Three Letters for “Doc” Nick Bennett

Why, because he won’t post a single comment of mine on the blog he uses to libel me. Because he’s just that kind of great, great guy.

(Dr. Nick responds! See Addendum below)

Nick Bennett on the orphans used in NIH drug trials at the Incarnation Children’s Center:

Dr. Nick Bennett: “Did some kids without OI’s die. Yes.”

“Some kids” without “OI” – “opportunistic infections” – meaning “illness.”

“Some healthy kids…” What? Some healthy kids, on these drugs… what?


Yes, of course. What’s the harm in that?

Part: the First

I attempted to post this, three times, today, at Dr. Nick’s Libel Shop [HERE] Let’s see if he has the ginger to put it up:


Liam Scheff has invited you to debate any point in the article, and does so again…

I think, Nick, if you want to paint a pretty picture of what you folks do with so called “hiv tests”, and “life-saving” (life-ending) drugs like Nevirapine, and Thalidomide, you are free to do so… if you can find room in the funny pages.

But what you write ain’t true, it ain’t ‘science’ (whatever you take that much maligned word to mean, I have no idea.. but I think when you say it, you simply mean “What Nick Bennett Really, Really Wishes and Believes!”).

Anyway, Nick, please find herein an invitation – among the many you’ve had and cowered from – to clarify any dispute you may have with me, (which all seem to be entirely personal)…

And then we can get to the bottom line in all your little screeds.

Why is it that in an article about a drug – Nevirapine – that caused the death of the pregnant mother who took it – Joyce Ann Hafford, why is it, Nick, that you make a borrowed aside about the wisdom of drugging with an extremely toxic drug the center of your philippic, rather than correcting whatever error you saw therein, and moving to the argument?

You want to say that pregnancy is a fine time to give Nevirapine, because the child is not a direct recipient of the mother’s blood.

Let me ask you something, doc. Is or isn’t the child on the inside of his mother?

So, they’re sharing something. And the idea that the drug doesn’t affect the fetus is – well, it’s not one you even address, is it?

So, let’s be grand about it, and review the medical lit. on the “Aids” drugs given in utero, and see if any of these children had remarkably, pointedly shorter lives, massive increases in defect and health problems, and then, in incidents of death.

(Hint: they do).

But you want to dispute this, in the filigree. Nick, one note, I don’t live in the filigree. And neither did Joyce Ann Hafford.

She was a real, living person, who was killed by taking your “life-saving Aids drug” at normal doses, as prescribed by ‘compassionate’ Aids doctors (who laughed off her death, by the way – “Not much you can do about dumb docs,” said NIAID Chief Tramont).

The tests used to validate her murder (sorry, Nick, is that too strong a word for you, to describe the death of a perfectly healthy woman by totally unnecessary pharmaceutical?)

The tests used to validate her murder, aren’t evaluated in your apology, but I’ve evaluated them, and so have the test manufacturers.

Knowing Is Important

But you won’t get into what it means to give a “life and death” diagnosis, based on a test that has no standard, and gives no clear result – neither negative nor positive. Only non-specific results that must be “interpreted for meaning.”

And you’re worrying about the news getting out, I guess. Or why slander me, the guy – and let’s be clear, only one of the many – who reported on this bitter tale from the annals of the propaganda factory you call your home?

Aids, incorporated, Nick. I mean, what a bunch of humanitarians. Do you even mention the woman who was murdered by the drug that you love so much – Nevirapine – do you even mention her, or the drug, in your ‘article’?

Here’s a re-title for your blog:

“Nick Bennett is a big, fat, liar. And a coward.”

Or, prove me wrong. You can find my email, and my webpage, and unlike your blog – which I’ve tried and tried to post on, to no effect – I’ll answer your email, and we can have it out, like adults (if you think you’re up to actually facing the object of your slander and ridicule).

I’ll be waiting for your note, Nick.

most sincerely,

Liam Scheff

Part: the Deuce

I posted this, or attempted to, [HERE]. Let’s see if Nicky actually keeps his blog active, or if it’s just for Google-show-and-show.

Nick, you write that:

Liam demonstrably lies. He asks how a virus cannot travel from mother to child who share a blood supply, when mother and child DO NOT share a blood supply. He states that AZT is a toxic chemo drug when AZT is a “chemo” drug that was canned due to LACK of toxicity.”

Do you dispute that AZT is a toxic drug? Does it or does it not bear the FDA’s Black Box label? (do all Aids drugs not bear this label, Nick?)

What does the Black Box mean, Nick?

Nevirapine in Utero:

Does the baby share any part of the mother’s body? Or is the fetus immune from all toxic substances imbibed by the mother (Hint: what are the effects of AZT in utero, on the health of children)?

Awaiting your ridiculous responses.

Sorry, did that slip? I meant, “Awaiting your generous, and humanitarian responses to the situation in which particularly trusting, innocent people are duped into taking extraordinarily toxic drugs, because helpful doctors,

(who are adored by one Nick Bennett),

tell them that they MUST! Because they manage to give them a non-specific, non-standardized antibody test.

Let us know, we’re spellbound by your tap-dancing.

You can reach me for one-on-one debate, or just old-fashioned Direct Q&A, at my webpage:

Don’t be a stranger, Nick. I’d hate to see you hiding out in your little hole on this blog, afraid to mix it up with those you defile.

Most sincerely,

Liam Scheff

Part: the Thrice

Three! Yes, Three! Let’s see if it ever goes up, where I posted it [HERE]:

Hi Nick,

I wonder if you’ll let comments go on this one? I’ve posted on every opinion you’ve posted.

Nick, you’re a member of a group called “”. This is the self-same group that lobbied one woman in BBC legal, threatening her with being labeled a “holocaust denialist” by… you and your cronies, unless they “apologized” for whatever you consider wrong with the documentary “Guinea Pig Kids.”

You have such a crush on me, it’s just scary…because you seem to think it’s “Liam Scheff’s journalism” that the “BBC” denigrated.

What they actually did was called a “capitulation.” You can look up the word, and you’ll find in the actions of one or two suits in legal at the BBC, overseeing this matter, a textbook description of that process.

The big joke is that nothing I pointed out was disputed, at least, not with any evidence.

The state of NY, in conjunction with the NIH, and many drug companies, was and is using NY city drug orphans in Aids drug clinical trials.

Nowhere is that disputed in the “apology.”

So, chalk one up for my journalism. This is the story I brought to the world, because, Nick, it was true, and because it is a breach of ethics since [the time of] Nuremberg.

Second – the drugs used are highly toxic – FDA Black Box labeled drugs, and these drugs have debilitating effects on the children, including death.

And… this is not disputed, anywhere, because it can’t be, because it’s recorded and reported throughout the drug and medical literature. (Look up “FDA Black Box Label”, doctor Nick, and you may learn something about the profession you’re defending with such servility).

Children die at the ICC, and died on these drugs. If you want to dispute this, please help ICC cough up their unadulterated medical records. They won’t do it.

But mothers, nurses and childcare workers from the place list the names of a dozen children who died – three while my investigation was going. I wrote about one I met personally, called Seon, and another who’s story was related by a half-dozen former or current employees, named Shyanne, who went blind after weeks on the drugs, having previously been drug-niave her entire life.

She had a stroke, went blind, and was dead within a few months, according to all sources in the place.

This is disputed nowhere, by ICC, by Columbia Pres, or by your illustrious, idiotic self.

What else…

Look, you and your loving goons convinced a couple lawyers to squeeze out a very limited ‘apology’, read appeasement, so that they could get you off their backs.

And it worked.

Meanwhile, the Aids circus continues on, and continues to crumble, as even your entrenched experts are agreeing, quite openly, that the best thing for Africans given this arbitrary brand-name stigma of a disease title, is not more drugs, but clean water and infrastructure development.

Nick, I’ve read your posts, and I have tried to put a thing or two up on them over the years. But I usually give up after awhile, because you won’t let any argument reach the surface of that wormy, rotten thing you call a brain.

Forgive me, but, man, where’s your mind, and your soul in all of this?

These children were protected wards of the state, and you, and your ilk, used them like so many toss-away sponges, to soak up the effluence of your drug-experiment failures.

Left-over Nevirapine, Left-over AZT, left-over Bactrim and Kaletra, shoved down the mouths of these children – our children, Nick, the children of NYC, of the United States – until they were sick, or crippled, or dead.

You want to crow over this, be my guest, but you’re crying a victory for hell.

You want to debate, to show the frailty of your heart and soul, and the debilitated state of your spirit and mind, you know where to reach me.


Liam Scheff

[end of re-post].

So, any wagers? Will Doctor Nick emerge from his warren? Or is rabbit-hunting season over? I think he’s a wascily cowardly wabbit, myself.

But I’d love, love, love, a chance to debate this huckster in the open air…

I Support Informed Consent in Medicine

Addendum 1 – 1-25-08

Nick Bennett replies!!!

He says,

“I allowed this post through for the simple reason of letting it through for the world to see Liam’s anger.

My answers are elsewhere in response to other postings of his.

I do not debate denialists on this site, nor do I intend to engage elsewhere at this time.

It’s much more fun to watch a dog foam at the mouth than poke him with a stick!”

So, no debate from the great Bennett.
He writes his “blog” as a “double doc” for the sole and soul purpose of provoking the ‘anger’ of others, which he finds ‘fun.’

Who does he like to provoke? Namely those who object to killing pregnant women with unnecessary and highly toxic drugs.

Medicine and Science? “Correcting the Aids Lies?” I mean, can I get a witness? Say Amen, somebody…

Bennett replies, Part the Deuce!!

Nick writes:

Liam –

“Does the baby share any part of the mother’s body, Nick?”

Answer. No.

Is it immune to toxic stuff? No, not always, but the fact that you don’t understand basic anatomy unfortunately undermines much of your attempts to teach me anything on medicine :o)

I have answered your AZT question elsewhere. Long-term followup of AZT-exposed kids have not revealed adverse clinical outcomes (although it has revealed some AZT-incorporation into DNA, probably mitochondrial).

I suppose it doesn’t cross your mind that it’s better to have a kid with a low risk of AZT side effects many years later (short-term followup over a few years has revealed no issues) than a kid dead from HIV (as proven in many studies, contrary to Duesberg’s theory of vertical transmission being harmless).


Look at that. Dr. Bennett sure schooled me there.

You see, “doctors” in the Western Nazi Machine tradition, are of the opinion that babies are neither living, important, or affected by what happens to the mother… because they live in a little sack in the uterus.

That’s why it’s important for women to smoke, eat grilled, burnt steak, take fistfulls of sleeping pills and prescription drugs, and drink as much as they possibly can – while pregnant….because the baby does not “share any part of their body.”

Schooled again.

You see, I “don’t understand basic anatomy.” That’s why I’m not fit to point out that a drug (AZT) that kills bone-marrow, livers and fully-grown adults might not go so well when shoved down the throats or through stomach tubes in children – or down the throats and into the veins of their pregnant mothers.

Nick Bennett, man of Medicine. Move over Doctor Schweitzer.

There are studies, of course, that come up with different “data” than Nick suggests… like everybody on these drugs dying faster, getting sicker more, and dying more often than people not on these “life-saving” drugs….but why bother with those?

I mean, what could possibly be wrong with poisoning a pregnant woman? (Just ask Dr. Nick).

Bennett Responds to Part the Thrice!!

Says Nick:

Liam I appreciate the visit – it’s been a long time coming.

[ed. I didn’t know I was invited! Nicky never even told me, not even so much as an email….What a silly]

You write nice prose, but it lacks facts, accuracy and objectivity. If you were accurate in any of the claims you made you could rightly be held up as a champion for the people – instead you merely join the ranks of AIDS denialists with an agenda using pseudoscience and cherry-picking to bolster your argument.

Black Box is nothing exceptional – but you’re a journalist not a medic or scientist, so you don’t know that. Purified Water carries a toxicity warning if you purchase it from a laboratory supply company – instructions include such gems as “if spilled in the eye, rinse well with water”.

AZT is far from perfect, I have never said it is – I have pointed out that it was canned due to a lack of toxicity, not a high toxicity as incorrectly assumed by Duesberg all those years ago. You, as with all the other dissident sheep, swallowed the story because it sounded good. Who needs facts when you have a good story to tell?

The literature tells us that since the advent of HAART more kids are living longer with HIV than ever before, flying in the face of your dubious anecdotes. I’ll see your handful of stories and raise you the stories of thousands of kids who would, statistically, have died just a few short decades ago from their HIV.

I don’t debate denialists Liam, I just correct them.



So, what have we learned:

1.) “AZT is far from perfect!” Oh, it is? Gosh… is it toxic?

Oh, I get it! Peter Duesberg “invented” the toxicity of AZT! Wow, good to know.

And all those poor suckers who took it, in study after study, just kept dying as a result of one ‘bad scientist’s’ crazeee idea. Not the liver failure or bone marrow depletion that the crazy docs reported as cause of death…

2). FDA Black Box label means… “wash your eye with cold water?”!

But not “This drug has killed or caused permanent injury in standard use”?

Man oh man, Nick, you’d better tell the FDA about that. They’ve been screwing up for years and years, if that’s the case.

3.) The “literature” says that kids are doing better with “HAART.” Thank goodness! So anybody who dies on “HAART” is…doing better, I guess??

Good to know.

Of course, even a cursory tip-toe through the “literature” on AZT, HAART, “Hiv tests”, and all the rest, would bring all of these fantabulous claims to their bloody little knees. At least, if you give any space for the literature that doesn’t support Nicky’s blanket conjecture, that a failed cancer drug does good for infants when given indefinitely.

4.) Nick will “see my handful of anecdotes…” (and I think here he means “interviews with women and children who’ve been on, or who administered the drugs at the orphanage)… and “raise me” some “statistics.”

Gosh and golly. How can I respond to such a warm… Say, Nick, are you any relation to a fellow… what was his name… Goebbels. Joey Goebbels? Boy, you guys have a lot in common.

I can’t erase those “anecdotes” from my mind, heart, body or soul, by the way, because they were kids I met, knew and interviewed, or just spent time with. And when they died, or went into surgery to remove protease-inhibitor buffalo humps from their body, or were taken away from home, again, and again, and again for refusing the drug…

When these events occurred, over and over again, they happened to real people, who I knew and know, and who took a chance to talk to various arms of the press, hoping that a little bit of public outcry would grant them even a moment of pity, of respite, of just human decency.

Some of them told me I was idealistic, and foolish, and that the machine would not give a damn for them. But they tried, and for a moment, got their story heard. And I guess that’s what really pisses you off, Doctor Bennett.

I mean, I wonder where they fit on your ‘bell curve’, or what “confidence interval” you’d use to blot their memory from history? Doesn’t matter. They were always dead to you, Nick, because they don’t fit into your solution.

Finally, we learn that:

5.) Dr. Nick Bennett doesn’t debate. Just libels and slanders, and picks his nose and cries.

That makes 100% the members of “” who will not debate those they libel, slander and defile.

The invitation remains open, however, to publicly debate any of these folks about the “tests” that test for nothing, the drugs that kill while they “save lives,” and the “good compassionate doctors” who hand out death sentences on the basis of non-specific antibody tests.

That’s Aids, Inc. Every ‘diagnosis’ a death sentence. Every death a victory, Every survivor, a “denialist.”

1-27-08 Addendum 2:

“Doctor” Nick Bennett posted a couple comments. Here’s a sampling:

“Alas Liam, you are beyond teaching.”

“I’m telling the truth.

You are refusing to accept the truth.”

You see? That’s why he won’t debate. Because he’s a God among men; no one can correct him, and he cannot be bothered with the rigors of the intellectual process. They are, clearly, beneath him. That’s what we expect, nay, Demand, of our medical profession!

Here he tells me how to properly be critical of drug studies that use street orphans as living tissue samples:

“Advocate for proper clinical trials in kids by attacking coverups of failed studies, by attacking pharmaceutical-sponsored bias and by attacking profit-oriented healthcare, or by promoting effective oversight and safe protocols – don’t do it by undermining effective therapies and life-saving interventions that have reduced HIV infections and related deaths in kids in the US to all-time lows.”

Yes, I’ve “undermined” an “effective therapy”, like Nevirapine, AZT, and altogether “7 or 8 (Black-Box labeled – severe illness or death-inducing) drugs, some at higher than normal doses,” in children starting at age 4, at the ICC.

And he goes on, admitting that, ‘Sure! We kill a few. But we “save” a few, too’:

Did some kids without OI’s die. Yes. Did some kids with OI’s go on to live longer. Yes. But it’s not anecdotes that drive healthcare and policy, its the population picture. ON AVERAGE, if we treat these kids, they will have less infections, live longer, and die less often. The scientific literature can often be boiled down to a collection of statements on “in general” topics. “In general” people with lung cancer smoked cigarettes. My grandfather smoked 20 a day from the age of 12 until he died in his 80’s from something entirely unrelated, cancer-free. Your efforts are tantamount to writing about people like my grandfather in support of the tobacco companies, rather than recognizing them as outliers.”

He concludes:

“Anyhow, since you were good enough to visit my blog, I thought I’d pop in. Why bother? I figure (indeed I know) that there are fence-sitters and interested individuals who need proper guidance and teaching, and I’ll continue to spread the facts.”

Proper guidance, ‘fact-spreading’, but remember: No Debate Allowed!

Let’s review:

“Did some kids without OI’s die. Yes.”

Some kids” without “OI” – “opportunistic infections” – meaning “illness.”

Some healthy kids…” What? Some healthy kids, on these drugs… what?


Yes, of course. What’s the harm in that?

Sure, some healthy kids who take our drugs die! Que mal y’a-t’il?

“Did some kids with OI’s go on to live longer. Yes.”

Longer than what? Than the “healthy” kids who died taking the drugs?

He continues:

“But it’s not anecdotes that drive healthcare and policy, its the population picture. ON AVERAGE, if we treat these kids, they will have less infections, live longer, and die less often.”

Yes, don’t we see… ON AVERAGE, these dead and drug-murdered children aren’t as important as the ones who “live longer” (who die, but a little later than we say they should).

Get it?

ON AVERAGE, if we kill a lot of people, who are naive enough to trust us, then ON AVERAGE we will be able to claim victory over a dread disease that does not, ACTUALLY exist, but is, instead a brand-name relabeling of 10,000 other conditions, most especially, extreme poverty.

ON AVERAGE, we will be able to make a good deal of money, “testing” and retesting very poisonous drugs on captive populations, and then selling them to people who, again, are naive enough to TRUST us, as we are the only authority that matters….

ON AVERAGE, if we kill the odd mother and handful of children, (and it reaches the press), not too many will care, (because they are poor, and because they are Black), and because we will say that “ON AVERAGE” we’re “improving people’s lives.”

And that people are ON AVERAGE living “longer” on today’s very poisonous drugs (given at lower doses) than on yesterday’s extremely poisonous drugs (given at high doses).

And that’s why we need more money. So, please, be a hero and a champion and donate everything you can find to Amfar. Tie a red ribbon around a bottle of Nevirapine, and shove it down an African’s throat.

Because, ON AVERAGE, we believe that people living dead-broke-sick-poor really shouldn’t be having sex without our permission, and so we really must, must, must, get them all the drugs we can find to help some of them die, and some of them live “longer” (than those who died early (on the poverty, or on the drugs)) – but “because” of the sex!) Get it?

It’s Aids, Incorporated.

Every diagnosis, a death sentence; every death a victory; every survivor, a denialist.

1-27-08, Addendum Three

I’m in a bind. Dr. Nick Bennett (is he a doctor?) says he won’t debate, but he keeps sending in comments, and so do a few readers who presumably wish to take him to task.

The problem is, he changes the subject, and contradicts himself shamelessly, when confronted with material that challenges him. He’ll say the drugs aren’t perfect, admits kids on them who aren’t sick (“without O.I.s”) Die, and then says that ‘in general’ the drugs make people live longer.

I can’t follow that logic. The people I’ve known don’t “live longer” on the drugs. They do everything they can to get off the drugs, because the drugs make them sick. This is the teenagers I’m talking about, at the ICC.

Then there are the kids, whose parents drugged them. On the half dozen or more Black-Box labeled drugs, they were sicker by degrees, and then by whole thermometers. Off the drugs they recuperate.

Nick cites “studies”, “in general,” but won’t look at individual cases. These are just “anecdotes” to him, whether, I suppose, they are flesh and blood, like my interview subjects; or they appear in the ten thousand studies (that Nick apparently doesn’t read, because they don’t bolster his opinions).

He believes that anyone who can think or read on their own, without the approval of blessed, ‘sanctified’ medicine, he thinks that we are “in denial” of the “truth,” (which only he can instruct to us). This because we bother to read, and think very carefully and critically, the information dispensed by the drug and test manufacturers.

He seems fascinated by cults of personality, Duesberg this, Perth that, etc, and seems to want to use this as a primary tool or wedge in argument, attacking affiliation, rather than individual argument.

Nick’s claim that I am a “liar” is based on one fragment of a borrowed aside in one article. Given the absolute frailty and failure of the broken, dishonest technology we are forced to call “hiv testing,” and coupled with the equal failure of those chemicals we are asked to call “aids drugs,” I asked, why should we be so happy to drug a pregnant woman for a limited period at the end of pregnancy, when the mother and child have been bound in body and flesh for 9 months.

Here Nick jumps, because he senses an error, according to his textbook: The fetus has its own blood supply! He reckons, proudly. Therefore, I am a “liar,” he states, at the top of his blogs.

Meanwhile, the woman who took this “life-saving” drug is dead from the drug. Babies who took these drugs, when they’ve been studied, are sicker more often, and die more often, and faster, than non-drugged babies.

Nick wants to talk about “positivity.” That’s something I can’t reasonably talk about without talking about the “tests” that are used to – not infer – but imply, “positivity.”

It’s the biggest scam on the planet, the tests are neither positive or negative, but are only shades of “reactive.” This is elucidated so often, and so clearly in the medical literature, that, low and behold, most Aids true-believers won’t touch it with a 1000 foot pole.

So, where does that leave the discussion, or, I should say, Nick’s Holy Writ about the value of “infection rates.” We’re talking about tests that test for nothing, except a bias, and a disease label that is a re-label, a brand-name scarlet letter for almost anything, and practically everything, that occurs in mostly poor people, (though drug users make up the largest part of the American/European “Aids” brand).

What can be done, when the gatekeepers in this field, the academic guardians, the keepers of the public trust, allow No Discussion, No Dissension, No Debate in their field?

When they sick non-affiliated hacks like “Doctor” Nick Bennett, through the portal of the world wide web, on persons who bother to publicly point out the frailties and failings of a dangerous, over-wrought, hyperbolic paradigm?

It’s the same old story. Slavery, Eugenics, Population Control, old-fashioned, new-fangled Tribalism, and tribal distinction.

I offered Nick a debate, he refused, but he went on arguing and “correcting.” He’s got his own slander-ful blog to do that on. He’s a coward, and a shill, and he’s happy knowing that healthy kids die on his wonder-drugs, as long as he can claim that “in general” things are better for others.

I personally don’t know who these “others” are. I interviewed and continue to talk with a lot of people in this mess, and nobody ever told me that they were happy on the drugs. I have heard people tell me that they “believed” that they would be dead, or sick, if not for being on the drugs – although the drugs did give them diarrhea, weariness, queaziness, weight loss, and all the rest.

But mostly, I heard from kids and teenagers, and mothers, who did not like the drugs, because they weakened, sickened and debilitated bodies, and stunted growth, development.. and killed.

So, I don’t know these people who the poisonous drugs “saved.” I know there was a mini-crack ‘epidemic’ in NY and other cities, in the mid to late 80s, and I know, because I have met some of them, that a good number of kids were born addicted to that drug, and a lot of them were abandoned at the hospital, and a lot of them died, or were permanently affected and damaged by the drug.

I know that life got better for some, when the major use of that drug decreased. I know that the “aids” label was applied to these crack babies, and I do think that it’s a grand farce that’s being played out, in aligning a “decrease” in “aids baby” mortality, with the real decrease in crack babies born in NY’s Harlem and Washington Heights.

You can read the social histories of these neighborhoods, and of American cities in this period, or you can go, and talk to anyone who lived through it, and worked in a place like the Incarnation Children’s Center, when it was doing its original mission work: rescuing crack baby orphans, and helping some recuperate, as much as possible.

It’s a story I’ve reported, and others have reported, and yet…and yet, and yet.

We’d prefer to believe that abandoned crack babies aren’t in great shape, because their parents had a single sex act, at some point, either 5, or 10, or 20 years prior.

And that strong failed cancer-chemotherapy drugs, in high doses, for life, is the cure for this problem.

Enter the Dr. Nick’s of the world. He’ll weave that tale for you, and pat you on the head for repeating it back to him, exactly as he instructed it to you.

Now, if that’s science, then I’m a boll-weevil. Or, what I mean is…it’s a long way from life as it is lived, to life as it is told by “Aids” doctors.

In the end, and I’ve said this before, if you find yourself in favor of these drugs, and these tests, then please, take them. Be my guest.

What I’m interested in is the right to choose, and the right to be informed of the ten thousand short-comings and failures of this paradigm, that are elucidated so well and so often, in the standard medical literature.

We used to call this kind of thing, “informed consent.”

Now it’s called “denialism.”

History’s funny that way.


17 thoughts on “Three Letters for “Doc” Nick Bennett

  1. “…because he won’t post a single comment of mine on the blog he uses to libel me”

    If he won’t engage you in debate on his blog, I doubt that he will debate you anywhere else.

    Dr. Nick, huh?

    I believe there’s a quack on the Simpsons with that name…

  2. Interesting as it might seem, I don’t think it is productive to ‘debate’ with someone whose only purpose is to prop up a failing paradigm of medicine and a view of Aids that is widespread but nevertheless deeply flawed.

    Some people are simply not willing to consider arguments. Let them stew in their own superiority complex.

    Just as they are unwilling to debate with ‘aids denialists’ we should be refusing to engage with them as obviously dishonest agents of a failing world view.

  3. Some people are simply not willing to consider arguments. Let them stew in their own superiority complex,

    As far as the “AIDStruth” cabal are concerned, I don’t think it’s so much a superiority complex as it’s an arrongance they utilize to mask their failings.

    Debate with these folks is unproductive, as they will do and say practically anything to hold onto their failed paradigm. Also, it provides them with an opportunity to project their inner torment onto the people they call the “denialists”.

    They very much need “deialists”. They’ve created this term and this non-existent group of people as a means to assuage some of the torment and darkness insides of them that would otherwise have no outlet.

  4. Dan and Sepp, mes freres,

    Yes, yes, mostly I agree. Mostly unproductive, but sometimes good to know.

    Good to know what and how someone who seems to be a real monster is actually thinking. If only for personal reasons, it’s sometimes good to know that a libelous coward is, deep down, a libelous coward, who actually and openly Refuses to debate those he or she denigrates.

    It’s good for other to know too, in that sense, that real criticism is always permitted a response, among sane and balanced adults, and that only in fascism, is a one-sided dictum issued, without debate, dissent or discussion, as a final, punitive, irrevocable judgment.

    That’s why you always have to be willing to debate, when a serious issue arises. Because it’s the only escape from fascism, at times.

  5. Liam,

    i agree that it is good at times to have these types on the public record because in addition to their refusal to debate, they also tend to change their story as it suits them.

    Your post is useful in that it documents the problem – if it can be called like that – of an Aids apologist behaving very unprofessionally in not allowing a free exchange of ideas on his site.

  6. It is good to have the names and arguments the AIDS Nazis, doctors and acolytes, are using to murder people at least for future reference, for history…

    As for getting them to admit they are Nazis they can’t, as the liberal wing of the Nazi death machine is based on calling hideous things by nice names.

    That is what their whole game is.

    I don’t try to get them to do that anymore. I just try to make people see that no matter how nice the names that call what they are dong are, people can see that they are just the same old Nazis from the days of old.

    That is the only way they can be beaten, as you yourself said many times. Still it feels good to give them hell if you have the time patience and will to even talk to them.

  7. Alas Liam, you are beyond teaching.

    Yes, Duesberg did indeed invent the “AZT was canned due to toxicity” story, as one of the early inventors of AZT pointed out to the Re-Appraising Email list several years ago (I know, because at the time I was debating on that list). David Crowe does I think still host the email on his site, I also have it on mine, along with the text from Duesberg’s book where this error is manifest.

    I’m telling the truth.

    You are refusing to accept the truth.

    This is why I don’t “debate” with AIDS denialists because in essence it’s not a “debate”, it’s me trying to educate people who refuse to be educated. I used to wonder why such people preferred to believe their own version of the world, but having debated with the Perth Group, Duesberg, Bialy and their sheep I am mostly at a loss to understand why they refuse to accept irrefutable scientific facts, or alternatively present falsehoods as truth.

    I really don’t have it in for you personally, it’s just that you keep on writing stuff that needs to be corrected before more people like those in South Africa suffer needlessly from an avoidable virus. Advocate for proper clinical trials in kids by attacking coverups of failed studies, by attacking pharmaceutical-sponsored bias and by attacking profit-oriented healthcare, or by promoting effective oversight and safe protocols – don’t do it by undermining effective therapies and life-saving interventions that have reduced HIV infections and related deaths in kids in the US to all-time lows.

    If there was an effective therapy for muscular sclerosis in adults which was being prevented from being used in kids, wouldn’t you advocate instead for kids GETTING ACCESS to this therapy? This was the situation for the ICC studies – studies which lead to kids getting access to HIV therapies and which resulted in a 13-fold reduction in opportunistic infections – infections which were associated with a 6-fold higher risk of death – over the last 10-20 years. Pediatrics, Jul 2007; 120: 100 – 109.

    Did some kids without OI’s die. Yes. Did some kids with OI’s go on to live longer. Yes. But it’s not anecdotes that drive healthcare and policy, its the population picture. ON AVERAGE, if we treat these kids, they will have less infections, live longer, and die less often. The scientific literature can often be boiled down to a collection of statements on “in general” topics. “In general” people with lung cancer smoked cigarettes. My grandfather smoked 20 a day from the age of 12 until he died in his 80’s from something entirely unrelated, cancer-free. Your efforts are tantamount to writing about people like my grandfather in support of the tobacco companies, rather than recognizing them as outliers.

    It’s not that I don’t “allow” free exchange of ideas, it’s that AIDS denialism has plenty of forums already for debate (such as here) so why should I provide another forum that will, inevitably, degrade into name-calling, trolling and abuse? I moderate comments, I don’t forbid them, and I don’t even get that many. I can’t remember when I last refused a comment (excepting duplicate posts). I assume that the lack of debate actually puts people off from commenting, which is fine by me. My site is just an easily updated information/opinion portal, nothing more. I don’t want an “Aetiology” site, it’s just too much work.

    Anyhow, since you were good enough to visit my blog, I thought I’d pop in. Why bother? I figure (indeed I know) that there are fence-sitters and interested individuals who need proper guidance and teaching, and I’ll continue to spread the facts.



  8. I’ve dealt with many individuals like this (in academia), and there’s nothing you can say to them that will even make them question their notions in the slightest way. Essentially, they are “self-brainwashed.” This is why my approach is purely scientific – I don’t get involved in the histrionics and drama. I do things like ask them about validation/refutation experiments, which have been done regularly with real scientific theories, such as Einstein’s relativity. With “HIV/AIDS,” one experiment I’ve proposed is to test “HIV negative” people with acute flu for “viral loads.” This test is supposed to be specific for genetic material from “HIV,” and so there should not be false positives. I am willing to pay for this testing, but only if there are no false positives. So far, no “orthodox” folks have shown any interest in taking me up on my offer. I’ve found that this kind of challenge does more to make people question “HIV/AIDS” (those who are not yet self-brainwashed) than anything else.

  9. I’m also curious as to where the claim that “I won’t post a single comment” of yours on my blog came from. I’ve only ever received three that I know of, all posted yesterday. Ah yes, but you’re a journalist, so the story is far more important than the facts… 😉

    And for your readers who simply accepted his post as truth, think carefully about why you didn’t think “That doesn’t sound very nice of Bennett, could Liam be making it up?” Ask yourself about your prejudices.

    I should also point out that I intended _multiple_ not _muscular_ sclerosis. in that last post. Having just pulled a 24 hours shift actually treating sick kids I beg forgiveness for the occasional typo.


  10. Updated: See “Addendum 2” in the post.

    Notes from “Doc” Nick:

    “I’m right and know all and you’re wrong and know nothing (and never mind the dead woman and children) I’m right and I won’t debate and don’t need to because I’m right.”

    Period, the end.

    “Never mind the dead children, never mind the murdered woman, I’m right, you’re wrong, I won’t allow any debate. I’m all-knowing, ‘tut tut.'”

  11. “Fence-sitters”?

    What does using a term like this imply?

    Well, it’s about choosing a team.

    So, rather than engage in critical thinking, if you’re doctor Nick, you need to choose a team, and be “properly educated”, i.e. brainwashed.

    I’ll stick with dissidence, thank you, as it’s the “team” of critical thiought.

  12. I’m telling the truth.

    You are refusing to accept the truth.

    Only zealots speak like this. Often times the truth is uncertain, multi-faceted, mixed, and difficult to ascertain.

    Dr. Bennett,

    1. AZT was designed as cancer chemotherapy, true or false?

    2. AZT causes leukopenia and neutropenia, true or false?

    3. AZT has been shown in animal studies to cause cancer, true or false?

    4. Dr. Duesberg was the only mainstream scientist to have the courage to criticize AZT in print, when it mattered, in the 80’s, true or false?

    5. Giving AZT to little children harms them, true or false?

    Dr. Bennett, if you are truly a man of science, speaking “truth”, you will acknowledge that AZT monotherapy in the 80’s and 90’s was an unmitigated disaster and that Dr. Duesberg and other critics of AZT deserve praise for pointing this out.

  13. I’d be more than happy to host a formal, moderated (I can be the moderator), academic-style debate between Liam and Bennett. In my experience, getting an “orthodox” person to even put forth a concise hypothesis for “HIV/AIDS” has been impossible. At best, one usually gets a citation of a CDC web site that contains no citations from the scientific literature. On my site, the debate would have to be on a specific issue. The issue of whether AZT does more harm than good is specific, but a waste of time. A simple experiment can demonstrate this, but to do so on humans would be considered “unethical,” not due to the toxicity of AZT but for fear that the “HIV positive” person would be rendered defenseless against the horror that is “HIV.” Does Bennett have an animal model in mind? If so, I’d be interested in paying for such an experiment, but only if I am wrong – otherwise, someone like Bennett would have to pay. Is Bennett interested in such an offer?

    As for the debate, I’d prefer a specific issue such as what “viral load” tests measure and how many “false positives” can there be before it’s clear that this is nonsense. If Bennett possessed intellectual integrity, he would answer such questions. Once that is accomplished, negotiations on experiments that would test such claims could be conducted. As I said, I’d fund the experiment if my claim was incorrect. In the last post, I mentioned that I suspect many “HIV negative” people with acute flu would have “high viral loads” if tested. Bennett should at least respond directly to the hypothetical. What if this turned out to be the case? What would your explanation be, Bennett? Failing to respond simply supports my previous experience with “orthodox” apologists.

  14. I’d like to add a few comments:

    Yes, Nick Bennett is a doctor. He’s an M.D pediatrician (!) matter of fact.
    He also has a Ph.D. All paid for by generous grants from Uncle Pharma.

    Nick Bennett does debate, occasionally. There’s a long drawn-out debate with Eleni Papadopoulos, easy to find on the web. I debated him on the Talkabout AIDS forum (2 years ago, i believe). But when things get too hot, he remembers that he has a very busy pediatric practice, and has no time for smalltalk.

    AZT was not sacked as a cancer drug because its low (!) toxicity, but because it was too toxic and did nothing to benefit the cancer patient.

    Good to see you guys back. Busy slaying dragons in Holland, where there’s a guy blogging (in Dutch) under the name “”.


  15. Yes, Wilhelm, I’ve seen how these individuals operate, which is why I would be willing to moderate. If a person said he had no more time to continue the debate, just as we were getting to the crux of the issue, I would declare the other person the “winner” by default – the best I could do.

Comments are closed.