Subscribe to:
POZ magazine
E-newsletters
Join POZ: Facebook MySpace Twitter Pinterest
Tumblr Google+ Flickr MySpace
POZ Personals
Sign In / Join
Username:
Password:

House of Numbers, An AIDS Documentary

| 121 Comments

House of Numbers is the title of a documentary film which according to its promotional material will "rock the foundations on which all conventional wisdom on HIV/AIDS is based" 

 I have seen the film.  It is completely unable to achieve this grandiose objective.  It is in fact an AIDS denialist film, despite the contention to the contrary by Brent Leung who made it.

 

  The denialists are a disparate group who remarkably continue to believe that HIV cannot be the causative agent of AIDS either because it is harmless or because it does not exist. There are even those who believe that AIDS itself does not exist as a distinct disease entity.    Of course there is no shortage of people with strange views that fly in the face of solid evidence.  We can mostly just ignore them.  But sometimes these views can be dangerous, and then we really do have to confront and challenge fallacious assertions that can lead to harm.

 

 

The Spectator is a weekly UK publication that had arranged a showing of the House of Numbers to be followed by a panel discussion of the film with audience participation. I had agreed to be one of the four panel members together with the filmmaker.  Several people asked me not to participate in this event, probably with the thought that it was wrong to associate in any capacity with individuals who hold such outrageous views.  There was also much activity on  UK blogs,  generally denouncing the Spectator event. It seems that a lot of people just did not want it to happen.

 

Two of the panel members withdrew so the event has now been cancelled.   This is a pity.  The film is as I said, dangerous.     It is dangerous specifically because it presents antiviral treatments as only toxic with no mention of their benefits.  Therefore it is justified to be very concerned that some people who need treatment may be dissuaded from receiving it after seeing the film.

 

I do accept that it is right to not prohibit individuals from expressing their views, no matter how distasteful.   But when these views carry danger it is particularly important that they be challenged with valid information.   It is absolutely wrong to ignore the film and allow it  a free hand in spreading misinformation.   As I have experienced when I was a member of President Mbeki's panel in S. Africa, it is impossible to argue with those who hold such denialist views.  They are impervious to reason.  It is therefore pointless to engage them in discussion. However, when their position is presented to the public, then it is right to try to expose the fallacy of their views to those who might be influenced by them and thus may come to harm as noted above regarding HIV infected people in need of treatment.

 

I should explain why this is definitely a denialist film despite the protestations of its director that it is not.

 

In providing a more or less equal, uncritical  and essentially neutral platform to those holding denialist views together with those who do not,  the filmmaker,  presenting himself as an unbiased observer merely asking  questions,  puts forward the impression that the issue of HIV's role in causation remains unsettled.  Although the film does not explicitly reject HIV as playing a causative role in AIDS, it most certainly leaves one with the impression that this, and even the existence of the virus, is merely conjecture.  This is a misleading presentation of the well established causative   link between HIV and AIDS as something that is just a theory, on a par with the theories of Dr Duesberg or of those who claim that HIV does not exist.

 

This is absurd and as I explained, also dangerous.

 

 

Conventional wisdom is absolutely sound regarding the existence of HIV and of its causal link with AIDS.    However not all conventional wisdom is so secure (in my opinion).   Mr Leung does point to some real controversies in HIV medicine.   But these are conflated with issues that are firmly settled.

 

I have had a pretty conventional training as a microbiologist and as an infectious diseases physician. 

From this perspective and accepting that AIDS is an infectious disease with HIV as its causative agent, there are several  controversial issues, where scientists and physicians do not speak with one voice.

 

We have to remember that this disease only came to our attention about thirty years ago.  There are bound to be controversies and disagreements as our knowledge of the disease and of its causative agent increases.   Researchers are not exempt from a perfectly human proclivity to make generalizations based on far from complete information.  In science this is a desirable activity as sometimes these generalizations prove to be fruitful hypotheses that lead to new discoveries.  On the other hand they can just lead to a dead end and may even retard progress.  Understandably, as long as information remains sketchy, such generalizations will be associated with legitimate controversy.   I'll just describe a few of the problems that I see as legitimate.

 

 

 

The film presents several   researchers who have opposing views on the role of co-factors.    Some researchers interviewed are adamant in their insistence that for AIDS to develop, co-factors are required in addition to HIV.  Others are equally confident that they are not needed.   

This may sometimes be a spurious conflict arising from differences in how the term, "co-factor" is understood.

AIDS has accrued its own peculiar terminology not usually seen in other infectious diseases. Co-factor is one example, or an infectious agent referred to as the "sole" cause of a disease.

In all infectious diseases there is an important distinction to be made between infection and disease.  Epidemiologists are concerned with theories of disease causation and recognize this distinction very clearly.  The attack rate is the parameter used to define the proportion of people exposed to an infectious agent who become ill.   The attack rate varies from infection to infection.   Rabies may be the only infectious disease with an attack rate of 100%.   

 

 We rarely know exactly what will determine the difference between an asymptomatic infection and one that produces overt disease. But we do know the general categories of influences. These concern both the organism and the host.  The virulence of the infecting organism, the size of the infecting dose or the way it is introduced into the body can all influence the outcome.

 

 Examples of host factors that can play a role in determining whether or not an asymptomatic infection will progress to a disease are the nature of the immune response, genetic characteristics, concurrent infections that affect susceptibility or  exert a synergistic effect.  

 

 It is the complex interplay of host and microbial factors that determine whether for example, one individual infected with hepatitis B virus will remain completely without symptoms and only know infection had occurred when antibodies to the virus are later detected, while in another individual infection results in fulminant  clinical hepatitis.  

 

HIV disease which includes AIDS is an infectious disease, resembling other infectious diseases.  In all of them, there are determinants of infection, factors influencing the attack rate which is almost always under 100%, and usually a variable course in disease progression.

 

The term co-factor when used by some could mean all these usually unknown host factors that influence the attack rate.   To others it may mean something specific - even if as yet unidentified, that is necessary for disease to develop in HIV infected individuals.   Used in the latter sense, it would represent a position close to that of the denialists, because it suggests that HIV is harmless in the absence of these other specific factors.   But when used in the former sense it would represent a more traditional understanding of infectious diseases.   

 

A closer questioning of those asked about the role of co-factors may reveal that there is in fact no disagreement on this issue.

 

 Those of us who accept HIV as the cause of AIDS should probably not use the term co-factor at all, and discuss AIDS as we would any infectious disease, where we understand that infection and disease are not synonymous. 

 

AIDS research is subject to all the pressures and influences that can affect any enterprise conducted by people whose incentives will be varied and complex.  Of course there will be instances of conflicts of interest and examples where legitimate criticism can be levelled at some researchers and commentators.   For example, case estimates have sometimes been presented as real numbers.   It is of course necessary to make such estimates when widespread testing is not feasible, but numbers should be clearly presented as estimates when that is what they are.  

 

  There are also technical issues where opinions differ.     Such perfectly understandable instances are exploited in this film to question the reliability of some solid achievements in HIV medicine.  We are without doubt able to detect antibodies against HIV. This ability is brought into question as the film would have us believe, because scientists may differ about which of the many tests available, alone or in combination, are the best ones to use in a particular setting.  

 

But because some researchers and commentators may be open to criticism on some points, it most definitely does not follow that they are mistaken on the general issue of causation.

 

Finally, I should explain why this film is also offensive to some of us.    There are many individuals who owe their lives to antiviral medications.  I have treated hundreds- into the thousands, of people with this disease since it was noticed in 1981.  I could have introduced many people whose lives have been saved to  Mr. Leung, so that their (or others) testimony might have been included in the film.  

My own experience as a physician is just at odds with the picture presented  concerning antiviral treatments.

  It is hard to adequately convey the feelings of a physician who was able to finally help his patients in the mid 1990s, having lost hundreds to this disease before that time.  By the time these drugs became available about 400 of my patients had succumbed to AIDS, a dreadful rate of mortality.  The effect of these drugs was life saving to those with advanced disease whose survival had been limited before.  The portrayal of these drugs as in effect only toxic is so unfair.  I can say with some dismay that had my patients who needed treatment been dissuaded from receiving it by this film, many would surely have died. So this aspect of the film is deeply offensive. 


When I asked the film-maker why he had not interviewed any HIV infected person who had benefited from treatment, his response was:  Are there people who can tolerate these drugs?   So much for the intrepid reporter merely seeking the truth. 

 

 The fact that the drugs have toxicities and may not always be used wisely does not detract from their great benefits when used appropriately. This is not different to the treatments of many other diseases.  Also, these anti HIV drugs are able to substantially reduce the transmission of HIV from mother to infant.  This great achievement is not mentioned in the film.

 

It is notable that the denialist/dissident groups include no physician who is experienced in the treatment of AIDS.   One German physician is interviewed in the film who states that his patients with AIDS are well without treatment.   I believe he does not specialize in treating this disease and may only have very few patients with it, but was not asked about  the extent of his experience.   I too was interviewed for the film.  I can't remember if I was asked about my clinical experience. If I had been, my responses were not used.

 

It is absolutely correct that Mr Leung should be free to express his particular views on this disease.  However we do have a responsibility to counter the dangerous misinformation in the film - specifically, that antiviral medicines are only toxic, with no mention of their benefits.

 

 I'm sorry the Spectator event had to be cancelled and so an opportunity to challenge the misinformation in the film was lost.  There is nothing more powerful than the personal testimony of individuals whose lives have been made possible by anti HIV medications, as well as that of the doctor who prescribed them.  Had this event taken place, at least two HIV positive individuals on antiretroviral therapy would have been in the audience and would have spoken about the immense benefits they received from their treatment. 

 

 

 

 

 

121 Comments

Show Comment(s)

Comments on Joseph Sonnabend, MD's blog entry "House of Numbers, An AIDS Documentary"

I don't know much about Aids denialism. So I accept that this point may be childish - would any of them be willing to inject themselves with HIV. Or if they don't believe in HIV, an Aids carriers blood, in the name of research/evidence?

Hello Doc,

I am glad to hear you were willing to be part of this event. Even if one person with HIV heard you and decided to obtain proper treatment, then your being there would have been worth it.

Thank you for hanging in with this disease. It sounds like you care and I know that can lead to burnout. Again, thank you!

Mike

There also would have been a couple of people diagnosed over twenty years ago present, both of whom also were facing imminent death from side effects of the drugs they were prescribed and both credit being alive today to ignoring their doctor's advice to keep taking them. As a result of both independently doing their own research, they also both now believe they should never have been prescribed them in the first place.

What Dr Sonnabend is failing to acknowledge (and I'm not doubting his commitment to patient's well-being for a moment) is that AIDS drugs are so toxic that different types of AIDS drugs are also deadly to all kinds of microorganisms that people can be genuinely infected with, and may be genuinely making them ill. The problem is, because HIV tests are non-specific, when someone who is ill is diagnosed HIV+, takes some AIDS drugs and gets better at least in the short term, there is an assumption that it must be because the drug has stopped HIV, and completely ignores the much wider anti-biotic effects.

And William Satire, regarding injection of HIV - I think first of all you'd have to actually isolate it and prove you had done so, and demonstrate that it wasn't just a laboratory phenomena by putting cells everyone agreed were HIV negative through EXACTLY THE SAME CULTURING PROCESS to compare the results. I think then you'd get a bit of a surprise.

Mr Hersee--
You raise some interesting points. I have often tried to understand why it is that ARV drugs can reduce a VL from a six-digit number to a three-digit number in a matter of weeks, but can't seem to destroy those last few hundred viral cells. I would like to say that the US-based pharmaceutical industry is not interested in curing disease, but only in managing it, which does not explain a world-wide pandemic, but only the .3% of US population with HIV infection and/or the .01% with advanced immunosuppression from AIDS. I'd like very much to believe that there were some treatment other than continuing to put toxic chemicals in my body several times daily indefinitely, but honestly, I am not brave enough to discontinue them. If not for HAART, then what treatment might you suggest? As nearly as I can tell, no other, less toxic and/or more natural treatment has ever been proven to be effective. And quite frankly, I am not willing to die in order to further your thesis, which I do not share.

Nik,
I take your point about being cautious not to risk your life by experimenting. However, the presuppositions inherent in your comments are that your HIV diagnosis is reliable, viral load tests actually measure the amount of HIV in your blood or body, and that by 'effective' I'm presuming you believe that AIDS drugs have been shown to be effective at prolonging life in people diagnosed HIV+. In other words, you seem to presume that the orthodox components of AIDS that you rely on are robust. As for world-wide pandemic, that would take too long to disentangle.

Let's consider what 'effective' means. I've already mentioned the complication where, for people who are already ill with some infectious thing, AIDS drugs may help in the short term, but that doesn't mean they're killing HIV. AZT, for instance, still very widely used in Combivir and in conjunction with other drugs, is not capable of having the anti-HIV effect claimed because it is not even remotely sufficiently triphosphorylated within the cell to have the reverse-transcriptase-inhibiting effect it is claimed to have. But it is toxic to some bacteria, so in some circumstances it may have a temporary beneficial effect, while it slowly destroys your immune system. In most cases though there are no proper controlled trials with placebo, because once AZT was approved, despite being an unmitigated poison to the body doing widespread genetic and mitochondrial damage, it was regarded as the 'standard of care'. So on that basis, Arsenic could be regarded as a life-saving chemical on the basis that it took longer to kill you than cyanide. Instead, most trials are short term and done with CD4 counts and viral load as the end points, not actual patient well-being. Yet, using chemicals to force those markers in the 'right' direction has been shown to be ineffective as a predictor of survival. So the drugs are not properly tested in the first place. As an alternative, it is best to find out what illnesses you REALLY have, that are not merely presumed from an HIV diagnosis, and to deal with those specifically.

Mike Hersee runs the AIDS denialist organization HEAL London. Unlike Dr. Sonnabend, he has no medical qualifications and has never provided care to anyone with HIV (although it is my understanding he has been involved in taking HIV-infected pregnant women out of the country so they can avoid receiving prophylaxis to prevent mother-to-child HIV transmission). I think his qualifications to speak to the mechanism of action of antiretrovirals extends to driving buses. But correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Hersee.

I am pleased to see that Dr. Sonnabend is willing to take on people he thinks cause harm. Most HIV exerts aren't that brave. I am, however, puzzled by his assurance that he would emerge from the debate victorious in the eyes of the audience.

To be frank, he does not seem terribly well-informed about the dissidents he could be facing.

Mike Hersee has already laid a little groundwork, but if Dr. Sonnabend agrees I would be honoured to help him prepare a little better for a possible future debate.

Let me go through a couple of points, and end with a question I have long wanted to ask of an expert like Dr. Sonnabend.

1)Dr. Sonnabend writes:

"The attack rate is the parameter used to define the proportion of people exposed to an infectious agent who become ill. The attack rate varies from infection to infection. Rabies may be the only infectious disease with an attack rate of 100%".

It doesn't seem that the attack rate for rabies, as Dr. Sonnabend defines it, is 100% The usual formulation is that, once the infection is clinically apparent, the fatality rate is close to 100% Both dose and proximity of the bite (usually the way rabies is transmitted) to the head have been suggested as determinants of whether the infection takes hold on exposure.

2) Dr. Sonnabend writes "In all infectious diseases there is an important distinction to be made between infection and disease". Epidemiologists are concerned with theories of disease causation and recognize this distinction very clearly."

How does Dr. Sonnabend propose that epidemiologists distinguish between HIV infection and resulting disease? I understand that you can do so conceptually with ease, but what about clinical practice?

If I test HIV positive and acquire tuberculosis while my CD4-cell count is within the normal range and has shown no sustained or significant decline, should I be diagnosed with AIDS or with unrelated tuberculosis?

If I am infected with HIV and experience fluctuating CD4-cell counts with a modest decreasing trend and no other symptoms, do I have HIV disease, or do I experience an unrelated falling CD4 count?

3)Dr. Sonnabend writes: "It is notable that the denialist/dissident groups include no physician who is experienced in the treatment of AIDS. One German physician is interviewed in the film who states that his patients with AIDS are well without treatment. I believe he does not specialize in treating this disease and may only have very few patients with it."

Juliane Sacher has won a prize for her clinical work with AIDS patients. Her therapies might include short courses of conventional antiretroviral therapy, among other things for the reasons mentioned by Mike Hersee.

4)Dr. Sonnabend states: "By the time these drugs became available about 400 of my patients had succumbed to AIDS, a dreadful rate of mortality. The effect of these drugs was life saving to those with advanced disease whose survival had been limited before. "

Dr. Sonnabend, you have no doubt heard about the so-called "Lazarus effect" of the newer antiretroviral drugs. You have also no doubt heard of the theories about the ongoing profound devastation of the patient's immune system that leads to AIDS. Perhaps you have also heard the theories about all the damage that's being done in the initial weeks and months of infection.

How do you square the slow, decade-long breakdown of the patient's entire system with the Lazarus effect? How can the immediate excellent functioning of a deeply damaged immune system be restored by killing off some viruses and stimulating CD4 production? Are our immune systems that simple? Out with the virus, in with some CD4-cells and you're good to go?

We remember here that HIV is unlike the microbes that overwhelm the immune system but without targeting it. If bad microbes have colonised one's body and are poisoning it, or they cause the body to react in an inappropriate fashion, it stands to reason that the patient can become better quickly if we initiate a massive extermination of that microbe. Does Dr. Sonnabend believe the story is equally straightforward when it comes to HIV?

Nice post, Joe, and particularly important given how HIV/AIDS denialists have so often misrepresented your views on AIDS causation and treatment. Good, clear exposition of the "co-factors" issue (or non-issue) too.

I agree that attempting to "suppress" or "censor" denialist viewpoints would not be desirable even if it were possible. However, many denialists seem to confuse their own right to free speech with an obligation for the rest of us to listen, to provide them with a platform, to publish nonsense pseudoscience in respectable journals and to engage in pointless "debates" that simply provide them with an opportunity to rehash the same old false claims and logical fallacies.

At the same time it is important not to allow denialists' disinformation that threatens personal and public health to go unchallenged. The key is to do so without providing credibility to them in the eyes of their intended audience. Unfortunately when genuine scientists and clinicians share a platform with pseudoscientists and charlatans it can reinforce the impression that there is a real scientific debate to be had between the two sides.

I think it is also valuable to make transparent the underlying political motivations, techniques and strategies of denialists: the better the general public can understand these the less vulnerable people will be to dishonest rhetoric, and better able to make truly informed and rational health decisions.

You should probably read what Celia Farber just wrote about you here:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5461313/questioning-the-aids-consensus.thtml

Right at the end of the comments.

BLBS is correct in some of his assertions, I do run HEAL London, that you can label 'denialist' if you so please, and I'm upfront about it and I don't hide behind a pseudonym or anonymous initials that BLBS seems to be. It's also true that I presently drive a bus for a living, and that I don't have medical qualifications - I have never pretended to. However I can read and I have a brain, and it might be worth mentioning that I have a degree in computing and spent 15 years in IT working on systems that process huge volumes of transactions for several Fortune 500 companies. Anyone who makes an error in their logic in those environments quickly learns how unforgiving computers can be, and I believe I have a better understanding of the rules of logic than it appears many people who support the AIDS orthodoxy do. I did not change my main occupation because of blunders, by the way.

Regarding individual cases, BLBS has made an inaccurate allegation. However, because his allegation could relate to a specific case that is covered by the Family Division of the High Court, it could well be automatic contempt of court for me to comment publicly about it in any way whatsoever, so for that reason I will not be drawn.

www.twitter.com/hivquestions ~ when the politicians stop obstructing justice this matter will be presented in a court of law where it should have been determined years ago.

@Macdonald: Your point 2 seems to imply that current diagnoses of AIDS in HIV+ patients are unreliable because of the subjective opinions of the diagnosing physician.
Some numbers of unreliable AIDS diagnoses would be appreciated, and would greatly strengthen your argument.
You could also give some of the many examples of reliable AIDS diagnoses in HIV+ patients. How many subjective areas are there?

Your point 3 states that a certain doctor has "won prizes" for her treatment. Who exactly gives doctors prizes? I'll tell you, pseudoscientific organisations! No doctor gets a prize for following guidelines as far as I can see (prove me wrong if you wish). However, advocate groups of denialists in medical fields often give prizes at their meetings. I expect this to be true of this doctor's prizes.

You also forgot to tell us this doctors HIV+ patient survival rate and how many HIV+ patients she treats.

Your point 4 asks a lot of questions, but you forgot that the drugs you are questioning work in clinical trials! The mechanism of all drugs is always open to further research (including paracetamol, NSAIDS and other well-known compounds) and I'm sure your questions are well thought out. They are irrelevant to the HIV+ patients who benefit from them!!

Please do not ignore the surivial rates and results of clinical trials. They are the bottom line.

To Nik and others who depend on HAART for their lives:

Many of us have been HIV-positive for many years and have managed to recover our health without the use of ARVs. It is not just as simple as quitting the drugs, it requires a wholesale change in how we live. I strive to be healthy, rather than just fighting a poorly defined and understood disease with toxic (yes, that is the right word) drugs.

One site to check out is called livingwithouthivdrugs.

We are not medical experts, and that doesn't invalidate our perspective, knowledge or wisdom. I'm not an "elite controller", because VL tests are not undetectable. I am just another poz guy (more than 11 years), like so many others here.

I am, however, free of the diarrhea, neurological problems, liver and heart problems and all the other complaints I had while taking HAART almost a decade ago.

I don't understand why people like Sonnabend are so adamant that we have no options other than drugs. I have lost dozens of friends who died painful and horrific deaths, despite taking those very drugs. The claim that these drugs extend life just hasn't prove to be the case in my life experience.

Sonnabend and other dogmatic supporters of the AIDS mainstream seem to be suggesting that we who live with the label "HIV-positive" are not able to discern between the different arguments. That is an insult to the early days of AIDS activism, of which I was also a part of, when patients were the acknowledged "experts".

I'm growing weary of the arguments and debate, especially the hateful name calling, like "denialist". Every one of us who is facing such a serious diagnosis deserve to have access to ALL perspectives, including controversial ones, such as that presented in House of Numbers.

See the film for yourself. Read the stories of those of us who are not just surviving, but thriving without lifelong, daily chemotherapy. You are not going to read about these options on websites sponsored by the manufacturers of AIDS drugs.

Mike Hersee is simply repeating all the same old denialist BS that we have heard so many times before. While he claims to have "logic" he fails to do anything other than regurgitate Perth Group BS about HIV having not been isolated (a complete BS statement) which any logical person would realize is crap. Sorry Mike, but you definitely need to stick to bus driving or IT. "Logic" still fails when combined with a complete and utter lack of understanding of biology.

Do you realize that by Perth Group standards the following viruses also don't exist: All herpes viruses (including the chicken pox varicella zoster virus, herpes simplex 1 and 2, and Epstein Barr), all other retroviruses, rhabdoviruses (including the rabies virus), orthomyxoviruses (the ones that give us the common flu), and so many more. Why, you ask? Because none of them can be "isolated" by Perthy standards without the presence of human proteins. Why? Because like HIV, they all incorporate parts of the host membrane as their envelope which contains host proteins. The problem is that no denialist, including Mike has ever done research on HIV and most of them don't know squat about biology. This is a pretty crappy information base for those afflicted by HIV...but that is just my opinion.

-Poodle Stomper

poodle stomper, snout, BLBS... all credible names in the scientific research field (sarcasm intended).

Sheesh... why should we trust people who won't even put their names and faces behind their words? There's a real credibility gap here.

It is very telling that the banner advertising at the top of this page right now says "HIV treatment is power." All information coming from this site is paid for by pharmaceutical interests. Big pharma pays the bills, keeps the electricity on, pays salaries through advertising and then (totally by coincidence of course) all information points to treating "HIV" with expensive drugs. Any other approach is "dangerous." This control of information under the guise of doing what's "right" for the patient is what's wrong with the AIDS industry.

Well Jonmathan Barnett, perhaps they hide behind pseudonyms so that people like you and Clark Baker do not try to get them fired from their jobs.
OR
so that people like Clark Baker do not call their mothers and threaten to take her home in a law suit.
OR
so that people like Clark Baker do not send them emails threatening their life as well threatening them with extortion...and then following up on the extortion threats as he did to me.
For proof, you can go to my site where I posted Baker's threatening emails.
www.dissidents4dumbees.blogspot.com
JTD

Jonathan Barnett you are being extremely disingenuous at best. You know that you have taken ARV's! You admit that on your blog. You admitted that to me on a personal email. No wonder the denialists can not be trusted with such blatant lies!!
OH, and I would not say you have receovered your health. Not after seeing that picture of your leg at AME in which you lied to those people asking if you should take antibiotics when in fact you were already taking antibiotics. Another fact that you admitted to me on a personal email.
Be careful Barnett, or people will not trust you if you keep this up!
JTD

J Todd,

Can you even read? In my first comment here I wrote: "I am, however, free of the diarrhea, neurological problems, liver and heart problems and all the other complaints I had while taking HAART almost a decade ago."

Why do you try to make it sound as if I claimed to never have taken ARVs?

You are getting your timelines mixed up and making your typical bombastic accusations. I haven't taken HAART since March, 2003, and quit nearly two dozen other prescription drugs in 2007. With each year since, I only feel better.

I have never claimed to be free of all health problems. I have changed my opinion of taking pills for every ailment that comes along, instead pursuing lifestyle changes that embrace Health.

I have had two DVT blood clots which caused subsequent venous insufficiency and lymphodema in my leg, which YOU tried to diagnose as Kaposi's Sarcoma from your place of employment at Baylor Healthcare Systems, as I reported on MY blog, http://wp.me/pp5w0-gW. Anyone exercising such incompetence deserves to lose their job. Don't blame me.

After consulting with various clueless doctors for over two years, these recurring sores on my leg have finally healed in the last four weeks, thanks to a non-invasive and non-drug therapy (approved by Medicare, so spare the allegations of voodoo). You're welcome to see the improvement, which I've also posted on my blog.

Please show me where DVT blood clots are caused by the mysterious, sneaky HI virus.

Why are you so upset that I and others are surviving "AIDS" without the toxic drugs? Why do you gloat if one of us dies? Sure, we'll die someday, as everyone does, including those who take ARVs.

The critical question that everyone facing possible immune dysfunction should ask themselves remains: does it make sense to take drugs that are so stressful to their bodies and organs, or to seek ways to simply live more healthful lives? Everyone is entitled to ALL the information available to help them make those choices.

I respect your right to take the drugs and only ask that you grant me the same respect to make my choices AND to share my experience with those who in interested reading about them.

This thread is supposed to be about House of Numbers and providing other points of view regarding AIDS. If you want to attack me personally, accuse me of things that aren't true and call me names, why don't you do that on your blog?

Dear Mr. DeSHong,
What do emails and phone calls from Clark Baker have to do with whether HIV exists and causes AIDS?

Jonathan Barnett, you wrote this:
"Many of us have been HIV-positive for many years and have managed to recover our health without the use of ARVs."
Your later comments were intentionally contradictory and therefore disingenuous, (bordering on lying).
Billie, the emails from Baker and Barnett (as well as other posts at my blog) prove that most of the major players in the Denialist Camp have no integrity, no morals and will stoop to any tactic to further their agenda of perpetuating their misinformation!
I do not know about you, Billie, but integrity and morality play a major role in my life. I do not lie and try to hurt others. I support all my opinions with facts.
If a person lives a life without integrity, they can not be trusted in any aspect whatsoever.
JTD

Again Mr. DeShong, all of your poetic references to moral integrity have nothing whatsoever to do with whether there exists such a thing as a pathogenic retrovirus. Even if you could prove that every denialist was morally bankrupt, it would have no bearing on anything of scientific relevance to this discussion.

As someone who was diagnosed with "full blown AIDS" 3 years ago and is on HAART meds...I can vouch they have helped me - so far. I went from a CD4 count of 21 and viral load of near 1 million to undetectable load and a CD4 count of over 400 in less than a year on HAART. ALL medications are toxic period, all of them. Sometimes in life we have pick the least evil of two evils. People can assume all they want and have every right to voice their opinion BUT they should talk FIRST to someone who is living with an AIDS diagnosis then decide!

Hi Dr. Sonnabend,

To start it right, let me say that you're a disgusting fraud, in my opinion, having once bravely stood apart from the racket, now pointing fingers and calling names of those who still have the decency to not be bought and sold for dollars and popularity contests.

Who cares if HIV causes AIDS, or ten thousand things cause AIDS? How reasonable is the current practice of AIDS medicine, that villainizes in the most hyperbolic hateful language any critic of your business? What are you hiding, to use such fascist rhetoric to protect your waning interests?

How reasonable is the statement that HIV is only one thing, when HIV proteins are found across the board? How reasonable is it to say that AIDS is only one disease at this point?

We all know how many different responses can be seen from the tests, the drugs, the doctors, the social support networks, the psychology, the nutrition, the worldview - that is, what the hell is HIV and what the hell is AIDS at this point? We have 30 year no-drug 'survivors,' and 6-week Nevirapine deaths. And you're calling the critics of your brand of medicine, "denialists?"

Are you attempting to denigrate the film because of your own outlandish, humiliating lack of composure on camera? Because you sound like the old boozy floozy you really might be, not so deep down?

Because you sold out to corporate pseudo-science a long time ago, do you now pour hatred onto those who still aren't satisfied with the one-size-fits-none industrial diagnosis?

Shame on you, deep, deep, deep shame. You absurd old sell-out.

PS. Why don't you save your energy for talking about your 'co-factor' hypothesis. You know, the one that says that "HIV, which causes AIDS, really only causes whatever AIDS is, if you have 30 other problems?"

Bloody denialist, you are! No wonder you want people to hate this film. It's about YOU.

Sorry, one more,

And Dr. S. Who cares if the movie doesn't praise the living daylights out of AZT and NVP and the rest? Why does the drug industry feel that it ought to be felated by every media mention of AIDS drugs? Please!! How many GAY MEN DIED on AZT? How many? And you want thanks and praise? Screw.

You've gotten a free ride for far too long. If you were serious, if you really cared about a single AIDS patient, you wouldn't be jamming up this movie, you'd be having at the WHO and NIH for imagining that only Pfizer and Glaxo have any good remedies for AIDS patients. My God, you really have lost your way over these years.

By the way, Joseph's old work can be found on the premiere critical website of a few years back:

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/jsoforum.htm

Good luck herr Doctor. I hope the money is worth your lack of self-worth and total absence of a soul.

Liam:

"…this does not mean that you can avoid exposure to a libel suit simply by characterizing a factual statement as an opinion. If you say, “In my opinion, Senator Tower is a notorious drunkard,” the three words at the beginning of the sentence that will not protect you from a successful libel suit. However, if you set forth the facts on which an adverse opinion is based, no libel claim can be based on the resulting opinion so long as the stated facts themselves are true."

http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2009/04/if-youre-a-blogger-you-must-read-this-free-guide-to-libel-law.html

Care to set forth the facts that form the basis for your opinion that Dr. Sonnabend is a "disgusting fraud"?

BLBS: You are a disgusting fraud. AIDS is corrupt. Get over yourself, jackarse.

"now pointing fingers and calling names of those who still have the decency to not be bought and sold for dollars and popularity contests."

Isn't that an explanation for why Dr. S is a disgusting fraud? Maybe "sell-out" is a better adjective? See, once Dr. S had the decency to ask questions but now he wants to be one of the boys with Fauci and Baltimore, even though they wouldn't take his phone call, because he actually is still a "denialist." I mean, a "CO-FACTORIST?"

In praise of Sonnabend:

"I'm sorry the Spectator event had to be cancelled and so an opportunity to challenge the misinformation in the film was lost."

Hear hear. If the event had not been cancelled - but it was. Why was it? Because the AIDS industry is a "disgusting fraud." It isn't medicine, it's fascist control of ideas that are now an ideology. The fact that Sonnabend has to step carefully around what he is famous for (co-factors) lets everyone know that AIDS is not science, and not a free-speech zone.

If it were a free-speech zone, critics would not be called murderers and denialists and the industry would be open to self-examination without hysteria.

Where does it leave us when Luc Montagnier goes on record saying that people with healthy immune systems can get rid of HIV in weeks and those with compromised immune systems can benefit from immune restoration?

Dr. Montagnier made no mention of drugs being a part of that equation. That leaves us with no need for ARVs and no HIV/AIDS profit for big Pharma. There is no profit in nutrition, but billions in drugs that people will pay $2000 for every month until the drugs kill them and they create more tests to catch more people in the loop of money, sickness and death.

To the ideologues, you can call us denialists, but you can't deny the science that pokes holes in your leaky theory that has very little to do with science and in reality is unquestionable dogma. Who knew a whole industry would be scared to death by a film maker. That means the thunder of the coming storm is too strong to ignore, so they are taking it head on.

So after dedicating their lives to trying to lessen the horror of AIDS, this is what someone gets. Frothing-mouthed bile from the willfully ignorant. It's beyond shameful, into some territory there are no words for.


Here's a friendly reminder that reading this civilised exchange are many ordinary persons like me who have been diagnosed with HIV, who are watching our CD4s and viral loads fluctuate year by year, and who sooner or later will, no doubt, be asked to take the medications. We are told that quick death awaits if we do not take those medicines, and we see the possibility of, at least, shocking "side effects" if we do. (Read any thread in the forums here at poz.com for an example.)

I presume that anybody involved in this debate is so involved because he cares about opinions which he honestly holds. It would, therefore, be incumbent upon you to set forth facts and arguments that the layman can follow, to do so coherently and logically, and to respond to each other without insult and without rhetoric. The issues involved are far too grave for that to be forgivable.

Specifically, if you are claiming that someone with HIV can live without the medicines, the first step should be to show someone who has had HIV for significantly more than ten years and is in good health without those same medicines.

BLBS: Are you not aware that people like Liam and Celia do not care about potential libel laws? Celia Farber wrote several comments on this very post that are suspect.
However, that does not stop Farber from filing a lawsuit of her own. Of course we now know that was just a publicity stunt since two of the three people involved were never even served!
JTD

Sorry, I got my threads confused.
Celia Farber's libelous comments about Dr. Sonnabend are here:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5461313/questioning-the-aids-consensus.thtml
JTD

What a dirtbag. Really. "What a pity" that this discussion was canceled? You don't really believe that. That was your intent in cancelling your appearance. To shut down discussion. Passive-aggressive bullshit if I ever saw it.

And half the people blogging here harass me on at least a monthly basis. Todd DeShong has been relegated to my "spam" filter.

Now why would anyone have to harass people to support their point of view? Is it because it doesn't make any sense?

Hm.

House of Numbers producer David Syner back in 2004, trying to promote his company's drinks product "Gay Fuel" off the back of AIDS charities by claiming to donate 5% of the profits to them:

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/comments/1186/

"Thank you for your research of our Company Specialty Spirits. Yes we are real. Committed to a Great tasting drink, a community that we are a part of, not from the outside, but the inside and we donate 5% of profits to local AIDS related charity.
David Syner
Specialty Spirits
Posted by David Syner on Sat Jul 10, 2004 at 04:22 PM"

Dr. Sonnabend did not cancel his appearance, Elizabeth. If you read the blog post, he is clear that he would have preferred the event to have happened.

Christopher:

Your request is a reasonable one. I am going on 12 years Poz in December, ARV-free for the past seven years, and no HIV-associated health problems. Click my name above to read my story.

Karri Stokely is another person who tested "poz" in 1996 (http://www.myspace.com/rethinkaids), and there are more, some who are not public with their status. Did you visit livingwithouthivdrugs.com? You can also hang out at aidsmythexposed forums to make contact with a few of them.

Others here will no doubt point out that some dissidents have died, which is true, but proves nothing. I have yet to meet an immortal on either side of this debate.

I agree we need try to keep our conversation civil. This is a very emotional topic for all of us.

If Dr. Sonnabend would like to protest this cancellation, he can send an e-mail such as the one I sent, below. And he should report to us how many phone calls he has made to the organizers of this event at the Spectator.

I need to see him try a bit harder. The question here is not between some undefined "denialism" and the mainstream. It's between discussing and not discussing.

I've never made a dime off my concern for AIDS victims. How about you, Dr. Sonnabend? And are you willing to take as courageous a stand against censorship, in proportion to AIDS's benefit to your career?

* * *

From: Elizabeth Ely
Subject: Censorship versus Discussion
To: events@pressholdings.com
Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Dear Ms. Vela,

I understand your frustration at trying to form a "balanced" panel to discuss the film "House of Numbers." Please allow me to express my regrets after hearing from the venerable Dr. Gordon Stewart that you felt you had to cancel this discussion.

I feel a very important point has been missed here. This "balance" you speak of is not between two views of AIDS science, but between talking about these issues and not talking about them. Between speech and silence. This "other side" has made very clear -- publicly -- that any kind of talk about these issues is unacceptable and should be censored, because these matters are, they say, settled. In fact, they have arrogantly asserted on many occasions that laypersons cannot handle the kind of information presented in this film. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that they have refused to participate. They do this kind of thing often.

For example, the filmmaker negotiated in advance for a panel discussion at the Boston International Film Festival, but the parties were unable to come to an agreement because the faction identifying itself as "the community" (local pharmaceutical-company-funded AIDS organizations) insisted on a one-sided "panel" of their own people. When it was determined that there would be no panel discussion, they worked behind the scenes to obtain protection from the Boston Police to make their own presentation after the film. This consisted of simply reading a statement that would have taken up all of the allotted time, allowing for no questions.

In other words, they simply took over the event, with an armed show of force. Yes, right across the street from historic Boston Common.

When the audience there -- of which I was a part -- expressed its outrage at this turn of events, their "mediator" threatened to have us thrown out. Were we to be thrown out of an event we ourselves had promoted? It was preposterous.

This is about accountability. The AIDS establishment has operated for so long without accountability that it cannot even comprehend not being allowed to censor others, take over events, and cancel appearances. Let their absence speak for itself. Let them be accountable for that, as recipients of public funds. It is, indeed, the point they wish to make: that no discussion of these issues is legitimate, and that they will take no questions from the public that pays their salaries. Please let them make that point, without ratifying it yourself. Holding the discussion without them would make a statement that censorship is not acceptable.

No compromise is possible.

This film itself lets all parties speak, from all points of view.

Look at just one consequence of "no discussion." Here in New York, the city authorities have taken children away from their families for lack of "adherence" to the drug treatments that this film questions -- because "everybody knows" those drugs work. Because there is no accountability in this system, they have done with these children what they wish, including enrolling them in toxic, painful and debilitating experimental drug trials -- when the very reason they were taken was that their families found they did better off the drugs. Today, one politician, city councilman Bill de Blasio, is running for Public Advocate based on his record of doing, effectively, nothing about these trials. He is possibly the next new mayor of New York. See www.askdeblasiowhy.com.

Again, I beg of you, do not yield. Discussion or no discussion? You are affiliated with a respected media institution. State your intention outright and courageously: Do you stand for censorship or discussion?

If Dr. Sonnabend knows so many people who are alive today because of the drugs, he should have brought them forward to be interviewed. I believe this was the claim of Martin Delaney and one other man, who were interviewed (though I understand Mr. Delaney didn't take the drugs for a long time). It sounds as if Brent asked, Do these people exist? Why not bring them forward?

Elizabeth Ely is being harassed? PLEASE!!
Miss Ely posted a comment on The Huffington Post in which he accused me of harassing a minor living in New Jersey!!
Miss Ely was informed that she better stop lying about people in a public forum or else she will be sued, and yet here she is, lying about people again. Some people just don't learn.
Just yesterday Ms. Ely sent me a personal email in which she cursed me out! What a lady.
She also wrote a public post in which she disparaged and attempted to de~humanize an African woman living with AIDS by making fun of her!
It's all here:
http://dissidents4dumbees.blogspot.com/2009/10/elizabeth-ely-are-you-really-such.html
In my opinion, such tactics show that these people can not be trusted in any other aspects of life.
JTD

Jeffrey "Todd" DeShong harassed a minor living in Brooklyn, New York, about a year ago. And he's not going to sue me for saying that, because he's an approximately 45-year-old loser living at his mom's house outside Fort Worth, Texas. He is an employee of a local hospital. I can prove he harassed this young man, age 16, by sending threatening messages through one of his several e-mail aliases. And yes, he informed me yesterday that he started a blog in which I am called "Elizabitch." All duly noted. Instead of filing for an order of protection, I simply set my spam filter to block his messages. Anything else? Can we talk about AIDS now?

Christopher, at the 2003 European Parliament conference on AIDS in Africa, Dr Marc Deru presented his experiences of a visit to the Parthage charity in Tanzania. They were looking after (mainly supporting with food) children who were 15 years ago thought to be orphans but where actually the parents had gone looking for work and the children were being inadequately looked after by their grandparents, due to grinding poverty. When tested, some of these children were diagnosed HIV+. However, after feeding them for some while it became apparent that children diagnosed HIV+ were able to recover from illnesses just as easily as those diagnosed HIV negative, and after a while they stopped doing HIV tests because they were found to be clinically irrelevant.

This summer I spoke to Dr Marc Deru for an update, a further six years since he had reported his findings to the European Parliament. There was still no evidence that those diagnosed HIV+, some now over 20 years ago, were any more likely to be dying than those that were diagnosed HIV negative.

But then they treated all the children the same, which was how they came to notice that HIV diagnoses were irrelevant, and they were also not hexed with a psychological death sentence. So that's two differences between those children and many adults diagnosed HIV+, despite their initial start in poverty and malnourishment.

Dr Marc Deru also commented that nearby to Parthage Tanzania there was a charity called MDM working (Medicin du Monde), who were giving ARV's to people. He commented that they had people 'dropping like flies' whereas Parthage Tanzania had a death rate a fraction of that in the region and throughout Tanzania.

http://www.altheal.org/africa/tanzania.htm

And incidentally, that large scale and long-term experience of Parthage Tanzania does rather coincide somewhat in terms of the consequences of an HIV diagnosis, with Luc Montagnier's comments in the film House of Numbers in that a healthy immune system - that can be supported by adequate food and nutrition - is the most important thing for not becoming ill.

"There was still no evidence that those diagnosed HIV+, some now over 20 years ago, were any more likely to be dying than those that were diagnosed HIV negative."

So that's one more brick in the house, after a thousand before, that shows that AIDS is really much more solvable than Glaxo wanted us all to think. And yet the gay community stands more or less opposed, or silent, when poisoned and killed by the tens of thousands over the years with these poisons humorously called "ARVS", like the term had any clinical value.

Oh take them if you like them, and stop pretending like anyone could stop you from doing so! What a bunch of screaming hysterics! "You're taking my drugs from me! You're endangering me!" Shut it. Nobody could take your bleeding drugs you idiots. They're yours to take. It's called capitalism and the un-free market that exists because it murders and buries the competition.

So take your drugs. Who cares what you individually do? But please stop lying and pretending that people can't get better and stay well without them. People do all the time, and if AIDS were medicine, that would be a hope for all, and not made into a crime by the murderers and phonies who now run the show.

Thank you, Ely.
Get ready for the lawsuit as I have warned you in the past. You are lying and this is blatant defamation.
JTD

Noreen Martin is disappeared from the AIDS denialist conference program:

http://denyingaids.blogspot.com/2009/09/aids-denialist-crank-convention-gearing.html

10:45 How I fell victim to the AIDS machine (Karri Stokely)

11:00 AIDS, Big Deal, Next!: A journey to hell and back with AIDS (Noreen Martin)

11:15 Challenges faced by gays who question HIV/AIDS with implications for dissidents (Tony Lance)

http://www.ra2009.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=49&Itemid=54

10:45  How I fell victim to the AIDS machine (Karri Stokely) abstract

11:10  Challenges faced by gays who question HIV/AIDS with implications for dissidents (Tony Lance) abstract

11:35  Panel discussion

Ely, my attorney works quickly...even on a Sunday.
Expect to be served at your 5th Ave address in Brooklyn.
JTD

Edward Lieb advises on how to stop antiretrovirals, on the House of Numbers Facebook page:

"The safest way I've found to get off drugs is to taper off gradually over a six week period, taking 3/4 dosage, then half, then 1/4 for 2 weeks each, then none at all. I did it and I've been drug-free for 3 weeks now and feeling much better than I had been for over a year."

Elizabeth Ely on the House of Numbers Facebook page, responding to someone reporting they are starting antiretrovirals on Nov 4th:

"Elizabeth Ely Once you start, you can't stop. See the Hollywood Gumshoe site and search for Sustiva. This is a former cop, telling you it's like getting off heroin to stop taking Sustiva. And Sustiva is in Atripla."

Edward Lieb, again, on the House of Numbers Facebook page:

"Edward Lieb And it certainly has NOTHING to do with health. It's all about money. I hope all these bastards end up in orange jump suits and locked up for life. Am I angry? You're goddamn right I am. Hit hard and early I say! When the doc says if you don't take the meds you'll die, or that we need to hit hard and early, ask him/her to stand up. Then kick him/her hard and swiftly in the groin. As he/she bends forward in pain bring your knee up to connect with the doctor's nose and for the final coup de grace bring both clenched fists sharply down on the back of the doctor's head. Say, "I'm so sorry!" Grab your records (They are YOUR records.) and march out of there!"

Edward has been on antiretrovirals for a year, since this happened:

http://forums.aidsmythexposed.com/archive-health/850-my-story-what-happened-me-ame-h468.html

I haven't seen an explanation of why he didn't stop sooner.

Liam Scheff writing about Christine Maggiore in July, 2004:

"Since testing positive, Maggiore has had two children. Her kids, two and six years old, have never been tested. They've been raised on organic food, with a naturopathic approach to health. They're both intelligent and active. They don't take AIDS drugs. And they're not in the least bit sick. They regularly see their pediatrician, who has no medical complaints about their well-being.

And they're not alone. There are thousands of healthy HIV-positive people who don't take the drugs, who rely on natural regimens to support their immune function."

How about my daughter, who has been positive since 1991? She took 2 drugs and they almost killed her. You need to read Elizabeth Glaser's story, "In the Absence of Angels," to see exactly how AZT killed her daughter and then Elizabeth. After reading that book I was totally satisfied that our decision to take our daugther off drugs was the right one. She is NOT on any medication and hasn't been since 1992.

Clean example. Keep it simple.

What would you have me do? If we'd kept her on the meds she'd have died before her 3rd birthday, just as our medical doctors said she would. Since we took her off the drugs, she survived, and is still alive.

So what is wrong with this entire thread is that people do die of immune deficiency, which can be caused by many things, the biggest one being lack of food and clean water. However, testing positive for an antibody doesn't mean you have a disease yet to come. It means you already had it, and it is gone, as Montangier has said. So why the antibody test?

Cheryl, thank you for sharing your example with us. How is your daughter's health now? Is she getting tested for CD4 counts and that sort of thing?

Jonathan, Mike, thank you both for specifically responding to my message. I have been looking at livingwithouthivdrugs, and it is interesting, thank you. It is, of course, unsurprising to find people living without HIV drugs; I too have HIV and am quite healthy without any medicines. But what one is told is that almost everyone who becomes HIV+ will, without drugs, progress to full-blown AIDS sooner or later, and that the average HIV+ person dies within 9-11 years of contracting the virus.

That is, of course, an average, but what one would need in order to disprove it would be a number of examples of people who have had HIV for, say, twenty years and are not only not dead but still healthy, or, more generally, examples that demonstrate that people not taking medicines do better than, or at least as well as, those who do take medicines in the long-term.

Mike's description of Dr. Marc Deru is very interesting indeed and would certainly lend substantial weight to the argument; so would Cheryl's account of her daughter.

R.so's statement about Dr. Montagnier has also, unless I've overlooked something, received absolutely no response.

I think the ball is now in the court of the other side in this debate: can we have a response?

What I do not appreciate, however, is language like that of "Uhm" of which a brief sample should suffice: "Oh take them if you like them, and stop pretending like anyone could stop you from doing so! What a bunch of screaming hysterics! "You're taking my drugs from me! You're endangering me!" Shut it."

There is no excuse for introducing language of this sort into the debate, from people on either side. The people to whom you refer are not accusing you of taking their medicines away from them. They are saying that you are going to dissuade from taking the medicines people who, they believe, really need them and who will die without them. Believing that, it is quite appropriate that they should not take kindly to arguments against these medicines. Basically, I would like to repeat my plea that all this name-calling is not helpful here.

Finally, BLBS, who is Noreen Martin and what is the point about her being "disappeared" from a conference? Please remember that there are non-insiders reading this thread.

Thank you.

www.twitter.com/hivquestions ~ www.youtube.com/hivquestions (and healing alternatives) ~ both sites created by a poz man who stopped hiv meds 3 years ago.

I can keep it simple.
I am 45 years old. Positive for 15 years. Taking HIV Meds for all 15 years and I am in perfect health. My liver enzymes are perfect as well as all other blood work. Many of my friends are POZ and on meds for 10-20 years and none of them have problems.
My problem with people like Ms. Nagle is they seem to think that their experience is EVERYONE'S experience and that is just wrong. They are the exception NOT the rule, but they claim just the opposite.
Also, Ms. Nagle wrote this:
"So what is wrong with this entire thread is that people do die of immune deficiency, which can be caused by many things, the biggest one being lack of food and clean water."
That is a ridiculous, false statement that many denialists state often. Malnutrition is NOT a cause "the biggest cause" of immune deficiency. Not even in the top ten!
It is outrageously incorrect statements like that one that make all their other statements circumspect at best.
JTD

Can House of Numbers producer David Syner tell us exactly how much money his company "Specialty Drinks" donated to AIDS charities? Thanks, David, we await your response.

Noreen Martin's presentation is not entirely disappeared, I was wrong, it's still listed in the Spanish program and background on Noreen is also available in a bio on the conference website:

http://www.ra2009.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=57&Itemid=74

http://www.ra2009.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=59&Itemid=54#noreen_martin

http://www.ra2009.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=60&Itemid=54

Cheryl Nagel:

Was your daughter's virus culture test ever positive? The information available online says the virus culture test - which tests for actual virus - was always negative, but the doctors didn't tell you. The online stories also say your daughters immune system was completely normal, and there was no indication for prescribing either Bactrim or AZT. Why were the doctors not held liable for their errors? There is reference to a court case in one article but no information anywhere as to whether the case went ahead and, if it did, how it was resolved. Based on these articles, I don't understand how Margaret K. Hostetter, M.D. can still be practicing medicine.

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/cfontrial.htm

"Oddly enough, at this point it is not clear whether Lindsey is in fact infected with HIV. Examining her daughter's medical records after discharging the physicians, Cheryl found that although Lindsey had indeed been antibody-positive to HIV, her viral-culture test--the test that measures the actual virus--was negative. "It said Negative in big bold letters across the page," says Cheryl. "I was so shocked." Why had the Nagels been told that this particular test was positive? "We don't know," she says. "There are a lot of questions we still have to sort out.""

http://aidsinfobbs.org/articles/quilty/q05/2096

"The Nagels happened to live right next door to the state
epidemiologist, who recommended that a viral culture be
done; Lindsey was so young, the antibodies detected in her
blood might be her mother's. In that case, the antibodies
would not indicate that Lindsey herself was infected with
HIV. The first viral culture was performed in February
1991; the Nagels were told that it was positive."

"This doctor did tell the Nagels what would later seem to be
crucial information, however: Lindsey's blood tests, other
than the ones for HIV, were not abnormal."

"In fact, as the Nagels have medical records from February
1991 to demonstrate, Lindsey's first HIV-1 blood culture was
negative; Lindsey's first HIV-1 angtigen test was negative."

"Lindsey had developed none of the opportunistic infections
or physical signs - oral thrush, lymphadenopathy, enlarged
spleen or liver, swollen parotid glands - that physicians
expect to see in children with AIDS."

"In her letter dated December 29, 1992, Hostetter informed
the Nagels that, for the first time - and after 22 months of
AZT, a fact which she didn't note - Lindsey's CD4 and CD8
cell counts and percentages had become abnormal."

"In fact, they began to discuss hiring a lawyer to help them
redress the damage they felt had been done to their
daughter. * * The Nagels didn't discover that Lindsey's
first viral cultures had actually been negative until early
1995, when they went back to the University to copy all of
her medical records, just in case they decided to file a
lawsuit."

"Why were the Nagels told their daughter had positive viral
cultures, when the lab report clearly says "negative"?

That question will probably be answered in court."

Oh, did Cheryl forget to mention her daughter only tested positive for antibodies, and never was actually HIV positive? Wow, color me shocked. Denalists take advantage of any confusion they can sow---Like the fact you can test positive for HIV antibodies without being HIV positive. Ms. Nagle, if you don't understand HIV testing, I doubt it's because no one has explained it to you.

There have been multiple studies that prove HIV+ people who take antiretrovirals live longer, and don't get sick as often.
For anyone sitting on the fence, here's a link.
http://www.aidstruth.org/science/arvs

These are studies with THOUSANDS of people, from babies in Africa to fully insured gay men in the U.S. They aren't second-hand accounts of what some guy said another guy who ran an orphanage said. Or a woman who has an axe to grind with the medical establishment.

Denialists will start kvetching these studies can't be trusted because of pharma money, etc. However, they reflect what I have seen working, volunteering, and being part of the AIDS community (since '89) myself. HIV causes AIDS. A few people do well long-term without antiretroviral drugs. Most die without them. Anyone who says otherwise is not dealing in reality.

Here's an example of AIDS denialists responding to someone about to start treatment because of a CD4 count of 68 and because "I feel horrible. I am exhausted all of the time. Have uncontrollable thrush, both mouth and esophagus, my skin is broken out and I'm having a lot of pain in my muscles and joints."

http://forums.aidsmythexposed.com/greetings-salutations/5960-newbie.html

As far as I know, House of Numbers director Brent Leung - whose wife, Linda Nishida, works for a large pharmaceutical PR firm called the Chandler Chicco Agency (http://www.ccapr.com/) - is not on the AIDS Myth Exposed board to provide assistance.

Todd wrote: Malnutrition is NOT a cause "the biggest cause" of immune deficiency. Not even in the top ten!
It is outrageously incorrect statements like that one that make all their other statements circumspect at best.

My response: So do you consider Joseph Sonnabend a denialist? "Joseph Sonnabend in 1985 gave Rolling Stone a reason for it and it has nothing to do with science. The reason is that if his theory was correct that the most common cause of PCP was poverty, malnutrition and drug abuse, then to stop PCP it was necessary to end poverty, malnutrition and drug abuse."

BLBS wrote: Was your daughter's virus culture test ever positive?

My response: We had over 14 tests done with 5 different pediatric specialists, including the Mayo Clinic, Children's Hospital, U of M, and finally by a doctor at Rush Hospital in Chicago. He strongly recommended Lindsey be put back on the drugs. That was 1995.

BLBS wrote: Regarding a culture test... "It said Negative in big bold letters across the page," says Cheryl. "I was so shocked." Why had the Nagels been told that this particular test was positive?"

My response: As you stated, this was a particular test. There were actually numerous tests done stating she was positive.

Pandora wrote: Oh, did Cheryl forget to mention her daughter only tested positive for antibodies, and never was actually HIV positive?

My response: See my response to BLBS. In case you didn't follow the conversation, we're talking about 1 test out of numerous tests.

I was Diagnoised in 1996 & started working at an AIDS service organization soon after. I saw many people get sick & die till PIs came on the market. After people started taking the drugs I saw many people who were close to death respond well to them. I no longer had to go weekly to funerals. I saw people go back to work. I had a good friend who had demintia. He got on the drugs and recovered his mind. He had always taken care of his nutritional health, worked out & lived clean. Don't even try to tell me these drugs don't work. Do we need to take them for a life time? All the time? This is being studied now. If you really want to prove we never need these drugs- join the study. And yes I have taken these meds and yes I have had side effects to some. I worked with my doctor to find the combo that worked for my body and now have no health problems from the meds. Will that change? maybe.Because my body will change as I age? Mostly what I've read here is just people wanting to fight, not for providing real answers but just to fight.

Again, Mrs. Nagle, malnutrition, drug abuse and certainly "poverty" (WTF) does NOT, I repeat NOT cause PCP nor immune deficiency. And back in 1985 Sonnabend, as well as MANY scientists were considering all sorts of possible causes of AIDS!
How about jumping ahead a couple of decades and join the CURRENT info, that is to say the ACTUAL KNOWN FACTS!! Since 1985 we now know the CAUSE of the extreme immune deficiency known as AIDS.
Also, thanks to BLBS for the research. I had never bothered to look into the Nagel's story and I am shocked at myself being SHOCKED at this info. I just assumed they were not being disingenuous and their daughter was lucky. Now I see they are being forthright with their info. Now I will do my own research and post what I find at my blog.
JTD

Okay, Ms. Nagle, here's what you were asked.

"Was your daughter's virus culture test ever positive?"

And your non-answer.
"We had over 14 tests done with 5 different pediatric specialists, including the Mayo Clinic, Children's Hospital, U of M, and finally by a doctor at Rush Hospital in Chicago. He strongly recommended Lindsey be put back on the drugs."

Nice try at ducking, misleading, and dodging the question! But then that's a sharply honed trait of AIDS denalists.
According to your OWN story your daughter's viral culture came back negative.

Oh, and your story is dated 1995, so what was the outcome of the lawsuit? Is Dr. Hostetter still practicing medicine? Wow, you'd think with written evidence, she'd at least have lost her license.

Again, for those of you on the fence, take a look at Ms. Nagle, and enjoy the tapdance she's about to commence...if she answers.

Dear Pandora,
You are trying to say my daughter was in fact never infected because she tested negative on the p24 antigen (culture) test? Let's think about this.
She tested negative on an ELISA in Romania. Then she tested positive on an ELISA. Then Positive on a Western Blot. Then Negative on a p24.
But wait, she tested Positive again on antibody tests. If what you are saying is true, then you right there prove the ELISA + Western Blot tests are fallible, they don't work as my daughter is a shining example of this. But let's take your scenario a bit further. Since HIV doctors rely on surrogates, T-cells and Viral load let's talk about that. For the purposes of my daughter we will focus on T-cells as viral load technology (created by *Karry Mullis) was not yet avaliable. My daughters T-cells were falling and because she was positive on two antibody tests, the ELISA and confirmatory, cupeled with her falling T-cells we gave her more AZT.

So let'e clarify for everyone. Lindsey has a poz ELISA, poz Western Blot, and falling T-cells. But wait, you say all those three Hallmark AIDS indicators are wrong because her p24 test was negative? If this is true, you better tell the world since most people who test positive on the two different antibody tests (not in the UK as they don't use
WB) are never sent for isolation of the virus.

So here we have a cross roads, either you are right, Lindsey is negative and the antibody tests just don't work as House of Numbers reveals through experts mainstream scientists, or she is positive, but since the virus doesn't exist, or does nothing, she is alive because she didn't take drugs that cause immune deficiency and death.

We like either scenario. You choose.

Okay, let's go one step further. Had my daughter been tested today she would have the viral load test. But here's the problem, viral load tests (which as are said to look for actual Virus [HIV] and not surrogate markers like antibodies) are not recommend by the CDC for diagnosing HIV infection. You have to do an antibody test. But according to my critics, the antibody tests don't work as my daughter tested positive on many of them. Okay, let;s say she tested negative on antibody tests, but positive for viral load then we have to ask is she really infected? Well, maybe not since people who test negative for HIV on antibody tests have tested positive for HIV on viral load.
In plain english, the viral load says HIV (if it exists) is present when the antibody test says it is negative.

CONFUSED????

We are. Maybe there needs to be a broader discussion.


* Karry Mullis, Nobel Winner for creating PCR does not believe HIV causes AIDS (whatever AIDS is)

The Many Causes Of Immune Deficiency
ScienceDaily (Sep. 18, 2009) — Defects of the immune system lead to increased susceptibility to infection, autoimmune diseases (e.g. inflammatory rheumatism), allergies and sometimes even cancer. An intact immune system, on the other hand, ensures physical health and well-being.

The most common causes worldwide include malnutrition, poor sanitary conditions and human immune deficiency virus (HIV) infection. Other causes of temporary or permanent damage to the immune system include old age, medications (e.g. cortisone, cytostatic drugs), radiotherapy, stress after surgery and malignant tumors of the bone marrow and the lymph nodes. Innate deficiencies of the immune system are comparatively rare. However, as experiments of nature, they allow insights into the structure and functioning of the human immune system. Innate immune deficiencies are estimated to occur in one out of 500 individuals.

Acquired immunodeficiency
Immune deficiency may also be the result of particular external processes or diseases; the resultant state is called "secondary" or "acquired" immunodeficiency. Common causes for secondary immunodeficiency are malnutrition, aging and particular medications (e.g. chemotherapy, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, immunosuppressive drugs after organ transplants, glucocorticoids).

I wonder why these two sources (This and my previous message) refer to Malnutrition FIRST on their list of common causes for immunodeficiency. What do you think all those poor people have been dying from all these decades? The decades before AIDS..........

@R.So, Montagnier was talking about the factors involved when exposure to HIV results in chronic infection. Most exposures to HIV don't result in chronic infection (HIV positive status). There are a number of factors influencing the likelihood an exposure to the virus will result in a person seroconverting to HIV positive - a person's genetics, the virus subtype, the type of exposure, mucosal integrity, presence of genital ulcers, humoral and cell mediated immunity, etc. Montagnier thinks that nutritional status is one factor, particularly in populations where malnutrition is common. He may or may not be right, but it's not exactly a radical suggestion.

The House of Numbers publicity machine have misrepresented Montagnier's comment to make it seem like he is saying that nutritional intervention can clear the virus from HIV positive people - people who have established chronic infection. He is not saying this at all. Their misrepresentation of Montagnier is deliberate, dishonest and contemptible.

@Christopher, "Dr" Marc Deru is not medically qualified - he is a Belgian homeopath who has not worked in Africa since the 1960s. His statement that well nourished children with HIV get no more illnesses than HIV negative children is tragically misguided, and you will note that he provides not a skerrick of objective data to support this extraordinary claim. This is, of course, the usual standard of evidence used by homeopaths to support their claims.

@Cheryl Nagel: you have never, to my knowledge, clarified whether your daughter ever got a confirmed diagnosis of HIV infection as a child, whether she is currently infected with HIV or her current immune status. You and your husband have simply gone trolling around the net inviting people to speculate on her health status. You are using a teenage girl's personal history as a political football to pick fights with random individuals on the net. I cannot imagine what kind of parents would treat their daughter's life in such a way.

If you are confused, there is most definitely not a need for "broader discussion". Go and see a competent medical professional, and stop setting your daughter up as some kind of publicity exhibit to further your political agenda and that of Ms Farber and Dr Duesberg. If you believe your daughter has suffered from negligent medical care, then seek legal advice about appropriate redress.

I note that Ms Farber dramatically announced a coming lawsuit of yours in 1996, but which never eventuated. Your silence on this is deafening.

"Dear Pandora,You are trying to say my daughter was in fact never infected because she tested negative on the p24 antigen (culture) test?"

YES.

"Lindsey has [that's HAD, Ms. Nagel] a poz ELISA, poz Western Blot, and falling T-cells. But wait, you say all those three Hallmark AIDS indicators are wrong because her p24 test was negative? If this is true, you better tell the world since most people who test positive on the two different antibody tests"

Okay, Ms. Nagel, you got it: Hey, world!

Babies inherit some antibodies (for HIV, Malaria, and Hep c, among other diseases) from their mothers. That's why your daughter tested positive for HIV antibodies by ELISA and Western Blot. They are both antibody tests.

As children grow, they produce their own antibodies. So if you're old enough to be reading this, or understand language beyond "ga-ga," the above situation does not apply to you. The only antibodies you have are your own.

http://www.thebody.com/content/treat/art12785.html?getPage=6#postnatal

"I wonder why these two sources (This and my previous message) refer to Malnutrition FIRST on their list of common causes for immunodeficiency."

I wonder why you think that means anything? Smoking is the most common cause of cancer, does that mean if you don't smoke you won't get cancer? Hey, you better go tell the world! No more sunscreen, PAP smears, or testicle exams! That's great news!

See, wasn't that easy? Telling the truth means you don't have to bury an answer in excessive wording, hoping no one will notice.

And speaking of answers, Ms. Nagel...WHAT HAPPENED TO YOUR THREATENED LAWSUIT? Sorry to everyone for shouting, but Ms. Nagel seems to have selective deafness.

http://aidsinfobbs.org/articles/quilty/q05/2096

Cheryl Nagels post on Nov 5, is a decisive deconstruction of the bogus test. Everyone should carefully read and read her posts and the irratioal counter arguments given by the Aids Inc fundamentalists.

The beautiful thing about House of Numbers is that it allows the Aids experts to answer basic questions and then exposes the inherent quackery of Aids Junk Sciene by having the same questions contradicted completely by other fake role playing experts.

The same absense of awareness that defines the religion of Aids Scientists is matched by the lay people who attend the church of HIV. Take note of the inane challanges questioning whether the Nagels daughter was ever really positive. That is exactly the point - no one can be considered positive because the test is 100% inaccurate - and the Nagels posioning their daughther with RX immune defiency causing chemicals based on a false diagnosis which they had the intelligence and integrity to check in test after test after test proves what the Aids fundalmentalists are in denial about. The test and the virus are nonsense. The RX drugs are very real- very real killers.

Parents gave their child medicines to only discover latter that what they thought was medicine was in fact poison. Their daughter was being poisoned by the drugs given on the basis of a test that is completey bogus. All for a virus that has never been isolated and exists only as legend and product marketing.

.

Elliot, you write "the bogus test" - are you under the impression that there is only one? Prior to the availability of testing for HIV DNA, virus culture was essential to the diagnosis of pediatric HIV infection due to transfer of maternal antibodies. An HIV positive test in an infant whose mother is infected is accurately detecting antibodies, there is just no way of knowing if those antibodies are from the mother or the child without additional testing. So when Cheryl writes:

"But wait, you say all those three Hallmark AIDS indicators are wrong because her p24 test was negative? If this is true, you better tell the world since most people who test positive on the two different antibody tests (not in the UK as they don't use WB) are never sent for isolation of the virus."

It is deliberately disingenuous, since "most people" aren't infants born to HIV infected mothers.

Also, virus culture and p24 antigen tests are actually two different tests, and according to the New York Native report Lindsey Nagel had both of these tests and they were both negative.

Have you ever met Holly Johnson? He could tell you a thing or two about HIV infection and its treatment. You should also look for today's news reports about a recent indication of success using gene therapy; the vector used to deliver the gene was the virus you just claimed has never been isolated.

@Pandorra, none of us here have enough information to speculate on whether a particular teenage girl has HIV or not, or on her current health status.

The "information" publicised by her parents and by Celia Farber is selective, garbled, and at times internally contradictory. Cheryl Nagel admits she is confused, but doesn't appear to have taken any steps in recent years to clarify the situation by seeking properly qualified medical assistance. Instead she and her husband are using a highly filtered version of their daughter's story to manufacture controversy by trolling for "debate" on the internet and exhibiting her to the audience of a reprehensible propaganda film. This cannot possibly be in their daughter's interests, whether she in fact has HIV or not. They appear utterly oblivious to this.

Some of Cheryl Nagel's confusion is understandable, given that the diagnosis of HIV infection in an infant with HIV antibodies is not straightforward, and treatments are far from perfect. This was particularly the case in 1991-2. She and her husband have also been targeted by a group of individuals hell bent on promoting a crank pseudoscience agenda, irrespective of the consequences for people who have, or may have HIV infection. The Nagels are not the only family who have been exploited in this way by this group.

Their "story" was also used in a cynical advertorial promoting the "services" of a certain law firm in the New York Native in 1995. The lawsuit, as you and I have already observed, never saw the light of day.

It is entirely inappropriate for the Nagels and their crank mentors to abuse and exploit their daughter in this way. She has a right to privacy, particularly when it comes to a health issue like this with potentially significant ramifications. She needs properly qualified medical input in the real world to clarify any ambiguities, not to be made a subject of acrimonious "debate" on the net where both sides are not in possession of all the facts. She deserves better.


Its seems that the religious zealots of Hiv fundamentalism can only repeat dognatic assertions which have been proven to be false. Example being
the endlessly plastic every changing points raised by fundamentalists regarding what they incorrectly assume is Hiv testing.

Its all bogus because the basis of the Hiv hoax has been exposed by an honest review of the published science which reveals its all smoke and mirrors.

The scientic denialism that characterizes every thing in the delusional world Hiv / Aids / RX killing, can be appreciated by anyone who looks at the arguements both pro and con. There has never been any isolation of the famous HIV - its all words. Those electron microsopic pictures - there regular cellular particles with an imaginative word hung on it. BLBS doesn't understand that all HIV tests from antibody tests to PCR and viral load are nothing by blind faith divinations relying on the same false assumptions.

First without a virus there can't be a test. That alone should end the discussion. But HIV/AIDS being foremost a business as well as a religion is not disturbed that the virus doesn't exist. What are these tests then - the antibody tests cross react with numerous things - Hiv the entity which exists only as a word (and most definitly as a marketable product ) having never been isolated is not one of those numerous cross reactive elements. Any test that has numerous cross reactions is by definition invalid. Common sense understands cross reactivity invalidates a test from being used. Common sense however has nothing to do with the Aids industry. Next the virus that has never been found is tested with equally absurd high tech tests. Viral Load using PCR. Sounds impressive doesn't it. Kerry Mullis who got the Noble prize in chemistry for developing PCR testing is himself a dissident and is very impressed with the use of PCR for counting the viral load of HIV. He's impressed by the absolute nonsensical and inaccurate way PCR has been abused by the science denialists of the Church of HIV. Mullis refers to viral load as a load of shit.

The list of honest sane and morally sound scientists who looked at the HIV delusional fiasco is an impressive array of a large and growing global array of people of conscience. Unlike the yes men from the corporate church of medicine and goverment hacks these scientist are speaking out against the quackery and the killing. Everyone can decide for themselves by simple studying the dissident position. The HOUSE OF NUMBERS is a metaphor for the facts which prove that Aids/HIV/RX model to be hoax, quackery of the worst type, an absurdity, a nightmare. Our humanity can not afford the error of allowing those who are denialists of science to continue the corporate greed machines destruction of millions of peoples lives. Folks don't sit on the sidelines. Not acting is an endorsement of the status quo. Study the issue decide for yourself.Stop listening to the experts. Its up to each of use to stop the killing machine.


Elliot, you sound very proud of your progressive ignorance!
Let me just point out that Karri Mullis is a nut. Do you not think it is crazy that a man who invented the PCR does not think that it can be utilized with HIV? It is completely illogical.
Also, you claim that HIV does not exist. You really need to do some research as HIV has been isolated time and time again!! Get a grip.
Laatly, please tell us who is on this growing list of "honest, sane and morally sound scientists..."?
If you go to AIDSTruth.org, you will see that the list of 2500 Scientists perpetuated by RA has about three scientists and the rest are academics and journalists, many of whom have asked to be taken off the list and RA has refused!! Go to AIDSTruth.org for the proof. They have actual letters from many of the people requesting to be taken off and the reply from David Crowe (that lunatic) who REFUSES!!!
JTD

As for Celia Farber, she has a history of filing bogus law~suits for PUBLICITY that she never follows up on!
I have sent two emails to the NY Post "journalists" who reported on Farbers most recent bogus lawsuit that has NEVER been served to the defendants requesting a follow up story on why this suit has not gone forward in the SIX MONTHS since the suit was filed in NY!!
JTD

Todd Deshong

Your statement that Kerry Mullis is a nut provides nothing to advance the HIV fantasy. It rather gives me an opportunity to expose how dense you are and how baseless is the junk science of HIV.

Dissidents become dissidents by personally looking at the evidence. Mullis can say with certainity that PCR Hiv viral load is a load of shit because the funadmental prerequiste for PCR is purification and isolation of the sample. Without purification / isolation there can be no tests. Nor can there be any claim that something on a molecular level exists.

Your correct that Mullis the inventor of PCR for which he won a noble prize realizes that it can't be used for HIV but the reason is a knockout blow to you and the church of HIV. For something to be sequenced for dna it must first exist.HIV can't be tested since he has never been proven to exist.

This does not mean that thousands of conformist yes men researchers can't mimic each other. They are forced by status quo and venality to follow or be fired. Scientific standards of truth have nothing whatsoever to do with the marketing of RX drugs and tests that thrive in the deporable world of disease mongering. HIV the product is very real.

Can you understand ?. No isolation no proof that it exists. Its simple. As simple as a load of shit and a shit load of money for disease mongering.

"Up to today there is actually no single scientifically convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the methods of classical virology" Dr Heinz Sanger, Prof Emeritus of Molecular Biology and Virolog, Mam-Planck Institutes for Biochemistry, Munchen Germany

Err... @Elliot....

"The evidence presented against the existence of HIV was really naive, to say the least. Almost embarrassing. And that wasn't just my impression. That's what one of the organizers, Dr. Roberto Giraldo, said. That's what Kary Mullis said, and that's what David Rasnick said. I would have no problems saying HIV doesn't exist if the evidence for that would be halfway convincing. But I'm afraid that's not so."

"HIV viral DNA is reasonably well-defined, as well as you can define it. It's been cloned and sequenced. You can make a so-called probe, and either detect it by Kary Mullis' ingenious polymerase chain reaction, or sequence it, or do a Southern Blot, or any of these methods to determine if it's present in a cell, or in a human body, or not. Those results, I think, have determined very clearly that HIV DNA or RNA, that makes some of these proteins, is not to be found, at least in the U.S., in most people. It's in 1 million people, but it's not in the other 259 million."

- Peter Duesberg.

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/mcinterviewpd.htm

Don't you love how denialists can't even get the opinions of their crank mentors straight?

To Step outside of the church of HIV, refer to the questions page of www.aidsmyth.com. Peter Duessberg is not the voice of dissidence. His views represent a declining position. The Duessberg view is that retrovirus exist but that they are harmless. Billions of dollars of researh in the 1970s down the retroviral sewer gave Dr Duessberg a basis to have an opinion. Playing the research game did after all give him a living - I meet and like the man but I know the whole field is prostitution. The opposing view that is becoming the majority now is that retrovirus have been proven to be lab lunacy - they have never been isolated. -- You Snout, as a corporate prostitute, know all about the dissident arguments- your livehood as a misinformation hit man for the Disease mongering industry depends on it. These discussions are not for you or with you, you are a prop to reach the public who can decide for themselves. Anyone who wants to learn about all the reasons why HIV doesn't exist should go to the home page of www.aidsmyth.com.

On a common sense basis its fascinating that Biomedical reseach has found zero cures for any of the dozens of diseases they have recieved hundreds of billions of dollars to line their corporate pockets with. They don't even know what causes any disease including a cold. In one and only disease do they know the cause - Aids. They figured out Aids in 2 years ( strange considering the horrendous record of the research industry ) - figured out how to invent a new market is the proper understanding. Now 25 years later, millions dead by RX drugs - hundreds of billions pocketed ... is this science or quackery, medicine or disease mongering ?

"The medical system survives because of blind faith. If people where to ever look at the evidence behind the treatments and tests they are being given 90% of the system would collapse overnight" Robert Mendelsohn MD, author, Confessions of a Medical Heretic -

Correction for the website posted above.
The correct website is www.aidsmythexposed.com

Can I attribute my cognitive lapse to aging ? how about the damaging effect of chemicals, pesticides, processed foods, medical drugs, vaccinations. My goodness where to begin ? - One place not to ever look for answers is the medical industrial complex which is owned top to bottom by the very industries which are creating and profiting from maintaining the diseases of modern industrial societies.

The PCR sequence for the first genome of the DNA of the Quack Biomedical Reseach Industrial Complex has been mapped by the Department of Sociopathic Studies at the prestiguos Jungian University. Here it is -

DiseaseMongeringDiseaseMongeringDiseaseMongeringDiseaseMongeringDiseaseMongeringDiseaseMongeringDiseasMongeringDiseaseMongeringDiseaseMongeringDiseaseMongering -


Gosh, Elliot! Do you remember all those days before we had medicine and biomedical research doing their fear mongering? Those were good times weren't they? None of our current diseases existed then! Small Pox, Polio, Measles, Mumps weren't invented! Pharmaceutical companies didn't exist to make antibiotics so we didn't have the syphilis or other bacterial infections they treat! Vaccines didn't exist so we didn't have those pesky invented pathogens ravaging the world population! Black Plague? Ha! We simply laughed at it! Small Pox? Just a few itchies and we were done! Heck, without medicine, processed food, vaccines, antibiotics, ect... we'd simply all live forever like our caveman ancestors...right?

Poodle Stomper - do I have the name right ?. Another one is Snout. Poodle Stomper and Snout. What dna meme would choose such names ? There are clues to your state of mind from your blind faith medical fundamentalist statements.

Now to the point of contagious ignorance. Public health is the sole reason for the extentsion of life span. Clean water, home heating and plumbing and sanitation. Medical science, of which there is very little of, had only one contribution. 100 years after a Doctor insisted that the very high death rate to mother and infant during child birth was from the filthy conditions of medical delivery proceduces the practice was finally changed by implementing hand washing, a clean delivery environment and the sterilization of filthy instruments. The doctor who insisted on this changes was run out of the church of medicine and de licensed!

As to the propaganda of the elimination of infectious disease by corporate medicine. Sorry - toilets, plumbling and clean water are not medicine. Needless to say facts have no bearing on faith based illusions. Progandga is a whole other story.

In a world in which 300,000 to 400,000 people are killed each year by normal medical business quackery in the US alone (combined figures for RX drug deaths of victims who were taking medicines according to instructions( correct term is chemical poisons, not medicine ) deaths from unnecessary surgeries, and hospital created infections. That equals 2 plus world trade centers 9/11 diasters each week, every week of the year, killed by the church of medicine. A society that is blind to this is infected with a far worse syndrome than the best microbial infections from lack of sanitation in the past.

Thanks for your dna mental meme material donations of the blind faith meme. I will be submiting it for social pathology research for PCR sequencing- along with your repugnant names.

Elliot,
Thanks for spending time blessing us with your scientific understanding! Clearly sanitation, plumbing, heating ect... are the only things here extending our lives! I mean when people step on a rusty nail it isn't the tetnus vaccine they received or the antibiotics that keep them from massive infections, right? It is their central heating! I guess it was this lack of central heating that allowed tetnus to kill 95,000 people in 1997 alone in Africa. I suppose that it isn't rabbies vaccines that prevented death when people are bit by rabid animals (even though only a handful of people have ever survived untreated) it was the lack of plumbing! Or maybe it is a giant conspiracy! Please do go on, Elliot. you are doing a phenomenal job showing the caliber of scientific and logical thinking inherent in the denialist community.

Ah Poddle Stomper your back for more lessons - thats good. I see your in full retreat from your orginal false claim of the reduction in deaths from infectious diseases that were public health improvements not medical treatments. Yes you heard from experts - who were lying - and as a mimic you repeat. Just like your of mimicing the mantra Hiv/Aids.

Having lost 98% of your examples of infectious diseases in America to the plumbers you grasp at antibiotics for tenatus treatment and the relatively rare rabies bites. You've even retreated to another continent Africa to find examples. Not so fast you Poodle Stomper. You can't run away from being shamed by having your main point about the success of medical treatment in the radical reduction of infectious disease exposed as the lie it is.

No one is saying that on occasion allopathic medical treatment isn't useful or necessary. The fact is that those occasions are rare. The vast majority of medicine is junk science - we have no cures for chronic diseases, massive research welfare producing nothing, and RX created deaths are epidemic. Yet somehow people consider the the system creditable. This is superstition worse than the middle ages. Aids is a particular wonderful example of the convergence of quackery and public idoltary.

Add this example onto your dimenished arguments favoring the church of medicine. When MDs go on strike the death rates drop significantly. Everywhere in the world death rates drop within 5 days of doctor strikes from 17% to 50%. In Isreal, where there have been the most strikes, the morticans lobby intensly to end strikes. In Europe during world war 2 almost all physicans were drafted and civilans had almost no medical service. Civilian deaths for all ages were down 20% during the war. When the war ended and doctors returned home the death rate went back up 25% - to normal.
www.annfammed.org/cgi/eletters/1/1/44

Ok - you lost the infectiuos diseases to the plumbers, and public water engineers. You get the rabies but lose to doctors strikes. The scale of the comparisons is on the order of a 50 to 1 total rout. No wonder you have faith in the spectacularly inane HIV/AIDS myth.

AIDS = Acquired Intelligence Defiency Syndrome



Elliot,
Really? The one link you use as a reference is based on the BS of Rath and Gary Null. Those two idiots have absolutely no real credibility except among the most gullible. It is amusing that you would use them as a reference (albeit by proxy) after accusing me of "mimicing". We "have no cures for chronic diseases" you say! Syphilis was an incurable chronic disease at one point. Guess what, it is curable with antibiotics. How about malaria? With the right drug combination this chronic disease is curable. Certain forms of cancer are highly curable, despite being a chronic disease. Hepatitis B is chronic in many cases but guess what, the vaccine can prevent that. Diabetes (while not an infectious disease) is a chronic disease but guess what, with insulin it is manageable. Would you like to take a bet at who would live longer; a diabetic using the fear mongering pharma's insulin or those using nothing? Would you like to see who would fare better with those highly treatable cancers? Would you like to see who would do better after exposure to HepB? Educate yourself instead of simply swallowing your pseudoscience whole, Elliot. It could prove helpful.

I will change your name to poodle because it befits the dependency state of dogs on their masters as well as infantile adults on their replacement parental figures - the doctor authority.

You would do best to stay silent. With each post you dig yourself deeper into a hole by giving examples which are demonstratably false and mimiced. Poodle this is not a religion where you can repeat dogma your going head to head with a dissident. Dissidents know how to think and evaluate information. When you mimic nonsense to someone who isn't from the church you will be exposed as .. as ... a poodle not a person.

Death from Iatrogenic Causes - JAMA, Dr Barbara Starfield - 250,000 per year in the US - extremely low estimate considers only hospital murders.

783,983 - quite realistic, except 115,000 is attributed to bedsores, which I don't agree with.
Multiple references cited -
www.ourcivilisation.com/medicine/usamed/deaths/htm

Syphilis cured by antibiotics. How interesting - so they say - In reality penicillin has been shown to suppress the skin legion while the spiroctes are driven into the nervuos system thus creating an epidemic of seronegative syphillis in syphillis postive people. Because of suppression of infection active syphillis is repeatedly passed on to others by antibiotic masked infectives. Refer to, Aids and Syphillis by Harris Coulter - numerous references are provided.

Maleria - I don't know about. Might be one of the real rarities where allopathic medicine is useful.

Cancer - Cancer is an utter debacle, with only a few exceptions. I can not even comment it so ludicous.

Hep B vaccine - provided someone is an ignoramus they can believe this.

Diabetes type 2 - is regularly cured by reversing insulin resistence and taking people off the insulin. The control type treatment of church controls it with stroke, heart attack, blindness, dementia and cancer. Thank you for this one.
google search - insulin and its metabolic effects, Dr Ron Rosedale

Poodle - I must say sincerly that you are an ignoramus. I don't know what else to say but to give you that compliment. It elavates existence above that of a poodle. In a debate examples can not be used which are not only shamefully false but strongly support the arguments of the other side. Only an ignoramous would do what you do.

Thank you for the discussion. Of all the examples you gave demonstrating ignorance you yourself are the best. Bow Wow - I will not respond to any more of your barking. Enjoy life in the church of HIV RX quackery - short lived as it is.

Dear Pandora,
You wrote, "Your lack of scientific understanding is quite apparent. You write, "Babies inherit some antibodies (for HIV, Malaria, and Hep c, among other diseases) from their mothers. That's why your daughter tested positive for HIV antibodies by ELISA and Western Blot. They are both antibody tests."

My Response

1] You are assuming the birth mother was infected for HIV which she was not. The only reason you assume this is you have not other response and cannot admit the tests don't work.

2] The fact you assume is completely unscientific.

3] My daughter had numerous antibody tests after the p24 culture. They were positive. EXPLAIN THAT!

Here is more information on p24 "The p24 protein is not sufficient for diagnosing "HIV" infection because it is not specific. Indeed, no other "HIV" protein not even p41 (p45/43) has been reported to react more often with sera from healthy (at no risk of AIDS) individuals. Neither has a monoclonal antibody to any of the other "HIV" proteins been found to react more often with proteins present in non "infected" cultures or sera from individuals at no risk of AIDS. According to Montagnier because: (a) "these are cellular proteins that one meets everywhere - there is a non-specific background noise"; (b) one such protein, having a molecular weight of 45/43, is actin; (c) this protein reacted with sera from individuals at no risk of AIDS; the p45/43 represents a cellular and not a viral protein. However, since: (i) myosin is as ubiqitous as actin. (ii) myosin has a light chain with a molecular weight of 24,000. (iii) the cytoskeletal proteins (of which actin and myosin are the most abundant) have been reported in "pure HIV".(91-94) Indeed, myosin and actin are said to play a crucial in budding and release of the "HIV" particles.(91) (iv) Montagnier has shown that patients with AIDS and at risk of AIDS have anti-myosin antibodies. Why should not one consider the p24 band as representing myosin?"

Furthermore, I do wear hearing aids and I resent you making snotty personal remarks. Just who are you anyway?


@Cheryl, stop this. You are trying to pick a fight with random strangers on the net about your teenage daughter's health status. This is the behaviour of a crank, not of a responsible parent with the best interests of her daughter at heart.

1) You do not have reliable information about the HIV status of your daughter's birth mother. You adopted her in the immediate aftermath of the Romanian revolution of 1989 which revealed the twin humanitarian catastrophes of the horrendous predicament of orphans in state "care" and an HIV/AIDS epidemic driven by a negligent approach to basic blood borne virus prevention. You know as well as anyone that intercountry adoption there and then was not an orderly, transparent process with all cards on the table. It was like the wild west. Your daughter's "HIV test" result slip from Romania was not worth the paper it was hand scrawled on.

2) There is no such thing as a "p24 culture". The fact you speak of this is alone evidence that you do not understand the significance of various tests for HIV infection.

3) Positive antibody tests in an infant may indicate antibodies produced by the infant, or may be antibodies produced by the mother and passively transferred across the placenta. They are not in themselves a reliable guide to the infant's infection status in the first year or two.

4) Tests for HIV-1 p24 protein are not sufficient to diagnose HIV infection because they are not sensitive enough. Tests for ANTIBODIES to HIV-1 p24 protein are not, by themselves, specific enough. HIV-1 p24 and myosin are completely different proteins. The only thing they have in common is that they are roughly the same size.

Please stop this trolling. On the information you have given, your daughter may or may not have HIV infection. If she does, she may or may not be in need of treatment. Please discuss this with a competent medical professional, one with appropriate qualifications and experience in the area. And no, none of the leading lights of "Rethinking AIDS" fit that description.

If you think your daughter has suffered from medical negligence, please discuss this with an ethical legal professional. An ethical legal professional will respect your daughter's dignity and confidentiality. He or she will give you frank and honest advice about the merits of your case. What they will not do is publish sensitive medical information about a minor with identifying details in an advertorial designed to spruik for buisiness for their firm - and then drop the case the moment it becomes clear that it's a dud.

That is, in my opinion, most definitely not okay. Nor is it okay for you to abuse your daughter's need for appropriate care by trolling in the way you are doing.

So stop it.

Elliot,
Harris Coulter is yet another one of your run of the mill antivaxer nutters. That you would use him as a reference to support your faith is most telling.

Really? Antibiotics simply "suppress the skin legion while the spirochetes are driven into the nervous system"? How about some evidence for this rather than the book of an antivax, denialist nutter? Do you know what happens when the T. pallidum gets into the nervous system? It isn't pretty and would be obvious. Yet despite these alleged migrations to the nervous system forced on by antibiotics, why is the incidence of tertiary syphilis so low? Where are the scores of infants born to these infected individuals? Where are the case reports from hundreds of thousands of doctors exclaiming that these kids are contracting syphilis prenatally even though their mothers aren't infected? Your faith in Coulter's BS combined with your obvious lack of biology knowledge has blinded you to even common logic.

"Diabetes type 2 - is regularly cured by reversing insulin resistence and taking people off the insulin."

How regular is "regularly" Please do cite a CREDIBLE source. What about Type 1 diabetics? Will you tell them to get off the insulin because it is made by evil big pharma?

Your other comments made no specific claims although they were hilarious so they can wait until another day. In the meantime, please take some biology courses at your local community college. It really will help.

Statements misrepresenting Syphilis have repeated been made and require exposing.

Syphilis is very serious disease which is now epidemic because of antibiotic treatments and unreliable blood tests. Rather than curing syphilis the infection is driven deeper into the body by antibiotics. Serological tests are extremely unreliable and rarely are positive in people who are infected, especially in those already treated with drugs suppressive drugs. Infected people with false negative test results can pass the infection on to others.

The documentary "The cause of Aids: Fact and speculation" is available free online - search google by name. parts 3 and 4 cover the Syphilis scandal- beginning at around 18 minutes into part 3.

None other than Joseph Sonnabend is interviewed repeatedly in the documentary and sings a different song than his later career enhancing power serving ego switching soul sell out current tune.

By falsely claiming antibiotics were a cure for Syphilis, and marketing unreliable blood tests as accurate, the shameless and forever quack infested medical industry engaged in its usual misrepresentation of science in favor of profit and industry without any concern for the serious damage they were causing to victims of their methods. A familar Story - mistreat, misdiagnose, misrepresent - get rich!

I don't know what HIV believers look at?
The Bristol study into HAART did a long study of 22,000 HIV+ on these drugs and came up with the conclusion that HAART has made no difference and if you have TB and take HAART it will kill you quicker.
AZT only ever stopped infections by causing severe anemia and starving bugs of iron.
It has no anti-retroviral effect apart from causing genomic hypermethylation and repressing endgenous retroviruses.
Nevirapine makes your skin fall off and destroys the liver.

In the HIV data they admit that the sloppy HIV antibody test cross reacts with HLA-DR antibodies.
HLA-DR is an African gene and anyone with antibodies to HLA-DR will have autoimmune symptoms which AIDS scientists will see as HIV/AIDS.
This means Africans with psoriasis, arthritis, MS etc can be HIV+.
Racism is built into the test.

They say the HIV test is NOT to be used as a diagnosis for HIV, only an indicator that retroviruses are present.
It is a simple consumer protection case and this test should never have been put on the market.
Only a third of Gallo's patients were HIV+ so what was causing so called AIDS?
They all used poppers.

They also admit to finding HIV antigens in normal human placental tissue and the AIDS industry knows this and has wilfully honed in on the pregnant market in Africa and elsewhere to find more victims and make a buck.
Robert Gallo has struggled to prove the racist theory that Africans playing and eating monkey meat somehow spread HIV into Haiti and that gays on sex tours did the rest.
If you continually test gays, drug users, prostitutes and blacks with a random test you will create an imagined HIV epidemic.
This is the HIV theorem and we have wasted 25 years with this appalling rubbsh.
I know one of the last 3 survivors of the AZT trials, they are all alive 25 years later because they stopped taking AZT.
They are a testament to your failed accusations that somehow they are dirty carriers of a sex virus.
You are all criminals and nothing can save you from the wave of rage which will sweep your rotten stinking empire down the drain.

Elliott, first you chastise ME and tell me that the acid dropping, glowing raccoon seeing, Alien Abductee, Karri Mullis (how's that for proof that he is crazy?...it's all in his own biography in his own words) says that PCR can't be used for HIV because it has not been isolated. Then, Snout deftly proves that it HAS been isolated time and time again, and then you GOAL POST CHANGE by saying, well, er, I mean, HIV is harmless!!! Which is it? Maybe it is you that is the crazy one? Well, your contradictory statements actually do not prove you are crazy, just that you are either a liar or just stupid. Or both!
JTD

Elliott, Also, I just have to point out that you are not only woefully ignorant about the basics of science, but also about the basics of proper grammar and spelling.
You have repeatedly used YOUR when you meant to use the contraction YOU'RE.
Please google "contraction" and do not get the meanings mixed up. I do not want you to come back here and lecture me about contractions relating to giving birth! I would hate to see you embarrass yourself any futher.
My point here, since you probably do not understand, is that if you do not understand something as simple as your vs. you're, then you probably do not understand the basics of science. It is obvious to me, Poodle, Snout and others here that you do not know science, but you seem not to grasp this fact since you keep embarrassing yourself time and again.
You're sad. (See how I used that?)
JTD

Elliot,
Please cite a credible reference for your ridiculous claim regarding antibiotics and syphilis. By credible I mean peer reviewed and reproducible data. I don't mean some bogus crockumentary cooked up by pseudoscientists. Please enlighten us! And please don't stop with your laughable conspiracy claims. They show anyone reading your rants just how ingrained in denial you truly are.

Cal,
I assume you are referring to "Antiviral Therapy Cohort Collaboration report" from The Lancet in 2006? Did you actually read the study you cited or simply parrot back what you read on a denialist site? Be honest and and if you claim you did read it please expect to be quizzed on the contents of the paper. I wouldn't want you simply cherry picking quotes without understanding the paper.

A request was made for 1 credible references for the failure of antibiotics in treating syphilis, the unreliabilty of syphilis tests and the damage done by antibiotic treatment.

Below is more than one.

Despite the fact that a Book, Aids and Syphilis by Harris Coulter, which contains numerous references from medical journals was recommended for thinking people to exercise open minded examination of the issue, the book was never looked at but was attached because the author was a "nut". The Documentary "The cause of Aids : fact and speculation-( located online by google search for the title, the Syphilis section begins at 18 minutes into part 3 ) was recommended because it contains over 1 hour of interviews with doctors and mentions numerous medical journal publications the documentary was called a "bogus crockumentary cooked up by pseudoscientists" by a person that never even say it.

Who are the denialists in the Aids debate when fundamentalists condemn the documentary House of Numbers despite not seeing it and an Hiv fundamentalist calls information exposing what he wishes were not true about the syphilis medical malpractice scandal nasty names instead of looking at the material.

References for those who are not in denial -

- Spirochetes in late seronegative syphilis, despite penicillin therapy. Med Times 1968: 96:611-623

-Persistence of Treponema pallidum following penicllin G therapy, JAMA 1976, 236:2206-2207

-Tramont EC, (co author of above article - letter ) Inadequate treatment of neurosyphils with penicillin. N Engl J Med, 1976, 294-1296

- Acute syphilitic meningitis: its occurance after clinical serological cure of secondary syphilis with penicillin G, Arch Neurol 1986,
43:137-138

-Neurosyphilis after treatment of latent syphilis with benzathine penicillin. Genitourin Med
1986, 62:129-131

**Unmasking Aids: chemical immunosuppression and seronegative syphilis. Med Hypoth 1986: 21:421-430

See the documentary first. Then take the big test. The medial industry knowingly promoted antibiotics for syphilis as cure and serological tests as reliable. Yet it was known in the 1950's that something was very wrong with the tests and the treatments. The medical system keep quiet while millions of patients who had syphilis were told they didn't based on unreliable tests and millions of others were treated for skin lesions and told they where cured when in fact the treatment drove the syphilis deeper into the body body. All these victims were imcome streams. No one knows how many hundreds of thousands where damaged or killed. If the haters and nasty name callers who are so outspoken with hysterical venom don't have their nastist name calling for the medical system that is responible for the syphilis epidemic that it created then you know for certain that this is a blind faith group and not a discussion group.

Elliot,
Thanks for the references. Now here is why your claims are bunk, based entirely on the use of your references.

First Medical Hypothesis is NOT a peer reviewed journal. Anyone can print pretty much anything in there. You don't need real evidence to have something published in there. In fact the only persons I know who have ever had a paper retracted by the journal were two AIDS denialists Peter Duesberg and Henry Bauer (Yep, the same one that hunts for Nessie, aliens...very scientific).

As for your other woefully dated publications (do you really think that there were no advances in medicine since 1968!?), they are referring to the emerging inadequacy of penicillin as a treatment option. A huge part of this was due to the the rise of resistant strains of Treponema pallidum. These papers doesn't say that antibiotics don't work. They simply note the bug in question has evolved resistance to antibiotics in SOME people. This isn't rocket science nor is it unique to syphilis. It is part of natural selection and a well known and accepted phenomenon in real science. In fact, this ability to adapt is exploited in lab experiments (which you have undoubtedly never performed). However, penicillin is not the only antibiotic available for treatment of syphilis, although from your previous rants it is clear you most likely don't believe in anything that does not already agree with your faith. Other more advanced antibiotics continually emerge for treating resistant diseases. Again, this is not unique to syphilis. That you would not understand this is incredible to me. That you would not understand this and yet claim biological competency is a farce. That you don't understand this very basic material and yet claim it is others that do not understand biology is simply hypocrisy. It is also quite common to denialists.

For those who have personal integrity and wish to learn about what's really going on with syphilis refer to the previous references and online video.

To learn about what is real denialism and what is required to attend the church of HIV consider the example of the imaginative Poodle. Requesting 1 reference, getting 6, recieving them in the middle of the night, couldn't possibly have read them, and prompty attacks them.

It is diagnostically revealing concering the state of mind of HIVism devotees that the most outspoken members in the HIV cult often think they know the differnce between junk science and good science. They are so sharp at their imagined faith that they can attack the content of movies they haven't seen or articles they haven't read.


I have AIDS
I slept with a hiv positive man 8 months ago
I have parotid gland cysts and loss of hearing
A cd4 count of 334.
I am not hiv positive.
Mycoplasma fermentans?
This is what people should talk about.

Poodle,
I just saw a repeat of Grey's Anatomy and George had syphillis and they gave him penicillin and was fine. Case closed.
See, Elliot, I can come up with "proof" just as relevant as you! Check mate.
JTD

Elliot,
"Requesting 1 reference, getting 6, recieving them in the middle of the night, couldn't possibly have read them..."

Two words for you: Time Zone. Just because you send something when it is night where you are and just before your bed time does not mean it is night where I am nor that it is just before my bed time. This same kind of lack of logic also underlies your misunderstanding of biology. How do you know how fast I can read? I read science journal articles on a daily basis. Don't assume my reading ability is the same as yours.

"...and prompty attacks them."

Not at all. I attacked none of the studies. I simply stated that Medical Hypothesis is not a peer reviewed journal nor that you require evidence to publish in it. Hence the title "HYPOTHESIS".
I did not attack the others either, I simply pointed out that the studies (which you clearly have not read) do not mean what you claim they mean. This type of random and misinformed accusations are why you cannot grasp science. Science relies on reproducible evidence, not cherry picking, misquoting, crockumentaries and poorly thought out books that misquote studies to support their faith. It is truly hypocritical of you to claim non-denialists can't differentiate science fro pseudoscience when you don't even know what the references you cite don't even mean what you claim they do. Please do go on, though. Every post shows readers just how entrenched in conspiracy theories and misunderstanding denialists truly are.

JT,
I once read a book with photos of the Loch Ness Monster with glossy photos and am now convinced Nessie must exist. Oh wait that isn't my story but that of famed denialist Henry Bauer. no my story involved luminescent raccoons who could speak English. Wait, that was yet another denialist. perhaps if we showed such credentials when we spoke of HIV or syphilis Elliot would believe us.

Dear Snout, whatever your REAL name is, (Why don't you have the guts to tell me who you REALLY are?)

You are the one who is trying to pick a fight. I'm just pointing out facts and you are picking the fights. I would really love to discuss this issue, but you are trying to make me look like an idiot. AND I am not an idiot!

I am really upset that you think I am a displaying "the behaviour of a crank, not of a responsible parent with the best interests of her daughter at heart." Where did you come up with this quote? How DARE you tell me I do not have my daughter's best interest at heart!! How DARE you!

You say, "You do not have reliable information about the HIV status of your daughter's birth mother." No, it is you who does not have the facts. I have the facts. I met the doctor who did my daughter's test and her mother's test. Do you know this doctor? Were you there? (I'm sorry, I forgot you were there? Do I know you?) Where man, are you coming from? Not everybody in Romania is incompetent. There are MANY people who made HUGE sacrifices so we could get accurate information. I was with the doctor when he drew the blood from my daughter's body. I was in his lab. He seemed extremely competent to me!

Regarding the Culture test – the doctor we had referred to the culture test as the golden standard, THE test that would prove whether our daughter was positive or not. There was not enough P-24 in the test to be HIV. That was in the lab report. Therefore the test was negative. Why did the doctor tell us it was positive? I don't know!

Let me explain something to you. I am not a doctor. I am not a specialist. That is why we had 5, yes FIVE doctors from THE medical establishment diagnose our daughter on FIVE different occasions. Three from the Twin Cities, one from the Mayo Clinic – have you heard of the Mayo Clinic? AND one from Rush Hospital in Chicago. ALL FIVE were considered specialists in pediatric infectious diseases.

You tell me who doesn't understand tests!
Snout, you are trying to make me look incompetent to diagnose HIV, and I am! But what about the FIVE specialists? The FIVE pediatric infectious disease specialists?

Next you state, "Positive antibody tests in an infant may indicate antibodies produced by the infant, or may be antibodies produced by the mother and passively transferred across the placenta." This is why we tested and retested way past the age of 2.

Next you state, "Please stop this trolling." Snout, do you have children? Do you REALLY believe I would put my daughter on AZT if she wasn't HIV positive? Why do you think she went on AZT in the first place? And why would the two doctors she had until she was 2 put her on AZT, a life-threatening drug, if she weren't certain she was positive? Maybe you should ask THEM these questions! WE TRUSTED OUR DOCTOR. Big Mistake!

Next you state: "If you think your daughter has suffered from medical negligence, please discuss this with an ethical legal professional." We have. We get the run-around, because doctors are supposedly "practicing" medicine. In our case, I'd say they were! Just practicing, yup! We filed a claim with the state medical board and our attorney general. They said our doctor(s) were just practicing!

Next you state: "That is, in my opinion." Snout, you are right, it most certainly is. This is an open forum. You cannot stop me from speaking. If I would have "obeyed" my doctor(s) (all FIVE of them), my daughter would be dead. All FIVE of them told me to give her AZT. I disobeyed and my daughter is alive.

So stop it. Stop badgering me.


such a boring article and this guy Mike who just said he think Mr Sonnabend does care -hmmmmm no commetns i thik Mike must be Joseph's co worker hehe
and another think about House of Numbers it's good to know about things like u can be healthy without hiv meds to be honest Mr Sonnabend this people which you say they talk crap they win Nobel and what did u manage to achive with your research-not much so shut up and let the right people to talk!!!!

Kris,
Your terrible grammar notwithstanding, you do realize that scientists are completely in agreement with the fact that some people can in fact live with HIV without medication, right? The problem is that while a select few can, the vast majority of people do not. I'm somewhat surprised that a person such as yourself who is clearly an expert on the subject of HIV (sarcasm intended) did not know this until he saw it in a movie. Unfortunately, like most conspiracy- and denial-based beliefs, AIDS denial takes tiny little pieces of truth (for example that a very few people are long term nonprogressors) and twist it into something completely false (like saying that medications are unnecessary for anyone). Anyone interested in a closer analysis of the BS that is HON should visit the site http://www.houseofnumbers.org It is put together by the folks at AIDSTruth.org and covers many aspects including the strange time traveling of Christine Maggiore's tests, the view of Dr. Montagnier (who was taken out of context in the movie) and much more.

@Cheryl, this is the internet, not your own personal support group. You are advocating an ideology which is not only profoundly ignorant, but which many people including the blogger featured here consider a threat to public health. You also participated in a film that many consider little more than dishonest propaganda, and have been actively involved in promoting it.

You have a right to free speech, but that right does not extend to immunity from vigorous criticism by others when you make statements that are selective, evasive, less than frank, or display a complete lack of understanding of the subject at hand. If you do not wish your statements to be subject to such criticism, then don’t make them.

Some HIV-positive denialists have chosen to make their own health the subject of public discussion, promoting themselves as “living proof” of their contention that HIV does not cause AIDS. While adults have the right to publicly present themselves as they choose, this has been going on long enough for most people to see that such personal anecdote does not amount to sound evidence. Over time, some such denialists reconsider their position, often in the face of serious illness. Others have died from AIDS and AIDS-like diseases. Some of the most prominent “living proofs” are nothing of the kind, and actually have histories of developing life-threatening AIDS-defining illnesses and recovering after making use of the very antiretroviral therapy they loudly condemn.

I see little point in trying to “debate” denialists on the details of their personal health anecdotes for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that I don’t have access to their complete medical history, and the details offered are often garbled, selective and sometimes frankly misinformed. Often such anecdotes are a form of trolling to get opponents to make speculations which can later be attacked. However others do not necessarily take the same view, and feel that personal anecdote is as much fair game as any other claim when employed in the service of promoting an agenda, particularly one as foolish as HIV/AIDS denialism and which threatens public health.

Where I take issue with you is that the life you are publicly staking as a subject of contention in the service of your denialist agenda is not your own, but that of your daughter. There is no possible way that this can be in her interests, and you appear to be blinded to this fact by your own desire to seek vindication for yourself and support from and for the denialist cult that has taken you under their wing. You are not the first person who has very publicly wagered her daughter’s life in this way.

Don’t. It’s abusive.

If you want to engage in public “debate” about whether HIV is the cause of AIDS then go ahead. Be aware that this discussion has been going on for years, that it often becomes heated, that there is a lot at stake, and that if you say foolish things there will be plenty of people prepared to challenge you in no uncertain terms.

But leave your daughter out of it.

Ms. Nagel,
I am just confused. You state that when you daughter was very young a doctor (in Romania, I believe) did a culture that was negative, but he said it was positive. I understand how you believed her to be pos at that time, but you later state you had her testd "way past the age of two." Does this mean that she was negative all that time and you were told she was positive? That's where I get confused. Did you ever actually see the results? Or did you accept what you were told, as many people do? If all these doctors lied to you, I have to ask "why"? What is the motivation of 5 different doctors in five different locations? I would definitely think you had a case. Not only against the doctors, but also against the attorneys that gave you the run around. But did you not have one of the best law firms in the country for this type of suit?
This further confuses me as to why the suit did not go forward.
JTD

List of HIV travel restrictions and retreats: www.plwha.org

I realize that a different view can be scary, especially when you truly believe that your methods and what you've been told are correct.

Its a real shame that science and research cannot be challenged when it comes to HIV and AIDS. In cancer or any other disease, it is encouraged and welcomed. Doctors are angry that their patients improve without medication - that is what is absurd!

Its difficult to believe such organizations when they are directly benefitng FINANCIALLY and it questions the credibility. Yes, ALL these scientists are in DENIAL. So why does Luc Montagnier himself say that HIV is harmless but there is no PROFIT in promoting this, he sat right alongside Gallo - good grief, what happened to common sense.

I've been HIV antibody-positive (med-free) over 5 years now and am healthier than everyone around me complaining of the swine flu. No buffalo hump, no fat redistribution, no liver problems, no distended belly and NO AZT!

What's truly ironic is just who exactly are the denialitst? I'm so glad the truth is finally coming out on the biggest medical blunder EVER!

Cheers!

Terri,
You have either misunderstood something or are completely confused! Any science can be challenged. However, you need to challenge science with science. You cannot refute solid evidence with conspiracy theories, cherry picking, misquoting and half-baked ideas by people with no qualifications to do so. Just like with cancer, HIV science is open to new (real) data. However, just as in the case with people denying cancer or those pushing BS "cures", the problem comes about when people spread dangerous and potentially deadly MISinformation.

I'm glad you "feel" healthy without the medication but 5 years is nothing spectacular. Your T-cell counts and Viral load will tell what the state of your immune system is, not how you feel. As for Dr. Montagnier saying HIV is harmless, please cite a source for this. And please for the love of all that you hold dear, make it a real reference. Don't quote BS like House Of Numbers that show only a few pieces of footage with no context. When you do please feel free to look up his latest book in which he flat out states his acceptance that HIV is the causal factor in T-cell depletion and immune failure.

Also please do cite which doctors "are angry that their patients improve without medication". Again please cite a real reference. Thanks!

Hi Poodle Stomper - I'm not sure why you say that Dr. Montagnier's interview was taken out of context and just a few snippets. I'm taking your few snippets in your comments at your word and listening to your opinion. They were not pieced together at all. It was a complete interview.

I now come to find that I am HIV antibody-positive, not HIV positive. Are you willing to deny what the test inserts clearly say about how they should NOT be used to detect HIV? Were you aware that Gallo had a patent on the tests 2 days later after he made the big announcement back in the 80s? Can you even IMAGINE how much he has benefitted from the tests? Why would he do that. No one else is allowed to question anyone's motives, we're just supposed to shut up and continue to shell out $$$$$ for a buffalo hump, distended belly, fat loss on our faces, liver problems (which the majority of deaths are contributed to consequently) oh, and no butt....NICE! I could have had that 5 years earlier instead of now? Damn, I would have looked awesome at my 50th Birthday gathering tonight! What would you do Poodle Stomper?

Last I heard, antibodies make you immune to viruses. And I too am curious as to why they always manage to get your viral load to 50- but will NEVER say completely gone, why are those last few little buggers floating around anyways????

There's plenty of science to challenge science, no-one chooses to see it as all. Trust me, I've done my homework on HIV caused AIDS. So I was open to everything you're saying - I was fair.

To answer your question about the doctors, I cite comments from a long blog post from someone who had taken drugs for years, stopped completely and is feeling amazing..........
**************
Anyway, my doctor was rude, angry, and seemed completely offended that I would dare to question him, or the AIDS establishment.
I had a good relationship with my pharmacist over the years as well. She was very angry too, to put it mildly, when she found out.

Tell me, why is it the only people that actually get mad and take this personally, are the ones that benefit financially $$$$$? Hummmmmmm?

Something my husband brought up to me recently really made me stop and think. Why is it, with any other dis-ease that you recover from (think cancer especially) are you applauded, people are happy for you! It’s a miracle! You are hailed as a hero! A survivor!
Only with HIV pseudo-science, do they call you a denialist. They are mad that you survive. That you overcome. That you are alive...... and well.

******************

And I cite myself! In my case in my "special" doctor's office on the 2nd visit, my CD4 count went from 414 to 434, and my Tcell count went from 2000 down to 1200 (which they didn't care to comment on) and they had a pharmaceutical gal in there who was prepared to "get me started on ARV to hit it hard and fast" I asked if I was sick and they said, no, but its better to be cautious.

***************

I understand my experiences and citations may not be good enough for you, but they are for me. No one can force me to do anything I don't want to do, I take full responsibility for my course of actions.

Cheers all! 50 Today!

Terri

Sorry, one last question, with all due respect, I'm curious to know if Dr. Sonnabend or other physicians receive ANY type of perks or financial kickbacks for having their patients follow the recommended course of action or their Research. Do pharmaceutical companies provide funding to do ongoing research for various drugs, therapies, etc.

Thank you!

Yikes, I meant to include this link of Luc....the uncut footage....why is this a problem for some? this is the gentleman who was hailed (25 years later, mind you) with awards and so now many are trying to justify it, his language is unclear, it was pieced together, take a look at what he say here, well, I'm requesting you take a look at what he recently said here as well. We would now have to say that what he claims in this interview is CRAP. Some HIV=AIDS=Death are now even saying he's a denialist for God's sake. Like I say, I judge for myself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQoNW7lOnT4

Terri, there's nothing problematic about Montagnier is saying here.

What is problematic is denialists claiming that Montagnier is talking about the treatment of HIV and AIDS. This is a classic example of denialist dishonesty, because he quite explicitly is not talking about this at all.

He is talking about the variables involved when someone ends up chronically infected (becomes HIV positive) following an exposure to HIV. He is talking about how to prevent people becoming HIV positive in the first place - in his own words, the "many ways to decrease the transmission".

Montagnier thinks that there needs to be more emphasis on the relatively simple basic public health measures that prevent people becoming HIV positive, rather than focusing on high tech but so-far-unrealised efforts like the vaccine.

There are lots of ways of reducing the likelihood that someone will get chronically infected by an exposure to HIV: improving genital hygeine such as treating genital ulcer disease, promoting condom use and even circumcision, better education, clean water and other measures to prevent concomitant infections, and improving the resistance of malnourished people to becoming chronically infected through better nutrition.

Denialists have tried to make out that he is saying that established HIV infection (which is what HIV (antibody) positive status indicates) or even AIDS can be cured by diet.

This is an utterly dishonest misrepresentation on the part of the denialists. It is not merely a "quotation out of context", it is either profoundly stupid or a deliberate and cynical lie.

Given the amount of organised effort involved in misrepresenting Montagnier's clearly stated opinions here, I suspect it is the latter.

Snout is right on the money. As for your 2 science-based questions i will answer them here (although more for the information of other readers than you since I doubt very much that any science will change your mind).

Q1) Last I heard, antibodies make you immune to viruses.

A1) Not always. Some pathogens, viral and nonviral can evade the immune system despite vigorous antibody response. This includes HIV, Herpes Simplex, Syphilis, HepB, HepC, malaria and many more. I'm surprised you didn't come across this in your "research". Perhaps you need better sources.

Q2) And I too am curious as to why they always manage to get your viral load to 50- but will NEVER say completely gone, why are those last few little buggers floating around anyways????

A2) Because like some other viruses (herpes simplex for example) HIV infects certain long lived cell types creating long lived reservoirs. You can stop most of the viruses from replicating efficiently but you cannot remove the integrated viral genome from the chromosomes of those reservoirs. Valtrex can stop HSV from replicating but it won't kill off the reservoirs. Again, I'm surprised you didn't come about this in your "research".

You: There's plenty of science to challenge science, no-one chooses to see it as all.

No there really isn't. There is however misunderstanding by people who don't understand science. Refer to you two answered questions above for 2 examples.

You: Trust me, I've done my homework on HIV caused AIDS.

Really? Did your "research" consist of nothing but denialist sites because you are parroting back, word for word, their claims. It is clear from your questions that you do not have a basic grasp of biology which begs the question: how do you perform competent research in a very complicated subject you DO NOT UNDERSTAND?

Snout is right on the money. As for your 2 science-based questions i will answer them here (although more for the information of other readers than you since I doubt very much that any science will change your mind).

Q1) Last I heard, antibodies make you immune to viruses.

A1) Not always. Some pathogens, viral and nonviral can evade the immune system despite vigorous antibody response. This includes HIV, Herpes Simplex, Syphilis, HepB, HepC, malaria and many more. I'm surprised you didn't come across this in your "research". Perhaps you need better sources.

Q2) And I too am curious as to why they always manage to get your viral load to 50- but will NEVER say completely gone, why are those last few little buggers floating around anyways????

A2) Because like some other viruses (herpes simplex for example) HIV infects certain long lived cell types creating long lived reservoirs. You can stop most of the viruses from replicating efficiently but you cannot remove the integrated viral genome from the chromosomes of those reservoirs. Valtrex can stop HSV from replicating but it won't kill off the reservoirs. Again, I'm surprised you didn't come about this in your "research".

You: There's plenty of science to challenge science, no-one chooses to see it as all.

No there really isn't. There is however misunderstanding by people who don't understand science. Refer to you two answered questions above for 2 examples.

You: Trust me, I've done my homework on HIV caused AIDS.

Really? Did your "research" consist of nothing but denialist sites because you are parroting back, word for word, their claims. It is clear from your questions that you do not have a basic grasp of biology which begs the question: how do you perform competent research in a very complicated subject you DO NOT UNDERSTAND?

Yes, I HAVE DONE MY HOMEWORK. I will never believe anything that Sonnabend says now after reading his OWN comments (that you are more than welcome to dispute as well) He's a hypocrite gentlemen, and therefore loses ALL credibility and I maintain if the tables were turned on a dissident, you'd be thrilled to say the same.
**********
Dr. Joseph Sonnabend, New York Physician, founder of the American Foundation for AIDS Research (AmFAR):
"The marketing of HIV, through press releases and statements, as a killer virus causing AIDS without the need for any other factors, has so distorted research and treatment that it may have caused thousands of people to suffer and die." (Sunday times (London) 17 May 1992)
************

Unfortunately, not even he is immune to fraud. Look it up for yourself, and while you're at it, here's one more......


FACT AND SPECULATION
ABOUT THE CAUSE OF AIDS

By Joseph A. Sonnabend, M.B., B.Ch., M.R.C.P.

AIDS Forum May 1989
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/jsoforum.htm

an exerpt..........NOT taken out of context.
SOME ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON WHY THE ASSERTION THAT THE HIVs AS CAUSES OF AIDS MUST REMAIN AN HYPOTHESIS

It has already been mentioned that the etiologic roles of the HIVs in AIDS must remain conjectural as long as at least two issues remain unresolved. The first concerns the possibility that the association of HIV seropositivity with AIDS is without significance regarding the etiologic role of HIV. The second is that proposals concerning indirect mechanisms accounting for HIV-induced loss of helper T lymphocytes remain without support from observations made in vivo. An additional problem is the failure thus far of antiretroviral chemotherapy.

The Association of HIV Seropositivity with AIDS.

There is an explanation for the association of HIV seropositivity with AIDS that does not require that the HIVs play an etiologic role, and that has not been excluded.

Before describing this, it may be helpful to very briefly outline some points about the biology of retroviruses and of the immune response that are relevant. Retroviruses, as is the case with all viruses, consist of a nucleic acid core (in the case of HIV, RNA) surrounded by a protein coat. Retroviruses also possess an outer lipid-containing envelope derived from the outer membrane of the cell in which it was produced. Antibodies are made against the protein components of the virus, not the nucleic acid, although the nucleic acid contains the instructions that can direct the cell to make viral proteins. The amount of protein in a small infecting inoculum may be insufficient to stimulate the body to make antibodies. It is only after the cell has made much more virus that there is sufficient protein to elicit an antibody response. When retroviruses enter a cell, they are disassembled and the nucleic acid is inserted into the genetic material of the cell by a process of reverse transcription in which viral RNA is converted into DNA. This viral DNA may remain completely dormant. In this case, no viral proteins are made and the only indication that the cell contains viral material may be the detection of viral DNA by a variety of techniques, including the newly-developed polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique.

It had always been dogmatically asserted by AIDS experts that sufficient viral replication follows infection with HIV so that enough viral protein is made to induce an antibody response. Thus, we have been told that after a three month "window" of seronegativity following infection, seroconversion ensues and the infected individual becomes reactive on the HIV antibody test. There is a frequently reproduced graphic representation showing this hypothetical course of events - an initial burst of viral replication after infection followed by the appearance of antibody three months later. However, in the absence of models of human retrovirus infections, there is absolutely no basis to justify this authoritative depiction of the course of infection. It is yet another example of speculation being presented as fact that has typified presentations on AIDS.

It is just as likely that situations exist, perhaps commonly, where infection is followed by very limited viral replication, insufficient to elicit an antibody response, but where the viral DNA is maintained in the cell in a dormant or latent state. In such a case, the individual would be negative on the antibody test, but may show the presence of HIV by a genome detection technique such as PCR If the mechanisms that maintain latency are perturbed (and such perturbation could happen decades after infection, if at all), then the viral DNA is activated, viral proteins are made and assembled into viral particles, and if this process is of sufficient magnitude, the body will respond by making antibodies and thus seroconvert.

The maintenance of latency is probably quite complex and may be perturbed by signals acting on the cell such as interleukin-1 and tumor necrosis factor (66,67), both generated during the course of many different infections. In addition, cells containing latent HIV can be activated to produce virus by contact with alloantigens which are displayed on the surfaces of foreign cells. Also, latent HIV could be activated by superinfecting viruses, particularly herpes viruses (68,69). There also may be immunologic mechanisms whereby cell-mediated immune responses kill cells that start to produce virus, and in this way virus production is limited. The presence of such anti-HIV cell-mediated responses in HIV seronegative individuals should certainly be sought.

If seroconversion depends on the activation of latent viral DNA, then a plausible explanation for the association of HIV seropositivity with AIDS exists that does not require that HIV play any causative role. This is that the expression of the HlVs - viruses that can remain completely dormant in a latent state - represents an opportunistic reactivation resulting from effects, including immune disregulation, that are generated by the true cause or causes of AIDS, whatever these may be, and that these causes are themselves associated with conditions that promote the spread of all microorganisms, pathogenic or not, that can be transmitted between people. The activation of latent microorganisms is indeed one of the characteristics of AIDS.

The determinants of activation (and thus of seroconversion) may be associated with the true cause or causes of AIDS. One proposal is that these causes are to be found, at least in gay men, in an interaction of the effects of repeated CMV infections, reactivated EBV infections and multiple alloimmunizations, as well as other sexually transmitted infections. These exposures could activate HIV by several mechanisms known to do so. Tumor necrosis factor and interleukin-1 are generated during the course of many infections and these substances can activate HIV. (Tumor necrosis factor would also be present in tropical infections— particularly malaria and is detectable in the blood of needle-sharing intravenous drug users.) Alloantigens can activate HIV, and gay men, needle-sharing IV drug users and blood transfusion recipients are all exposed to alloantigens. Finally, the immunosuppression associated with CMV, EBV, some tropical infections and alloantigens may impair the cell-mediated immune control of HIV infections, and thereby facilitate HIV production.

We should therefore separate risk factors for infection with HIV from risk factors for seroconversion. Seroconversion should be thought of as an event separate from infection and with its own determinants. Some conditions may contain risks for both infection and seroconversion, as would be the case, for example, with infections acquired by massive inoculations. Blood transfusions containing large amounts of virus illustrates this possibility. Rectal exposure to semen may constitute a risk for infection if it contains HIV as well as an independent risk for seroconversion in latently infected individuals, even if the semen contains no HIV. There are several potential mechanisms by which seroconversion could be induced by rectal insemination. Firstly, it may expose latently infected cells to alloantigens in the colonic mucosa, or further afield, if cells in semen should enter the blood or lymphatic systems. Secondly, semen may be the vehicle for infection with other viruses, notably CMV, infection with which may trigger activation of latent HIV.


And lastly, HIS OWN POSTSCRIPT.

n conclusion, I have anempted to show why the contention that HIV causes AIDS should be returned to the realm of speculation. The costs of inappropriately accepting that the cause of AIDS has been firmly established to be HIV have been enormous, in time wasted and lives lost. Some of the areas of neglected research have been outlined.

The cause or causes of AIDS remains unknown, and thus all hypotheses, including HIV, must be pursued.

POSTSCRIPT

It has been suggested that questioning the etiologic role of HIV in AIDS may promote the spread of disease as it "frees one of the worry about testing positive or the guilt of spreading the disease"(70). This is an irrational and poorly thought out objection. The reality of the mode of transmission of AIDS, whether sexually or by blood or blood products, is of course quite obvious, whether it is HIV or some other factor or factors that are transmitted. In fact, a ground-breaking booklet presenting the first safer sex guidelines appeared in 1983 (71) and it was based on a multifactorial model (72,73), not a single agent model. The measures suggested were identical to those usually proposed to limit the spread of HIV.

Enough said, the truth is finally coming out and you can kick and scream all you want, you're a growing minority!

Terri,

Please do not change the subject (a common denialist tactic) when you are shown to be incorrect. Dr. Sonnabend would be the best source for explaining why he accepted HIV's causal role in AIDS. I'm fairly certain he has done so before.

My questions to you were how, despite your "research", you still know NOTHING about biology as it applies to HIV.

1) How could you think that the presence of antibodies always equals immunity, for example? Are you also disputing HSV, syphilis, malaria, Epstein Barr, HepB, HepC and other diseases where the production of antibodies doesn't = immunity? If not then why is this a problem with HIV?

2) How could you not know about latent reservoirs? Do you deny that other pathogens such as Herpes Simplex, Chicken Pox (varicella Zoster), and others can likewise permanently infect humans for life using this strategy even with medication such as Valtrex? If not then why is this a problem with HIV?

These are VERY BASIC aspects of biology that one should know if they do even a little bit of true research.

So please, answer these two rather than changing the subject to avoid admitting your own shortcomings.

If you can't bring yourself to admit that you were wrong then just how honest could your "research" possibly be? Looking on Virusmyth is not research. The internet, in case you have not noticed is not peer reviewed. Any idiot can post anything. Case in point, Virusmyth.

Terri, the hypothesis of Dr Sonnabend's that you are quoting is from over two decades ago, a mere five years after HIV was first formally proposed as the probable cause of AIDS.

It was an interesting idea based on the evidence available at the time, although many of Dr Sonnabend's medical and scientific contemporaries would have disagreed with it.

However, Dr Sonnabend changed his views as new evidence came to light. To modify or abandon ones hypotheses when they are inconsistent with emerging evidence is not "hypocrisy" - it is the mark of intellectual integrity in a scientist. It is also the difference between a genuine skeptic and a crank.

Dr Sonnabend was an HIV/AIDS "Rethinker". Unlike most who try to claim that name these days, he actually did some rethinking.

Snout is quite correct. One of the parts of the Scientific Method is that if evidence shows your hypothesis is incorrect, that you have to re-evaluate your hypothesis. For Dr. Sonnabend (if I recall correctly) it was the very obvious effects of anti-virals on the condition of patients. There is no hypocrisy in that. Before the discovery of HIV, other viruses were held as possible causes. One by one, they were eliminated using the scientific method. Researchers, for example, did not cling in vain to the idea that CMV caused AIDS after it was found not to be the culprit. Denialists, however do cling to long disproven ideas such as the poppers-causes-AIDS hypothesis that Duesberg favors. Real science is driven by the ability to accept when a hypothesis is wrong and move on. Denialism, sadly, is the opposite.

Rather than speculate on the reason why I accepted HIV’s causal role in AIDS I will simply state it yet again. How can one turn one’s back on the crystal clear evidence for such a role that was provided by the life saving effects of anti HIV therapy? Some seem to deal with this by simply rejecting the evidence, I would suppose in order to protect their delusions.

Some commentators may be among the fortunate few infected people in whom HIV disease progresses very slowly. They may therefore not need to be treated, at least not at this time. But why on earth would they wish to discourage those who are less fortunate and who absolutely do need treatment, from receiving it even when treatment can be life saving?

HIV disease is a chronic infectious disease caused by a specific virus, resembling many other chronic viral infectious diseases, where there may be an acute initial illness followed by a variable course of disease progression. Those lucky enough to be long term non- progressors, or slow progressors, are just completely wrong in assuming that their good fortune is shared by all HIV infected people.

Dear Dr. Sonnabend.

Please, dear doctor, as a gay man who has also witnessed the AIDS phenomena from Day Number One, please lets look closely and rationally at your own stated reasoning for why you accept HIV as playing a causal role in immune suppression known as AIDS.

You say the reason that you accept HIV as playing a causal role in AIDS is for this reason alone. In your very own words, as follows:

"How can one turn one’s back on the crystal clear evidence for such a role that was provided by the life saving effects of anti HIV therapy?

Doctor Sonnabend, simply because taking a drug works seeming miracles for some or even for many of the diagnosed does not equal causation, or even equate to making HIV itself even a causative factor. And here are several quite obvious reasons why:

The years of highest deaths said to be due to HIV/AIDS are the EXACT YEARS, yes the EXACT YEARS that high dosage AZT was given to all who tested HIV antibody positive. The years were from 1987, when aids deaths began to skyrocket, to 1995, when they dropped precipitously to current annual levels.

Yes, in 1996, newer therapies came to be used, and the amount of AZT given to patients was but a fraction of what had been imposed on them from 87 to 95.

To compare the slower and less toxic effects of the newer drugs to those who took high dose AZT monotherapy is nothing less than comparing apples to oranges. To use the comparison in order to call the more recent drugs "life saving" would be like comparing shooting someone with a bullet and killing them quickly, compared to stabbing them with a knife and killing them slowly, then claiming that knife wounds are "life saving and "life extending" simply because those who took mortal knife wounds died slower than those shot in the head with a bullet.

Your reasoning, Dr. Sonnabend, also leaves out the well known fact that emotions and intense stress, and even BELIEFS and EXPECTATIONS have to play in human health. In the 80's and into the mid 1990's, all who were diagnosed as having AIDS or HIV were given a DEATH SENTENCE by your very own otherwise well meaning brotherhood of doctors along with the societal beliefs of imminent death that ruled the day in those trying times. Those who were diagnosed had their very hope to life and expectations of well being taken away by everyone around them, including by those such as yourself who believed and even told the patients that they should prepare for a soon to be imminent death. You and your fellow physicians and health care workers placed nothing less than a death hex on your own patients.

It was not until the removal of high dose AZT and the replacement of high dose AZT monotherapy with the less toxic drugs of the mid 90's came along that you and your fellow caregivers bothered to give patients any hope at all by telling the patients that if they took the newer drugs that then and only then could they live longer.

Furthermore, Dr. Joe, as you must surely know, not even a SINGLE supposedly anti-hiv drug, other than the original and very brief 4-month AZT drug trial, not a SINGLE anti-hiv drug has EVER been placebo tested. Because you do not have a single placebo tested drug, you have absolutely no evidence to stand on that anti-hiv drugs have any proven beneficial effects whatsoever, even though their toxic effects are well and often proven.

Furthermore, Dr. Joe, not only were ALL of your "AIDS" patients intensely and chronically stressed (which alone is well shown to cause immune suppression), but hopefully you are not so damned naive that you had not bothered to notice that most, yes MOST ALL of your gay "aids" patients had also been participating in massive amounts of drug abuse. And in the 80's and 90's, chronic meth abuse and staying up and not eating for a week at a time was common, and sometimes still is.

Furthermore, Dr. Joe, not everyone handled being gay as well as you have done. Many hundreds of thousands were disowned by their families for being gay, and many hundreds of thousands of gays were also poorly adjusted and lacking self acceptance, as well as being filled with self loathing for being gay. Countless gays had, and often still have internal death wishes, and often got or yet get their death wishes fulfilled. They usually do not share such death wishes or even share an honest history of self destructive behaviors or drug abuse with their doctors. Patients are WELL KNOWN to lie to their doctors and care-givers about the part they themselves played in becoming ill.

So, Dr. Sonnabend, I have little doubt that after a self abusive gay man has gotten deathly ill and had a near death experience that you have often witnessed many health changes for the better. But you have no evidence that any recovery such as this was simply due to anti-hiv drugs. And you have no evidence that their recovery was not simply due to many other changes that also occurred after a brush with death such as finally eating and sleeping properly instead of abusing dope and being up for days at a time without food or sleep. Furthermore, those patients who have been given a diagnosis of hiv or aids are also completely stressed by the belief that they will die or sicken if they do not take anti-hiv drugs, therefore simply giving them such drugs will relieve them of the chronic stress and fear of imminent death if they are not given the drugs or if they are not taking them.

So, doc, simply removing stress and getting the patients to eat and sleep well and getting them away from their addictions, and also treating them for the actual presenting illnesses could more than explain any so-called benefits that you imagine are due only to anti-hiv drugs. And surely you are intelligent enough to know this. The only question that yet remains in my own mind is whether or not your own ego can admit to such, or if it can live with the fact that you, Dr. Joe Sonnabend, and many other well meaning care-givers, can live with the fact that you have indeed often assisted in causing harm and/or death in many of your patients through the prescribing of drugs that you yourself damned well know caused greater harm to many of them. After all, liver failure has been the leading cause of death in hiv positives since AZT monotherapy ended back in 95.

I hope you can and will forgive yourself, doc, because beating yourself up for your own errors will help no-one. And I also hope that you can and will admit to the role that you and other well-meaning care-givers played in harming patients. Only the truth will set you free, and only the truth will bring the world out of the darkness that was created when gay men came out of their closets to a hateful world that often wanted and expected them to die.

I forgive you doc, as I know you and your fellow care-givers did the best you could. However, that said, I cannot forgive such if you continue to ignore these obvious truths.

Yours,
A fellow gay man that has also witnessed this epic darkness of tyrannical beliefs that yet holds sway over the minds of otherwise well intentioned and well meaning men.

Michael Geiger


Mikey,

"not even a SINGLE supposedly anti-hiv drug, other than the original and very brief 4-month AZT drug trial, not a SINGLE anti-hiv drug has EVER been placebo tested."

With good reason. It is called ETHICS. Once a treatment has been proven to have benefits against a dangerous condition, it is used as comparison for following trials. To have an untreated group in subsequent trials is as UNETHICAL as having untreated heart attack patients in trials for a new form of bypass. You can't do that because, oh I don't know, people could DIE. The only ethical thing do do would be compare the new bypass to the older best treatment. The same holds true for other medical interventions including HAARTs.

However, if AZT worked better than the placebo and your new product X works better than the AZT group then, logic dictates, X is also better than placebo. I realize this may be a lot to take in at once. It is first grade logic, after all.
If B(AZT)>A(Untreated) and C(New drug)>B(AZT) then C(New Drug)>A(Untreated).


"Because you do not have a single placebo tested drug, you have absolutely no evidence to stand on that anti-hiv drugs have any proven beneficial effects whatsoever..."

Refer to the above for why you are completely wrong.


"Countless gays had, and often still have internal death wishes, and often got or yet get their death wishes fulfilled"

Oh, but of course! So do all those hemophiliacs and all those death-wishing babies born to HIV+ mothers. Mikey you sure are good at blaming the victim! Bravo!

"The years of highest deaths said to be due to HIV/AIDS are the EXACT YEARS, yes the EXACT YEARS that high dosage AZT was given to all who tested HIV antibody positive. The years were from 1987, when aids deaths began to skyrocket, to 1995, when they dropped precipitously to current annual levels."


Not very convincing seeing as the deaths were skyrocketing way AZT introduction until the introduction of HAARTs. Unless of course you are going to claim that AZT can travel back in time.

Leave a comment



Archives

 

My Favorite Links

Subscribe to Blog

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Joseph Sonnabend published on October 28, 2009 3:46 PM.

The long road to PCP prophylaxis in AIDS. An early history. was the previous entry in this blog.

Endemic Infections in Africa have everything to do with HIV/AIDS. is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed by the bloggers and by people providing comments are theirs alone. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Smart + Strong and/or its employees.

Smart + Strong is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information contained in the blogs or within any comments posted to the blogs.



© 2014 Smart + Strong. All Rights Reserved. Terms of use and Your privacy