Outing the Dissident Orthodoxy, and Putting the Patient First

Thank you Liam, for bringing this hot issue to the fore so people in the dissident movement can look at it and perhaps change their views where needed.

Certainly the description given by you does open the door to actually helping those who have been “HIV diagnosed” by treating whatever illness they may currently present, and more importantly, by inducing them to change their lifestyle in major ways.

Bravo!

Ego is what got us into this mess to begin with, way back 25 years ago. We need to learn to stop allowing ego to impair our judgement and ability to think rationally. Lets not let productive criticism cause any of us to shut out real progress and development in finding ways for people to heal.

Rigid orthodoxy is never a good thing, if what we want is progress and real answers to health issues that HIV positives might face.

Dear Liam,
I have just come back from speaking to a crowded meeting in London combining parents concerned about vaccination, HIV positive people, Heal London people, Arnica parents group people – talking about fear and basic virology, focussing on what makes cells sick. In all virology experiments, cells especially produced viruses when poisoned.. So – we have logically to address poisons – and fear as it too causes immune suppression.

We spoke about drug trials too – on vaccines – and of the atrocities in New York children’s homes, we spoke also of the HIV positive mothers now fleeing from the UK to Europe so their new born are not poisoned with antiretrovirals…

But for me what was particularly exciting was seeing the unity growing between people worried about HIV and those generally concerned about viruses and vaccines…. for the latter are part of a rapidly growing movement – increasingly determined on civil disobedience if vaccines are enforced…

AND – what just happened in London is precisely what I have been recently told in emails is inappropriate for the RA conference! Both Prof Etienne de Harven and David Crowe recently wrote to me to say that discussions of the basic ‘principles of virology’ (like that which just happened in London) are inappropriate for the RA conference.. and that people might not come if this widening of the debate were to be scheduled…
I think this tragic – This year I have initiated the letter to Science -perhaps the first formal call to the journal for the withdrawal of the Gallo papers – and published Maria’s book Goodbye AIDs – and now am engaged in a building movement that unites AIDS dissidence and the anti vaccine movement – and my work is not for discussion… I am explicitly told my topics are too “divisive” for RA this year – yet RA sells my book from its website in which such issues are raised – a book that unites all concerned about viruses and the pharmaceutical industries..
Janine Roberts – author of Fear of the Invisible

janine,

just go to RA Conference and debate it out once and for all to see which is the truth…the world needs to hear it, and please do come to Asia to spread your investigations to the people here, Asia needs to know the truth as well…especially your book Fear Of The Invisible, it’s not available in Asia =(

Thanks, Liam, for putting this in the best possible terms. “The most important people are the PATIENTS.” Not you and me. So please stop putting this in personal terms, as in, your work has been ignored and you didn’t get to speak. My God, David Crowe is bombarded with egoes every day, and I think we’ve all worn him down to a position of defensiveness.

But I am ecstatic at how Liam states the case in terms of facts and science and arriving at the truth.

And I keep hearing this issue of “divisiveness” and “negativity” as being the enemy. That’s about as dysfunctional as it gets. There is no divisiveness in working out the facts and applying logic. RA has long needed a professional, outside facilitator/mediator. It’s no sign of weakness to ask for help.

And by the way, Etienne De Harven does not believe that covering this issue is inappropriate at the conference. He more than anyone wants to see this issue covered. I spoke with him personally when I was in Europe, and he said only that we cannot have a “debate” there that is not settled. There is a right answer somewhere, and we must arrive at it. I have two more witnesses to this conversation.

If we’re going to work together, we have to converse and discover what the other person is really asking for.

Hi Beth,

I think you’re directing some comments at me, and some at Janine, but it’s not entirely clear.

Glad you like the idea in the essay. Time to retire the bad ideas, and move to find the best, most descriptive, most accurate, that puts Patient Health First.

I love your idea of a professional, outside faciliator/moderator for RA. It is long overdue and much needed.

Elizabeth,

I’ve got to chime in here on this one.

When I heard there was a rethinking aids conference this year, I already knew what to expect…that it was a nice idea, but little more than a social experience as the same, tired old agenda was at work. This is the same old agenda that, in my opinion, is more confusing than helpful.

I’m thankful that my intuition and right-brain were at work in the early ’80’s and helped me to see through this whole scam. So, when I found out about AIDS dissidence a number of years ago, I was excited to know that there were others out there that supposedly hadn’t been taken in by this whole thing.

What I found, though, is what Liam describes as a core contingent of dissidents with something of a beloved theory that is in many ways like the AIDS orthodoxy in it’s entrenchment. I’ve all but given up on “dissidence” at times as I find this message from the contingent to be ineffective and worst of all, quite confusing.

Now, from what I read, you seem to be implying that Liam is a crybaby because his very well researched and quite UNconfusing work isn’t highlighted at this conference. Well, same old, same old. We’ve got our own entrenched hierarchy, it seems. Just like the AIDS orthodoxy. And it’s been a tragedy for a very long time.

I think Beth’s comments went to another comment, but are confusing.

Beth may care to clarify.

But, yes, dissidence has been a mess, and despite the best efforts of many, remains a muddle. Here’s to un-muddling.

So, how about kicking the doors of RA wide open, and holding a referendum on the purpose and goal, platform and policies of the group?

This post really has got me thinking and wondering about the current state of AIDS dissidence.

At first, I saw AIDS dissidence as a less-than-perfect democracy, but a democracy nevertheless

But has it become little more than a reflection of the AIDS orthodoxy? Have a handful of people annointed and appointed themselves as the speakers of truth on this issue? Are they having a significant effect on what is debated and how it is debated?

Have “we” (dissidents) become “them” (AIDS orthodoxy)?

Do we have our own pantheon of experts who disallow information and material that questions or goes against their theory or dogma? If this is what’s happening, then “we’re” no better than the ‘aidstruthies’ and the orthodoxy.

Yes, I really need to clarify my post. I apologize for an editing error, which Liam knows about already. Please note the “everyone else” inserted below. And I am aware that this doesn’t literally mean EVERYONE! It just doesn’t mean Liam. Liam got this 100% right. Beth RE-EDITED POST:

Thanks, Liam, for putting this in the best possible terms. “The most important people are the PATIENTS.” Not you and me. So please [everyone else] stop putting this in personal terms, as in, your work has been ignored and you didn’t get to speak [at the conference]. My God, David Crowe is bombarded with egoes every day, and I think we’ve all worn him down to a position of defensiveness.

But I am ecstatic at how Liam states the case in terms of facts and science and arriving at the truth.

And I keep hearing this issue of “divisiveness” and “negativity” as being the enemy. That’s about as dysfunctional as it gets. There is no divisiveness in working out the facts and applying logic. RA has long needed a professional, outside facilitator/mediator. It’s no sign of weakness to ask for help.

Have “we” become “them”? Good question!

If you read “Violence and the Sacred” by Rene Girard, it becomes clear that two parties at war always tend toward resembling each other. He calls it “the monstrous double.” Think about it.

The only way out of this dilemma is, Just don’t declare war. Skip it. I mean, defend yourself and all, and shoot when you need to, but if I could say what the main purpose of RA should be, it’s to HELP THE PATIENTS with good, sound information, to be a scientific voice of reason for them. Anything else is just “activist” b.s. and a lot of noise, good for the movies but not for effectiveness in real life.

What if? What if we actually put credible scientists out there and helped the victims of this? Got over ourselves for a day and half? Started talking about something besides us? Listened for a couple of seconds, to people who have real and desperate needs? Could we live without the drama?

What if all “AIDS” patients had truly supportive places where they could go for care and accurate information?

Thanks for clarifying, Elizabeth.

Much appreciated.

If you read “Violence and the Sacred” by Rene Girard, it becomes clear that two parties at war always tend toward resembling each other. He calls it “the monstrous double.”

Indeed, indeed. Two dancers in a long and serious dance can’t help but to move both in tandem, and in mirrored, locked opposition.

The older model of dissidence was always a straight inversion – it still accepts the same ‘massive reductionism as sole fact’ conceptualization of biology, though it attempts to defuse it, and put it off the war model (or, really, the “infiltrating commie” model, which is what the mainstream conceptualization of HIV goes to).

But neither reflect reality, though they do reflect the ethos of their age, and the ages that bred 20th Century virology (The Cold War).

If that’s too bookish, let me repeat that HIV is phenomena – plural – is many entities, measured differently, and always of different measure, different proteins, genetic fragments, etc, that were welded by the mind of the moment into the perfect stealthy infiltrating double agent. The “Wily Retrovirus” that couldn’t be seen, or caught, or measured with any specificity… A rogue agent, breaking into the factory and disguising itself as a left-out wrench, or a pile of boxes, or a set of gears – or whatever the geniuses at the NIH decided it was ‘hiding’ as at the moment.

But reality pulls us back, and we see that the thing was never one thing – only every bit of action and effect, form and detritus piled up in the body, and too often, in cell cultures in the lab.

And these little effects or pieces of effluence may indeed tell you that the factory is messy, or is a mess. Or, as we know, they may tell you any one of a dozen dozen things. The factory may be in production (it may even be pregnant!)

But they don’t need to bomb the factory – that’s the mainstream’s specialty. Bombing the building to save the building. That is the parody of war that war always becomes.

Anyway… enough about factories.

Beth, thanks for the clarification. Again, yes, wouldn’t it be great for RA to have a third party professional moderator, and a more democratic process so that it represented the field better. Agreed and agreed, and here’s to it.

On the other note, I think Janine’s concerns are quite valid – if we’re asking for a widening of the field of discussion, to represent problems in modern medicine, and grand errors in the perception of modern virology – then, yes, bring it in, let’s hear it, and have it, and bear witness to the breadth of concern and outrage about the wrong-headed and poorly-modeled tactics of modern virology and/or public health.

No? N’est-ce pas? Let’s give it a try, at least!

- Liam

Putting the Patients First must be our First Priority.

Here is the situation:

25 years ago, “they” (the CDC, Gallo, etc) came up with a concocted hypothesis of what AIDS was (immune dysfunction caused by a single viral entity called HIV), and a test that verified it using circular logic (leaving the single entity ephemeral). Early critics of the hypothesis suggested alternative hypotheses: that the ephemeral entity was harmless (harmless retrovirus – Duesberg), or that some other single entity was causing the problem (African Swine Fever Virus – Ortleb, Teas, Beldekas, et al, HHV-6A – Ablashi, Carrigan, Knox, et al), or that the government had created a supervirus to selectively kill people (long list).

We now know that all of these hypotheses are wrong.

We now know that the test(s) now used (blood, saliva, visual) actually do identify many bacterial, fungal, and other immune, nutritional, and toxicological challenges which can and do cause oxidative stress, illness, and death. That is, the HIV diagnosis is multifactorial and is likely to be a real indication that the recipient must do something to treat the challenge in some way. This is complicated by current trust in the medical system that the diagnosis is final, that the recipient believes he or she is going to die, and that the toxic medications provided by the medical system are the only alternative.

We now know that “AIDS” and “AIDS progression” are the direct result of these untreated multiple factors, often compounded with wrongful treatment with unbelievably toxic pharmaceutical drugs which target the body’s immune and repair systems and exacerbate oxidative stress in the guise of targeting the ephemeral HIV entity. That is, AIDS is real, and it is multifactorial.

We also now know that the HIV diagnosis and even the AIDS diagnosis need not be a death certificate unless one either does nothing, or worse, follows the doctor’s orders to take toxic pharmaceutical drugs. We know from the research and practice of Gary Null, Ian Brighthope, Laurence Bagley, Matthias Rath and many others, that people can recover from their underlying illnesses, toxicological challenges, and oxidative stress, become healthy again, and live long, healthy lives by taking powerful doses of antioxidants, immune enhancing nutrients, and other nutritional supplements.

Our job is undermine the current paradigm, but only inasmuch as this will help people diagnosed with HIV+ and AIDS to become well, and help the world understand that these diagnoses represent ordinary illnesses, and should not stigmatize and marginalize those afflicted by them.

We cannot do this unless we provide people with an accurate model of what HIV and AIDS really are. If we cling to an incorrect hypotheses (such as: HIV is just a harmless retrovirus, or, HIV is a fake diagnosis, there is nothing wrong) and do not provide people with the truth, we are doing harm. If we do not provide people with information they can use to understand and treat their underlying illnesses and immune challenges, we are negligent.

Jonathan

Thanks too for this clarification. I developed KS three years ago. Until then, the previous 18 years, were without opportunistic complications. I had been taking antivirals, right from the start in 1988. I held that as science figured this out, I stil had my work to do to change my lifestyle completely: to choose to live. My lament would be the stigma of these last 22 years, both internal and external. I want to see this through to where we can come together as patients, dissidents and main-stream thought to bring to an end to the stigma. This forum goes a long way to the half way mark. Is there a day when we all can sit at the table and talk, leaving egos behind, for the sake of the patient as everyone seems to want to do? From this perspective, I wonder if Fauci/Gallo, et al., would sit down and talk…

It is important to remember that hiv as a marker of anything is a fragile position. The hiv test is about as discredited as it can be. If it were an accurate marker of illness, then there would be no need for questionaires, nor would the patterns that Dr. Bauer has uncovered exist. Even the Perth group does not acknowledge that the hiv test is highly imperfect as a diagnostic device and they seem to use hiv test results to validate their oxidative stress theory even though they have strong evidence that there is no hiv and that hiv tests are bunk time and again.

What matters for the patients is their clinical state. No one needs the test at all. If there are no clinical symptoms, there is no need to test. If there are clinical symptoms, the test would not change the state of the patient, nor would it help treat the symptoms.

I do agree that evidence does not point to a harmless passenger virus because there is no solid evidence that it exists at all. However, it sounds as if Liam is suggesting we give MORE validity to the hiv test than our own evidence warrants.

The politics of RA is another story altogether. I am not sure why or even to what extent RA refuses to incorporate the view that the hiv virus doesn’t exist. Perhaps Liam’s effort will prevail on RA to give it more visibility. However, some are using this conflict to personally attack people in RA as mental incompetents and so on. I beg for that to stop.

Regardless of their intransigence on the topic of existence, this RA group has done a spectacular job of gaining access to radio, print, and film. They deserve respect and praise for that success. Moreover, we have to ask how much damage can we inflict on the current order before we shoot ourselves in the foot.

In a perfect world, we would be virtuous and honest and 100% objective to the evidence. It is not a perfect world. Sometimes our ideals are not practical.

We all want to see the end of aids mistreatments and death by doctor. Weigh our words carefully, and have patience. Above all, let’s remember we are all on the same team.

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2009/07/19/17/0302000000AEN20090719000900315F.HTML

SEOUL, July 19 (Yonhap) — A Seoul-based hospital said Sunday that many of the country’s AIDS patients have remained healthy for more than 20 years after taking no medicinal materials other than Korean red ginseng.

This link to the article about Korean red ginseng doesn’t mention anything about doses. It would be beneficial to me to know more about this. Are there links to find out more?

Hi,

Ginseng – strengthening root.

No idea for dosage, though, it was a quick grab from another promising treatment for multifactorial AIDS illness.

Eat right, take a little ginseng, is my take… It was in Korea, so you can bet there are vegetables, rice, fermented pickles (KimChi – http://www.google.com/search?q=kimchi& ), some fish, soybeans, etc.

Trade the white rice for brown, eat your hot soup daily, take most food in a broth, a little ginseng, and some vitamin C and other antioxidants…

Ginseng is very strong (very yang), so don’t take too much. If you find a ‘dosing’ recommendation, put up a link.

rtb, thanks so much. I will continue my search for more info about this. I have consulted an herbalist.

I regret that I didn’t give this post the attention it deserved when it was first posted. In my defense, I was still recovering from a DVT blood clot, and then the past ten days with a fierce “cold” of some sort while on a road trip.
Thanks Liam for helping me slide some pieces of a puzzle together that have been troubling me for some time. I’ve gotten downright pissed off lately thinking the dissident debate over what AIDS actually is was not germane to the average pozJoe, like me, who continues to deal with health issues. This helps me see the flaw in my thinking.
My position has been (and remains) that whether there is a virus or not, generally healthy people (DVTs and colds are not “AIDS-defining illnesses”) should not be pushed onto toxic, poisonous drugs based solely on an “HIV” test. Holding that view does not change, require one to choose one theory over another to subscribe to.
I intend to take some more time to cogitate why it is important that we in the dissident movement accept the best theory available at this time. It does makes sense.
The war of egos going on in the upper ranks of the dissident movement is really unpleasant, unsettling and damaging to those of us who seek answers. And then there’s the appearance it offers to the orthodoxy.

Thank you Liam for your clarification on the matter of AIDS. You have managed to put in words what a lot of dissidents suspect, all those unfortunate first comers to the dissident movement, who try to scrutinize all the available conflicting information.

I came to dissidence almost 2 years ago. Then Peter Duesberg, Eleni Papadopoulos-Eleopoulos, Christine Maggiore, and others seemed fascinating heroes of science and life to me. But later on, as the history of dissidence was unfolded before my eyes, confusion started to arise in my mind. Now I would rather say I am in a better situation, after my own research and my little experience with the few patients I have treated. I think I was helped in theory by Heinrich Kremmer- Stephen Lanka, Andy Maniotis, Janine Roberts, while in practice I was helped by Eleni Papadopoulos and Matthias Rath.

Things are better now for all of us, and the dissidents and the conventional doctors. Yes I believe you are right. The Gallo test is useful and none ought to be allowed to disgrace the test and its inventor in the same way no one may disgrace the Widal-Wright test but only consider objectively its limitations.

It seems to me that general production of antibodies (hypergammaglobulinemia) must be considered separately from the specific production (Gallo test, Widal-Wright, antistreptolysin etc). Specialization in our immune system is a functional phase that must be differentiated from generalization of immune production. But unfortunately I lack the data to exploit better this idea. If only I had it, perhaps I would create better ideas.
And I wish also to find the fund to come to RA conference. Although one and the younger part of dissidence might be absent, the idea to me still seems marvelous.

Janine Roberts is absolutely right in proposing to co-ordinate the fight against the cartel, con-joining the forces of the vaccine-contraries and the AIDS dissidents in the general context of virology. I wish everybody overcome his or her personal difficulties and try to understand the advantages of unification. I suppose one major difficulty one has to confront is learning all the peculiarities of the other side. But this is the very challenge of science.

Even the conventional doctors – laboratory and therapists- who are willing to discuss politely must be welcome in such a conference. And there are a lot of them who are perplexed but desire the truth.

Speaking about the egoes, and who was the first to begin the dissident movement, I would like to add, that there was a therapist, hardly known to the West, George Vithoulkas, who in the mid -seventies predicted the appearance of new diseases due to the over-consumption of antibiotics and other drugs.

Later on in the autumn of 1984, in a conference, he stated that the so-called AIDS is one of these diseases. Unfortunately he had no connection to the laboratory, so his idea that the HIV virus was produced in our immune system due to its over-stimulation by drugs was not elaborate. But he together with John Lauritsen must be among the first who made an alternative theory for AIDS, if we exclude those who made theories before the April of 1984.

I am very optimist about the conference, although by my nature I am not. And if this fails a better one will issue.

Yes the dissidents, I may foresee, win the final battle giving to science a new clarification of the idea of viruses. Not only AIDS but the truth for all viruses is different than what we thought it was.

Dear Beth -with myself, it was not that there was no room at the RA conference for me to speak – and how dare they tell me this! That indeed would be egotistical. But I was not told this! Instead what I was initially told was that for me to speak on the failures to isolate several viruses would be “divisive” and people might walk out. This is despite this being the subject of my book “fear of the Invisible’ which is well reviewed on the RA website.

I tried to persuade David that this would not be divisive – and that people would love what I had to say on this (as a RA Board member had told me just this) – but I got no where. Clearly I did not understand very well the dynamics of RA.
I also tried to persuade the Board to make a reconciliatory move towards Eleni – but got no where. Now i see peace makers also can be seen as trouble makers – I got this wrong as well.

I posted the above a bit too quickly. I also wanted to say that we see the world around us through our own eyes, and not those of others.. We may often see myths, not realities. We make images for others to inhabit rather than letting them create their own space, their own image.

We currently do have many hurt people – friendships are being broken and this is really sad.. and people on both sides are now demonizing the other

Yet – we all are colleagues, allies in the same fight – we cannot let this exhaust us, make us so frail – we need to nourish each other. to support, to be scrupulously fair, to make sure we do not take over another’s work… for it is a very hard fight we are engaged in.

Four weeks since your post Liam, and wading through the mess, it seems less likely that it will get anywhere fast. I’ve come to the realization; some hard liners will stick to their guns, but to the good end the majority is sided with the better model as I see it. Can speculation be made that in lieu of having one model as strongly suggested, it may only be a matter of time till the outdated information just fizzles out?

Fantastic post Liam Scheff !

When did biology and viruses become the defining characteristic of man?

When did Duesberg become a ’scientist priest’ allowed to define ’sin’ and ‘redemption’? When did Robert Gallo become a ’scientist priest’ allowed to determine that ‘With HIV comes death’?

The fundamental argument is not the definition of who is a better scientist (i.e. Truth teller) but how did Science become the Judge of life and death and when did Religion stop becoming the Judge of Life and Death? Do you trust the construct of Scientist as Priest? Do you rely on the Priests (Duesberg and Gallo) to tell you when and how you will face death?

Does Science now determine the last rites of Men?

When did we allow Science to replace God and allow the ‘Science-Priests’ to determine our fate on this Earth.

‘Forgive me Father my last confession was ……..’

or……

‘Forgive me Father my last HIV test was………’

Will the Scientist Priests absolve your sins?