Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / April 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Debate on "The Nation"

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Iconoclaster - 10 Mar 2006 00:20 GMT
Strangely enough, it has suddenly become impossible to post anything on the
forum running at "The Nation", even after having logged in properly.
Maybe the moderators got sick of the puerile nonsense that was posted
there.  And then to think that most of the participants were not exactly
college age anymore...
But as the same club usually hangs out on this board, we might as well
continue the conversation here.  I can't let Chris Noble get away with
what he  claimed, now can I?

Let's see now; he wrote:
>"It is impossible to remove all cellular debris from HIV cultures by
ultracentrifugation because they can both have the same density."

That may be true if you restrict yourself to density-gradient
ultracentrifugation.  But there's no need to.  Ultracentrifugation without
using a gradient is also possible (pelleting and resuspending the pellet).
Zone electrophoresis is another possibility.
Why, oh why do we hear nothing but excuses where HIV is concerned?  I've
never heard any complaints about other retroviruses of the avian or murine
type.  Electron microscopy does not seem to present any insurmountable
problems for these viruses either (I'm not saying it's easy).

These "infectious molecular clones" Duesberg may not deny them, but I do.
Too many lab artefancts in that kind of research.  There were already many
claims before 1971 of infectious RNA obtained from  retroviruses, but
those results were invariably unreproducible.

H.M. Temin: J. Nat. Cancer Inst. 46, 3 (1971)
(Note:  No 8-13 authors; just ol' Howard Temin).

So now our attention shift to proviral DNA.
Duesberg writes:
"Since infectious HIV DNA has been isolated from infected human cells that
is free of HIV"s own proteins and RNA as well as from all cellular
macromolecules, HIV isolation has passed the most vigorous standards
available today."

..And that's bullshit (with all respect to Duesberg).  How does he know
it's "HIV-DNA" that's been isolated?  Even if pure virus particles were
avalable to compare with, they would contain RNA.  So the proviral DNA is
still an important step removed from any gold standard HIV particle.
Infectious?  Any piece of DNA will pass that test.
It's very common to make mistakes in this kind of reserch.  Duesberg got
famous originally because he had isolated the first "cancer gene"  (Mind
you, the same kind of DNA isolation he claims for his molecular cloning of
pro-HIV DNA)  he has admitted later that the cancer gene was a lab
artefact (Peter Duesberg is a real scientist, not a fake).  And this whole
"molecular cloning" business is just bullshit too.
I wouldn't order any molecular clones of HIV, for the same reason I
wouldn't order a "magic bracelet" against rheumatic arthritis.
Chris Noble - 10 Mar 2006 04:44 GMT
> Strangely enough, it has suddenly become impossible to post anything on the
> forum running at "The Nation", even after having logged in properly.
> Maybe the moderators got sick of the puerile nonsense that was posted
> there.

Maybe they did.

>  And this whole
> "molecular cloning" business is just bullshit too.
> I wouldn't order any molecular clones of HIV, for the same reason I
> wouldn't order a "magic bracelet" against rheumatic arthritis.

http://www.aidsreagent.org/
http://www.nibsc.ac.uk/spotlight/aidsreagent/
http://www.aidsreagent.org/UploadDocs/ds3552_003.pdf

Are you afraid of a few thousand bps of DNA?

The sequences of the infectious molecular clone is available here.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/viewer.fcgi?db=nucleotide&val=9409797

You can claim that it is not the genome of a retrovirus that causes
AIDS but will you infect yourself with it?

Just a simpe stretch of DNA. No foreign proteins. What could be the
harm?

Chris Noble
montygram - 10 Mar 2006 06:05 GMT
I will take you up on that offer Chris, under one of two conditions:

While I do this, you take AZT every day in "AIDS" patient doses for 4
years, or you pay me what the full "drug cocktail" would cost an
uninsured American "AIDS patient."

Let's get this done and demonstrate who is correct, and who is not.
Chris Noble - 10 Mar 2006 07:36 GMT
> I will take you up on that offer Chris, under one of two conditions:
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Let's get this done and demonstrate who is correct, and who is not.

There is no reason for you to add these conditions.

You argue that HIV is harmless.  I am not arguing that AZT is harmless.
I fully agree that AZT has very serious side effects.

If I were to argue that AZT is harmless against all evidence then you
would have every right to call my bluff and ask me to take it.

If HIV is harmless why should you want me to pay for HIV drugs. It
sounds like you aren't as sure as you make out.

Denialists keep on making the offer to inject themselves with HIV but
always come up with excuses when push comes to shove.

Chris Noble
montygram - 10 Mar 2006 09:00 GMT
I am not denying anything.  I am asking for strong evidence, or in the
case of "HIV/AIDS," something that remotely resembles scientific
evidence.  The scientific method places certain demands on those who
seek to make a scientific claim, and the "HIV/AIDS" crowd do all that
is in their power to avoid these demands.  Moreover, criticism of
existing claims is supposed to be welcomed, ALWAYS.  The scientific
method was the cornerstone of almost all of the college courses I've
taught in my lifetime, but the "HIV/AIDS" advocates act as if it does
not exist.  Since there are "non-progressors" that live more than 20
years with "HIV," you asking me or iconoclaster to be "infected" with
this clone of cellular debris makes absolutely no sense at all, and is
just another example of a lack of understanding of the scientific
method.  If I were to do this, and was still alive and well 25 years
from now, you would simply make up a new, unscientific excuse, or
regurgitate one of the old ones, like, "gee, the HIV clone you got must
have somehow mutated into a form that is not dangerous."  If you can't
see how ridiculous this situation is, then you have bigger problems
than whether the "HIV/AIDS" claims have any foundation in scientific
reality or not.
Chris Noble - 10 Mar 2006 09:19 GMT
> I am not denying anything.  I am asking for strong evidence, or in the
> case of "HIV/AIDS," something that remotely resembles scientific
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> than whether the "HIV/AIDS" claims have any foundation in scientific
> reality or not.

You are quite correct. To be scientifically valid a larger sample size
would be needed. So let's take a thousand Denialists and infect them
with this stretch of DNA.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/viewer.fcgi?db=nucleotide&val=9409797

Macfarlane Burnet, Clunies Ross, and Fenner all injected themselves
with myoma virus just to prove to the public that it was harmless to
humans. Do HIV denialists have the same courage?

You have been previously provided with evidence. You simply choose to
ignore it.

Chris Noble
wilyretrovirus - 10 Mar 2006 16:34 GMT
Chris,
one would think you'd be tired of this particular "back and forth" when it
comes to "denialists" offering to be injected with "HIV".  

You complain about the same tired old arguments...but here you are!  Just
can't stop yourself.  If "montygram" doesn't have anything new to say on
the subject, why are you wasting your valuable time?

Oh well, I'm sure you'll be complaining about rehashed arguments again in
the future, despite your active involvement in perpetuating them.  
GMCarter - 10 Mar 2006 19:25 GMT
>Oh well, I'm sure you'll be complaining about rehashed arguments again in
>the future, despite your active involvement in perpetuating them.  

LOL...that's because the denialists like you keep raising the same
tired old, long-refuted sh.t.
Chris Noble - 12 Mar 2006 02:11 GMT
> Chris,
> one would think you'd be tired of this particular "back and forth" when it
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Oh well, I'm sure you'll be complaining about rehashed arguments again in
> the future, despite your active involvement in perpetuating them.

I have several character flaws. One of them is caring about people that
delude themselves about HIV. I don't want to see more people die.

Chris Noble
Iconoclaster - 19 Mar 2006 02:45 GMT
>"I have several character flaws. One of them is caring about people that
delude themselves about HIV. I don't want to see more people die."

So we have something in common after all.  Why don't you come over to our
side and stop driving poor sick people to their deaths by poisoning.
Everything wil be forgiven.
Iconoclaster - 19 Mar 2006 02:39 GMT
>"Macfarlane Burnet, Clunies Ross, and Fenner all injected themselves with
myoma virus just to prove to the public that it was harmless to humans. Do
HIV denialists have the same courage?"

Yes, we do have the same courage.  But stop pretending you HAVE any HIV
(or anybody else does).
Who the hell knows what that stretch of DNA is that you're dangling in
front of our noses?  You're deceiving the whole world with your tales
about HIV.  What guarantee do we have that you don't intend to inject us
with something really deadly, just to prove your point?
GMCarter - 19 Mar 2006 12:49 GMT
>Yes, we do have the same courage.  But stop pretending you HAVE any HIV
>(or anybody else does).

HIV exists. Only a few cranks, reviled by many even in their own
quixotic denialist movement, believe it does not.

Ergo, you are a crank.
Iconoclaster - 23 Mar 2006 02:07 GMT
>"HIV exists. Only a few cranks, reviled by many even in their own
quixotic denialist movement, believe it does not.
Ergo, you are a crank."

Gee, I've never seen it explained in such a clear way.  What logic!
GMCarter - 24 Mar 2006 00:24 GMT
>>"HIV exists. Only a few cranks, reviled by many even in their own
>quixotic denialist movement, believe it does not.
>Ergo, you are a crank."
>
>Gee, I've never seen it explained in such a clear way.  What logic!

Finally! You're beginning to see the truth.
Chris Noble - 20 Mar 2006 01:10 GMT
> >"Macfarlane Burnet, Clunies Ross, and Fenner all injected themselves with
> myoma virus just to prove to the public that it was harmless to humans. Do
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> about HIV.  What guarantee do we have that you don't intend to inject us
> with something really deadly, just to prove your point?

I don't care whether you think this particular stretch of DNA is an
exogenous retrovirus currently labelled HIV.

We can call it sequence U39362 if you want.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/viewer.fcgi?db=nucleotide&val=9409797

What I care about is whether you have the courage to transfect yourself
with it.

You know the exact DNA sequence. You know exactly what it is. What are
you afraid of?

Chris Noble
Iconoclaster - 23 Mar 2006 02:20 GMT
>"I don't care whether you think this particular stretch of DNA is an
exogenous retrovirus currently labelled HIV."

Indeed I don't think that.

>"What I care about is whether you have the courage to transfect yourself
with it."

I don't.  Being injected with a foreign DNA never did any organism any
good.  Not even plants.
Yes,from the sequence I can see what it is.  But not where it came from.
Just because someone stuck it in the database doesn't mean it is related
to an exogenous retrovirus containing RNA.
Chris Noble - 23 Mar 2006 11:06 GMT
> >"I don't care whether you think this particular stretch of DNA is an
> exogenous retrovirus currently labelled HIV."
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Just because someone stuck it in the database doesn't mean it is related
> to an exogenous retrovirus containing RNA.

It isn't just stuck in the database. The references are also given.
http://tinyurl.com/f7zfd

You can find out exactly where it comes from. In this case from the
blood of an AIDS patient.

You can also study the sequence using tools such as BLAST
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/BLAST/

You can compare the sequence with the human genome to see whether it is
an endogenous retrovirus.

You can compare the translated proteins from the sequence with the
antigens used in modern antibody and antigen tests. What a wild
coincidence! The sequence codes for the exact same antigens that are
used in the HIV tests.

Chris Noble
GMCarter - 10 Mar 2006 19:25 GMT
>I am not denying anything.

Yes, you are.
Iconoclaster - 19 Mar 2006 02:28 GMT
>"Denialists keep on making the offer to inject themselves with HIV but
always come up with excuses when push comes to shove."

How can we take that remark seriously if you don't even HAVE HIV to inject
anybody with?
Some slop from a stimolated co-culture won't do.  The devil may know
what's in there.
Gary Stein - 11 Mar 2006 22:04 GMT
Monty I've been taking AZT twice a day for over ten years what do you hope
to prove by a short 4 year trial?????

Gary Stein

>I will take you up on that offer Chris, under one of two conditions:
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Let's get this done and demonstrate who is correct, and who is not.
Chris Noble - 12 Mar 2006 09:42 GMT
> Monty I've been taking AZT twice a day for over ten years what do you hope
> to prove by a short 4 year trial?????
>
> Gary Stein

My guess is that the Denialists would in monty's words "simply make up
a new, unscientific excuse, or
regurgitate one of the old ones" for your continued health despite
taking AZT.

You must be particularly strong to survive AZT. Most people would be
dead by now.

Or, you'll get the same treatment that Magic Johnson gets. You must be
lying. You are a paid shill of the pharmaceutical companies.

I also expect that if Duesberg ever does infect himself with a virulent
strain of HIV and if he does progress to AIDS and die from an
AIDS-related opportunistic infection the Denialists will get Al-Bayati
to write a "coroner's report" claiming that he really died from an
allergic reaction to some medication.

Chris Noble
Iconoclaster - 19 Mar 2006 02:49 GMT
>"You must be particularly strong to survive AZT. Most people would be dead
by now."
"Or, you'll get the same treatment that Magic Johnson gets. You must be
lying. You are a paid shill of the pharmaceutical companies."

Exactly!  I couldnt have said it better myself.

>"I also expect that if Duesberg ever does infect himself with a virulent
strain of HIV and if he does progress to AIDS and die from an AIDS-related
opportunistic infection the Denialists will get Al-Bayati to write a
"coroner's report" claiming that he really died from an allergic reaction
to some medication."

Naw... Couldn't happen.  Too many IF's.
Sean McHugh - 26 Mar 2006 06:10 GMT


> > Monty I've been taking AZT twice a day for over ten years what do you hope
> > to prove by a short 4 year trial?????

> > Gary Stein

> My guess is that the Denialists would in monty's words "simply make up
> a new, unscientific excuse, or
>  regurgitate one of the old ones" for your continued health despite
> taking AZT.

> You must be particularly strong to survive AZT. Most people would be
> dead by now.

> Or, you'll get the same treatment that Magic Johnson gets. You must be
> lying. You are a paid shill of the pharmaceutical companies.

> I also expect that if Duesberg ever does infect himself with a virulent
> strain of HIV and if he does progress to AIDS and die from an
> AIDS-related opportunistic infection the Denialists will get Al-Bayati
> to write a "coroner's report" claiming that he really died from an
> allergic reaction to some medication.

> Chris Noble

It seems to me that Al-Bayati is being portrayed as a clown and his
report as a farce. The following does not support that view:

http://www.justiceforej.com/

~ Dear Ms. Maggiore:

~ As a Professor of Pathology at the University of Illinois at
~ Chicago, one of the nation’s largest medical schools, I analyze
~ many similar reports in the course of a single week.

~ From my experience in this area, I find Al-Bayati’s report on
~ Eliza Jane Scovill to be one of the most thorough and well-studied
~ investigations I have ever reviewed. If more pathologists used
~ Al-Bayati’s same logical and scientific methodology, I believe
~ there would be little need for inquests, charges of medical
~ malpractice and fraud, and certainly less medical error in
~ autopsies, diagnosis, treatment, and critical care practices.

~ I would only emphasize what Dr. Al Bayati developed quite
~ adequately from a technical standpoint in noting how the
~ independent neuroconsultant failed to perform the proper controls
~ for the p24 staining of the microglia and neurons in this case.
~ It should not escape the attention of readers, especially those
~ not familiar with the technical language of these of reports,
~ that the detection of the p24 antigen is not in any way diagnostic
~ of the presence of HIV, or any other virus or pathogenic state.
~ Positive staining for p24 in this instance, as in all cases reported
~ in the published literature, is without scientific basis since
~ positive staining can also be found in normal tissues and contexts.

~ I believe Al-Bayati’s analysis and report represents the state of
~ the art in terms of methodology, completeness, and accuracy, and
~ serves as a textbook model of how to conduct a differential
~ diagnosis.

~ Andrew Maniotis, PhD.
~ Professor of Pathology and
~ Program Director in the Cell and Developmental Biology of Cancer,
~ Department of Pathology, Anatomy and Cell Biology, and Bioengineering,
~ University of Illinois at Chicago, USA

I apologise for the big quote.

Best Regards,

Sean McHugh
Chris Noble - 27 Mar 2006 06:50 GMT
> > > Monty I've been taking AZT twice a day for over ten years what do you hope
> > > to prove by a short 4 year trial?????
[quoted text clipped - 61 lines]
> ~ Department of Pathology, Anatomy and Cell Biology, and Bioengineering,
> ~ University of Illinois at Chicago, USA

Dr Maniotis is a long time HIV "skeptic". He is a co-author of Perth
Group articles.
He is also on the advisory board of Maggiore's Alive and Well group.

http://www.aliveandwell.org/html/top_bar_pages/aboutus.html

Note Maniotis like Al-Bayati is not a a clinical pathologist. He is not
licenced to perform autopsies or act as a clinical pathologist.

None of this means that Al-Bayati is necessarily a clown.

I base my opinion on the riduclous things Al-Bayati claims.

In this interview
http://clients.loudeye.com/imc/brisbaneimc/mohammed_al-bayatipt2.mp3
Al-Bayati gives his alternate view on the causal link between nitrite
or pooper use and kaposi's sarcoma.

Abuse of "poppers" causes headaches.
Take aspirin for headaches.
Aspirin causes thrombocytopenia.
Presribed corticosteroids for thrombocytopenia.
Corticosteroids causes AIDS and KS.

This is whay I would call him a clown. He comes up with wild inventive
and totally incredible explanations.

Chris Noble
Sean McHugh - 08 Apr 2006 04:59 GMT
> > > > Monty I've been taking AZT twice a day for over ten years what do you hope
> > > > to prove by a short 4 year trial?????

> > > > Gary Stein

> > > My guess is that the Denialists would in monty's words "simply make up
> > > a new, unscientific excuse, or
> > >  regurgitate one of the old ones" for your continued health despite
> > > taking AZT.

> > > You must be particularly strong to survive AZT. Most people would be
> > > dead by now.

> > > Or, you'll get the same treatment that Magic Johnson gets. You must be
> > > lying. You are a paid shill of the pharmaceutical companies.

> > > I also expect that if Duesberg ever does infect himself with a virulent
> > > strain of HIV and if he does progress to AIDS and die from an
> > > AIDS-related opportunistic infection the Denialists will get Al-Bayati
> > > to write a "coroner's report" claiming that he really died from an
> > > allergic reaction to some medication.

> > > Chris Noble

> > It seems to me that Al-Bayati is being portrayed as a clown and his
> > report as a farce. The following does not support that view:

> > http://www.justiceforej.com/

> > ~ Dear Ms. Maggiore:

> > ~ As a Professor of Pathology at the University of Illinois at
> > ~ Chicago, one of the nation's largest medical schools, I analyze
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> > ~ malpractice and fraud, and certainly less medical error in
> > ~ autopsies, diagnosis, treatment, and critical care practices.

> > ~ I would only emphasize what Dr. Al Bayati developed quite
> > ~ adequately from a technical standpoint in noting how the
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> > ~ in the published literature, is without scientific basis since
> > ~ positive staining can also be found in normal tissues and contexts.

> > ~ I believe Al-Bayati's analysis and report represents the state of
> > ~ the art in terms of methodology, completeness, and accuracy, and
> > ~ serves as a textbook model of how to conduct a differential
> > ~ diagnosis.

> > ~ Andrew Maniotis, PhD.
> > ~ Professor of Pathology and
> > ~ Program Director in the Cell and Developmental Biology of Cancer,
> > ~ Department of Pathology, Anatomy and Cell Biology, and Bioengineering,
> > ~ University of Illinois at Chicago, USA

> Dr Maniotis is a long time HIV "skeptic". He is a co-author of Perth
> Group articles.
> He is also on the advisory board of Maggiore's Alive and Well group.

> http://www.aliveandwell.org/html/top_bar_pages/aboutus.html

> Note Maniotis like Al-Bayati is not a a clinical pathologist. He is not
> licenced to perform autopsies or act as a clinical pathologist.

This is a lot about what these people aren't, while ignoring what
they are. You are obviously like to appeal to authority, yet in
doing so, you dismiss with the wave of a hand the opinion from of
a professor of pathology, on a matter of pathology. Al-Bayati's
(the clown) credentials you even more enthusiastically dismiss.
Let's look at them:

SQ:
====================================================================
Education

1994    Diplomate, American Board of Toxicology (DABT)

    Al-Bayati was certified by the American Board of
       Toxicology in the areas of “Human, experimental,
       regulatory and environmental toxicology).

1989     University of California, Davis – PhD in Comparative
       Pathology

    Al-Bayati received a PhD in Comparative Pathology from UC
       Davis after studies including human pathology, medical
       immunology, medicalbiochemistry, analytical toxicology,
       environmental toxicology and experimental toxicology.

1985    PhD Qualifying Exam

    Al-Bayati entered the UC Davis PhD program after being
       examined by two MD pathologists from the university’s
       medical school. He passed on the first try.

====================================================================
EQ:

Interestingly, it appears a coroner doesn't need to be a pathologist:

http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/chain_1127620494.shtml

~ Something a lot of people don't know is that a "coroner" is actually
~ a political position, usually appointed, and most coroners are not
~ pathologists or even physicians. Rather, pathologists work for the
~ coroner's office, and are generally referred to as the Medical
~ Examiners. So was it Anthony Hernandez (the head of the Coroner's
~ office), Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran (the actual chief medical
~ examiner), or who exactly that came up with this? Was it merely a
~ political assertion or belief? If it was medical, what was the basis?

> None of this means that Al-Bayati is necessarily a clown.

Token and false generosity that dismisses the credentials he does have.

> I base my opinion on the riduclous things Al-Bayati claims.

> In this interview
> http://clients.loudeye.com/imc/brisbaneimc/mohammed_al-bayatipt2.mp3
> Al-Bayati gives his alternate view on the causal link between nitrite
> or pooper use and kaposi's sarcoma.

> Abuse of "poppers" causes headaches.
> Take aspirin for headaches.
> Aspirin causes thrombocytopenia.
> Presribed corticosteroids for thrombocytopenia.
> Corticosteroids causes AIDS and KS.

> This is whay I would call him a clown.
> He comes up with wild inventive
> and totally incredible explanations.

It is telling that nowhere have you afforded him or his report
any credibility at all. How is it that medical reviewers don't
find him and his report as laughable as you would have them?

>From the previous link:

~ Al-Bayati’s report has been selected for publication in Medical
~ Veritas, a peer-reviewed medical journal. The review board of
~ this journal includes more than 20 physicians and scientists,
~ none of whom have any association with the Maggiore-Scovill
~ family or Alive & Well AIDS Alternatives. A copy of the paper is
~ available here, with the permission of the publisher.

That's regarding the report. But what other silly things has
Al-Bayati been up to? Continuing from that page - I have not
included the list of publications:

~ Some of Dr. Al-Bayati’s most relevant publications are listed
~ below. A complete list of his scientific publications since
~ 1982 can be found on the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed
~ website. Apart from the references below indicating his experience
~ with unusual deaths of infants (often blamed on parents by doctors
~ and police),

Yes, the police have been dedicatedly sniffing around trying to nail
Christine Maggiore. A neighbour of hers complained that they were
asking so many questions about HIV tests and AIDS medications that
she thought they must have mistaken her for a doctor or a scientist.
She said they behaved more like they were from the HIVPD than the LAPD.
They even tried to alienate that neighbour against Christene Maggiore,
asking questions like, "If you were an HIV positive mother, wouldn't
you test your children?".

In a way it is comforting to know that police in the US are as
bright as they are down here. Anyway, continuing with Al-Bayati's
credentials:

~ Al-Bayati was the first researcher who reported pathologic changes
~ in thymus and lymph nodes in experimental animals exposed to high
~ levels of the pollutant Vanadium. He also discovered that the
~ compound  vanadate can cause renal fibrosis (kidney damage). This
~ work is another clear indication of Al-Bayati’s skill reading
~ pathology slides in all organs and his evaluation of hematology data
~ as well as his expertise in pathology and toxicology.

Now regarding that MP3 interview that you linked, due to his heavy
accent, I had considerable difficulty understanding what Al-Bayati
was saying and tried unsuccessfully to find a transcription of it.
The way you have presented it, one could get the impression that he
was presenting an exclusive mechanism. Listening to other parts of
the interview and reading his submissions as published in the British
Medical Journal, I don't believe that this is the case. For instance,
he also talks about the role of alcohol, cocaine, AZT, protease
inhibitors and heroin.

But what is pertinent is that you were mocking his report on Eliza's
death. What in it did you find ridiculous? Here is that report:

http://www.justiceforej.com/ej-medveritas.pdf

Perhaps more importantly, what did you find so contrastingly
consistent, erudite and convincing about the coroner's finding of
AIDS related pneumonia? Additionally, I ask the following:

(i) Does an apparently healthy child, getting sick and then
dying within three weeks - with only an ear infection except for the
last two days - describe the normal progression for HIV -> AIDS ->
death?

(ii) Why is it that none of the several other doctors and physicians
were able to find pneumonia - let alone AIDS related pneumonia? Is
pneumonia that hard to detect?

(iii) Was a blood sample taken? Did it test HIV+ ?

(iv) Why was the body released to the mortuary with no finding of the
cause of death?  

(v) Why, after a month, was there still no finding for the cause of
death? How can that be? After all, you are all so certain here,
because it's so obvious, right?

(vi) Why is it that it was only after three further months, after the
coroner angrily found out about the mother testing mother testing HIV
positive (later testing negative), that AIDS related pneumonia was
determined as the cause of death?

Chris, I don't think this sad matter will ever go to before a court.
HIV/AIDS has too much to lose. Trial by media is a much safer option.
AIDS lobbyists would do well to hope that it stays there.

Best Regards,

Sean McHugh

-
Chris Noble - 08 Apr 2006 08:52 GMT
> > > > > Monty I've been taking AZT twice a day for over ten years what do you hope
> > > > > to prove by a short 4 year trial?????
[quoted text clipped - 77 lines]
> (the clown) credentials you even more enthusiastically dismiss.
> Let's look at them:

I am not appealing to authority. You are the one doing that.

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%)."

This is the main evidence that he presents to support his idea that HIV
does not cause AIDS.

I went and read all four papers. Guess what I found.

All patients in these studies were HIV positive. It states this clearly
in the text of the articles. Anyone can go to the library and read
them. Al-Bayati simply lies about them. He repeats this lie in the book
that he sells.

> SQ:
> ====================================================================
[quoted text clipped - 60 lines]
> any credibility at all. How is it that medical reviewers don't
> find him and his report as laughable as you would have them?

Which medical reviewers are you talking about?

The only people that I have seen taking himseriously are HIV
"rethinkers" , anti-vaccionationists, and shaken-baby "rethinkers".

> >From the previous link:
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Al-Bayati been up to? Continuing from that page - I have not
> included the list of publications:

Have you looked at this Medical Veritas journal? Have you read the
titles of some of the papers. Do you notice a difference bewteen this
journal and say the Lancet or the BMJ.

> ~ Some of Dr. Al-Bayati's most relevant publications are listed
> ~ below. A complete list of his scientific publications since
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
> he also talks about the role of alcohol, cocaine, AZT, protease
> inhibitors and heroin.

I didn't have any trouble understanding what he said. It was just the
wild improbable chain of events that he invents that is ridiculous.

> But what is pertinent is that you were mocking his report on Eliza's
> death. What in it did you find ridiculous? Here is that report:
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> last two days - describe the normal progression for HIV -> AIDS ->
> death?

There are conflicting reports about the health of the child. The
medical records show a pronounced failure to thrive after the age of
one. Babies weight's very considerably at birth but normally follow a
consistent curve. A baby with a birth weight in the 30 percentile will
normally follow this percentile as it grows. If the baby drops down to
the 5 percentile this indicates a possible problem.

Christine Maggiore is anti-western medicine. The fact that she took the
child to several doctors and ended up giving her antibiotics tells me
that the child was sicker than she makes out.

In addition, yes, this is a typical progression for HIV disease
particularly in children. The first sign, if CD4 counts are not
monitored, can be an opportunistic infection like PCP. If PCP is not
recognised and treated in a short period of time it is very often
fatal.

> (ii) Why is it that none of the several other doctors and physicians
> were able to find pneumonia - let alone AIDS related pneumonia? Is
> pneumonia that hard to detect?

It comes out that one of her own doctors suspected pneumonia at an
early stage. He also hinted that Maggiore was not being completely
honest about Eliza's health.

> (iii) Was a blood sample taken? Did it test HIV+ ?

Apparently a sample was available at some stage and sent for analysis.
I do not know if a conclusive result was obtained. P24 antigen testing
on brain samples was positive. Negative controls were used.

> (iv) Why was the body released to the mortuary with no finding of the
> cause of death?

Why not? Coroner's reports are often completed only after all tests are
in.

> (v) Why, after a month, was there still no finding for the cause of
> death? How can that be? After all, you are all so certain here,
> because it's so obvious, right?

How long does it take for a normal coroner's report?

> (vi) Why is it that it was only after three further months, after the
> coroner angrily found out about the mother testing mother testing HIV
> positive (later testing negative), that AIDS related pneumonia was
> determined as the cause of death?

How long does a normal coroner's report take?

> Chris, I don't think this sad matter will ever go to before a court.
> HIV/AIDS has too much to lose. Trial by media is a much safer option.
> AIDS lobbyists would do well to hope that it stays there.

You're starting to sound more and more like a conspiracy theorist.
"HIV/AIDS has too much to lose"?

Chris Noble
js - 08 Apr 2006 11:31 GMT
Le Sat, 08 Apr 2006 09:52:11 +0200, Chris Noble <ChrisJNoble@hotmail.com>  
a écrit:

> You're starting to sound more and more like a conspiracy theorist.
> "HIV/AIDS has too much to lose"?
>
> Chris Noble

Noble ! I was worrying about you since you haven't answered my latest  
posts. But I see you're still hangin' around spreading the sh.t.

Tell me, don't you really have nothing better to do than try to defend the  
AID$ cause while referring to the death of Christine Maggiore's little  
daughter? You guys remind me of a bunch a vultures.

Hey, I could use that image in my next letter to ACTUP NY, in case I write  
a third one. Wolves, shotguns, vultures and AIDS apologists. Inspiration!!
Iconoclaster - 19 Mar 2006 02:22 GMT
>"Are you afraid of a few thousand bps of DNA?"

Sure.  Nucleic acids are lousy antigens, so my superb immune system
wouldn't be much help.  And foreign DNA can cause tumors.  Even plants
experience that.
And by the way, the NIH brochures you cite, describing that repository,
look like weekly shopping flyers of my local supermarket.

>"You can claim that it is not the genome of a retrovirus that causes AIDS
but will you infect yourself with it?"

Well, why would I assume that a certain sequence is the genome of a
retrovirus, just because somebody says so?  If they don't have the
complete virus for comparison?
And injecting myself with stuff that nobody knows what it is exactly?
Thanks, but no thanks.
Sean McHugh - 19 Mar 2006 08:25 GMT
> >"Are you afraid of a few thousand bps of DNA?"
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> And injecting myself with stuff that nobody knows what it is exactly?
> Thanks, but no thanks.

Hi ico[etc.],

As one who is also sceptical of the HIV/AIDS paradigm, could I ask a
favour? Could you please not snip the attributions from the top of
posts? They are the things that say:

          Jimmy Snooks wrote:

          > Joe Bloggs wrote:

News clients add them for a reason. Apart from their making the thread
easier to follow, anything that is quoted should be identified as such
and credited appropriately. The attributions combined with the
conventional paragraph indenting (the >'s) achieves that, and this
should all be done automatically and correctly by whatever news client
you are using.

Best regards,

Sean Mchugh
Chris Noble - 20 Mar 2006 01:16 GMT
> >"Are you afraid of a few thousand bps of DNA?"
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> retrovirus, just because somebody says so?  If they don't have the
> complete virus for comparison?

The complete virus is the genome. It produces virus when transfected
into suitable cells.

> And injecting myself with stuff that nobody knows what it is exactly?
> Thanks, but no thanks.

We know exactlty what it is. You have the exact gene sequence. You can
see eactly which proteins are coded by the gene sequence.

Chris Noble
Iconoclaster - 23 Mar 2006 02:27 GMT
>"The complete virus is the genome. It produces virus when transfected
into suitable cells."

It does not.  Otherwise someone would have shown us those virus particles
that are produced.
Equating a DNA genome with an (RNA-containing) complete virus particle is
one of the fundamental lies the HIV high priests have bee trying to make
us believe for years now.  It remains a lie.
Gary Stein - 23 Mar 2006 21:47 GMT
>>"The complete virus is the genome. It produces virus when transfected
> into suitable cells."
>
> It does not.

Saying "It does not." is the equivalent of saying neener neener neener over
and over. While it might make you feel good Claster it is meaningless to the
rest of us. Chris gave you the citations tell us were they are wrong and be
more specific then "because I say so".

So far here in MHA you've had an, MD/PhD Virologist, an immunologist, and
several MD's explain the errors of your thinking, and your standard reply
has basically been "don't bother me with data, I don't need no stinking
data, your wrong and I'm right and I have no desire or ability to prove it".

That may have worked for you back in the day but it certainly doesn't
impress anyone in this forum other then to label you a blowhard and a fool.

Gary Stein
Chris Noble - 24 Mar 2006 09:50 GMT
> >"The complete virus is the genome. It produces virus when transfected
> into suitable cells."
>
> It does not.  Otherwise someone would have shown us those virus particles
> that are produced.

I doubt that many people working in the area particulary care what you
think as long as you don't give medical advice to people infected with
HIV. Get some perspective. You are not the centre of the world. Science
does not revolve around proving things to you.

The simple truth is that you are profoundly ignorant about the
literature. You naively assert that because you are not aware of
something then it cannot exist.

One of the ways that our knowledge about HIV has been broadened is
through infectious molecular clones. One common experiment is to make
mutations in the HIV genome, transfect cells and then observe the
morphology of the HIV mutants. This gives us information about the
function of the genes and the process of virion formation.

Here is a list of a few articles.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/86/7/2433.pdf
http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/reprint/69/5/2729.pdf
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=249152&blobtype=pdf
http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/reprint/69/3/1778.pdf
http://intl-jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/full/72/4/2846

Chris Noble
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.