Should heretics be silenced? (was The AIDS Heresies -- DEMONSTRATED --)
Chris J. Phoenix
R wrote:
>There are a lot of silly conspircacy theories going around. This isn't
>the place for one. There is just too many crazy assumptions in the
>dissident position. Don't listen to it.
>
>R
Bill wrote:
>Why do you suggest that people should not listen to ALL sides of the
>debate and make an informed choice for themselves? Would you prefer to
>see dissidents silenced and if so, why?
>
>Bill
(I'm talking about the dissidents on this newsgroup who claim that 1)
HIV does not cause AIDS; and 2) that anti-HIV drugs are simply
expensive poison. There may be dissidents with a more moderate
plausible position who don't post; and I'm not talking about the
debate over hit-early-and-hard vs. wait-till-you-get-sick.)
You're presupposing two things, Bill. They're reasonable, but I think
in this case they're wrong. The first is that this is a debate; the
second is that people have the ability to make an informed choice.
Debate implies some symmetry and communication between the sides of a
dispute. There is no symmetry here. On one side we have the
authority of the establishment, lots of studies and statistics, and
logic. On the other we have no studies, lots of personal attacks,
lots of groundless assertions, misuse of statistics, inflammatory
language, high-stakes conspiracy theories, doomsaying, and emotional
hooks. And there's no communication; the heretics ignore anything
that contradicts their position, and they will post tomorrow the thing
that was completely disproved today.
Why can't people make an informed choice? Because many people don't
have the skills to sort through the statistics, the wisdom to think
past the emotional hooks, the background to spot the obvious
misrepresentations. In addition, wishful thinking is firmly in
support of the "heretic" side. Let's take one of many examples. How
many people could explain how the life expectancy of a population can
decrease while the average age is increasing? How many would think
deeply enough and have the information necessary to catch the fact
that the heretics' assertion, "Life expectency of hemopheliacs is
increasing" is false, and is based on a misinterpretation of the fact
that the average age is increasing?
Before I answer whether I would prefer to see dissidents silenced, let
me ask you a question: Do you want to see creationism taught in public
schools as a scientific theory competing with evolution? Why or why
not? If you say No, aren't you trying to silence the creationists?
Is this bad?
Would I prefer to see the dissidents silenced? Put it this way.
Suppose I lived in an interracial neighborhood, and one day a man came
running down the street shouting, "The niggers are running wild in LA
and Chicago! Grab your Guns! Defend your Daughters! Shoot on Sight!"
Assume I knew this was false beyond any doubt.
I would not only prefer to see him silenced, I would try to have him
arrested for disturbing the peace and inciting to riot.
Unfortunately, the heretics, like "Creation Scientists," have managed
to gain a patina of respectability (with the exception of clearly
insane people like 'himself') and it's hard to argue for silencing
them without setting foot on a slippery slope. I certainly wish
they'd go away--they have nothing useful to say, and their views could
hurt a lot of people.
To get back to the analogy, if the police couldn't or wouldn't stop
the troublemaker, I'd probably follow him down the street shouting,
"He's lying! There's no riots! Don't listen to him!" And no one
better tell me that I'm infringing on his right to free speech.
My example is extreme, but not undeserved. The heretics use similar
inflammatory speech, false statements, and rabble-rousing tactics, and
will be just as deadly if anyone believes them.
Chris
BrownDavid
(I'm talking about the dissidents on this newsgroup who claim that 1)
HIV does not cause AIDS; and 2) that anti-HIV drugs are simply
expensive poison. There may be dissidents with a more moderate
plausible position who don't post; and I'm not talking about the
debate over hit-early-and-hard vs. wait-till-you-get-sick.)
Debate implies some symmetry and communication between the sides of a
dispute. There is no symmetry here. On one side we have the
authority of the establishment, lots of studies and statistics, and
logic. On the other we have no studies, lots of personal attacks,
lots of groundless assertions, misuse of statistics, inflammatory
language, high-stakes conspiracy theories, doomsaying, and emotional
hooks. And there's no communication; the heretics ignore anything
that contradicts their position, and they will post tomorrow the thing
that was completely disproved today.
Your being facetious, right? Because surely you know that the opposition,
feels the same way about you guys. Of no one could accuse your arguments
here of being bigoted, unsymetrical.Your argument appears to be based on
facts, ..There 's no high-stake conspiracy theories, doomsaying or
emotional hooks in your argument!
Why can't people make an informed choice? Because many people don't
have the skills to sort through the statistics, the wisdom to think
past the emotional hooks, the background to spot the obvious
misrepresentations. In addition, wishful thinking is firmly in
support of the "heretic" side. Let's take one of many examples. How
many people could explain how the life expectancy of a population can
decrease while the average age is increasing? How many would think
deeply enough and have the information necessary to catch the fact
that the heretics' assertion, "Life expectency of hemopheliacs is
increasing" is false, and is based on a misinterpretation of the fact
that the average age is increasing?
I agree lets face it, PEOPLE ARE STUPID, we need to be led like cattle,
like we can't make decisions for ourselves. We need leaders we can trust,
people who will not lead the people astray .....because we certainly
cannot trust ourselves.
Before I answer whether I would prefer to see dissidents silenced, let
me ask you a question: Do you want to see creationism taught in public
schools as a scientific theory competing with evolution? Why or why
not? If you say No, aren't you trying to silence the creationists?
Is this bad?
I say we kill the bastards!
Would I prefer to see the dissidents silenced? Put it this way.
Suppose I lived in an interracial neighborhood, and one day a man came
running down the street shouting, "The niggers are running wild in LA
and Chicago! Grab your Guns! Defend your Daughters! Shoot on Sight!"
Assume I knew this was false beyond any doubt.
Funny To alot of AIDS dissidents..this is just what we percieve as the
AIDS
establishment is doing to the public.... This is what Holzman and Harris
are doing.
I would not only prefer to see him silenced, I would try to have him
arrested for disturbing the peace and inciting to riot.
But what if the guy is RIGHT? Think of all the people who would be
needlessly killed, all because they weren't warned in time, think of all
the white women/men raped....not to mention the drop in property value.
Unfortunately, the heretics, like "Creation Scientists," have managed
to gain a patina of respectability (with the exception of clearly
insane people like 'himself') and it's hard to argue for silencing
them without setting foot on a slippery slope. I certainly wish
they'd go away--they have nothing useful to say, and their views could
hurt a lot of people.
I'm sure the Pope said the same thing to Copernius when he suggested the
world revolves around the Sun.
To get back to the analogy, if the police couldn't or wouldn't stop
the troublemaker, I'd probably follow him down the street shouting,
"He's lying! There's no riots! Don't listen to him!" And no one
better tell me that I'm infringing on his right to free speech.
Then somebody would probably arrest you for disturbing the peace,or
inciting to riot.. After all who needs trouble-makers.
My example is extreme, but not undeserved. The heretics use similar
inflammatory speech, false statements, and rabble-rousing tactics, and
will be just as deadly if anyone believes them.
Either this article is a brillent piece of satire..of you are a confused
person..
Chris
bill...@aol.com
In article <5b1n04$8...@Radon.Stanford.EDU>, cpho...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU
(Chris J. Phoenix) writes:
>(I'm talking about the dissidents on this newsgroup who claim that 1)
>HIV does not cause AIDS; and 2) that anti-HIV drugs are simply
>expensive poison. There may be dissidents with a more moderate
>plausible position who don't post; and I'm not talking about the
>debate over hit-early-and-hard vs. wait-till-you-get-sick.)
>
>You're presupposing two things, Bill. They're reasonable, but I think
>in this case they're wrong. The first is that this is a debate; the
>second is that people have the ability to make an informed choice.
>
>Debate implies some symmetry and communication between the sides of a
>dispute. There is no symmetry here. On one side we have the
>authority of the establishment, lots of studies and statistics, and
>logic. On the other we have no studies, lots of personal attacks,
>lots of groundless assertions, misuse of statistics, inflammatory
>language, high-stakes conspiracy theories, doomsaying, and emotional
>hooks.
I agree that the "debate" has no symmetry at all, as you say - the
establishment has the studies and statistics (plus the doomsaying, btw)
because they have the money and resources to do them. However I think no
one disputes the fact that funding is quickly withdrawn if a
researcher/scientist starts to find anything that does not agree with the
orthodox view. As for the "authority of the establishment" - I think
that maintaining this is probably another good incentive for bolstering
the original hasty and now challenged theory. If you think that a few
"heretics" could persuade people to stop believing a theory that has been
hammered home at every opportunity for the past 15 years by virtually all
of the medical/scientific community and _all_ of the mainstream media (US
not UK) - there must be something inherently weak with the theory to begin
with.
And there's no communication; the heretics ignore anything
>that contradicts their position, and they will post tomorrow the thing
>that was completely disproved today.
I don't think any of the fundamental issues of this debate have been
_completely_ proved or disproved by either side.
>
>Why can't people make an informed choice? Because many people don't
>have the skills to sort through the statistics, the wisdom to think
>past the emotional hooks, the background to spot the obvious
>misrepresentations.
Thankfully none of these traits are present in the information that is
presented to the general population (with their lack of skills and wisdom)
by the establishment through the mainstream media. I guess having such an
honest, unbiased media and an infallible, medical/scientific community
(where money, power and glory are not part of the agenda) such as we have
here in the US makes up for these intellectual deficiencies and the
average individual is well advised to be guided without question by those
who know better.
In addition, wishful thinking is firmly in
>support of the "heretic" side.
This is rather like saying that smokers won't believe that smoking is the
single biggest contributor to (not the sole cause of) lung cancer because
they wish it weren't so.... please!
Let's take one of many examples. How
>many people could explain how the life expectancy of a population can
>decrease while the average age is increasing?
Most people know enough to know that statistics can be manipulated by the
presenter to show pretty much what that person wants to show and
consequently must be viewed with some skepticism.
How many would think
>deeply enough and have the information necessary to catch the fact
>that the heretics' assertion, "Life expectency of hemopheliacs is
>increasing" is false, and is based on a misinterpretation of the fact
>that the average age is increasing?
How many scientists with all their resources can adequately explain why an
infectious agent is causing 10 times the rate of death in the USA versus
the UK yet both populations mix through travel and there is little
difference in the rates of people indulging in activities which are
considered to be the established modes of transmission?
>
>Before I answer whether I would prefer to see dissidents silenced, let
>me ask you a question: Do you want to see creationism taught in public
>schools as a scientific theory competing with evolution? Why or why
>not? If you say No, aren't you trying to silence the creationists?
>Is this bad?
One must first understand the difference between "indoctrination" and
"education". If we are talking about the later then the creationist
theory should be presented also.
>
>
>Would I prefer to see the dissidents silenced? Put it this way.
>Suppose I lived in an interracial neighborhood, and one day a man came
>running down the street shouting, "The niggers are running wild in LA
>and Chicago! Grab your Guns! Defend your Daughters! Shoot on Sight!"
>Assume I knew this was false beyond any doubt.
>
>I would not only prefer to see him silenced, I would try to have him
>arrested for disturbing the peace and inciting to riot.
Again, you assume that _you_ would be the only person capable of
discerning that this person was a liar or having the information that what
he was saying was false beyond any doubt. Why?
>
>Unfortunately, the heretics, like "Creation Scientists," have managed
>to gain a patina of respectability (with the exception of clearly
>insane people like 'himself')
Define "insanity" and explain how you can declare "himself" as "clearly
insane"
and it's hard to argue for silencing
>them without setting foot on a slippery slope. I certainly wish
>they'd go away--they have nothing useful to say, and their views could
>hurt a lot of people.
Well, let me see.... 350,000 dead from aids so far in the US alone...
900,000 hiv + people under a terrifying and health threatening sentence to
die within 5 to 10 years (or maybe 15). (Depending who you ask _all_ of
them will die of aids, 93% of them will or 75% of them will) The rest of
the population fear indulging one to their most basic natural needs (it
may kill them) and those who do must often live with enormous worry that
they have put themselves or others at risk. Many of the hiv + are guinea
pigs for the pharmaceutical industry ingesting various drugs/chemicals
none of which their body's are lacking and most of which seriously reduce
quality of life and possibly quantity. There's a lot of people getting
hurt alright but so far none of it is being caused by "dissidents" or
"heretics".
>
>To get back to the analogy, if the police couldn't or wouldn't stop
>the troublemaker, I'd probably follow him down the street shouting,
>"He's lying! There's no riots! Don't listen to him!" And no one
>better tell me that I'm infringing on his right to free speech.
No. But then again why would anyone believe you over and above this other
person since neither of you have presented any real evidence that there
are/are not riots in LA and Chicago. Unless of course you have more
resources (like a loud speaker) or just simply the "authority of the
establishment"?
Is superiority complex rampant amongst the hiv=aids theorists.
>
>My example is extreme, but not undeserved. The heretics use similar
>inflammatory speech, false statements, and rabble-rousing tactics,
Confined _only_ to the so called "heretics" you say? Please read a few
posts from the hiv=aids side.
and
>will be just as deadly if anyone believes them.
Things can't get much more deadly than the status quo my friend... maybe
if we listened to _all_ sides of this debate... a cure may be found or at
least _all_ the causes could be identified and lives could be saved and
suffering ended/avoided. This will never happen if we silence the critics
and stifle new or different approaches to this collection of diseases
known as aids.
>
>Chris
>
>
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN
In article <19970109164...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>
> I agree that the "debate" has no symmetry at all, as you say - the
> establishment has the studies and statistics (plus the doomsaying, btw)
> because they have the money and resources to do them. However I think no
> one disputes the fact that funding is quickly withdrawn if a
> researcher/scientist starts to find anything that does not agree with the
> orthodox view.
Not if others can reproduce it. The idea that the orthodox scientists are
repressing data against the role of HIV is just wrong. I am sorry that you
seem to believe it.
Hilary Curtis
>infectious agent is causing 10 times the rate of death in the USA versus
>the UK yet both populations mix through travel and there is little
>difference in the rates of people indulging in activities which are
>considered to be the established modes of transmission?
What evidence do you have for the claim that there is little difference
in rates of risk behaviour? There has been far more, and better, health
education for people at risk of HIV in the UK than in the USA, starting
from an earlier phase in the epidemic, plus we have a well-established
network of needle/syringe exchanges. Moreover, as discussed recently in
this group, you can't predict how an epidemic will spread from crude
measures of risk behaviour - it depends on subtle factors such as
degrees of concurrency in sexual relationships and patterns of sexual
mixing/partner selection, not just on rates of unprotected intercourse
and partner change.
Besides, can you adequately explain why the rates of other sexually
transmitted diseases also differ between the two countries, or do you
believe that these are not caused by infectious agents?
--
Hilary Curtis, Executive Director, BMA Foundation for AIDS
http://www.bmaids.demon.co.uk/
Education for HIV/AIDS policy, prevention and professional practice
BMA House, Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9JP, UK
himself
cpho...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU "Chris J. Phoenix" writes:
> Debate implies some symmetry and communication between the sides of a
> dispute. There is no symmetry here. On one side we have the
> authority of the establishment, lots of studies and statistics, and
> logic.
Duesberg, Miller, Lanka, The Perth Group, Haessig, Hodgkinson,
Craddock, Lauritsen, Shenton, HEAL, Continuum, etc, etc, etc,
> On the other we have no studies, lots of personal attacks,
> lots of groundless assertions, misuse of statistics, inflammatory
> language, high-stakes conspiracy theories, doomsaying, and emotional
> hooks.
Harris, Charlie, Holzman, Randolph, BRIAN, "See-my-butt-page", King,
BMA Aids Ltd (Publicity Dept.), Carter.
> Why can't people make an informed choice?
But they do, Chris. Here in the UK people have made the informed
choice NOT to trust or believe the "Aids" business, and turnover
is dropping fast because of it. "Some of the people all of the
time, all of the people some of the time, but never All of the
people ALL of the time". You should remember that.
John
--
"Thank goodness for these newsgroups. Now the entire world can see how
foolishly we have allocated the funding for this bullshit disease."
Kevin Doherty, microbiologist
Kev
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN wrote:
> In article <19970109164...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> bill...@aol.com writes:
> > However, I think no one disputes the fact that funding is quickly
> > withdrawn if a researcher/scientist starts to find anything that
> > does not agree with the orthodox view.
I think Peter Duesberg, recipient of the 'Outstanding Investigator
Award', at the National Institutes of Health/First Scientist to isolate
a cancer gene, and Kary Mullis *inventor* of PCR serve to exemplify this
point rather well.
Not surprisingly, the only *harm* that dissident views imply, is to the
livelihood of HIV research.
Mr. Phoenix has summized that the dissident views;
1)HIV does not cause AIDS; and 2) that anti-HIV drugs are simply
expensive poison; present danger to the public at large.
1) Ironically, the first statement has never been proven and therefore
should be exposed to scrutiny even by its' proponents. In fact, it has!
The mere thought that many of our nations leading HIV/AIDS researchers
have tried desperately to link cofactors (other viruses, mycoplasma
incognitus, even genetic predisposition), other theories (excess soluble
gp120, Syncytia formation, extended latency/no latency), is proof
positive that HIV alone is not doing the damage it had been proposed
to.
2) The idea that anti-HIV drugs are toxic, could not be argued by even
the strongest of proponents. The dosage originally proposed for
substances like AZT, has continuously been re-evaluated and lowered due
to this fact. As far as expense goes, our insurers will attest.
> Not if others can reproduce it.
Exactly who is 'reproducing' this data. Dr. Ho has proposed the 'sink
model', Charles McCarthy has illustrated the role of soluble gp120,
Robert Holzman has cautiously taken a middle of the road stance, Dr.
Harris (along with others), has indicated that the number of T-cells
infected in circulating blood does not parallel the number of infections
in the nodes. Although all of these individuals possess the common
denominator in believing HIV causes AIDS, the lack of evidence to
support this claim has left them panning thru the bloodstream like a
scientific prospector. Hunting and pecking for any scrap of pathogenic
evidence which may add credibility/value to their claim. Unbenounced
to them, their narrow expertise has failed to unearth other resources
which may prove of similiar, but unacknowledged, value.
> The idea that the orthodox scientists are repressing data against the > role of HIV is just wrong.
So who is to say that the long term use of recreational drugs could not
be causing immune suppression? We have become so envoloped in the
pathogenicity of AIDS, that we have overlooked that many with HIV are
asymptomatic and have been for more than a decade. This alone should
open up AIDS research in other fields.
"If the germ theory of Western Civilization were correct, there would be
no one living to believe it".
-B.J. Palmer
Kevin Doherty
kev...@mail.ids.net
PS: Chris, what you are hinting at is medical anarchy and infringes
upon the first amendment- Freedom of Speech.
Charles P. McCarthy
Kev wrote:
[edit]
> So who is to say that the long term use of recreational drugs could not
> be causing immune suppression?
Looks like you folks are in for another long, lukewarm "Californ"
summer. If this goes over your head, Kev, like everything we've
seen so far, try DejaNews search filter with californ@*
[edit]
> 1) Ironically, the first statement has never been proven and therefore
> should be exposed to scrutiny even by its' proponents. In fact, it has!
> The mere thought that many of our nations leading HIV/AIDS researchers
> have tried desperately to link cofactors (other viruses, mycoplasma
> incognitus, even genetic predisposition), other theories (excess soluble
> gp120, Syncytia formation, extended latency/no latency), is proof
> positive that HIV alone is not doing the damage it had been proposed
> to.
You're right, Kev. It couldn't possibly be that they were just
being thorough, responsible scientists. For an idiot who doesn't
know which cells in the human body are infected by HIV, where
gp120 comes from, or anything about its stability or activity, I
think your "brainstorm" will be very attractive to our resident
braindead.
Don't forget irreversible tissue damage by super-infection with
herpes when you get hungry for food for thought, and your
"Bulimia Nervosa" gets out of control.
If you want to try to get healthy, call home. Then start over
at the beginning with which cells are infected.
PANDOC
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN
In article <32D7E7...@mail.ids.net>, Kev <kev...@mail.ids.net> writes:
> ROBERT S. HOLZMAN wrote:
>
>> In article <19970109164...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>> bill...@aol.com writes:
>
>> > does not agree with the orthodox view.
>
> Award', at the National Institutes of Health/First Scientist to isolate
> a cancer gene, and Kary Mullis *inventor* of PCR serve to exemplify this
> point rather well.
> Not surprisingly, the only *harm* that dissident views imply, is to the
> livelihood of HIV research.
>
Sorry, it isn't who you are that gets you funded, it is what your propose to
do. Now I am not so naive as to think that who you are doesn't matter, and
that considerable leeway might be given to distinguished scientists. However
as someone who works with distinguished scientists I know that grant funded
research is not a sinecure.
I have read Duesberg's proposed studies in his Pharm. Ther. article. They
would no pass a peer review on their merits regardless of who proposed them.
>
> Exactly who is 'reproducing' this data. Dr. Ho has proposed the 'sink
> model', Charles McCarthy has illustrated the role of soluble gp120,
> Robert Holzman has cautiously taken a middle of the road stance, Dr.
> Harris (along with others), has indicated that the number of T-cells
> infected in circulating blood does not parallel the number of infections
> in the nodes. Although all of these individuals possess the common
> denominator in believing HIV causes AIDS, the lack of evidence to
> support this claim has left them panning thru the bloodstream like a
> scientific prospector.
You continue to confuse etiology and pathogenesis. It has been pointed out
before that these are separable. You have not addressed the evidence on
etiology, just complain about the state of our knowledge of pathogenesis.
Perhaps you could enlighten us on the single route by which cigarettes produce
lung cancer?
Mark
"Charles P. McCarthy" <pan...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>[edit]
>> 1) Ironically, the first statement has never been proven and therefore
>> should be exposed to scrutiny even by its' proponents. In fact, it has!
>> The mere thought that many of our nations leading HIV/AIDS researchers
>> have tried desperately to link cofactors (other viruses, mycoplasma
>> incognitus, even genetic predisposition), other theories (excess soluble
>> gp120, Syncytia formation, extended latency/no latency), is proof
>> positive that HIV alone is not doing the damage it had been proposed
>> to.
>You're right, Kev. It couldn't possibly be that they were just
>being thorough, responsible scientists. For an idiot who doesn't
>know which cells in the human body are infected by HIV, where
>gp120 comes from, or anything about its stability or activity, I
>think your "brainstorm" will be very attractive to our resident
>braindead.
*I* think you're being far too harsh- Kev's statement about the
search for cofactors seems to me to be right on target, except for the
terms 'proof positive'. As far as I'm concerned, *nothing* in the
HIV/AIDS pathogenesis/cure/vaccine arena is 'proven', just some
evidence is stronger than others. No one has yet convinced me (and
I can hear it coming- who the $#@ am *I*) that HIV alone is the
culprit. The cofactor search continues...
-Mark
"By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meets
the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it
is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment.
Charles P. McCarthy
Mark wrote:
[edit]
> No one has yet convinced me (and I can hear it coming-who the $#@ am *I*)
I know exactly who you are, Mark.
The evidence is there. You just need to catch up on
your reading.
No co-factors. Super infections and OI's yes.
Anyone thinking they know different hasn't read the
literature.
Start with an AIDSLINE search for gp120. Be sure to use
an outline so you don't get lost. Cross-reference for all
aspects of pathogenesis and follow-up related topics separately.
Good luck and good hunting,
Charlie
Charles P. McCarthy, P.M.D.
Clinical Specialist
Carmichael, CA USA
Michael McDowell
Carter, Harris, Holzman et al. all post under their own names. You
don't. They are willing to place their opinions behind their identities;
you are not. As a rule of thumb, in reading posts on any subject, I
subtract about 60% reliability from any opinion which is given
pseudonymously or anonymously. Invective takes away another 30%.
Reliance on anecdotal truth that is not strictly personal -- e.g., "a
friend in Africa" -- drops another 20%. You start out with a negative
balance even before you start asserting that AIDS in Africa is a
mis-diagnosed pool of ancient infections, AIDS in England is a
mis-counted evaporation, AIDS in America is a murderous conspiracy.
Remaining anonymous is an option allowed by the hardware and civility;
but I'm not sure you should expect people to take your pronouncements at
their face value when you're not willing to sign off on them. Or did I
just miss the post where you appended your surname and affiliations?
Michael McDowell
charles mccarthy
In <5bd9te$d...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> mhay...@ix.netcom.com (Mark )
writes:
[edit]
>We shall see! I am aware of of the Nov Nature article:
[edit]
> First, gp120, a protein on the surface of the AIDS virus, binds to
>the CD4 receptor on T cells. Once bound, the gp120-CD4 complex
>refolds to reveal a second structure that binds to CCR5, one of
>several chemokine co-receptors used by the virus to gain entry to T
>cells. Membrane fusion and entry of the AIDS virus into the cell
>follows.
>___________________
>
>Several products are in development that focus on the inhibition of
>the gp120/CD4 interaction, including ProCept's PRO-2000 and
>Paracelsian's AIDS cmpd. (I forget the name). For some reason, the
>'V3 loop' seems to be in my memory as a target of the Paracelsian
>product(s). Don't quote me on that!
My phone lines been cut, Mark, so you've been blessed. I can't
talk too much, or too often. I snagged a terminal to check on one
of my patients and found your response.
All I can say is folks should not confuse coreceptors with cofactors,
and above all else remember that HIV will produce a gp120 to fit any
receptor you want to put up. HIV is capable of penetrating cells
that do not even possess a CD4 receptor.
The drug I have been developing, AMIPAN (TM), is anticipated to
not only inhibit all types of cell entry and cell-to-cell transmission,
but also to inhibit viral integrases and proteases in cells already
infected.
No one has any money left, and no one has shown any interest in this
forum, or bionet.molbio.hiv, or sci.med.aids. So development has been
slow. The banks refuse to loan me any more dough, and the one's who
already have will be selling my home, office, and lab next month
whether I want them to or not.
Luckily, I have gotten ~10mg into the pipeline at NCI, and I will be
preparing as much crystalline material as I can before going belly-up.
The precursor is a common antioxidant which I have been taking for
months without any side effects. In advanced AIDS, the putative
active antiviral metabolite will probably have to be given in pure
form rather than as the precursor in order to reach therapeutic
levels.
Good luck and good hunting,
Charlie
Charles P. McCarthy, P.M.D.
Clinical Specialist
Healthcare Consulting and
Medical Research
2207 Mission Avenue
Carmichael, CA USA 95608
Kev
charles mccarthy wrote:
> >Several products are in development that focus on the inhibition of
> >the gp120/CD4 interaction, including ProCept's PRO-2000 and
> >Paracelsian's AIDS cmpd. (I forget the name). For some reason, the
> >'V3 loop' seems to be in my memory as a target of the Paracelsian
> >product(s). Don't quote me on that!
Unfortunately, Genentechs gp120 vaccine (MN Crown), was a flop.
> The drug I have been developing, AMIPAN (TM), is anticipated to
> not only inhibit all types of cell entry and cell-to-cell > > transmission, but also to inhibit viral integrases and proteases in > > cells already infected.
So it turns out that you do have a financially vested interest in this
gp120 theory.
> No one has any money left, and no one has shown any interest in this
> forum, or bionet.molbio.hiv, or sci.med.aids. So development has been
> slow. The banks refuse to loan me any more dough, and the one's who
> already have will be selling my home, office, and lab next month
> whether I want them to or not.
Although I don't really care for your ideas McCarthy, I'm honestly a
blood and sweat type character with a lot of heart. My hat goes off to
anyone who believes in themself or their project enough to take a chance
like that......even you.
I remained unmoved but wish you the best of luck,
Kevin Doherty, B.S.
kev...@mail.ids.net
George M. Carter
mhay...@ix.netcom.com (Mark ) wrote:
>Several products are in development that focus on the inhibition of
>the gp120/CD4 interaction, including ProCept's PRO-2000 and
>Paracelsian's AIDS cmpd. (I forget the name). For some reason, the
>'V3 loop' seems to be in my memory as a target of the Paracelsian
>product(s). Don't quote me on that!
I find the Procept concept bankrupt. Their idea is to slime all CD4's!
What a fucking ridiculous notion. To begin with, there are so many per
cell that this idea is ridiculous. The concentration of drug would
have to be hideously high. Second, even assuming this could be
achieved, curiously, the CD4 cell is need. You might as well just try
to kill all CD4+ cells (and save HIV the trouble). These idiots ought
to be prosecuted for malpractice. At any rate, I think they've dumped
the idea of doing this as a therpeutic and are now (probably vainly)
trying to make a buck using it as a microbicide. (Mark: to be clear,
my anger here is not directed at you! Unless, of course, you work for
those assholes).
I wonder how many people they fucked up in their studies??
>If gp120 binds to CD4, can one 'tie-up' the binding site of gp120, the
>'receptor' site of CD4, or some portion of the resultant 'bound set'
>(for example, could an anti-CCR5 molecule have therapeutic effect?)
>Who knows which, if any, of these approaches will work.
Probably none of these.
George M. Carter
bill...@aol.com
In article <gWk5pDA8...@bmaids.demon.co.uk>, Hilary Curtis
<hil...@bmaids.demon.co.uk> writes:
>Besides, can you adequately explain why the rates of other sexually
>transmitted diseases also differ between the two countries, or do you
>believe that these are not caused by infectious agents?
>
>
The rate of aid _syndrome_ in the US is 10 times the UK rate.... are we
talking a difference of equal magnitude with sexually transmitted diseases
also?
bill...@aol.com
>What evidence do you have for the claim that there is little difference
>in rates of risk behaviour?
No, I can't site any relevant studies. However when I lived in the UK
during the 80's I was of the opinion that:
1. IV drug use was taking place (with and without clean needles)
2. Homosexual activity was taking place.
3. Heterosexual activity was taking place.
4. Blood was being donated and transfused.
5. Babies were being born.
Since moving to the US, I have seen no evidence to suggest the Americans
are indulging in these "risk" practises at 10 times the UK rate.
charles mccarthy
In <32DB25...@mail.ids.net> Kev <kev...@mail.ids.net> writes:
[edit]
>So it turns out that you do have a financially vested interest in this
>gp120 theory.
I am not vested in any theory. I am not affiliated with any
institution, government, or any given company. I am free to
contract with anyone. I only get paid when I produce. I do not
charge patients or their physicians for consultation.
Miracle cures are sold at cost plus ten percent.
>Although I don't really care for your ideas McCarthy, I'm honestly a
>blood and sweat type character with a lot of heart. My hat goes off
>to anyone who believes in themself or their project enough to take a
>chance like that......even you.
>I remained unmoved but wish you the best of luck,
>Kevin Doherty, B.S.
>kev...@mail.ids.net
Thanks for the good wishes.
Try a laxative. It'll help the heart.
No charge...
Charlie
Charles P. McCarthy, P.M.D.
Clinical Specialist
Professor Emeritus
Pantherapeuticological School of Medicine
Hilary Curtis
In article <19970114161...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
bill...@aol.com writes
You don't need anywhere near 10 times the rate of risk behaviour to see
10 times the rate of epidemic spread. The relationship between the two
is _highly_ non-linear.
Unless the level and pattern of risk behaviour between two communities
is virtually _identical_ no one should be surprised at large differences
in HIV/AIDS case rates.
Sure, all risk behaviours take place in the UK, but not necessarily to
the same extent or in the same patterns as in the USA. For example, we
never really had shooting galleries (except in Edinburgh where
(surprise, surprise) a significant needle-sharing epidemic DID take
place until it was brought under control through needle exchanges).
When people shared injecting equipment in most of the UK they mostly did
so within a small circle of a few close friends. We also probably never
had gay bath-houses with anonymous multi-partner sex on anywhere near
the same scale as in some US cities (though it's difficult to be certain
since clubs for sex on the premises have always been illegal in the UK).
These kinds of subtle differences in patterns of risk behaviour make a
huge difference to rates of epidemic spread.
Your opinion (or mine) based on casual observation will never give
enough information about risk behaviour patterns accurately to predict
the spread of HIV/AIDS in quantitative terms.
himself
hil...@bmaids.demon.co.uk "Hilary Curtis" writes:
> What evidence do you have for the claim that there is little difference
> in rates of risk behaviour? There has been far more, and better, health
> education for people at risk of HIV in the UK than in the USA, starting
> from an earlier phase in the epidemic, plus we have a well-established
> network of needle/syringe exchanges.
A joke, presumably, as needle exchanges are known to be a waste of
resources and often a public health danger in themselves. They have
had no share in ending the "Aids" superstition in the UK. They are
being closed here as quickly as possible. No "epidemic of HIV" is
expected as a result of these closures.
The important difference between the UK and US lies in the quality
of dissident scientific evidence presented to the general public. A
major factor in persuading people, especially those specifically
targeted by the "HIV" myth, not to engage with the delusion or
offer themselevs for "HIV tests" was the series of expert Meditel
films shown on national networked television in the early nineties.
These films exposed "HIV and Aids" as scientifically dubious claims,
debunked the myth of "Aids" in Africa, and warned potential victims
about AZT. They were met with an hysterical screech of outrage from
the vested "Aids" interests, who all promised a tide of infectious
disease washing across the country if these films were believed. In
fact, the exact opposite happened, exposing the claims of agencies
such as the BMA as lies and disinformation. The scientific arguments
made in the Meditel films have all proved to be absolutely correct.
Scandalously, disredited agencies and beneficiaries of the "Aids"
myth continue to lie and deceive, and endanger the health of gullible
and uninformed people. They are, in their way, every bit as dangerous
to public health as incompetently managed needle exchanges. At a time
when Britains's National Health Service is suffering from severe
budgetary cuts, the damaging cost of supporting "Aids" industry
parasites should not be underestimated.
John
--
"There is this terrible fear throughout the field that it will be
discovered we have been walking down the wrong route all these years
and advising people to do things which will turn out to be the wrong
things. I think about quitting all the time."
UK "Aids" industry worker's letter to Neville Hodgkinson,
author of _AIDS: The Failure of Contemporary Science_
himself
mmmc...@bu.edu "Michael McDowell" writes:
> Carter, Harris, Holzman et al. all post under their own names.
How do you know? They could all be high school students called
Smith, for all the evidence you have.
What this shows is that you are easily fooled by superficial
aspects, such as the apparent identity of posters to Usenet. It
is not surprising, therefore, that you prefer to make up your
mind on serious and complex matters without examining the data
and evidence easily available to you, but instead by comparing
the styles and titles of posters. To say this is not a safe or
sensible way to decide between opposing arguments is something
of an understatement.
> Michael McDowell
..apparently.
John
--
"Although I am generally sceptical of much in orthodox medicine, I did
at least believe that the worst it could do was misdiagnose or apply
ineffective and dangerous treatments for which there are safer, natural
alternatives. Now I believe that it is capable of making massive blunders
on a truly genocidal scale."
review of dissident "Aids" book, Nutritional Therapy Today, Vol6No3
himself
bill...@aol.com writes:
> <hil...@bmaids.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> > Besides, can you adequately explain why the rates of other sexually
> > transmitted diseases also differ between the two countries, or do you
> > believe that these are not caused by infectious agents?
>
> The rate of aid _syndrome_ in the US is 10 times the UK rate.... are we
> talking a difference of equal magnitude with sexually transmitted diseases
> also?
And it is fast disappearing altogether, now that its potential
victims don't believe in it. Strange way for an infectious disease
syndrome to behave.
The epidemiology of "Aids" in the UK doesn't stand scrutiny. Before
long there will be NO "Aids" deaths in the UK, while the US works
towards half a million AZT poison victims. How is that going to fit
into infectious disease epidemiology?
Time to start telling the truth. Have to do it eventually.
John
--
"Predictions that "HIV" would put at risk all sexually active people
have proved completely ill-conceived. Even female prostitutes do not
get Aids unless they are also heavy drug users."
from _AIDS: The Failure of Contemporary Science_,
by Neville Hodgkinson
Hilary Curtis
In article <19970114160...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>
>>Besides, can you adequately explain why the rates of other sexually
>>transmitted diseases also differ between the two countries, or do you
>>believe that these are not caused by infectious agents?
>>
>>
>
>The rate of aid _syndrome_ in the US is 10 times the UK rate.... are we
>talking a difference of equal magnitude with sexually transmitted diseases
>also?
Yes. Actually the difference is probably greater than 10 times.
USA: Approximately 12 million STD cases per year, including an
estimated 1.4 million cases of gonorrhoea and 130,000 cases of syphilis.
Kassler W J, Cates W. Urologic Clinics of North America 19(1) 1-12,
1992.
The above are estimated figures. There were actually 50,223 reported
cases of primary and secondary syphilis in the USA in 1990 - a 75 per
cent _increase_ over 1985. CDC. JAMA 265 2940, 1991. However, because
many cases get treated at private physician's offices, it is recognised
that there is significant under-reporting of STDs in the USA. The
estimated figures are probably more accurate.
IMHO, the fact that the USA had a major epidemic of syphilis during the
second half of the 1980s and early 1990s, when HIV/AIDS was already
known about, shows a significant public health failure. It's not
surprising that it was associated with a high level of AIDS cases.
England (sorry, don't have figures for the UK but I have no reason to
believe case rates are higher in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland -
for syphilis, which is a largely London problem, they are probably
lower): Reported syphilis cases: 1242 in 1988, 1305 in 1990. Reported
gonorrhoea cases: 18738 in 1988, 19086 in 1990. On the State of the
Public Health. The Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer, 1989 and
1991. Because of the UK system of National Health Service genitourinary
medicine clinics, there is very little if any under-reporting of
syphilis and gonorrhoea (there may be more for other STDs). Hence these
figures represent the true number of cases or very nearly.
Even after allowing for the fact that the population of the USA is about
4 or 5 times that of England, these figures show that the incidence of
syphilis and gonorrhoea in the USA is several times that in England.
Let me emphasise, however, that the expected relationships between
HIV/AIDS, other STDs and risk behaviours are _non-linear_. You should
_not_ expect a directly proportionate relationship between case rates
for HIV/AIDS and any other STD. You should expect, other things being
equal, that a community that has a significantly higher incidence of
STDs in general will also have a higher incidence of HIV/AIDS - exactly
what is observed in comparisons between the USA and UK. It is beyond
your power or mine to predict or explain the exact case ratio in
MDSHRIVER
<<himself>> points out that one of his latest (and consistently absurd)
posts the following:
---- Before long there will be NO "Aids" deaths in the UK, while the US
works
towards half a million AZT poison victims. -------
wow. apparently john knows little (ok, so i am being generous) of the
situation in the us. with approximately 750,000 to 1,000,000 hiv+
americans, i guess john's math is just shy of being accurate.
and why bother dealing with the reality that access to therapeutics, for
those known to be living with hiv disease, is neither guaranteed nor
consistent in any jurisdiction across this country.
why bother pointing to the FACTS that access to the triple drug combo in
the US is restricted by class, age, race, type of and expertise of one's
primary medical provider (that means doctor, john), and that several
states have demand for triple combination therapy EXCEEDING supply (hence
our sturggle in the aids drug assistance program in the US as well as
Medicaid and Medicaid Managed Care programs).
like president reagan before him, john's new slogan, to replace the
duseberg excerpts, should be : DON'T CONFUSE ME WITH THE FACTS.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
mdsh...@aol.com
"for it serves the myth" (robert duncan)
"listen to reason" (rem)
"shhhhh --- i'm listening to reason" (pee wee herman)
"if i had waited for your call, i'd still be waiting" (my mom)
bill...@aol.com
In article <853451...@blackdog.demon.co.uk>, jo...@blackdog.demon.co.uk
(himself) writes:
>hil...@bmaids.demon.co.uk "Hilary Curtis" writes:
>
>> What evidence do you have for the claim that there is little difference
>> in rates of risk behaviour? There has been far more, and better,
health
>> education for people at risk of HIV in the UK than in the USA, starting
>> from an earlier phase in the epidemic, plus we have a well-established
>> network of needle/syringe exchanges.
>
>
>The important difference between the UK and US lies in the quality
>of dissident scientific evidence presented to the general public.
John,
Having lived in both countries during the past 15 years, I agree
completely. The first I heard that the hiv=aids theory might be wrong was
in the London "Sunday Times". Since moving here, the only source of
unbiased information I have been able to find is through the "pacifica"
public radio network (99.5 FM NY area). Unfortunately, the general
population are as yet still captivated by the junk that passes for real
information in the mainstream.
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN
>
>> Carter, Harris, Holzman et al. all post under their own names.
>
> How do you know? They could all be high school students called
> Smith, for all the evidence you have.
>
I can't speak for the others, but you can find me by lookong on NYU's faculty
web pages or by calling the medical center.
I am who I am.
Of course it is alway possible for some one else to forge a post such as
happened to harris, but so far as I know no one has.
Tim
In article <853451...@blackdog.demon.co.uk>, himself
<jo...@blackdog.demon.co.uk> writes
>mmmc...@bu.edu "Michael McDowell" writes:
>
>> Carter, Harris, Holzman et al. all post under their own names.
>
>How do you know? They could all be high school students called
>Smith, for all the evidence you have.
>
>aspects, such as the apparent identity of posters to Usenet.
While agreeing with the general principle, there is plenty of evidence
to show that the three mentioned posters are all who they claim to be.
(Except for the odd posting : I seem to remember a post called ' I'm not
a doctor but I play one on TV attributed to Dr Harris.)
Unless, of course, the following excerpt, which I believe you posted,
was incorrect:
[ We are indebted to two influential long-time "Aids" dissidents Fred
Cline and Californ for the following exchange, part of a series, between
"Aids" activist Mark Gabrish Conlan and Dr Steven Harris, which appeared
in Zenger's magazine in California.]
Shame on Mr Conlan for debating with a high school student called Smith
and passing him off as Dr Harris !
Hilary Curtis puts sufficient info on all her posts to check up her
identity (And in the position she is in, would surely quickly refute any
false postings)
So the question remains: Who are you John ? Are there in fact a team of
John@blackdog pumping out answers? This might explain the wild
contridictions taht crop up from time to time.
--
Tim Williams
Randolph Richards
bill...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Having lived in both countries during the past 15 years, I agree
> completely. The first I heard that the hiv=aids theory might be wrong was
> in the London "Sunday Times". Since moving here, the only source of
> unbiased information I have been able to find is through the "pacifica"
> public radio network (99.5 FM NY area). Unfortunately, the general
> population are as yet still captivated by the junk that passes for real
> information in the mainstream.
So, Bill, when it comes to the crunch your rhetoric about impartiality
is simply hollow. You weren't just sitting on the fence but a committed
player of the dissident game. You will forego the hundreds of sites and
articles on the web for the few lonely dissident voices. How many of
them actually do research into the AIDS problem? -- you know, not just
comment on what others have been doing? Yeah, right, basically none. And
nearly all of those who complain are working with ideas that go back to
the eighties and haven't updated to the research that has led to vast
improvements in the standards of health of HIV infected people.
R
bill...@aol.com
In article <32E3EA...@mclink.it>, Randolph Richards <mc2...@mclink.it>
writes:
> Unfortunately, the general
>> population are as yet still captivated by the junk that passes for real
>> information in the mainstream.
>
>So, Bill, when it comes to the crunch your rhetoric about impartiality
>is simply hollow.
Not at all. I am totally impartial having no vested interest whatsoever.
Can you say that (truthfully)?
My comment is in regard to _my_ opinion of the mainstream media in general
and the lack of any alternative or dissident information on hiv/aids in
particular.
himself
hil...@bmaids.demon.co.uk "Hilary Curtis" writes:
> bill...@aol.com writes
> >
> >The rate of aid _syndrome_ in the US is 10 times the UK rate.... are we
> >talking a difference of equal magnitude with sexually transmitted diseases
> >also?
>
> Yes. Actually the difference is probably greater than 10 times.
These comparisons are highly misleading. The reason agencies
such as the BMA made so many wildly incorrect and misleading
predictions about "Aids" is exactly because the factors said
to be responsible are identical in both the UK and the US.
When it became clear that no infectious agent is involved in
"Aids", and that there would not be an "epidemic" in the UK,
they opted to continue with what they knew to be lies rather
than address the growing problems of "HIV" theory. Not only
the numbers are grossly discrepant between the UK and US, but
the distribution of "Aids" is even more impossible to accept.
There have been no "heterosexual Aids" deaths in the UK, for
example, revealing how homosexuals have been targeted by the
deadly superstition, and early exposure to expert dissident
opinion on various media persuaded many potential British
victims to be cautious and distrust the official statements.
This has saved many lives, which, if agencies such as the BMA
had been believed, would have been lost to AZT poisoning, as
has happened in the USA.
Reductions in the drug regimes of alleged "HIV positive" people,
and increasing avoidance of this therapy caused a reversal in
the UK "Aids" statistics which has now increased sharply. The
phenomenon is expected to disappear rapidly as the public lose
interest and belief in it, and those who have avoided deadly
medication and thus remained healthy simply get on with their
lives. Continuum Group in London have observed, as have their
US conterparts, that refusal of so-called "anti-HIV" drugs is the
common factor in healthy survival of an "Aids" or "HIV" label.
John
--
"There is this terrible fear throughout the field that it will be
discovered we have been walking down the wrong route all these years
and advising people to do things which will turn out to be the wrong
things. I think about quitting all the time."
UK "Aids" industry worker's letter to Neville Hodgkinson,
author of _AIDS: The Failure of Contemporary Science_
himself
hil...@bmaids.demon.co.uk "Hilary Curtis" writes:
> bill...@aol.com writes
> >
> >Since moving to the US, I have seen no evidence to suggest the Americans
> >are indulging in these "risk" practises at 10 times the UK rate.
>
> [...]
> Unless the level and pattern of risk behaviour between two communities
> is virtually _identical_ no one should be surprised at large differences
> in HIV/AIDS case rates.
And of course it is, which is exactly what makes the huge discrepancy
in "Aids" figures so revealing. Add to that the downright suspicious
distribution of cases in the UK, and the "infectious virus" nonsense
is completely demolished.
> Your opinion (or mine) based on casual observation will never give
> enough information about risk behaviour patterns accurately to predict
> the spread of HIV/AIDS in quantitative terms.
And yet of course it WAS predicted, based upon the work of Professor
Duesberg, by various dissident experts who have turned out to be
correct, especially in respect of the UK. For many who watched the
Meditel films (including, it might surprise the British Medical
Association, British doctors), the "crunch" concerned whether there
could be an epidemic of "Aids" without wholesale abuse of drugs or a
pogrom of medical poisoning. It has turned out that there could not
be. This is exactly as predicted in those films, and in press analysis
such as the Sunday Times articles.
So it is only the orthodox believers in "HIV" who have turned out
not to be able to make sensible predictions. Dissidents have never
had any difficulty. But then of course, they have been right about
the science, which gave them an advantage.
John
--
"Taxpayers, and HIV positives and their relatives, potentially
constitute the most explosive opposition to the AIDS establishment.
As the failures of the war on AIDS mount up, the size of the imminent
backlash grows; the longer AIDS officials resist the inevitable, the
harder they will fall. Time, therefore, has become our most valuable
ally." Prof. Peter Duesberg, "Inventing the AIDS Virus"
himself
holz...@mcrcr6.med.nyu.edu "ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" writes:
> I can't speak for the others, but you can find me by lookong on NYU's
> faculty web pages or by calling the medical center.
>
> I am who I am.
Your own special creation. But there could be a real Dr Robert
Holzman who would be horrified to discover what you have been
posting under his name. Indeed I rather hope there is.
> Of course it is alway possible for some one else to forge a post such as
> happened to harris, but so far as I know no one has.
Interestingly, the only person to claim this sort of ability
publicly was someone apparently related to you. So it seems we
might now know who was responsible for those abuses.
John
--
"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever
that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the
majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish
than sensible." Bertrand Russell 1872-1970
himself
In article <19970117135...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
bill...@aol.com writes:
> jo...@blackdog.demon.co.uk (himself) writes:
> >
> > The important difference between the UK and US lies in the quality
> > of dissident scientific evidence presented to the general public.
>
> Having lived in both countries during the past 15 years, I agree
> completely. The first I heard that the hiv=aids theory might be wrong was
> in the London "Sunday Times". Since moving here, the only source of
> unbiased information I have been able to find is through the "pacifica"
> public radio network (99.5 FM NY area). Unfortunately, the general
> population are as yet still captivated by the junk that passes for real
> information in the mainstream.
We have certainly been lucky here! You will have noticed that our
official agencies are every bit as mendacious and deceitful as
those in the US, so without access to dissident opinion it is not
impossible that large numbers of healthy Brits would have been
medicated into an early grave by ignorant, brainwashed medics, as
so many US citizens have.
There is a strong feeling here that it is time to start separating
the wheat from the chaff and give credit where it is deserved. The
Hodgkinson articles in the Sunday Times (and some other honest
reporting in the British press) and the Meditel films reached many
millions of potential victims, and were successful in preventing
any stampede to "HIV test" centres. I am one of the many who thought
seriously about it, but decided in light of dissident views to wait
and see if it could really all be a fraud. I am sure that decision
saved my life. Many others have not been so lucky.
As time went by, the truth was inexorably exposed. No epidemic of
any kind. Obviously no infectious agent. Mostly, no illness unless
"anti-HIV" drugs accepted. However much "risky" sex people indulged
in, they couldn't get "Aids" unless they offered themselves like
sacrifices for "testing", and co-operated in poisoning themselves to
death. This is still true, but few are stupid enough to believe the
rather obvious lies official bodies, even now, try to disseminate.
I am optimistic that the "Aids" superstition is evaporating so
quickly here that 1997 may be a very important year in exposing
the truth. I have not heard a single lie told here by official
sources that is not easily and simply refuted, especially from
the UK evidence, and the excuses offered these days are becoming
tendentious and absurd. To call the orthodox position weak is to
dignify it.
John
--
"Meanwhile, let us hope that the country is not confronted with a real
epidemic in the near future: after the disinformation the government
has told us about Aids, who would believe it?"
Andrew Neil, editor, The Sunday Times, 23 June 1996.
himself
t...@microbes.demon.co.uk "Tim" writes:
>
> Hilary Curtis puts sufficient info on all her posts to check up her
> identity (And in the position she is in, would surely quickly refute
> any false postings)
I am ashamed to say I too believe Ms Curtis is real enough. Even
though I am not a British doctor, I also feel the disgrace she
brings upon them. At least we can be sure it won't continue for
much longer, the way the "Aids" business is folding up in the UK.
The sooner she is an unsavoury memory the better for us all.
> So the question remains: Who are you John ? Are there in fact a team
> of John@blackdog pumping out answers? This might explain the wild
> contridictions taht crop up from time to time.
Just one of the VAST team of "Aids" realists. Only Holzman claims
to have detected contradiction, and that always turns out to be a
deliberate misreading. I have several trips planned in the early
months of 1997, so you should notice an intermittent delay in
responses, which might reassure you as to the unitary nature of
myself (himself). Naturally I apologise for any inconvenience my
occasional brief absence causes. Normal service will soon be
resumed.
> Tim Williams
Oh yeah? A likely story.
John
--
"I am amazed at the increase in the number of people diagnosed as HIV-
positive who are questioning mainstream thinking from the start but if
I want to keep my job, I cannot be seen to be rocking the boat. I feel
I am walking on eggshells all the time because there are so many things
it is politically not acceptable for me to be telling clients."
UK healthcare worker's letter to Neville Hodgkinson.
author of AIDS: The Failure of Contemporary Science
George M. Carter
bill...@aol.com wrote:
>My comment is in regard to _my_ opinion of the mainstream media in general
>and the lack of any alternative or dissident information on hiv/aids in
>particular.
The media are constantly in need of kicking in order for issues to be
addressed. But I really don't think the dissident movement is lacking
a lot of different opportunities to express themselves. There are
books, magazines, cable shows and so forth.
What I find depressing is that most of the people (with a few rare
exceptions) never go on to read the thousands and thousands of papers
that show pretty clearly that HIV exists and causes AIDS in the
majority of people who are infected.
George M. Carter
W. Fred Shaw
Randolph Richards wrote:
>
Randolph Richards wrote:
> bill...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > Having lived in both countries during the past 15 years, I agree
> > completely. The first I heard that the hiv=aids theory might be wrong was
> > in the London "Sunday Times". Since moving here, the only source of
> > unbiased information I have been able to find is through the "pacifica"
> > public radio network (99.5 FM NY area). Unfortunately, the general
> > population are as yet still captivated by the junk that passes for real
> > information in the mainstream.
>
> So, Bill, when it comes to the crunch your rhetoric about impartiality
> is simply hollow.
Hollow is a term that best describes Richard's understanding of
this disease which he exemplifies in his many writings on the
subject of HIV disease which offer absolutely nothing.
> You weren't just sitting on the fence but a committed
> player of the dissident game.
Certainly to Bill's credit. At least the dissidents to which Richard's
refers were NOT those advocating AZT and the combo therapies and are
now trying to distance themselves from their earlier advocacy in
order to save their collective asses.
> You will forego the hundreds of sites and
> articles on the web for the few lonely dissident voices. How many of
> them actually do research into the AIDS problem?
Whoa! Given much of the trash that is passed off as AIDS "research"
on the web, it is obvious that Richards and those he admires are
mostly unfamiliar with the inside of a biomedical library.
> And nearly all of those who complain are working with ideas
> that go back to the eighties and haven't updated to the research
Wrong! Some of these "dissidents" are way ahead of the research
establishment and many of those in the research establishment have
lost sight of the obvious nature of HIV disease as was obvious
even in the mid-1980's. Of course, Richards was being potty trained
about that time, so how would he know?
> that has led to vast
> improvements in the standards of health of HIV infected people.
>
Most of the "vast improvements" have been in treating OI's, not
in treating HIV. In fact, the current increases in survival were
being realized BEFORE the protease inhibitors and combo therapies!
Clearly, survival has increased because of the waning popularity
of AZT and the availability of better information about certain
harmful treatments -- and in spite of resistance from the drug
treatment community and activists, much of this information first
came from the dissident community -- and will continue to come
from the dissidents.
W. Fred Shaw
himself
hil...@bmaids.demon.co.uk "Hilary Curtis" writes:
> [...]
> The above are estimated figures. There were actually 50,223 reported
> cases of primary and secondary syphilis in the USA in 1990 - a 75 per
> cent _increase_ over 1985. CDC. JAMA 265 2940, 1991. However, because
> many cases get treated at private physician's offices, it is recognised
> that there is significant under-reporting of STDs in the USA. The
> estimated figures are probably more accurate.
This reference to syphilis reminded me of a book I have where a
very cogent argument is made that much of the real illness commonly
misdiagnosed as "Aids" in the US is actually syphilis. ['Syphilis
as AIDS' by Robert Ben Mitchell, from Banned Books, Austin, Tx].
A brief extract from this book will illuminate the dishonest way
irrelevant comparisons are used by unscrupulous agencies such as
the BMA's "Foundation for Telling Lies about AIDS".
"[...] If _Treponema pallidium_ [TP], the causative agent of
syphilis, is introduced into a population of individuals who
have not been previously infected, the disease will appear in
its worst form possible: malignant syphilis. In this form the
disease rampages through the body in an unpredictable and
lethal manner. This was what happened to Europe in the 1400s.
Yet, within fifty years, Europeans had become adapted to the
bacterium, and syphilis appeared in less virulent forms." [p20]
Clearly then, syphilis has in fact behaved like a real infectious
disease in Europe, in contrast to "Aids", which never has, and, it
is safe to conclude, never will. The present situation of sporadic,
localised outbreaks of syphilis is the result of hundreds of years
of resistance and adaptation.
The example of syphilis, therefore, demolishes the very argument
it was expected to buttress. It is an ancient disease, with no
relevance to "Aids" except insofar as it produced a serious
epidemic on its arrival in Europe, whereas "Aids" has almost
completely failed to materialise at all. Yet more evidence that
"Aids" is not an infectious import.
Sir William Osler wrote, "To know syphilis is to know medicine."
Evidently, certain elements at the BMA understand neither. As long
as British doctors tolerate this, their reputation with the public
suffers in consequence.
himself
gm...@ix.netcom.com "George M. Carter" writes:
>
> What I find depressing is that most of the people (with a few rare
> exceptions) never go on to read the thousands and thousands of papers
> that show pretty clearly that HIV exists and causes AIDS in the
> majority of people who are infected.
What dissidents find depressing that that almost without exception
these alleged thousands of papers turn out to be sub-standard,
fraudulent "Aids-science" that collapses as soon as it is examined,
and none of them really prove anything, certainly not that "HIV"
exists and causes "Aids" in anyone.
John
--
"I can't find a single virologist who will give me references
which show that HIV is the probable cause of Aids... If you ask
a virologist for that information, you don't get an answer, you
get fury." Kary Mullis, Nobel laureate, chemist.
George M. Carter
jo...@blackdog.demon.co.uk (himself) wrote:
>What dissidents find depressing that that almost without exception
>these alleged thousands of papers turn out to be sub-standard,
>fraudulent "Aids-science" that collapses as soon as it is examined,
Gee, I forgot. Anything that contradicts your viewpoint is fraudulent.
Feh.
George M. Carter
W. Fred Shaw
What we all should be aware of is the fact that much of the
research upon which many of the over-zealous claims are made
for pushing the antiviral drug regimens is NEVER published
because it could not survive the peer-review process.
In the meantime, Carter is perhaps the LAST person who should
be dismissing the fraudulent nature of much of the clinical
trials and AIDS research. In fact, most of Carter's "treatment"
claims are TOTALLY fraudulent, and while Carter claims to
use "references", he does NOT quote from those references
and document such quotations in support of his "opinion".
George M. Carter
"W. Fred Shaw" <fred...@primenet.com> wrote:
>What we all should be aware of is the fact that much of the
>research upon which many of the over-zealous claims are made
>for pushing the antiviral drug regimens is NEVER published
>because it could not survive the peer-review process.
Actually, it is worse than that because the NEGATIVE data are never
published. Anything positive they can get by peer review certainly is
published.
>In the meantime, Carter is perhaps the LAST person who should
>be dismissing the fraudulent nature of much of the clinical
>trials and AIDS research. In fact, most of Carter's "treatment"
>claims are TOTALLY fraudulent, and while Carter claims to
>use "references", he does NOT quote from those references
>and document such quotations in support of his "opinion".
I rely on the noble creatures like yourself to correct any errors of
interpretation I may have made. And to provide your own scintillating
opinions on the data you get from Billi. I also expect most folks are
capable of reviewing the literature themselves. And finally, abstracts
are nice but we all know the full text is best. Unfortunately, it is
not possible to upload full texts of articles.
George M. Carter
himself
gm...@ix.netcom.com "George M. Carter" writes:
> jo...@blackdog.demon.co.uk (himself) wrote:
>
> >What dissidents find depressing that that almost without exception
> >these alleged thousands of papers turn out to be sub-standard,
> >fraudulent "Aids-science" that collapses as soon as it is examined,
>
> Gee, I forgot. Anything that contradicts your viewpoint is fraudulent.
The worrying thing is that so much that supports yours has turned out
to be. That SHOULD worry you. That it never does is revealing.
John
--
"AZT, once hailed as the gold standard of Aids treatment, harms more
than it helps. It received its licence on the basis of a single,
grossly flawed study."
"AIDS: The Failure of Contemporary Science", Neville Hodgkinson
George M. Carter
jo...@blackdog.demon.co.uk (himself) wrote:
>>
>> Gee, I forgot. Anything that contradicts your viewpoint is fraudulent.
>The worrying thing is that so much that supports yours has turned out
>to be. That SHOULD worry you. That it never does is revealing.
Fraudulent research does worry me. Spin doctoring infuriates me. It
does happen. An overemphasis on studies of "get the bug with the drug"
frustrates me. As it should. Arrogant dismissal of the evidence that
the combination of drugs have a benefit for some people with AIDS is
equally repellant, let alone the fact that you post no research but a
great deal of hot-air hypotheses none of the scientists listed as
dissidents have endeavored to put to experimental testing.
George M. Carter