My Photo

Bulletin Board

December 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      


  • The NIH Keeps Up With The Times: 1, 2, 3. David Baltimore Has A Flashback: ***. The NY Times Keeps Up With Times: ***. The Faith of Anthony Fauci: ***. Anthony Fauci Explains How HIV Causes AIDS: ***. Robert Gallo on The Force of Ejaculation: ***, on HIV Theory: ***, Lectures in Marseilles: ***. David Ho Does The Math: ***. John Mellors Sets the Record Straight: ***. Bono, el Magnifico, Holds (Another) Press Conference: ***. Anthony Fauci Explains Journalism in the Age of AIDS: ***. Anthony Fauci and David Ho Disprove an Old Adage: ***. Anthony Fauci Explains ICL and AIDS: *** The CDC Can't Keep Up With The Times:*** The Method of the "Small Inquisitor" Moore:*** The Co-Discovery of a Nobel-Worthy Enzymatic Activity:*** The Revenge of the "Very" Minor Moriarty:*** Julie Gerberding and Anthony Fauci Learn Arithmetic:*** Osama Obama Has a Message for Africa:***

Bad Manners and Good Gossip

« Darin C. Brown: The HIV House of Mirrors | Main | One More $155 Million Big Pharma Scam »

October 24, 2006


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


It always strikes me as being at the very least a bit unsure, but closer to the truth, outright manipulation, to read words like: "HIV - which causes AIDS", or the usual..."HIV, the virus that causes AIDS". Really? Huh. I hadn't heard of this equation before. Just the past 22 years!

It's almost as if they need to keep repeating this mantra to convince themselves ;).

Thanks to Hollywood for the heads up on this one. Interested to see where this story goes.

Another friendly source

The affidavit that the case above is based on, and the reason the judge is even hearing it is available at the Rethinking AIDS site, here.

Dean Esmay

Without trying to be negative, I expect the courts will determine that the "scientific consensus" is enough to keep the man convicted, and that the existence of scientific dissenters is not enough to overturn a conviction.

I'd like to be wrong, but we'll see.


Wow! This really is BIG news!

Maybe after the Australian courts debunk the "HIV" myth, the American courts will follow!

There are already some lawyers in the States who are interested in putting "HIV" on trial (from Alive & Well's News & Updates):

Real Life AIDS Trial?

Law Firm Seeks Positive Testing Clients
A respected law firm in Alabama asked me to pass on the following message:

"We are looking for 'HIV positive' individuals in Alabama, preferably in Macon County, who are willing to explore the possibility of seeking damages associated with their perceived diagnosis. Anyone ‘HIV positive’ in Alabama is a potential candidate. It is irrelevant whether they are currently taking or have previously taken medications prescribed in response to their positive diagnosis or have chosen to abstain from anti-HIV pharmaceuticals."

Replies should be sent direct to Alive & Well. We will forward these to the lead counsel.



This case is a preliminary hearing to determine if there are gounds for an appeal (at least as I read the story). Therefore, it is only one judge who has to make a determination. Did you read Dr. Turner's affidavit? It is pretty strong.

This is an interesting and landmark case, no matter how it turns out.

You must refrain from seeing everything in terms of win/lose or black and white.


The case went very well yesterday with Val and Eleni giving their evidence. They will be on the stand again today.
The prosecution have been given Thursday and Friday to present their case and cross examine.


Hey "kyle",

Thank you *very* much for the live report.

Maybe you would be willing to become our on-the-scene ("embedded") correspondent for the next days?

I am sure that there are many more than myself who would appreciate seeing any data you are able to transmit.


I was the one that originally contacted the lawyer and informed him of another scientific view on HIV. I have been liasing with him for the last six months. I spoke to him last night and he was very happy with the day's proceeding's.

I will post another comment after I speak with him, after todays hearing.

[note from Otis: It is tomorrow in Australia. o) And Thank You Kyle...for everything, from way more folk than myself.

Knobless Oblige

I for one think that it is both fitting and proper that the "HIV Virus" stand trial in the same country in which it arrived on the Murchison meteorite (most a biological scientist I can tell you nothing is ever for sure in this world, and "you better believe I don't need to speak Swedish to tell you that", as another famous virus wrote).

Howsumever, if the HIV is convicted of this impersonation as a deadly viroid, I think his/her/its hopes for The Prize are out the window along with the Italian-Americans and French and others who think it belongs to them.

Fat chance of that ever happening, even if the HIV does skate (this time)!


More mainstream spin. This case is not being ignored, at least locally. (Otis)

AdelaideNow - Brought to you by the Adelaide Advertiser

HIV, sex not linked, 'experts' tell court

From: The Advertiser
October 24, 2006

SOUTH Australian prosecutors have been forced to defend claims made by a prominent lawyer that HIV cannot be spread by sexual contact.

Criminal barrister Kevin Borick, QC, yesterday began a four-day hearing in the Supreme Court in a bid to prove HIV - which causes AIDS - is not transmitted sexually.

Mr Borick is seeking leave to appeal against the conviction of an Adelaide man, Andre Chad Parenzee, 35, who had unprotected sex with three women despite knowing he was infected with HIV.

Click here to read the full article on the website.

Legal Eagle

Maybe I am a legal sparrow, but my thinking is that even if the judge is persuaded that the chance of passing an HIV antibody diagnosis via a sexual encounter is really, really, really small (like it is) this does not, IMHO, excuse the convicted man's criminal behavior, since he knew what the law was, and that he was in violation of it when he had his way with the three women.

While it may seem callous, it is also true (or so it seems to me) that if the judge ruled in this fashion, while it would be too bad for Mr. Parenzee, it would still be quite a victory on the road to real truth, with its major impact being in cases to get such barbaric laws off the books.

I know this weblog is read by many attorneys, and I hope one or more of them will take the time to respond to my thoughts (maybe even Hank 'the Battle Tank' Barnes hisself).



Hey Legal Eagle,

Have we met?

Good observations. Bottom line: Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Law says, if you are HIV+, you better disclose this piece of data to your assignation before coitus -- because if not, and you transmit the dreaded "virus" you in big trouble.

But, the question remains: Since Padian has calculated an utterly miniscule transmission rate (.0009), it seems to me, ipso facto, he can argue cogently:

1. He didn't transmit "it" to her;
2. She has had "it" (whatever it is) since birth;
3. The anti-body test is bogus -- the girl may not even be infected with "it" --whatever it is; and
4. Perth Argument: There isn't even a virus -- just some indirect RNA fragments or ubiquitous proteins (perhaps cellular?) or some non-distinct reverse transcription, something, these boys can't even culture -- so there ain't even a transmission of anything.

If no transmission, no violation of the law.

Sorry for not being so scholarly or erudite -- but I's puttin' the kids to bed, and boy are they causin' a fuss!


[Note from Otis...On the morning of 26 October, Hank was "corrected" above, by the infamous and clearly attentive to this weblog, student and scholar of Haggis AIDS, Dr. (D) DT, as follows:

"Just a point of correction - The Padian figure of 0.0009 is per contact, not a percentage (which would be 0.09%)."

Thank you DT for this perfect example of you mental acuity and as well reinforcing for anyone who had any residual doubts that you are a total moron who has much more nerve than brains in showing up here last month pretending to be a doctor who knew about prescribing mediicnes to people. Can you show me where Mr. Barnes wrote 0.0009% anywhere in his response to Legal Eagle? Since he did not, there is absolutely no point at all to your correction (sic), unless of course if wherever it is you come from there is a difference between .09% and .0009?]


Two of the three girls tested neg

Darin Brown

"Law says, if you are HIV+, you better disclose this piece of data to your assignation before coitus"

The mathematician in me has to nit-pick.

Does the law say, "If you are HIV+" or "If you have been told you are HIV+"?

My guess is it literally reads the latter. If it's the former, then (a) the law is really open to scrutiny, and (b) this would open up the absurd realm where someone's blood taken at a point in time in the past before a sexual encounter could be tested and the person charged even without knowledge of their "status".

The only legal background I have is in watching L&O reruns on TNT. Which is prob. not always completely accurate. But I have picked up the notion of "intent follows the bullet". My question to the authors of the law would be: What is the difference between testing positive and having sex without telling your partner of your status, and being "HIV+" (without knowing it), choosing not to get tested (a right we thankfully still have) and "infecting" someone else?? According to the orthodox viewpoint, the damage is the same in both cases. Why is only one case punishable?

If we handed out toy guns to everyone on earth, but 1 in 1000 of them were actually real guns, and everyone started playing with them, would we only make a law that prosecuted people who found out if their gun was real yet continued to use it, or would we write a law demanding that everyone find out the status of their gun? Shouldn't we herd every single person on earth into testing centers? Isn't that the logical outcome of the reasoning of such laws?


I have spoken to Kevin, and he said that Val and Eleni finished giving their evidence today.

Unfortunately the next hearing date is Dec 19th, at which time they will be cross examined.

According to Kevin, the judge didn't seem to understand the problem with the WB test, and seemed to think it didn't matter that there were different criteria between countries and labs.

His analogy was that different states have different speed limits but you are still speeding.

Anybody with a really good analogy to help him see the difference?

Also the judge seems to be leaning towards questioning Eleni's ability as a physicist to be able to give expert testimony on HIV transmission.

So we are getting a properly qualified independent who will back up the ability of a "mere physicist" to question the exhalted HIV paradigm.



[I hope the ghost of Max Delbruck is listening. o)... I know we are *all* a bit disappointed in the long intermission, but we have something to look forward to at the yule. Our thanks once more are extened to you and please personally convey our congratulations to "the Perths" and Kevin for a thrilling first half. Otis]


The judge seems to view a test outcome as a question of jurisdiction, likening test-labs to states. That is an invalid analogy. I put it to our legal experts that test-labs do not have their own jurisdiction in any valid sense.

2. Going from labs to the law of a country: The judge's view is that the law decides when you're positive (speeding) That is/could be true on its own premisses, but it is viewing the matter from the wrong perspective.

To bring out Val's and Eleni's perspective, they must argue that it is not the relative matter of what different countries call speeding, but a FIXED question of when you're driving 100 miles an hour. Different countries can differ on whether you've exceeded their chosen speed limit, but it's not up to individual state whether you're exceeding 100 miles an hour. That is a question for science.

Having different standards for testing positive is like having different standards for when you're exceeding 100 miles an hour.

Gene Semon

It seems to me that Val Turner’s expertise qualifies him as the world’s leading authority on cross-reactive antibodies, a problem ignored for years by our biomedical establishment and at the heart of the “Baltimore Affair”.

This was not a “personnel problem”, but a cover-up of Imanishi-Kari’s incomprehension of anti-anti-idiotypes and other facets of molecular mimicry. Perhaps not “fraud”, as Margot O’Toole charged, but they were in over their heads. The ongoing problem, when does the “massaging” of data turn into fraud, is still with us.

It’s also a safe bet that Eleni is quite aware of the devil that’s in the details of “retroviral infections”, i.e. forensic equivalency with Peter Duesberg’s conclusions.

What clearly doesn’t exist is a wild-type uniquely unique sexually transmitted ultimate destoyer that somehow – they still can’t tell us in all the thousands and thousands of papers - hijacks the transcriptional apparatus of a eukaryotic cell. If there was such a thing, eukaryotic life wouldn’t exist. (See pages 72, 152 and especially 174 – we have co-evolved with every possible type of retrovirus – of Harvey’s book.)


This article (sic) was in our *major* national newspaper today. No suprises in the NY Times of Australia, you can be sure of that.
There is no AIDS virus, says HIV-positive accused

From: The Australian
October 26, 2006

AN HIV-positive man convicted of endangering the lives of three girlfriends is attempting to turn conventional science on its head by denying the existence of the virus that leads to AIDS.

Andre Chad Parenzee was convicted in February of endangering the lives of three women and faces 15 years in prison. One of the women now has HIV.

This week, he enlisted the expert evidence of two self-styled researchers - both members of the so-called Perth Group - who have used the witness stand to attack the "HIV myth".

Click here to read the full article on the website

Lee Bailey

Pretty fair article, Kyle, thanks for sharing it and thanks for your great work on this issue.

Hey Hank -- check out this graf from the article:

"Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos cited a 1997 published paper by University of California researcher Nancy Padian that the risk of a male transmitting HIV to a female at 0.0009 per cent, for each act of vaginal intercourse."

You've wormed your way into the Aussie courts!

Darin Brown

"According to Kevin, the judge didn't seem to understand the problem with the WB test, and seemed to think it didn't matter that there were different criteria between countries and labs.

His analogy was that different states have different speed limits but you are still speeding.

Anybody with a really good analogy to help him see the difference?"

What if different countries reported different values for the boiling point of water??

US -- 102 C
Australia -- 104 C
France -- 98 C,

etc., etc.

Would the judge simply conclude that "different countries have different boiling points, but they're all boiling??"

The point is, whether water is boiling is a scientific event, not a legal one. Countries can have different laws about how much water it might be legal to boil, what time of day to boil it, what to do with boiled water, etc., but they cannot write a law setting the boiling point of water. Although they have tried in the past to rewrite the definition of pi.



Just thought I'd point out that, already, the media are settling into their usual propaganda role. I noticed that one story said that Eleni had a "B.A." degree. While this is true, it's also true that Kary Mullis and Peter Duesberg have B.A. degrees. Eleni also happens to have a M.Sc. degree, but they didn't mention that.

The same story, as I recall, referred to Val Turner as "Mr. Turner." Val is of course an MD. The press are doing the same thing they did to Matthias Rath in South Africa, i.e., withholding a dissident's credentials from readers. In SA, they even went so far as to mischaracterize the name of Rath's foundation, calling it the "Rath Foundation" when it is actually called the "Dr. Rath Foundation." Anything to keep their readers from finding out that the man the entire SA media called a "vitamin entrepreneur" and a "vitamin salesman" was actually a qualified physician with many publications in scientific journals.

Others have already noticed that the media are doing things like putting "experts" in quotes in order to cast doubt on Val's and Eleni's credentials. Standard propaganda technique, about as far from classical journalism as it's possible to be.

Okay, now, it's easy to predict what the prosecutors are going to do. They are going to say to Eleni, "and you are not even a PhD, are you? Why should anyone listen to you when we have thousands of PhDs and MDs who dispute you?"

The fact is, we really ought to get some of the other Perthians to testify, the ones with better credentials, like Papadimitriou and Maniotis, who are PhDs (Papadimitriou is actually an MD AND a PhD as well as a professor). Eleni's lowly M.Sc. is a real liability. I mentioned to Val a few years ago that Eleni really should get a PhD, as the public unfortunately associates academic rank with rightness and wrongness of one's ideas.

Then the prosecutors will say to Val, "and you, Dr. Turner...are an emergency room physician. You have no expertise in virology..."

Not that it matters. I'm sure the covert Octopus comprising the Medical Mafia, CIA, NSC, CFR, and the rest of the behind the scenes powers that be with unlimited power and zero accountability, are already turning the gears to fix the verdict in this appeal. It don't take much...a simple threat (or bribe, or both) to the judge will probably suffice.

Obviously, such behind the scenes stuff took place in Kim's attempted legal proceedings, which explains why her lawyers kept fleeing the coop like scared chickens.

So...I'm sure that Kevin Borick is already aware of the credentials issue of his two star witnesses, and hopefully will bolster them with some people whose credentials are more impeccable. We have lots of such people, including De Harven, who can testify that Hiv doesn't exist.

I'm sure that Eleni is probably the best talker of them all, but credentials are important too, and we need them to bring on someone who is unimpeachable academically.


And how can I omit UPI's reported description of Eleni and Val as "self-styled scientific researchers."

Journalism is supposed to use neutral, emotionless reporting words, not words brimming over with prejudice and disdain. But they never do anymore on issues of importance to the power elite.

Now I hope I don't have to argue with anyone anymore when I say that the media are just a huge propaganda op. This should be obvious to all.


I hope Padian gets the attention she so aptly deserves for her study on transmission in the course of this trial.


I see that Otis has ripped into me for alerting those reading this blog that the Padian transmission rate was 0.09% and not 0.0009%.

I never claimed Hank said this. My post (which never appeared) followed that of Lee Bailey Posted October 25, 2006 at 01:58 PM.

"Pretty fair article, Kyle, thanks for sharing it and thanks for your great work on this issue.
Hey Hank -- check out this graf from the article:
"Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos cited a 1997 published paper by University of California researcher Nancy Padian that the risk of a male transmitting HIV to a female at 0.0009 per cent, for each act of vaginal intercourse."
You've wormed your way into the Aussie courts!"

Now either Eleni got it wrong (possible) or the reporter got it wrong (more likely). But Lee Bailey certainly got it wrong, and none of you picked up on this.

I know Otis invited me to contribute to this blog. Perhaps he wants me to proof read it for errors too?


Ya know DT (and I have no doubt this is the real intitals),

I am going to let this one stand. One can go to the note from me above to see how you were let into. But you did not make it clear who had committed this horrible error that only you could find, and I mistakenly thought you meant Hank when you really meant Lee Bailey, and so your "important" correction was not unecessary, only stupid. One wishes you read the HIV/AIDS literature with the same critical eye you pretend to display here toward writings that don't please the church.

I will also let stand your last remark in which you demonstrate, and for the *last* time, that the description - foul-smelling piece of left-over Haggis has meaning when applied to a cybernetic, pretentious coward whose knowledge base is sufficient to play Jeopardy, although with no goes to "Popular Journalism" by his own admission.

But seriously DT, you do rival The Monkey Prof. Moore in the masochism category, so might I suggest re-reading the important new data from Harvard whose import you apparently missed, as you do that of every post to which you add your insights and sparkling wit, and then taking matters, however tedious and trivial they may be, into your own well worn hands and massaging them fully in private before visiting YBYL again.

Josie Parenzee


I am the wife of Andre Parenzee. I have just read your comments and would like to say a few things.

Firstly, someone (I think it was Otis) commented that even if we are successful in overturning this conviction this does not excuse Andre's action. Before judging him I want you to please remember that this has been a long process and there is much information you have not heard. For instance, there is a big problem with the post diagnosis counselling.

Andre did not intentionally set out to hurt these women. You may think this is a biased viewpoint but that does not change the facts.

I also want to answer a query from Kyle. There actually is no law stating that a HIV+ person has to disclose their status to their sexual partners. In fact all of the literature and counsellors advise the HIV+ person reframe from telling their partners at first, instead waiting until they feel comfortable enough in the relationship to do so. This is obviously because of public perception of the so called virus.

I am pleased to see that there are so many people aware of the problem with HIV. I am a biologist myself and am horrified that other scientist have allowed this crap to be believed for so long.


[12 midnight Pacific: Mrs. Parenzee, Thank you very much for your remarks. If your husband broke none but extremely relative and non-criminal codes of morality, and not any criminal statutes, his arrest and conviction are *totally* unjust, and your chances of overturning this insane judgement (sic) seriously improved. At least I hope so. If there is anything additional that we at YBYL can do to assist you, please contact us. Our inboxes are always opened. And may I please request that the many who will be tempted to write notes in support of Mrs. Parenzee do so via email in order to keep the limited space available to the "recent comments" box uncluttered. Thank you. Otis.]

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • Comments are regarded as letters to the editor. They are subject to the same policies as the NY Times and Nature, and are not published until after editorial review.
Blog powered by Typepad