Stephen Davis
has launched two new websites designed
specifically for those diagnosed
HIV-Positive, as a starting point for them to begin to explore the truth
about the HIV tests and HIV drugs.
“Unfortunately, we’re liable to have a lot more people testing HIV-Positive as the new CDC recommendations take effect to test everyone for HIV,” Davis wrote us. “When you take an antibody test that’s already fraught with false positives and apply it to low-risk populations, the false positive rate is bound to skyrocket.”
The first site is www.HelpForHIV.com (or www.Help4HIV.com). This is meant to be a gentle introduction to get everyone to realize that their own test results may have been wrong, and to give them the opportunity to read and study the relevant scientific literature. It includes links to nearly 50 podcasts featuring recorded interviews from various dissident experts, videos, scientific papers and newspaper and magazine articles dealing specifically with the HIV tests and HIV drugs, books to buy, links to all the dissident websites and blogs, and even a questionnaire they can fill out to help us build a database for future legal action.
The second site is www.livingwithoutHIVdrugs.com, which is a growing number of true-life stories of HIV-Positives who are living healthy and happy lives without HIV medications.
The plan is to promote HelpForHIV.com in the coming weeks and months by direct contact with HIV-Positives through blogs and chatrooms and such, through radio interviews, Google and Yahoo ads, and hopefully even 30-second TV spots.
It is my hope that these new websites can attract a large number of HIV-Positives and help them learn the truth about the HIV tests and HIV drugs, and create a powerful community of support at the grassroots level to enable the kind of efforts that will be required over the next 3-5 years to bring down the AIDS establishment’s house of cards.
A special thanks to Christine Maggiore for her help in finding just exactly the right wording for HelpForHIV, and to Neville Hodgkinson and others who provided support and information to make the lists of papers and articles as complete as possible.
If you find anything that doesn’t work correctly as you surf through these new sites, please email me so I can correct it as quickly as possible.
Stephen Davis is a former Arizona state senator, and the author of "Wrongful Death: The AIDS Trial". He can be contacted through his website.
These events are awesome. It certainly will help the newly diagnosed and those who are living with AIDS have a forum and provide a support group, especially for those from smaller cities who may not get the support that they need.
Posted by: noreen martin | October 23, 2006 at 05:06 AM
Apologies for being off-topic.
Regarding Dr. Dach's post about the Rodriguez viral load paper in JAMA. (By the way Hank, for a guy who sure gave Tara Smith a lot of hell for trying to keep threads on topic, it's pretty chicken-shit of you to close threads and delete comments on your own blog.) I'm curious, the first figure in Dr. Dach's article shows CD4 cell declines vs log10 viral load measurements. There is, as he points out, no correlation between these two variables, Nick Bennett was wrong.
However, it does appear that the vast majority of subjects, 90% or more, are experiencing CD4 cell declines. (Look at all the dots that fall below the horizontal line at zero. All of these dots represent a patient who has lost CD4 T cells over time.)
How do you explain this?
ie: If HIV is harmless, why are these people's immune systems collapsing?
And Hank, while I'm sure you have a wonderful explanation for this, I would be particularly interested in an explanation from someone who has at least taken, and preferably taught, a college level biology course. Otis? George? Dr. B?...
Why are their CD4 cells disappearing?
Posted by: Pharma Bawd | October 23, 2006 at 09:49 AM
Pharma Ditz,
Give it a rest. It's chicken salad more than chicken shit, I think. So, go have some with your coffee and discuss "amongst yourselves".
And stop your perpetual LAZY game of asking questions that have been answered many times and at great length in the published work of Duesberg, Bialy and others that is easily available on the net.
Like Bennett you are a deceit and only pretend interest in *real* questioning while you defend at all costs your indefensible hypothesis. I find it a little amusing how quickly you people start to cry when the smallest forum* in which to attempt to drown our voices is even mildly closed to you.
*this is not to imply that YBYL is the smallest of forums, at all. In fact, we are becoming quite the place to visit for over 500 folks a day, on average.
Posted by: Hank Barnes | October 23, 2006 at 11:15 AM
Hanky,
Subtract ten of those hits per day for me. I'm your biggest fan!
Duesberg and Bialy have published on the Rodriguez paper? Do tell, have a link?
See, this is why I don't want an answer from you. You have no idea why I even asked the question. But go ahead, please tell me what you think the answer is. We'll see who wants to cast their lot with you.
ps. Got a date for Duesberg's lectures in the Public Health class at UCB that Dr. Bialy mentioned? A sharp biology student in the area is interested in hearing his talk.
Thanks.
Posted by: Pharma Bawd | October 23, 2006 at 01:31 PM
Gads you are a bore..
I don't think 10 views a day makes you our biggest fan, but glad to learn that you think you are, and those visitor numbers are for unique visitors not hits, fyi.
Your question did not ask Duesberg or Bialy to comment on the Rodriguez paper (which Dr. Duesberg has done here in fact) but on a much more general question, and my reply was directed correctly at that.
Stop trying to lure me into your tedious game. Go peddle a pill or sumtin. OK?
And your "sharp" pal who wants to attend the lecture is as damn lazy as you. Let him contact the instructor or Dr. Duesberg himself. Why are you people so demanding that real folks with things to do answer your every moronic demand?
Go stuff it Ditz. I really am tired of you. Really.
Posted by: Hank Barnes | October 23, 2006 at 02:14 PM
Another recent addition to the "rethinking HIV / AIDS" coalition is http://NotAIDS.com.
And an aside to Pharm Bawd. Why are you so rude? Didn't your mother teach you any manners? You're obviously not interested in intellectual or any other type of civilized conversation so why not go to an AIDS lovers conference and bury your head in some fake data.
I find it amusing how anytime AIDS lovers are under the gun where the data is concerned, the same boring correlations are pointed out without any reference to proven causation. Then as if that's not enough intellectual laziness for one post, they will demand that the "rethinkier" do the work and disprove what hasn't even been proven!
Phooey.
Posted by: Hollywood | October 23, 2006 at 05:06 PM
Hey Hollywood,
How have we gone so long without knowing about your terrific site, and from its traffic counter, we appear to be the only ones!
Anyone who does not know it, imho should, and quick too.
I am envious actually of how well it is organized and how utterly professional it looks as well as very impressed by its EXTENSIVE (easily found) content.
Please write to me so that I can pick your brains a bit, I am brand new to this internet thing.
Otis
Posted by: Otis | October 23, 2006 at 05:48 PM
Ahhh,... Hank!
"I think it's spelled, "y'all.""
Yeah, I was worried about how to make it possessive didn't even look at that first apostrophe.
"But let's evaluate the competing interpretations: Professor and member of National Academy of Science, published in over 200 journals or ditzy anonymous internet chick --you be the judge!"
Try this, open a pdf or html or word document of the Rodriguez paper and search for "AIDS" and count how many AIDS patients there are in this study. Then look at Duesberg's citation in the handout:
"In 2006 Rodriguez et al. show that in hundreds of HIV carriers there was no correlation between HIV RNA “loads” (determined by PCR) and AIDS. HIV RNA was high, low or undetectable in asymptomatic carriers and in AIDS cases (5)."
The paper looks at correlation between viral load and rate of CD4 cell loss, not AIDS.
Score one for Ditzy internet chicks! Er... really Dale deserves credit for pointing to it, and laughing, first.
http://momentofscience.blogspot.com/2006/10/helping-out-slow-kid-in-class.html
"Please go away, though, to your own blog. You are tiresome."
Alright Hank. I'll stay on the planet with the blue sky from now on, if you'll stay over here on this one. (Truth is, the red sky here really creeps me out!)
But please remember, it's okay to admit you were wrong. I mean we all know you're going to have to admit it sooner or later right? ;)
Take care.
Posted by: Pharma Bawd | October 23, 2006 at 10:33 PM
You and your anonymous pals can score it any way you want.
But since AIDS is defined by HIV Ab and CD4 cell loss, I fail to see what you find so funny.
But once more I am glad to see you admit you are one hell of a ditz, and even more to learn from your own lips to god's ears that you are done being a fanatic of YBYL (as are all our many distinct, and even distinctive, readers).
Posted by: Hank Barnes | October 23, 2006 at 10:51 PM