AIDS rethinkers aren't conspiracy nuts?

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

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" !

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

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