|
Home > Archive > HIV Aids > July 2006 > AIDS rethinkers aren't conspiracy nuts?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
AIDS rethinkers aren't conspiracy nuts?
|
|
| Chris Noble 2006-07-09, 2:20 am |
| The so-called "AIDS rethinkers" get all offended when they are
labelled conspiracy theorists.
Nevertheless we have prominent "AIDS rethinkers" like David Rasnick
claiming that SARS is just a fraud fabricated by the US government to
sabotage the Chinese economy.
http://www.whale.to/v/sars1.html
Now we have Harvey Bialy claiming that Nelson Mandela was freed under
the condition that he supports the official white racist HIV/AIDS
theory.
Nelson Mandela sold his soul to AIDS Inc. Nelson Mandela is part of the
conspiracy.
http://www.newaidsreview.org/posts/1118850247.shtml
Could somebody that is still in contact with Harvey Bialy suggest that
he seeks medical attention.
Chris Noble
| |
| monty1945@lycos.com 2006-07-09, 8:19 am |
| Yes, Chris, since we are talking about a few thousand people, some will
make a stupid remark now and then, which is why I focus on the
scientific method, nothing else. It may be that some people on "both
sides" of any debate get some psychological help, but that has nothing
to do with the evidence. But what I find more interesting is how so
many people who believe (and that is the correct word here) that there
is a deadly retrovirus causing the multifaceted "AIDS" don't think it
is appropriate to cite even one study when someone asks. This is such
a blatant disregard of the most basic of academic standards that a
student who went to the graduate program I did would have been ousted
soon after taking such a stance. And yet it is the norm in "HIV/AID"
land. So again, I ask you, as I have before, please present just ONE
study that you feel is the strongest piece of evidence for the
"HIV/AIDS" claim. Failure to do so would mean that anyone with even
the slightest understanding of academic standards should dismiss you as
some kind of "nut" !
| |
| GMCarter 2006-07-09, 8:19 am |
| On 9 Jul 2006 01:06:17 -0700, monty1945@lycos.com wrote:
>Yes, Chris, since we are talking about a few thousand people, some will
>make a stupid remark now and then, which is why I focus on the
>scientific method, nothing else.
Really? Where? What?
And actually, the guys making these wacko comments are the CREAM of
the denialist research crop. That would tell you something but then
you're you.
| |
|
| One piece of possible good news is that Rasnick has apparently said he
is soon leaving South Africa (and Rath too). Neither Rasnick nor Rath
have responded to the lawsuit charging them with illegal distribution
of unregistered medicines and conducting illegal clinical trials that
were unapproved by the SA MCC (equivalent of FDA). The trials involved
persuading people with HIV to take Rath's high-dose vitamin & NAC
supplements instead of ARVs; several participants died.
The court documents describing these activities are online
here:http://www.tac.org.za/rath.html
Also, anyone who wants to see how well Harvey Bialy and Dean Esmay
(with offstage assistance from Rasnick & Duesberg) can actually debate
a virologist and MD with extensive knowledge of the science of HIV/AIDS
(Nick Bennett), check out this humungous thread:
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1105628771.shtml.
There are couple if things particularly worth noting: the slides that
Bialy et al claim "falsify the AIDS hypothesis" are lifted directly
from a Duesberg paper. Not only do the slides misstate the prevalence
numbers as incidence, the numbers themselves are based on a
cherry-picked, high-end estimate of HIV prevalence from a 1985 CDC
study. As Chris has pointed out, this 1985 study gave an estimate
500,000 - 1,000,000 which gives a sense of how uncertain the estimates
were. Duesberg just picked the million figure and went with it (and
dubbed it incidence rather than prevalence, presumably because neither
he nor his colleagues are epidemiologists).
How does Bialy deal with this, or any of the other points Nick Bennett
makes? As one commenter memorably puts it:"I've never seen anybody try
to win a debate by drooling before."
-Richard
Chris Noble wrote:
> The so-called "AIDS rethinkers" get all offended when they are
> labelled conspiracy theorists.
>
> Nevertheless we have prominent "AIDS rethinkers" like David Rasnick
> claiming that SARS is just a fraud fabricated by the US government to
> sabotage the Chinese economy.
>
> http://www.whale.to/v/sars1.html
>
> Now we have Harvey Bialy claiming that Nelson Mandela was freed under
> the condition that he supports the official white racist HIV/AIDS
> theory.
>
> Nelson Mandela sold his soul to AIDS Inc. Nelson Mandela is part of the
> conspiracy.
>
> http://www.newaidsreview.org/posts/1118850247.shtml
>
> Could somebody that is still in contact with Harvey Bialy suggest that
> he seeks medical attention.
>
> Chris Noble
| |
| Chris Noble 2006-07-09, 9:19 pm |
|
monty1945@lycos.com wrote:
> Yes, Chris, since we are talking about a few thousand people, some will
> make a stupid remark now and then,....
Yes, you are entirely correct. Just because Harvey Bialy is a raving
loon does not mean that all people that "rethink" the relationship
between HIV and AIDS are also raving loons.
I also do not think that because some people that "rethink" HIV/AIDS
also "rethink" the "germ theory of disease" and reject essentially all
of modern science that all "rethinkers" are as scientifically
illiterate.
I agree that it is theoretically possible for there to be individuals
that "rethink" the connection between HIV and AIDS without:
a) concocting massive conspiracy theories involving the US government,
the former SA apartheid government, the pharmaceutical companies and
the vast majority of scientists in hundreds of countries around the
world etc.
b) rejecting large parts (if not all) of modern science
But so far I haven't found any individuals that do not fulfill
conditions a or b while still "rethinking" the connection between HIV
and AIDS.
Some people like yourself reject the "germ theory of disease" together
with all of modern science and then have the gall to claim that you are
following the scientific method.
Even comparatively rational people like Duesberg use arguments against
the causal connection between HIV and AIDS that if applied to other
infectious diseases would mean that hepatitis B doesn't cause disease
and that gonorrhea, syphilis and herpes are not sexually transmitted
diseases. To a large degree Duesberg is antiscience. For Duesberg to be
correct you have to reject vast parts of modern science not just the
connection between HIV and AIDS.
Other supposedly respectable scientists like Bialy and Rasnick
subscribe to crazy conspiracy theories. They both rave about AIDS Inc
and personally attack their opponents and wonder why nobody (apart from
fellow "rethinkers") takes them seriously.
Where are the sane and scientifically literate "rethinkers"?
Chris Noble
| |
| Chris Noble 2006-07-09, 9:19 pm |
|
RJ wrote:
> One piece of possible good news is that Rasnick has apparently said he
> is soon leaving South Africa (and Rath too). Neither Rasnick nor Rath
> have responded to the lawsuit charging them with illegal distribution
> of unregistered medicines and conducting illegal clinical trials that
> were unapproved by the SA MCC (equivalent of FDA). The trials involved
> persuading people with HIV to take Rath's high-dose vitamin & NAC
> supplements instead of ARVs; several participants died.
>
> The court documents describing these activities are online
> here:http://www.tac.org.za/rath.html
>
> Also, anyone who wants to see how well Harvey Bialy and Dean Esmay
> (with offstage assistance from Rasnick & Duesberg) can actually debate
> a virologist and MD with extensive knowledge of the science of HIV/AIDS
> (Nick Bennett), check out this humungous thread:
>
> http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1105628771.shtml.
>
> There are couple if things particularly worth noting: the slides that
> Bialy et al claim "falsify the AIDS hypothesis" are lifted directly
> from a Duesberg paper. Not only do the slides misstate the prevalence
> numbers as incidence, the numbers themselves are based on a
> cherry-picked, high-end estimate of HIV prevalence from a 1985 CDC
> study. As Chris has pointed out, this 1985 study gave an estimate
> 500,000 - 1,000,000 which gives a sense of how uncertain the estimates
> were. Duesberg just picked the million figure and went with it (and
> dubbed it incidence rather than prevalence, presumably because neither
> he nor his colleagues are epidemiologists).
>
> How does Bialy deal with this, or any of the other points Nick Bennett
> makes? As one commenter memorably puts it:"I've never seen anybody try
> to win a debate by drooling before."
>
Nick Bennett and others made a number of well thought out, rational and
scientifically literate comments in this thread on Esmay's blog. Bialy
responded with bizarre behaviour, obscene rants, and crazy
stream-of-conciousness nonsense.
At that time Dean Esmay defended Bialy's bizarre rants and made up
excuses as to why Bialy never answered questions, never responded to
scientific points and only responded with obscenities and semi-literate
drool. Now even Esmay seems to have woken up to the fact that Bialy is
only capable of ranting obscenities.
http://www.newaidsreview.org/posts/1152001590.shtml#688
And yes I agree with Dean that just because Bialy for all appearances
is a total raving loon does not necessarily mean that he is wrong about
HIV and AIDS. It should however awaken a small amount of skepticism in
even the most ardent "rethinker". Unfortunately "rethinkers" never seem
to "rethink" their own beliefs.
Chris Noble
| |
| tsip29 2006-07-10, 8:19 am |
| you havent answerd , monthly question. show any document that say it.
the one fact is aids medicine is failing big time. its keeping people
somewhat alive,but at the same time it is killing them.
and why are there diffrent aids test for diffrent people.
| |
|
|
Chris Noble wrote:
> RJ wrote:
>
> Nick Bennett and others made a number of well thought out, rational and
> scientifically literate comments in this thread on Esmay's blog. Bialy
> responded with bizarre behaviour, obscene rants, and crazy
> stream-of-conciousness nonsense.
>
> At that time Dean Esmay defended Bialy's bizarre rants and made up
> excuses as to why Bialy never answered questions, never responded to
> scientific points and only responded with obscenities and semi-literate
> drool. Now even Esmay seems to have woken up to the fact that Bialy is
> only capable of ranting obscenities.
>
> http://www.newaidsreview.org/posts/1152001590.shtml#688
>
> And yes I agree with Dean that just because Bialy for all appearances
> is a total raving loon does not necessarily mean that he is wrong about
> HIV and AIDS. It should however awaken a small amount of skepticism in
> even the most ardent "rethinker". Unfortunately "rethinkers" never seem
> to "rethink" their own beliefs.
>
>
>
>
> Chris Noble
I remember corresponding with Nick on one of these USENET sites..he was
explaining to me how a Virus can cause Cervical cancer in women and how
a vaccine can stop cervical cancer.
| |
|
| Ozzy wrote:
>
> I remember corresponding with Nick on one of these USENET sites..he was
> explaining to me how a Virus can cause Cervical cancer in women and how
> a vaccine can stop cervical cancer.
And, as is normally the case, Nick was right. The first such vaccine
recently received FDA approval, it's called GARDASIL. Anyone that wants
to review the efficacy data from the vaccine trials can look at the
information from the FDA hearing online here:
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac...latedBiological
(it's the May 18 meeting).
Peter Duesberg doesn't believe HPV causes cervical cancer.
|
| |
|
|