Thanks for the effort Mrs P. I try to keep up with the craziness on the internet, but there’s a lot of it. Most of it is “arguments” like this one; present some stuff, if you aren’t familiar with the details, then you are discredited, and you lose. I wonder what the good Brother gets out of it?
Thanks for the effort Mrs P. I try to keep up with the craziness on the internet, but there's a lot of it. Most of it is "arguments" like this one; present some stuff, if you aren't familiar with the details, then you are discredited, and you lose. I wonder what the good Brother gets out of it?Mrs. P, I second that thanks. As Senior Member of this chat room :cheese: allow me to extend an invitation. Hopefully we'll hear more from you. Crazy debates can be fun, but we're always looking for some more of the interesting constructive type of conversation too.
As Senior Member of this chat room :cheese: allow me to extend an invitation.Delighted. But I'm a bit puzzled by my designation as a "Jr. Member". At my age it is many years since I have been referred to as a "junior" anything. Perhaps "Jr." is short for "Jurassic"?
As Senior Member of this chat room :cheese: allow me to extend an invitation.Delighted. But I'm a bit puzzled by my designation as a "Jr. Member". At my age it is many years since I have been referred to as a "junior" anything. Perhaps "Jr." is short for "Jurassic"? See what Lois said above about post count. Welcome to the CFI Forums, and please stick around. We need more members like you.
There is indeed so much to respond to and refute in the ravings that my challenge has inflamed here and while eager to do so i am currently enjoying living my life to the fullest. Something I certainly would not be doing if I had not unlike you all looked skeptically at the illusion we were being sold in the early eighties and had instead accepted not rejected clinic recommendation to immediately begin AZT.
I would be dead.
Indeed so much to respond to.
Do not dare suggest my reference to less than seven-hundred thousand deaths in thirty years to imply dismissive insensitivity on my part. As stated…I have lost countless friends, heroes and loved ones to this lie. The one thing they all have in common is that they took prescribed treatment for HIV. I am far more intimately involved than you could know.
All I am saying is that 658, 507 deaths in thirty years is not what we were terrorized to expect.
And again, I have known and loved so many of those lives.
Do not suggest I am being insensitive or dismissive.
Every year more than four-hundred thousand American lives are lost due to medical mistakes.
My request from the beginning has been a demand for proof demonstrating causation. All any of you offer is correlation.
You claim dissent has been debunked yet offer no such evidence.
The genius of Dr Peter Duesberg’s “AIDS acquired by drug consumption and other non-contagious risk factors” has never been challenged or refuted. Only silenced.
Please offer proof of the debunking of dissent you claim exists.
Please offer the proof of HIV causation you claim exists.
Indeed there is so much to respond to in these ravings but I am too busy living untethered to blind faith in unproven dogma.
I will however take a moment to respond to whoever claimed my interpretation of the Bangui definition of AIDS to be wrong.
This is from the world health organization regarding that definition.
I. INTRODUCTION
A workshop on the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) was held in Bangui,
Central African Republic, from 22 to 25 October 1985. Representatives of nine Central
African countries (Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo, Gabon, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda, Zaire) took part in this workshop. Dr Fakhry Assaad, Director of the Division of Communicable Diseases, welcomed the participants on behalf of the Director-General of WHO and the WHO Regional Director for Africa. The Right Honourable Minister of Health and Social Affairs of the Central African Republic welcomed the
participants
Both countries
on behalf of President
A. Kolingba.
participants that AIDS had recently appeared in the increasing rapidly in some of them.
official speakers of Central Africa
reminded and was
convened countries.
to confront this situation and to review the experience of the affected Its objectives were:
The workshop, which was the first meeting of African countries on AIDS, had been
to review the situation
to identify the clinical, Africa;
in the participating epidemiological
countries; and biological
prevention
features
of AIDS in
to formulate recommendations in Africa.
for surveillance.
and control
of AIDS
Hope that helps.
Oh, and then there is this on proof of HIV
DATE: June 10, 2013
FROM: Helen Lauer, Ph.D.
TO: BBC World Service
CC: Joan Shenton
SUBJECT: HIV analysis using electron microscopy
Dear Worldservice,
This morning May 31, 2013, I listened with great attention to the interesting segment on HIV detection and analysis using electron microscopy in your Science in Action programme. I was surprised however to realise that your interviewee failed to reveal the actual scientific state of opinion about the application of electron microscopy to HIV analysis.
It is not esoteric, but rather widely known, for some decades now, that electron microscopy has among its many uses the detection of viral particulate matter in human blood — but it is equally well known that the interpretation of this data is controversial. The question of interpretation is what is of keen interest to the general public because it has ramifications for the HIV AIDS industry.
Why don’t you consult one of the pioneers in the field of electron microscopy, Prof. Etienne de Harven, about his readily accessible, widely respected opinion — one among many competing views — that the particulates claimed to be HIV are better understood as endogenously produced. Other scientists regard these molecuar bits as evidence of residual virus shells of previous infection that has been countered by the body and floats around. There are many ways of interpreting this material, it is a flawed analysis, according to many scientists, albeit a lucrative one, to call this HIV. In any case there is no evidence from electron microscopic data that is viewed at this sub-microscopic level is the cause of AIDS. I attach a scientific article published some few years ago on the topic, by the originator of the methodology, Prof. de Harven. His article I have attached, “Human Endogenous Retroviruses and AIDS Research: Confusion, Consensus, or Science?” Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 15 Number 3 Fall 2010: 69-74. is required reading for the course I teach to Masters level students in public health, HIVM 612: Ethical Issues in HIV and AIDS Management. This article is easily managed by an editor of a science programme to appreciate how off the mark you were in today’s interview. But you don’t have to read technical journals to gain the information to needed so you can begin to approach this as a balanced subject matter for future shows. It is certainly important, but the view from all sides of experts is not obscure, arcane or difficult to research. To get started on research preparation for your next show try these URL sites: www.rethinkingaids.com and www.immunity.org.uk
Not only Prof. de Harven, who is very articulate and quite responsive to quality investigative journalism, but there is already a media group working on scientific research that affects the public domain, on your doorstep, called Meditel. Ms. Joan Shenton is a co-founder of the medical research media collaboration, and her email is above. They have produced award winning documentaries containing among other features of the controversy considerable footage about the role played by electron microscopy in detecting viral material in the blood. I am sure that some of their airtime documentary could be made available to the BBC for public information, with minimal if any cost or effort to BBC production schedules, providing you with some insightful and substantive coverage of this fascinating arena. Your guest did your show a disservice this morning.
Indeed your guest gave the severe misimpression that this development of electron microscopy is brand new — it is not, and so the impression he gave was fraudulent; as was the implications for HIV treatment or prevention can be concluded from this method of electron microscopy, as is clear to anyone who has done the slightest bit of reading on the subject. What your guest actually said sounded, even to an ordinary listener with the most fleeting awareness of the subject matter, like a word salad of obfuscation.
Why not talk to some experts who are not invested in sustaining a mythology around HIV and AIDS?
See the email addresses cc’d above to go further.
Yours loyally,
H. Lauer, Ph.D.
University of Ghana, Legon
Debunk that
I expect you’ll be banned Bro, but you can still read this. You’re asking me to what? To debunk a letter to the BBC about the quality of their guest? I’m not familiar with those individuals and I don’t have a PhD in the field, so I can’t do that. I’m also aware that news agencies get things wrong sometimes. I hate that.
The system I use to determine truth is to rely on years of experience about the orgs in involved. To respond to the letter from H Lauer, I would have to be an expert in all he/she is talking about. To respond to some of the things you said, I just need common sense. I would have to believe that thousands of health professionals were conspiring to kill people, or whatever it is you are implying. I would have to believe that somehow numbers were fudged, despite all the people that had access to those numbers and checked them and verified them. Just those two things are so implausible that I don’t trust you. And you don’t quote sources, so there’s no way to know what you’re talking about except to start from scratch on the subject. I’m not going to do that. I have no reason to do that.
If I read you right, you had or have HIV and didn’t take the drugs, and you lived. You are not the only person to experience that, and there are medical reasons why some people survive high mortality diseases while most don’t. So your correlation to people taking the drugs, then dying, just isn’t scientific. The drugs didn’t work at first because they hadn’t figured out the disease yet. They work better now, so the disease has been reclassified as non-epidemic, at least in certain places, like where you can get the good drugs. That’s what makes sense to me.
You claim dissent has been debunked yet offer no such evidence. The genius of Dr Peter Duesberg's "AIDS acquired by drug consumption and other non-contagious risk factors" has never been challenged or refuted. Only silenced. Please offer proof of the debunking of dissent you claim exists. Please offer the proof of HIV causation you claim exists.Duesberg's hypothesis that HIV is harmless "passenger virus" and that AIDS was in fact caused by drug consumption and other "non-contagious risk factors" was debunked more than 25 years ago. It does not correspond in any way with the evidence - or indeed with the lived experience of people with the disease. People who consume recreational drugs or who have other "non-contagious risk factors" do not develop AIDS or anything that even looks like AIDS unless they have HIV infection. Most people with untreated HIV infection eventually develop AIDS regardless of whether they consume recreational drugs - about half within the first ten years or so of being infected. HIV-1 and the aetiology of AIDS.] Recreational drug use and T lymphocyte subpopulations in HIV-uninfected and HIV-infected men]
This is from the world health organization regarding that definition.It seems you have tried to copy paste from a pdf and the formatting is shot. The 1985 Bangui meeting was a conference of African public health experts trying to work out how to conduct epidemiological surveillance of this newly recognised disease. One particular problem was how to create a workable case definition that could be applied at that time in poorly resourced communities when no HIV testing was available. It was not particularly sensitive or specific as surveillance case definitions go, but it was a start. As one participant said, "At least now we can start counting cases". But had nothing to do with how physicians diagnosed AIDS for the purposes of clinical care, then or now.
Why don’t you consult one of the pioneers in the field of electron microscopy, Prof. Etienne de Harven, about his readily accessible, widely respected opinion — one among many competing views — that the particulates claimed to be HIV are better understood as endogenously produced. [...] I attach a scientific article published some few years ago on the topic, by the originator of the methodology, Prof. de Harven. His article I have attached, “Human Endogenous Retroviruses and AIDS Research: Confusion, Consensus, or Science?" Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 15 Number 3 Fall 2010: 69-74. is required reading for the course I teach to Masters level students in public health, HIVM 612: Ethical Issues in HIV and AIDS Management.De Harven's hypothesis is completely contradictory to that of Duesberg's, but it is equally nonsensical. An endogenous retrovirus by definition is integrated into the DNA of every nucleated cell in the body. HIV proviral DNA is found only in HIV positive people in cells that have receptors that are permissive for exogenous infection such as CD4 and CCR5 - and only in a fraction of those cells. Furthermore, endogenous retroviruses are passed down from parent to offspring genetically. If HIV were endogenous then one or both parents of every gay man in the world with HIV would also have the virus. This is clearly not the case. If de Harven's opinion is widely respected, why could he only publish it in a disreputable magazine like the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons? JAPandS is the medical equivalent of Conservapedia]: indeed they are actually published by much the same group of people. It's unfortunate that Helen Lauer has so little respect for her students that she would force such nonsense on them as "required reading". Perhaps having an academic background in philosophy rather than medical science, she had no idea that it was a junk journal.
Indeed there is so much to respond to in these ravings but I am too busy living untethered to blind faith in unproven dogma.I am genuinely glad that you are "too busy living" to respond further. That sounds like a sensible approach. But are you sure you are "untethered to blind faith in unproven dogma"? Sometimes people so afflicted are the last to recognise this.
As Senior Member of this chat room :cheese: allow me to extend an invitation.Delighted. But I'm a bit puzzled by my designation as a "Jr. Member". At my age it is many years since I have been referred to as a "junior" anything. Perhaps "Jr." is short for "Jurassic"? See what Lois said above about post count. Welcome to the CFI Forums, and please stick around. We need more members like you.Keep on posting! You'll become a senior before you know it.
I expect you'll be banned Bro, but you can still read this. You're asking me to what? To debunk a letter to the BBC about the quality of their guest? I'm not familiar with those individuals and I don't have a PhD in the field, so I can't do that. I'm also aware that news agencies get things wrong sometimes. I hate that. The system I use to determine truth is to rely on years of experience about the orgs in involved. To respond to the letter from H Lauer, I would have to be an expert in all he/she is talking about. To respond to some of the things you said, I just need common sense. I would have to believe that thousands of health professionals were conspiring to kill people, or whatever it is you are implying. I would have to believe that somehow numbers were fudged, despite all the people that had access to those numbers and checked them and verified them. Just those two things are so implausible that I don't trust you. And you don't quote sources, so there's no way to know what you're talking about except to start from scratch on the subject. I'm not going to do that. I have no reason to do that. If I read you right, you had or have HIV and didn't take the drugs, and you lived. You are not the only person to experience that, and there are medical reasons why some people survive high mortality diseases while most don't. So your correlation to people taking the drugs, then dying, just isn't scientific. The drugs didn't work at first because they hadn't figured out the disease yet. They work better now, so the disease has been reclassified as non-epidemic, at least in certain places, like where you can get the good drugs. That's what makes sense to me.Where in anything that I have written here have I implied thousands of health professionals conspiring to kill people? Never have I implied or suggested such a thing! I do however remember as a child visiting relatives in the hospital who were dying of cancer. At that time there was a smoking room on each floor of the hospital. Not that you couldn't smoke in the patients room, the ashtray was there. It was just polite not to smoke in front of them. All I am saying is that sometimes accepted medical belief and practice can be wrong. They once believed electroshock could cure homosexuality. Others believed casting out demons would. Neither worked. So let them ban me. That would only demonstrate further the cowardice of this organization refusing to respond to a legitimate request for evidence of why they hold a position that discourages dissent. To delete these words would suggest silencing and censorship of dissent. Is that what this organization stands for? Again, you claim Dr Duesberg's genius to have been debunked yet offer not the proof requested to support your claim. Interesting. I wonder,,, have you so thoroughly vetted and confirmed the reputation and career history of all those you believe when they tell you HIV causes pandemic immune failure? If you had you wouldn't believe a word of Robert gallo's proposal. I notice how quick you are to attack and berate the reputation and work of those you do not agree with yet continually fail to provide proof or even evidence of your claims. What I have asked for from the beginning and in fact for years from this organization is evidence and proof to support belief in a yet unproven theory. When, where, how and by whom was HIV demonstrated and declared capable and sufficient to cause epidemic immune failure? Would I really be banned from this "center for inquiry" simply because they were unable to answer my inquiry? If that doesn't define cowardly fatuous ignorance what does? Ban me. Censor me. Then go hide, cowering with each other in the safe little haven where you are safe and protected because you can ban and censor people who challenge you with inquiries you can't answer and suggestions you are afraid to consider. Worshipping your god. Unquestioningly
Again, you claim Dr Duesberg's genius to have been debunked yet offer not the proof requested to support your claim.No, I have not made any comment here about Duesberg's supposed character or intelligence. I provided evidence that refutes his contention that recreational drug use and "other non-contagious risk factors" are the cause of AIDS rather than HIV.
I notice how quick you are to attack and berate the reputation and work of those you do not agree with yet continually fail to provide proof or even evidence of your claims.Pardon? I "continually fail to provide proof or even evidence"? I gave you links to two studies above (out of many) which investigated Duesberg's hypothesis and found it was rejected by the data. Did you bother to read them? Here they are again (click on the blue titles): HIV-1 and the aetiology of AIDS.] Recreational drug use and T lymphocyte subpopulations in HIV-uninfected and HIV-infected men]
You didn’t say health care people were conspiring to kill people, you implied that they were due to their incompetence. Not much difference, since they are in the business of saving lives. Saying that sometimes medical belief can be wrong, is a low bar to step over. Science is based on knowing that you are never completely right. You have made much stronger accusations about health care and our ability to evaluate its quality. Your equivocation about electroshock and demons would be good examples.
I didn’t make any claims about Duesberg, because I don’t know who that is or what he does. I made a claim about your credibility. I don’t need to thoroughly vet everyone, I only need to be aware of how vetting is done. So my proof is the history of HIV/AIDS and modern medicine. Obviously we disagree on that. The reason you aren’t getting what you ask for is that you have not agreed to the ground rules of what “proof" means. So, you would be banned for being unreasonable and for name calling.
The nay-sayers who want to put their head in the sand should be ashamed of themselves. Brother Strawberry is not wrong. He’s 100% correct that toxic drugs killed thousands of people in hopes of suppressing a retrovirus that cannot be obtained from people labeled HIV positive. (Only through surrogate markers is its diagnosis) It’s a dead and dying paradigm and I find it difficult to comprehend that those who call themselves secular humanists, pervayors of free thought, cannot open their own minds to this issue. HIV is a figment of imagination (just as Jesus Christ) and a big lie that the sheep just love to follow, hook, line and sinker. Please question this three decade meme that does nothing except to ask for more money and harm people with pharmaceuticals.
The nay-sayers who want to put their head in the sand should be ashamed of themselves. Brother Strawberry is not wrong. He's 100% correct that toxic drugs killed thousands of people in hopes of suppressing a retrovirus that cannot be obtained from people labeled HIV positive. (Only through surrogate markers is its diagnosis) It's a dead and dying paradigm and I find it difficult to comprehend that those who call themselves secular humanists, pervayors of free thought, cannot open their own minds to this issue. HIV is a figment of imagination (just as Jesus Christ) and a big lie that the sheep just love to follow, hook, line and sinker. Please question this three decade meme that does nothing except to ask for more money and harm people with pharmaceuticals.I've heard that "open minded" thing a lot. I got tired of regurgitating my response, so I wrote a blog about it. Click Here.]
Are you able to respond to or refute any of the facts stated? Are you able to provide any more evidence in support of the HIV theory than believers are able to provide as proof of their god How can you expect to be taken seriously when all you offer is mockery and presumption? Please respond to the facts I presented and if you are so confident in your knowledge then offer proof. I did.What facts? Show us citatons in peer reviewed journals that support your statements, BS.
He's 100% correct that toxic drugs killed thousands of people in hopes of suppressing a retrovirus that cannot be obtained from people labeled HIV positive. (Only through surrogate markers is its diagnosis).You seem to be saying that you don't accept the validity of any of the methods for detecting the presence of HIV that have been used over the past 33 years. What would be an acceptable method for you?
The reason you aren’t getting what you ask for is that you have not agreed to the ground rules of what “proof" means.Indeed.
We take a break to bring you this non-sponsor. A great read (or listen) to get an up close look at the nitty-gritty, good and ugly of progressing science.
Admittedly not always something to be proud of, egos having more influence than should be, but always seeming to move forward in constructive steps and learning from mistakes.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7170627-the-emperor-of-all-maladies The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer by Siddhartha Mukherjee 4.27 Rating out of 5.0· 46,711 Ratings · 4,346 Reviews The Emperor of All Maladies is a magnificent, profoundly humane “biography" of cancer—from its first documented appearances thousands of years ago through the epic battles in the twentieth century to cure, control, and conquer it to a radical new understanding of its essence. Physician, researcher, and award-winning science writer, Siddhartha Mukherjee examines cancer with a cellular biologist’s precision, a historian’s perspective, and a biographer’s passion. The result is an astonishingly lucid and eloquent chronicle of a disease humans have lived with—and perished from—for more than five thousand years. The story of cancer is a story of human ingenuity, resilience, and perseverance, but also of hubris, paternalism, and misperception. Mukherjee recounts centuries of discoveries, setbacks, victories, and deaths, told through the eyes of his predecessors and peers, training their wits against an infinitely resourceful adversary that, just three decades ago, was thought to be easily vanquished in an all-out “war against cancer." The book reads like a literary thriller with cancer as the protagonist. From the Persian Queen Atossa, whose Greek slave cut off her malignant breast, to the nineteenth-century recipients of primitive radiation and chemotherapy to Mukherjee’s own leukemia patient, Carla, The Emperor of All Maladies is about the people who have soldiered through fiercely demanding regimens in order to survive—and to increase our understanding of this iconic disease.I've listened to it a number of times and recommend it - though it does get uncomfortable at times. I haven't seen the documentary, but I hear it's excellent. http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/cancer-emperor-of-all-maladies/home/
Strawberry You were basically telling me that unless I could “prove” your claims wrong,
I was a fool for taking what the community of experts reported at face value.
Rather than systematically explaining your complaints, you need to rely on insults and slander to make your point.
After my previous post I though I’d bring it back on point. I went to YouTube and search "HIV/AIDs update 2016.
Published on Mar 19, 2016 Presented by UNAIDS Science now and WHO HIV Knowledge Seminars March 17, 2016, Tuesday from 12:30-14:00 CET at the Kofi A. Annan Conference Room, UNAIDS/WHO Building in Geneva, Switzerland. It was also made accessible via webex beyond UNAIDS and WHO. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfYQQKxXb4gThese people pass the credibility test for me. The whole thing is actually sort of boring but ain't that how real science goes.
Although I’d bet that Mrs P would hears tons more in it, than my ears are capable of.
I wonder what her opinion of the presentation would be?
Mrs P: Thank you very much for your very factual and, compared to BS, polite rebuttal of his claims. I hope you stay around.