Reductionism On Trial: Liam Scheff Answers Mainstream AIDS History Researcher

In late May, 2006, I received a complaint about an article I had written for Cruxmagazine in Fall 2004, on the Incarnation Children’s Center (ICC) investigation. ICC is an orphanage in New York City where orphans, often children of drug abusers, were being used in National Institutes of Health clinical drug trials, on the assumption that they had AIDS.

The drugs in use at ICC were and are extremely toxic drugs, so admitted by the manufacturers, and by years of trial results in adults. Physicians give the drugs on the remarkable assumption that the children’s death is a foregone conclusion, and that extraordinarily toxic drugs are the only thing to prolong their lives. This is the basic assumption of the AIDS diagnosis, which I find to be shocking in its arrogance and cruelty.

The belief that the drugs are absolutely necessary is so strong that the drug regimen is strictly enforced, without lenience. Children in ICC who do not want to take the drugs, which cause high rates of severe vomiting and diarrhea, have the drugs force-fed by mouth, or through nasal and surgically-inserted gastric tubes1.

The 2004 Cruxmagazine article was called “HIV Negative: Noble Doctors Try New Drugs on AIDS Orphans2.” In the article, I predicted that “Noble Doctors” would be the title or spin on the story, if it were reported in The New York Times, a paper which has long censored fair and ethical reporting about AIDS medicine.

In July, 2005, that is exactly what happened.

Read the Rest Here

Advertisements

25 thoughts on “Reductionism On Trial: Liam Scheff Answers Mainstream AIDS History Researcher

  1. Wow, finally some dialogue between two opposing sides! Mr. Inrig, you are to be commented for your participation. Although, personally, I do not totally share your viewpoint.

    In regards to Liam breaking the story of the force-feeding of children, good for you, I think that this procedure is appalling. Why is it in medicine that one feels the need to fix something that is unfixable by foreign, potent, toxic chemicals to the human body. Mr. Inrig, of all people, should appreciate natural living/health and obeying the Divine’s rules for health.

    It’s not surprising that initially AZT or any other anti-viral would initially help the patient. However, the problems lies in the long term use of these medications. I can only speak from personal experience. I believe that if a person is dying, these drugs may sort of jump start their immune system into working. It did with me, but this is not enough.

    Where most of the infectious disease doctors miss the boat is my their education. They are not taught how important vitamins, supplements, good eating and other health habits are vital to the patient’s survival. I am writing a book about my own experiences and how I recovered my health, so enough of that here.

    I must confess that I am not personally familiar with some of the documents referred to in the above dialogue. Nevertheless, I can go on my personal experiences, which should be worth something to the conversion.

    According to John Lauristen, the AZT test trials were falsified. He stated in an article that this information was obtained via The Freedom of Information Act. However, he would have to comment about this.

    I will not address the HIV causes AIDS argument. However, I will address the sexual aspect of the situiation. My husband and I have been having unprotected sex for over 8 years and he is fine. Mr. Inrig, check out the government’s STD’s stats and let us know if you still think that this is a sexual disease.

    More, open discussions are needed on this subject. The HIV theory is based on circumstanial evidence, not scientic, 100% proven fact. There are other entities which could be contributed to sicknesses such as HHV-6A and mycoplasmas, which are given little attention.

    The problem with the present dogma is the other side will not welcome discussion. The question to ask is why, what do they have to lose, lots! Many times I have approached this subject with several of my doctors. Each time, I was told that you will get sick and die if you don’t take the medications. They work on fear tactics and in most cases it works. However, I would not let them scare me because I am a cancer survivor, believe in a much higher power and I think for myself.

    If they are so right, why could they not give me facts, names, dates, etc. to prove their case. When I questioned a head doctor, telling him that the viral load was in fact an “antibody load”, he just walked out of the room. Since I did not want to take the anti-virals, he wanted to send me to the phychiatrist. All of this made me wonder, what is going on here?

  2. Liam,

    You must have the patience of JOB. This guy is just flailing about in his haughty, pseudo-scientific manner. He doesn’t listen, he doesn’t read, he just yaps and yaps and yaps.

    Way to smoke him out, though!

    Noreen,

    Excellent, informative observations as always! You are a great contributor.

    Hank B

  3. Liam,
    this particular discussion-debate is a classic, and at the same time par for the course.

    Mr. Inrig is entrenched in his position, unable to let go of his myopia, pull back, and take in a bigger picture. I really don’t understand why “AIDS” produces such amazing tunnel vision and keeps people from thinking critically.

    Why is belief in the “AIDS” mythology so seductive? I think that’s a question we should ask ourselves, so we can understand why others abandon reason and critical thinking in favor of this creaky paradigm.

    I’ve been immune to the “AIDS” paradigm since it was called GRID. Although at first, it was little more than nagging doubts in the back of my mind, as I watched the drama unfold in front of me over the past 25 years. Each significant AIDS-related event in my life had the effect of making me even more doubtful of what was happening, rather than the opposite effect I observed with friends of only deepening their belief.

    It’s a long story, that started while I was in college, going to meetings of the campus gay group, discussing GRID. It all should have ended with GRID, because GRID made sense. As we had discussed at the time, GRID was most likely brought on by certain “lifestyle” factors that weren’t at all uncommon amongst gay men living in urban areas at the time. It was mostly excessive drugs use…with an emphasis on poppers (nitrites) use. It all seemed incredibly reasonable and rational at that time.

    GRID got renamed to AIDS. There was a definite sense of relief in the gay community when that happened. That didn’t stop the media’s relentless negative fixation with what they called the “gay lifestyle” at the time, though. A strange thing happened when they renamed it…they started adding other groups of people to the list of this, whatever this was now. It suddenly didn’t make sense anymore. It wasn’t even the same thing. GRID and AIDS were two different things, but nobody seemed to notice.

    Let’s do the math.

    First, we have a surveillance category named GRID…which was specific to gay men.

    GRID turns into AIDS, and right then and there becomes something entirely different. GRID can only affect gay men. AIDS can affect anybody. GRID had certain “lifestyle” factors as the supposed causes. AIDS didn’t have any known cause until ’84. At this point, just how and why did GRID get turned into AIDS? A reasonable person would look at these two definitions and see just that…two definitions.

    This particular bit of AIDS history is definitely worthy of scrutiny. When GRID turned into AIDS, everything changed. Why did this happen?

    Despite the growing hysteria at the time, I wasn’t seeing anything happening from where I was. Nobody I knew was getting sick around ’84. I lived in a mid-size midwestern city, with a fairly tight-knit gay community. By the time the cause of AIDS was announced, hysteria was at it’s height. Where was this scourge happening besides NYC, LA and SF?

    It would take a couple more years before I met somebody who was “HIV positive”, and he’s still with us, AIDS-drug-free, 20 years later.

    Before, and even after 1984 (but mostly before), I was having as much unprotected sex as most gay men. Despite all of the hoopla, condoms didn’t become “mandatory” right away. Maybe it had to do with the “plague” still being in other places, not our quiet burg.

    I wouldn’t get my first test until 1990. I would get tested with a close friend of mine and his partner…we thought we were doing our “duty”. At this point, despite the doubts in my mind, the power and fear of this…thing…was weighing on me. I assumed that I would be “positive” and started actively thinking about how to spend whatever time I had left (of course, never mind that my actual health was just fine, thank you). Such is the power of mythology.

    My friend and his lover would come up “positive”. To my utter disbelief I was “negative”.

    Carlos, who had no health problems prior to diagnosis, would start becoming visibly ill within just a few weeks past diagnosis. His lover, Mark, wouldn’t start becoming ill until taking AZT.

    One of my biggest “wake-up calls” would be when Carlos showed me his AZT bottle. I read the side effects and felt like somebody had hit me over the head with a brick. I talked to him about it, because the side effects sounded exactly like AIDS at the time. It was like talking to a ghost. He had this vacant look in his eyes and said “yeah, you really need something powerful to knock this thing out”. It would be many years before I would even hear about Duesberg’s “AIDS by prescription”.

    I would get tested again in 1994. I wasn’t making funeral plans this time, but I was SURE that I would be “positive”. I remembered that I had been intimate with Carlos just a week before we all had gotten tested. Once again, to my surprise, I turned up “negative”.

    How to reconcile the decimation of Africa at this point with a randy gay man who’d had unprotected sex with somebody “HIV positive”, who still comes up “negative” four years later. Plenty of time for those antibodies to show up on the test. Way past the 6-month window period.

  4. I am surprised that Mr. Inrig has missed a large and critical segment of AIDS history, that of the work of Drs. Jane Teas and John Beldekas, who had pursued the fate of a REAL virus, African Swine Fever Virus (ASFV). This virus is more likely to be the real “cause” of AIDS (if it has any viral cause) than the ephemeral “retrovirus” called “HIV” that now has been identified as being part of us. (Side note: the “HIV test,” if carried out properly, would identify 100% of the human population as being “HIV positive.” It is a meaningless – and fraudulent – diagnosis.)

    These two pioneers and others suggested the route of transmission of ASFV-AIDS from Haiti to Miami, San Francisco and New York, and from Zaire to the rest of Africa.

    But the CDC was not interested in this research, and officially banned funding of it in 1986 at a declaration at Cold Spring Harbor – the first time in history that such an action was taken on any line of research into any health problem.

    And the pharmaceutical industry was not interested in having a real virus either. Something ephemeral and non-specific, having only its antibodies and RNA fragments to identify it, they could propose the use of a new class of toxic chemicals – the anti-retrovirals (which were recycled, rejected chemotherapy drugs) – to “fight” it. It is ingenious in its creativity and its magnitude, astonishing in its ability to create a profit machine, insidious in its destruction of human health, and absolutely creepy in its ability to withstand scientific scrutiny.

    It is sad that Mr. Inrig has been sucked into what is now obviously one of the largest frauds ever to be perpetrated in history.

    Jonathan Campbell

  5. Sorry, I dropped the keyboard, and while trying to grab it before it hit the floor, accidentally put the post up before I was finished.

    Wrapping this up quickly…where do I go with my personal experience with this? This has been MY reality with “AIDS”. My real-world experience trumps mythology. My questioning mind trumps religion.

  6. Hi Liam,

    I’d like to comment on a couple of things from your exchange with Stephen Inrig:

    ***”because some serodiscordant couples don’t pass on HIV doesn’t disprove HIV as the cause of HIV infection, just like the fact that some people didn’t get TB from their family members doesn’t disprove the fact that Mycobacterium tuberculosis causes TB”***

    And this guy has the nerve to say that you don’t understand epidemiology?! Well, he just doesn’t want to see that his side must prove HIV infection, not expect that our side disproves it.
    The orthodoxy has, with great pomp and much tom-tom beating, proclaimed that HIV exists and causes AIDS. We’re still waiting, after 22 years, for the slightest shred of evidence.

    ***”you badly misunderstand the Concorde study (it didn’t prove AZT ineffective, in did show that use of AZT as a monotherapy early in one’s HIV progression allowed the virus to become resistant earlier, rendering the drug useless in when serious opportunistic infections developed”***

    I clamp down on my ass every time I hear this bullshit about a “virus becoming resistant”. There is no such thing as a drug-resistant virus. The drugs that are being used don’t interact with the virus at all, but with the metabolism of the host cell. They hope to influence the host cell in such a way that it won’t allow the virus (I mean any virus) to replicate. In general, all they accomplish with the drugs is killing the cell. But if the human body refuses to play the standard repertoire (Increase of CD4+ cells and decrease of “Viral Load”, then the clinicians declare a “resistant mutant of the virus”, and switch to a different witches’ brew.
    It’s such an abomination of the whole field of Virology that I could cry. Have these people no shame at all?

    ***”AZT taken alone generally only added two years to a person’s life”***

    Well now, that’s exactly what the Concorde study did NOT show.

    ***”the earliest public health, AIDS Inc., BigPharma theories of HIV infection steered away from the viral hypothesis, not toward it”***

    Read: “They did not see yet how they could make money off a few gay guys in S.F. dying from whatever.”

    ***”Since 1983/84 we have known that HIV causes immune
    deficiency”***

    That’s bending the truth (let’s be generous and call it that).
    The immune deficiency had already been found in the first 5 cases by Michael Gottlieb, who had a background in Immunology. He publicized this in 1981, and started the first “epidemiological cluster” of the AIDS craze.

    ***”The discussion, then, really stopped being “what is AIDS” by 1987, and certainly by 1992.”***

    No. The CDC changed its definition (again) in 1993.

    Wilhelm

  7. Wilhelm,

    You write:

    The drugs that are being used don’t interact with the virus at all, but with the metabolism of the host cell. They hope to influence the host cell in such a way that it won’t allow the virus (I mean any virus) to replicate. In general, all they accomplish with the drugs is killing the cell.

    This is a fantastic, concise summary of the problem. Let’s use AZT as an example.

    Claim 1: HIV is bad because it infects and kills T4-cells

    To thwart HIV replication, AZT (phony DNA) is inserted into the cellular genome, thereby terminating cellular replication.

    So, AZT accomplishes the same result as what HIV purports to do: namely
    kill T4-cells.

    Analogy: You fear that termites are eating away the foundation of your house and will ultimately it, if unchecked. To kill the termites, you take a wrecking ball to the house.

    Is that about right?

    Hank Barnes

  8. HANK, GOOD ANALOGY AND COMMENTS AS USUAL! WILHELM YOU BRING UP A GOOD POINT, IF ONE FAMILY MEMBER DOSEN’T GET A PARTICULAR DISEASE, THIS DOES NOT PROVE THAT A PARTICULAR MICROBE IS NOT THE CAUSE OF THE SAID DISEASE. OPENING THAT DOOR, WHY DOES ONE PERSON IN THE FAMILY GET SICK OR WHY DOES THE PERSON WHO GETS THE FLU SHOT STILL GET THE FLU?

    WOULD WE AGREE THAT EACH ONE’S IMMUNITY HAS MOSTLY TO DUE WITH THIS? COULD PASTEUR AND OUR PRESENT CONCEPT OF MEDICINE BE WRONG AND BECHAMP HAVE BEEN RIGHT, IT’S THE TERRAIN, IT’S THE TERRAIN, THE TERRAIN IS EVERYTHING? COULD NOT THE WRONG TERRAIN BE A BREEDING GROUND FOR PLEOMORPHISM?

  9. OH, JCAMPBELL, I VAGUELY RECALL READING SOMETHING ABOUT OUR GOVERNMENT GOING TO SOME ISLAND AND DESTROYING NUMEROUS PIGS INFECTED WITH AFRICAN SWINE FLU VIRUS, DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS? SUPPOSABLY, ROBERT GALLO STEERED INVESTIGATION OF AIDS AWAY FROM ASFV WHICH SHOULD BE A RED FLAG WITH HIS CREDITABILITY!

    LIAM, HELP ME OUT, I’M HAVING TO PULL OUT THE DICTIONARY!

  10. Wilhelm, Gottlieb did not even run CD$ counts on all the PCP patients, nor was there then or is there now compelling evidence that a low CD$ count means “immune deficiency” despite becoming a “hallmark” of a disease under construction. My understanding is Bactrim can lower a CD$ count — were the PCP patients tested before or after treatment with Bactrim? And how exactly did KS become linked to low CD$ counts and hence “immune deficiency?” It is a farce from the beginning including Gottlieb mucking around with tests he did not understand. A little more attention to poppers and I suspect they could have found a reason for PCP and KS in gay men without the need for “GRID” or “AIDS.” But then the CDC budget would never have expanded.

    Noreen, you might be thinking of Haiti where the indigenous pig population was destroyed only to replaced by far more unhealthy imports.

  11. Liam,

    I must admit I am getting tired of telling my story and doubt Mr. Inrig could care less given he has already made up his mind. I find it troubling that Mr. Inrig seems so eager to defend AZT and is motivated by claims of reduced mother to child transmission, when the ICC story had nothing to do with transmission. It was about children forced to take experimental dosages of drugs already well known for their fatal effects. There was no justification for this torture and iatrogenocide.

    My story is similar to Dan’s as we are of the same generation and both came of age in smaller communities where “GRID” and “AIDS” were absent until testing and treatment arrived. Most of my friends from my early 20s died by the early 90s. All were healthy until out of “duty” they took an “HIV” test, were diagnosed “positive” and began AZT and prophylactic treatments (Bactrim or corticosteroids.) Because they were university educated and active in the community, they were all well informed about “HIV” and active in lobbying for treatments. At the time I did not question why if my friends were dying of “AIDS” there deaths were actually from liver failures, liver cancer or seizures. There was never good evidence of transmission in these cases and we simply accepted that “HIV” could take many years, or as in one friend’s case, kill you in mere months after “infection.” None of my friends fit the profile of the party boys who died of “GRID” in the major urban centres.

    During the 90s I came to see a death by “AIDS” as inevitable simply because I was a gay man. I continued to test out of “duty” despite never having high risk encounters and primarily being in monogamous relationships in which we practiced safer sex. Yet each time I tested it was with great anxiety and fear. The last time I tested I had no worries as I knew there was no possibility I could be “positive.” I was wrong and in 1999 diagnosed with “HIV.” A viral load and CD$ count were used to “verify” the diagnosis. At the time I had six or more conditions which can cause a “false positive” test.

    At this stage I had several newer friends on cocktails and knew about the side effects such as leg cramps, crix belly, buffalo hump and rashes, and so refused ARVs when they were offered despite a great deal of harassment from one doctor. My online research into natural and alternative treatments really lead nowhere — I recall warnings not to use garlic as it interacts with AZT. But one day google took to me healtoronto and virusmyth, and after a year or so of endless reading I emerged a dissident. Suddenly everything that I had witnessed started to make sense, including how it was that so many of my friends died so quickly during the AZT era.

    Dissident critiques ended the feeling that I was harbouring a demon within me always about to kill me, but they did not completely remove the voodoo hex. Despite giving up “HIV doctors” and their endless meaningless tests, it remains an effort to to stay outside the “AIDS” zone. Of course I live with the social and cultural restrictions and marginalization which all “positives” face.

    I don’t think dissidents have all the answers yet, in part because the answers will be as much historical as scientific. “AIDS” and “GRID” were more social, political, cultural and economic constructs as anything, and the historians have barely begun the work to investigate this. It saddens me that rather than taking on this work it looks like Mr. Inrig will merely write more propaganda for pharmaceutical corporations.

  12. ROBIN, YOU HAVE GIVEN A HEARTBREAKING AND WELL SUMMERIZED STORY OF WHAT HAS TRANSPIRED WITH THE HAART. IF ONE GOES BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF THIS MESS AND SORTS IT OUT EVENT BY EVENT, HOW CAN THE PUBLIC BE SO GULLABLE?

    I COMPARE THIS TRAGIC EVENT TO THINGS GOING ON IN THE WORLD TODAY, TO THE HITLER REGIME OF THE PAST OR TO THE JIM JONES INCIDENT. I ASK MY HUSBAND, HOW CAN PEOPLE BE SO BLIND, HOW CAN THEY NOT SEE THE TRUTH? BUT BY BEING INVOLVED IN THIS INJUSTICE, I BETTER UNDERSTAND. MOST PEOPLE BELIEVE WHAT THEY ARE TOLD BY AUTHORITY, THE GOVERNMENT, ETC. I MUST ADMIT, I DID TOO, ESPECIALLY IN MY YOUNGER YEARS. AFTER ALL, IF YOU CAN’T TRUST YOUR DOCTOR WHO CAN YOU TRUST? REALITY SETS IN, MEDICINE IS A MONEY, MAKING BUSINESS CONTROLLED BY A HANDFULL OF HIGH PRIESTS, AMA, CDC, FDA, ETC. DO THEY REALLY CARE ABOUT OUR HEALTH?

    YOU ARE SO RIGHT ABOUT THE VOODOO HEX. I STRUGGLED AND STRUGGLED IN MY MIND ABOUT WHAT I WAS BEING TOLD AND WHAT I READ AND BELIEVED TO BE TRUE. IT IS DIFFICULT TO BREAK AWAY FROM THIS WHEN YOU ARE CONSTANTLY BEING REINFORCED WITH DEATH IF YOU MISS A DOSE OF MEDICINE. WHAT MADE IT WORSE, I HAD NO SUPPORT GROUP AND INITIALLY MY MATE DID NOT AGREE WITH ME, I HAD TO RELY ON THE WEB. AFTER MUCH SOUL SEARCHING, AND ON THE SECOND ATTEMPT AT “D” DAY, DRUG DISCONTINUE DAY, I MADE UP MY MIND THAT I DIDN’T CARE WHO SUPPORTED ME OR NOT, I HAD TO LISTEN TO THAT INNER VOICE AND DO WHAT I THOUGHT WAS RIGHT.

    I THINK THAT BY COMMUNICATING WITH OTHERS IS SOMEHOW THERAPEAUTIC. I UNDERSTAND THE SOCIAL ISOLATION ISSUE. OBVIOUSLY, I AM NOT A GAY MALE BUT NEVERTHELESS, THERE IS A STIGMA WITH AIDS. I DID NOT DISCUSS THIS WITH HARDLY ANYONE. HOWEVER, I MUST THANK DAVID STEELE, AN ATTORNEY, WHO SUED GLAXO…IN REGARDS TO AZT. HE MADE ME REALIZE ONE VERY IMPORTANT POINT, I AM THE BEST WITNESS FOR THE OTHER SIDE, AS I AM DOING QUITE WELL WITHOUT THEIR MEDICINES. YOU KNOW, HE IS RIGHT. I HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE OR BE ASHAMED OF.

    I ALSO FEEL THAT THE ARTICLE BY CELIA FERBER WILL HELP TREMENDOUSLY. THE TRUTH IS EDGING FORWARD. IN THE FUTURE, THEY WILL LOOK BACK AND WONDER, WHAT WERE THEY THINKING? I HOPE THIS OCCURS IN MY LIFETIME!

  13. Robin,
    in discussing “GRID”, I’m more in agreement with your point of view than it may seem by my post.

    I think GRID was just as much a construct as “AIDS”. And if it had not strangely, magically morphed into “AIDS”, it might have actually been useful to some extent. Since it focused mostly on excessive drugs use, particularly “poppers”, the gay community might have actually taken a serious look at these chemicals.

    I say GRID made sense, but to be more clear, only in a relativistic way. It made more sense than “AIDS” did. GRID was more defined than pre-’84 “AIDS”. GRID affected a certain group of people, and had potential causes. “AIDS” didn’t affect anybody in particular by definition, and didn’t have a cause.

    With plenty of hindsight, it looks like GRID was on it’s way to becoming “AIDS” from the get-go. GRID, more than likely was used to get our attention, to open the door to something much bigger. GRID kept us amused while “AIDS” was being constructed. GRID began to stir up the necessary fear, hysteria and homophobia that would become early “AIDS”.

  14. one small point, Robin, you were right in the issue of garlic. What I found humorous was in Canada one should not mix grapefruits or juice with, I believe it was Viread, I was on several so I loss track, but in the U.S. it was ok.

    Maybe someone can feel me in on how CD4’s entered into the picture? I read that even athletes have been known to have low CD4’s. One of my physicians admitted to this but he didn’t have an explanation for this.

  15. Hey folks,

    The free-wheeling internet contains a lot of casual and unimportant junk, and surely, I must admit, I’ve certainly contributed my share on a variety of topics.

    But, I must say that Dan, Noreen and Robin’s stories are powerful. They depict honest people being victimized by this bizarre “voodoo hex” known as AIDS — but refusing to accept it.

    For me, the mere fact that they are here, writing, sharing some of their histories is a great victory.

    It makes the struggle and the endless debates and arguments worthwhile.

    Here’s to Dan, Noreen and Robin!!!

    Hank Barnes

  16. Hi, this is the guy who is “just flailing about in his haughty, pseudo-scientific manner.”

    I wanted to stop by to read the blog, because Liam promised me he’d let me know when he posted it (oops!). By the way, he did an accurate job with the posts. I won’t try to fix the formatting unless any of you are actually interested in reading those (By the way Liam, it was the Gallo articles that convinced me, though I didn’t read them until 1987; I became involved in AIDS activism the next year).

    Although I don’t listen, don’t read, and just yap and yap and yap, I thought I would spend some time reading your posts. It’s been enlightening. Let me do some yapping now and throw some meat to the wolves….

    One of the things that strikes me is the level of intellectual hypocrisy in some of the posts. Your “questioning mind[s]” may “trump religion,” but somehow you turn off your questioning minds when it comes to your own alternate histories. People refer to John Lauritsen, who claims the AZT test trials were falsified, but my hunch is most of you haven’t critically evaluated Lauritsen’s work, you’ve just accepted it the way you claim we “mainstreamers” accept our “authorities. Likewise, one of you (Jonathan Campbell) has the audacity to refer to the work of Drs. Jane Teas and John Beldekas and suggest that “this virus is more likely to be the real “cause” of AIDS (if it has any viral cause).” The historical and medical vacuity of this statement is colossal, yet you all just let it pass as if Campbell didn’t just suggest that maybe AIDS is real, we just have the wrong virus. You will jump all over me for claiming HIV causes AIDS; but just let his statement go with only “Oh yeah, I remember hearing something about that…” statements. (I love the quotes around retrovirus, by the way, as if they don’t exist). The uber-skeptics stop asking questions when stupid statements conform to their religious beliefs. Pure hypocrisy. “Quid pro quo,” as Liam would say.

    As for Wilhelm clamping on his ass when he hears about viruses becoming resistant, I don’t know what to say. I’m okay if this website doesn’t believe lifeforms can evolve, but I reserve the right to discount your scientific credibility. Wilhelm, like Liam, fails to understand the Concorde study, and I have a hunch that he – like Liam – didn’t read it. The Concorde study – which again, not a single one of you questions because you’ve read somewhere that it confirms your beliefs about AZT – tried to determine if early (“immediate”) AZT treatment would allow HIV infected people to live longer than the 1.5 to 2 years that AZT monotherapy already afforded severely ill people with AIDS (“deferred” therapy). Early treatment failed to have any measurable impact on survivability beyond what deferred AZT treatment already conferred on people with AIDS; it was also more toxic. This is where Noreen’s point is valuable – and where Liam’s article could have been valuable: how do we find new anti-HIV therapies that are less toxic and more effective. Hank, on the other hand, has almost no idea what he’s talking about.

    Returning again to Wilhelm: “my side” has already proved HIV infection. Even Duesberg admits that, though he feels the HIV is merely a passenger virus. As far as I can tell, none of “us” are waiting around for “your side” to prove anything, although I find it funny that you accept the patently homophobic “poppers” explanation that he and his co-writers are pushing. Most of us in public health stopped blaming the victim many years ago.

    The stories I have appreciated reading about on this website come from the personal experiences of Dan, Noreen, and Robin. Contrary to Robin’s feeling, I actually believe hers (and Dan’s and Noreen’s) are important stories that I would love to hear more about. This is what I indicated to Liam. Sure they are anecdotal, but they are also real, and they are important to the history of AIDS in America. Whether you believe me is up to you, of course, but the offer is sincere. What I’m not offering to do is to debate people about whether HIV causes AIDS. If you don’t, that’s fine with me – I just want your story and won’t try to convince you either.

  17. Hello Ingrin1, I never quite thought of myself as history, however, time will tell. Either I am right or wrong in my beliefs, I think that I am more of an experiment. You see, I am betting my life that my beliefs are correct.

    So, you want our stories? What specifically do you want? What do you want us to bear to the world? I think that I can probably comply as I came so close to death, there has to be a purpose for me still being here. I hope that it might be to help others.

  18. Hey Stephen!

    Good you checked in. I knew you couldn’t stay away for long!

    You remain as smug and arrogant as can be, but it’s almost charming, in its peculiar way. ‘Knowing what we’ve all read and what we all think better than we do,’ etc! It’s good for smile, and I suppose it’s just part of how you do things.

    But your willingness to listen to the very real stories of people with very different points-of-view does you good service, indeed, and I appreciate your openess.

    I will pass on your contact info to Dan, Robin and Noreen, and ask to be privy (cc’d) on the communique. I’d like to learn more myself from your experiences.

    No point in responding to your assertions here, Steve; we did our bit in the conversation . That said, if you’re sincere in your statements that you will not allow any discussion of the paradigm, its flaws and contentions, you might consider not pushing those buttons, or provoking those who are inclined to debate those points. You seem to be of two minds on that.

    I don’t mind giving you a pass on the discussion, but you’ll have to choose not to provoke it. Telling people that you know better than they what they think and have done – it’s probably bad form. It’s certainly provocative. I’ll offer that you might consider minimizing the use of that sort of soft invective, unless you want the response it engenders. These statements breed a level of animosity that I don’t think serves your more open qualities.

    For this particular thread at this particular time, I will cut short any AIDS debate, and ask those who’d like to respond to Stephen’s points, or provocations, to send your considered responses in a draft to me, and I will post them as an addendum to the discussion that prompted this thread.

    In sum, thanks all around. Wonderful to hear from all of you so openly. Dan, Robin and Noreen especially – thanks for being so forthcoming and open here. It is indeed rare and marvelous, as Hank pointed out, to have some real conversation around the topic.

    Very bests,

    Liam

  19. Liam,

    I regret that I am not interested in continuing a private conversation with Mr. Inrig. I am a PhD student myself and barely have the time to keep up with my current email correspondents, some of whom are people like myself who have been diagnosed “positive” and have rejected the drugs. Posting on your forum has the advantage of being public and hence reacning a wider audience who may find my experience informative.

    If Mr. Inrig would like to read more accounts of people of who have been diagnosed “positive” and reject the drugs I would suggest he read the archives of aidsmythexposed.com which are available to the general public.

    With respect to this debate on AZT, I would encourage everyone to read Anthony Brink and the Perth Group on what they have say about AZT. Brink’s articles are available at virusmyth.com and the Perth Group has their articles up at their own site, theperthgroup.com. John Lauritsen is not the only critic of AZT, just one of the earliest.

    As for this unusual idea that identifying poppers as playing a role in the illness of gay men is homophobic and blaming the victim, I would suggest the statement points to somebody who knows nothing about this drug. Unfortunately I know this drug well as I first used it in the late 70s when it was a popular rush among teens at rock concerts. When I came out to the gay community in 1981, almost everybody used it on the dance floor as well as during sex. Among the effects I recall from using poppers are nausea and stomach ache, burns on my face, persistent headache, difficulty breathing, steady cough and asthma attacks. We really should not have had to kill lab mice with it in order to prove it was toxic. That poppers continues to be available and that no education has been done on their effects is criminal, and I think homophobic as it gay men who poppers are marketed to.

    Finally for the record, I am not now nor have I ever been a woman. Also take note I am Canadian, so I am not really a first hand source on “AIDS in America.”

    Cheers,
    Robin

  20. Liam,
    I’m glad you instigated this particular discussion. Your approach to this topic is measured and intelligent, which tends to keep the discussion flowing along those lines.

    I feel similarly to Robin. I’m not interested in discussion with Mr. Inrig. I spend much time debating this topic with people who have PhD’s in the sciences who don’t display the dismissive arrogance of Mr. Inrig.

    If Mr. Inrig actually posesses an interest in exploring the stories of those who’ve not been asleep in regard to this issue for the past 25 years, there are plenty of resources on the internet available, as Robin has mentioned.

    Thanks again, Liam. I look forward to more of your writing on this and other subjects.

  21. Dan, Robin,

    fair enough. Your call. You’ve posted your stories at reasonable length here, that’s certainly on the record. Perhaps you’d be willing to send what you’ve already written to Stephen Inrig via his email, which I’ll send you. He’s willing to include these stories in his database, and I think that counts for something. You certainly don’t have to debate anything further.

    I’m glad to have you both here. I sincerely appreciate your honesty, openness and intelligence.

    Bests,

    Liam

  22. Dear all,

    I’m a french chemist and I’m interested by the role of AZT and other NRTI or NNRTI in the evolution of AIDS.
    I have found this paper :

    http://www.jbc.org/cgi/reprint/267/1/257.pdf

    They say that azidothymidine acts as anti”hiv” ( block the retrotranscription) whatever the position of the azide moiety may be.
    They say even :
    “ADRT is not a classical chain terminator and contradicts the accepted dogma that absence of a 3’-hydroxy group is required for an effective nucleoside analog against HIV. ”

    I think that, when you talk on the toxicity of AZT, you may no more identify it whith a DNA terminator, but whith an strong oxidizing agent, which is able to denature the retrotranscriptase and to “mutate” the ARN.

    I have posted my thoughts in french :

    http://perso.orange.fr/thiacytidine/AIDS/lamivudine_et_sida/lamivudine_et_sida.htm

  23. Received from Jason (original posted HERE)

    About Qualifications.
    My one and only qualification is, I’m here now, in this moment.

    It’s a rare qualification indeed.

    I’m “HIV +” and nobody knows my body like I do. Not a lab test, not a Doctor, nor a ‘viral load.’ All the experts in the world can poke and prod ’til their hearts are content but still they have no idea about me.

    In November 05, My first CD4 count and it’s 590 – Apparently that’s ok… Even though at that time I was just coming off using recreational drugs, a poor diet and lack of exercise. Yet the amazing thing was that my Dcotor said to me “Jason, go out and live your life as you have been. You can’t change a thing. HIV works on it’s own accord.” Wow, that’s intelligence!

    Last test, only 5 months later and my CD4 count is 360. I am feeling the best I have felt in 5 years, have loads of energy, am eating well, exercising and not feeling lethargic as I did previously. Now, my Doctor is concerned…???

    I don’t get it. Because she has the qualiification, she can tell me ( from one blood test) that I am not well. This is simply untrue. I have kept a diary over the past 15 years of my life and for the first time in a long time, I am healthy and happy. No matter the counts… to me, they count for nothing… So, I will only go back to the Doctor when and if I choose to go back.

    IN the past, I would only go to the Doctors if I was feeling unwell. This is the way it is going to stay, however, I have a lot more knowledge now about looking after myself than I ever have before.

    I don’t need anyone with qualifications to tell me how well I am. I am feeling f****** alive! And damn, it feels good.

    Peace,
    Jase.

Comments are closed.