http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704238104574602042125998498.html#articleTabs%3Dcomments

Greetings Mr. Aaronovitch, and WSJ readers.

This article is an instructional in how to “fend off” conspiracy theorists. Nowhere do we see instruction in how to discuss, debate or consider controversial ideas. It seems that certain ideas are a priori ‘conspiratorial,’ and others, like the rationale for the invasion of Iraq, for example, are above reproach.

Do I smell a small bias in the room?

Just this year, the WSJ printed an article stating that two Supreme Court Justices felt that Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, was most likely the engine behind the workshop that produced the works now attributed to the actor and businessman, William Shakespeare.

The WSJ also regularly publishes work from that ‘climate denier’ Bjorn Lomborg, who states clearly and passionately that the current efforts of Pope Gore and his minions toward helping mother earth will end in ruin for the majority of people now suffering privation.

John Mackay, ‘health food nut’ and advocate of nutrition as a way to well-being has been featured in several editorials. I’ve even seen Karl Rove, that engineer of at least one falsely marketed war, published in the paper. (I mean, even Tony Blair now admits that the presence, or as it was, absence of WMD’s was irrelevant to the invasion of Iraq, and that he would have invaded the country under any false pretense, because he so badly wanted to remove Saddam Hussein).

Perhaps you should try to get your anti-conspiracy work published in a ‘respectable’ journal?

Let me own my position here – I am in the movie “House of Numbers,” because I have written about the scandalous company you call the AIDS industry. I, in fact, broke a story about orphans in New York City who were being used and who were dying in clinical trials with immensely toxic AIDS drugs. The story was picked up widely, and was verified again and again. Nevertheless, those with something to lose did their best to indicate that somehow, the whole thing was a “conspiracy theory,” even though the NIH listed the trials in their publicly accessible clinical trials database. In doing this work, I did due diligence and researched the phenomena known as HIV and AIDS, and found just about everything wanting.

In the film, “House of Numbers,” I am seen quoting the longest study on the supposed transmission of HIV. The study was conducted in Northern California and published in the American Journal of Epidemiology by Dr. Nancy Padian et al.

Dr. Padian enrolled 175 couples, one partner HIV-positive, one HIV-negative. These individuals had sex – vaginal and anal – with and without condoms over the study period. They were continuously tested. Drug abusers were kept out of the study, to emphasize the role of sex in transmission.

The results: At the end of the study, how many people who tested negative became positive, after repeated sexual intercourse with their HIV-positive partners?

Was it 50? 25? 20?

No. The answer is – Zero. Zero people who tested negative became positive. From the study:

“We observed no seroconversions after entry into the study [nobody became HIV positive]…This evidence argues for low infectivity in the absence of either needle sharing and/or other cofactors.”

Nancy Padian is interviewed in “House of Numbers” and gives the following statement:

“I think HIV is more difficult to transmit than other sexually-transmitted – than a lot of, probably most other sexually-transmitted diseases. I mean, I think that’s pretty widely known.“

Is that, in fact, “widely known,” Herr Aaronovitch?

One might take you to task for not including a single piece of, what is the word… “evidence” for any of your claims of falsehood. But, let me assume that your job here was stated in the title, to prevent people from considering the unsanitized and troublesome, quarrelsome reality of the world we live in.

It seems that in your world, every note issued from Left-leaning authority, would be “truth.” You ought to be writing for PBS, not the WSJ, in that case.

Now, when you talk about “conspiracy theories,” isn’t it more probable, in the words of Adam Smith, that true founder of the New World, that “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices?”

I think there are conspiracy theories because there are just so many bits of actual evidence being buried. One has to work hard to find them all, when people like you get through with their work.

most sincerely,

Liam Scheff

http://reason.com/blog/2009/12/16/editorial-discretion-or-censor

Please converse at your leisure.

My post:

Quoting Nick Gillespie:

“I think the connection between HIV and AIDS is established (as does Montagnier) and a major reason for the decline in full-blown AIDS cases in the past 20 years or so are precisely the therapies that Michael rejects…”

Nick,

This is just one of the quotes from Nobel Laureate Lucky Luc Montagnier that caused Terry Michael’s piece to be excised:

“I believe HIV, we can be exposed to HIV many times without being chronically infected. Our immune system will get rid of the virus within a few weeks, if you have a good immune system; and this is the problem also of Africa, of African people.

Their nutrition is not very equilibrated, they are in oxidative stress, even if they are not infected with HIV. So their immune system doesn’t work well, already. So it’s prone, you know, it can allow HIV to get in and persist.”

You want another?

Now, tell me again that this piece wasn’t squelched because the pharmaceutical companies are dropping bricks from their hind quarters? And tell me again what Montagnier actually thinks?

And this from the Associated Press last month:

Whether previous U.N. initiatives are responsible for the epidemic’s downturn is uncertain. Some experts said the drop in HIV may simply be a result of the virus burning itself out, rather than the result of any health interventions.”

Say what?

most sincerely…

wait,

PS – What the hell is HIV? I mean, which one of the ever-changing frankenstein molecules stitched together from cellular detritus, never matching, never reproducible is the magic entity?

http://reducetheburden.org/?p=1702

I’m given to thinking that we’re looking at cellular ‘phenomena’ and not singularity, after all this time…

And then, what the hell is an HIV test? Which one of the 20 plus tests, all of which state that they come up positive for everything from flu to worms to nothing in particular, is the test that tells somebody that they’re cursed for life, because they had sex, once, a long time ago, and it was ‘bad sex?’

Oh.. and why the bleeping bleep is Nancy Padian’s study censored from the Wikipedia page?

PPS. If you ever want an honest to goodness piece on the absolutely hidden and buried standard medical literature that describes AIDS as a multi-factorial, highly treatable, mostly toxicological syndrome, written for your very respectable journal, dites-moi, naturellement, mon frere, and I shall answer your request, with journal references in hand.

With much due respect for your good work over the years in keeping some journalism at least semi-liberty loving.

Liam Scheff

Respiratory diseases (SARS, the Bird Flu, Swine Flu and similar “epidemics” we will be told are threatening us in the future) seem to be a much easier and much more profitable scarecrow. The profits from vaccines eclipse even the most optimistic sales projections for the horrendously expensive Aids drugs.

So Aids will fade away. There is a new game in town, and it is one that more people can be reasonably scared into accepting as theirs, and can line up for the vaccine, something that seems to be impossible for Aids to produce.

After all, HIV tests look for antibodies and what are antibodies if not a sign that we have overcome the infection and are now immune to it. At least that has been the standard explanation given all those years I heard about infective illnesses.

The piece I sent you earlier fromTheStreet.com: Nobel Curse for AIDS, Big Pharma was censored from the site, apparently after site major stake-holder Jim Cramer of CNBC got pressure from Gilead Sciences, the Big Pharma company cited in the piece.

So, you’ll now have to access it here at my web site, a PDF version of the original TheStreet.com Opinion piece, axed by Mr. Cramer:

Nobel Curse for AIDS, Big Pharma
http://www.terrymichael.net/PDF%20Files/TheStreet.comAIDSBigPharma.pdf

Regards,

–Terry Michael

************************************
Terry Michael, Director
Washington Center for Politics & Journalism
The Politics & Journalism Semester
WEB SITE: http://www.wcpj.org

http://www.thestreet.com/story/10639973/1/nobel-curse-for-aids-big-pharma-opinion.html

Who knows what those inscrutable Scandinavians had in mind awarding a Nobel to President Barack Obama, who is about to pick up his Peace Prize in Oslo just a week after making more war in Afghanistan.

President “Obomba” will jet later in December to the greenhouse gas gathering in Copenhagen, where former Vice President Al Gore’s Nobel gold, for a prize-winning Power Point on global warming, may get tarnished by the convenient lies of Climategate (emailed over the Internet Gore invented.)

More bad news may be on its way for the Nobel — an inconvenient truth that could damage some big brands of Big Pharma, not just a couple of American politicians. I speak of last year’s Nobel in medicine, given to France’s Dr. Luc Montagnier.

Montagnier got his gold for discovering “HIV” — the increasingly mysterious retrovirus announced by the U.S. government 25 years ago this past April as “the probable cause of AIDS,” a finding that spawned a multi-billion dollar, anti-retroviral profit center in the pharmaceutical industry.

Problem is, Montagnier is now saying in a new documentary film: “We can be exposed to HIV many times without being chronically infected. Our immune system will get rid of the virus within a few weeks, if you have a good immune system.”

That’s a direct quote from an interview with Montagnier in “House of Numbers,” an award-winning full-length production by director Brent Leung that has been playing the film festival circuit around the world for the past eight months. The film is about to hit theaters and cable early in 2010.

Montagnier’s assertion is antithetical to the American scientific consensus (like the global warming consensus?) that nothing can rid the body of HIV, that only drugs-for-life chemotherapy profitably peddled by Big Pharma can keep the HIV monster under control.

Actually, Montagnier has been arguing for two decades against the single pathogen theory of acquired immune deficiency syndrome. As reported in The New York Times on June 22, 1990, “Dr. Luc Montagnier…says increasing evidence is leading him to conclude that AIDS is caused not by a virus alone, but by a microbe and a virus working together.”

Montagnier argues that malnutrition and lack of clean drinking water are the real culprits causing “AIDS” in Africa, to which the HIV-AIDS epidemic has been off-shored, along with the profitable “life saving treatments” that will be financed from $50 billion in “PEPFAR” funds appropriated in 2008 under George W. Bush. That would be the same president who appointed as his defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former CEO of one of the biggest purveyors of HIV chemotherapy, Gilead Sciences (GILD Quote) of Foster City, CA — one of the most politically connected pharmaceutical companies on the planet — which includes on its Board former Reagan Secretary of State George Schultz and former Special Trade Representative under George H.W. Bush, Carla Hills.

I’m no expert on stock (I don’t own any) but if I held any pharmaceutical securities I’d be worried about their value as the public sees deeper down this rabbit hole. However, I have studied the mysteries of HIV-AIDS for the past three years and recently published an 8,000-word special report on HIV-AIDS: End to AIDS Nearer Than We Think? Re-appraising HIV in its 25th Anniversary Year.

Gilead and other AIDS drug sellers may be one big class action lawsuit away from those whose health has been damaged by the “Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapies.”

The benign-sounding HAART has been prescribed for the last dozen years for hundreds of thousands of people with no presenting AIDS-defining illnesses only “positive” results from a so-called “HIV test” — an assay for blood proteins believed to be associated with antibodies, which are the natural immunity defenses that Montagnier says can handle the virus on its own, with no drugs or vaccines. Those emerging health disasters are documented in a recent excellent piece in New York Magazine, “Another Kind of AIDS Crisis.”

Such a class-action suit was foreshadowed in December 2007 by a $2.5 million jury award to a Massachusetts woman, who received HIV treatments for nine years before discovering her HIV antibody test was a “false positive.”

Lawsuit or not, it’s time on this 25th anniversary of “HIV” to re-open discussion of a flawed AIDS theory, which has psychologically terrorized and inflicted drug harm and added another burden to Africa.