Congress sends Bush legislation tripling funds for fighting AIDS around the world (WHAT A SHAM!)

"Science is being completely driven by politics."

"Science" is just a name that is attached to really expensive, and deceptive politics. We have no science left.

"I wouldn’t say they rule the world."

When they can put deceptive commercials on TV to sell worthless and deadly drugs to the ignorant public; have laws passed that literally require doctors to prescribe deadly poison as therapy; put a baby killing drug on the market, and get the government to fund its use; put an "anti papiloma" vaccine on the market that has a death rate that is more than ten times the death rate of the cancer that it purports to prevent, and have state legislatures make that killer mandatory for all little girls, and who knows what else, I'd definately saay that they rule the world.

All excellent points (really!)...but that does not add up to ruling the world. If they ruled the world, I wouldn’t be allowed to send you this message.

Well, I’m not a real smart man — but I damn sure understand that.

Thanks for the insight, Forrest :o) PS AIDS truly is something you can opt out of if you live in the First World. But if AIDS is not caused by HIV, then you would be opting out of is something OTHER than what is commonly understood to transmit HIV. For more, see my profile page.

You may not be for long. ;o)

In the meantime, let’s use every opportunity to give them the bird!

“You might want to check the links and videos on my profile page before rushing to judgement. All the best—GGG”

The Channel 4 video Entitled The AIDS Catch, seems to be at least ten years old or uses ten year old info. One can easily ask if the scientists it interviews have not obtained a different view since then. It also would make the argument more credible if the views of its critics, among scientists, were presented as well. One side of an argument does not a discussion make. If my memory serves me correct, I believe that some of the “AIDS” scientists have always proposed that “AIDS” patients die of diseases that were obtained by the patient due to an HIV-compromised immune system - not that HIV “caused” those diseases, directly. Such a view does not require that those diseases cannot be acquired due to other compromises of the immune system as well, only that a greater than otherwise expected rate of such infections and their related diseases seem to obtain among the HIV infected.

The second Channel 4 video also seems to be very out of date.

One of the points made in both videos, as “proof” against the HIV-equals-AIDS theory is that some predictions of the degree of the spread of the HIV infection and of AIDS have not been borne out over time. It is clear, in many venues in the west as well as in Africa (as in Uganda for instance) that public-education-induced changes in the behaviors of persons in various “high risk groups” can easily account for why infection and disease rates are lower at this time than they were once predicted to become. That is not an “error” bearing on any scientific understanding of AIDS or HIV.

Many of the “ proofs” make some form of the argument that the scientific understanding or prediction of the average amount of time “from HIV to full blown AIDS” has changed as if it is a good “proof” that the underlying science is in error. If that were true then for all diseases it would be an error to believe that the science in understanding and treating of any diseases must be stagnant over time or that science is in error. Good thing humanity has not taken that position or much progress on many diseases would never have occurred.

Far more than anything even near relevance is made of AZT, its toxicity and the drug companies’ relationships to it and profits from it. But AZT is very old news, developed in the infancy of AIDS research and NOT among the major antiviral drug cocktails that dominate HIV/AIDS “treatment” today - adding to the perception that many of the “arguments” and their “evidence” are NOT based on current understandings and conditions.

Another argument is just dumb. It says that if drug companies are making a profit then that profit, and not any science, MUST be behind the public policy support of the use of that drug. You might as well cancel 100% of the cancer drugs if that’s your argument.

While the “Semmelweis Investigation” offers a well documented case AGAINST scientific orthodoxy and in particular those in the HIV research community who use it against those with other “unorthodox” points of view, their self-interest, financial and otherwise provide the best cause for their actions, but it does not PROVE their science is wrong.

While I too would prefer to see Professor Duesberg NOT kept out of AIDS related research and funding to it, that support is not derived from a belief that he has won the theoretical argument. To the extent that he is right, his additional work would substantiate a “proof” of it. To the extent that he is wrong, his additional work would draw out more robust “proof” of current theories. All to the good.

Additionally, the “Semmelweiz” report itself admits that it does not present that proof. What it does present is a documented case on the unfair treatment Professor Duesberg has received as well as a demonstrated bias, by the investigator, against drug companies. Also, the concern, in that report, over the toxicity of “AIDS” drugs provides no more argument against any AIDS theory than does the toxicity of tons of cancer drugs make against cancer theories. All kinds of medicines tax the human body in ways that can seem hazardous either briefly or in the long run. It does not invalidate the science behind them nor, in the absence of other treatments does it make their use a purely for profit venture.

The investigation makes more than is pertinent from some statistics from a “five year review” by a doctor, Ronald B Reisler. (1996-2001) with about 3000 HIV/AIDS patients who took the anti-retroviral cocktails (does not say which ones). It seems to make allot of the fact that 22% of the 3000 patients in the study suffered from some degree (not said how much or for how long) of a “Grade 4 Event”, such as liver or kidney problems, white blood cell loss, anemia, cardiovascular problem, psychiatric disorder, Thrombocytopenia or hemorrhage against only half as many, 11%, who suffered an “AIDS” event. That way of reporting tries to say that the drug was worse than the disease. But, that view is in error and 180 degrees from the rest of the statistics, which would be that 66% of those in the study (taking the cocktails) had neither an AIDS event or a “Grade 4” event, and without any evidence of either other causes for the “Grade 4” events (just an assumption that they were “side effects”) or the actual long term conditions following those events, one can deduce that from 66% (100 - 33) to 89% (100 - 11) of the 3000 in the study may have received some long term benefit from the drugs. I don’t know how that ranks in the area of the use of toxic drugs in general, but I would imagine it does not rate unfavorably against many cancer drugs. And what does it “prove” about HIV and AIDS theories? Nothing.

Lastly, if you want to use LewRockwell as a reliable source for your argument then get use to the idea of people wondering if you wear a tin-foil hat.

==The Channel 4 video Entitled The AIDS Catch, seems to be at least ten years old or uses ten year old info.

The basic argument is the same. And besides, I stated from the outset that it was one of the FIRST documentaries covering the other side of the AIDS debate. Did you take a look at the other videos? Each one in their turn takes you right up to the present.

==It also would make the argument more credible if the views of its critics, among scientists, were presented as well.

Seeing how the other side has had a monopoly on this issue, it was enough to present the basic case of top scientists who challenge the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. Otherwise, the video would have to be either too long to air, or be so anemic that the case never gets made at all. And besides, the video did a good job of outlining what AIDS Rethinker scientists were responding to.

==It is clear, in many venues in the west as well as in Africa (as in Uganda for instance) that public-education-induced changes in the behaviors of persons in various “high risk groups” can easily account for why infection and disease rates are lower at this time than they were once predicted to become.

Care to back that up with HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE?

==But AZT is very old news, developed in the infancy of AIDS research and NOT among the major antiviral drug cocktails that dominate HIV/AIDS “treatment” today

AZT is still used today, and similar arguments apply to other AIDS CHEMOTHERAPY drugs. Again, I am trying to give FReepers a sense of the chronology. And as far as AZT goes, to this day Burroughs Wellcome has still not been held accountable for the tens of thousands of deaths (to include women and children) directly attributable to their cytotoxic AIDS chemotherapy drug. Same goes for the other AIDS chemo drugs.

==Lastly, if you want to use LewRockwell as a reliable source for your argument then get use to the idea of people wondering if you wear a tin-foil hat.

The article was written by a respected professor of medicine at the University of Washington. If you have a problem with LewRockwell.com, then by all means scratch that article off your mental list.

PS I don’t recall all the AIDS establishment articles and videos giving equal time to AIDS Rethinker scientists. If they did, this wouldn’t even be an issue today.

Drawing lines between dots does not prove that the lines exist in any objective sense.

You, as well as Dr. Duesberg (and some of the others quoted), present questions about a theory and complaints about treatments and medicines, but neither the questions or the complaints provide a proof that the generally accepted theory of HIV-AIDS is in error - only an argument for investigation.

Science should not be held to any scientific orthodoxy, but that good argument does not validate Dr. Duesberg’s argument - it only admits he should be free to pursue it and not kept from doing so.

Barring that event, the current generally accepted theory is as legitimate as any other and the medical profession would be remiss if it simply dismissed it. Meanwhile, I, and most people are not convinced they should.

==Meanwhile, I, and most people are not convinced they should.

I’m not looking for most people.

http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=3582

Thanks for the ping!