Duesberg question...

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

benzoylmethyl ecgonine - 22 Jun 2006 07:02 GMT

I keep hearing this name Duesberg over and over and even today in the
San Francisco Guardian an article mentioned him and how dangerous his
bizarre theory that HIV doesn't cause AIDS was.

So my question is who the f.ck is this Duesberg dude? Why does anyone
give a flying f.ck about his opinion? I often spout the most radical
and bizarre opinions, but my words don't threaten the foundation of
society like his seem to do. So what if he thinks HIV is harmless and
that "AIDS" is something unrelated to the virus, perhaps having
something to do with black helicopters and CIA mindcontrol rays? He
is obviously a kook, but life is full of kooks and y'all are just
feeding the troll (and I am king of trolls) and your negative reaction
to him simply plays into his game of portraying himself a martyr for
his unorthodox theories.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"But what was strange was that although Goldstein was hated and despised
by everybody, although every day and a thousand times a day, on
platforms, on the telescreen, in newspapers, in books, his theories were
refuted, smashed, ridiculed, held up to the general gaze for the pitiful
rubbish that they were in spite of all this, his influence never seemed
to grow less. Always there were fresh dupes waiting to be seduced by
him. A day never passed when spies and saboteurs acting under his
directions were not unmasked by the Thought Police. He was the
commander of a vast shadowy army, an underground network of conspirators
dedicated to the overthrow of the State..."
-- 1984
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply to this Message

Hayek - 22 Jun 2006 20:02 GMT

> I keep hearing this name Duesberg over and over and
> even today in the San Francisco Guardian an article
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> portraying himself a martyr for his unorthodox
> theories.

Did you notice that the mainstream is always wrong ?

The mainstream thougth the Earth was flat.
The mainstream thougth the Earth was in the middle.
The mainstream laughed at Pasteur and his germs.

Some 100 years ago, the mainstream thought everything
there was to know about physics, Maxwell and
thermodynamics explained everything. Then Planck and
MMX, Lorentz & Einstein turned everything in physics
upside down. Einstein became mainstream, and was wrong
about Quantum mechanics.

These were not conspiracies, just people who failed to
see the deeper workings of nature, because they
refused physical proof when it was presented to them.

Uwe Hayek.

Signature

L'intellectuel qui pense comme autrui ne sert à rien !

This is the bitterest pain among men, to have much
knowledge but no power.
Herodotus (484 BC - 430 BC), The Histories of Herodotus

IDIOCY - Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups.

Reply to this Message

benzoylmethyl ecgonine - 23 Jun 2006 09:40 GMT

Hayek wrote...

> Did you notice that the mainstream is always wrong ?
>
> The mainstream thougth the Earth was flat.
> The mainstream thougth the Earth was in the middle.
> The mainstream laughed at Pasteur and his germs.

The mainstream laughed at those cold fusion dudes, but they have
a devoted following of people convinced that their experiment
worked and that the establishment is suppressing the discovery
to protect the oil industry.

> Some 100 years ago, the mainstream thought everything
> there was to know about physics, Maxwell and
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> see the deeper workings of nature, because they
> refused physical proof when it was presented to them.

Proof? I am pretty sure science has proved that the HIV virus
damages the immune system and indirectly causes the host's
death through opportunistic infections. I am pretty sure that
science has proved that the various antiviral drugs work, as I
personally know someone who has been given 10 extra years of
life (if you can call it that) because of the drugs.

The drugs aren't perfect, but then I guess it just sucks to be
someone who contracted the nastiest virus on earth. I'm sorry
the drugs have side-effects, but I think everyone agrees they
are less unpleasant than the sensation of literally rotting away
like a kilo of raw hamburger left out in the sun. And yes, the
pharmaceutical companies are making a fortune off of these drugs,
so if you don't like it you should be working to stop the spread
of the HIV virus so as to deprive the greedy companies of new
customers and cause them to go bankrupt.

Reply to this Message

Hayek - 23 Jun 2006 17:54 GMT

> Hayek wrote...
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> establishment is suppressing the discovery to
> protect the oil industry.

But the mainstraim bougth hiv-aids did not they ?
And from a guy (Gallo) that " discovered viruses that
would cause leukemia, and these viruses and the link
with leukemia was non existent. Yet you bought it.

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/cjinterviewep.htm
QUOTE
EPE: By 1984 Gallo had already spent more than a
decade researching retroviruses and cancer. He was one
of the many virologists caught up in President Nixon's
decade of war against cancer. In the mid 1970s Gallo
claimed to have discovered the first human retrovirus
in patients with leukaemia. He claimed his data proved
the existence of a retrovirus which he called
HL23V.(11,21) Now, just like he would later do for
HIV, Gallo used antibody reactions to "prove" which
proteins in the cultures were viral proteins. And not
long afterwards others claimed to have found the same
antibodies in many people who did not have leukaemia.
However, a few years after that these same antibodies
were shown to occur naturally and be directed against
many substances that had nothing to do with
retroviruses.(22,23) Then it was realised that HL23V
was a big mistake. There was no HL23V retrovirus. So
the Gallo data turned out to be an embarrassment and
HL23V is now extinct. What’s interesting for us though
is that the evidence used to claim proof of the
existence of HL23V is the same kind of evidence said
to prove the existence of HIV. In fact the evidence
for HL23V was better than HIV.
UNQUOTE

>> Some 100 years ago, the mainstream thought
>> everything there was to know about physics,
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Proof? I am pretty sure

No, you are not. Besides being "pretty sure" is not
enough.

> science has proved that the HIV virus damages the
> immune system and indirectly causes the host's
> death through opportunistic infections.

Starvation causes the same thing.

And pcp- pneumonia is not an opportunistic infection.
It has nothing to do with the immune system.
Bac-trim destroys the lungs ability to get rid of
cellular debris. These are then the breeding ground of
fungii. The resulting fungal infection is then again
treated with bac-trim, further disabling the lungs to
execute this necessary function. In the end the
patient dies. Before AZT, bactrim was the medication
of choice given to aids sufferers and 90% of these
early cases died of pcp pneumonia. Bactrim should not
be given to people who consume(d) lots of alcohol.

> I am pretty sure

I am not. AZT was forbidden for all human consumption
in the sixties. We do not evolve that fast.

> that science has proved that the various antiviral
> drugs work, as I personally know someone who has
> been given 10 extra years of life (if you can call
> it that) because of the drugs.

In the Netherlands,population 16 million, in 2001,
there were 27 new aids cases. There where some 25000
hiv+ people. It is accepted that more than 70% can
live 25 years with hiv+ and be symptom free. And
without meds, acording to the standard protocol, not
to give meds to symptomless people. I have NEVER seen
that applied though, all the people i have spoken, and
the large majority of the case studies I read, were
all given meds to symptomless patients.

So your statement is very vacuous, you know "someone"
that has been given 10 years extra, while 70% gets 25
years to start with. And in five years, it will be 30
years. Without meds.

And I know TWO people that got 13 an 17 years extra,
because they took azt only once, and decided it was
not for them. When the first one started on
tritherapy, he died one year later.

> The drugs aren't perfect, but then I guess it just
> sucks to be someone who contracted the nastiest
> virus on earth.

Don't you think it sucks even more that there is no
virus, and to get killed by poisonous "medication" ?

No virus :
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/cjinterviewep.htm
http://theperthgroup.com/INTERVIEWS/cjepe.html

> I'm sorry the drugs have side-effects,

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/abnvp.htm
The study was called FTC 302. It was an abattoir.

[..] One patient developed a rash all over his body
and still has marks on the face. He told Dr Botes that
this had happened since using the drugs, but the
doctor said it was not the drugs causing the rash, but
the HI virus." Severe skin damage being a brand-new
AIDS indicator disease, according to Dr Botes. She’d
never heard of Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis apparently.
For which nevirapine is famous.
[..]
An official investigation found that two of the dead
died of liver failure, one of pancreas failure (both
conditions caused by acid lacidosis, a standard side
effect of antiretrovirals), and two of neurological
damage (likewise). Other trial subjects suffered
deafness, impaired speech, anal bleeding, sores that
wouldn’t heal, abdominal pains, weight loss, fevers,
pneumonia, insomnia, vomiting, and depression. The
investigation concluded that nevirapine had probably
caused the liver damage that had killed two of the
women. Not surprisingly, since of all so-called
antiretroviral drugs on the market, nevirapine is top
of the pops when it comes to wrecking livers. Even
worse than nucleoside analogue drugs in the AZT class,
and they’re not shy.
UNQUOTE

> but I think everyone agrees they are less
> unpleasant than the sensation of literally rotting
> away like a kilo of raw hamburger left out in the
> sun.

Is that the latest aids indicator disease ?

And yes, the

> pharmaceutical companies are making a fortune off
> of these drugs, so if you don't like it you should
> be working to stop the spread of the HIV virus so
> as to deprive the greedy companies of new customers
> and cause them to go bankrupt.

The problem lies not with the government : let aids
victims pay for their own medicine, and let the market
do its thing. People will start looking for cheaper
and better cures and find them. As happens now in
South Africa.

http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/press_release20050615.htm
QUOTE
The health improvements of the patients were achieved
following a nutritional health program without
concurrent ARV drugs. Just after a few weeks the
symptoms of AIDS, including ulcers, skin rashes, joint
pains, fatigue and other AIDS-related symptoms
significantly decreased or disappeared completely.
Thus, with micronutrients alone, the AIDS patients
could reverse the symptoms of AIDS and lead almost
normal lives again.
Unquote

Uwe Hayek.

Signature

Reply to this Message

GMCarter - 23 Jun 2006 22:53 GMT

>> Hayek wrote...
>>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>would cause leukemia, and these viruses and the link
>with leukemia was non existent. Yet you bought it.

Already, you're displaying deep and profound ignorance. If it was only
some guy named Gallo and nobody else ever did any experiments or
investigations, you'd have a stellar point.

Gallo, though, is not even the original discoverer. Francoise
Barre-Sinoussi is. And Jay Levy.

And then there are THOUSANDS of researchers who have looked at the
genetics, molecular immunology...oh, lots of disciplines, looked at
HIV in the test tube, animals and humans....

But nope....you just squeak the same stupid f.cking tune that means
utterly nothing.

Drugs cause AIDS? Wow. That's just so pathetic it's braindead.

>http://www.denialist.net
>QUOTE
>EPE: By 1984 Gallo had already spent more than a
>decade researching retroviruses and cancer.

Yep. BFD.

snip..

>> science has proved that the HIV virus damages the
>> immune system and indirectly causes the host's
>> death through opportunistic infections.
>
>Starvation causes the same thing.

No, it doesn't. And most people with AIDS in the US, Europe and large
sections of the African populations are NOT starving.

However, nutrition DOES play an important role in managing the
disease. It is not a cure. Rath is a f.cking moron.

>And pcp- pneumonia is not an opportunistic infection.

Sigh. Wow. Then golly gosh, poopsie, what is it?

>It has nothing to do with the immune system.

No disease does, I'm sure! It's just Pixie Dust sprinkled in the air!

>Bac-trim destroys the lungs ability to get rid of
>cellular debris. These are then the breeding ground of
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>early cases died of pcp pneumonia. Bactrim should not
>be given to people who consume(d) lots of alcohol.

Where do you dig up this nonsense? Why in the world would anyone
believe this? Even the staunchest denialists of the day used to say
"take the bactrim if your T cells drop below 200." As prophylaxis.

The BIGGER problem was that so many people never got any treatment for
their PCP and died. I remember the 80s.

>> I am pretty sure
>
>I am not. AZT was forbidden for all human consumption
>in the sixties. We do not evolve that fast.

Oh f.ck it.

You're dumber than a f.cking bag of rocks.

George M. Carter

Reply to this Message

DavidT - 23 Jun 2006 15:13 GMT

> The mainstream laughed at Pasteur and his germs.

and the mainstream laughed at Coco the clown.

(to paraphrase Sagan)

Reply to this Message

js - 23 Jun 2006 15:44 GMT

Which shows that mainstream is not always wrong.
We should have continued to laugh about Pasteur and his f*ck*ng germs theory.

Surprised ? Do some googling with Antoine Bechamp.

A good read to start with "The Dream and Lie of Louis Pasteur" you can download at:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~dminoz/bechamp/pearson/dream_text.htm

The point is not that mainstream is always wrong or something like that.
The point is that people always think they are right, mainstream or not.

JS
---
http://www.nightsofarmour.com

Reply to this Message

Hayek - 23 Jun 2006 17:04 GMT

>> Did you notice that the mainstream is always wrong ?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> The point is not that mainstream is always wrong or something like that.

> The point is that people always think they are right, mainstream or not.

Nothing against different opinions, but it is the
mainstream that imposes their opinion, forcing others
to shut up.

Uwe Hayek.

Signature

Reply to this Message

Brian Mailman - 23 Jun 2006 17:58 GMT

> Nothing against different opinions, but it is the
> mainstream that imposes their opinion, forcing others
> to shut up.

How are you (or any of your sock puppets) being forced to "shut up?"

B/

Reply to this Message

GMCarter - 23 Jun 2006 22:57 GMT

>A good read to start with "The Dream and Lie of Louis Pasteur" you can download at:
>
>http://members.iinet.net.au/~dminoz/bechamp/pearson/dream_text.htm
>
>The point is not that mainstream is always wrong or something like that.
>The point is that people always think they are right, mainstream or not.

LOL. Wow, you're even dumber than I thought. From that very site, the
author claims "you will find convincing evidence that Pasteur
discovered nothing, and that he deliberately appropriated, falsified
and perverted another man's work."

The analogy here is the same. Germ theory is an accurate model. HIV is
an accurate model. The putative discoverers, Pasteur and Gallo,
respectively, are in some dispute.

Not the underlying theory.

Geez. If you're so lame you have to argue by analogy, at least come up
with one that may support, if glancingly, whatever point it is you're
struggling to make.

George M. Carter

Reply to this Message

drpsduke@yahoo.com - 07 Jul 2006 00:35 GMT

> So my question is who the f.ck is this Duesberg dude? Why does anyone
> give a flying f.ck about his opinion?

Very few people did, really. Until the late 1990s when a group of
South Africans convinced their president, Thabo Mbeki, that Duesberg
and his cronies were correct and that AIDS did not exist. They created
the South African "Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel" which attempted to
convince the government of South Africa, that ignoring AIDS would make
it go away.

The South African government then ignored AIDS as much as possible for
a few years, but has finally begun to use antiretrovirals to prevent
mother to infant transmission in at least a few hospitals. In the
meantime, tens of thousands of infants were infected, and many of them
have already died. Nobody thought to ask the members of this "advisory
panel" to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
The members of the panel were allowed to tell any lies they wanted to,
without risk of any penalty. Pretty sad.

Reply to this Message

drpsduke@yahoo.com - 07 Jul 2006 00:54 GMT

> They created
> the South African "Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel" which attempted to
> convince the government of South Africa, that ignoring AIDS would make
> it go away.

See for example:
http://www.rethinkaids.info/body.cfm?id=100
where most of the "board of directors" of Rethink AIDS, claim to still
be advising the president of South Africa. Thabo Mbeki claims that
this "South Africa's Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel" is no longer
active, but the "rethinkers" still claim to be active members.

In the USA, as well as in Africa, it is legal to give bogus
pseudomedical advice on the web or in print. It is illegal to tell
lies about topics that have financial value, for example you cannot
falsely misrepresent the value of stocks or bonds. However, it is
legal to tell lies about health matters. I am guessing this is because
the legal/political profession is more closely tied to
financial/industrial than health professions.

Reply to this Message