Open letter to ACTUP New York
To : ACTUP New York
CC : Everybody else
Friends,
You must help me. I don’t know what to do anymore. Some days ago I
was hanging around on the Web again, surfing from one site to another.
That’s been my main occupation ever since I decided to stay at home
and lock everybody out in order to be sure that this fu**ing HIV will
never get me by the throat. Internet provides a lot of good information
about diseases, especially about HIV and AIDS. And recently also, of
course, about that go*da**ed H5N1 virus. Well, no birds around my place so
it doesn’t really bother me.
I’ve been reading much about Celia Farber’s ridiculous article
in Harper’s and reading all your debunking articles has been a lot
of fun for me. Really keeps me going, you know. The denialists are really
too silly for words, it’s almost another race of human beings,
don’t you think so ? Well, you might as well leave the human out of
it. Bloody retards, that’s what they are.
What bothers me though, is something I read on www.actupny.org :
>> http://www.actupny.org/reports/denialist_harpers.html
There’s a beautiful picture of three men, denier dummy’s of
course, burying their heads in the sand. But the phrase next to it, well,
it’s difficult to say but really, it drives me crazy.
AIDS DENIALISM = SEEING WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE
It must be said that I have read every single article written by you and
your friends so I hate the guts of the aids dissidents, but how can I get
away with this? Since I have read your definition of AIDS denialism, I am
trying very hard to only see what I don’t want to see but it
doesn’t work. For instance, the movie I didn’t want to see
yesterday, well, I saw it just because I didn’t want to see it. And
now I’m feeling all messed up because I saw the movie because I
wanted to see it because I didn’t want to see it. So in the end I
saw what I wanted to see. Does that mean that I’m an AIDS denier
now?
I can’t decide anymore. I finally read Celia Farber’s article
because I thought that reading the crap myself would get me out of my
awkward situation, but the opposite happened : I think Celia’s
writing does make a lot of sense. Is that because I see in the article
what I want to see? It’s strange. All of a sudden, I have the
impression that we are suffering a total lack of elementary logic where
the deniers do seem brilliant. Well, maybe that’s also because Celia
really looks very cute on that picture. Maybe I’ll have some more of
the crap. And now I come to think of it: if the deniers were right, I
could go unlock my front door and get some fresh air.
Well, I started my letter asking you for help, but now I’ve written
it all down, I don’t think I need it anymore. I feel kind of silly
all of a sudden. Being locked away from the world and all that. I’m
going to have a closer look at virusmyth.com
Regards,
Jan Spreen
Chris Noble - 27 Mar 2006 06:16 GMT
<blah>
Yes, I do believe that someone that promotes Hamer's "New Medicine" is
%100 guilty of seeing what they want to see.
http://www.swisscancer.ch/dt_fr/content/orange/pdf/skak/01_02_hamer_e.pdf
Chris Noble
js - 27 Mar 2006 07:47 GMT
Le Mon, 27 Mar 2006 07:16:49 +0200, Chris Noble <ChrisJNoble@hotmail.com>
a écrit:
> <blah>
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Chris Noble
Noble! I knew you wouldn't deceive me!
As all regular mainstream thinkers you didn't
get any further than the pdf file on the
swisscancer site for lazy brains.
For thinkers with more energie there's an answer
to the swiss sheep herders you can download from:
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jan.spreen/scac.pdf
jspreen
Iconoclaster - 01 Apr 2006 01:41 GMT
Come out fighting, Mr. Noble! You can't take this lying down. That gives
me an opportunity too, to jump all over you again.
Chris Noble - 01 Apr 2006 08:54 GMT
> Come out fighting, Mr. Noble! You can't take this lying down. That gives
> me an opportunity too, to jump all over you again.
I actually thought that Jan Spreen's response did more to demonstrate
that he is guilty of seeing what he wants to see than I could.
Please do jump in and defend Hamers "new medicine" with Hamer foci on
CT scans that appear to be artefacts.
There is no evidence to support Hamer's ideas. Just anecdotes and an
habilitation dissertation that was turned down by the University.
Supporters like Jan Spreen will continue to support this
pseudoscientific tripe despite the lack of evidence.
So rather than continuing your trolling behaviour why don't you find
the evidence for the "New medicine".
Chris Noble
Chris Noble - 01 Apr 2006 08:54 GMT
> Come out fighting, Mr. Noble! You can't take this lying down. That gives
> me an opportunity too, to jump all over you again.
I actually thought that Jan Spreen's response did more to demonstrate
that he is guilty of seeing what he wants to see than I could.
Please do jump in and defend Hamers "new medicine" with Hamer foci on
CT scans that appear to be artefacts.
There is no evidence to support Hamer's ideas. Just anecdotes and an
habilitation dissertation that was turned down by the University.
Supporters like Jan Spreen will continue to support this
pseudoscientific tripe despite the lack of evidence.
So rather than continuing your trolling behaviour why don't you find
the evidence for the "New medicine".
Chris Noble
js - 02 Apr 2006 14:27 GMT
Le Sat, 01 Apr 2006 09:54:43 +0200, Chris Noble <ChrisJNoble@hotmail.com>
a écrit:
>> Come out fighting, Mr. Noble! You can't take this lying down. That
>> gives
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> Chris Noble
Nobel! You outsmart all of us! What a brilliant idea to send your clumsy
answer TWICE and thus transform it into a brilliant post. I can't argue
with that. Besides, I cannot think of any evidence for the New Medicine
that would be of any help for people who don't want to see what they want
to see.
(Hint for your answer: copy and paste my "I cannot think of any evidence
for the New Medicine" and start with that as a quote. You win hands up.)
jspreen
monty1945@lycos.com - 03 Apr 2006 09:40 GMT
I'm only interested in evidence obtained via the scientific method. I
don't see that with the dogma of "HIV/AIDS." I have plenty of
anecdotes that contradict this dogma, but science is not based upon
anecdotes that sound the most dramatic, though Mr. Noble seems to think
this to be the case. I proposed an experiment which would settle the
issue, but Noble responds that his anecdotes are all that are
necessary. If you are interested, Noble, I am working on establishing
a forum on the internet that will feature debates on these kinds of
issues. It will be moderated, and if you do not supply evidence that
meets the criteria of the scientific method, the moderator will point
this out, and you will asked to do so, or you will forfeit the debate.
Because of this is the format, I'm sure you that will have little
interest in participating, but the offer stands.
GMCarter - 03 Apr 2006 11:08 GMT
>I'm only interested in evidence obtained via the scientific method.
Bullshit. You wouldn't know the scientific method if it bit you on
your a.s.
Otherwise, you would be familiar with the literature which is
ABUNDANT.
Go to PubMed. Type in HIV as a start.
George M. Carter
Iconoclaster - 25 Apr 2006 01:53 GMT
Don't keep up your hopes too high, Monty. Mr. Noble won't show up there.
He does move around on other boards, but he feels safest here in the
snakepit.
Iconoclaster - 25 Apr 2006 01:46 GMT
>"So rather than continuing your trolling behaviour why don't you find the
evidence for the "New medicine"."
Not an unreasonable request... So, while I'm looking for it, why don't
you in the meantime find the evidence for the HIV/AIDS paradigm?