In Defense of “Medical Hypotheses”

by Liam Scheff

Please find below my letter to the “Times Higher Education” article on the independent scientific journal “Medical Hypotheses.” The journal is being taken to task for allowing a complex and multi-factorial view of AIDS to be explored in its pages.

Please note that this letter constitutes my view, and not necessarily all authors at this site. Also note that you may add your own comment to the “T.H.E.” article by following the link above.

My letter, published in comments (though without formatting there):


I’d love to see any mainstream publication investigate any aspect of the most corrupt industry on earth, without being blanketed with that now all-purpose bit of hate-speech, “Denialist,” which used to belong only to people who denied the mass murder of European Jews, homosexuals, artists, Gypsies, and many other peoples, by the medical-military National Socialist German machine of the 1930s and 1940s.

How can it be so that no one, anywhere, is permitted to ask these basic, resounding questions:

  • What is meant by the term “HIV positive?” Which single test, anywhere in the world, gives anything approaching a standardized meaning for the term?
  • What is meant by the idea of sexual transmission, vis-a-vis the a priori designated “HIV positives?”
  • Do we, the taxpayers, citizens, journalists, mothers, fathers, and children of the Western World, have any real assurance that the term “AIDS” and “HIV” have not become twisted blanket names for the endemic poverty that affects so much of the world, and so much of Africa?
  • Is it just a blind co-incidence that the systematic foundation of the AIDS paradigm so neatly mirrors the immensely popular paradigm of the 20th Century, Eugenics, in marking people with a ‘communicable stigma’ for which they are forever presumed to be fatally affected, unless they submit their identities to a Western cleansing process – immensely toxic, life-long drugs – which are inevitably (and often in the short term) fatal?

And if that veers too much into philosophy for you, then just answer the following:

  • How is it that people given this diagnosis, when given the opportunity to get better by taking vitamin A, and Selenium and other antioxidants, are able to do so – when free to pursue a variety of treatments are often able to survive, and in practical fact, be successfully treated and return to a normal life?

And if that’s too hopeful for you, please accept the following single question:

  • Which of the cobbled-together Frankenstein molecules in the NIH’s “HIV databank” represent any one particular, singular particle, that resembles any single particle found in any human being, anywhere? That is, it’s well and good to claim that the most deadly sexually-transmitted disease vector is a singular particle, that while simultaneously failing to prove “itself” especially ‘transmissible’ by sex, also fails to present ‘itself’ as a singular “it,” in any human being?

Why is it, that this clearly multifactorial series of illnesses is so religiously clung to as a single-cause, no-cure, single-approved-highly-toxic-treatment, sex epidemic…

When every piece of literature, taken separately and together – especially together – cries out “MULTIFACTORIAL ILLNESS,” needing “MULTIFACTORIAL and HIGHLY VARIED TREATMENT,” from patient to patient, environment to environment, population to population?

It’s well and good to sight the slogans: “HAART has reduced mortality!” But the underside of that cheer is the fact that high-dose AZT, handed out to well patients, is responsible for something most likely surpassing 100,000 deaths in relatively young, gay men, who took the CDC’s advice, in the early 1990’s, before everyone changed their minds.

It’s well and good to criticize Peter Duesberg – he is demonstrably wrong about many things, including his ‘one harmless retrovirus’ theory. AIDS and HIV are more complex than that, to be sure – but Peter Duesberg did stand up to be counted when those high doses of AZT were being dispensed, and cautioned the reading public against swallowing that pill. And for that, he should forever be regarded as a hero.

And now, onto a better understanding of the science:

Following the “Perth Group’s” innovations in examining both Montagnier and Gallo’s work, we have AIDS and HIV as clearly separable phenomena, with much evidence of association, often by force – those given the HIV ‘diagnosis’ from immensely absurdly ridiculously non-specific tests, are then funneled into a treatment regimen that is clearly caustic – hence the FDA’s kindness in dispensing the Black Box labels.

You can follow those separable phenomena into today’s (and yesterday’s) lab work, and an astute observer will note that “HIV” is phenomena – not singularity. There is no one, reproducible item, there are hundreds of biological markers now subsumed into the brand name “HIV.”

What these fragments are in most cases is anybody’s guess, at this point – or, perhaps not. Perhaps they really are explicit biological demonstrations of a variety of biological, toxicological “oxidative” stresses, as is evidenced by Nobel winner Dr. Montagnier’s admission and admonition to patients that they not terrify themselves with the “HIV” label, and instead seek to treat their various biological stresses, and warm and care for their biology, so that their complex bodies can suppress or expel or otherwise defeat what ills them.


  • If you search the annals for what causes HIV tests to come up positive, you’ll never run out of work.
  • If you search for fatal effects caused by AIDS drugs, or effects so debilitating so as to constitute war crimes (see Nevirapine), you will never finish the task.

Given these two facts – and they are facts, just take up the challenge – why is it that a few immensely squeaky and vitriolic wheels, such as are Messrs. Kalichman and Moore, who devise new and interesting ways to hate-monger at every public appearance, are so hell-bent on suppressing discussion of the most corrupt industry on the planet?

Could the answer be that they work for it? That they are in its employ? Or, in its reactive belief system?

For the rest of us – and especially for those given this cruel and unusual diagnosis – I put forward the note that we are – or have often been described as – a free country. One based on Adam Smith’s idealization that men and women, free to work and innovate, according to their gifts, will produce a society in which innovative ideas, unhampered by guilds or medieval social structures, will rise to the fore, and always lead the way.

If medicine were run as a business – a true business – and not a church, or a cult, or a royaume – would it not be the most successful ideas that became top-selling products?

In that case, I expect the AIDS regulars to move their royal arses down on the research bench, and allow a little competition into the sacred realm of their sex-death obsession. Those who want the old drugs, surely can have them. Those who want to try something that doesn’t require their ‘faith,’ however, surely can have that.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is a free market. One will note that “peer-review” is the exact opposite of competition. To borrow a criticism, “peer-review conspires against one person – the innovator.” Medicine should free itself of this vestigial burden, and proceed to the world of business – the reproducible result with the most success, is that which is greeted by public adulation. Not the one put forward by the silly old men in priestly garb.

Kind regards,

Liam Scheff

5 thoughts on “In Defense of “Medical Hypotheses”

  1. Yes Liam, the usual suspcts came out in force. As I explained in my comments, John Moore and Seth Kalichman have more than $50 million reasons to call you a denialist. None of them want to bunk with Bernie Madoff.

  2. All of my entries into comments were deleted, without being addressed. I have posted the following:

    Let’s see if the masters of the forum find this ‘legally objectionable’:

    “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.”

    Yes, it’s burned out, alright. Because in most cases, it never was. It was and remains poverty, however. Which cannot be treated with Nevirapine.

    A Study of the Safety and Effectiveness of Treating Advanced AIDS Patients Between Ages 4 and 22 With 7 Drugs, Some at Higher Than Usual Doses

    Condition: HIV Infections

    Seven FDA Black Box labeled drugs, at higher than normal doses, adult doses. What parent on earth would give their child 7 over the counter drugs at once? What does the FDA’s labeling signify?

    Anyone? Care to try to answer?

    So, you understand, children cannot tolerate these regimens. The solution?

    “Reasons for nonadherence include refusal, drug tolerability, and adverse reactions. We assess: 1) the potential benefits of gastrostomy tube (GT) for the improvement of adherence to HAART in HIV-infected children, and 2) the factors that may result in improved viral suppression after GT placement.”

    When children given this diagnosis refuse the drugs, which make them extraordinarily ill, they have a hole cut into their stomach, and a tube shoved through it, so that they can no longer have any choice in the matter.

    This is AIDS medicine. This is simply the state of their art. Read the journal article:

    Listen to the testimony of patients:

    Read about the drugs from the standard ‘approved’ sources:

    Then tell me who is doing the ‘covering up’ here.

    Kind regards,

    Liam Scheff

  3. It seems I’ve skipped the best part:

    “In a letter to critic Francoise Barre-Sinoussi, a French virologist who was jointly awarded a Nobel prize for the discovery of HIV, Elsevier says: “We share your concerns about the (Duesberg article) and particularly the implications of its wider dissemination for global healthcare.”

    What then, do these statements, coming from the primary recipient of the Nobel Prize, “signify?”

    Dr. Luc Montagnier: “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….It’s important knowledge which is completely neglected. People always think of drugs and vaccine.”

    Dr. Luc Montagnier: “There is no profit, yes.”

    Can you ‘retract’ that?

  4. *
    Story: A Conspiracy-Theory Theory (30 days ago)

    Comment: 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

  5. Further comments on the page:

    Back to Moore, Kalichman, Bergman, and crew:

    ONE: The very troubled Mr. Deshong – a close personal web colleague of Seth Kalichman of U.Connecticutt, and primary supporter of John P. Moore and Jeanne Bergman – would like me to talk about the orphans that were used and who died in clinical trials. I’d be happy to.

    I ALREADY LINKED to one NIH study in a previous comment. Please read that study for yourself, it is one among dozens of AIDS drug studies at the Incarnation Children’s Center orphanage that anyone can look up on the NIH database:

    [ ]

    SEVEN FDA BLACK BOX labeled drugs at one time, some at higher than normal doses, in children. This is the state of the art, in AIDS medicine. Refusal or inability to take drugs results in G-tube surgery – CUTTING A HOLE IN THE STOMACH OF THESE CHILDREN through which ground drugs are pumped. [ ]

    AGAIN, de rigeur in AIDS medicine.

    TWO : JEANNE BERGMAN AND JOHN P. MOORE did everything they could to bury the story, including threatening the BBC (who distributed an independent documentary on the story), with libel if they did not make a public apology for allowing critical words to be spoken about AIDS drugs. No retraction as to the actual events of the story has ever been made – no one denies that the drug trials occurred. The BBC was forced to say, however, that AIDS drugs are, by definition, “life-saving.” Despite having FDA Black Box labels – meaning they have killed or maimed at standard doses.

    THREE: THE VERA INSTITUTE was told to investigate the drug trials, but they were forbidden from looking at a single medical record for a single child. They listed 25 deaths during the trials, 55 following, [ ]

    AND THEN Tim Ross of the VERA Institute admitted (on WBAI radio in NYC) that the number was closer to 200 deaths of children who had been through the trials. (29% of the remaining 417, out of a total 532 NYC foster care children that are admitted to have been used were dead; thousands of foster care children were used nationally in NIH AIDS drug trials: ).

    NO PAYMENT, no reparations, nothing has ever been paid to the children who were used in these trials, or to the families of the children who died, or were killed by drug toxicities.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *