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 don't have to use the word "conspiracy" to be cooking one up, BS. Your argumemts speak very loudly of conspiracies. Why do you think the medical community is so at odds with your theories? What are they up to? What's behind their positions on HIV that you are so adamant are wrong? LL
(direct link not permitted by the spam filter)You could consider replacing the "." with "dot" - that way the filter won't catch it, it won't be linked either, but it's easy enough replacing the dot with a . .
I’m putting this to top incase Brother Strawberry returns.
He could show his willingness for a good-faith dialogue by engaging with what Mrs P has shared.
Including this latest, which raises interesting possibilities.
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.
(direct link not permitted by the spam filter)You could consider replacing the "." with "dot" - that way the filter won't catch it, it won't be linked either, but it's easy enough replacing the dot with a . . Thanks for the tip. hivskeptic[dot]wordpress[dot]com/2015/08/10/antiretrovirals-kill-official-data-peer-reviewed-journal/#comment-26449 My point is this:
I could go on and on... But who am i to make such assertion? I am a man who is alive today because dissent to the unproven HIV theory emboldened me to reject 1987 clinic recommendation to immediately begin AZT treatment. The first friend I would lose to this syndrome died less than two years later. He had secretly been taking AZT to fight the HIV positive diagnosis kept secret. [...] If you can find anyone who began AZT in 1987 and is still alive today we can compare quality of life.There are very few people who began AZT in 1987 as treatment for AIDS or ARC (the approved indication for the drug) who are alive today. This is because untreated, the median survival following a diagnosis of AIDS was very poor, about 11 months. With AZT monotherapy the outlook was not a whole lot better: you might gain an extra 6-9 months on average. Perhaps a bit more if you were lucky, less if you weren't. http://www.jstor.org/stable/29772315?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents AZT monotherapy was a very mediocre treatment for AIDS compared to the combination therapies that are available today, but it was all that was available and for many people a few extra months was better than nothing. There are a few people who survived a 1980s AIDS diagnosis by a combination of judicious use of AZT, switching to other monotherapies like DDI when necessary, combined with prophylactic antibiotics and good treatment of opportunistic infections - and a lot of luck - who managed to survive until the combination treatments became available in the mid 90s. I know one such person who is doing reasonably well today with the modern drugs, but he was hanging on by the skin of his teeth for much of the late 80s and early 90s. I know of a number of others. But most didn't make it. But if you were considering whether to take a course of AZT for post exposure prophylaxis (an off-label use of the drug) then this is a completely different story. Refusing this might well have saved you a month of unpleasant side effects from a drug that was probably unnecessary, although we don't know the details of your situation at the time. Your decision then may well have been a sensible one, but it is not the reason you are alive today.
If anyone’s interested, there is an article written by our fraternal fragaria fruit friend here:
Come the Rapture]
It’s unrelated to the present discussion, but it’s actually a rather charming piece of writing.
He accused me of listing people with titles in one post, then immediately followed that up by calling me “emboldened” to question his Nobel Prize winner.
I think we’re done here.
Thanks again Mrs P
He accused me of listing people with titles in one post, then immediately followed that up by calling me "emboldened" to question his Nobel Prize winner.Arguments from authority are always a weak way of making a case. Ultimately in science it doesn't matter who says what: what matters is what evidence can be brought forward to support or falsify a contention. You'll notice that BS stopped making factual claims when I challenged their veracity, and he was unable engage the question of whether Duesberg's drug-AIDS hypothesis was supported by the evidence. I find it ironic that HIV/AIDS dissidents claim to be "free thinkers" but at the same time seem to be incapable of critically examining the contentions of their leaders or considering whether their pronouncements even make any sense. It's hero-worship, basically, and has nothing to do with skeptical inquiry. The question of whether Kary Mullis is (or was) a brilliant scientist or a bit of a loon is a false dichotomy - they're not mutually exclusive. Mullis is one of a long list of Nobel Laureates who made substantial contributions to science in their early life, and then later advocated for crackpot ideas, mainly in fields outside their area of expertise. The phenomenon is so common it even has its own name: Post Nobel Syndrome or Nobel Disease.] The real question is whether his opinions about HIV as the cause of AIDS are backed by evidence. His opinions are frequently misrepresented by his online advocates - he's never said, for example, that PCR can't be used to identify HIV, or to quantify viral RNA or DNA in a sample (viral load testing). In fact he's the lead editor of a standard (but now somewhat outdated) textbook] on these techniques. What he has claimed to be "skeptical" about is the causal relationship between HIV and the immune system disease which includes AIDS, but he's never made a coherent argument for this position, let alone supported it with evidence. My impression is that Mullis' position has more to do with being a supportive personal friend to Duesberg, and perhaps maintaining his own public persona as a maverick iconoclast. Neither of which are particularly relevant to evaluating truth claims.
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.This is simply not true. Montagnier has never "declared" HIV to be harmless. He did suffer his own bout of Post Nobel Syndrome in recent years, but this was to do with his investigations into homeopathy and autism quackery, not HIV/AIDS. He is frequently cited by dissidents as supposedly saying that AIDS can be cured by nutrition and clean water, but this is a gross misrepresentation: in fact he was discussing his opinions about the role of the innate immune system in protecting the body from becoming infected in the first days and weeks following an HIV exposure, and some of the factors he thinks might influence this. These aren't nutty opinions, but they are opinions nonetheless. What matters is the evidence. My last (I hope) point is this: The use of personal medical anecdotes to support controversial scientific or health-related claims should always be treated with a high level of suspicion. Sometimes these anecdotes are frankly made-up and fraudulent], but more often they are misleading because the narrative is garbled or highly selective and important details are left out. They are usually unverifiable (especially so if they are posted anonymously) because personal medical records are not publicly available documents for very good privacy reasons. It is no wonder, then, that "testimonials" are the favorite form of "evidence" offered by quacks, online health product scammers and the alt med set.
As a post mortem to this instructive thread on the dangers of scientific ignorance, you may find this interesting:
Uber AIDS denialst acolyte Celia Farber, asked Facebook Rethinking Aids members to support ‘Brother Strawberry’ in this forum. Check out her blog—truthbarrier.com—if you want to read case studies in paranoid personality disorder.
One person came to his aid—HIVquestioner. He apparently is a man named Brian Carter who has admitted on the RA page to a recent hospitalization visit to due ‘brain injuries’. He lamented being forced to summit to the 'HIV paradigm" in order to regain his driving privileges.
You can’t make this stuff up.
He lamented being forced to summit to the 'HIV paradigm" in order to regain his driving privileges.:ohh: :-S
What’s your position on the World Trade Center collapse om 9/11, BS?