Scientific Optimism

Where every cloud is silver or white

Serving the public interest by recording all the evidence in the scientific literature that the supposed threats we face in life and in the future are more often blessings in disguise, more beneficial than harmful, and causes for joy and celebration rather than misery and fear.

Topics include sociology, psychology, sickness and disease, global warming, particle physics, macroeconomics, diet, nutrition, health and medicine

Excavating the truth in the professional and scholarly literature ie peer reviewed journals, well researched books, authoritative encyclopedias (Britannica, not Wikipedia) and the investigative reporting and skeptical writing of well informed independent thinkers among academics, philosophers, researchers, scholars, authors, and journalists.
--------------------------------------------------------

HONOR ROLL OF SUPREME OPTIMISTS

Lawrence Anthony, Winston Churchill, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Edward Jenner, Benjamin Jesty, Michio Kaku, Charles Kenny
Richard Lindzen, Marco Mamone Capria, Brink Lindsey, Mr Micawber, Peter Medawar, John Stuart Mill, Kary Mullis, Linus Pauling, David Rasnick, Matt Ridley vdeo, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Carl Sagan, Fred Singer, Adam Smith, Alfred Wegener, Edward O. Wilson, James Watson.
Emile Zola

--------------------------------------------------------

The average pencil is seven inches long, with just a half-inch eraser - just in case you thought optimism was dead. - Robert Brault

I'd rather be an optimist and a fool than a pessimist and right. - Albert Einstein

More than any time in history mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness, the other to total extinction. Let us pray that we have the wisdom to choose correctly. - Woody Allen

No pessimist ever discovered the secrets of the stars, or sailed to an uncharted land, or opened a new heaven to the human spirit. - Helen Keller

I have observed that not the man who hopes when others despair, but the man who despairs when others hope, is admired by a large class of persons as a sage. - John Stuart Mill (1828)

The only thing I know is that an optimist is going to have a good future and a pessimist a bad one.- Watts Wacker

There is no sadder sight than a young pessimist, except an old optimist. - Mark Twain

For myself I am an optimist - it does not seem to be much use being anything else. - Winston Churchill

(Click here for more Quotations on Science and Optimism)

BEST VIEWED ONLY IN VERY LARGE FONT
in current Safari or Firefox in Mac, and Firefox or Chrome in PC (IE displays all text bold).
Display a single post and its comments for PRINTOUT by first clicking on its headline (gets rid of the side bar which prints out first otherwise).
All posts guaranteed fact checked according to reference level cited
(Guide to Site Purpose and Layout is in the lower rose colored section at the bottom of any home page.)

-TrE-

House of Numbers quietly explosive

Remarkable movie shows how AIDS story falls apart under questioning

Leading luminaries confess flaws, confirming critics’ concerns

Clarity and entertainment value may gain wide audience for documentary

But John Moore and his squad are on the job to sink it if possible

shipoffoolsHouse of Numbers premiered last night at the Quad in New York City, and contrary to the uninformed review by Jeannette Catsoulis in the New York Times (see previous post), the documentary is a winner on every level – clarity of exposition, entertainment value, and unexpected revelation. Small wonder it has started garnering prizes at festivals (six so far).

Brent Leung adopts the Boy Scout approach of innocent inquiry, and travels the world in search of answers to the huge questions that HIV/AIDS ideology raises in every inquiring mind. He ends up gaining remarkable admissions from some leading lights in the field.

Web of inconsistency

The impression left as the credits roll is that every time he pokes at the supposedly solid science of HIV/AIDS he finds he meets no resistance, and his finger tears another hole is what seems like a cobweb of false claims, one that needs sweeping away before it catches another million hapless “HIV positives” to feed killer drugs to and, the film implies, shorten their lives for no good purpose except to preserve the careers and salaries of all in the vast economy of this statistically exaggerated and medically misread disease.

The film makes all the major points that the much vilified (by HIV defenders) “denialists” have made over the years, starting with Peter Duesberg’s brilliant and unrefuted reviews of the late 1980s, which have been censored from public attention ever since by Anthony Fauci of NIAID and the editors of the New York Times. But none of these McCarthy-ite internal politics are touched on in the film, which keeps it all very simple.

Conjuring the statistics

Can electron microscope images of the AIDS virus be produced? A leading expert in the technique shows Leung all the pictures produced by Gallo and by others since, but confirms they are only “probably” HIV. Do any tests provably confirm the presence of HIV or even HIV antibodies in the blood of “HIV positives”? No they don’t, other experts admit.

As the scientists quarrel on camera about which combination of tests might be definitive, it emerges that all tests, even PCR tests, have package disclaimers saying that in themselves they confirm nothing about the HIV status of the individual. Meanwhile, test interpretation varies by country, and by the information you have given the tester (are you gay? are you poor?). Rapid tests, used widely now in South Africa, are unreliable and prove nothing, it turns out, though Brent takes one on camera. Many Africans are still judged to be AIDS victims without any testing at all (the Bangui definition is still widely used, he discovers, for symptoms as simple as diarrhea and fever, no testing required).

James Chin, who was chief epidemiologist for WHO for five years, says he warned headquarters how flimsy the statistics were but no one paid any attention. Now he predicts that their “house of numbers” will collapse as the true situation emerges, and indeed huge downward adjustments have been made by the UN for the total of HIV “positives” in the world. (Kevin De Cock, the WHO official who stated a couple of years ago, that heterosexuals have never in reality been threatened by AIDS is not mentioned.)

With Brent and his audience thus instructed how a positive status doesn’t necessarily mean they are infected or have ever been infected by HIV, he is then shown how damaging and even lethal the drugs administered are. Reducing the dosage of the dreaded AZT in the nineties by substituting David Ho’s cocktail of protease inhibitors slowed patients’ decline, reprieving them from the early death guaranteed by full dose AZT before the mid nineties. Everyone lasted longer, so the triumph of protease inhibitors was applauded and the cause of AIDS spuriously confirmed. But deaths have continued at the same rate in the US since (about 17,000 a year). Meanwhile the definition of AIDS was expanded so that a decline was turned into a doubling of cases.

Applause during the film

By the time the film contemplates the experience of Steve and Sherrill Nagel the audience is ready to be horrified. The Nagels adopted a baby from Romania who tested positive in the US, and dutifully fed her AZT while doctors predicted she would barely last till age two. Her leg pains, loss of coordination, and mental disruption are disturbing to watch, and the parents finally decide that even by the measure of standard AIDS ideology it is not worth harming the child any further with AZT. There was a burst of applause at the premiere when it is announced that the child is now 19 and perfectly healthy.

The film doesn’t leave room for any official rebuttal of this or other anecdotes, but on the core points of the science and its politics well known figures such as Anthony Fauci of NIAID are given time to rebut the cynics. When they contradict themselves this is shown clearly. But what is most surprising is that Martin Delaney, who turned from being a skeptic to a staunch advocate of AIDS drugs when his San Francisco group Project Inform gained drug company funding, expresses a lot of world weary doubts about their usefulness and even notes that the companies have no financial motivation to think up a better way to go.

Montagnier’s stunning statement

In its final phase Brent Leung maps AIDS worldwide and shows how it matches poverty and how lack of good food and hygiene gives rise to exactly the same symptoms that are laid at the door of HIV. Is it possible, he asks, that much of global AIDS is sickness from poverty, and would be cured by pouring money into clean water and decent food rather than damaging drugs? That the drugs are damaging is earlier highlighted by photos of buffalo humps and by the death of Joyce Hafford after only 39 days in a test of nevirapine, with grotesque skin symptoms.

Ship of Fools by Joel Peter Witkin, or possibly the current situation in HIV/AIDS
The establishment in HIV/AIDS has practiced answers to all this, to be sure, though none of them bear examination, as we have found in writing this blog. So perhaps Brent Leung can be forgiven for not including them, although they are undoubtedly among the 300 hours of film he has recorded. What he has produced is a vivid documentation of unanswered – in fact, confirmed – doubts about the scientific rationale peddled in HIV/AIDS, conflicting claims by experts, and real people examples of ignorance and suffering. He has shown how AIDS drugs could equally be causing the same and worse symptoms and deaths as HIV is supposedly causing.

The climax of the film comes with Luc Montagnier assuring him that “a good immune system” can rid the body of HIV in a few weeks. Leung gets him to repeat this unexpected statement and then asks if it applies to poor Africans. If their immune systems are restored with adequate nutrition, would their bodies conquer HIV too? The soon to be Nobelist Montagnier says “I would think so.”

Montagnier also emphasizes as he has done over the years (he was barred from the San Francisco AIDS Conference for it) that a co-factor is always necessary for HIV to do its deadly work, which opens the possibility that HIV itself is not actually involved. Presumably now that he alone won the Nobel last year for discovering HIV “the cause of AIDS” he will now be less frank in public. But here he is on film. The cat is out of the bag.

Will the doc be stopped?

This is the kind of paradigm threatening conclusion that a huge array of vested interests cannot abide, ranging from the emotions of patients who have committed themselves to taking the drugs to the vast array of career and financial interests that need to keep the 25 year old HIV/AIDS ideology in play, including now George Bush and Bill Clinton, who have both sought redemption through AIDS funding.

John Moore of Cornell, the HIV scientist most hostile in public and behind the scenes to outside review, has vowed in email to them that the filmmakers will, as the Hollywood phrase has it, ‘never eat lunch in this town again.’ Yet his efforts haven’t been able to stop their momentum so far, despite his supporters at the Times, which itself now has a huge, 25 year investment in the status quo.

With the politics so intense the censors of AIDS review may still succeed, but on behalf of the public Leung has fired the loudest shot yet across the bows of the great ship of fools, SS HIV Science. It is hard to imagine that, as has already happened, thoughtful people completely unaware of the real situation before they take their seats won’t leave the cinema skeptical of and even hostile to those that want to shut off public debate.

And the irony is that Leung has done nothing but document the tale that HIV scientists tell against themselves. The confusion he records looks amusingly like the Mad Hatters tea party from Alice in Wonderland. Could it be that they have led the world through a looking glass for 25 years?

Entertainment plus important revelation. All in all, a stunning achievement.

28 Responses to “House of Numbers quietly explosive”

  1. steve nagel Says:

    Thanks for your honest review. As for Mr. Moore and his cronies from Cornell, the question they still need to answer is, “When exactly were they misrepresented or misquoted in the film?” If they continue to dodge this fundamental request, the next question that must be asked is, “When were they lying… now or when they were interviewed?”

  2. Alan Smith Says:

    Yes its a great review and points out some very valid arguments.

    People like Moore and others they know who they are, are heading for a fall and they damn well know it.

    The Numbers of people questioning HIV = AIDS is growing, people have a right to question what they are told, history has shown that things are not always as they seem. Time and time again things are turned on their head. They now say AZT was a mistake, those who took it and died awful deaths. Back in the day people were saying AZT was dangerous and yet their voices were silenced just like today. Censorship is rife, but the ones who didn’t take it are living healthy lives and are called denialists just because they tell their story.

    Its comical that if you never took the poison and lived they question whether you were even HIV pos, yet you took their tests, and the tests are meant to be so accurate. Western blot is supposed to be the final nail in the coffin. Weird that the United Kingdom don’t use this test kit. I wonder why?

    The stuff these people come out with makes me laugh, time and time again. These people are exposed for what they really are.

    Luc Montagnier doesn’t know his backside from his elbow, he cracks me up. I shouldn’t laugh but here his statement you can get rid of HIV is as mad as it sounds. So we don’t need to give Africans drugs, we need to feed and water them. The basics for life. in the west we get that so there MUST be people who defeated HIV. So where are the people that got infected with HIV and defeated it? They wouldn’t know would they, so what happens when these people are tested for antibodies? Robert Gallo must be in agreement with Luc? never heard him say what Luc said.

    There WILL come a time when HIV & AIDS is regarded as the biggest medical scandal. Those that rode on HIV & AIDS’ back will have trouble coming back from the things they have written and can’t wait for that day, its coming they know it, I know it. people will look back and think how did we ever let this happen.

    One thing the film didn’t document and is very important is the fact that the Original Research papers are being questioned and have been asked to be withdrawn.

  3. Truthseeker Says:

    Alan, in your welcome comment you seem to agree with John Moore’s panicky fear that the game is up for the HIV/AIDS defenders if what this film reveals gains wide circulation, but the avalanche of self-debunking and contradictory statements made by them in this movie seems to have left you somewhat confused in regard to Luc Montagnier, newly minted Nobelist, which is very understandable unless you have been familiar with them all for years as we have, since there are so many huge holes in their theoretical web.

    Luc Montagnier is a Frenchman and it is he that first discovered evidence of a retrovirus in AIDS patients. But he didn’t go so far as to claim it was the cause of AIDS. Gallo subsequently claimed in four papers in Science that he had found it in about one third of samples from AIDS patients, and therefore it was a “probable” cause of AIDS, a marvel of Alice in Wonderland reasoning that didn’t need the subsequent official inquiry into his lab work to be questioned by anyone in possession of the basic rules of logic.

    What turned it from the “probable” cause of AIDS into “the cause of AIDS”, the seal of approval of the New York Times repeated in every story they run, was the major media, following the lead of politicians. As the film briefly showed, Margaret Heckler the Secretary of Health at the time (1984) announced in a press conference that the NIH in the person of Gallo ie American science had triumphed in finding the “probable” cause of AIDS, which suited President Reagan fine since it took the gays off his back for not doing enough to fight GRID, as it was known at first (Gay Related Immune Deficit). Soon afterward the Times and every other major medium took to leaving out the “probable”.

    In other words, kite flying by Robert Gallo attempting to save his expensive million dollar a year lab at NIH after it failed to find that cancer was caused by retroviruses was swiftly taken up by politicians and the media. Three years later in the top journals the best scientist in the field, Peter Duesberg, rejected the whole notion that HIV was involved, but it was too late. Scientists and the public were stuck with a scientific theory confirmed by Margaret Heckler, Ronald Reagan, Anthony Fauci, David Baltimore, Robert Gallo and Larry Altman of the New York Times.

    Gays that had destroyed their immune systems with poppers and other designer drugs had added their pr and highly activist support to a theory that took them off the hook and by threatening the heterosexual public ensured copious funding ever afterward for research into treatment, and access to treatment with AZT, a lethal drug which never was proved efficacious, indeed has been convincingly blamed for the dead memorialized in the great quilt. Subsequent drug treatment has been less damaging but still contains AZT and the rate of death in the US is maintained, so a brief improvement during the changeover when lives were extended was taken as proof that the drugs worked and the theory was correct. As Clinton told me, “the drugs work, don’t they?”

    Meanwhile Montagnier seems to be too decent a man to abandon common sense science for funding purposes and has always said in effect that HIV by itself is not enough to damage the immune system let alone overcome it, and that cofactors must be sought. Gallo et al, knowing the obvious corollary would be – so what shows HIV is needed? – have fought this adamantly from leaking too far out into the media. Censorship is the name of the game and has been for 25 years. Anthony Fauci of NIAID explicitly banned reporters from raising the topic of Duesberg’s reviews early on, and no one else dares to raise the topic in established HIV/AIDS circles. They have seen what happened to Duesberg, whose perfect record of grants at the NIH was immediately cut to zero then and ever since, once his colleagues were unwilling to back them.

    All this is the unhappy record of what happens in science now that it is exposed to huge political, media and financial influences. It is the high shame of the great newspaper, the New York Times, that it has been taken in by this fantasy and used it as a premise for 25 years, covering the objections of Peter Duesberg as if that brilliant scientist was less credentialed than even Fauci, and calling questioners “denialists” as if they were denying something as clear as the Holocaust or gravity.

    All this is clear to all who have taken an objective interest in the field, but the minor miracle is that House of Numbers, which doesn’t have time to describe much if anything of this background, manages to encapsulate so perfectly why we shouldn’t be taken in – simply by exposing the conflicting, unrealistic and medically unsuccessful views and claims of the establishment experts themselves.

    Duesberg and other lethal questioners are included but their few contributions are hardly necessary. The self condemnation is visible to any passer by except those emotionally committed to what is undoubtedly the Worldcom of science, the grandest scam in medical history, founded on an unproven, incredible and thoroughly debunked paradigm, shot down and professionally eviscerated in the leading journals before it had rounded the first bend, and never rehabilitated by all the King’s men since, as they now reveal.

  4. DavidRCrowe Says:

    When I saw “House of Numbers” at the premiere in May at the Nashville film festival I was blown away. I was expecting a lot, but felt that the technical quality was far beyond anything I could have conceived. It was surprisingly emotional for me, particularly the presence of the Nagels on stage after the screening. As the father of a 19 year old daughter the averted tragedy of Lynsie Nagel hit me right in the heart. Like my daughter she is beautifully ordinary, but in Lynsie’s case her mere presence is a beautiful antidote to the death cult of AIDS.

    The use of mainstream scientists to contradict each other and show the flaws in the logic is absolutely brilliant. It reminds me of the “Name of the Rose” (although the movie wasn’t that great) with the library of books too secret for the common people to have access too. Every dictatorship has knowledge like that. AIDS researchers deal with this all the time but all understand it must be kept from the plebians or there might be a revolution.

  5. Alan Smith Says:

    Truthseeker, I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say, regarding Luc. its not that I am confused I understand whats being said and the implications of what he said.
    I was commenting on the fact that no one in the mainstream has mentioned you can get rid of HIV if you have a good immune system. he totally contradicts what mainstream says. lets just imagine for one minute what he was saying was true, why are Africans being given condoms and drugs instread of a a good diet and water. far cheaper then the use of the drugs that compromise the body further. in his own words if you have a healthy immune system you can defeat HIV. Mainstream should be in agreement with Luc’s statement shouldnt they, but there not.

    I better point out that my view is and has been for years, that I personally believe that HIV does not exist. No one has ever produced documents to 100% prove HIV exists, also that it causes the long list of disease called AIDS. if someone would like to point me to those papers please do.
    No links to aidstruth please.

    The foundations of HIV & AIDS are crumbling and AIDS inc, are running around holding up the walls to stop them falling.

  6. cervantes Says:

    There are three world-famous people called Gates, and one world-famous person called Buffett, if they saw House of Numbers, might blow the whistle, as their $billions of dollars of joint-foundation money give credibility to the phony paradigm, on top of the now-yearly $30+ Billion dollars by the U.S. Federal Govt. (Two examples of the Gates/Buffet monies are for Third-world Arv drug programs everywhere, as well as richly funding the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation for toxic antiretrovirals for mothers, babies, and kids).

    With Harry Varmus now Obama’s medical advisor, there is zero possibility of Obama (or Michelle) ever getting near the Hiv Fraud.

    So, what it takes is somehow getting Bill Gates Jr, Melinda Gates, Bill Gates Sr., or Warren Buffett to sit down and see House of Numbers. I would guess they would not be happy if they realized they had been duped for so much and for so long. Since they had Helene Gayle, former chief of CDC, advise them for many years on AIDS, it is understandable how they were conned, but I would hope the Gates and Buffett could now have their eyes opened (Gayle has moved on to con other Foundations).

    But, how to get any of them to watch it? And not just ring up Anthony Fauci to ask his counsel? Would Leung ok some copies for this to get to people like the Gates/Buffett? Who could/would be the personal entry?

  7. Truthseeker Says:

    Cervantes, what you say seems very valid, if somewhat optimistic – do we not have to view the Gates as quite as deep within their own system generated belief system as the HIV?AIDS army is in theirs? But maybe the documentary could crack their built in complacency if they could be introduced to it with the proper endorsement. What is needed is something as strong as a Gates family friend whose son suffered under the HIV regime who somehow then wised up as to what is going on, perhaps through seeing House of Numbers in one of its public showings.

    The problem is that if the family fell for the ruling ideology and it killed off their son/nephew or whoever, then they might well be committed to it in exactly the way Ted Kennedy always seemed to be dead against alternative medicine, once they removed his son’s cancerous leg in what informed observers say might well have been a needlessly savage intervention.

    This is the essential problem and the pillar which props up the intellectually defenseless HIV paradigm with the public, the fact that all who come within its purview end up emotionally committed to it one way or another, even those it ravages. So those that really find out how dangerous this delusion is are paradoxically prevented from becoming critics of it, because it is too awful for them to contemplate how they have been had.

    Thus we had a pitiful trio of HIV supporters outside the premiere in New York videotaping who went in for some reason. Asked why she and the scientists were against free debate, a female among them with a very mannish hair style couldn’t tell me. Thus you have people who harm themselves because they have to deny that others harm them. The emotionally topsy turvey world they inhabit matches the upside down world of HIV ideology, which claims that a negligible wisp of RNA virus kills people whose antibodies have defeated it up to 20 years ago.

    Alan, you understand what Luc Montagnier said, but it is not clear if you think he is a fool or not. Why call him a fool? He is telling it like it is. A healthy immune system defeats HIV is a few weeks. So yes, giving Africans food and clean water would be more appropriate than dangerous drugs aimed at a defeated virus. Gallo et al don’t publicly agree with this for obvious reasons. Their whole careers depend on saying HIV is the threat, since they own HIV. Why would you expect them to?

    If this is in fact what you are saying it is not clear. As the senior HIV peddler and one who has always had an embarrassing tendency to tell the truth, Luc Montagnier knows his backside from his elbow very well, and his statement that you can get rid of HIV is not mad but perfectly true. Should we not edit your comment in this regard? Perhaps you could clarify.

    Meanwhile we have the problem of getting to those with sufficient influence to do something about this, who are not already irrevocably committed to it, or surrounded by advisers who are. Where is the wealthy man whose life has been touched by this in some way, perhaps through the death or suffering of a family member or lover, who is willing to step up to the plate?

  8. Alan Smith Says:

    Truthseeker,

    I never said I thought Luc was a fool, or for that matter think he is a fool. But I can laugh at his statement. Just because Luc says you can defeat HIV should we agree with him?
    No evidence has ever been produced to verfiy that HIV actually exists. so no we should not edit my comment. please show me some documents where it that shows HIV exists or that you can defeat HIV, other then Luc’s own words.

  9. Truthseeker Says:

    Well, according to standard research HIV multiplies in any body it enters for a week or two when it gives rise to cold symptoms or similar, then it is overcome by the immune system and is thereafter detected only at a very low level if at all. This is what standard research claimed in its papers and what Peter Duesberg then used to confound the idea that the antibodies that then ruled somehow allowed it to make a comeback, since the evidence was that it never resurged to any noticeable extent – in fact it is always devilish hard to find and only with PCR multiplying it geometrically can any substantial amount be detected.

    Anyone who claims it “doesn’t exist” has to explain all these results, which are what Montagnier is referring to. Where does all the evidence for different levels come from, and where do the antibodies appear from, how and why? Is this all a fairy tale? If it is why hasn’t Duesberg detected this fiction? He is, after all, a very practiced retrovirologist. You seem to be saying he doesn’t know his backside from his elbow either, as well as Luc Montagnier. But no one has ever questioned any of his lab work, and Gallo said he was a remarkable intelligent and distinguished colleague (before Duesberg shot down HIV).

    You are asking us to believe that you know better? Perhaps you have been taken over by the enormous whopper the HIV fraternity have perpetrated on the world and now don’t believe a word they say on anything. We know the feeling. But there is some limit to questioning routine lab work, isn’t there?

    For the moment, we’ll go with Luc and Peter, but hey, if you can show they are wrong, it will be a lot more interesting. Meanwhile, let’s not forget they are both in tune with the idea that HIV doesn’t threaten anybody with a healthy immune system. And they both agree that by itself HIV can do nothing.

    Presumably Luc is polishing up his Nobel medallion every night with a sigh of relief that it can’t be taken back. The only injustice is that he didn’t share it – with Peter. Perhaps they can both get the Nobel Peace prize later – for relieving the world of the terror of HIV and redirecting AIDS charity to the poor and others who are weakened by other ailments than a fantasy killer virus and all the psychology that goes with that.

    That is, if ever the world opens its ears to these two, rather than the Gallo-Fauci-Moore-Baltimore contingent and the governments and institutions they are leading by the nose around the world. Can the House of Numbers do a Silent Spring and achieve a world changing result? Perhaps if Montagnier and Duesberg could be appointed the twin leaders of HIV/AIDS in the aftermath of the retraction you forecast of Gallo’s highly questioned 1984 Science papers which started the world down the wrong superhighway.

  10. obmode Says:

    Anyone who refuses to see this film is a denialist of reality. Please visit my channel at http://www.youtube.com/hivquestions (and healing alternatives) videos available in multiple languages
    Let us continue to pray for all those who have been misdiagnosed with HIV and AIDS.

  11. Alan Smith Says:

    Truthseeker,

    As this review says “(the Bangui definition is still widely used, he discovers, for symptoms as simple as diarrhea and fever, no testing required).” used in a third world country where these symptoms are all present is enough for a AIDS diagnosis, No antibody test there. thats not science.

    Anyone who says HIV exists has to explain this. if someone could show me some documents that proves 100% that it exists then I am willing to look.

    I am not asking anyone to believe I know better, I am just looking at it logically. why look for antibodies for a Virus when its not been proven that a Virus is HIV and causes AIDS or even exists.

    There are questions and they need to be asked.

    We are both on different pages, and thats fine.

  12. Truthseeker Says:

    Not sure we are on completely different pages Alan. We agree that labeling illnesses AIDS without testing to see if HIV (antibodies) are present is statistically ridiculous, that it has not been proven that there is any sense at all in supposing that HIV causes AIDS, that there seems to be unusual difficulty in demonstrating that it exists at all to convince skeptics, and all these are questions which with many others confound the paradigm HIV causes AIDS.

    But the indirect indications that HIV exists as an entity like other retroviruses (eg that it multiplies for those who wish to send it to other labs, whose researchers then find the same behavior in what they are sent) seem to satisfy the greatest HIV/AIDS skeptic of all, the distinguished and self-sacrificially honest Peter Duesberg of Berkeley. Why argue with that?

    Perhaps there are reasons not to argue with that. Perhaps it is a grave political vulnerability and was demonstrated to be such by the court case in Adelaide where the Perth pair were laughed out of court, and their independent assessment ridiculed as uninformed because they were not in the field themselves, which is one of the spurious defense of paradigm defenders, as if outsiders weren’t often the people who see most clearly what can be improved in a field.

    Questioning the very existence of HIV should at least wait until the main paradigm is exploded.

  13. Elizabeth Ely Says:

    Question: Did the “trio” of protesters actually go in to see the film? I didn’t see them. One of them — the one with the mannish haircut — was Jeanne Bergman, who had been passing out, inexplicably, copies of Christine Maggiore’s death certificate. I guess the point was, she supposedly died of AIDS. And even if true (it’s not), this would prove . . . what? That HIV has a latency period of 16 years if you don’t take the drugs?

    But did they actually see the film?

  14. Elizabeth Ely Says:

    This is a very intelligent, well-thought-out review. Thanks, Anthony.

    This film is about accountability. That word that keeps passing before me.

    Accountability is what’s missing from AIDS research and activism. These scientists who so object, and the protesters outside, have been given free rein for so long that they throw a fit even when asked reasonable questions. It’s amusing to watch their uncomprehending looks when offered a hand to shake, or a conversation, or a reasonable question. Or, as in Boston, when a few people objected to their making a screening of this film into their own press conference. They’ve been entitled to their own reality for so long, objecting to it is like waking them from a dream.

    Ditto for activists: Who could possibly object to a feminist, freethinking, vegetarian human rights activist passing out death certificates on a public street? Who would think that’s nutty? Who would even ask the slightest public civility from such a person, when they’re saving the whole world from The Virus That’s Going To Eat The Whole World? Why can’t they just call everyone who disagrees with them the moral equivalent of Hitler? They can drop their pants in the middle of the street, and you’re some kind of fascist for even laughing at them. They seem to be entitled to exceptional indulgences, and yet they haven’t done anything exceptional for a human being — just yielded to the usual, easy, gravity-pull of self-righteousness. Even to watch the film is asking too much.

    I only know this because that’s who I was before I saw the facts of AIDS fraud. I was a tiresome, liberal, radical-sounding, little left-Christian brat with an Amnesty International bumper sticker (and I still think Amnesty’s great, but human rights is not a “brand” I can use to look cool). I’d like to stay basically liberal, if you don’t mind, but I work every day to shed the icky parts of that.

    I tried listening for a full 10 minutes once, and it changed everything.

    And then I listened for 20 minutes more, and realized I didn’t have all the answers. The horror!

    This film is an innocent, baby-faced, inquisitive kid asking mommy and daddy scientist and politician why they do the things they do and tell the simple lies they tell. It’s a growing up. And a call for accountability.

  15. Baby Pong Says:

    What Luc Montagnier said is indeed stunning, and provides evidence that this mediocre scientist does indeed have a streak of decency, which is more than we can say for the other AIDS peddlers. As for trying to get Gates et al to see the light, that would be pretty difficult considering that Bill has big investments in the drug industry and his wife attends Bilderberg meetings. Marcel tells us that when he published an article exposing the invalid nature of HIV testing in Thailand, he was informed that the Gates foundation was sponsoring efforts to rebut it. (He never saw the rebuttal, perhaps it never appeared. Anyway, it wasn’t necessary, as the Bangkok newspaper “The Nation” solved the problem by simply firing the editor who approved the article).

    It sounds like Leung’s film is really remarkable, though we haven’t seen it. Still, you can be sure you’ll never see it appear on TV, and that the media will do all they can to ensure that the film languishes in obscurity. As we’ve said all along, the biggest mass murderous fraud in history is not going to end until people stop supporting the perpetrators financially. And the biggest perpetrators are not the petty bureaucrats like Fauci and scamming scientists like Gallo, they are the media, led by the New York Times, which is not and probably never was a great newspaper, but rather maintained that illusion by PR tricks like not having a comics page, which led gullible intellectuals to believe that here was one newspaper that was really serious rather than frivolous and sensational. And indeed, they are serious — serious about protecting established power in every field, not just AIDS — by censorship and setting acceptable parameters of debate for the highly educated audience. The truth is nearly always to be found outside those parameters.

    If the public found out the truth, there would indeed by mass anger and possible revolution, and it would also thoroughly discredit allopathic medicine, making it impossible for Obama to force people into the allopathic ovens in violation of his campaign promises as he is attempting to do now with his health insurance “reform” that will spell the death knell to alternative medicine.

  16. Robert Houston Says:

    Having seen “House of Numbers,” I found Truthseeker’s review to be an accurate and thoughtful examination of the film and the issues – right on the mark in all respects. By contrast, the NY Times produced a snide piece of drivel by their poison pen hack who seems to have paid little attention to the film, if indeed she ever saw it. This splendid movie deserves an Academy Award nomination for Best Documentary: it is a riveting worldwide adventure in which prominent scientists and leaders of the AIDS establishment confess their own disagreements with much of the cant being told to the public. The result is a revelation that the dogmas of HIV/AIDS are built on dubious assumptions. As Truthseeker put it so well, “on behalf of the public Leung has fired the loudest shot yet across the bows of the great ship of fools, SS HIV Science.”

    In the film, Anthony Fauci and John Moore forthrightly uphold the conventional view of HIV/AIDS. Yet many other respected leaders of AIDS research express remarkably critical opinions about the conventional beliefs and practices in the field. In several key respects, they corroborate the criticisms expressed by AIDS dissenters, such as Prof. Peter Duesberg.

    This might all seem quite confusing, were it not for the socio-cultural insight and overview provided by the four outstanding journalists who were interviewed. In particular, the brilliant and beautiful Celia Farber, at several key points in the movie, put matters in clear perspective with her stunning insights and lucid summations. She and her fellow journalists, Liam Scheff, Neville Hodgkinson, and Rian Malan, really lit up the film.

  17. Truthseeker Says:

    Agreed, the journos made a good contribution which helped frame the grand illusion of HIV/AIDS in the perspective it deserves – unrealistic, anti scientific, and logically ridiculous…ultimately, in fact, a comedy of error if it wasn’t a grand tragedy of shortened lives where a horde of hapless gay lemmings are heading for the cliff while praising their whip wielding mental masters for moving the edge further away than they originally expected, not to mention the suffering Africans caught by this web.

    But of course they did not mention all of the latter gigantic absurdity, which is too fantastic for the average viewer to appreciate without more time to absorb the flip in their world view offered by this film, courtesy of none other than the HIV/AIDS experts themselves.

    By the way apologies to all for the sudden interruption of the blog over the last 24 hours, which was due to a rather over adventurous renaming of a single folder in the mostly unfathomable scheme at BlueHost which represents the Web display of this site.

  18. Carter Says:

    There’s always good things on youtube. That’s if you wade through the myriad of crap.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uS0weROENDw

    Proof is in the pudding, shall we say?

  19. Truthseeker Says:

    Fine testimony, though it would be more impressive of the earnest “programmer” knew how to put a video up on YouTube instead of a picture with voice. Even 12 year olds know how to do that.

    Still one is glad to find a person of any kind who actually thinks for themselves by looking at the film to see if the complaints have any basis in reality, and finding that they do not.

    The percentage of people who actually like to think for themselves is lower than we ever imagined before undertaking to report on this particular travesty of science, the HIV caper. Someone should do a study. The result would probably be three per cent, we would guess.

    They tend to be lawyers, philosophers and computer programmers. The percentage of scientists seems to be about the same as the general population.

    Caspar Melville editor of the New Humanist is not one of them (see previous comment on the previous post).

  20. Carter Says:

    New news.

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/shop/events/5402473/spectator-debate-a-world-without-aids.thtml

    Interesting would be if Sir Truthseeker were to be a part of this panel.

  21. Truthseeker Says:

    So the Spectator are willing to mount a showing of House of Numbers? This would follow their previous commendable action in carrying Rian Malan’s report/reports from South Africa as to the difficulty that author had in location anything new and different ie actual “AIDS” in the hospitals or health statistics of his tormented country for Rolling Stone at the turn of the century, we believe.

    Unfortunately we have too great a backlog of vital posts to make on this site to fly across the Atlantic for October 28 with a calm mind, at least until they are published, which we hope will occur rapidly, in the manner of a potato hammered into the exhaust pipe of a Ferrari – either that or causing the engine to cease revolving altogether, which alternative metaphorically speaking sometimes seems the right thing to do here faced with the appalling behavior of the HIV gang on other sites such as the Humanist and the DumbnDumbee sites referred to above, which would be amusing if it weren’t for the fact that gays’ health and lives are at stake, given their lemming-like enthusiasm for running over the cliff of HIV/AIDS theory and its noxious medications.

    Since they are apparently incapable of thinking for themselves in their weakened state we feel it is our duty to soldier on, but plan to turn to other topics and feature the work of other idealists which is not appreciated by the world at large, until our revulsion passes, in the same manner as avoiding whatever food causes food poisoning for a time once one has recovered from the stomach pains.

    Of course the statistics which show that AIDS deaths are rapidly approaching zero in every other Western nation suggest that they may not need rescue after all, though this is not in our eyes proof that the AIDS medications “work”, as the HIV defenders have it, but on the contrary, we note that it correlates significantly with the increasing absence of AZT from medications and also lately the substitution of other less harmful medications for protease inhibitors. Given that deaths zoomed after AZT was introduced, and then declined when it was lowered in dose, and are now approaching zero as it was apparently banished completely from the regimen of docs prescribing ARVs since 2006, it appears that it is merely the result of not giving noxious poison to hapless HIV/AIDS patients who are unwilling to get a second opinion from someone not in the thrall of the utterly irrational HIV/AIDS paradigm.

  22. cervantes Says:

    TS, To quote your comment, “the statistics which show that AIDS deaths are rapidly approaching zero in every other Western nation” may be (in part) sourced from an article of mine on the Rethinking AIDS (RA) website, put on RA about 5 months earlier, titled A Cure U.S. AIDS, Travel to Canada.

    This piece may have reached Obama’s Handlers, but little chance of ‘truth on the ground’ getting to His Highness himself – or to Lady Michelle for that matter, with Harry Varmus being their Disease Adviser.

    As to Lohse et al.’s Denmark Study: Of everybody Hiv+ in Denmark, his statistics clearly show the longest life expectancy of those Hiv+ is those that eschew/decline antiviral drugs, approaching very close to “normal” life expectancy of the average Dane they were compared to.

    Lohse also dramatically shows how those on Early HAART kicked off in 1996 (3,300 mgs daily of AZT, 3TC, and Crixivan (protease inhibitors) died rather quickly from their meds – as you have cited yourself.

    Published January 16, 2007, in the Annals of Internal Medicine (Ann Intern Med. 2007; 146:87-95), titled “Survival of Persons with and without HIV Infection in Denmark, 1995-2005, the Denmark Study is remarkable, and cites “Late HAART” as the current regimen, sans AZT.

    Bottom line, for those who can wade through their statistics: Those Hiv+ declining/rejecting anti-Hive meds, particularly women, have mortality rates getting them very close to the average non-Hiv+ Dane.

    Lohse’s text (there are 7 other co-authors) also relates how most everybody “Hiv+” in Denmark have many other health toxicities, such as smoking, heroin, heavy alcohol abuse, etc., so it is hardly surprising a bit higher “mortality rate” in combination being Hiv+.

    As many know, Hiv antibody “positivity” reflects many other conditions other than an actual reaction to “Hiv” antigens. Even the most healthy of nuns sequestered since youth can be “Hiv+” as can your 80 year old neighbor if he/she got tested.

  23. Truthseeker Says:

    Diverted by the Audio Engineering Society this weekend at Javits, we haven’t got to the whole Numbers game picture for a good post, but it has changed radically, it turns out, C, thank you for your ref., and a post is on the front burner for good reason – this thoroughly defeats the last justification of HIV/AIDS in the minds of politicians such as Bill “But the drugs work, don’t they?” Clinton. The HIV Deniers (those who deny that the HIV hypothesis has exploded far and wide in the manner of the fat man who eats too much in Monty Python’s “Meaning of Life”) cannot handle this one, so they ignore it when mentioned.

    Meanwhile the Thai vaccine trial is another grand debacle since Science and the WSJ have exposed it as less even than claimed last month, well into the statistically insignificant area, and thus in line with the ongoing idea that a vaccine is the dumbest idea in HIV/AIDS of all, since HIV works perfectly well to create immunity against itself. Now even the Times is beating up on Fauci who is reduced to saying things like “they are not stupid” when hauled onto the carpet by the reporter ie the representative of the grand arbiter of truth and justice in the US, the NYT, who mentions suspicions of a “cover up”. This is a turn for the better which might trigger an intern at the White House who is ambitious enough to make something of it, and can get around the super agreeable Harold Varmus, the man who got the Nobel Duesberg deserved.

    See Success of AIDS Vaccine Trial Is at Issue

    Is HIV/AIDS crumbling of its own unsustainable assumptions? Even the Times is now willing to mention the attempt to cover up a total failure!

    Perhaps we will get another Op Ed piece by John Moore debunking anyone who lacks faith in microbicides (his total failure), vaccines (total failure) and drugs (total failure).

  24. yello Says:

    Orac and his ditto heads are still whining….

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/10/the_2009_recipient_of_the_richard_dawkin_1.php

  25. sherlock Says:

    I just saw the documentary called “House of Numbers.”
    Having done much in HIV research on the bench as well as several epidemiological studies, I have to say I was very dissappointed with the journalist/narrator. Alot of the questions and facts emphasized could easily be twisted without guided interpretation. Subesquently, the facts were presented in a biased manner. He should have done his research before speaking with professionals in this area. The fights in understanding AIDS is continuing and taxing on our time and money. Repeating things for the sake of a journalis’t understanding that has not done his research is a blow to the progress and work we are trying to do.
    For example, the lawsuit between Gallo and the French was in isolating the retrovirus suspected of causing AIDS. Why would you ask a nobel laureate to use tax money to repeat something that has already been done…..this would be taking a step backwards.
    Finally, I leave this for food for thought: smoking is known to cause lung cancer. Do all lung cancer patients smoke? If not, is this not enough to debunk smoking as a causal element to lung cancer?
    The journalist/narrator is a poor representation of informed and educated. Do us a favor….do your homework, and maybe even research the difference between correlation, and cause-and-effect.
    SH.

  26. sherlock Says:

    PS…I apologize for my spelling. I was actually on my way out and did not have a chance to spell-check.

  27. Truthseeker Says:

    With all due respect, sherlock, It is not your spelling which is the problem, it is your fumbling grammar and logic in defense of what you have long believed. Perhaps you should check yourself for confirmation bias? In addition, it might help you before, disparaging the film’s director, Brent Leung, to study the issues raised in this exemplary film more attentively so that you could understand better why they were raised, and that they were not answered by the scientists interviewed any better than you seem to be able to manage here. The points you raise are so elementary that one hardly knows where to start in enlightening you. If we don’t, perhaps you can take solace in the famous instance where Fermat claimed to have a solution to one of mathematics’ most difficult questions but wrote in the margin of the book that there was no room to record it there. He never recorded it anywhere else either, as far as we know!

    You do not even appreciate that the complaint raised by critics is that there was no isolation by either Gallo or Montagnier so it is not a question of demanding that they repeat the work, but that they manage it in the first place. Even sillier is that you raise the point that correlation is not necessarily causation when that is precisely the point made by those who reject the still entirely unproven hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS – that correlation is not causation.

    It is not the journalist/narrator who is uninformed and uneducated and needs guidance in interpretation. Apparently Brent Leung is far ahead of one professional who has done HIV benchwork and several epidemiological studies.

    But one wouldn’t want you to depart without a takeaway, so let’s raise two questions for you to ponder. How is an epidemic caused by people transferring antibodies to HIV to one another? For that is what HIV tests are said to measure.

    Secondly, how exactly is HIV going to bring you down with HIV/AIDS as much as ten or fifteen years later if there is so little HIV in your body that the test has to be for antibodies to it?

    As a matter of fact, since you are an epidemiologist, perhaps you can explain why the number of people who test positive in the US has remained at a roughly constant one million throughout this 27 year “epidemic”?

    Perhaps it is more than your spelling you need to fix.

  28. cervantes Says:

    Sherlock, going back to basics – the antibody tests for HIV (and other HIV tests) for decades have rested on a the super-dilution of a patient’ serum at 400 to 1. Compared to all other antibody/serum tests for at less than 20 to 1. Less dilution says virtually every human is HIV-antibody plus. So, what does that tell you?

    Any danger you have an answer for this?

    Cervantes


Bad Behavior has blocked 106 access attempts in the last 7 days.