Register to Comment
Page 17 of 51 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 27 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 504
Like Tree253Likes
  1. #161
    jpc jpc is offline
    jpc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,779

    Quote Originally Posted by Tea Party Patriot View Post
    Once upon a time the Roman church and other denominations (such as Scotch Presbyterian's) burned people for witchcraft and denying that they were absolutely right in everything they said. It seems to me that these days the warmy alarmists are the same when it comes to carbon emissions. The earth has warmed up and cooled down for billions of years, I think myself it is those who are arrogant enough to think that man can influence this and prevent natural climate change that need their heads examined.
    Fair enough.
    The Earth has warmed and cooled with no input from us for billions of years.
    This time around Humanity has turned tens of billions of tonnes of Carbon sequestered over hundreds of millions of years into CO2 in a cosmic instant.
    Add in the alteration of the land cover.
    As interventions go, that is a serious one.
    Makes no odds arguing about it or trying to change it.
    But our descendants will find out.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #162
    SAT SAT is offline
    SAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    5,841

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    So now you are the boss of who posts on the site? Rather than have a debate, you want to dominate and make rules about who can post what and where ....

    "Climate change deniers are usually right-wing authoritarians ...." ?
    Call me a pedant if you will, but I happen to think discussion of climate change belongs in the climate change thread. If you hadn't destroyed the thread with your trolling / spamming, people might still actually visit it, and then there would be no need for you to satisfy your craving for attention in fora which have absolutely nothing to do with the topic of climate change.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #163
    Mitsui2 Mitsui2 is online now
    Mitsui2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    21,580

    Quote Originally Posted by SAT View Post
    Perhaps you should, 'say what you mean, and mean what you say' There are no telepaths on this forum, and so one can only take your words as they are written.
    Golly but you really do take yourself remarkably seriously, don't you?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #164
    gerhard dengler gerhard dengler is offline
    gerhard dengler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    24,624

    Quote Originally Posted by SAT View Post
    Reminds me of a guy called Einstein. He came up with this crazy theory of relativity. Of course the vast majority of scientists at the time dismissed him as a crackpot, and even signed petitions deriding his work. Of course he must have been a crack pot as the vast majority of scientists said so. !
    +1

    There was quite a bit of initial resistance to Einstein's theories albeit for a variety of reasons.

    Criticism of the theory of relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #165
    Pat Gill Pat Gill is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,434
    Twitter
    @

    Quote Originally Posted by eyelight View Post
    You need to read about some Conspiracy Fact.
    Next you'll be telling us that steel-framed skyscrapers fall down by themselves.
    Ah I just love this place
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #166
    SAT SAT is offline
    SAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    5,841

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitsui2 View Post
    Golly but you really do take yourself remarkably seriously, don't you?
    Yes, I even quoted from Alice in Wonderland to show how serious I am
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #167
    EPluribusUnum EPluribusUnum is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    246

    Quote Originally Posted by ibis View Post
    Eh, but nobody prevents contrarians doing science. The problem is that by and large they don't. The size of contrarian PR is out of all proportion to the contrarian science being done - and oddly enough, contrarian scientists are the most regular defectors from the contrarian camp, while the PR people, politicians, and 'think tanks' remain in place.

    Why is the money spent on contrarian PR not spent on research?
    They would like to do research but cannot get funding. Here:

    Peter Duesberg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The relevant material:

    Duesberg received acclaim early in his career for research on oncogenes and cancer. With Peter Vogt, he reported in 1970 that a cancer-causing virus of birds had extra genetic material compared with non-cancer-causing viruses, hypothesizing that this material contributed to cancer.[1][2] At the age of 36, Duesberg was awarded tenure at the University of California, Berkeley, and at 49, he was elected to the National Academy of Sciences. He received an Outstanding Investigator Grant (OIG) from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 1986, and from 1986 to 1987 was a Fogarty Scholar-in-Residence at the NIH laboratories in Bethesda, Maryland.

    Now note when the funding ended:

    Peter H Duesberg | University Of California Berkeley | ResearchCrossroads Profile

    If you don't agree, you get no funding, for anything you might do. That's the way that it works. I already posted Philippe Even making the same point re the French medical establishment.

    And have you heard of Kary Mullis, Nobel Prize in chemistry? Here:

    Viewpoint by Kary Mullis- Duesberg on AIDS

    HIV & AIDS - Interview with Kary Mullis

    But, I point out, Gallo will refuse to discuss the HIV debate, just as he's always done.

    "I know he will," Mullis shoots back, anger rising in his voice. "But you know what? I would be willing to chase the little bastard from his car to his office and say, 'This is Kary Mullis trying to ask you a goddamn simple question,' and let the cameras follow. If people think I'm a crazy person, that's okay. But here's a Nobel Prize-winner trying to ask a simple question from those who spent $22 billion and killed 100,000 people. It has to be on TV. It's a visual thing. I'm not unwilling to do something like that."
    ***
    While many people, even within the ranks of the HIV dissidents, have of late tried to distance themselves from the controversial Duesberg, Mullis defends him passionately and seems genuinely concerned about his fate. "I was trying to stress this point to the ABC people" he says, "that Peter has been abused seriously by the scientific establishment, to the point where he can't even do any research. Not only that, but his whole life is pretty much in disarray because of this, and it is only because he has refused to compromise his scientific moral standards. There ought to be some goddamn private foundation in the country, that would say, 'Well, we'll move in where the NIH [National Institutes of Health] dropped off. We'll take care of it. You just keep right on saying what you're saying, Peter. We think you're an ******************************************, and we think you are wrong, but you're the only dissenter, and we need one, because it's science, it's not religion.' And that was one of the reasons why I cooperated with ABC.
    "

    And there's far more humanity in Kary Mullis than there was and is those who killed the 100,000 with their AZT:

    Referring to the guardians of the HIV establishment, such as Gallo and Fauci, Mullis suddenly turns from rage to pity. "I feel sorry for 'em," he admits. "I want to have the story unveiled, but you know what? I'm just not the kick-'em-in-the-balls kind of guy. I'm a moral person, but I'm not a crusader. I think it's a terrible tragedy that it's happened. There are some terrible motivations of humans involved in this, and Gallo and Fauci have got to be some of the worst."

    Then the anger kicks in again. "Personally, I want to see those f[v]ckers pay for it a little bit. I want to see them lose their position. I want to see their goddamn children have to go to junior college. I mean, who do we care about? Do we care about these people that are HIV-positive whose lives have been ruined? Those are the people I'm the most concerned about. Every night I think about this. I think, what is my interest in this? Why do I care? I don't know anybody dying of it. They're right about that. Well, except one of my girlfriend's brothers died of it, and I think he died of AZT."

    At this point, Mullis voice starts to crack. "The horror of it is every goddamn thing you look at, if you look at it through the glasses that you've developed through looking at this thing, seems pretty scary to me. Look at the oncogene people and I go, oh yeah, I know what they are doing. Same stuff. Oncogenes don't have anything to do with cancer. Radiation probably doesn't have anything to do with stopping cancer. The drugs that we use on people - all those goddamn horrible poisons - they're no less toxic than AZT. And we are doing it to everybody. Everybody's aunt is being radiated once a goddamn month and given drugs that are going to kill her. We're dealing with a bunch of witch doctors. The whole medical profession - except for the people that patch you up when you get a broken leg or you have a plumbling problem - is really f[v]cked. It's just a bunch of people that have become socially important and very rich by thinking about the fact that they might be able to cure the diseases that actually cause people in our society to die. And they can't do ************************ about it. It's scary, that's what it is."

    He takes a deep breath, and I realize that on the other end of the phone, Kary Mullis, Nobel laureate, pioneer of the DNA revolution, has started to cry. "God, I hate this kind of crap. I really don't want to write about it. I'd like to write about something that's easy to write about, where you don't have to come up with a conclusion in the end. I've been writing about my boyhood, when I was a little kid back on my grandfather's farm where we didn't know about black widow spiders or all that stuff. But writing about that is so easy. Sometimes in the morning, when it's a good surf, I go out there, and I don't feel like it's a bad world. I think it's a good world, the sun is shining. I'm really optimistic in the mornings. But, you know, it's not because of you calling me. It's just thinking about this issue, it just drives me to - I'm making tears thinking about it. I don't see how to deal with it. I can't possibly write a book that will describe it to somebody. You can't do a damn 22.8-minute TV thing that is going to have any effect except to get somebody to shoot through my window and hit me. I feel like I'm on a hostile planet."

    "I am waiting to be convinced that we're wrong," Mullis continues. "I know it ain't going to happen. But if it does, I will tell you this much - I will be the first person to admit it. A lot of people studying this disease are looking for the clever little pathways they can piece together, that will show how this works. Like, 'What if this molecule was produced by this one and then this one by this one, and then what if this one and that one induce this one'- that stuff becomes, after two molecules, conjecture of the rankest kind. People who sit there and talk about it don't realize that molecules themselves are somewhat hypothetical, and that their interactions are more so, and that the biological reactions are even more so. You don't need to look that far. You don't discover the cause of something like AIDS by dealing with incredibly obscure things. You just look at what the hell is going on. Well, here's a bunch of people that are practising a new set of behavioural norms. Apparently it didn't work because a lot of them got sick. That's the conclusion. You don't necessarily know why it happened. But you start there."


    And here, a vid:



    And for how significant is Kary's contribution to our world, he won his Nobel Prize in chemistry for the invention of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), which, ironically enough, is what is used to identify those infected with the HIV. In any event, there would have been no "DNA revolution" absent in the invention of PCR. And that's how significant his contribution to our world. But he's described as "weird", a "crank", etc., by the HIV/AIDS true believers.

    And here, an excerpt from his book:

    HIV & AIDS - The Medical Establishment vs. the Truth

    The relevant material:

    The responses I received from my colleagues ranged from moderate acceptance to outright venom. When I was invited to speak about P.C.R. at the European Federation of Clinical Investigation in Toledo, Spain, I told them that I would like to speak about H.I.V. and AIDS instead. I don't think they understood exactly what they were getting into when they agreed. Halfway through my speech, the president of the society cut me off. He suggested I answer some questions from the audience. I thought it was incredibly rude and totally out of line that he cut me off, but what the hell, I would answer questions. He opened the floor to questions, and then decided that he would ask the first one. Did I understand that I was being irresponsible? That people who listened to me might stop using condoms? I replied that fairly reliable statistics from the C.D.C. showed that in the United States, at least, the number of reported cases of every known venereal disease was increasing, meaning people were not using condoms, while using the initial definition of AIDS, the number of reported cases of AIDS was decreasing. So, no, I didn't understand that I was being irresponsible. He decided that that was enough questions and ended the meeting abruptly. [my note, that is the single fact that proves that HIV does not equal AIDS, i.e., infection by our old friends syphilis and gonorrhea is up yet AIDS incidence is down, so people are not being safe in regards to sex yet AIDS incidence is down; we should expect that AIDS incidence would be rising with increased HIV infection, just as incidence of syphilis and gonorrhea are up with the increased spread of the pathogens responsible for those illnesses].

    Whenever I speak on this issue the question always comes up, "If H.I.V. isn't the cause of AIDS, then what is?" The answer to that is that I don't know the answer to that, any more than Gallo or Montagnier knows. Knowing that there is no evidence that H.I.V. causes AIDS does not make me an authority on what does. It is indisputable that if an individual has extremely close contacts with a lot of people, the number of infectious organisms that this individual's immune system is going to have to deal with will be high. If a person has 300 sexual contacts a year - with people who them selves are each having 300 contacts a year - that's 90,000 times more opportunity for infections than a person involved in an exclusive relationship.

    Think of the immune system as a camel. If the camel is overloaded, it collapses. In the 1970s we had a significant number of highly mobile, promiscuous men sharing bodily fluids and fast lifestyles and drugs. It was probable that a metropolitan homosexual would be exposed to damn near every infectious organism that has lived on humans. In fact if you had to devise a strategy to collect every infectious agent on the planet, you would build bathhouses and encourage very gregarious people to populate them. The immune system will fight, but the numbers will wear it down.

    The scientific issue gets tangled up with morality. What I'm describing has nothing at all to do with morality. This is not "God's wrath" or any other absurdity. A segment of our society was experimenting with a lifestyle, and it didn't work. They got sick. Another segment of our pluralistic society, call them doctor/scientist refugees from the failed War on Cancer, or just call them professional jackals, discovered that it did work. It worked for them. They are still making payments on their new BMWs out of your pocket.


    And here is another reason why we know HIV does not = AIDS, a comment by a "lincoln" on the science blog Aetiology:


    Andythebrit said “Especially after people started getting treated for HIV and, uh, got healthier”.

    It seems Andy has not kept up with the issue either, as 48 percent of those taking these drugs suffered extreme side effects such as liver failure, neuropathy, heart failure, kidney failure, and a host of nasty side effects including death. Fortunately less death than was presented with the high dosage AZT that all positives were given from 87 to 95, but plenty of death directly from the newer drugs as well.

    The CDC estimates that most HIV positives do not take any medications for HIV at all, and in the last few years, many thousands in increasing numbers have been and continue to be abandoning the use of any ARV drugs.

    Little wonder when a glimpse at most of the Long Term NonProgressors shows that what they almost all have in common is that they avoided the anti-HIV drugs!


    I know myself know of a number of humans who were determined to be HIV+ back in the mid-80s and have never taken any of the prescribed regime "meds", from AZT on forward. I put meds in " ", since AZT is not a medicine, it is a lethal concoction that failed as a chemotherapeutic agent owing to its toxicity (it was killing cancer patients faster than the cancer). Some decided to give that same toxic AZT to homosexual men back in the day, when the motto was, hit hard, hit fast. All those folks died, my mom's friend and fellow teacher, Joel, among them. He was fine, with a C4 helper cell count within normal range, then they gave him the AZT on testing positive. He was dead in less than two months. My government and some others have much to answer for.

    And do you read much? Here:

    Dr. Zvi Grossman in Nature Medicine, 2006: ” The pathogenic and physiologic processes leading to AIDS remain a conundrum.”

    So Kary Mullis is accordingly still looking for that original peer reviewed source that establishes that the probable cause of AIDS is HIV.

    And have you ever heard of Lynn Margulis? Famous for her theory of endosymbiosis. Here:

    Margulis has made significant original contributions to cell biology and microbial evolution. She is best known for her endosymbiotic theory, which the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins has called “one of the great achievements of twentieth-century evolutionary biology” (Brockman, 1995). She was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1983. In 1999, she was awarded the National Medal of Science by President Clinton.

    In 2006, Margulis stated, “We find the paucity of evidence published in standard peer-reviewed primary scientific journals that leads to the conclusion that ‘HIV causes AIDS’ appalling. No amount of moralizing censorship, rhetorical tricks, consensus of opinion, pulling rank, obfuscation, ad hominem attacks or blustering newspaper editorials changes this fact. The conflation ‘HIV/AIDS’ may be good marketing but is it science? No. Yet certainly the political and economic implications of the term ‘HIV/AIDS’ are staggering.” (Margulis and MacAllister, 2006)


    Lynn, now deceased, was a hero, a giant of science to some. Then she had the audacity to speak her mind re HIV/AIDS. And so, to once again borrow from the Aetiology poster named "lincoln":

    Notice the reverence with which Lynn Margulis, or even Peter Duesberg was held, until they themselves open mindedly looked at the issue of HIV and dared to have simply disagreed with “consensus”.

    Suddenly, Lynn Margulis falls from grace, in their eyes, and is immediately transformed into a babbling buffoon.

    Same thing for Peter. Gallo himself called Peter the “greatest virologist in the world”, until Peter had the sheer audacity to disagree with Gallo and the ruling virologists of the NIH!


    If you doubt lincoln's characterization, read the comments here:

    Margulis on HIV/AIDS – Aetiology

    See, she was a goddess of science until she question the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. Then she became a babbling baffoon. And never mind, apparently, that she came with a theory that revolutionized the matter of eukaryote evolution.

    And here, George Miklos:

    George Miklos is the director of MIKLOS-BOND Biomedical Information Services in Sydney, Australia. He is a widely recognized expert in genomics, and was a pride of place author on the landmark publication describing the mapping of the human genome (Venter et al., 2001). Over a span of more than three decades, he has authored or co-authored more than 50 papers, articles, and editorials on genetics, molecular and cell biology, and biotechnology.

    In 2004, Miklos stated, “How can you perform academic or commercially relevant biology if you don't think deeply? If you don't have a coherent theory and if you are dependent upon sophisticated technologies and bioinformatic protocols that you don't understand, then your data interpretations are in the realm of voodoo science. It is painfully obvious by now that this is where many…AIDS researchers have located themselves – a conclusion attested to by the…mountain of contradictions in the scientific literature concerning presumed HIV pathogenesis, AIDS morbidity, mortality, epidemiology and demography.” (Miklos, 2004)


    Let me leave you with:

    Rethinking AIDS > Home ( DNN 4.3.5 )

    And, friend, this is personal to me. As I have related here before, I grew up on the edge of the Jewish section of Los Angeles, the so-called Fairfax District. I live on one side of Hayworth Ave. My side was or became the City of West Hollywood. The area of West Hollywood outside of the Fairfax District went from the Pussycat theater and massage parlors to being the gay part of the LA County. I know who lived and who died. Because I was there for it. Those who believed the HIV=AIDS and took the AZT all died. Those who didn't take the AZT lived. As I said above, some have much to answer for. And with the exception of the three souls that I know from here in Honolulu, one a former client of mine, all of the other survivors I know from West Hollywood. All of them determined to be HIV back in the early days yet none wished to be guinea pigs. In their words, more or less, if I died or die from HIV then I die. But I'm not about to play the guinea pig on their behalf. And so they didn't and so they are still alive and with us. With none of the side effects of the anti-viral aka toxic drugs.

    Almost forgot, but from that Rethinking AIDS page:

    HIV Does Not Exist

    July 2012 — In an interview with Jane Bürgermeister, the Austrian biologist and researcher Christl Meyer provides scientific evidence that the so called "HIV-virus", which is claimed to be the cause of AIDS, does not exist. In the interview, Meyer explains the fallacies of the current HIV/AIDS theories and why the HIV vaccine campaign should be considered a genocide against Africans and the Third World.


    Here's the video:

    AIDS is a hoax! Biologist Christl Meyer explodes the HIV/AIDS conspiracy - YouTube

    She isn't exactly saying anything new:

    JPandS Fall 2010 - Etienne de Harven

    And since OwedToJoy is on here parroting about just that, genocide in Africa:

    January 2012 — The peer-reviewed Italian Journal of Anatomy and Embryology has published a paper titled AIDS since 1984: No evidence for a new, viral epidemic — not even in Africa, authored by Peter Duesberg, Daniele Mandrioli, Amanda McCormack, Joshua M. Nicholson, David Rasnick, Christian Fiala, Claus Koehnlein, Henry H. Bauer, and Marco Ruggiero.

    So, no new evidence for a new, viral epidemic, not even in Africa. Yet Thabo is blamed by OwedToJoy for the deaths of many.

    And now well and truly lastly, back to stifling dissent, and wrongly so:

    In March 2011, Firenze, Italy, hosted the Italian Conference on AIDS and Retroviruses. It is well known that for more than 25 years the opinions of so-called dissident scientists such as Professors Peter Duesberg and Henry Bauer were never allowed in mainstream conferences and any voice questioning the role of HIV in causing AIDS was systematically shut off. Associations for the scientific reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis such as Rethinking AIDS were never invited or even allowed to participate.

    This deplorable state of affairs officially came to an end in Firenze with the formal and official recognition of the contributions of scientists such as Duesberg, Bauer, Fiala, Kohenlein, Rasnick, Pacini, Nicholson, Morucci, Ruggiero, Galletti, Branca, Punzi or Mandrioli, all questioning the role of HIV in the aetiology and pathogenesis of AIDS.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #168
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    22,774

    Quote Originally Posted by gerhard dengler View Post
    +1

    There was quite a bit of initial resistance to Einstein's theories albeit for a variety of reasons.

    Criticism of the theory of relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Einstein's four seminal four papers were in 1905 - he was only a patent examiner in Berne, but he made ground breaking discoveries in special relativity, in the theory of light quanta, and in the equivalence of matter and energy. He had all these published in the same year, and within a short time was a Professor at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin, one of the most prestigious physics establishments in the world.

    Einstein's early ideas were accepted remarkably quickly, a credit to the scientific world of his day. Not so much what happened in the 1920s.

    The major opposition to his Theory of General Relativity, which he published in 1917, came mainly from antisemitic right wing politicians and their "hired gun" scientists.

    Reacting to this underlying mood, Einstein openly speculated in a newspaper article that, in addition to insufficient knowledge of theoretical physics, antisemitism was also a reason of their criticisms. Some critics, including Weyland, reacted angrily and claimed that such accusations of antisemitism were only made to force the critics into silence. However, subsequently Weyland, Lenard, Stark and others clearly showed their antisemitic prejudices by beginning to combine their criticisms with racism. For example, Theodor Fritsch emphasized the alleged negative consequences of the "Jewish spirit" within relativity, and the far right-press continued this propaganda unhindered. After the murder of Walther Rathenau (1922) and murder threats against Einstein, he left Berlin for some time
    In later life, Einstein said her regretted leaving Berne for academic life. He would just have preferred to do his physics in peace.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #169
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    22,774

    Quote Originally Posted by EPluribusUnum View Post
    They would like to do research but cannot get funding. Here:

    Peter Duesberg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The relevant material:

    Duesberg received acclaim early in his career for research on oncogenes and cancer. With Peter Vogt, he reported in 1970 that a cancer-causing virus of birds had extra genetic material compared with non-cancer-causing viruses, hypothesizing that this material contributed to cancer.[1][2] At the age of 36, Duesberg was awarded tenure at the University of California, Berkeley, and at 49, he was elected to the National Academy of Sciences. He received an Outstanding Investigator Grant (OIG) from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 1986, and from 1986 to 1987 was a Fogarty Scholar-in-Residence at the NIH laboratories in Bethesda, Maryland.

    Now note when the funding ended:

    Peter H Duesberg | University Of California Berkeley | ResearchCrossroads Profile

    If you don't agree, you get no funding, for anything you might do. That's the way that it works. I already posted Philippe Even making the same point re the French medical establishment.

    And have you heard of Kary Mullis, Nobel Prize in chemistry? Here:

    Viewpoint by Kary Mullis- Duesberg on AIDS

    HIV & AIDS - Interview with Kary Mullis

    But, I point out, Gallo will refuse to discuss the HIV debate, just as he's always done.

    "I know he will," Mullis shoots back, anger rising in his voice. "But you know what? I would be willing to chase the little bastard from his car to his office and say, 'This is Kary Mullis trying to ask you a goddamn simple question,' and let the cameras follow. If people think I'm a crazy person, that's okay. But here's a Nobel Prize-winner trying to ask a simple question from those who spent $22 billion and killed 100,000 people. It has to be on TV. It's a visual thing. I'm not unwilling to do something like that."
    ***
    While many people, even within the ranks of the HIV dissidents, have of late tried to distance themselves from the controversial Duesberg, Mullis defends him passionately and seems genuinely concerned about his fate. "I was trying to stress this point to the ABC people" he says, "that Peter has been abused seriously by the scientific establishment, to the point where he can't even do any research. Not only that, but his whole life is pretty much in disarray because of this, and it is only because he has refused to compromise his scientific moral standards. There ought to be some goddamn private foundation in the country, that would say, 'Well, we'll move in where the NIH [National Institutes of Health] dropped off. We'll take care of it. You just keep right on saying what you're saying, Peter. We think you're an ******************************************, and we think you are wrong, but you're the only dissenter, and we need one, because it's science, it's not religion.' And that was one of the reasons why I cooperated with ABC.
    "

    And there's far more humanity in Kary Mullis than there was and is those who killed the 100,000 with their AZT:

    Referring to the guardians of the HIV establishment, such as Gallo and Fauci, Mullis suddenly turns from rage to pity. "I feel sorry for 'em," he admits. "I want to have the story unveiled, but you know what? I'm just not the kick-'em-in-the-balls kind of guy. I'm a moral person, but I'm not a crusader. I think it's a terrible tragedy that it's happened. There are some terrible motivations of humans involved in this, and Gallo and Fauci have got to be some of the worst."

    Then the anger kicks in again. "Personally, I want to see those f[v]ckers pay for it a little bit. I want to see them lose their position. I want to see their goddamn children have to go to junior college. I mean, who do we care about? Do we care about these people that are HIV-positive whose lives have been ruined? Those are the people I'm the most concerned about. Every night I think about this. I think, what is my interest in this? Why do I care? I don't know anybody dying of it. They're right about that. Well, except one of my girlfriend's brothers died of it, and I think he died of AZT."

    At this point, Mullis voice starts to crack. "The horror of it is every goddamn thing you look at, if you look at it through the glasses that you've developed through looking at this thing, seems pretty scary to me. Look at the oncogene people and I go, oh yeah, I know what they are doing. Same stuff. Oncogenes don't have anything to do with cancer. Radiation probably doesn't have anything to do with stopping cancer. The drugs that we use on people - all those goddamn horrible poisons - they're no less toxic than AZT. And we are doing it to everybody. Everybody's aunt is being radiated once a goddamn month and given drugs that are going to kill her. We're dealing with a bunch of witch doctors. The whole medical profession - except for the people that patch you up when you get a broken leg or you have a plumbling problem - is really f[v]cked. It's just a bunch of people that have become socially important and very rich by thinking about the fact that they might be able to cure the diseases that actually cause people in our society to die. And they can't do ************************ about it. It's scary, that's what it is."

    He takes a deep breath, and I realize that on the other end of the phone, Kary Mullis, Nobel laureate, pioneer of the DNA revolution, has started to cry. "God, I hate this kind of crap. I really don't want to write about it. I'd like to write about something that's easy to write about, where you don't have to come up with a conclusion in the end. I've been writing about my boyhood, when I was a little kid back on my grandfather's farm where we didn't know about black widow spiders or all that stuff. But writing about that is so easy. Sometimes in the morning, when it's a good surf, I go out there, and I don't feel like it's a bad world. I think it's a good world, the sun is shining. I'm really optimistic in the mornings. But, you know, it's not because of you calling me. It's just thinking about this issue, it just drives me to - I'm making tears thinking about it. I don't see how to deal with it. I can't possibly write a book that will describe it to somebody. You can't do a damn 22.8-minute TV thing that is going to have any effect except to get somebody to shoot through my window and hit me. I feel like I'm on a hostile planet."

    "I am waiting to be convinced that we're wrong," Mullis continues. "I know it ain't going to happen. But if it does, I will tell you this much - I will be the first person to admit it. A lot of people studying this disease are looking for the clever little pathways they can piece together, that will show how this works. Like, 'What if this molecule was produced by this one and then this one by this one, and then what if this one and that one induce this one'- that stuff becomes, after two molecules, conjecture of the rankest kind. People who sit there and talk about it don't realize that molecules themselves are somewhat hypothetical, and that their interactions are more so, and that the biological reactions are even more so. You don't need to look that far. You don't discover the cause of something like AIDS by dealing with incredibly obscure things. You just look at what the hell is going on. Well, here's a bunch of people that are practising a new set of behavioural norms. Apparently it didn't work because a lot of them got sick. That's the conclusion. You don't necessarily know why it happened. But you start there."


    And here, a vid:



    And for how significant is Kary's contribution to our world, he won his Nobel Prize in chemistry for the invention of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), which, ironically enough, is what is used to identify those infected with the HIV. In any event, there would have been no "DNA revolution" absent in the invention of PCR. And that's how significant his contribution to our world. But he's described as "weird", a "crank", etc., by the HIV/AIDS true believers.

    And here, an excerpt from his book:

    HIV & AIDS - The Medical Establishment vs. the Truth

    The relevant material:

    The responses I received from my colleagues ranged from moderate acceptance to outright venom. When I was invited to speak about P.C.R. at the European Federation of Clinical Investigation in Toledo, Spain, I told them that I would like to speak about H.I.V. and AIDS instead. I don't think they understood exactly what they were getting into when they agreed. Halfway through my speech, the president of the society cut me off. He suggested I answer some questions from the audience. I thought it was incredibly rude and totally out of line that he cut me off, but what the hell, I would answer questions. He opened the floor to questions, and then decided that he would ask the first one. Did I understand that I was being irresponsible? That people who listened to me might stop using condoms? I replied that fairly reliable statistics from the C.D.C. showed that in the United States, at least, the number of reported cases of every known venereal disease was increasing, meaning people were not using condoms, while using the initial definition of AIDS, the number of reported cases of AIDS was decreasing. So, no, I didn't understand that I was being irresponsible. He decided that that was enough questions and ended the meeting abruptly. [my note, that is the single fact that proves that HIV does not equal AIDS, i.e., infection by our old friends syphilis and gonorrhea is up yet AIDS incidence is down, so people are not being safe in regards to sex yet AIDS incidence is down; we should expect that AIDS incidence would be rising with increased HIV infection, just as incidence of syphilis and gonorrhea are up with the increased spread of the pathogens responsible for those illnesses].

    Whenever I speak on this issue the question always comes up, "If H.I.V. isn't the cause of AIDS, then what is?" The answer to that is that I don't know the answer to that, any more than Gallo or Montagnier knows. Knowing that there is no evidence that H.I.V. causes AIDS does not make me an authority on what does. It is indisputable that if an individual has extremely close contacts with a lot of people, the number of infectious organisms that this individual's immune system is going to have to deal with will be high. If a person has 300 sexual contacts a year - with people who them selves are each having 300 contacts a year - that's 90,000 times more opportunity for infections than a person involved in an exclusive relationship.

    Think of the immune system as a camel. If the camel is overloaded, it collapses. In the 1970s we had a significant number of highly mobile, promiscuous men sharing bodily fluids and fast lifestyles and drugs. It was probable that a metropolitan homosexual would be exposed to damn near every infectious organism that has lived on humans. In fact if you had to devise a strategy to collect every infectious agent on the planet, you would build bathhouses and encourage very gregarious people to populate them. The immune system will fight, but the numbers will wear it down.

    The scientific issue gets tangled up with morality. What I'm describing has nothing at all to do with morality. This is not "God's wrath" or any other absurdity. A segment of our society was experimenting with a lifestyle, and it didn't work. They got sick. Another segment of our pluralistic society, call them doctor/scientist refugees from the failed War on Cancer, or just call them professional jackals, discovered that it did work. It worked for them. They are still making payments on their new BMWs out of your pocket.


    And here is another reason why we know HIV does not = AIDS, a comment by a "lincoln" on the science blog Aetiology:


    Andythebrit said “Especially after people started getting treated for HIV and, uh, got healthier”.

    It seems Andy has not kept up with the issue either, as 48 percent of those taking these drugs suffered extreme side effects such as liver failure, neuropathy, heart failure, kidney failure, and a host of nasty side effects including death. Fortunately less death than was presented with the high dosage AZT that all positives were given from 87 to 95, but plenty of death directly from the newer drugs as well.

    The CDC estimates that most HIV positives do not take any medications for HIV at all, and in the last few years, many thousands in increasing numbers have been and continue to be abandoning the use of any ARV drugs.

    Little wonder when a glimpse at most of the Long Term NonProgressors shows that what they almost all have in common is that they avoided the anti-HIV drugs!


    I know myself know of a number of humans who were determined to be HIV+ back in the mid-80s and have never taken any of the prescribed regime "meds", from AZT on forward. I put meds in " ", since AZT is not a medicine, it is a lethal concoction that failed as a chemotherapeutic agent owing to its toxicity (it was killing cancer patients faster than the cancer). Some decided to give that same toxic AZT to homosexual men back in the day, when the motto was, hit hard, hit fast. All those folks died, my mom's friend and fellow teacher, Joel, among them. He was fine, with a C4 helper cell count within normal range, then they gave him the AZT on testing positive. He was dead in less than two months. My government and some others have much to answer for.

    And do you read much? Here:

    Dr. Zvi Grossman in Nature Medicine, 2006: ” The pathogenic and physiologic processes leading to AIDS remain a conundrum.”

    So Kary Mullis is accordingly still looking for that original peer reviewed source that establishes that the probable cause of AIDS is HIV.

    And have you ever heard of Lynn Margulis? Famous for her theory of endosymbiosis. Here:

    Margulis has made significant original contributions to cell biology and microbial evolution. She is best known for her endosymbiotic theory, which the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins has called “one of the great achievements of twentieth-century evolutionary biology” (Brockman, 1995). She was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1983. In 1999, she was awarded the National Medal of Science by President Clinton.

    In 2006, Margulis stated, “We find the paucity of evidence published in standard peer-reviewed primary scientific journals that leads to the conclusion that ‘HIV causes AIDS’ appalling. No amount of moralizing censorship, rhetorical tricks, consensus of opinion, pulling rank, obfuscation, ad hominem attacks or blustering newspaper editorials changes this fact. The conflation ‘HIV/AIDS’ may be good marketing but is it science? No. Yet certainly the political and economic implications of the term ‘HIV/AIDS’ are staggering.” (Margulis and MacAllister, 2006)


    Lynn, now deceased, was a hero, a giant of science to some. Then she had the audacity to speak her mind re HIV/AIDS. And so, to once again borrow from the Aetiology poster named "lincoln":

    Notice the reverence with which Lynn Margulis, or even Peter Duesberg was held, until they themselves open mindedly looked at the issue of HIV and dared to have simply disagreed with “consensus”.

    Suddenly, Lynn Margulis falls from grace, in their eyes, and is immediately transformed into a babbling buffoon.

    Same thing for Peter. Gallo himself called Peter the “greatest virologist in the world”, until Peter had the sheer audacity to disagree with Gallo and the ruling virologists of the NIH!


    If you doubt lincoln's characterization, read the comments here:

    Margulis on HIV/AIDS – Aetiology

    See, she was a goddess of science until she question the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. Then she became a babbling baffoon. And never mind, apparently, that she came with a theory that revolutionized the matter of eukaryote evolution.

    And here, George Miklos:

    George Miklos is the director of MIKLOS-BOND Biomedical Information Services in Sydney, Australia. He is a widely recognized expert in genomics, and was a pride of place author on the landmark publication describing the mapping of the human genome (Venter et al., 2001). Over a span of more than three decades, he has authored or co-authored more than 50 papers, articles, and editorials on genetics, molecular and cell biology, and biotechnology.

    In 2004, Miklos stated, “How can you perform academic or commercially relevant biology if you don't think deeply? If you don't have a coherent theory and if you are dependent upon sophisticated technologies and bioinformatic protocols that you don't understand, then your data interpretations are in the realm of voodoo science. It is painfully obvious by now that this is where many…AIDS researchers have located themselves – a conclusion attested to by the…mountain of contradictions in the scientific literature concerning presumed HIV pathogenesis, AIDS morbidity, mortality, epidemiology and demography.” (Miklos, 2004)


    Let me leave you with:

    Rethinking AIDS > Home ( DNN 4.3.5 )

    And, friend, this is personal to me. As I have related here before, I grew up on the edge of the Jewish section of Los Angeles, the so-called Fairfax District. I live on one side of Hayworth Ave. My side was or became the City of West Hollywood. The area of West Hollywood outside of the Fairfax District went from the Pussycat theater and massage parlors to being the gay part of the LA County. I know who lived and who died. Because I was there for it. Those who believed the HIV=AIDS and took the AZT all died. Those who didn't take the AZT lived. As I said above, some have much to answer for. And with the exception of the three souls that I know from here in Honolulu, one a former client of mine, all of the other survivors I know from West Hollywood. All of them determined to be HIV back in the early days yet none wished to be guinea pigs. In their words, more or less, if I died or die from HIV then I die. But I'm not about to play the guinea pig on their behalf. And so they didn't and so they are still alive and with us. With none of the side effects of the anti-viral aka toxic drugs.

    Almost forgot, but from that Rethinking AIDS page:

    HIV Does Not Exist

    July 2012 — In an interview with Jane Bürgermeister, the Austrian biologist and researcher Christl Meyer provides scientific evidence that the so called "HIV-virus", which is claimed to be the cause of AIDS, does not exist. In the interview, Meyer explains the fallacies of the current HIV/AIDS theories and why the HIV vaccine campaign should be considered a genocide against Africans and the Third World.


    Here's the video:

    AIDS is a hoax! Biologist Christl Meyer explodes the HIV/AIDS conspiracy - YouTube

    She isn't exactly saying anything new:

    JPandS Fall 2010 - Etienne de Harven

    And since OwedToJoy is on here parroting about just that, genocide in Africa:

    January 2012 — The peer-reviewed Italian Journal of Anatomy and Embryology has published a paper titled AIDS since 1984: No evidence for a new, viral epidemic — not even in Africa, authored by Peter Duesberg, Daniele Mandrioli, Amanda McCormack, Joshua M. Nicholson, David Rasnick, Christian Fiala, Claus Koehnlein, Henry H. Bauer, and Marco Ruggiero.

    So, no new evidence for a new, viral epidemic, not even in Africa. Yet Thabo is blamed by OwedToJoy for the deaths of many.

    And now well and truly lastly, back to stifling dissent, and wrongly so:

    In March 2011, Firenze, Italy, hosted the Italian Conference on AIDS and Retroviruses. It is well known that for more than 25 years the opinions of so-called dissident scientists such as Professors Peter Duesberg and Henry Bauer were never allowed in mainstream conferences and any voice questioning the role of HIV in causing AIDS was systematically shut off. Associations for the scientific reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis such as Rethinking AIDS were never invited or even allowed to participate.

    This deplorable state of affairs officially came to an end in Firenze with the formal and official recognition of the contributions of scientists such as Duesberg, Bauer, Fiala, Kohenlein, Rasnick, Pacini, Nicholson, Morucci, Ruggiero, Galletti, Branca, Punzi or Mandrioli, all questioning the role of HIV in the aetiology and pathogenesis of AIDS.
    HIV/AIDS denialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    In a 2010 article on conspiracy theories in science, Ted Goertzel lists HIV/AIDS denialism as an example where scientific findings are being disputed on irrational grounds. He describes proponents as relying on rhetoric, appeal to fairness, and the right to a dissenting opinion rather than on evidence. They frequently invoke the meme of a "courageous independent scientist resisting orthodoxy", invoking the name of persecuted physicist and astronomer Galileo Galilei.[56] Regarding this comparison, Goertzel states:
    ...being a dissenter from orthodoxy is not difficult; the hard part is actually having a better theory. Publishing dissenting theories is important when they are backed by plausible evidence, but this does not mean giving critics ‘equal time’ to dissent from every finding by a mainstream scientist.
    Climate change deniers have exactly the same stance. A leading climate change society in Australia calls itself the Galileo Society.

    Carol Sagan: 99% of people, who fancy themselves the new Galileo, just arn't.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #170
    Cassandra Syndrome Cassandra Syndrome is offline
    Cassandra Syndrome's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    24,817

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post

    The Holocaust, the Apollo missions, 9/11 trutherism, birtherism may be only the start. Worse are the science denialisms.
    Its gutter level mentality when you consider historical events on extreme levels of the barbaric level dimension as landing on the moon and the genocide of a third of a religion of people synonymous to prove a fallacious claim. Even 9/11 truthism isn't about denying that 3,000 innocent people were murdered, its about what really happened that day. "Birtherism" is about the country of origin of the US President and the moon landings isn't about death either, ffs they made a film on the theme. Did people boycott it?

    How can you possibly compare holocaust denial to the other 3? Its twisted sick logic.

    Then, if casually filing holocaust denial in with benign history revisionist claims isn't bad enough, denying empirical evidence of scientists about a set of infinite largely unknown matrix operating in an infinite dynamic environment is WORSE?

    Can you not see how vile this stream of consciousness is? Or is the angst within you so turbulent you have resorted to denial to deal with all this?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 17 of 51 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 27 ... LastLast
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment