HIV Aids - Email to my fellow dissidents...

Author

Email to my fellow dissidents...

pauleewhiting

2005-10-20, 5:52 pm

Hey, I am just checking in to see how you two are doing!

I need to read the article that "Iconoclaster" sent to me and then get
back into the debate.

I think it's time to pull out the heavy artillary and start learning the
basics of molecular biology.

I am in the beginning stages of understanding this whole *new language*
and need to learn it *all.*

I feel that the "final phase" of this debate (The Coup de Grace, if you
will) shall be the dissidents walking the talk right in front of the
apologits and actually learning the science, so we can shove it down their
throats.

I may even venture a little wager...

I am going to tell Chris and The Gang, that we accept their offer for a
no-holds barred debate.

We are gonna take off our gloves and battle this thing out - winner takes
all.

And I am going to tell them, when the dissidents are through, they will be
in prison for what they have done to us. Every single person who knowingly
perpetuated this lie is going to be held criminally liable for it.

We're going to take them to court and have them prosecuted.

That is how high the stakes are now.

But first, I need to get ready! I am still going to buy my house and set
up "Dissident Central." I am going to start my own business, so that I can
have a steady income and be able to devote full-time to bringing down the
AIDS paradigm.

I am *never* giving up.

Yours truly,

-Paulee

P.S., If anyone is ready to surrender, just let us know. We will *help
you* out of this mess! Otherwise, we are taking you down the old
fashioned way--in a court of law.

Gary Stein

2005-10-20, 5:53 pm

"pauleewhiting" <pauleewhiting@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a3b657e72dfe27c43581cb5d536dd100@localhost.talkabouthealthnetwork.com...
> Hey, I am just checking in to see how you two are doing!
>
> I need to read the article that "Iconoclaster" sent to me and then get
> back into the debate.
>
> I think it's time to pull out the heavy artillary and start learning the
> basics of molecular biology.
>
> I am in the beginning stages of understanding this whole *new language*
> and need to learn it *all.*
>
> I feel that the "final phase" of this debate (The Coup de Grace, if you
> will) shall be the dissidents walking the talk right in front of the
> apologits and actually learning the science, so we can shove it down their
> throats.
>
That would be greatly anticipated (a denialist that actually has an
understanding of the science, yet still is a denialist has yet to appear)
yet highly unlikely to occur.

> I may even venture a little wager...
>
> I am going to tell Chris and The Gang, that we accept their offer for a
> no-holds barred debate.
>
> We are gonna take off our gloves and battle this thing out - winner takes
> all.
>
> And I am going to tell them, when the dissidents are through, they will be
> in prison for what they have done to us. Every single person who knowingly
> perpetuated this lie is going to be held criminally liable for it.
>
> We're going to take them to court and have them prosecuted.
>
> That is how high the stakes are now.

Bet taken now what happens when you lose? Are you applying the same results
to the denialists? Because if your bet is to be taken seriously then when
you lose you and your ilk will take the responsibility for the deaths of
those who choose to believe your lies and died as a result thus you all will
be spending time with Bubba in 10' X 12' cell.
>
> But first, I need to get ready! I am still going to buy my house and set
> up "Dissident Central." I am going to start my own business, so that I can
> have a steady income and be able to devote full-time to bringing down the
> AIDS paradigm.
>
> I am *never* giving up.

So what in 4 or 5 years after you've had a chance to educate yourself you
will come back and demolish those scientists that have spent there entire
adult lives studying HIV and AIDS, well good luck to you in that I can't
wait for the fireworks. It will be fun to see how you try and corrupt
science to fit your preconceived ideas.

Gary Stein

pauleewhiting

2005-10-20, 5:53 pm

"Gary Stein" wrote:
>"So what in 4 or 5 years after you've had a chance to educate yourself
>you will come back and demolish those scientists that have spent there
>entire adult lives studying HIV and AIDS, well good luck to you in
>that I can't wait for the fireworks. It will be fun to see how you try
>and corrupt science to fit your preconceived ideas."

Science is already corrupt. The HIV theory of AIDS is proof of that.

And I am going to prove my theory!

*My theory is that the HIV theory of AIDS is actually proof that science
is corrupt.*

And, with a little help from my friends, I am going to learn Molecular
Biology right in front of your very eyes! I am going to be taking a
"online class" right here on the talkabouthealthnetwork.

And we're gonna start with "Molecular Biology 101," hopefully sometime
next week.

I don't know how long it will take, but you're going to be witnesses the
entire process.

You're going to be my witnesses! I like that!

And the worst part is, the apologists are going to have to hold your
ground the whole time I am learning molecular biology. You're going to
have to answer my questions, backed by documentation, if you disagree
what what I am being taught by my *professor*. You are going to have to
defend your positions because, as I have aptly demonstrated on this
forum over and over and over again, I really understand simple
relationships.

And, guess what, boys! All science is based on *simple* relationships.

Science is actually really, really simple.

It only gets "complex" (i.e., it gets to be full of "inexplicable
paradoxes" which is latin for bullshit) when someone ain't doing their
science right. That's why the scientific process includes duplication.
You need to be able to duplicate another scientists work and then
*agree* with his interpretation of the data. Just having data isn't
enough - not even "Mountains of Data."

And a scientist's data, along with his/her *correct interpretation* of
that data, need to be able to make accurate predictions. That is what
meteroligists do! They can predict the movement of objects with a
high-degree of probability based on sound science.

Are they right everytime? Hell no!

But can they predict events with astounding accuracy! Hell yes!

It's just like I read in the book "Zero - Biography of a Dangerous
Idea." Calculus is actually severely flawed. They have to "fudge" the
numbers sometimes because ZERO (the absense of value) keeps collapsing
the equations. Yet, calculus, with all of it's flaws can predict the
movement of planets with a high-degree of accuracy! It functions as a
sound scientific principle, even though it ain't perfect.

The problem with the HIV theory of AIDS is that it can't predict shit.

And I am going to demonstrate why.

Paul Whiting

“There is overwhelming scientific consensus that HIV causes AIDS.”

— Dr. Jeffrey P. Koplan, Director, US Centers for Disease Control (CDC)

--
Sent via Health Newsgroups
http://www.healthnewsgroups.com

Iconoclaster

2005-10-20, 5:53 pm

>"So what in 4 or 5 years after you've had a chance to educate yourself you
will come back and demolish those scientists that have spent there entire
adult lives studying HIV and AIDS, well good luck to you in that I can't
wait for the fireworks.

Scientists that have spent their entire adult lives studying HIV and
AIDS... How old can these whippersnappers be at the most?
2005 - 1983 + 18 = 40 (!) How infinitely sad, to have wasted so much of
your life on a theory that every kid can see makes no sense at all.

pauleewhiting

2005-10-20, 5:53 pm

"Iconoclaster" wrote:
>Scientists that have spent their entire adult lives studying HIV and
>AIDS... How old can these whippersnappers be at the most?
>2005 - 1983 + 18 = 40 (!) How infinitely sad, to have wasted so much
of
>your life on a theory that every kid can see makes no sense at all.

What a coincidence, Iconoclaster! I am about to turn 39 and I am *just
getting started* on my scientific career! There is a *new breed* of
scientist out there, kids!

We're XXXXin' rebels! And we ain't gonna take it anymore!

Scientists are rebels, kids! They are ***NOT*** conformists.

XXXX the system! We are here to *change* the system, because science is
about CHANGE.

Because, if we don't change - if we don't differentiate - we're all
XXXXed.

And you are about to witness the most amazing transformation of all
time! (Drum roll, please...)

You are about to see Mr. Paul Whiting, Administrative Assistant
extrordinaire turned into....

...Super Molecular Biologists!

Able to leap tall theories with a single bound!

Faster than a speeding proton!

It's a bird! It's a plane!

No, it's Rogue Scientist!

I am a rogue scientist. I am a rebel in disguise. I am going to
*learn* molecular XXXXing biology.

Even if it XXXXing kills me!

And then, we are gonna take this pathetic, simple-minded, piece of shit
theory and deconstruct it, right in front of your very eyes! And then,
we're gonna hold entirely accountable in a court of law** every bastard
who held up this piece of crap theory as "sound science."

And we're gonna do it *ALL* legally, professionally and with the full
faith and backing of the scientific process.

Welcome to the scientific future, boys! And it rings with the truth of
simple logic.

**Those who would like to admit fault *now* will be spared. All you
need to do is *document* your that fact that, at some point in time, you
*publicly* questioned the HIV theory of AIDS. Those showing proof will
*not*, I repeat NOT, be held accountable in a court of law.

We protect those who are brave enough to come forward and tell the
truth. We mean that!

Paul Whiting

“There is overwhelming scientific consensus that HIV causes AIDS.”

— Dr. Jeffrey P. Koplan, Director, US Centers for Disease Control (CDC)

--
Sent via Health Newsgroups
http://www.healthnewsgroups.com

GMCarter

2005-10-20, 5:53 pm

On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 03:51:56 GMT, pauleewhiting
<pauleewhiting@hotmail.com> wrote:

snip
>What a coincidence, Iconoclaster! I am about to turn 39 and I am *just
>getting started* on my scientific career! There is a *new breed* of
>scientist out there, kids!

Right. Like the ones that believe in "intelligent design" and, through
acts of purest sophistry, try to pass it off as science.

DavidT

2005-10-20, 5:53 pm

>"Science is actually really, really simple."

and.....

>"I am going to prove my theory!"

With those few words, you demonstrate that you know absolutely nothing
about science or scientific theories.

For a start, you mean hypothesis, and not theory (if you intend to talk
scientifically)....

Science looks for explanations of observable phenomena.
The scientific method requires that hypotheses are testable and
*dis*provable - scientists look for evidence to refute their hypotheses
as a means of making scientific progress.

You cannot "prove your own theory"

pauleewhiting

2005-10-20, 5:53 pm

"DavidT" wrote:
>
>and.....
>
>
>
>With those few words, you demonstrate that you know absolutely nothing
>about science or scientific theories.
>
>For a start, you mean hypothesis, and not theory (if you intend to talk
>scientifically)....
>
>Science looks for explanations of observable phenomena.
>The scientific method requires that hypotheses are testable and
>*dis*provable - scientists look for evidence to refute their hypotheses
>as a means of making scientific progress.
>
>You cannot "prove your own theory"

Ya know, sometimes you guys just *kill me.*

I can't even believe you are so insecure in your position that you would
actually take the time to belittle someone who says they are willing to
learn molecular biology!

How desperate can you be?

So, what? Now that I am willing to actually accept your challenge to
"walk the talk" you're starting me off with a series of put-downs?

That's mature!

Is that all the apologits have left? Name calling?

Sometimes I don't know whether to laugh *at* you, or cry *for* you.

Paul Whiting

“There is overwhelming scientific consensus that HIV causes AIDS.”

— Dr. Jeffrey P. Koplan, Director, US Centers for Disease Control (CDC)

--
Sent via Health Newsgroups
http://www.healthnewsgroups.com

DavidT

2005-10-20, 5:53 pm

Sorry, I missed the part where I supposedly called you names.
I did say that you knew nothing about science, which is self-evidently
true.
You don't like a few home truths, go play somewhere else.

If you want to learn anything, let alone molecular biology, you will
have to lighten up and stop over-reacting when someone tries to make
you better informed.

pauleewhiting

2005-10-20, 5:53 pm

"DavidT" wrote:
>Sorry, I missed the part where I supposedly called you names.
>I did say that you knew nothing about science, which is self-evidently
>true.
>You don't like a few home truths, go play somewhere else.
>
>If you want to learn anything, let alone molecular biology, you will
>have to lighten up and stop over-reacting when someone tries to make
>you better informed.
>

I have never recieved the impression from *any* apologist that their
intention is to *ever* make people "better informed."

If the aplogists *really* wanted to make people "better informed," they
would allow views of "HIV and AIDS," other than their own, to be heard.

The apologists are keeping "HIV-positives" enslaved to their views.
Period.

We are here to *free them* from their bondage and let them *decide for
themselves* what view makes the most sense. Period.

Paul Whiting

“There is overwhelming scientific consensus that HIV causes AIDS.”

— Dr. Jeffrey P. Koplan, Director, US Centers for Disease Control (CDC)

--
Sent via Health Newsgroups
http://www.healthnewsgroups.com

Gary Stein

2005-10-20, 5:53 pm

"pauleewhiting" <pauleewhiting@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:M5Q5f.448$VW.5280@news.uswest.net...
>
> I can't even believe you are so insecure in your position that you would
> actually take the time to belittle someone who says they are willing to
> learn molecular biology!
>

Care to tell us why you choose molecular biology over virology, or
epidemiolgy?

What is it about the science of molecular biology that you think will be the
most useful in your grand scheme to prove the non-existence of HIV?

How do you propose to gain an understanding of molecular biology? Who is to
be your teacher? What will your sources of educational materials be?

Gary Stein

Gary Stein

2005-10-20, 5:53 pm

"pauleewhiting" <pauleewhiting@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zxR5f.19$Dq.1412@news.uswest.net...
> "DavidT" wrote:
>
>
> I have never recieved the impression from *any* apologist that their
> intention is to *ever* make people "better informed."
>
> If the aplogists *really* wanted to make people "better informed," they
> would allow views of "HIV and AIDS," other than their own, to be heard.

How have you been censored here on an unmoderated newsgroup? Who is it that
has prevented you from spewing the mountains of bullcrap that you have so
far vomited into this newsgroup?
>
> The apologists are keeping "HIV-positives" enslaved to their views.
> Period.

Just how does that happen please enlighten the world about this vast medical
conspiracy to silence the denialists?

Gary Stein

pauleewhiting

2005-10-20, 5:53 pm

"Gary Stein" wrote:
>How have you been censored here on an unmoderated newsgroup? Who is it
that
>has prevented you from spewing the mountains of bullcrap that you have
so
>far vomited into this newsgroup?

This is how you censor dissidents:

"Who is it that has prevented you from *spewing the mountains of
bullcrap* that you have so far *vomited* into this newsgroup?"

It's called "belittling," Gary.

It's the first, and last, great argument of the apologists.

Paul Whiting

“There is overwhelming scientific consensus that HIV causes AIDS.”

— Dr. Jeffrey P. Koplan, Director, US Centers for Disease Control (CDC)

--
Sent via Health Newsgroups
http://www.healthnewsgroups.com

Chris Noble

2005-10-24, 12:55 am

pauleewhiting wrote:
> "Gary Stein" wrote:
>
>
> Science is already corrupt. The HIV theory of AIDS is proof of that.
>
> And I am going to prove my theory!
>
> *My theory is that the HIV theory of AIDS is actually proof that science
> is corrupt.*
>
> And, with a little help from my friends, I am going to learn Molecular
> Biology right in front of your very eyes! I am going to be taking a
> "online class" right here on the talkabouthealthnetwork.

Something sounds familiar (well up to a point, I somehow doubt you are
going to get a PhD).

http://www.tparents.org/library/uni...ells/DARWIN.htm

Johnathon Wells was a fundamentalist christian without a PhD in biology
who dogmatically believed that evolution was wrong.

The Rev. Dr. Sun Myung Moon told him to get a PhD in Biology so he
could scientifically prove that evolution was false

Now Johnathon Wells is a fundamentalist christian with a PhD in biology
who dogamtically believes that evolution is wrong.

Do the words "preconceptual science" mean anything to you?

PS. Does anyone here think for a moment that anyone in the original
Perth Group had even heard of a retrovirus before 1984?

Chris Noble

wilyretrovirus

2005-10-24, 12:55 am

"you will have to lighten up and stop over-reacting when someone tries to
make
you better informed."

Interesting way of putting it. Somebody *tries to make you*. It
definitely sounds as if force is being applied, rather than intelligently
*allowing* Paul to sift through information.

You boys are so obvious in your intentions.

wilyretrovirus

2005-10-24, 12:55 am

"Who is it that has prevented you from spewing the mountains of bullcrap
that you have so
far vomited into this newsgroup?"

Looks like Paul's touching some nerves again.

Iconoclaster

2005-10-24, 12:55 am

>"Right. Like the ones that believe in "intelligent design" and, through
acts of purest sophistry, try to pass it off as science."

Are you trying to change the subject, Mr. Carter? It won't do any good,
I'm afraid. We're coming after you. And the subject is not "intelligent
design", but "The follies of the HIV/AIDS" theory.

wilyretrovirus

2005-10-24, 12:55 am

I think you mean to be missing the point, Chris. Paul's going to get this
tutoring in front of everybody here. It's an open classroom.

He wants to learn this at its most basic and rudimentary level. I'm sure
you're more than welcome to step in and say that whatever he's being told
is, in fact, wrong. I bet Paul would actually appreciate your input!

So, how is it going to be "preconceptual", if he's just learning the
basics of molecular biology? Nice try with this Johnathon Wells guy, but
you'll just have to wait and see.

Chris Noble

2005-10-24, 12:55 am

wilyretrovirus wrote:
> I think you mean to be missing the point, Chris. Paul's going to get this
> tutoring in front of everybody here. It's an open classroom.
>
> He wants to learn this at its most basic and rudimentary level. I'm sure
> you're more than welcome to step in and say that whatever he's being told
> is, in fact, wrong. I bet Paul would actually appreciate your input!
>
> So, how is it going to be "preconceptual", if he's just learning the
> basics of molecular biology? Nice try with this Johnathon Wells guy, but
> you'll just have to wait and see.

Are you saying that Paul doesn't already "know" the truth?

Are you saying that he will learn science with an open mind?

Paul self admittedly does not have a scientific understanding of the
subject. His opinions are not based on science. Now he is promising to
learn the science to prove us wrong.

Call me stupid if you want but I think Paul has already made up his
mind. I think he is as willing to learn as Johnathon Wells.

Do the words "preconceptual science" mean anything to you?

Chris Noble

pauleewhiting

2005-10-24, 12:55 am

"Chris Noble" wrote:
>Are you saying that Paul doesn't already "know" the truth?
>
>Are you saying that he will learn science with an open mind?
>
>Paul self admittedly does not have a scientific understanding of the
>subject. His opinions are not based on science. Now he is promising to
>learn the science to prove us wrong.
>
>Call me stupid if you want but I think Paul has already made up his
>mind. I think he is as willing to learn as Johnathon Wells.
>
>Do the words "preconceptual science" mean anything to you?

The proof is in the pudding, my dearest Mr. Noble, because I am taking
my lessons from two teachers, with opposing views.

So, if you disagree with what I am being taught, then you're gonna have
to speak up and provide me with another reference to read and consider.

And, if at all possible, boys, let's all of get our reading materials
online.

I want to be sure that *everyone* who's following along with the class
is on the same page...

Are you ready to teach me, Professor Noble?

And remember, class, we are starting with the abslolute basics so I want
*all of you to follow along very carefully* so you don't get lost.

Two teachers are better than one, I always say...

Paul Whiting

“There is overwhelming scientific consensus that HIV causes AIDS.”

— Dr. Jeffrey P. Koplan, Director, US Centers for Disease Control (CDC)

--
Sent via Health Newsgroups
http://www.healthnewsgroups.com

wilyretrovirus

2005-10-24, 12:55 am

"Are you saying that Paul doesn't already "know" the truth?"

"Are you saying that he will learn science with an open mind?"

Maybe you could ask Paul these questions?

"Call me stupid if you want but I think Paul has already made up his
mind.

Did you read what I wrote?

Paul's going to get this tutoring in front of everybody here. It's an
open classroom.
He wants to learn this at its most basic and rudimentary level. I'm sure
you're more than welcome to step in and say that whatever he's being told
is, in fact, wrong. I bet Paul would actually appreciate your input!

How is it "preconceptual science" to learn molecular biology? The only
thing "preconceptual" is your view of the outcome.

Chris Noble

2005-10-24, 12:55 am

wilyretrovirus wrote:

<snip>

> How is it "preconceptual science" to learn molecular biology? The only
> thing "preconceptual" is your view of the outcome.

Did you read Paul's words?

"And I am going to tell them, when the dissidents are through, they
will be
in prison for what they have done to us. Every single person who
knowingly
perpetuated this lie is going to be held criminally liable for it."

"We're going to take them to court and have them prosecuted."

Paul already "knows" the truth. His mind is made up.

Johnathon Wells already "knew" the truth. His mind was made up.

Preconceptual science!

Chris Noble

wilyretrovirus

2005-10-24, 12:55 am

"Paul already "knows" the truth. His mind is made up."

About the basics of molecular biology? Isn't that what he's asking to
learn?

You're here to help with this process, Mr. Noble. How can Paul go wrong?
You certainly seem like an incredibly capable teacher.

Shouldn't that be a winning situation for you? You're not going to be
playing the victim now, are you?

I hope that you would view this as a golden opportunity to help teach ALL
of us the basics of molecular biology, so we're ALL on the same page.
Sounds like a GREAT idea!

Chris Noble

2005-10-24, 12:55 am

wilyretrovirus wrote:
> "Paul already "knows" the truth. His mind is made up."
>
> About the basics of molecular biology? Isn't that what he's asking to
> learn?
>

Paul believes that molecular biology proves that HIV does not cause
AIDS.

This is afterall what he promises to do after he has learnt molecular
biology - prove with molecular biology that HIV does not cause AIDS.

He may not understand anything about molecular biology at the present
but he "knows" that if he were to learn anything it would prove that
HIV does not cause AIDS.

He has already made up his mind.

Preconceptual science!

Chris Noble

2005-10-24, 12:55 am

pauleewhiting wrote:
> "Chris Noble" wrote:
>
>
> Pot-kettle-black, Mr. Noble.

There is one samll difference between us.

I came to my opinion after looking at the evidence. I did not have an
opinion beforehand. I read the arguments that were put forward by the
dissidents. I went to the trouble of reading many of the references
that were cited as evidence by the dissidents. I also went to the
trouble of reading other references in the same field that were not
cited by the dissidents. I then concluded on the balance of the
evidence that the dissidents were not correct. If the dissidents come
up with more data or at least solid arguments I will change my mind.

You on the other hand have formed your opinion without looking at the
scientific evidence. Until recently you were proudly telling everyone
that it would be a mistake to go down the "rabbit hole" of scientific
evidence. Until recently the scientific evidence was irrelevant because
you already "knew" that HIV does not cause AIDS. Now you promise to
learn molecular biology. You already "know" in advance that molecular
biology will prove that HIV does not cause AIDS. If your opinion is not
going to be modified by "learning" molecular biology then there is very
little point in going through the motions.

Chris Noble

wilyretrovirus

2005-10-24, 12:55 am

"Paul believes that molecular biology proves that HIV does not cause
AIDS."

"This is afterall what he promises to do after he has learnt molecular
biology - prove with molecular biology that HIV does not cause AIDS."

"He may not understand anything about molecular biology at the present but
he "knows" that if he were to learn anything it would prove that HIV does
not cause AIDS."

"He has already made up his mind."

"Preconceptual science!"

Sounds like you've already made up your mind as well.

Are you going to help teach Paul the basics of molecular biology? Why
would it matter what he may do with what he learns? You make it sound
like he actually has the ability to do what you say he'll do.
Interesting.

I'm looking forward to this.

Chris Noble

2005-10-24, 12:55 am

wilyretrovirus wrote:
> "Paul believes that molecular biology proves that HIV does not cause
> AIDS."
>
> "This is afterall what he promises to do after he has learnt molecular
> biology - prove with molecular biology that HIV does not cause AIDS."
>
> "He may not understand anything about molecular biology at the present but
> he "knows" that if he were to learn anything it would prove that HIV does
> not cause AIDS."
>
> "He has already made up his mind."
>
> "Preconceptual science!"
>
>
> Sounds like you've already made up your mind as well.
>

I formed an opinion after looking at the scientific evidence. I am
willing to look at any new scientific evidence and revise my views.

> Are you going to help teach Paul the basics of molecular biology? Why
> would it matter what he may do with what he learns?

When someone has already made up their mind that molecular biology
proves that HIV does not cause AIDS I doubt that they are willing to
learn anything.

> You make it sound
> like he actually has the ability to do what you say he'll do.
> Interesting.

He may well have the ability. Already thinking you know the answers is
an impediment to learning. I doubt he has the desire. An unmoderated
newsgroup is not the place to learn molecular biology. If he really
wants to learn he could try getting a BSc from a university.

> I'm looking forward to this.

I look forward to Iconclaster's lectures on evolution and natural
selection.

Chris Noble

David Canzi -- non-mailable

2005-10-24, 12:55 am

In article <5cZ5f.501$VW.8975@news.uswest.net>,
pauleewhiting <pauleewhiting@hotmail.com> wrote:
>What are you afraid of?
>
>How could I possibly cause the rock solid foundations of AIDS science to
>even hiccup, let alone collapse.
>
>What are you afraid of?
>
>How could my learning the basics of molecular biology to be used against
>those who perpetuated this lie on the public possibly cause anyone who
>supported the theory any harm?

You are expecting Chris Noble to teach molecular biology to an
argumentative student -- a job that would involve a lot of time,
effort and frustration with little chance of success -- without being
paid for it.

Feel free to learn molecular biology honestly, by paying somebody to
teach you.

--
David Canzi "I am not denying anything." -- Celia Farber

GMCarter

2005-10-24, 12:55 am

On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 20:57:21 -0400, "wilyretrovirus"
<purfling@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:

snip
>Paul's going to get this tutoring in front of everybody here. It's an
>open classroom.

So you do recognize that nobody is "making" him do anything, your
sophist bullshit response notwithstanding.

And that he's free to believe any damn fool thing he likes. So no
censorship.

Duesberg still has his job, sad to say. Personally, I think he should
be fired for incompetence.

George M. Carter

GMCarter

2005-10-24, 12:55 am

On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 19:42:50 -0400, "Iconoclaster" <wgods@xs4all.nl>
wrote:

>acts of purest sophistry, try to pass it off as science."
>
>Are you trying to change the subject, Mr. Carter? It won't do any good,
>I'm afraid. We're coming after you. And the subject is not "intelligent
>design", but "The follies of the HIV/AIDS" theory.

LOL. You've made this threat before and then immediately placed both
feet in your mouth by spouting some demonstrably false nonsense or
making a statement that only underscores how incredibly uninformed you
are.

Feh.

Brian Mailman

2005-10-24, 12:55 am

pauleewhiting wrote:

> "Gary Stein" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> This is how you censor dissidents:
>
> "Who is it that has prevented you from *spewing the mountains of
> bullcrap* that you have so far *vomited* into this newsgroup?"
>
> It's called "belittling," Gary.

Oh you poor thing. Want a cookie?

B/

Brian Mailman

2005-10-24, 12:55 am

wilyretrovirus wrote:

> I think you mean to be missing the point, Chris. Paul's going to get this
> tutoring in front of everybody here. It's an open classroom.

Make your minds.... is this newsgroup censored or not?

B/

pauleewhiting

2005-10-24, 12:55 am

"Chris Noble" wrote:
>There is one samll difference between us.
>
>I came to my opinion after looking at the evidence. I did not have an
>opinion beforehand. I read the arguments that were put forward by the
>dissidents. I went to the trouble of reading many of the references
>that were cited as evidence by the dissidents. I also went to the
>trouble of reading other references in the same field that were not
>cited by the dissidents. I then concluded on the balance of the
>evidence that the dissidents were not correct. If the dissidents come
>up with more data or at least solid arguments I will change my mind.
>
>You on the other hand have formed your opinion without looking at the
>scientific evidence. Until recently you were proudly telling everyone
>that it would be a mistake to go down the "rabbit hole" of scientific
>evidence. Until recently the scientific evidence was irrelevant because
>you already "knew" that HIV does not cause AIDS. Now you promise to
>learn molecular biology. You already "know" in advance that molecular
>biology will prove that HIV does not cause AIDS. If your opinion is not
>going to be modified by "learning" molecular biology then there is very
>little point in going through the motions.

Chris, are you in any way paid to support the HIV theory of AIDS?

Do you receive any benefit from the continuation of this sham?

Otherwise, why did you debate the Perth Group on BMJ.com?

Was it for you love of science?

Or you love of a paycheck?

-Paul Whiting

"But of course Maggiore has no 'fear of AIDS'—she doesn't have HIV."

From DRUGS, DISEASE, DENIAL By Jeanne Bergman

--
Sent via Health Newsgroups
http://www.healthnewsgroups.com

pauleewhiting

2005-10-24, 12:55 am

"Chris Noble" wrote:
>I look forward to Iconclaster's lectures on evolution and natural
>selection.

Chris, I am glad to hear you welcome this opportunity.

Now, as part of my "preconceptual thinking," I am going to point out to
the audience how much effort is put forth by the apologists in
discouraging *anyone* from EVER questioning their big lucrative theory.

You would *think* that, since they stand so proudly on such a rock solid
theory, they would *welcome all questioning,* knowing that it would only
serve to strengthen their position.

Yet, questioning is strongly, STRONGLY discouraged by the apologists.

There is a very good reason for that.

Now, they will tell you that they *do* allow questioning, but only
certain kinds of questioning are allowed - within certain perameters.
In other words, they only want to allow questions about *how* HIV causes
AIDS, not *if* it causes AIDS.

And I would invite everyone reading this debate - who finds it much more
enteraining than watching TV, since it doesn't get much more
reality-like than this - to make note of how the apologists salivate
like Pavlovian dogs when anyone so much as hints at a doubt about their
big, lucrative theory.

This is a "knee-jerk reaction" on their part, and there is a very, very
good reason for that.

Science welcomes *all* questioning. Not just the "acceptable" kinds of
questioning.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: scientists are rebels.

They are *not* conformists.

-Paul Whiting

"But of course Maggiore has no 'fear of AIDS'—she doesn't have HIV."

From DRUGS, DISEASE, DENIAL By Jeanne Bergman

--
Sent via Health Newsgroups
http://www.healthnewsgroups.com

pauleewhiting

2005-10-24, 12:55 am

"Gary Stein" wrote:
>"pauleewhiting" <pauleewhiting@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>How has that prevented you from posting everything you have ever felt
like
>posting to MHA?

It hasn't but, then, I am a rebel.

Most people, however, find it *very* intimidating to be called names and
belittled when they dare to question something.

That's why those, who have something to hide, use belittlement when
anyone gets too near the skeleton(s) in their closet.

And that's why Republicans do things like out CIA agents when anyone
starts to question their motivation for going to war in Iraq.

If you have nothing to hide, your life is an open book.

Wouldn't you agree with that, boys?

-Paul Whiting

"But of course Maggiore has no 'fear of AIDS'—she doesn't have HIV."

From DRUGS, DISEASE, DENIAL By Jeanne Bergman

--
Sent via Health Newsgroups
http://www.healthnewsgroups.com

pauleewhiting

2005-10-24, 12:55 am

"David Canzi -- non-mailable" wrote:
>You are expecting Chris Noble to teach molecular biology to an
>argumentative student -- a job that would involve a lot of time,
>effort and frustration with little chance of success -- without being
>paid for it.

I expect it because Chris' job depends upon it.

-Paul Whiting

"But of course Maggiore has no 'fear of AIDS'—she doesn't have HIV."

From DRUGS, DISEASE, DENIAL By Jeanne Bergman

--
Sent via Health Newsgroups
http://www.healthnewsgroups.com

pauleewhiting

2005-10-24, 12:55 am

"GMCarter" wrote:
>Duesberg still has his job, sad to say. Personally, I think he should
>be fired for incompetence.

And how's that non-profit corporation of yours these days, George?

Are your "humanitarian" efforts paying off nicely?

-Paul Whiting

"But of course Maggiore has no 'fear of AIDS'—she doesn't have HIV."

From DRUGS, DISEASE, DENIAL By Jeanne Bergman

--
Sent via Health Newsgroups
http://www.healthnewsgroups.com

pauleewhiting

2005-10-24, 12:55 am

"Brian Mailman" wrote:
>Oh you poor thing. Want a cookie?

No, but I will take a nice, fat settlement check.

-Paul Whiting

"But of course Maggiore has no 'fear of AIDS'—she doesn't have HIV."

From DRUGS, DISEASE, DENIAL By Jeanne Bergman

--
Sent via Health Newsgroups
http://www.healthnewsgroups.com

Iconoclaster

2005-10-24, 12:55 am

Hey yes, Mr. Noble! Let's join forces to teach Paul molecular biology.
That way we'll all benefit.

Iconoclaster

2005-10-24, 12:55 am

Hell no, Mr. Noble. Every hayseed with a little good ol' horse sense can
see why HIV could not possibly cause AIDS. The theory is THAT far-fetched.
But someone who has learned some molecular biology, can see exactly where
science went wrong.

Iconoclaster

2005-10-24, 12:55 am

>" I went to the trouble of reading many of the references that were cited
as evidence by the dissidents."

Now don't make it sound like balanced judgment, Mr. Noble. "The
references cited by the dissidents" were the very same the orthodoxy cited
as evidence for the HIV/AIDS theory. There ARE no dissident studies. No
funding at all. So what the dissidents do is study the mainstream papers.
And when they do, they find all sorts of discrepancies. The they write
up their criticism in one of the scarce media that are available to them.
The mainstream scientists then ask: "Where are your data?" To which the
only answer can be: "We have no data. We used yours."

Iconoclaster

2005-10-24, 12:55 am

>"I look forward to Iconclaster's lectures on evolution and natural
selection."

Darwin warmed over?
...or millions of years of natural selection in just 21 years?

GMCarter

2005-10-24, 12:55 am

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 23:16:51 GMT, pauleewhiting
<pauleewhiting@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"GMCarter" wrote:
>
>
>And how's that non-profit corporation of yours these days, George?

Quiescent. What do you do for a living?

>Are your "humanitarian" efforts paying off nicely?

I'm not in this battle for the money. I can barely pay the rent. So,
no.

But you will no doubt wallow in a bit of libel instead of addressing
the issues, huh, Paulee....

pauleewhiting

2005-10-24, 12:55 am

"GMCarter" wrote:
>I'm not in this battle for the money. I can barely pay the rent. So,
>no.

I am an Administrative Assitant.

>But you will no doubt wallow in a bit of libel instead of addressing
>the issues, huh, Paulee....

Au contraire, mon frere!

The "issues" are this piece of shit theory being used as an excuse to
justify the biased treatment of certain groups of people, who are seen
as being "more at risk" for "AIDS" and, thus, are given "HIV-positive"
diagnosis due to good old fashioned bigotry.

The "issues" are holding all those who have intentionally perpetuated
this medical scam on the people of the world fully accountable in a
court of law and to see them pay for their crimes.

The "issues" are to make these criminals' careers and their reputations
and their very ability to walk around freely grist for the mill.

So, George, I can assure you I am here to address the "issues."

-Paul Whiting

"But of course Maggiore has no 'fear of AIDS'—she doesn't have HIV."

From DRUGS, DISEASE, DENIAL By Jeanne Bergman

--
Sent via Health Newsgroups
http://www.healthnewsgroups.com

pauleewhiting

2005-10-24, 12:55 am

pauleewhiting

2005-10-24, 12:55 am

Whoops! Quoted the wrong portion of text on my previous reply...

"GMCarter" wrote:
>Quiescent. What do you do for a living?

I am an Administrative Assistant.

-Paul Whiting

"But of course Maggiore has no 'fear of AIDS'—she doesn't have HIV."

From DRUGS, DISEASE, DENIAL By Jeanne Bergman

--
Sent via Health Newsgroups
http://www.healthnewsgroups.com

Chris Noble

2005-10-24, 12:55 am

pauleewhiting wrote:

> Chris, are you in any way paid to support the HIV theory of AIDS?

No.

> Do you receive any benefit from the continuation of this sham?

Have you stopped robbing banks yet?

The non-rhetorical answer to your rehtorical question is no.

> Otherwise, why did you debate the Perth Group on BMJ.com?
>
> Was it for you love of science?

That covers most of it. David Rasnick, the Perth Group, Al Bayati and
others were abusing the freedom of speech at the BMJ. All of them could
have put their ideas up on their own websites but they wanted to use
the prestige of the BMJ. Al Bayati claims that he has published papers
at the BMJ. Some of his lay readers believed that.

> Or you love of a paycheck?

This is not the first time that people have accused me of being paid
for responding to people of webboards and newsgroups. It probably won't
be the last. These sort of ad hominem attacks are very common.

Chris Noble

Fondoo

2005-10-24, 12:55 am

That covers most of it. David Rasnick, the Perth Group, Al Bayati and
others were abusing the freedom of speech at the BMJ. All of them could
have put their ideas up on their own websites but they wanted to use
the prestige of the BMJ. Al Bayati claims that he has published papers
at the BMJ. Some of his lay readers believed that.

> Or you love of a paycheck?

This is not the first time that people have accused me of being paid
for responding to people of webboards and newsgroups. It probably won't
be the last. These sort of ad hominem attacks are very common.

Chris Noble

If this is true Chris then I for one am honored to have you around.

pauleewhiting

2005-10-24, 12:55 am

"Chris Noble" wrote:
>pauleewhiting wrote:
>
>
>No.
>
>
>Have you stopped robbing banks yet?
>
>The non-rhetorical answer to your rehtorical question is no.

That's good news, Chris, because then you'll have nothing to lose when
the ship goes down.

>
>That covers most of it. David Rasnick, the Perth Group, Al Bayati and
>others were abusing the freedom of speech at the BMJ. All of them could
>have put their ideas up on their own websites but they wanted to use
>the prestige of the BMJ. Al Bayati claims that he has published papers
>at the BMJ. Some of his lay readers believed that.

I see.

So, then, Dr. David Rasnick, PhD, Biochemist, Protease Inhibitor
Developer, university of California along with Eleni
Papadopulos-Eleopulos, Biophysicist, Department of Medical Physics, Dr.
Valendar Turner, MD, Dr. John M. Papadimitriou, MD, PhD, Professor of
Pathology, Bruce Hedland-Thomas, M.Sc., Biophysicist, David Causer, PhD,
Department of Medical Physics, Barry Page, M.Sc., Department of Medical
Physics all from the Royal Perth Hospital, university of Western
Australia, as well as Todd Miller, PhD, Assistant Professor, Department
of Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology, university of Miami School of
Medicine, Florida, Dr. Helman Alfonso, MD, Director of Research,
Universidad Metropolitana Barranquilla, Colombia and Dr. Mohammad Ali
Al-Bayati, PhD, Toxicologist and Pathologist, California were all
"abusing their freedom of speech at the BMJ."

Chris, exactly how do individuals with credentials like these "abuse
their freedom of speach" by disagreeing with a severly flawed scientific
theory on a medical journal website?

Come to think of it, how does *any* individual "abuse their freedom of
speach" by exercising it freely?

I posted on that debate, Chris.

Was *I* somehow "abusing my freedom of speach," by posting on the
British Medical Journal site, since I don't have any credentials?

Here's another question for you, Chris: what credentials do you have for
upholding this pathetic theory?

And here's the final rhetorical question, Chris: in your lofty position
as Judge and Jury to All of Mankind, whom do you feel is qualified to
decide which individuals should be allowed "freedom of speach" and who
should have their "license to speak freely" taken away?

I would just *love* to hear how you'd decide that for all of us, Oh,
Great One.

Perhaps we could all take a test designed by Your Most Holiness.

Gosh, Chris, I hope I will make the "freedom of speach" grade...

-Paul Whiting

"But of course Maggiore has no 'fear of AIDS'—she doesn't have HIV."

From DRUGS, DISEASE, DENIAL By Jeanne Bergman

--
Sent via Health Newsgroups
http://www.healthnewsgroups.com

Chris Noble

2005-10-24, 12:55 am

pauleewhiting wrote:
> "Chris Noble" wrote:
>
>
> That's good news, Chris, because then you'll have nothing to lose when
> the ship goes down.
>
>
>
>
> I see.
>
> So, then, Dr. David Rasnick, PhD, Biochemist, Protease Inhibitor
> Developer, university of California along with Eleni
> Papadopulos-Eleopulos, Biophysicist, Department of Medical Physics, Dr.
> Valendar Turner, MD, Dr. John M. Papadimitriou, MD, PhD, Professor of
> Pathology, Bruce Hedland-Thomas, M.Sc., Biophysicist, David Causer, PhD,
> Department of Medical Physics, Barry Page, M.Sc., Department of Medical
> Physics all from the Royal Perth Hospital, university of Western
> Australia, as well as Todd Miller, PhD, Assistant Professor, Department
> of Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology, university of Miami School of
> Medicine, Florida, Dr. Helman Alfonso, MD, Director of Research,
> Universidad Metropolitana Barranquilla, Colombia and Dr. Mohammad Ali
> Al-Bayati, PhD, Toxicologist and Pathologist, California were all
> "abusing their freedom of speech at the BMJ."
>
> Chris, exactly how do individuals with credentials like these "abuse
> their freedom of speach" by disagreeing with a severly flawed scientific
> theory on a medical journal website?
>
> Come to think of it, how does *any* individual "abuse their freedom of
> speach" by exercising it freely?

If someone in a crowded cinema yells "fire" and 10 people killed in the
subsequent panic then that is indeed an abuse of freedom of speech.
What we say has consequences. You want me to be responsible for what I
say. That goes for dissidents too.

Please read Udo Schuklenk's article regarding the ethical
responsibilities of scientists.

http://www.wits.ac.za/bioethics/prbspd.pdf

> I posted on that debate, Chris.
>
> Was *I* somehow "abusing my freedom of speach," by posting on the
> British Medical Journal site, since I don't have any credentials?

You were quite clearly posting your opinions this is what the BMJ rapid
responses were for.

The Perth Group posted a complete version of one of their papers. This
is a paper that had not passed peer-review and had not been published.
By posting it on the BMJ rapid responses they bypassed peer-review.
Scientists and doctors reading the BMJ rapid responses of course know
the difference between a peer-reviewed article and an electronic
letter-to-the-editor/comment page. Lay readers do not necessarily
understand the difference. They see a link to an article on the BMJ
website and are impressed. They think there must be something to it.
The Perth Group target lay-audiences.

> Here's another question for you, Chris: what credentials do you have for
> upholding this pathetic theory?

I am just as qualified as the Perth Group to have an opinion on HIV.

> And here's the final rhetorical question, Chris: in your lofty position
> as Judge and Jury to All of Mankind, whom do you feel is qualified to
> decide which individuals should be allowed "freedom of speach" and who
> should have their "license to speak freely" taken away?

The point was that the Perth Group had and still has a website. They
are free to "publish" anything they want there. They are also free to
submit their papers to journals for publication. Some journals like
Medical Hypotheses will accept papers that are speculative without any
solid data.

However, it is unethical to "publish" articles that have failed
peer-review on a rapid response webpage and imply to their supporters
that it is a published article. Instead of putting the article on their
own website they had a link to the BMJ website.

Chris Noble

Fondoo

2005-10-24, 12:55 am

The Perth Group posted a complete version of one of their papers. This
is a paper that had not passed peer-review and had not been published.
By posting it on the BMJ rapid responses they bypassed peer-review.
Scientists and doctors reading the BMJ rapid responses of course know
the difference between a peer-reviewed article and an electronic
letter-to-the-editor/comment page. Lay readers do not necessarily
understand the difference. They see a link to an article on the BMJ
website and are impressed. They think there must be something to it.
The Perth Group target lay-audiences.

Ok if targeting lay audiences is unethical before proper peer review
why was it ok for Gallo to announce to the public the HIV/AIDS theory and
HIV test before proper peer review? If his evidence was so overwhelming
to not need peer review why was he convicted for medical fraud? Also both
the therapy and the test that came from that highly profitable (for Gallo
and friends) press release are both looked back on with regret. High dose
AZT and a cross reacting test that has supposed to have become allot
better now.
Am I wrong in my view that Gallo's theory and the HIV test was not
properly peer reviewed before we the layman were targeted with a
government backed press release? Not to mention the resulting political
bullsh*t of making HIV look like the new plague to white heterosexuals
resulting in billions to Pharma and no cure.
I am inclined to think it is just as reasonable to assume the Perth
group posted there paper in the debate to get input from there peers to
further prove or disprove there argument

P.S. Sorry about the rant / *kinda*

pauleewhiting

2005-10-24, 12:55 am

"Chris Noble" wrote:
>pauleewhiting wrote:
when[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
could[vbcol=seagreen]
papers[vbcol=seagreen]
Dr.[vbcol=seagreen]
PhD,[vbcol=seagreen]
Medical[vbcol=seagreen]
Department[vbcol=seagreen]
scientific[vbcol=seagreen]
of[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>If someone in a crowded cinema yells "fire" and 10 people killed in the
>subsequent panic then that is indeed an abuse of freedom of speech.
>What we say has consequences. You want me to be responsible for what I
>say. That goes for dissidents too.
>
>Please read Udo Schuklenk's article regarding the ethical
>responsibilities of scientists.
>
>http://www.wits.ac.za/bioethics/prbspd.pdf
>
>
>You were quite clearly posting your opinions this is what the BMJ rapid
>responses were for.
>
>The Perth Group posted a complete version of one of their papers. This
>is a paper that had not passed peer-review and had not been published.
>By posting it on the BMJ rapid responses they bypassed peer-review.
>Scientists and doctors reading the BMJ rapid responses of course know
>the difference between a peer-reviewed article and an electronic
>letter-to-the-editor/comment page. Lay readers do not necessarily
>understand the difference. They see a link to an article on the BMJ
>website and are impressed. They think there must be something to it.
>The Perth Group target lay-audiences.
>
>
for[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>I am just as qualified as the Perth Group to have an opinion on HIV.
>
position[vbcol=seagreen]
who[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>The point was that the Perth Group had and still has a website. They
>are free to "publish" anything they want there. They are also free to
>submit their papers to journals for publication. Some journals like
>Medical Hypotheses will accept papers that are speculative without any
>solid data.
>
>However, it is unethical to "publish" articles that have failed
>peer-review on a rapid response webpage and imply to their supporters
>that it is a published article. Instead of putting the article on their
>own website they had a link to the BMJ website.
>
>Chris Noble

Then, Chris, how do you feel about Bob Gallo's press announcement on
April 23rd, 1984?

You remember, Chris, that's when Gallo claimed to have discovered "HIV,"
when, in fact, he'd stolen another scientists work?

Was that "unethical" of Gallo, Chris?

-Paul Whiting

"But of course Maggiore has no 'fear of AIDS'—she doesn't have HIV."

From DRUGS, DISEASE, DENIAL By Jeanne Bergman

--
Sent via Health Newsgroups
http://www.healthnewsgroups.com

pauleewhiting

2005-10-24, 12:55 am

"Fondoo" wrote:
> Ok if targeting lay audiences is unethical before proper peer review
>why was it ok for Gallo to announce to the public the HIV/AIDS theory
and
>HIV test before proper peer review? If his evidence was so
overwhelming
>to not need peer review why was he convicted for medical fraud? Also
both
>the therapy and the test that came from that highly profitable (for
Gallo
>and friends) press release are both looked back on with regret. High
dose
>AZT and a cross reacting test that has supposed to have become allot
>better now.
> Am I wrong in my view that Gallo's theory and the HIV test was not
>properly peer reviewed before we the layman were targeted with a
>government backed press release? Not to mention the resulting political
>bullsh*t of making HIV look like the new plague to white heterosexuals
>resulting in billions to Pharma and no cure.
> I am inclined to think it is just as reasonable to assume the Perth
>group posted there paper in the debate to get input from there peers to
>further prove or disprove there argument
>
> P.S. Sorry about the rant / *kinda*

Damnit, Fondoo!

You beat me to the punch by, literally, a few seconds!

As I was posting my reply, I got a notification on Health Newsgroups
that you'd replied "a few seconds ago."

Oh well, great minds think alike... :-)

-Paul Whiting

"But of course Maggiore has no 'fear of AIDS'—she doesn't have HIV."

From DRUGS, DISEASE, DENIAL By Jeanne Bergman

--
Sent via Health Newsgroups
http://www.healthnewsgroups.com

GMCarter

2005-10-24, 12:55 am

On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 03:20:42 GMT, pauleewhiting
<pauleewhiting@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"GMCarter" wrote:
>
>
>I am an Administrative Assitant.

For a major right wing think tank that seeks to get more gay men
infected by feeding them a line that you're HIV+ but you don't believe
in the HIV theory! Ah ha! We see right through your kind.

>So, George, I can assure you I am here to address the "issues."

Yeah--while ignoring all the responses to the issues you raise and
trotting off to raise another one as if it is brand new.

George M. Carter

pauleewhiting

2005-10-24, 12:56 am

"GMCarter" wrote:
>For a major right wing think tank that seeks to get more gay men
>infected by feeding them a line that you're HIV+ but you don't believe
>in the HIV theory! Ah ha! We see right through your kind.

The right-wing think tank can't hold a candle to the infrastructre of
this country: the military, who saw through this HIV bullshit aeons ago
when they found, through the antibody testing, that "HIV" didn't exist.

And the right-wing think tank thought they could do whatever the *XXXX*
they wanted by taking us into a unjustified war, unecessarily costing
thousands of soldiers lives while *not* providing them with enough
funding to buy the equipment needed to protect The Lives of the
Soldiers.

What these bastards didn't count on was those of us who love our country
and all people of the world *so much,* and the soldiers who protect us,
that we would not sit down and take this bullshit.

Then, when the right-wing think tank thought they could expose a CIA
agent when questions started being raised about the WMDs. And
true-to-form, Rove salivated like a XXXXing dog and exposed Valerie
Plame. Now the one thing you don't wanna do is piss off the CIA. It
isn't wise to bite that hand that protects you.

So, yes, George, I *volunteer* for my country and stand up for what's
*right,* not for what's *profitable.* The right-wing think tank got too
XXXXing greedy - not to mention sloppy - and now those of us who
actually *still believe* in the freedom provided by the Constitution of
the United States of America - and upheld by the sacrifices of the men
and women in the armed services - are here to take back our country.

And we know *how* to conduct a revolution legally and responsibly by
*becoming the system* and taking it over.

We are here to *become* doctors and scientists and lawyers and
politicians who actually *CARE* about their fellow men - *all* of their
fellow men. We *care* about *all* the people of the world. We know we
*all have to get along* in order to move forward as a planet.

We still need to have a strong military, because you never know when
some crazy motherXXXXers are going to rise to power convincing all
others to follow them, so we need to be prepared for that!

Otherwise, the military will be used for humanitarian efforts to build
strong *trusting* relationships with all people of the world. And we
work together, in cooperation with the armed services from all other
countries. We will be separate, but equal.

And will we have friendly competitions to show off our worriers! It
will be a Whole New Olympics!

And we will know how to get along with our neighbors! Even those
neighbors whose ideologies we don't necessarily agree with, because we
understand that we *need* each other. All of us! We have to get along
out of mutual respect and not treat each other like XXXXing commodities.

This is especially true of America.

We need to *get along* with the rest of the world.

We are *not* endearing them to us. Quite the opposite, actually.

So, the times have *already* changed, folks!

We are embarking on a new era, one in which education will be free,
because those who have already walked the path will share their
knowledge with those who are just starting out on the path. And the
torch will be passed to those who show the promise of independent,
critical thinking, not with those who only know how to conform.

And those who walked the path successfully will have their own sources
of income, since they know how to innovate and, thus, created their own
wealth, not relying on the students to pay them for their knowledge -
which is a system that keeps those in power having to continually be
"right" in order to attract followers. And bringing the argument
full-circle, that is what creates bullshit theories like HIV and keeps
those in power from *never* being able to admit they are wrong...

So, if you want to thrive in the New World, you need to get off your
XXXXing couch, shut off the goddamn television and turn on your
computer! Then, start reading every piece of information you can get
your hands on regarding *every topic* that interests you. We can't rely
on those who hold the purse strings of the world to do anything other
than teach us what keeps *them* in power.

We need to look to our elders - specifically our rebellious forebears -
to teach us the old ways!

We need to learn *classic science,* the kind that *welcomes
questioning,* the kind that is *self-critical,* the kind that sees
through bullshit theories like HIV and doesn't even allow them to get
off the ground.

And that is the process which we will be starting on Monday, October
24th!

Don't be late for class!

You are *all* going to go through this process *with me* and you are
going to have *no fear* and ask questions if you don't understand
something. And if you don't feel comfortable asking for clarification
on the talkabout/newsgroups, because the conformists with
more-than-likely belittle you, come over to
http://groups.msn.com/RethinkingAIDS and we will be happy to patiently
answer your questions there!

We're learning molecular XXXXing biology, kids! How much fun is that!

-Paul Whiting

"But of course Maggiore has no 'fear of AIDS'—she doesn't have HIV."

From DRUGS, DISEASE, DENIAL By Jeanne Bergman

--
Sent via Health Newsgroups
http://www.healthnewsgroups.com

GMCarter

2005-10-24, 12:56 am

On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 17:32:34 GMT, pauleewhiting
<pauleewhiting@hotmail.com> wrote:

snip
>So, yes, George, I *volunteer* for my country and stand up for what's
>*right,* not for what's *profitable.*

The implication that I don't is what is annoying. And libelous.

So don't you do it and I won't either.

Chris Noble

2005-10-24, 12:56 am

Fondoo wrote:

> Ok if targeting lay audiences is unethical before proper peer review
> why was it ok for Gallo to announce to the public the HIV/AIDS theory and
> HIV test before proper peer review?

Gallo's paper had undergone proper peer-review. It had been reviewed by
reviewers and accepted for publication before the press conference. As
soon as this paper became common knowledge there was always going to be
a pack of reporters descending on the NIH. This is what happened. It
was not Gallo who called the press conference. He was summoned from
overseas to be present.

Forgive me but I don't see anything sinister or deceptive here. The
press were aware of the paper. The press were asking questions. The
press were already talking abut the paper although they did not have
all the details. The press conference informed the press about the
findings of the paper that had already passed peer-review. The press
conference informed the press that Gallo and his coworkers had isolated
a virus from people with AIDS and that they believed that this virus
was the probable cause of AIDS.

I don't understand what else they could have done. Let the press write
stories about the paper based on even less information?

> If his evidence was so overwhelming
> to not need peer review why was he convicted for medical fraud?

The question of medical fraud did not concern whether he had isolated a
virus of whether this virus was the probable cause of AIDS. It
concerned the origin of the particular isolate. In the kindest
treatment of Gallo he was just careless. In the harshest he knowingly
stole the isolate. I think the truth is somewhere inbetween. Either way
this does not diminish the findings of the paper.

> Also both
> the therapy and the test that came from that highly profitable (for Gallo
> and friends) press release are both looked back on with regret. High dose
> AZT and a cross reacting test that has supposed to have become allot
> better now.

There is no way you can connect AZT with Gallo's initial findings.
Secondly all antibody tests cross react to some degree. What is
important is the specificity of the test ie how well does the test
distinguish between HIV antibodies and cross reacting antibodies.

> Am I wrong in my view that Gallo's theory and the HIV test was not
> properly peer reviewed before we the layman were targeted with a
> government backed press release?

In my view yes - the argument is wrong. In an ideal world all
scientific information would be thoroughly tested before being released
through the popular press much in the same way that only well
established science is taught in high schools (except for ID). In the
real world as soon as a ground breaking study is published (or in the
case of Gallo's paper 2 weeks before it made it into print) the press
will be on the phone wanting information to write their popular press
articles. In this case an institution will often make a press release
or hold a press conference.

> Not to mention the resulting political
> bullsh*t of making HIV look like the new plague to white heterosexuals
> resulting in billions to Pharma and no cure.

Based on the information at the time there was a real risk of HIV
spreading to the general population. Based on the information we have
now there is a real risk of the H5N1 bird flu leading to a human
pandemic. If this doesn't happen there will be a lot of vocal bloggers
with 20/20 hindsight syaing I told you so. If on the other hand no
preparation is made for this possibility and there is a human pandemic
then there will be a another group of bloggers saying I told you so.

I think the problem is that lay-people want cerntainty. They don't want
to hear about probabilities and confidence intervals they want a black
and white answer. In contrast, in science there is no absolute
cerntainty. There are no tests that are 100% specific. There are no
epidemiological models that are 100% correct. Theories can be improved.
Tests can be made better but nothing is ever 100% certain. One of the
problems with popular press articles is that the complexities of
science are distilled into small soundbites.

> I am inclined to think it is just as reasonable to assume the Perth
> group posted there paper in the debate to get input from there peers to
> further prove or disprove there argument

The best way for the Perth Group to acheive that is to submit it to a
journal for publication. In the past they have gotten feed back from
reviewers and the reviewers have said that the Perth Group arguments
are not supported by the references that they cite in their papers.
However, the Perth Group show no interest in the input of the
reviewers. They continue to put forward the same arguments again and
again.

> P.S. Sorry about the rant / *kinda*

It was no more a rant than most of my posts.

Chris Noble

pauleewhiting

2005-10-24, 12:56 am

"Chris Noble" wrote:
>The question of medical fraud did not concern whether he had isolated a
>virus of whether this virus was the probable cause of AIDS. It
>concerned the origin of the particular isolate. In the kindest
>treatment of Gallo he was just careless. In the harshest he knowingly
>stole the isolate. I think the truth is somewhere inbetween. Either way
>this does not diminish the findings of the paper.

The findings of the paper were diminished the second Gallo rushed to get
credit for a theory he was not able to support by his own merits. He
stole another scientist's work, ran to the press and said "I found it. I
found it! It was me! Me, me, me!"

He acted like a spoiled little brat and his "discovery" was supported by
the government. That is why Margaret Heckler of the HHS introduced
Gallo at the April 23rd, 1984 press conference. Period.

And that is why the French government later sued the American government
for the rights to the highly lucrative HIV test patents.

And that is why there was a settlement with "co-discovery" for "HIV"
assigned *between* Gallo and Montagnier, even though the only thing
Gallo did was to steal Montagnier's work.

And that is why, later, Gallo had his title of "co-discoverer" stripped
away, since it was found he actually *had* stolen Montagnier's work.
Gallo is a scientific criminal, as is fully documented in the book
"Science Fictions" by John Crewdson.

A first year law student could prove that in court of law.

The HIV theory of AIDS is FRAUD. Period.

>The best way for the Perth Group to acheive that is to submit it to a
>journal for publication. In the past they have gotten feed back from
>reviewers and the reviewers have said that the Perth Group arguments
>are not supported by the references that they cite in their papers.
>However, the Perth Group show no interest in the input of the
>reviewers. They continue to put forward the same arguments again and
>again.

And the *reason* that Duesberg and the Perth Group *can't* get published
is because they are *not* being allowed to be published. Period.

This is the World's Finest Example of The Old Boys Club.

AIDS science is a sham and I am going to bring this paradigm down like a
house of cards.

I am more than intelligent enough to learn *all* of molecular biology.

And I am *so XXXXing pissed off* about being lied to over this bullshit
theory that I am *never stopping* until every person who supported this
lie is held criminally liable for it. Period.

Once I *truly* understand the science, I can deconstruct this sloppy
theory in front of junior high school students.

And they *will* be able to understand me, because I can explain it
*simply* with the full backing of current scientific understanding
(once, of course, I understand it!).

I am here to *bring down this XXXXing paradigm* and I ain't leavin'
until the job is done.

By the way, I am taking the day off tomorrow before "school" starts on
Monday, so don't expect to see *any* posts from me until I pose my first
question to Icononclaster under the heading:

"Molecular Biology 101"

See you in class!

-Paul Whiting

"The heroes of all time have gone before us. The labyrinth is thoroughly
known. We have only to follow the thread of the hero path, and where we
had thought to find an abomination, we shall find a god. And where we
had thought to slay another, we shall slay ourselves. Where we had
thought to travel outward, we will come to the center of our own
existence. And where we had thought to be alone, we will be with all the
world."

- Joseph Campbell,
The Hero with a Thousand Faces

--
Sent via Health Newsgroups
http://www.healthnewsgroups.com

Chris Noble

2005-10-24, 12:56 am

pauleewhiting wrote:
> "Chris Noble" wrote:
>
>
> The findings of the paper were diminished the second Gallo rushed to get
> credit for a theory he was not able to support by his own merits. He
> stole another scientist's work, ran to the press and said "I found it. I
> found it! It was me! Me, me, me!"
>
> He acted like a spoiled little brat and his "discovery" was supported by
> the government. That is why Margaret Heckler of the HHS introduced
> Gallo at the April 23rd, 1984 press conference. Period.
>
> And that is why the French government later sued the American government
> for the rights to the highly lucrative HIV test patents.
>
> And that is why there was a settlement with "co-discovery" for "HIV"
> assigned *between* Gallo and Montagnier, even though the only thing
> Gallo did was to steal Montagnier's work.
>
> And that is why, later, Gallo had his title of "co-discoverer" stripped
> away, since it was found he actually *had* stolen Montagnier's work.
> Gallo is a scientific criminal, as is fully documented in the book
> "Science Fictions" by John Crewdson.
>
> A first year law student could prove that in court of law.
>
> The HIV theory of AIDS is FRAUD. Period.

I agree with you that Gallo initially claimed more credit than he
deserved. At the very least he neglected to mention that the initial
virus came from Montagnier's lab.

The reason that we know this is that both isolates have been fully
sequenced. It was established beyond doubt that Gallo's isolate was for
all intensive purposes identical to Montagnier's isolate.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...6&dopt=Abstract

But excuse me if I find it slightly inconsistent of you to claim at the
same time that Gallo stole Montagnier's virus and that this virus does
not exist. The proof that Gallo "stole" Montagnier's virus is also
proof that it exists. You can't steal something that doesn't exist.

Please read these essays from Montagnier and Gallo for some balance.
http://www.aidscience.org/science/298(5599)1727.html
http://www.aidscience.org/science/298(5599)1728.html

>
>
>
> And the *reason* that Duesberg and the Perth Group *can't* get published
> is because they are *not* being allowed to be published. Period.

The dissidents were given a whole edition of Genetica to put forward
their views. The editon-in-chief wrote a nice forward to the edition
saying that the dissidents had been claiming that they were being
censored and that this issue devoted solely to dissidents was aimed to
address this claim.

Duesberg got 3 articles in this issue.

The Perth Group got 2.

Root-Bernstein got 2 articles.

This sort of thing is almost unheard of.

A group of people presenting a minority viewpoint are given centre
stage. They are given a complete edition of a journal.

Genetica. 1995;95

But they still complain they are being censored!

Chris Noble

Fondoo

2005-10-24, 12:56 am

"But excuse me if I find it slightly inconsistent of you to claim at the
same time that Gallo stole Montagnier's virus and that this virus does
not exist. The proof that Gallo "stole" Montagnier's virus is also
proof that it exists. You can't steal something that doesn't exist."

How the work was taken may be an example of the charactor of Gallo. What
the work may prove is another issue.

The dissidents were given a whole edition of Genetica to put forward
their views. The editon-in-chief wrote a nice forward to the edition
saying that the dissidents had been claiming that they were being
censored and that this issue devoted solely to dissidents was aimed to
address this claim.

I am glad this was done but probably was too late for immediate change no
matter how well the arguments were made. The funds were allocated the
machine was running full speed on the current theory. Maybe one day we
will find another way of looking at AIDS that will produce better
results.

Chris Noble

2005-10-24, 12:56 am

Fondoo wrote:
> Thank you for the thorough response Chris. That was good info on Gallo's
> fraud. I thought I had read that "some" of his study results were found to
> be falsified as well? I know the court ruled that his crime/crimes? did
> not change the overall outcome.

I have read some of the report and yes some of the details that Gallo
gave in the papers were not supported by lab books and other records.
Some of this was just sloppiness some seemed more concious. If all we
had was the first Gallo papers in 1984 then dissidents would have a
better argument. Other groups replicated the work soon after.

>
> soon as this paper became common knowledge there was always going to be
> overseas to be present"
>
> I thought proper peer review of a theory would be after publication so
> the whole scientific community would have a chance to confirm or disprove
> the results of this one lab?

Peer-review is primarily the process by which papers are reviewed by
fellow scientists before being accepted for publication. There is an
unwritten rule that research findings should undergo peer-review before
they are released to the public. Once the paper has been published then
the popular press will write about it whether there is a press
conference or not as long as it is news worthy. It is not within the
powers of the scientists to stop the press reporting on it. If
reporters ring him/her up the best that the scientist can do is state
the findings in a the most accurate manner possible while emphasising
what parts are tentative or which parts need confirmation.

> and white answer.
>
> I for one do not want misleading press reports, I believe the spin and
> corruption in the media is because of our governments desire to control
> popular opinion and the resulting taxpayer funding again just my .02
> The dissident view as I understand it is that our government was to
> quick to pull funding from the labs that wanted to test alternate theory's
> to the AIDS question

Research funding is very competitive. Only a small fraction of research
is funded. the decisions are made on the basis of the research
proposals and the quality of the arguments put forth. The process is
not perfect and some poor quality research is funded and some good
quality research is not funded. In my personal opinion none of the
dissidents have put forward hypotheses that are self-consistent and
have explanatory power. I believe this is the reason why none of the
research proposals have been funded.

I should also mention that another criteria in judging research
proposals is the applicant's track record in the research area. The
Perth Group have no track record in retrovirology. I see no evidence
that they even knew what a retrovirus was before 1984. I don't even
know whether the Perth Group have made any applications for funding.

Duesberg has an excellent track record in retrovirology but he focusses
on epidemiology and drug toxicology. He has no track record in these
areas. This would have been a crucial factor in the decision process.
It is hard to know because although Duesberg has hinted that he has
made several grant applications and that they have all been knocked
back he does not provide any details of the proposals.

> We seem to have a difference of opinion on how much politics had played
> into the rush of conclusions and therapies.
> I'm sure your perspective from a profesional in the industry sees the
> events as the reasonable realities of your business and the world. From a
> layman's point of view it's scary as hell how much power, money, and loss
> of individual freedom we give the best guesses at the time and how they
> are presented as fact by the media (not the scientists fault) I know not
> all Americans see the media hype and spin as fact but a great many do and
> I was one of them, at least where human life was on the line I thought the
> industry would be more honorable.
> I hope if real progress does not happen soon the line between dissident
> and orthodox will fade and challenging views will be encouraged and funded
> instead of the best theory being defended as if it is fact. That last part
> is obviously just my opinion

If we had effective vaccines we wouldn't be having this conversation
now.

I also note that Duesberg was skeptical of the link between HPV and
cervical cancer.

http://www.duesberg.com/papers/ch5.html

I remember reading somewhere on line an email from Rasnick or someone
else claiming there would never be a vaccine fro cervical cancer that
the whole idea was preposterous. The latest results on a vaccine for
cervical cancer (HPV) seem very promising.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...374&query_hl=11

I wonder if Duesberg and Rasnick will change their minds if these
results are confirmed.

Chris Noble

Chris Noble

2005-10-24, 12:56 am

Fondoo wrote:
> "But excuse me if I find it slightly inconsistent of you to claim at the
> same time that Gallo stole Montagnier's virus and that this virus does
> not exist. The proof that Gallo "stole" Montagnier's virus is also
> proof that it exists. You can't steal something that doesn't exist."
>
> How the work was taken may be an example of the charactor of Gallo. What
> the work may prove is another issue.

That is also the difference between character assassination and
critically evaluating the evidence. One is a cheap rhetorical trick the
other is part of the scientific method.

>
> The dissidents were given a whole edition of Genetica to put forward
> their views. The editon-in-chief wrote a nice forward to the edition
> saying that the dissidents had been claiming that they were being
> censored and that this issue devoted solely to dissidents was aimed to
> address this claim.
>
> I am glad this was done but probably was too late for immediate change no
> matter how well the arguments were made. The funds were allocated the
> machine was running full speed on the current theory. Maybe one day we
> will find another way of looking at AIDS that will produce better
> results.

In my opinion at that stage the scientific evidence was stacked against
them not just some political power. None of their hypotheses matched
the amassed data.

I also think that if they had been willing to compromise they could
have contributed more constructively. If, rather than tilting at HIV
windmills, Duesberg had hooked up with other scientists with more
experience in the field and submitted research proposals to study the
effects of recreational drugs on the immune system (without mentioning
HIV and AIDS) he would in all probability have been funded. Instead of
doing that Duesberg has pursued a quixotic quest to bring down HIV
science.

There is also a consensus that oxidative stress is a major feature of
the pathogenesis of HIV. In fact it is believed to be a a part of the
pathogenesis of many RNA viruses like influenza. There is evidence that
antioxidants can help in the treatment of influenza. If the Perth Group
gave up their hopeless quest to prove that HIV does not exist then it
is possible that they could also make a contribution to science. There
is room for both oxidative stress and HIV in AIDS.

Chris Noble

Fondoo

2005-10-24, 12:56 am

"I remember reading somewhere on line an email from Rasnick or someone
else claiming there would never be a vaccine fro cervical cancer that
the whole idea was preposterous. The latest results on a vaccine for
cervical cancer (HPV) seem very promising."

I have learned that studies and expectations in health science are
amazingly similar to computer tech (in the latter I'm vastly more
qualified in he he)
First there are known PC bottle necks in performance. Next come
manufactures with all kinds of data to show how there next gen product
(hardware or software) reduce or eliminate these bottlenecks and vastly
improves performance. Next come the reviews of supposedly independent tech
journalist confirming the products performance before release.
Next the product hits the shelves... Reality sets in, at times it's
good and everyone seems honest in there claims and reviews. Other times
you are amazed at the outright lack of integrity of big business. In the
tech world many times we have black and white, if only our bodies were as
simple as computers, but the similarity is still to clear for me to deny.
I know the majority of people working in the health and science
industry are honorable. I also know it is not the majority that makes the
decisions. The decision making elite have to face the horrible corrupting
force of money and ego. I am glad I do not have to face such a test.
I hope our dissident doctors and scientist are more interested in truth
than anything else. At least they "usually" have far less money and power
to have to contend with

Fondoo

2005-10-24, 12:56 am

"That is also the difference between character assassination and
critically evaluating the evidence. One is a cheap rhetorical trick the
other is part of the scientific method."

If I believed the scientific method in AIDS research was above
corruption by the elite I would agree. Personally if I was in a position
to hurt Gallos reputation I would have to me much more intimately aware of
the circumstances involved in his conviction. For all we know he may have
wanted to tell all, but money people decided otherwise, he may just be the
fall guy on that one. Who the hell knows? Basically for me I am more
sensitive to these kinds of facts probably because I was told I had AIDS
10 years ago and neither mine or my wife’s AIDS case "facts" support the
AIDS "theory" well at all. Our case facts support more dissident theory
than orthodox.
But I understand that is just "us" but hell we might find more important
mortality defining markers than T-Cells and viral load that did a rather
poor job for us. At least then people like "us" will not be told we have
AIDS and are going to die a horrible death relatively soon.

SuperSport

2005-10-24, 12:56 am

Mr. Noble-

One of the reasons I have a difficult time accepting the HIV/AIDS
hypothesis is because of the very constructor, Robert Gallo.

Gallo has made a career out of overstating his "discoveries" and taking
other people's work, and influencing who gets recognized for what.

His "discovery" of HL23 was a disaster....and it was "leaked" to the
press and was in the headlines of at least one major American newspaper
before the paper appeared in Science.

Gallo even wanted to misname HTLV-I, and he overstated the activity of
that virus as well. What, 1 person with HTLV-I in 100 actually develop
leukemia. Big deal.

And there is alot of speculation that Gallo pulled the ol' switcheroo
with the Japanese and their version of HTLV-I.

You wrote that Gallo was summoned from overseas to address the press?
Well....so what? Is it not possible for him to construct such a scenario
by leaking HTLV-I just as he did HL-23??

The real reason Gallo had his press conference is because Montegneir was
going to beat Gallo to the punch.....and Luc has maintained from the
beginning that HIV is only part of the AIDS puzzle and that AIDS is in
fact multifactoral.

Bob Gallo is a liar and a cheat through and through. He has played power
games ,miscontructed science and made false claims about virtually
everything he has ever done. He just had a good business sense, that is
all-

History does not repeat itself.....but people do.

Michael Kilduff

" We know that to err is human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell
of a mistake"
Dr. Kary Mullis, Nobel Laureate and inventor of Polymerase Chain
Reaction

--
Sent via Health Newsgroups
http://www.healthnewsgroups.com

SuperSport

2005-10-24, 12:56 am

I apologize Mr. Noble, my sixth paragraph should read

"You wrote that Gallo was summoned from overseas to address the press?
Well....so what? Is it not possible for him to construct such a scenario
by leaking HIV just as he did HL-23??

Sorry for any confusion-

Michael Kilduff

" We know that to err is human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell
of a mistake"
Dr. Kary Mullis, Nobel Laureate and inventor of Polymerase Chain
Reaction.

--
Sent via Health Newsgroups
http://www.healthnewsgroups.com

Gary Stein

2005-10-24, 12:56 am

"Iconoclaster" <wgods@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:e25049d3c8695d494435b8aa608a6a97@localhost.talkabouthealthnetwork.com...
> Hey yes, Mr. Noble! Let's join forces