 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / May 2006Raphael Lombardo
Last month Duesberg responded to this question "I also wanted to ask if you have any information as to the fate of Raphael Lombardo. In your book "Inventing the AIDS Virus" you quote (I think in full) a letter from Mr. Lombardo dated May 30, 1995 wherein he describes how he never used any recreational drugs or alcohol and has avoided an HIV treatments and you state that the letter "proves that true science does not depend on institutional authority." I'm wondering if you know if this is the same Raphael Lombardo who died of AIDS 6/11/1996 and is memorialized in AIDS quilt? (you can enter his name in http://www.aidsquilt.org/searchquilt.htm and see the panel) The dates and the locations seem to match, but I thought you may know for certain if they are the same person." with this response Hi Richard, I think you are right - the Raphael Lombardo, who wrote to me, and the one on the "quilt" are the same. In hindsight, I think his letter was almost too good to be true. I am afraid now, he described the man he wanted to be and his Italian family expected him to be, but not the one he really was. I think he died from Kaposi's. Did you know Hugh Christie? Also a gay friend of mine from London, filmmaker and editor of the very popular British gay-interested journal, Continuum. Christie campaigned actively against the health and AIDS hazards of poppers in Continuum. Like me, he was invited by Mbeki, to discuss the causes of AIDS in Africa in 2000. And a year or two later he passed away with Kaposi's, from long-term over-use/addiction to poppers! Regards, Peter D. Just think about it. In 1995 Raphael Lombardo was evidence that if you don't take AZT and/or recreational drugs you won't get AIDS. See http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pdazt.htm In 1996, after he died from AIDS, well he must have been lying about not taking drugs. Can there be a clearer example of cognitive dissonance? Science is about experiments that can be verified and repeated, Chris - sounds like you don't realize that. I asked you for just ONE piece of SCIENTIFIC evidence that you feel is strongest for the existence of a deadly virus that kills 10 years later in 29 different ways, but you only cite what is clearly anecdotal evidence of a person who says this or that. I have worked with several "AIDS patients," and one thing I have found that is as time goes by, they admit to doing more drugs or different drugs than on the first encounter with them, Studies have been done documenting how difficult it is to get the truth from people in questionnaires and other such non-science methods that are sold to the general public (and yourself, obviously) as "scientific." I suggest you read a book called "Radical Honesty," Chris, because you seem need it on a variety of levels. And a book that explains the scientific method would be of use to you as well, apparently. >Science is about experiments that can be verified and repeated, Chris - >sounds like you don't realize that. I asked you for just ONE piece of >SCIENTIFIC evidence that you feel is strongest for the existence of a >deadly virus that kills 10 years later in 29 different ways, but you >only cite what is clearly anecdotal evidence of a person who says this >or that. See. That is the most disingenuous horseshit I've seen puked out on this ng for ages. Chris has been one of THE most meticulous in responding with evidence from a variety of sources. Experiments of ALL kinds have been conducted and repeated continuously in the field of HIV disease. From genetic analysis to immunological experiment, from the test tube to animals to humans. There are so many papers out there that further refute Duesberg's completely idiotic notion that drugs cause AIDS (and gosh, only gay men do drugs, right?) What utter, complete, breathtaking and often LETHAL nonsense and foolishness. George M. Carter Fine, then I'm sure you are capable of citing ONE of them here, so that I can examine it, as I was trained to do in graduate school. Whenever I make a claim I back it with evidence from the relevant literature and I am willing to debate the interpretation of it. You refuse to cite ONE study, apparently fearful that I will examine it and point out how anyone with a basic understanding of the scientific method will see that it fails badly in that respect. Yes, you two seem to have a monopoly on sanctimony, but I am still waiting for ONE study to be cited, just as Kary Mullis asked for the study that established the "HIV/AIDS" claim in the first place, and many acted as if he were bothering them. What you want is not science, but a cult. Good luck to both of you on that venture. >Fine, then I'm sure you are capable of citing ONE of them here, so that >I can examine it, as I was trained to do in graduate school. Whenever [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >bothering them. What you want is not science, but a cult. Good luck >to both of you on that venture. A study about what? I don't need to cite ONE study. (Any more than I would cite ONE study that PROVED influenza causes the flu.) However, there are ample sources for reviewing information. As a so-called scientist of some lame sort or another, I'm sure you must know how to narrow the search? Perhaps not. One can review THOUSANDS. Just go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi type in HIV George M. Carter > Science is about experiments that can be verified and repeated, Chris - > sounds like you don't realize that. I asked you for just ONE piece of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > seem need it on a variety of levels. And a book that explains the > scientific method would be of use to you as well, apparently. The case I gave illustrates a perfect example of the "dissident" scientific method. Duesberg says that drugs not HIV cause AIDS. Raphael Lombardo says I don't take any drugs. He also went into great detail about the great amount of oral sex/anal sex/fisting/rimming that he did so I find it hard to believe that he was somehow coy about admitting to popper use. Duesberg includes his letter in his book as evidence that Drugs not HIV causes AIDS. At that point Lombardo was not a liar. His anecdote was valid. It was only after he inconveniently died of AIDS that he became a liar. How does Duesberg know he was a liar. Simple - because Duesberg knows that HIV does not cause AIDS. Therefore Lombardo must have been secretly taking drugs. Circular logic! Duesberg will never accept any evidence that HIV causes AIDS. He will always find some excuse however pitiful and disgusting for ignoring or denying the evidence. Any "dissident" that dies from AIDS can't have been a true "dissident". They will be accused of taking drugs. Because they are dead they are not able to defend themselves. Can anyone here provide a rational reason why Rapahel Lombardo was evidence that HIV does not cause AIDS in 1995 when his letter appeared in Duesberg's book but then when he died from AIDS he becomes a liar? Why did Duesberg include Lombardo's letter in his book if it wasn't valid evidence? Why did he suddenly become a liar once he died? Chris Noble
|
Reply to this Message |
 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.