*. It definitely sounds as if force is being applied, rather than intelligently *allowing* Paul to sift through information. You boys are so obvious in your intentions. > I can't even believe you are so insecure in your position that you would > actually take the time to belittle someone who says they are willing to > learn molecular biology! Care to tell us why you choose molecular biology over virology, or epidemiolgy? What is it about the science of molecular biology that you think will be the most useful in your grand scheme to prove the non-existence of HIV? How do you propose to gain an understanding of molecular biology? Who is to be your teacher? What will your sources of educational materials be? Gary Stein > >"So what in 4 or 5 years after you've had a chance to educate yourself > >you will come back and demolish those scientists that have spent there [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Biology right in front of your very eyes! I am going to be taking a > "online class" right here on the talkabouthealthnetwork. Something sounds familiar (well up to a point, I somehow doubt you are going to get a PhD). http://www.tparents.org/library/unification/talks/wells/DARWIN.htm Johnathon Wells was a fundamentalist christian without a PhD in biology who dogmatically believed that evolution was wrong. The Rev. Dr. Sun Myung Moon told him to get a PhD in Biology so he could scientifically prove that evolution was false Now Johnathon Wells is a fundamentalist christian with a PhD in biology who dogamtically believes that evolution is wrong. Do the words "preconceptual science" mean anything to you? PS. Does anyone here think for a moment that anyone in the original Perth Group had even heard of a retrovirus before 1984? Chris Noble I think you mean to be missing the point, Chris. Paul's going to get this tutoring in front of everybody here. It's an open classroom. He wants to learn this at its most basic and rudimentary level. I'm sure you're more than welcome to step in and say that whatever he's being told is, in fact, wrong. I bet Paul would actually appreciate your input! So, how is it going to be "preconceptual", if he's just learning the basics of molecular biology? Nice try with this Johnathon Wells guy, but you'll just have to wait and see. > I think you mean to be missing the point, Chris. Paul's going to get this > tutoring in front of everybody here. It's an open classroom. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > basics of molecular biology? Nice try with this Johnathon Wells guy, but > you'll just have to wait and see. Are you saying that Paul doesn't already "know" the truth? Are you saying that he will learn science with an open mind? Paul self admittedly does not have a scientific understanding of the subject. His opinions are not based on science. Now he is promising to learn the science to prove us wrong. Call me stupid if you want but I think Paul has already made up his mind. I think he is as willing to learn as Johnathon Wells. Do the words "preconceptual science" mean anything to you? Chris Noble >Are you saying that Paul doesn't already "know" the truth? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Do the words "preconceptual science" mean anything to you? The proof is in the pudding, my dearest Mr. Noble, because I am taking my lessons from two teachers, with opposing views. So, if you disagree with what I am being taught, then you're gonna have to speak up and provide me with another reference to read and consider. And, if at all possible, boys, let's all of get our reading materials online. I want to be sure that *everyone* who's following along with the class is on the same page... Are you ready to teach me, Professor Noble? And remember, class, we are starting with the abslolute basics so I want *all of you to follow along very carefully* so you don't get lost. Two teachers are better than one, I always say... Paul Whiting ?There is overwhelming scientific consensus that HIV causes AIDS.? ? Dr. Jeffrey P. Koplan, Director, US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) "Are you saying that Paul doesn't already "know" the truth?" "Are you saying that he will learn science with an open mind?" Maybe you could ask Paul these questions? "Call me stupid if you want but I think Paul has already made up his mind. Did you read what I wrote? Paul's going to get this tutoring in front of everybody here. It's an open classroom. He wants to learn this at its most basic and rudimentary level. I'm sure you're more than welcome to step in and say that whatever he's being told is, in fact, wrong. I bet Paul would actually appreciate your input! How is it "preconceptual science" to learn molecular biology? The only thing "preconceptual" is your view of the outcome. <snip> > How is it "preconceptual science" to learn molecular biology? The only > thing "preconceptual" is your view of the outcome. Did you read Paul's words? "And I am going to tell them, when the dissidents are through, they will be in prison for what they have done to us. Every single person who knowingly perpetuated this lie is going to be held criminally liable for it." "We're going to take them to court and have them prosecuted." Paul already "knows" the truth. His mind is made up. Johnathon Wells already "knew" the truth. His mind was made up. Preconceptual science! Chris Noble "Paul already "knows" the truth. His mind is made up." About the basics of molecular biology? Isn't that what he's asking to learn? You're here to help with this process, Mr. Noble. How can Paul go wrong? You certainly seem like an incredibly capable teacher. Shouldn't that be a winning situation for you? You're not going to be playing the victim now, are you? I hope that you would view this as a golden opportunity to help teach ALL of us the basics of molecular biology, so we're ALL on the same page. Sounds like a GREAT idea! > "Paul already "knows" the truth. His mind is made up." > > About the basics of molecular biology? Isn't that what he's asking to > learn? Paul believes that molecular biology proves that HIV does not cause AIDS. This is afterall what he promises to do after he has learnt molecular biology - prove with molecular biology that HIV does not cause AIDS. He may not understand anything about molecular biology at the present but he "knows" that if he were to learn anything it would prove that HIV does not cause AIDS. He has already made up his mind. Preconceptual science! >Paul believes that molecular biology proves that HIV does not cause >AIDS. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Preconceptual science! Pot-kettle-black, Mr. Noble. What are you afraid of? How could I possibly cause the rock solid foundations of AIDS science to even hiccup, let alone collapse. What are you afraid of? How could my learning the basics of molecular biology to be used against those who perpetuated this lie on the public possibly cause anyone who supported the theory any harm? I will tell you again: Admit fault and we will forgive you. We just want this nightmare to end as much as you do. We know that you all *know* that you're in deep sh.t. And we know that's why you went after Christine. We're not blind. Quite the contrary. But we are prepared to take this to whatever level it needs to be taken. Did you notice our response after your little witchhunt? Not what you were expecting was it? There is more where that came from. So much more. We are not here to play games. We are here to bring this piece of sh.t theory to its knees. And anyone caught still clinging to it when the ship goes down, will go down with it. We mean that. We are going to hold every person who perpetuated this lie criminally liable. We are going to hire lawyers. And we are going to subpeona records. We are going to *show* beyond a shadow of doubt to any jury that those parties who were involved in upholding this sham were in full and complete knowledge of their criminal acts. They acted with malicious intent. They acted to deny people their rights. First, they did harm. Now, I have told you before and I will tell you again, you are loved. We don't hate you. We understand you. We know you all have made a collosal mistake. We want the same thing you want: We want this war to be over. But we are not surrending. Ever. We are not surrending because we did not make people ingest a *known poison* in the name of "saving their life." AZT exists. We can prove that in a court of law. HIV doesn't exist. We can *also* prove that in a court of law. Chris, I know you are scared. You have every right to be. I am more than intelligent enough to manifest everything of which I speak. I also have connections in the legal field to boot. And we are going to do this whether you want us to or not. With or without you we are stopping the madness. Now, if you want to get your camp together and contact our camp, I am sure we can come to a mutually agreed upon "out." But we need to stop poisoning people in the name of "science." And we need to stop killing orphans in the name of "being right." There may still be lawsuits, I don't know. It all depends on how we bring this severely disabled craft to a safe landing. But I would *bet the farm* that, if you asked us, WE WILL ALL FORGIVE YOU. However, you must *ask* for our forgiveness. Hell, you can send me a personal email. I don't care! And I will share it with only those in the upper eschelones of dissident-dom. We don't want anymore people to be told that they're going to die, and then get poisoned to death, to "prove the theory was right." We just want to love again without fear, that's all. All we are asking for is an *end to fear.* Yours truly, -Paulee P.S. do NOT assume that my heart is not as big as my a.shole. :-) I *know* that you and the other kids out there are scared out of your minds. We can tell you are! I know much more than you realize, because I am far more intelligent than you realize. Know that! So, let's all say we're sorry for f.cking up royally and dig our way OUT of this mess! We will help you out! We are love! Oh! And here's my phone number if you want to talk: 503-803-7415 > >Paul believes that molecular biology proves that HIV does not cause > >AIDS. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Pot-kettle-black, Mr. Noble. There is one samll difference between us. I came to my opinion after looking at the evidence. I did not have an opinion beforehand. I read the arguments that were put forward by the dissidents. I went to the trouble of reading many of the references that were cited as evidence by the dissidents. I also went to the trouble of reading other references in the same field that were not cited by the dissidents. I then concluded on the balance of the evidence that the dissidents were not correct. If the dissidents come up with more data or at least solid arguments I will change my mind. You on the other hand have formed your opinion without looking at the scientific evidence. Until recently you were proudly telling everyone that it would be a mistake to go down the "rabbit hole" of scientific evidence. Until recently the scientific evidence was irrelevant because you already "knew" that HIV does not cause AIDS. Now you promise to learn molecular biology. You already "know" in advance that molecular biology will prove that HIV does not cause AIDS. If your opinion is not going to be modified by "learning" molecular biology then there is very little point in going through the motions. Chris Noble >There is one samll difference between us. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >going to be modified by "learning" molecular biology then there is very >little point in going through the motions. Chris, are you in any way paid to support the HIV theory of AIDS? Do you receive any benefit from the continuation of this sham? Otherwise, why did you debate the Perth Group on BMJ.com? Was it for you love of science? Or you love of a paycheck? -Paul Whiting "But of course Maggiore has no 'fear of AIDS'?she doesn't have HIV." From DRUGS, DISEASE, DENIAL By Jeanne Bergman > Chris, are you in any way paid to support the HIV theory of AIDS? No. > Do you receive any benefit from the continuation of this sham? Have you stopped robbing banks yet? The non-rhetorical answer to your rehtorical question is no. > Otherwise, why did you debate the Perth Group on BMJ.com? > > Was it for you love of science? That covers most of it. David Rasnick, the Perth Group, Al Bayati and others were abusing the freedom of speech at the BMJ. All of them could have put their ideas up on their own websites but they wanted to use the prestige of the BMJ. Al Bayati claims that he has published papers at the BMJ. Some of his lay readers believed that. > Or you love of a paycheck? This is not the first time that people have accused me of being paid for responding to people of webboards and newsgroups. It probably won't be the last. These sort of ad hominem attacks are very common. Chris Noble That covers most of it. David Rasnick, the Perth Group, Al Bayati and others were abusing the freedom of speech at the BMJ. All of them could have put their ideas up on their own websites but they wanted to use the prestige of the BMJ. Al Bayati claims that he has published papers at the BMJ. Some of his lay readers believed that. > Or you love of a paycheck? This is not the first time that people have accused me of being paid for responding to people of webboards and newsgroups. It probably won't be the last. These sort of ad hominem attacks are very common. Chris Noble If this is true Chris then I for one am honored to have you around. >> Chris, are you in any way paid to support the HIV theory of AIDS? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >The non-rhetorical answer to your rehtorical question is no. That's good news, Chris, because then you'll have nothing to lose when the ship goes down. >> Otherwise, why did you debate the Perth Group on BMJ.com? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >the prestige of the BMJ. Al Bayati claims that he has published papers >at the BMJ. Some of his lay readers believed that. I see. So, then, Dr. David Rasnick, PhD, Biochemist, Protease Inhibitor Developer, University of California along with Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, Biophysicist, Department of Medical Physics, Dr. Valendar Turner, MD, Dr. John M. Papadimitriou, MD, PhD, Professor of Pathology, Bruce Hedland-Thomas, M.Sc., Biophysicist, David Causer, PhD, Department of Medical Physics, Barry Page, M.Sc., Department of Medical Physics all from the Royal Perth Hospital, University of Western Australia, as well as Todd Miller, PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology, University of Miami School of Medicine, Florida, Dr. Helman Alfonso, MD, Director of Research, Universidad Metropolitana Barranquilla, Colombia and Dr. Mohammad Ali Al-Bayati, PhD, Toxicologist and Pathologist, California were all "abusing their freedom of speech at the BMJ." Chris, exactly how do individuals with credentials like these "abuse their freedom of speach" by disagreeing with a severly flawed scientific theory on a medical journal website? Come to think of it, how does *any* individual "abuse their freedom of speach" by exercising it freely? I posted on that debate, Chris. Was *I* somehow "abusing my freedom of speach," by posting on the British Medical Journal site, since I don't have any credentials? Here's another question for you, Chris: what credentials do you have for upholding this pathetic theory? And here's the final rhetorical question, Chris: in your lofty position as Judge and Jury to All of Mankind, whom do you feel is qualified to decide which individuals should be allowed "freedom of speach" and who should have their "license to speak freely" taken away? I would just *love* to hear how you'd decide that for all of us, Oh, Great One. Perhaps we could all take a test designed by Your Most Holiness. Gosh, Chris, I hope I will make the "freedom of speach" grade... -Paul Whiting "But of course Maggiore has no 'fear of AIDS'?she doesn't have HIV." From DRUGS, DISEASE, DENIAL By Jeanne Bergman > >> Chris, are you in any way paid to support the HIV theory of AIDS? > > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Come to think of it, how does *any* individual "abuse their freedom of > speach" by exercising it freely? If someone in a crowded cinema yells "fire" and 10 people killed in the subsequent panic then that is indeed an abuse of freedom of speech. What we say has consequences. You want me to be responsible for what I say. That goes for dissidents too. Please read Udo Schuklenk's article regarding the ethical responsibilities of scientists. http://www.wits.ac.za/bioethics/prbspd.pdf > I posted on that debate, Chris. > > Was *I* somehow "abusing my freedom of speach," by posting on the > British Medical Journal site, since I don't have any credentials? You were quite clearly posting your opinions this is what the BMJ rapid responses were for. The Perth Group posted a complete version of one of their papers. This is a paper that had not passed peer-review and had not been published. By posting it on the BMJ rapid responses they bypassed peer-review. Scientists and doctors reading the BMJ rapid responses of course know the difference between a peer-reviewed article and an electronic letter-to-the-editor/comment page. Lay readers do not necessarily understand the difference. They see a link to an article on the BMJ website and are impressed. They think there must be something to it. The Perth Group target lay-audiences. > Here's another question for you, Chris: what credentials do you have for > upholding this pathetic theory? I am just as qualified as the Perth Group to have an opinion on HIV. > And here's the final rhetorical question, Chris: in your lofty position > as Judge and Jury to All of Mankind, whom do you feel is qualified to > decide which individuals should be allowed "freedom of speach" and who > should have their "license to speak freely" taken away? The point was that the Perth Group had and still has a website. They are free to "publish" anything they want there. They are also free to submit their papers to journals for publication. Some journals like Medical Hypotheses will accept papers that are speculative without any solid data. However, it is unethical to "publish" articles that have failed peer-review on a rapid response webpage and imply to their supporters that it is a published article. Instead of putting the article on their own website they had a link to the BMJ website. Chris Noble The Perth Group posted a complete version of one of their papers. This is a paper that had not passed peer-review and had not been published. By posting it on the BMJ rapid responses they bypassed peer-review. Scientists and doctors reading the BMJ rapid responses of course know the difference between a peer-reviewed article and an electronic letter-to-the-editor/comment page. Lay readers do not necessarily understand the difference. They see a link to an article on the BMJ website and are impressed. They think there must be something to it. The Perth Group target lay-audiences. Ok if targeting lay audiences is unethical before proper peer review why was it ok for Gallo to announce to the public the HIV/AIDS theory and HIV test before proper peer review? If his evidence was so overwhelming to not need peer review why was he convicted for medical fraud? Also both the therapy and the test that came from that highly profitable (for Gallo and friends) press release are both looked back on with regret. High dose AZT and a cross reacting test that has supposed to have become allot better now. Am I wrong in my view that Gallo's theory and the HIV test was not properly peer reviewed before we the layman were targeted with a government backed press release? Not to mention the resulting political bullsh*t of making HIV look like the new plague to white heterosexuals resulting in billions to Pharma and no cure. I am inclined to think it is just as reasonable to assume the Perth group posted there paper in the debate to get input from there peers to further prove or disprove there argument P.S. Sorry about the rant / *kinda* :) > Ok if targeting lay audiences is unethical before proper peer review >why was it ok for Gallo to announce to the public the HIV/AIDS theory and [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > P.S. Sorry about the rant / *kinda* :) Damnit, Fondoo! You beat me to the punch by, literally, a few seconds! As I was posting my reply, I got a notification on Health Newsgroups that you'd replied "a few seconds ago." Oh well, great minds think alike... :-) -Paul Whiting "But of course Maggiore has no 'fear of AIDS'?she doesn't have HIV." From DRUGS, DISEASE, DENIAL By Jeanne Bergman > Ok if targeting lay audiences is unethical before proper peer review > why was it ok for Gallo to announce to the public the HIV/AIDS theory and > HIV test before proper peer review? Gallo's paper had undergone proper peer-review. It had been reviewed by reviewers and accepted for publication before the press conference. As soon as this paper became common knowledge there was always going to be a pack of reporters descending on the NIH. This is what happened. It was not Gallo who called the press conference. He was summoned from overseas to be present. Forgive me but I don't see anything sinister or deceptive here. The press were aware of the paper. The press were asking questions. The press were already talking abut the paper although they did not have all the details. The press conference informed the press about the findings of the paper that had already passed peer-review. The press conference informed the press that Gallo and his coworkers had isolated a virus from people with AIDS and that they believed that this virus was the probable cause of AIDS. I don't understand what else they could have done. Let the press write stories about the paper based on even less information? > If his evidence was so overwhelming > to not need peer review why was he convicted for medical fraud? The question of medical fraud did not concern whether he had isolated a virus of whether this virus was the probable cause of AIDS. It concerned the origin of the particular isolate. In the kindest treatment of Gallo he was just careless. In the harshest he knowingly stole the isolate. I think the truth is somewhere inbetween. Either way this does not diminish the findings of the paper. > Also both > the therapy and the test that came from that highly profitable (for Gallo > and friends) press release are both looked back on with regret. High dose > AZT and a cross reacting test that has supposed to have become allot > better now. There is no way you can connect AZT with Gallo's initial findings. Secondly all antibody tests cross react to some degree. What is important is the specificity of the test ie how well does the test distinguish between HIV antibodies and cross reacting antibodies. > Am I wrong in my view that Gallo's theory and the HIV test was not > properly peer reviewed before we the layman were targeted with a > government backed press release? In my view yes - the argument is wrong. In an ideal world all scientific information would be thoroughly tested before being released through the popular press much in the same way that only well established science is taught in high schools (except for ID). In the real world as soon as a ground breaking study is published (or in the case of Gallo's paper 2 weeks before it made it into print) the press will be on the phone wanting information to write their popular press articles. In this case an institution will often make a press release or hold a press conference. > Not to mention the resulting political > bullsh*t of making HIV look like the new plague to white heterosexuals > resulting in billions to Pharma and no cure. Based on the information at the time there was a real risk of HIV spreading to the general population. Based on the information we have now there is a real risk of the H5N1 bird flu leading to a human pandemic. If this doesn't happen there will be a lot of vocal bloggers with 20/20 hindsight syaing I told you so. If on the other hand no preparation is made for this possibility and there is a human pandemic then there will be a another group of bloggers saying I told you so. I think the problem is that lay-people want cerntainty. They don't want to hear about probabilities and confidence intervals they want a black and white answer. In contrast, in science there is no absolute cerntainty. There are no tests that are 100% specific. There are no epidemiological models that are 100% correct. Theories can be improved. Tests can be made better but nothing is ever 100% certain. One of the problems with popular press articles is that the complexities of science are distilled into small soundbites. > I am inclined to think it is just as reasonable to assume the Perth > group posted there paper in the debate to get input from there peers to > further prove or disprove there argument The best way for the Perth Group to acheive that is to submit it to a journal for publication. In the past they have gotten feed back from reviewers and the reviewers have said that the Perth Group arguments are not supported by the references that they cite in their papers. However, the Perth Group show no interest in the input of the reviewers. They continue to put forward the same arguments again and again. > P.S. Sorry about the rant / *kinda* :) It was no more a rant than most of my posts. Chris Noble >The question of medical fraud did not concern whether he had isolated a >virus of whether this virus was the probable cause of AIDS. It >concerned the origin of the particular isolate. In the kindest >treatment of Gallo he was just careless. In the harshest he knowingly >stole the isolate. I think the truth is somewhere inbetween. Either way >this does not diminish the findings of the paper. The findings of the paper were diminished the second Gallo rushed to get credit for a theory he was not able to support by his own merits. He stole another scientist's work, ran to the press and said "I found it. I found it! It was me! Me, me, me!" He acted like a spoiled little brat and his "discovery" was supported by the government. That is why Margaret Heckler of the HHS introduced Gallo at the April 23rd, 1984 press conference. Period. And that is why the French government later sued the American government for the rights to the highly lucrative HIV test patents. And that is why there was a settlement with "co-discovery" for "HIV" assigned *between* Gallo and Montagnier, even though the only thing Gallo did was to steal Montagnier's work. And that is why, later, Gallo had his title of "co-discoverer" stripped away, since it was found he actually *had* stolen Montagnier's work. Gallo is a scientific criminal, as is fully documented in the book "Science Fictions" by John Crewdson. A first year law student could prove that in court of law. The HIV theory of AIDS is FRAUD. Period. >The best way for the Perth Group to acheive that is to submit it to a >journal for publication. In the past they have gotten feed back from [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >reviewers. They continue to put forward the same arguments again and >again. And the *reason* that Duesberg and the Perth Group *can't* get published is because they are *not* being allowed to be published. Period. This is the World's Finest Example of The Old Boys Club. AIDS science is a sham and I am going to bring this paradigm down like a house of cards. I am more than intelligent enough to learn *all* of molecular biology. And I am *so f.cking pissed off* about being lied to over this bullshit theory that I am *never stopping* until every person who supported this lie is held criminally liable for it. Period. Once I *truly* understand the science, I can deconstruct this sloppy theory in front of junior high school students. And they *will* be able to understand me, because I can explain it *simply* with the full backing of current scientific understanding (once, of course, I understand it!). I am here to *bring down this f.cking paradigm* and I ain't leavin' until the job is done. By the way, I am taking the day off tomorrow before "school" starts on Monday, so don't expect to see *any* posts from me until I pose my first question to Icononclaster under the heading: "Molecular Biology 101" See you in class! -Paul Whiting "The heroes of all time have gone before us. The labyrinth is thoroughly known. We have only to follow the thread of the hero path, and where we had thought to find an abomination, we shall find a god. And where we had thought to slay another, we shall slay ourselves. Where we had thought to travel outward, we will come to the center of our own existence. And where we had thought to be alone, we will be with all the world." - Joseph Campbell, The Hero with a Thousand Faces > >The question of medical fraud did not concern whether he had isolated a > >virus of whether this virus was the probable cause of AIDS. It [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > The HIV theory of AIDS is FRAUD. Period. I agree with you that Gallo initially claimed more credit than he deserved. At the very least he neglected to mention that the initial virus came from Montagnier's lab. The reason that we know this is that both isolates have been fully sequenced. It was established beyond doubt that Gallo's isolate was for all intensive purposes identical to Montagnier's isolate. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=2 035026&dopt=Abstract But excuse me if I find it slightly inconsistent of you to claim at the same time that Gallo stole Montagnier's virus and that this virus does not exist. The proof that Gallo "stole" Montagnier's virus is also proof that it exists. You can't steal something that doesn't exist. Please read these essays from Montagnier and Gallo for some balance. http://www.aidscience.org/science/298(5599)1727.html http://www.aidscience.org/science/298(5599)1728.html > >The best way for the Perth Group to acheive that is to submit it to a > >journal for publication. In the past they have gotten feed back from [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > And the *reason* that Duesberg and the Perth Group *can't* get published > is because they are *not* being allowed to be published. Period. The dissidents were given a whole edition of Genetica to put forward their views. The editon-in-chief wrote a nice forward to the edition saying that the dissidents had been claiming that they were being censored and that this issue devoted solely to dissidents was aimed to address this claim. Duesberg got 3 articles in this issue. The Perth Group got 2. Root-Bernstein got 2 articles. This sort of thing is almost unheard of. A group of people presenting a minority viewpoint are given centre stage. They are given a complete edition of a journal. Genetica. 1995;95 But they still complain they are being censored! Chris Noble "But excuse me if I find it slightly inconsistent of you to claim at the same time that Gallo stole Montagnier's virus and that this virus does not exist. The proof that Gallo "stole" Montagnier's virus is also proof that it exists. You can't steal something that doesn't exist." How the work was taken may be an example of the charactor of Gallo. What the work may prove is another issue. The dissidents were given a whole edition of Genetica to put forward their views. The editon-in-chief wrote a nice forward to the edition saying that the dissidents had been claiming that they were being censored and that this issue devoted solely to dissidents was aimed to address this claim. I am glad this was done but probably was too late for immediate change no matter how well the arguments were made. The funds were allocated the machine was running full speed on the current theory. Maybe one day we will find another way of looking at AIDS that will produce better results. > "But excuse me if I find it slightly inconsistent of you to claim at the > same time that Gallo stole Montagnier's virus and that this virus does [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > How the work was taken may be an example of the charactor of Gallo. What > the work may prove is another issue. That is also the difference between character assassination and critically evaluating the evidence. One is a cheap rhetorical trick the other is part of the scientific method. > The dissidents were given a whole edition of Genetica to put forward > their views. The editon-in-chief wrote a nice forward to the edition [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > will find another way of looking at AIDS that will produce better > results. In my opinion at that stage the scientific evidence was stacked against them not just some political power. None of their hypotheses matched the amassed data. I also think that if they had been willing to compromise they could have contributed more constructively. If, rather than tilting at HIV windmills, Duesberg had hooked up with other scientists with more experience in the field and submitted research proposals to study the effects of recreational drugs on the immune system (without mentioning HIV and AIDS) he would in all probability have been funded. Instead of doing that Duesberg has pursued a quixotic quest to bring down HIV science. There is also a consensus that oxidative stress is a major feature of the pathogenesis of HIV. In fact it is believed to be a a part of the pathogenesis of many RNA viruses like influenza. There is evidence that antioxidants can help in the treatment of influenza. If the Perth Group gave up their hopeless quest to prove that HIV does not exist then it is possible that they could also make a contribution to science. There is room for both oxidative stress and HIV in AIDS. Chris Noble "That is also the difference between character assassination and critically evaluating the evidence. One is a cheap rhetorical trick the other is part of the scientific method." If I believed the scientific method in AIDS research was above corruption by the elite I would agree. Personally if I was in a position to hurt Gallos reputation I would have to me much more intimately aware of the circumstances involved in his conviction. For all we know he may have wanted to tell all, but money people decided otherwise, he may just be the fall guy on that one. Who the hell knows? Basically for me I am more sensitive to these kinds of facts probably because I was told I had AIDS 10 years ago and neither mine or my wife’s AIDS case "facts" support the AIDS "theory" well at all. Our case facts support more dissident theory than orthodox. But I understand that is just "us" but hell we might find more important mortality defining markers than T-Cells and viral load that did a rather poor job for us. At least then people like "us" will not be told we have AIDS and are going to die a horrible death relatively soon. >"If, rather than tilting at HIV windmills, Duesberg had hooked up with other scientists with more experience in the field..." More experience than Duesberg? He's the number 1 authority on retroviruses. All scientists with more experience in the field have died or retired. >"If the Perth Group gave up their hopeless quest to prove that HIV does not exist then itis possible that they could also make a contribution to science. There is room for both oxidative stress and HIV in AIDS." No, there isn't. There is absolutely no use for a virus in AIDS research. Publishing a well-conducted study (and a small number of them still exist) and dragging "HIV" into it, is as ridiculous as invoking Lenin, as scientists in the old Soviet Union had to do. It's just a pledge of allegiance to the HIV-mob, which happens to be in power. And some people just don't want to do that. I know; I'm one of them. But if you think there's a case to be made for oxidative stress, I agree. But I also think that's not the only factor involved. There may be more to it. No virus, that's ridiculous. But a failure to produce enough high-energy phosphate (ATP) could explain a lot. >>"If, rather than tilting at HIV windmills, Duesberg had hooked up with >other scientists with more experience in the field..." > >More experience than Duesberg? He's the number 1 authority on >retroviruses. Yet YOU have so much more wisdom and knowledge that you would utterly dismiss his recognition of the fact that HIV exists. The denialist's cognitive dissonance on display in all its ignorminious glory. George M. Carter > >"If, rather than tilting at HIV windmills, Duesberg had hooked up with > other scientists with more experience in the field..." > > More experience than Duesberg? He's the number 1 authority on > retroviruses. All scientists with more experience in the field have died > or retired. Are you back to that position that claims science stopped in the early 80's??????? Do you honestly believe that in the last 2 decades the science of retrovirology has not progressed? Or was it 1938 when science ended your so inconsistent it's difficult to tell which position you hold? Gary Stein > >"If, rather than tilting at HIV windmills, Duesberg had hooked up with > other scientists with more experience in the field..." > > More experience than Duesberg? He's the number 1 authority on > retroviruses. All scientists with more experience in the field have died > or retired. If you had of quoted the next part of the sentence it would have been clearer. "... and submitted research proposals to study the effects of recreational drugs on the immune system..." Where Duesberg overextends himself is in epidemiology and toxicology. Duesberg has no track record in these areas. Linus Pauling may have won two Nobel prizes but neither made him an expert in curing cancer. Chris Noble >>The question of medical fraud did not concern whether he had isolated a >>virus of whether this virus was the probable cause of AIDS. It [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > The HIV theory of AIDS is FRAUD. Period. Nothing you say above in anyway addresses the issue of does HIV exist and cause AIDS why is that Paul? Gary Stein >Nothing you say above in anyway addresses the issue of does HIV exist and >cause AIDS why is that Paul? If you want to see what I have to say about the HIV theory of AIDS, please go to my Website: http://groups.msn.com/RethinkingAIDS/general.msnw?action=get_message&mvi ew=0&ID_Message=141 Yours always, -Paulee >>The question of medical fraud did not concern whether he had isolated a >>virus of whether this virus was the probable cause of AIDS. It [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >The findings of the paper were diminished the second Gallo rushed to get >credit for a theory he was not able to support by his own merits. A theory is judged on *its* merits, not the merits of the researcher who discovered it or stole it. >He >stole another scientist's work, ran to the press and said "I found it. I >found it! It was me! Me, me, me!" [snip] >The HIV theory of AIDS is FRAUD. Period. Newton claimed the same force that pulls an apple to the ground also bends the moon's path into an orbit around the earth, and he developed a mathematical description of this force. If somebody had stolen this theory from Newton or Newton had stolen it from somebody else, it wouldn't change what the theory claims and it wouldn't change the orbit of the moon. It would still be the same theory, and it would still be describing the same reality: the theory's description of the reality would not be the least bit more or the least bit less accurate. Whether or not Gallo stole credit for the theory that HIV causes AIDS doesn't change what the theory claims, and doesn't change the reality the theory is claimed to describe: the theory is no more or less accurate as a result. If he stole good work it would still be good work. Your chronic failure to understand this shows that your thinking is fundamentally disconnected from reality. SignatureDavid Canzi "I am not denying anything." -- Celia Farber Mr. Canzi- Perhaps you are right that just because a hypothsis/agent is stolen does not make it good or bad. But the fellow that Gallo stole from, Luc Montegneir, has stated from the beginning that he did not isolate "HIV", that "HIV" was not found in all of the AIDS cultures he studied, and that AIDS is multifactoral-"HIV" only plays a small part of the problem. That hypothesis/agent is far different from what Gallo claimed. Sincerely, Michael Kilduff " We know that to err is human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake" Dr. Kary Mullis, Nobel Laureate and inventor of Polymerase Chain Reaction. > Mr. Canzi- > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > That hypothesis/agent is far different from what Gallo claimed. Find us a statement made by Luc since say 1998 that confirms your claims above, and you might have a point. But being that you can't and what you will find is that Montegneir does in fact believe HIV has been isolated and that AIDS is not multifactoral with HIV only playing a small part. Gary Stein Mr. Stein- Thank you for the response. You must be a clever little guy. You know, as does anyone else that has followed this smoke and mirror act by Montegneir, Gallo, Levy, Noble et al that Luc is on record in his interview with Djamel Tahi in 1997 as saying that his group "did not purify. I repeat...we did not purify". Luc was honest back then. I guess the fame and fortune went to his head...like it did Gallo. I bet a virus causes that as well- Sincerely, Michael Kilduff " We know that to err is human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake" Dr. Kary Mullis, Nobel Laureate and inventor of Polymerase Chain Reaction. > Mr. Stein- > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I bet a virus causes that as well- Luc saying that we "did not purify. I repeat...we did not purify" is not the same as saying HIV had not been isolated as you are fully aware. It also means that unlike you denialists he has kept an open mind and has seen the developments in HIV and AIDS science and is able to see that his questions have been answered. Hope that helps........ Gary Stein Robert Koch isolated the bacterium Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Robert Koch did not purify the bacterium Mycobacterium tuberculosis. These are two different words. Chris Noble Thank you for the thorough response Chris. That was good info on Gallo's fraud. I thought I had read that "some" of his study results were found to be falsified as well? I know the court ruled that his crime/crimes? did not change the overall outcome. >"Gallo's paper had undergone proper peer-review. It had been reviewed by >reviewers and accepted for publication before the press conference. As soon as this paper became common knowledge there was always going to be >a pack of reporters descending on the NIH. This is what happened. It >was not Gallo who called the press conference. He was summoned from overseas to be present" I thought proper peer review of a theory would be after publication so the whole scientific community would have a chance to confirm or disprove the results of this one lab? >I think the problem is that lay-people want >cerntainty. They don't want >to hear about probabilities and confidence >intervals they want a black and white answer. I for one do not want misleading press reports, I believe the spin and corruption in the media is because of our governments desire to control popular opinion and the resulting taxpayer funding again just my .02 The dissident view as I understand it is that our government was to quick to pull funding from the labs that wanted to test alternate theory's to the AIDS question We seem to have a difference of opinion on how much politics had played into the rush of conclusions and therapies. I'm sure your perspective from a profesional in the industry sees the events as the reasonable realities of your business and the world. From a layman’s point of view it's scary as hell how much power, money, and loss of individual freedom we give the best guesses at the time and how they are presented as fact by the media (not the scientists fault) I know not all Americans see the media hype and spin as fact but a great many do and I was one of them, at least where human life was on the line I thought the industry would be more honorable. I hope if real progress does not happen soon the line between dissident and orthodox will fade and challenging views will be encouraged and funded instead of the best theory being defended as if it is fact. That last part is obviously just my opinion > Thank you for the thorough response Chris. That was good info on Gallo's > fraud. I thought I had read that "some" of his study results were found to > be falsified as well? I know the court ruled that his crime/crimes? did > not change the overall outcome. I have read some of the report and yes some of the details that Gallo gave in the papers were not supported by lab books and other records. Some of this was just sloppiness some seemed more concious. If all we had was the first Gallo papers in 1984 then dissidents would have a better argument. Other groups replicated the work soon after. > >"Gallo's paper had undergone proper peer-review. It had been reviewed by > >reviewers and accepted for publication before the press conference. As [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the whole scientific community would have a chance to confirm or disprove > the results of this one lab? Peer-review is primarily the process by which papers are reviewed by fellow scientists before being accepted for publication. There is an unwritten rule that research findings should undergo peer-review before they are released to the public. Once the paper has been published then the popular press will write about it whether there is a press conference or not as long as it is news worthy. It is not within the powers of the scientists to stop the press reporting on it. If reporters ring him/her up the best that the scientist can do is state the findings in a the most accurate manner possible while emphasising what parts are tentative or which parts need confirmation. > >I think the problem is that lay-people want >cerntainty. They don't want > >to hear about probabilities and confidence >intervals they want a black [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > quick to pull funding from the labs that wanted to test alternate theory's > to the AIDS question Research funding is very competitive. Only a small fraction of research is funded. the decisions are made on the basis of the research proposals and the quality of the arguments put forth. The process is not perfect and some poor quality research is funded and some good quality research is not funded. In my personal opinion none of the dissidents have put forward hypotheses that are self-consistent and have explanatory power. I believe this is the reason why none of the research proposals have been funded. I should also mention that another criteria in judging research proposals is the applicant's track record in the research area. The Perth Group have no track record in retrovirology. I see no evidence that they even knew what a retrovirus was before 1984. I don't even know whether the Perth Group have made any applications for funding. Duesberg has an excellent track record in retrovirology but he focusses on epidemiology and drug toxicology. He has no track record in these areas. This would have been a crucial factor in the decision process. It is hard to know because although Duesberg has hinted that he has made several grant applications and that they have all been knocked back he does not provide any details of the proposals. > We seem to have a difference of opinion on how much politics had played > into the rush of conclusions and therapies. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > instead of the best theory being defended as if it is fact. That last part > is obviously just my opinion If we had effective vaccines we wouldn't be having this conversation now. I also note that Duesberg was skeptical of the link between HPV and cervical cancer. http://www.duesberg.com/papers/ch5.html I remember reading somewhere on line an email from Rasnick or someone else claiming there would never be a vaccine fro cervical cancer that the whole idea was preposterous. The latest results on a vaccine for cervical cancer (HPV) seem very promising. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=15863374&query_hl=11 I wonder if Duesberg and Rasnick will change their minds if these results are confirmed. Chris Noble "I remember reading somewhere on line an email from Rasnick or someone else claiming there would never be a vaccine fro cervical cancer that the whole idea was preposterous. The latest results on a vaccine for cervical cancer (HPV) seem very promising." I have learned that studies and expectations in health science are amazingly similar to computer tech (in the latter I'm vastly more qualified in he he) First there are known PC bottle necks in performance. Next come manufactures with all kinds of data to show how there next gen product (hardware or software) reduce or eliminate these bottlenecks and vastly improves performance. Next come the reviews of supposedly independent tech journalist confirming the products performance before release. Next the product hits the shelves... Reality sets in, at times it's good and everyone seems honest in there claims and reviews. Other times you are amazed at the outright lack of integrity of big business. In the tech world many times we have black and white, if only our bodies were as simple as computers, but the similarity is still to clear for me to deny. I know the majority of people working in the health and science industry are honorable. I also know it is not the majority that makes the decisions. The decision making elite have to face the horrible corrupting force of money and ego. I am glad I do not have to face such a test. I hope our dissident doctors and scientist are more interested in truth than anything else. At least they "usually" have far less money and power to have to contend with :) Mr. Noble- One of the reasons I have a difficult time accepting the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is because of the very constructor, Robert Gallo. Gallo has made a career out of overstating his "discoveries" and taking other people's work, and influencing who gets recognized for what. His "discovery" of HL23 was a disaster....and it was "leaked" to the press and was in the headlines of at least one major American newspaper before the paper appeared in Science. Gallo even wanted to misname HTLV-I, and he overstated the activity of that virus as well. What, 1 person with HTLV-I in 100 actually develop leukemia. Big deal. And there is alot of speculation that Gallo pulled the ol' switcheroo with the Japanese and their version of HTLV-I. You wrote that Gallo was summoned from overseas to address the press? Well....so what? Is it not possible for him to construct such a scenario by leaking HTLV-I just as he did HL-23?? The real reason Gallo had his press conference is because Montegneir was going to beat Gallo to the punch.....and Luc has maintained from the beginning that HIV is only part of the AIDS puzzle and that AIDS is in fact multifactoral. Bob Gallo is a liar and a cheat through and through. He has played power games ,miscontructed science and made false claims about virtually everything he has ever done. He just had a good business sense, that is all- History does not repeat itself.....but people do. Michael Kilduff " We know that to err is human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake" Dr. Kary Mullis, Nobel Laureate and inventor of Polymerase Chain Reaction I apologize Mr. Noble, my sixth paragraph should read "You wrote that Gallo was summoned from overseas to address the press? Well....so what? Is it not possible for him to construct such a scenario by leaking HIV just as he did HL-23?? Sorry for any confusion- Michael Kilduff " We know that to err is human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake" Dr. Kary Mullis, Nobel Laureate and inventor of Polymerase Chain Reaction. >"I remember reading somewhere on line an email from Rasnick or someone else claiming there would never be a vaccine fro cervical cancer that the whole idea was preposterous. The latest results on a vaccine for cervical cancer (HPV) seem very promising." Yes, looks like good work. This would prove that the vaccine works against several strains of HPV. In other words: It works against HPV infection. That still doesn't necessarily mean it will ward off cervical cancer. I'm far less skeptical about HPV that I am about HIV. At least HPV exists, and it is a known DNA tumor virus. I'm not completely convinced that it causes cervical cancer, though. Those virus hunters have not done cancer research much good. >"Gallo's paper had undergone proper peer-review. It had been reviewed by reviewers and accepted for publication before the press conference. As soon as this paper became common knowledge there was always going to be a pack of reporters descending on the NIH. This is what happened. It was not Gallo who called the press conference. He was summoned from overseas to be present." Yes, that's a true account of what happened. The government initiated the pres conference. But.... >"Forgive me but I don't see anything sinister or deceptive here." Oh boy!! That's rich! *Of course* there was something sinister about it. The whole press conference was carefully orchestrated. "As soon as this paper became common knowledge..." ?? The government had made damn sure that it became common knowledge! They leaked the news themselves, so when the press conference started, there was standing room only. They needed Gallo, because he did have a paper to be published, and he was thoroughly corrupt, in other words, perfect for the job. But if you read that paper, after all those years, it did not justify at all what the big claim was all about: "Ladies and Gentlemen, the probable cause of AIDS has been found." >But if you read that paper, after all those years, it did not justify at >all what the big claim was all about: "Ladies and Gentlemen, the probable >cause of AIDS has been found." So, now that we know we're all gonna be okay... ..let's just FORGIVE EACH OTHER, okay? I will always love you Japheth Elijah Salsbery. Come back to me, brother! Love you! Mean it! Yours always, -Paulee P.S., when you finally get here, you FINALLY realize, folks, LOVE IS ALL THAT MATTERS EVERYONE IS FORGIVEN FOR EVERYTHING THROUGH THE LOVE OF GOD ALMIGHTY. >"Based on the information at the time there was a real risk of HIV spreading to the general population. Based on the information we have now there is a real risk of the H5N1 bird flu leading to a human pandemic. If this doesn't happen there will be a lot of vocal bloggers with 20/20 hindsight syaing I told you so." No, there wasn't. Because there was no virus. And now, with H5N1 bird flu, the same tactics of fear mongering are used again. Why does the Moronic Majority like it so much to be scared to death? I'm not specifically denying the existence of H5N1 this time. Flu viruses do mutate, because they have a segmented genome. But it's a *bird* virus, remember? Does that mean then that it cannot jump hosts? Oh, sure it can. Anything's possible. You may get the Nobel prize next year, Mr.Noble... The general public may not like probabilities, but they do make good poker players. And don't ever think of me when you're mentioning 20/20 hindsight! I always make my predictions ahead of time. And they come true. Already in 1998 I predicted that the scare about the "millennium bug" (that's computers, not biology) was laughable, and that nothing at all would happen on Jan. 1st 2000. And of course, nothing happened. So now I predict *ahead of time* that THERE WILL BE NO PANDEMIC OF BIRD FLU. And you can put that in your pipe and smoke it. Why do I think so? Because of the overwhelming odds against it. The government says: "There may be pandemic, killing millions of people... But we don't want to cause panic, of course (haw! haw! haw!) Well, the truth is: That virus may very well mutate. But the chance that it happens *right now* and that the mutation causes the surface of the virus to change in such a way that can infect human cells is infinitesimally small. Remember 1918? Well, it's NOT gonna happen this time. >> >> Chris, are you in any way paid to support the HIV theory of AIDS? >> > [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > >Chris Noble Then, Chris, how do you feel about Bob Gallo's press announcement on April 23rd, 1984? You remember, Chris, that's when Gallo claimed to have discovered "HIV," when, in fact, he'd stolen another scientists work? Was that "unethical" of Gallo, Chris? -Paul Whiting "But of course Maggiore has no 'fear of AIDS'?she doesn't have HIV." From DRUGS, DISEASE, DENIAL By Jeanne Bergman |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message