Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Insane Authorities

Take a look at these, from Seth Kalichman's blog:

Yale University AIDS Science Day kicks off with AIDS Denialism
University of Connecticut promotes Denying AIDS
REVIEW of Denying AIDS at Open Mind, Insert Book [This one is actually irrelevant]
FOREWORD to Denying AIDS at Quackwatch.com
SCIENCE NEWS POSTINGS of Denying AIDS at Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News
ZAMP Bionews, MedNewsToday, & EurekAlert.
Article 'AIDS Denialism's House of Cards' at ButterfliesAndWheels

There are also positive reviews from the following people at the bottom of Kalichman's blog:

"A must read..."
Michael Merson, Director, Global Health Institute at Duke University and Former Director of the World Health Organization's Global Program on AIDS.

"This excellent book..."

James Curran, Dean of the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University, Former Director of the CDC HIV/AIDS Division.

"Seth Kalichman has superbly captured the contradictions..."
Salim S. Abdool Karim, Member of the 2000 South African Presidential Panel on AIDS, Professor at University of KwaZulu-Natal, and Director of Centre for the AIDS Programme of Research in South Africa (CAPRISA)

"...Anyone who cares about the global HIV/AIDS pandemic should read this book."
Helene D. Gayle, President and CEO CARE USA and former Director of the National Center for HIV, STD and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Assistant Surgeon General, and Member of the 2000 South African Presidential Panel on AIDS

"...Everyone should read this book."
From the Forward by Professor Nicoli Nattrass, University of Cape Town, author of Mortal Combat: The Struggle for Antiretrovirals in South Africa.

And then check these out, from Henry Bauer's blog:

Kalichman’s Komical Kapers

Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll-Kalichman and Mr. Hyde-Newton
Bonus Material:

What do you think?


I'll comment on this later, I feel obliged to do so.

Friday, March 20, 2009

Killer "Science" !

Here are some excerpts from "Comprehensive Textbook of AIDS Psychiatry":

Reports suggesting an association between HIV seropositivity and suicidal behavior in the United States can be found in the medical literature during the first decade of the epidemic (Rundell et al., 1986; Pierce, 1987; Frierson and Lippmann, 1988).A more definitive association of HIV infection as an independent risk factor for suicide was established by autopsy studies (Glass, 1988; Kizer et al., 1988; Marzuk et al., 1988; Plott et al., 1989; Cote et al., 1992). These autopsy studies from cohorts in the United States showed decreasing suicide rates from 66 to 7.4 times greater in persons with HIV infection than in the general population, as we moved from the first to the second decade of the epidemic. But even after the introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), which has substantially reduced morbidity and mortality in areas with access to these treatments, recent studies in the United States (Marzuk et al., 1997)(, Australia (Ruzicka et al., 2005), and France (Lewden et al., 2005) continue to show an increased risk of suicide among persons with HIV infection.

Clinical studies, likewise, demonstrate high rates of suicidal behavior in persons with HIV infection. In a primary care setting that serves patients with a wide range of demographic characteristics in New York City, 63% of HIV-seropositive subjects acknowledged current or past suicidal ideation (Gil et al., 1998). In a cohort from Missouri, 17% of HIV-positive gay men reported serious thoughts or plans to end their lives at the time of routine clinical interview (Goggin et al., 2000). In a rural cohort of small communities in eight 196 UNIQUE PSYCHIATRIC MANIFESTATIONS OF HIV INFECTION U.S. states, 38% of persons with HIV infection admitted that they had suicidal thoughts 1 week prior to responding to self-administered surveys (Heckman et al., 2002). Similarly, 27% of middle-aged and older persons living with HIV admitted to suicidal ideation within 1 week prior to a clinical survey (Kalichman et al., 2000). In a municipal general hospital in New York City, suicidal behavior was present in one out of every five persons with HIV infection (Alfonso et al., 1994).
Stressful life events in the context of poor social support can heighten suicide risk (Kalichman et al., 2000; Haller and Miles, 2003). Persons with HIV infection can have distorted perceptions of illness. Just as an asymptomatic HIV-positive individual can become suicidal upon learning of his or her HIV serostatus, changes in immune parameters can also trigger a suicidal crisis. Learning that one has an increased viral load or decreased CD4 cell count can precipitate a suicidal crisis, even with reassurance that a change in medical treatment can easily reverse the situation (Alfonso et al., 1994; Haas et al., 1997).
Studies of long-term survivors with AIDS in the New York City area have demonstrated that high levels of hope and low levels of distress and depressive symptoms result in psychological resiliency and an extended life span (Rabkin et al., 1990, 1993). Another study in Miami showed that higher emotional expression and depth processing, including positive cognitive appraisal change, experiential involvement, self-esteem enhancement, and adaptive coping strategies, were significantly related to long-term survival status of men and women with AIDS, as well as to lower viral load and higher CD4 cell count in women with AIDS (O’Cleirigh et al., 2003). The clinical implications of these studies underscore the importance of psychotherapy in the treatment of suicidal persons with HIV infection. The psychotherapeutic component of treatment will be elaborated on further in the section on prevention strategies below.
And here's a recent paper from some more genius scientists:
Role of Depression, Stress, and Trauma in HIV Disease Progression

...We found substantial and consistent evidence that chronic depression, stressful events, and trauma may negatively affect HIV disease progression in terms of decreases in CD4 T lymphocytes, increases in viral load, and greater risk for clinical decline and mortality...

More from South Korea:

" Almost 30 percent of Koreans with HIV/AIDS eventually commit suicide. ..."

And Taiwan:

" 79.6% HIV/AIDS patients had depression. 67.1% of cases attempted suicide when they knew they had HIV/AIDS. ..."

Should I continue?

If you add to all that the extremely negative role the Nocebo effect plays in such an extreme diagnosis, then it shouldn't be hard to imagine the possibility -even for HIV/AIDS believers- that the so called "HIV tests" might have killed many more than they may have saved. I'm pretty confident that this is the case, as someone who disagrees with the fundamental assumptions the "HIV tests" and the "HIV"/"AIDS" theory are based on... And I'm not even taking the drugs' side effects into consideration when I'm saying these.

EDIT:I also keep forgetting the location of this and it's relevant, so I'll put these links here:
The Effects of Intense Stress on the T-Cells
Occam's Razor and CD4 T-cell loss

More importantly; was there ever any evidence supporting the assumption that "AIDS" is irreversible? Where is the evidence showing that whatever the tests are detecting inevitably kills? Even if just fraudulent, pseudoscientific evidence?

You see... this is how panic, hysteria and conformism turns Science into "Science": When pressure is too much you jump on to conclusions without any evidence, and you even forget that there is no evidence. For more on that see The Gravest Show on Earth: America in the Age of AIDS. Nowadays it is known that a positive "test" result is not a death sentence, but this fact is still not enough stressed today. The fact that it doesn't lead anybody to question their beloved theory should already be obvious.

This was written more than 200 years ago, from Dr. Faust:

This was the medicine—the patients' woes soon ended,
And none demanded: who got well?
Thus we, our hellish boluses compounding,
Among these vales and hills surrounding,
Worse than the pestilence, have passed.
Thousands were done to death from poison of my giving;
And I must hear, by all the living,
The shameless murderers praised at last!"

Just saying...

These times too will be remembered as dark ages one day. So I hope at least, I hope it will get brighter.

No matter how you look at it, the failure is evident. Many mistakes were made and are still being made. They are being ignored, swept under the carpet and even exploited. The humanity has a loooong way to go... Let's just hope that we don't find ourselves at a dead end one day.

UPDATE: Hey hey hey... Look what I just came across:
...I hate it when people give no hope - like the [Washington] Post front-page story saying that 100 percent of people infected with HIV will die with AIDS. We don't know that. We shouldn't be predicting that, and it could even precipitate suicide. They shouldn't have put that on the front page, even if it were true. But the fact is that we just don't know. ...
And who says this? Robert Charles Gallo, the Godfather of HIV/AIDS. :) During an interview for Spin March 1989.

Isn't that interesting? I wonder why people won't obey what this man says when he miraculously says such relatively wise things. Nobody seems to have disbelieved him when he was the one to imply that the "AIDS virus" will probably be 100% "efficient". So why disobey him when he makes a statement like this..? Not apocalyptic enough? I guess Spin was just not that popular among physicians back then. It's a shame really, it could've saved many lives... maybe.

P.S. Reduce the burden!

And you might also want to take a look at these books:
What If Medicine Disappeared?
Hippocrates' Shadow: Secrets from the House of Medicine

Thursday, March 19, 2009

Peter's Principles

Below you can find the PDF version of the Discover article titled "Peter's Principles", by Jeanne Lenzer.

But before that, this here was the little info box on that article in the DISCOVER issue:

Von Consciousness in Development

Text Form:

JEANNE LENZER ("Peter's Principles", page 44) is an investigative medical journalist based in Kingston, New York. recently she met with biochemist Peter Duesberg to profile him for DISCOVER. Duesberg received attention in the scientific community in the late 1980s after he advanced a controversial theory that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Throughout history, rebel thinkers have been essential to the advancement of science by putting conventional wisdom to test. Lenzer therefore was stunned when, during her research, several respected scientists who were willing to consider Duesberg's theories told her they preferred to remain anonymous rather than risk being ostracized by their peers. "A few highly placed physicians didn't want their names used even though they thought Duesberg could possibly be right in part, if not in whole, about HIV," Lenzer says. "Some were skeptical but felt that at a minimum his ideas should be tested rather than rejected out of hand." Lenzer is a frequent contributor to the British Medical Journal. Her work has appeared in The Scientist and Slate she recently completed a Knight Science Journalism Fellowship at MIT.

Peter's Principles (2008) Discover, Jeanne Lenzer
Here are some more comments on the article:
ScienceGuardian.com - The Real Duesberg Discovered

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Open Science

Open access journals are scholarly journals that are available to the reader "without financial or other barrier other than access to the internet itself."


Look into it... It's very important.

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

The Gold Standard

Introduction: Ask the experts at TheBody.com!

Gold Standard
Aug 4, 2001

Hey Doc,

Why is there no Gold Standard when testing for the presence of HIV? Instead of looking for antibodies thought to be exclusive to HIV, wouldn't it be better to isolate actual virus in a suspected HIV+ person?

Why are the standards of testing and diagnosis different in most countries to that of the US? If I test positive in the US, I may not test postive in let's say Canada or the UK. Don't you think that's odd?

Are the tests standard in most countries for diseases like, let's say, Chicken Pox or Hepatitis?

Response from Dr. Holodniy

I cannot answer why testing is not standardized.

It surprises me again and again how the defenders of the HIV/AIDS theory fail to understand the simple logic of the gold standard problem and respond properly with reasonable arguments. I'll put this as clearly as I can right now:

* Think about it like the gold standard used for pregnancy tests: The development of an embryo/baby, the state of pregnancy.

* Pregnancy is the gold standard for the pregnancy tests, to put it simply. So you can verify the quality of a pregnancy test by checking whether or not the women who test positive are pregnant, and those who test negative are not. This can easily be controlled by following the women and examining which give birth/have a miscarriage etc. and which women live normally without any biological activities related to pregnancy. [like hcG production levels, which is used as a basis for pregnancy tests] For example experience shows that sonograms like this are very strong evidence for pregnancy, unlikely to be a false positive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Embryo_at_14_weeks_profile.JPG

* Similarly, in order to verify the quality of the HIV test you have to check whether or not the person who tests positive really has a virus in his/her blood. That's what's missing and it is a huge problem. Literally, nobody ever purified HIV directly from a so called "AIDS patient" and compared the real presence of a virus to the test results.

That's it!

That's the most fundamental thing scientists should've been paying attention to since 1984, yet to this day they're either unaware of this problem or they pretend/claim that it's not a problem without giving any rational reason. The process the virologists refer to as "isolation" is scientifically not sufficient to claim that a virus is present.


UPDATE (March 20, 2009 - after comment no 5):

I noticed that some people still have a hard time grasping all this. I'll directly quote from Wikipedia now:

In medicine, gold standard test refers to a diagnostic test or benchmark that is regarded as definitive. This can refer to diagnosing a disease process, or the criteria by which scientific evidence is evaluated. For example, in resuscitation research, the "gold standard" test of a medication or procedure is whether or not it leads to an increase in the number of neurologically intact survivors that walk out of the hospital.[1] Other types of medical research might regard a significant decrease in 30-day mortality as the gold standard.


A hypothetical ideal "gold standard" test has a sensitivity, or statistical power, of 100% (it identifies all individuals with a disease process; it does not have any false-negative results) and a specificity of 100% (it does not falsely identify someone with a condition that does not have the condition; it does not have any false-positive results). In practice, there are no ideal "gold standard" tests.

Because tests can be incorrect (either a false-negative or a false-positive result), results should be interpreted in the context of the history, physical findings, and other test results in the individual that is being tested. It is within this context that the sensitivity and specificity of the "gold standard" test is determined.

Sometimes it takes a lot of effort for people to be able to stretch their awareness a bit. Here's another definition:

gold standard,

1 an accepted test that is assumed to be able to determine the true disease state of a patient regardless of positive or negative test findings or sensitivities or specificities of other diagnostic tests used.

2 an acknowledged measure of comparison of the superior effectiveness or value of a particular medication or other therapy as compared with that of other drugs or treatments.

Getting clearer now? Is there "an accepted test that is assumed to be able to determine the true disease state of a patient regardless of positive or negative test findings or sensitivities or specificities of other diagnostic tests used" for the so called "HIV" ? Like perhaps EMs of the purified virus?

UPDATE (May 12th): This is quite relevant. Darin Brown takes a critical look at the usage and the perception of the term "gold standard":
...By its very nature, a “gold standard” is a decision procedure which can actually be implemented to produce a binary result (yes/no). The only way a “gold standard” can be “hypothetical” or “ideal” is if it represents some figurative, imaginative, or ill-formed impression of a pathological state in the mind of the clinician...

He is right and he makes important points. Read his entire comment if you care about the topic. I don't know how I can implement his arguments into the above text just yet. Plus I don't have time.

More yet again:

Maverick Scientists Struggle

I recommend clicking the full-screen button:
When scientists fight by Lena Eriksson
From: June 2004 | SCIENCE & PUBLIC AFFAIRS | page 25

More info about things like this will be added later. In the mean time here you can find many more useful links if you scroll down:
Scientific Journals International Homepage