Larry Kramer is talking (some) sense!

Here's an interesting exchange among AIDS gurus -- who are basically clueless -- but who occasionally offer a few kernels of truth.

Here's our friend Larry "I needed a liver transplant, but never took drugs!" Kramer  in the midst of incoherence, actually making a few splendid points:

1. We're finding out, for instance, that 50 percent of people who take certain drugs die from liver disease rather than AIDS, because the drugs are so harsh on the liver. That would turn up in a database a lot faster than any other way.

Yes, Larry, we've known that for years. Which is why asymptomatic HIV+ people should not take said drugs.

2.  I think, for those of who follow the literature, the medical literature, what's no longer beginning -- what's appearing more and more, is terribly frightening reports that the proteases, the cocktails simply are not working in a larger and larger percentage of people, and that these new drugs that are coming out right, left, and center have such horrendous side effects that people simply are beginning to refuse to take them

Yes, Larry. Ditto.

But, the following is simply priceless!

3.   I want to say -- this is Larry again -- that unfortunately, those who -- most of the activists, the AIDS activists, who speak for us now are so in the pockets of the bureaucracy of the drug companies of the anti AIDS, that they have become almost fascist in ramming down their treatment notions down the rest of us. The research that is done today is pretty much dictated by a small handful of pea brains called Treatment Action Group, TAG, which has a stranglehold on what is researched, what the drug companies release, how it's tested, and that is the guidelines that all of us are told to take all of this poison more and more of it -- that that all comes out of a handful of people, because -- namely because the rest of us aren't out there fighting, forcing -- the power is in numbers, not just in a few of us.

Wow! Some powerful stuff from Larry. I wonder what our friend, Richard Jeffreys -- one of the "pea brains" from TAG would say about this -- from his Chinatown apartment:)

I reckon Richard took a bit more of a verbal beating in the comments section here, so mebbe he's a little shy these days.

I guess the real question is: If John Moore is the scientific equivalent of Edgar Bergen, does that make Richard the Charlie McCarthy or the dimwitted Mortimer Snerd of the blogosphere?

Comments

[Mark Biernbaum]

Great post. Great comments by Larry. I wanted to let people know that I have been banned from posting at the New AIDS Review, because I told the moderator ("truthseeker" - and that's another story) that he was being insensitive to HIV+ folks. So, I no longer can post there. I'm directing folks whom I connected with on that site to this site, Hank. So keep up the good work-- it's much appreciated.

[Hank B]

Mark,

Yeah, we don't ban people here, except for extreme, poor conduct that wrecks fruitful discussion.

Sure, we tease folks, but Richard Jeffreys and John Moore are more than welcome to come here and respond.

Our goal is to figure what has happened over the past 25 years in AIDS science, and whether people have been helped or hurt by the standard paradigm. Nothing more, nothing less.

Hank

[Hank B]

Addendum:

Of course, to be clear, Jefferys and Moore would be on "double-secret probation" if they ever came here, because they have already exhibited strange and undiplomatic behaviour.

For example, Jeffreys now has posted his private e-mail exchange with Duesberg. That's a no-no.

And, Moore needs to apologize to Mark Biernbaum for his rude manners in the e-mail exchange.

This is pretty hypothetical, though, since both those lackeys probably won't show up.

Hank B.

[Schwartz]

Hi Hank!

Your reference to Edgar Bergen is dated -- you must be old and out of touch!

But, a thought: You suggest that Moore is pulling the strings of Jeffreys. Have you thought about who might be pulling the strings of Moore?

[John]

Schwartz said: "Your reference to Edgar Bergen is dated -- you must be old and out of touch!"

LOL!!!

ah, well... yeah. But I GOT the reference, Hank, so...

Then again, Schwartz clearly gets the reference or he/she wouldn't have known how to comment on it! Still, it was a funny couple of lines, I'll give him that. Us "old-timers" need to try to stick together here on the internet. Kind of an "elderly support group". Hey, wonder if the FDA has a drug for us?

[John]

Mark said: " I wanted to let people know that I have been banned from posting at the New AIDS Review, because I told the moderator ("truthseeker" - and that's another story)"

I don't really understand this one, because it looks like you just had a comment up on his blog and it looks like you two are more or less in agreement. What am I missing here?

[Hank]

John sez:

"Us "old-timers" need to try to stick together here on the internet. Kind of an "elderly support group". Hey, wonder if the FDA has a drug for us?"

They do -- it's called VIAGRA!:)

HB

[John]

Hank, leering, says: "They do -- it's called VIAGRA!:)"

OK... I'm outta the group!

[John]

Any word from Mark on this Truthseeker thing? I really don't get it. Point me to the posts over there where he and Truthseeker aren't on the same page.

[Hank]

John, see the latest post, which links Truthseeker. Although, a lot of good folks there have reached common ground.

Hank B

[John]

I know. I read it late last night and didn't have time to comment. *Group Hug*