Glad to have you on this forum, Mrs P. You sound pretty smart.
As for our BS member, he sounds just like every other conspiracy nut I’ve ever come across. He misinterprets facts, twists them, tries to shift the burden of proof, makes up “statistics” and gish gallops. Six excellent indications of a conspiracy nut.
Just for the sake of clarifying once again, I have NEVER suggested conspiracy.
So many of your claims and accusations deserve reply and I am eager to do so.
Will do so at my earliest convenience but for now this amazing life I am living beckons me to adventure.
For the moment though, while absolutely nobody here has presented demonstration of when, where, how and by whom hiv was proven or declared capable and sufficient to cause immune failure epidemicI will once again present my argument for the failure of that theory.
My research study began in 1986/87, well before the Internet became a tool readily available for research of information, disinformation and misinformation. For years I walked nearly a mile, often through rain and snow (funny because it is true) to read through microfilm and microfiche of medical and science publications, CDC and WHO studies and reports, MMWR reports and more. My study did not include Internet memes. Thanks to modern times this information an more is now readily accessible and compiled online.
Before accusing me of being a conspiracy nut, (where is doug the administrator to chastise such name calling?) allow yourself the dignity and decency of actually hearing the argument of the other side.
http://thecaseagainsthiv.net/
I will return ASAP to respond further to the ignorance and inanities so rampant in your comments.
But as for now… Got this life to live.
See you soon.
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. Really? Do you truly not see much difference? Over 400,000 American lives are lost each year due to medical mistakes. That is more than half the thirty year death total from AIDS. Is that a conspiracy? "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." Then you deny electroshock therapy or casting out of demons have been used to "cure" homosexuality?
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] With all due respect there is only one link and if you believe it refutes Dr Duesberg's work you obviously have not read or studied his work. Do yourself a favor. Open your eyes and mind. You might learn something. http://www.duesberg.com/papers/1992 HIVAIDS.pdf
Hope your adventure goes well.
Conspiracy is a tricky word, because there are real conspiracies. People do actually conspire to do terrible things to other people. There’s also a sense of the word that people in a group or field of some kind are just moving in a similar direction, without it being a plan with a goal. So, no, 400K deaths to medical mistakes is not a conspiracy. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be mistakes. They would be murders or negligent homicides. The entire apparatus of the health care industry is designed to work against mistakes. This can be shown by any level of investigation. I’m not being crass, the number sounds bad, but it is also 1.5% of hospitalizations. Still not great, but it is something they are working on improving.
I didn’t deny anything. You missed my point, and seem to be trying to miss my point. It’s how you used those examples. They have nothing to do with health care in the last 50 years. The people studying HIV are not talking about demons. Let’s try to stay on topic here and not bring in irrelevant data.
http://thecaseagainsthiv.net/ I will return ASAP to respond further to the ignorance and inanities so rampant in your comments. But as for now... Got this life to live. See you soon.I have not read every line of this or every associated article, but, you know, got this life. I am not able to read everything that was ever written on everything, so I have had to develop skills to determine what is worth further study. The introduction says something like "you need to follow multiple lines of analysis". This sounds like the "too many questions" fallacy; if you raise enough doubts, then it's not true. This usually includes not listening to reasonable responses to the doubts. Claims of "not listening to the dissidents" are most likely cases of that. Then it says this "8.1.1 Theories once accepted are then not perpetually questioned". And sites a book that tries to repudiate science in general. This is a complete misunderstanding of what the word "theory" means. If theories weren't perpetually questioned, why would we need the word "theory"? Scientists don't even call gravity a fact, but I wouldn't recommend jumping off a high building. I don't need to educate you or enter a comment on the page. I just need to evaluate credibility, and move on.
http://thecaseagainsthiv.net/ I will return ASAP to respond further to the ignorance and inanities so rampant in your comments. But as for now... Got this life to live. See you soon.I have not read every line of this or every associated article, but, you know, got this life. I am not able to read everything that was ever written on everything, so I have had to develop skills to determine what is worth further study. The introduction says something like "you need to follow multiple lines of analysis". This sounds like the "too many questions" fallacy; if you raise enough doubts, then it's not true. This usually includes not listening to reasonable responses to the doubts. Claims of "not listening to the dissidents" are most likely cases of that. Then it says this "8.1.1 Theories once accepted are then not perpetually questioned". And sites a book that tries to repudiate science in general. This is a complete misunderstanding of what the word "theory" means. If theories weren't perpetually questioned, why would we need the word "theory"? Scientists don't even call gravity a fact, but I wouldn't recommend jumping off a high building. I don't need to educate you or enter a comment on the page. I just need to evaluate credibility, and move on. While I have extensively and exhaustively studied every prerequisite, prediction, threat and promise made with the 1984 proposal of the HIV theory. Every one has failed. Have you ever read the proposal by gallo? Or the rebuttal? I have. I too have studied extensively the prevailing mainstream consensus of understanding as well as numerous conspiracy theories. Unless you have examined a theory, a belief or even a consensus, you have no right to accept or reject it. Had I so blindly accepted belief and faith in prevailing opinion, I would be dead. Like so many others I have known, admired and loved. Every one of them believed and trusted prevailing understanding and recommendation. Dead now. I mean really, you all are so trusting of those who preach you the HIV dogma yet reject dissent. Dr Luc Montagnier-the man who discovered LAV before it "contaminated" gallo's samples morphing into what eventually became recognized as HIV declares it does not cause disease. Nobel Prize winner for the Polymerease Chain Reaction method used to determine "viral load" declares the method invalid and worthless for that purpose. He is also a dissident to the HIV theory. Are they conspiracy nut cases? How dare you call yourselves skeptics and freethinkers who encourage dissent? I have not witnessed such blind dogmatic zealotry since leaving the church more than thirty years ago. attention site administrator doug...I sincerely hope nothing I said in this post is considered to be too crass, confrontational, offensive or disrespectful to this venue or anyone in it. All I have requested from the start is demonstrable proof for why you accept the theory. When, where and how do you feel it was proven? Considering the facts, I mean. I have never suggested anything resembling a conspiracy. Simply a widespread generally accepted misunderstanding. Not like that has ever happened before. Expect I will be banned shortly. Further demonstrating validity of my original statement.
I expect you'll be banned Bro, 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.Indeed I am aware that there are many. Here are some of their stories Interestingly when I tried to post link to people telling their true life stories of life without anti-HIV drugs the link was blacklisted. Censoring dissent? There is also a great little documentary about long-term survivors that keeps getting dropped from film festivals due to outrage from LGBT and AIDS groups. It is called Positive Hell. http://www.positivehell.com/ Why are some people so afraid to hear or consider dissent? Why are you?
All I have requested from the start is demonstrable proof for why you accept the theory. When, where and how do you feel it was proven? Considering the facts, I mean. I have never suggested anything resembling a conspiracy. Simply a widespread generally accepted misunderstanding. Not like that has ever happened before. Expect I will be banned shortly. Further demonstrating validity of my original statement.You keep ignoring the part where I say I won't be responding to your medical knowledge. I don't know who you are and I can't recreate 30 years of study to match you. I also can't evaluate how well you understood that material or even if you really did what you say you did. That's not personal, that's true for anyone with a pseudonym on an internet forum. I'm not attacking your character, I'm explaining how I evaluate the character of people who post on forums. If you start with an insult in your title, that's strike one. If you say the health care industry has so many problems, they let this happen, that's strike two. Take a counter example. There was suspicion that the NFL was covering up problems with brain damage. One doctor studied it, and the league finally had to respond. Yes, it took decades, but you are talking about decades. Decades is the timeline for figuring out something this complicated. With the NFL head injuries, by time I heard about, it was pretty much over. I've had friends with AIDs. I've paid attention to it. This is the first I've ever heard of any questions like these, and someone joined this forum just to provide the counter narrative. You want to not be called a conspiracy nut, but you keep doing conspiracy nut things. Like saying if you get banned, it proves you are right. That's nutty.
FYI, the internet link spam filters on this site are tight. We all get it. I’ve had completely banal stuff blocked. It’s not just you. I’d rather tight filters than links that have viruses.
All I have requested from the start is demonstrable proof for why you accept the theory. When, where and how do you feel it was proven? Considering the facts, I mean. I have never suggested anything resembling a conspiracy. Simply a widespread generally accepted misunderstanding. Not like that has ever happened before. Expect I will be banned shortly. Further demonstrating validity of my original statement.You keep ignoring the part where I say I won't be responding to your medical knowledge. I don't know who you are and I can't recreate 30 years of study to match you. I also can't evaluate how well you understood that material or even if you really did what you say you did. That's not personal, that's true for anyone with a pseudonym on an internet forum. I'm not attacking your character, I'm explaining how I evaluate the character of people who post on forums. If you start with an insult in your title, that's strike one. If you say the health care industry has so many problems, they let this happen, that's strike two. Take a counter example. There was suspicion that the NFL was covering up problems with brain damage. One doctor studied it, and the league finally had to respond. Yes, it took decades, but you are talking about decades. Decades is the timeline for figuring out something this complicated. With the NFL head injuries, by time I heard about, it was pretty much over. I've had friends with AIDs. I've paid attention to it. This is the first I've ever heard of any questions like these, and someone joined this forum just to provide the counter narrative. You want to not be called a conspiracy nut, but you keep doing conspiracy nut things. Like saying if you get banned, it proves you are right. That's nutty. My exasperated response to the first replies who did nothing more than google my name to mock it while expressing nothing relevant to the topic drew threat of ban from site administrator Doug. Another member posted "expect you will be banned soon, bro". Meanwhile the slanderous accusations of "conspiracy nut" receive no such reprimand. Unfounded arrogant dismissal of the work of leading scientists, specialists, professors and Nobel-prize winners in related fields is tolerated here? The work and research study I quote and reference represents decades of work by recognized genius. Yet cfi members dismiss and berate their work and character. Please see what one member said of Professor Helen Lauer earlier in this thread. If you mean to imply I might be suggesting conspiratorial influence in banning me please re-read the first few sentences of this statement. I was threatened with being banned for expressing exasperation with members who resorted to junior-high school mentality of mocking my name while they failed to address the topic of my post and inquiry. Please read "Hindrances to making the case against HIV" in The Case against HIV posted above. Particularly section 7.4 Not seeking your response to my medical knowledge or decades of research study. I do however encourage you to consider dissent to prevailing consensus. Especially when the facts don't add up. Though I will doubtlessly be mocked for referencing her name, Oprah Winfrey threatened in 1987 that "One in five, listen to me...one in five heterosexuals will be dead or dying of HIV by 1990!" That was in fact the prevailing consensus. What happened? Other sexually transmitted diseases increased. HPV for example. In the 1984 proposal of the theory it was estimated that one-million Americans were infected. Without preventative vaccine or curative treatment that number was promised to double annually. After nearly thirty years and as of September 2015 658,507 AIDS deaths the estimated number of infected Americans has grown to 1.2 million. I am not being dismissive of that number. I have known, admired and loved so many of them. All I have asked from the start is why you believe what you believe regarding the issue? Because somebody told you to? Please, I implore you. I challenge you. Look at the dissent I have posted here. The case against HIV. The dissent of RethinkingAIDS. See if you can dismiss them as easily as you have accepted what you have been told to believe.
FYI, the internet link spam filters on this site are tight. We all get it. I've had completely banal stuff blocked. It's not just you. I'd rather tight filters than links that have viruses.Then go on your own to the RethinkingAIDS website (if you dare) and read the dissent and stories of long-term survival without anti-HIV drugs there for yourself.
All I have asked from the start is why you believe what you believe regarding the issue? Because somebody told you to? Please, I implore you. I challenge you. Look at the dissent I have posted here. The case against HIV. The dissent of RethinkingAIDS. See if you can dismiss them as easily as you have accepted what you have been told to believe.I've answered that several times now. I've explained why I have come to the conclusions I have. You could at least acknowledge our differences. That's how you begin to build a bridge. You seem happy with your angry ranting and calling everyone else wrong. So, I'll leave you to that. As for calling you nutty, I gave reasons for that. You didn't address them, you called the word police. I told you why I thought you were nutty, which gave you something to address. Just like we have addressed your links and your facts. Attack our methods all you want. You can call me lazy, but explain what you mean, then I'll type all day. But when you label but don't explain, that's ad-hominem.
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?" Perhaps one that is able to actually isolate active virus- one of Koch's postulates- instead of surrogate markers presumed to represent said virus. Or one that doesn't have at least twelve different standards for interpretation meaning that a test determined positive in one lab or country would be negative in another. Or one unlike the Polymerease Chain Reaction used to determine viral load despite Kary Mullis, Nobel Prize winner for the PCR declaring his method invalid and worthless for that purpose. Mr Mullis by the way, in case you didn't read earlier, is also a dissident to the failed theory of HIV causation. I mean, would you put your faith in taking toxic cell-killing chemotherapy for the rest of your life based on such lack of specificity in a test? Glad i didn't. The Nobel Prize winner for the PCR method used to determine viral load insists the method invalid and worthless for such purpose.
This Mullis? The Chemist?
In his 1998 autobiography, Mullis expressed disagreement with the scientific evidence supporting climate change and ozone depletion, the evidence that HIV causes AIDS, and asserted his belief in astrology. Mullis claims climate change and the HIV/AIDS connection are due to a conspiracy of environmentalists, government agencies and scientists attempting to preserve their careers and earn money, rather than scientific evidence
I've answered that several times now. I've explained why I have come to the conclusions I have. You could at least acknowledge our differences. That's how you begin to build a bridge. You seem happy with your angry ranting and calling everyone else wrong. So, I'll leave you to that.
As for calling you nutty, I gave reasons for that. You didn't address them, you called the word police. I told you why I thought you were nutty, which gave you something to address. Just like we have addressed your links and your facts. Attack our methods all you want. You can call me lazy, but explain what you mean, then I'll type all day. But when you label but don't explain, that's ad-hominem.
Yet you really haven't. You presented a list of names and distinguished titles making claims that you accept because they are the prevailing consensus. I present you with dissent to that opinion supported by decades of work and study by leaders in the field, Nobel Prize winners and the man who discovered the virus in question.
You reject the dissent yet cannot explain failings of the theory you accept as truth.
Is that what you would consider being skeptical?
Or inquisitive?
I am not angry. Only disappointed in this granfalloon of supposed skeptical inquiry that more closely resembles the blind dogmatic faith of the church I escaped more than thirty years ago.
This Mullis? The Chemist?No, this one http://www.karymullis.com/biography.shtml By the way, what have you accomplished in life that so emboldens you to mock Nobel Prize winners? Another inquiry!!! This place is beginning to live up to the name.In his 1998 autobiography, Mullis expressed disagreement with the scientific evidence supporting climate change and ozone depletion, the evidence that HIV causes AIDS, and asserted his belief in astrology. Mullis claims climate change and the HIV/AIDS connection are due to a conspiracy of environmentalists, government agencies and scientists attempting to preserve their careers and earn money, rather than scientific evidence
So, now you are being evasive. Does he not say those things in his autobiography? And I don’t care if he used the word conspiracy or not. Does he deny global warming? Because that’s another one of those little things I use to evaluate someone’s credibility. Do you believe Henry Kissinger was a man of peace? He got a Nobel for it? Lots of people question that. Obama too. What happened to you that you rail against the machine of the health care industry but somehow a Nobel Prize in Chemistry gives you a free pass? This seems to be the very fallacy of authority that you are accusing me of?
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]With all due respect there is only one link No, there are two links. The first, HIV-1 and the aetiology of AIDS.] followed a cohort of Canadian gay men (365 HIV positive and 350 HIV negative) for a median of 8.6 years to see who developed AIDS in that time. 136 men developed AIDS. 136 (100%) were previously HIV positive, and 0 (0%) were HIV negative. Furthermore, there was no association between drug use and AIDS independent of HIV status - in other words HIV positive heavy drug users were at no greater risk of AIDS than HIV positive light or non drug users. The second link Recreational drug use and T lymphocyte subpopulations in HIV-uninfected and HIV-infected men] looked at the question in even greater detail. They compared four groups: HIV positive drug users, HIV positive non users, HIV negative drug users and HIV negative non users. There was no CD4 cell decline in HIV negatives over time, regardless of whether they used drugs or not. HIV positive drug users and non users experienced CD4 decline, and furthermore the rates of decline were the same, regardless of drug use.
and if you believe it refutes Dr Duesberg's work you obviously have not read or studied his work. Do yourself a favor. Open your eyes and mind. You might learn something. http://www.duesberg.com/papers/1992 HIVAIDS.pdfYou seem to think I'm rejecting Duesberg's contentions without reading or studying them. That's rather presumptuous on your part. Yes, I have read Duesberg's papers and I'm very familiar with the flaws in his argument. For example, the central claims in the paper you are trying to link, AIDS Acquired by Drug Consumption and Other Noncontagious Risk Factors (Pharmacology & Therapeutics 55: 201–277, 1992) are:
(6) all AIDS-defining diseases occur in matched risk groups, at the same rate, in the absence of HIV; [and] (7) there is no common, active microbe in all AIDS patients.Both assertions are arrant nonsense. AIDS defining diseases such a Pnemocystis pneumonia, disseminated Kaposi's sarcoma and end-organ CMV disease (eg CMV retinitis, pneumonitis or colitis) almost never occur in HIV negative gay men or in HIV negative injecting drug users, but they are common in untreated HIV positives. See, for example, the Schechter et al study I linked above. And yes, there is a common, active microbe that is present in all AIDS patients. It's called HIV. See, for example these two early studies: Efficient isolation of HIV from plasma during different stages of HIV infection.] and Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 detected in all seropositive symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals.]
If I read you right, you had or have HIV and didn't take the drugs, and you lived.I don't think Brother Strawberry has said he was ever diagnosed with HIV, at least not in so many words. It seems he might want you to think that, and it would be a reasonable assumption for you to make given that he says he was offered (and refused) AZT in 1987. Back then, AZT was only approved for the treatment of AIDS and advanced ARC. It was not approved even for the treatment of asymptomatic HIV infection until 1990, although there were some trials going on in the late 80s. However, elsewhere (direct link not permitted by the spam filter) our friend puts a slightly different slant on the story:
Thankfully education and truthful information allowed me to scoff at 1987 clinic recommendation of AZT as preventative against risk of possible exposure posed by cheating girlfriends “non-declaritive" antibody test. [my emphasis]It's a bit hard to work out what was going on here, but it sounds like he became concerned when he discovered or suspected that his girlfriend of the time might have been seeing other men, and that he became fixated on his supposed risk of contracting HIV as a result of her real or suspected infidelity. It sounds like he might have been offered a short course of AZT as a form of just-in-case post-exposure prophylaxis, which he ultimately decided against. This was probably a sensible decision given the likely side effects of the doses used at the time and what may well have been a very low probability there was any infection to prevent. I suspect there was a lot of anxiety surrounding the episode. In any case, I wouldn't jump to the conclusion he is one of the relatively rare people who live disease free with HIV for decades without antiretroviral treatment. Such people do exist, but I doubt our friend is one of them.