"AIDS dissidents"

57 posts / 0 new
Last post
Dundee_United
Offline
Joined: 10-04-06
Nov 26 2006 14:21

This is fucking bizarre.

Right coffeemachine and raw - what causes AIDS? What are the modalities? Do you think that HIV exists?

Raw seems to suggest that HIV might be a syndrome linked with ridiculous, poor living conditions such as those that prevail in failed states in the third world. This to me cannot explain how you can contract HIV just like how you can contract Hepatitis.

pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Nov 26 2006 15:04

Ther eis literally no point in posting on this thread, and I cannot believe that there is anyone stupid enough to swallow this crap.

coffeemachine
Offline
Joined: 31-03-06
Nov 26 2006 15:12
pingtiao wrote:
Ther eis literally no point in posting on this thread, and I cannot believe that there is anyone stupid enough to swallow this crap.

couldn't agree more.

coffeemachine
Offline
Joined: 31-03-06
Nov 26 2006 15:33
John. wrote:
raw wrote:
I agree with coffeemachine regarding martin walker. He is highly respected within many different areas, which is more than I can say for some people here.

Thing is raw, insulting me here doesn't help your argument. Walker is not "respected" in the area of HIV and AIDS, which is what we're talking about.

how does insulting martin walker help your argument?

Now John i am willing, more so than anyone, for you to give your considered opinion, your analysis, your critique your well researched and critically applied response to martin walker's exposition of the aids industry.

Granted you don't have the skills, experience or naturally inquisitive mind of walker (i would be surprised in anyone does) but calling someone a "nutter" because you don't like what they've written about gives your website a strange odour of self-indulgence.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 26 2006 15:53
coffeemachine wrote:
pingtiao wrote:
Ther eis literally no point in posting on this thread, and I cannot believe that there is anyone stupid enough to swallow this crap.

couldn't agree more.

Oh dear coffeemachine. Because the "AIDS conspiracy" is just so obvious isn't it roll eyes

Quote:
Now John i am willing, more so than anyone, for you to give your considered opinion, your analysis, your critique your well researched and critically applied response to martin walker's exposition of the aids industry.

Should I ask you to give your personal proof for the existence of gravity, cm, if some nutters say it doesn't exist? That said, I did work for a year in HIV/AIDS servoces and have read a fair bit on the subject. So I can confidently say that you and raw are talking bollocks.

But go on then you two, cut out the ad hominems and personal attacks and back up what you're saying. CM, how can you say HIV doesn't exist when the virus has been identified? And what have all the HIV+ westerners got then, if all the Africans are actually just malnourished (which is actually a ridiculous charicature of Africa as backwards, and not backed up by facts), and why is HIV spreading so fast in Eastern Europe? And if it's not, because HIV doesn't exist, then what is it?

coffeemachine
Offline
Joined: 31-03-06
Nov 26 2006 16:00
John. wrote:
coffeemachine wrote:
pingtiao wrote:
Ther eis literally no point in posting on this thread, and I cannot believe that there is anyone stupid enough to swallow this crap.

couldn't agree more.

Oh dear coffeemachine. Because the "AIDS conspiracy" is just so obvious isn't it roll eyes

Quote:
Now John i am willing, more so than anyone, for you to give your considered opinion, your analysis, your critique your well researched and critically applied response to martin walker's exposition of the aids industry.

Should I ask you to give your personal proof for the existence of gravity, cm, if some nutters say it doesn't exist? That said, I did work for a year in HIV/AIDS servoces and have read a fair bit on the subject. So I can confidently say that you and raw are talking bollocks.

But go on then you two, cut out the ad hominems and personal attacks and back up what you're saying. CM, how can you say HIV doesn't exist when the virus has been identified? And what have all the HIV+ westerners got then, if all the Africans are actually just malnourished (which is actually a ridiculous charicature of Africa as backwards, and not backed up by facts), and why is HIV spreading so fast in Eastern Europe? And if it's not, because HIV doesn't exist, then what is it?

John you called someone a nutter. That is neither critique, nor analysis.

Either you can justify your opinion that martin walker is a "nutter" in which case i am happy to accept your well considered, thoughtful and critical analysis to explain the insult, or you can't.

I genuinely don't mind which.

pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Nov 26 2006 16:20

Stop trying to shift this thread from a discussion of people who don't think that HIV is the cause of AIDS onto some character circle-jerk.

Lets hear your argument for disagreeing with HIV causing AIDS, and we can then go from there.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 26 2006 16:26
coffeemachine wrote:
John you called someone a nutter. That is neither critique, nor analysis.

Either you can justify your opinion that martin walker is a "nutter" in which case i am happy to accept your well considered, thoughtful and critical analysis to explain the insult, or you can't.

I genuinely don't mind which.

Are you embarrassed someone's called you on not believing in HIV? Quit fudging and answer the questions.

You and raw have called me - and plenty of other people - all kinds of stuff, I don't quite buy your sudden sensitivity.

coffeemachine
Offline
Joined: 31-03-06
Nov 26 2006 19:12
John. wrote:
coffeemachine wrote:
John you called someone a nutter. That is neither critique, nor analysis.

Either you can justify your opinion that martin walker is a "nutter" in which case i am happy to accept your well considered, thoughtful and critical analysis to explain the insult, or you can't.

I genuinely don't mind which.

Are you embarrassed someone's called you on not believing in HIV? Quit fudging and answer the questions.

You and raw have called me - and plenty of other people - all kinds of stuff, I don't quite buy your sudden sensitivity.

John this thread 'started' by myself is about you calling martin walker a "nutter". I have asked you, quite politely i think, to explain, justify, indeed give your considered and well thought opinion and analysis why you think this is so. This is the nature of the thread.

If you or any other young anarchist wishes to start a thread about "hiv vs none existence of hiv" then i'm sure people will contribute their considered and well thought opinions on that particular topic.

If anything you seem intent on derailing this thread in order not to answer something put to you.

So again John either you can justify your opinion that martin walker is a "nutter" in which case i am happy to accept your well considered, thoughtful and critical analysis to explain the insult, or you can't.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 26 2006 19:24
coffeemachine wrote:
So again John either you can justify your opinion that martin walker is a "nutter" in which case i am happy to accept your well considered, thoughtful and critical analysis to explain the insult, or you can't.

To humour you - as it seems obvious to everyone else that this discussion is about self-proclaimed "AIDS dissidents" and whether there is any truth to what they say:

There is overwhelming scientific evidence of the existence of HIV - indeed, it has been identified - and that it causes the collapse of the immune system making it easy to acquire opportunistic infections, or have T cells reduce to such a level that a diagnosis of AIDS is given. To disagree with this and claim instead a vast conspiracy is nutty, and I said he appeared to be one of those nutters.

I'm not going to ask you to give justifications for every insult you have given, to me or anyone else, cos I'm not ridiculously petty and I'm not trying to avoid answering any questions about my barmy beliefs.

I've answered your "question", how about you answer other people's now?

pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Nov 26 2006 19:29

A good starter question would be:

If AIDS is not caused by a virus, why would giving anti-retroviral drugs like the AZT cocktail delay the drop in Th-cell number for those patients identified as having HIV present in their blood?

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 26 2006 19:39

OK CM hold on, as requested, new thread coming up.

Thora
Offline
Joined: 17-06-04
Nov 26 2006 19:43

Does anyone have a link to info online about the possibility of HIV not causing AIDs?

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 26 2006 19:46

Thora and everyone, new thread for that discussion now here
http://libcom.org/forums/thought/hiv-causing-aids-and-dissidents

coffeemachine
Offline
Joined: 31-03-06
Nov 26 2006 20:23
John. wrote:
coffeemachine wrote:
So again John either you can justify your opinion that martin walker is a "nutter" in which case i am happy to accept your well considered, thoughtful and critical analysis to explain the insult, or you can't.

To humour you - as it seems obvious to everyone else that this discussion is about self-proclaimed "AIDS dissidents" and whether there is any truth to what they say:

There is overwhelming scientific evidence of the existence of HIV - indeed, it has been identified - and that it causes the collapse of the immune system making it easy to acquire opportunistic infections, or have T cells reduce to such a level that a diagnosis of AIDS is given. To disagree with this and claim instead a vast conspiracy is nutty, and I said he appeared to be one of those nutters.

I'm not going to ask you to give justifications for every insult you have given, to me or anyone else, cos I'm not a petty prick and I'm not trying to avoid answering any questions about my barmy beliefs.

I've answered your "question", how about you answer other people's now?

John i haven't called you a petty prick or called your ideas barmy. I don't know what your ideas are!

You haven't really provided a considered critique of anything have you. Indeed you abjugated your responsibility for your own ideas, opinions and analysis onto some unspecified generalised "overwhelming scientific evidence". You have given me 2 sentences, neither analysis or critique. Maybe you feel you don't have to.

If we examine this "overwhelming scientific evidence" with clarity diligence and a sense of purpose we find a world of unscientific method, wholesale assumption, non peer-reviewed speculation and drug trials that actually go against all scientific method. This is what Martin Walker investigated.

A "nutter" as defined by you is a working class militant who has spent 30 years of his life questioning the methodology of the institutions of the state and capital, including questioning 'overwhelming scientific evidence' of the aids industry?

Which are:
- serious questions about what makes acquired immunodeficiency a syndrome
- serious questions about what role a single sexually transmitted agent plays in the immune system deficiency
- serious questions about how a retrovirus is transmitted sexually

These questions have all come from within the serious scientific community i.e science played against itself to justify or at least explain scientifically the above.

If the scientific evidence is overwhelming it is also irredeemably flawed.

There are no simple answers or easy debates, there is no either/or, there is instead a host of awkward and unanswered questions.

pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Nov 26 2006 20:56

To be honest though mate, why would you know what are and are not "serious" questions, not being a doctor or a medical scientist and all?

Anyone sufficiently bright could convince you of what they wanted- you are out of your deptyh and so prone to being manipulated (consciously or not).

Jason Cortez
Offline
Joined: 14-11-04
Nov 28 2006 01:42
John. wrote:
Jason Cortez wrote:
John, i have no wish to join this bunfight but it is quite possible to believe that hiv dosen't cause AIDS without being a nutter.

I have never seen or heard any explanation that is not nutter-worthy, do you have any?

Some of these "dissidents" don't even believe HIV exists (I believe coffeemachine you fall into this camp don't you?).

Quote:
Indeed the standard explanation changed quite considably in responce to critisms from these same so-called nutters.

In what way? And when?

Just for you John. Gallo ('joint'discover of HIV) when arguing against critisms coming from some of the people who would later become known as 'AIDS dissidents' said

Quote:
" who needs co-factors when you have been hid by a truck" (84)

by the mid-ninties he revised his position to that of a mutli-factorical process (albeit with HIV still having a central role).

Montaginer (actual discover) had by 1990 moved from the standard position that HIV attack cells of the immune system directly (they was a general revision in the years after wards to an auto-immune explanation) to one of apoptosis ( that cells were reprogrammed and committed sucicide)and co-factors in part as a responce to... you guess it

Quote:
AIDS does not inevitably lead to death, especially if you suppress the co-factors that support the disease. It is very important to tell this to people who are infected. I think we should put the same weight now on the co-factors as we have on HIV. Psychological factors are critical in supporting immune function. If you suppress this psychological support by telling someone he's condemned to die, your words alone will have condemned him.

Luc Montagnier

obvisously a complete nutter :roll eyes:

What ever you may think about the aids dissenters theories you clearly aren't knowledgable enough on this subject to go around throwing epitaphs such as "nutter" about people who have studied the science in far greater depth. The only reason i can see for you using such emotive riddiculing language is to close down debate.

John i would hope that your view is closer to this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_reappraisal
but i fear it is much closer to this
http://www.aids-dissidents.tk/

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 28 2006 09:49
Jason Cortez wrote:
obvisously a complete nutter :roll eyes:

Jason, that person is not saying that HIV doesn't exist, nor that it's not infectious, nor that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. So they don't look like a "nutter", no.

revolutionrugger
Offline
Joined: 23-03-06
Nov 29 2006 13:30
John. wrote:
Leaving aside your attempts at personal insults, and insinuations of violent tendencies of "working class mining communities" who would apparently break my ribs roll eyes

It's clear from his writings on the subject that he, like you, does not believe HIV causes AIDS. To me this means that his writings on science are irrelevant nonsense. And contain very dodgy passages like this:

Quote:
Joan Shenton is the only person in the country who has been allowed to voice dissenting views about ‘AIDS’ on British television. The orthodox view, on the other hand, with the lionisation of physicians and medical research workers, together with martyred gay men, and still more innocent homosexual victims, is dripped into our consciousness, in ways as disparate as major news programmes, science documentaries, Sunday morning radio appeals, documentary soaps, domestic soaps and Hollywood feature films.

(Totalitarian science and media politics)

I just saw this. THe whole denialist movement tends to have a rather homophobic tinge to it.

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Nov 29 2006 13:39

Might be irony. Dunno.

Jason Cortez
Offline
Joined: 14-11-04
Nov 30 2006 23:32
revolutionrugger wrote:
John. wrote:
Leaving aside your attempts at personal insults, and insinuations of violent tendencies of "working class mining communities" who would apparently break my ribs roll eyes

It's clear from his writings on the subject that he, like you, does not believe HIV causes AIDS. To me this means that his writings on science are irrelevant nonsense. And contain very dodgy passages like this:

Quote:
Joan Shenton is the only person in the country who has been allowed to voice dissenting views about ‘AIDS’ on British television. The orthodox view, on the other hand, with the lionisation of physicians and medical research workers, together with martyred gay men, and still more innocent homosexual victims, is dripped into our consciousness, in ways as disparate as major news programmes, science documentaries, Sunday morning radio appeals, documentary soaps, domestic soaps and Hollywood feature films.

(Totalitarian science and media politics)

I just saw this. THe whole denialist movement tends to have a rather homophobic tinge to it.

coming from a guy who has been threatening to kill other posters, impuning a homophobic tinge to a whole non-movement seems a little rich.

gurrier
Offline
Joined: 30-01-04
Dec 1 2006 01:51
Luc Montaignier wrote:
AIDS does not inevitably lead to death, especially if you suppress the co-factors that support the disease. It is very important to tell this to people who are infected. I think we should put the same weight now on the co-factors as we have on HIV. Psychological factors are critical in supporting immune function. If you suppress this psychological support by telling someone he's condemned to die, your words alone will have condemned him.

a
It is 100% incorrect to think that this statement lends any support whatsoever to the idea that HIV is not a necessary causal agent in AIDS.

What it expresses is the that HIV does not kill you, opportunistic infections kill you and that it is possible to minimise the possibility of catching these opportunistic infections by addressing certain other factors.

Y'see, the thing is that if you don't have HIV, then these co-factors are not going to be the type of things that are likely to kill you. At all.

It just boils down to the fact that people who have HIV should ensure that they have a healthy lifestyle, full of exercise and with a good diet, as despite having the virus, if they mantain a good state of general health, they will not necessarily succumb to an opportunistic infection.

It's hardly rocket science though. It's the sort of thing that you'd expect and it is a fully integrated part of HIV positive patient treatment in the West. In Africa of course, it's pretty much impossible for people to maintain such a high level of health, so they die quickly without anti-retrovirals.

coversall's picture
coversall
Offline
Joined: 23-11-06
Dec 1 2006 16:59

I saw this elsewhere on the interweb and thought it raises many important issues that could be furthered in this thread:

"As today is World AIDS Day I thought it was a very appropriate time to discuss an issue that has been bugging me for some time; Can Dracula get and pass on AIDS? Or is it OK because he’s already dead? But even so, does he pass it on when he bites you? Or did the CIA invent it to kill Blackula? And is Blackula in denial about his condition, thereby infecting even more people? If you can help shed any light on this then email 2@hurtyoubad.com"

chegrimandi
Offline
Joined: 7-01-05
Dec 1 2006 17:18

I heard them gays made up HIV/Aids to scare all us god a'fearin straights!

moneduloides
Offline
Joined: 7-10-08
Apr 10 2009 13:01

Hate to bump an old thread, but to avoid unnecessarily starting a new one:

Steal This Chapter by Ben Goldacre

It's licensed under the creative commons, so feel free to distribute the text, link, or pdf.

This chapter was not allowed to be published in Goldacre's book 'Bad Science' due to a legal battle between Matthias Rath and The Guardian/Goldacre. It's now available, and anybody interested in the AIDS "dissident" ridiculousness should give it a go.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Apr 10 2009 13:47

Thanks for that. If someone could post it into our library here that would be great!

Actually this thread ended up not being a very serious one, we had a more serious one here:
http://libcom.org/forums/thought/hiv-causing-aids-and-dissidents
which has now been locked and archived. I had forgotten how amazing it was though!