Views from the Western Front

The absolute certainty that HIV causes Aids 

Every time I read a scientific review on almost any topic, I am intrigued by the frequency of terms like probably, likely, we suspect, maybe, etc. This kind of writing clearly shows that evidence is in general far from being clear cut and the use of conditional language is healthy practice because, as history teaches, we can never be sure of anything.

During a television show called "Savoir plus Santé", aired not too long ago, professor Yves Agid, chief of the neurology department at the Pitié-Salpêtrière hospital in Paris, made a remarkable statement: "We don't know the cause of any disease". Some minutes later his colleague neurologist, professor Olivier Lyon-Caen, made a second astonishing confession while talking about multiple sclerosis: "The symptoms are the cause of the disease". Which is a fine example of the fact that we easily get mixed up between effects and causes and that indeed, even in this seemingly enlightened 21st C. we do not know much.

If we keep this in mind, the position of the Aids scientific establishment, represented by eminent  figures like Dr. Robert Gallo, Prof. John P. Moore, Dr. Mark Wainberg, is quite striking if we judge by serious sourcessuch as AIDSTruth.org. The Aids Establishment cherishes it's major representatives' position which we may formulate, to take one of many possible examples, as follows:

LONDON (Reuters) - Overwhelming evidence shows that the HIV virus is the cause of AIDS, more than 5,000 leading scientists, doctors and medical experts said on Saturday.

"The evidence that AIDS is caused by HIV-1 or HIV-2 is clear-cut, exhaustive and unambiguous, meeting the highest standards of science,'' the scientists said.

These statements are revolutionary. During the ages mankind has stumbled blindfolded trying to solve the riddles of the universe, and uncountable hypotheses and theories of all kinds have come and gone. But it is my duty to inform all --  We belong to a special generation. We are to be the children of blind parents and the parents of seeing children. 

To demonstrate unambiguously that HIV/Aids Science shall one day be considered the mother of all certainty, let us use that most modern of all tools, The Google, to study the occurrence of terms like "overwhelming evidence", "unambiguous" and "clear-cut".

Google search

"the evidence that water is wet" - 0
"the evidence that the Earth is round" - 82
"the evidence that HIV causes Aids" - 664

"water is wet" "overwhelming evidence" - 141
"the Earth is round" "overwhelming evidence" - 548
"HIV causes Aids" "overwhelming evidence" - 1410

"water is wet" evidence "clear cut" unambiguous - 12
"the Earth is round" evidence "clear cut" unambiguous - 72
" HIV causes Aids " evidence "clear cut" unambiguous  - 434

These are fantastic results which unambiguously demonstrate what I'm after and one day this study will certainly earn me a ticket to Stockholm.

Water is wet? False! It depends on how you look at it! Frozen water is not wet but cold. In an over-aged whisky it's not wet but pure evil. The Earth is round? True! The globe has the shape of a football no matter how long you stare at it nor at which point you stand while staring.

Now, if "HIV causes Aids" is even much more unambiguous than "The Earth is round", what do we have? Absolute certainty.

C.Q.F.D.

Jan Spreen is a Dutchman who has lived in France since 1982.

Comments

[henrysillian]

This is one of the funniest things I've ever read on the Aids dissident side of the world.

"the evidence that water is wet" - 0
"the evidence that the Earth is round" - 82
"the evidence that HIV causes Aids" - 664

Jan, you sure have some crazy ideas. Brilliant!

[henrysillian]

Jan, I came back to this page because I realy love the way you put it. But I did some more verification and Google returns different values today!

"the evidence that water is wet" - 4
"the evidence that the Earth is round" - 91
"the evidence that HIV causes Aids" - 651

For me it's the same but now the goons promoting HIV=Aids will argue that your method is not scientific.

[JPMoore]

Who needs that kind of verifications to laugh away you guys' crap for what it is? Ha, ha, ha, it's crap, that's all it is.
Come over here and check out the overwhelming evidence, you'll actually learn something.

[Knobless]

Hey JP !

Do you mean here?

[Otis]

Prof Moore, guardian of AIDSTruth,

Since you obviously have been reading these pages with keen interest, I am curious as to why, with all the very scientific postings from such luminaries as George Miklos, Peter Duesberg, Richard Strohman, Andrew Maniotis and even 'ole Doc Bialy, you choose to comment on a piece of "entertainment" from a well educated, European intellectual who can write damn well in what must be a third or even fourth language (unlike yourself who cannot manage his native tongue)?

Be that as it might, is it because you are not mentally equipped for this undertaking as evidenced by your performance here?

Or perhaps it is because you are the actual hybridoma Dr. Knobless linked above?

[Lise]

Hello Prof. Moore (if that is who you are),

I don't believe I have had the pleasure of addressing you previously, and as I indicated in the parentheses, I am not exactly certain if I am in fact addressing you now since your email is bogus and "the site" you sort of refer to I suspect must be AIDSTruth.org (although you either did not think to, or do not know how to, insert a hyperlink in the comments box), and not the amusing collage, your pal-not, "ole Doc Bialy" made.

So all of that being as it might and is (as Otis might write), me and my hubby want to know if you counted the "Ha ha's", and if so why the careful analysis of Mr. Spreen (and its subsequent duplication within statistical limits by another person living in France to judge from his email) was not worth 5 or 3, or is this some kind of statistical mean, and if so, can you provide the standard deviations?

Thanks.

[Otis]

To: "JP Moore", JP Moore, Knobless, Lise, and everybody else reading this:

The post above from a "JP Moore" that engendered the rash of comments was delivered by some spammer with an IP address that could not possibly be from NY. So unlesss the highly esteemed professor is in Swaziland capturing primates for his "HIV/AIDS research", the "JP" that Lise directed her great question to, and which the other commenters (including myself) mildly insulted, is almost certainly *not* prof. JP Moore of Cornell Medical College and once upon a time editorial contributor to the once equally highly esteemed NY Times.

It is *never* our intention to poke gratuitous fun at anybody, and I hope the anonymous spammer does not repeat his folly, and that others who might be of similar childish mind, take note.

It would be a shame if *all* the comment boxes needed to be closed to prevent distracting and possibly slanderous remarks.

I cannot monitor this site 24/7, although I try o).

[Tom Riskas]

Hank,
I have been outraged for quite some time about the the HIV fallacies and the moralistic tone of AIDS proponents. In discussing my concerns with my wife recently she asked a question I frankly couldn't answer, so I thought I'd ask you.

Given the establishments refusal to grant funding to Dr. Duesberg to test alternate hypotheses and the vast interest by certain celebrities (Bono et. al)in fighting AIDS in Africa and worldwide, have Dr. Duesberg, Celia Farber, Christine Maggiore, Harvey Bailey, Raznick and/or other scientists and advocates approached these obviously misinformed celebs to educate them and solicit their support financially and otherwise in funding and publicizing alternate reseach and hypotheses? If so, what has been done? If not, why not? I would think celebrity support could be an asset to bringing the failed HIV hypothesis and drug dangers to the public eye.

[Hank Barnes]

Dear Tom,

All your points are very well taken. Over the years, all of the people you mentioned and others have tried in various ways to enlist "celebrity" support.

Christine Maggiore was successful in recruiting the "Foo Fighters" (for a while at least. I don't know if they are still a "denialist rock band or not"), and Esai Morales among the Hollywood crew has been outspoken, but he is not in the real big time (although he should be. I think he is a wonderful actor in addition to being so handsome.) And Dr. Bialy has been successful in recruiting Lee Evans as you can see from Mr. Evan's contributions to YBYL.

But I think that the problem with celebrity celebrities is the same as with scientific celebrities...there is too much at stake for them personally to risk it.

Never forget how high and mighty among the highest and mightiest Duesberg was before the 1987 Cancer Research review.

I hope this answers your questions.

Hank

[Tom Riskas]

Thank you, Hank. Your comments were helpful. Still, when I read that celebs like Liz Taylor, Sharon Stone, Bono, Elton John, Brad Pit, Matt Damon, Will Smith and many, many others are fighting AIDS by ignorantly supporting a failed hypothesis, I wonder how effectively we have tried to educate them or whether they are even aware of (or care about) the serious questions and doubts shared by so many prominant scientists and physicians about the validity of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis.

My guess is that there is likely a certain amount of cronyism at play here, along with a band-wagon effect that makes "AIDS Activism" the in-thing to do. Still, these people have deep pockets and some, like Bono and Pitt, seem intelligent and genuinely concerned. Who has attempted to educate them? Are they even aware of Peter Duesberg or his work? And if others have tried to win their support, why haven't they succeeded any more than they have?

Next, speaking of Dr. Duesberg, do you know whether or not he plans to update his work in this field and continue to publish and fight the good fight? The last paper he wrote on the subject, that I'm aware of, was published in 2003. Anything since then? Anything work in progress? Is he finished?

Finally, why don't all the renowned scientists and physicians who seriously question or oppose the prevailing view rise-up with a united, collective voice to force a debate?

The list of reputable scientists, physicians and other experts who seriously question the HIV hypothesis is formidable and could raise a strong and loud collective voice against the establishment and force the debate to the public eye. Has there been any movement to do so? Why not? Fear? If lives are truly at stake in the perpetuation of this massive lie, then why not fight collectively and raise the stakes and the likelihood of change?

Sorry for all the rambling frustration and head scratching. Your thoughts and answers are appreciated, as is all your effort and good work in fighting the good fight. Thanks, Hank.

[noreen martin]

I would like to address Tom's comments. For one thing, it is a numbers game. We are by far outnumbered and are having trouble getting our voices heard, especially since it is not the popular viewpoint. Sure, we win a battle here and there but at this rate it will take a long time to get the boat steered in the other direction.

Obviously, I support this movement but I don't see any central organization which I feel is necessary to get more done. i.e. conventions, billboards, speaking engagements, etc. so to give this subject the proper attention to the public that it deserves. We have a bunch of bloggers P.S. hop-scotching around and making comments, which don't get me wrong is better than nothing.

I would also suggest a group of HIV+ who don't take the meds tell their stories in person to others and entertain questions. Seeing is believing. There again, many out there may have some very good ideas on how we can get the ball rounding so please, share with us your ideas.

P.S. Ball rolling by the way

[Hank Barnes]

Tom (Noreen and others),

Once more, points all pretty much taken, and once again there is not too much I can say really.

I am not in control of anything outside my own immediate spheres of influence [and even there I have over"lord" wives and webmesiters to contend with o)].

I do not know how it is possible to get the "hundreds" not "thousands" with impressive academic credentials to "rise up and speak loudly as one".

Prof. Duesberg continues to maintain his website and as you know some of the best of the questions he gets are now appearing here. As far as I know he has no plans to publish anything more on HIV/AIDS of a substantive kind like the J. Biosci 2003 article, which is totally definitive as far as he and others (including myself) are concerned and requires no further editions.

In fact, the hypothesis was (according to Peter) 100% dead scientifically in 1995 with the publication of Ho and Wei in Nature. (See Bialy's "I Remember Maddox" for a full account of why he thinks this is so).

As far as I know, all of Peter's time is spent on aneuploidy work, and none on arguing with pods.

Brown and Bialy tried something a while ago on the AIDS wiki and at Rockwell called "Testing the Moore Assertion" that you can find to see one example of an internet based campaign that has not yet taken off but is obviously in progress.

"Mom is Positive", also at the AIDS wiki, is another campaign that has enormous potential. We will be publishing something further about it next week from Lee Evans that is a little different (even for us). So look (and listen) for it.

Noreen is already doing what she has suggested, and others will join her I am certain. And Stephen Davis is beginning a project to centralize the Noreens of the world in a single comfortable internet space that will not be buried. We will be publishing more news of this as the launch gets even closer.

Until such time as Humpty and Dumnpty come tumbling down, I guess all I can do is hopscotch around like I been doin, and 'keep on keepin on', like they still say in the East Bay.

Thanks for all the inputs.

Hank

[Tom Riskas]

Thanks Noreen and Hank. Here is an idea. Why don't you, Hank, collaborate with Dean Esmay and other notable bloggers and use your collective influence to propose to the right people, whoever they might be, the assembly of a representative delegation of the top ten scientists and experts in the world who question or reject the HIV-AIDS hypothesis to reach out to the top celebrity activists dedicated to the AIDS cause for the purpose of presenting the counter-point to the prevailing theory, advocating constructive dialogue and soliciting their support to bring the debate to the public eye. This is a focused, high-leverage strategy as opposed to a shotgun strategy.

Many celebrities seem to be anti-establishment by ideology and disposition. I'm wondering where the dissent might be best leveraged to save lives.

This debate, from my perspective, is not merely a scientific or philisophical debate. It's a life and death struggle for truth where human lives are at stake. It involves fraud, bad science, the suppression of debate and conflicts of interest among scientists, physicians and big pharma.

To me it boils down to this: if the renowned scientists and experts in opposition to the HIV/AIDS establishment really think that the HIV hypothesis is flawed and the drugs are fatal, then why not follow Duesberg and go balls to the wall and fight like hell to expose the lies and falsehoods? Why not force the truth to the public through widespread publicity and published scientific reseach? This of course takes a lot of money, which brings me back to the celebrities and philanthropists. How else will all this get funded?

I am not a scientist and barely follow the science in this debate, but as an educated and experienced professional who has worked with CEOs and executives in several Fortune 500 and 1000 companies over the past 30 years, I can easily spot faulty and defensive reasoning, defensive behavior, political manuevering, power brokering, conflict of interest, corporate fraud and greed. And it's all here in spades in the AIDS establishment: the viilifying of dissenters, the suppression of debate and dissent, the financial alliances, the one-sided control of public education, the politicization of research, the manipulation and control of information dissemination and the use of informal fallacies of reasoning to undermine the quest for truth, save face and protect vested financial interests all smell rotten to me apart from the "science" itself, which seems suspect.

From my perspective, the behavior of the AIDS establishment is highly suspect and reprehensible for a variety of reasons. And frankly, it pisses me off every time I see a misinformed celebrity or philanthropist putting their money into a failed and deadly hypothesis and establisment.

I will close by saying that I am certainly willing to lend my expertise as a strategist and consultant to management to such a delegation should it ever be formed.

[Harvey Bialy]

Tom,

You write:

" ... why not follow Duesberg and go balls to the wall and fight like hell to expose the lies and falsehoods?"

As a less than renowned, once upon a time, bench scientist who has often had that same thought over the past 20+ years, let me offer my top answers.

1. If Max Delbruck had not contracted cancer and passed prematurely, things might have been different.

2. If only one or two others of Peter's stature had spoken out early on, we might also have not come to the terrible pass we have.

3. The *overwhelming* majority of "professional" scientists are cowards.

[Tom Riskas]

Harvey,
Thank you for your characteristically honest and direct reply, particularly your third point, which I suspect is true...like, perhaps, the generals and politicians who don't speak out when they're in office. "Cowards" might well be the best word.

As a relevant aside, I have read your book on Dr. Duesberg with great interest. It made a significant impact on me as it no doubt has on many others. The story was both informative and infuriating.

I wonder what the impact might be of sending a person copy of your book to the top 10 or 20 celebrity and philanthropic activists in America with a well drafted, strategic cover letter from you and perhaps other top scientists referencing other books and internet resources as well and urging the recipients, in the interest of saving lives, to read the book, conduct their own independent research and consider a proposal for research funding to enable a named body of reputable scientists (including especially Peter, if he's interested)to further the cause of fighting AIDS through new, innovative research projects.

The letter would positively appeal to their anti-establishment bent in support of the cause to which they are committed and solicit their support in a different direction.

The letter would also promise a forthcoming research proposal abstract, which would go out, under another strategic cover letter, 3 to 4 weeks after the book and cover letter is received. The second letter would call for a meeting to present and discuss the research proposal in detail. Follow-up letters and calls would be made, as appropriate, to determine and pursue any interest.

Do you think such an effort might be fruitful? Would it be worth a try? Your thoughts?

[Harvey Bialy]

And thank you Tom, for your thoughtful comments as well as the extravagant praise.

In my characteristically "direct" way, let me say that I think the chance of even a single one of the celebrities even receiving the package, let alone reading it, is about the same as you contracting a positive Ab diagnosis from petting your kid's dog (even though dogs do carry the deadly virus, at least according to "the o so accurate test").

But, if you are foolish enough to compose a brief letter that might include a few URLs to the excellent reviews the book has received from some very heavy duty names, I would be pleased to edit it and to have the publisher send you a box of books to use.

Beyond that, look fella, it is only under extreme duress that I persist in my internet "insurgent activities" at all, and have limited them to YBYL for the forseeable (and I hope forever) future as it provides the "space" as they say to make me think I am being at least a little useful, and without consuming energy that I would rather spend in other activites (like "bialy/s").

I honestly thought that after the bio was published I could retire from the AIDS wars even more successfully than my amigo Peter.

Boy was I wrong.

[delwere]

Jan,

Google is the most powerful of all the tools, I agree. But Google is NOT a source of truth or certainty, it is just a source of everything written in the web.

In my point of view if you find more occurences of word A than word B in Google, the only certainity you have is that: Google robots found more occurences of word A in the web than word B. There's nothing related to absolute certainity or truth you can obtain there.

Cheers