The circular reasoning scandal of HIV testing By Neville Hodgkinson

The circular reasoning scandal of HIV testing By Neville Hodgkinson - The
Business Online.com May 21, 2006

It was an icon of compassion, a sign you cared. To wear the red ribbon meant
to express solidarity with HIV/Aids victims everywhere. It signified you
knew the importance of antiviral drugs and HIV testing, Aids awareness and
condoms - and of the urgent need for a vaccine.

In contrast, if you cast doubt on the ever-burgeoning and massaged HIV/Aids
statistics; or suggested the billions raised for HIV research and treatment
might be better spent on established medicines and in fighting poverty; or -
perish the thought - if you questioned the theory that Aids is caused by a
sexually transmitted virus, you lost your right to be considered a sensible
and decent member of the human race. You were a "denialist", a "pariah", a
"flat-earther", a "crackpot". Even if you were a leading scientist, your
funds would disappear and your ability to publish in mainstream journals
reduced to zero.

Today, whether it is frightening the residents of a Cornish town with a
cluster of purported infections, or causing the former head of South Africa's
National Aids Council to apologise for having unprotected sex with an
HIV-positive Aids activist, or enabling U2 front-man Bono to edit an issue
of the Independent newspaper dominated by impassioned accounts of Africa's
HIV/Aids plight, the virus that has held such sway in the popular mind for
more than 20 years is still never long out of the news. It is now very big
business: American Express, Motorola, Gap, Converse and Armani are among the
corporate giants supporting Bono's RED campaign promoting special products
to raise funds for Aids in Africa.

But unreported in Bono's Independent (or in any other edition of the paper,
which for years has followed an unquestioning line on Aids) there are signs
that the power of the red ribbon is in serious decline. In the United
States, where respectable opinion has long held the HIV theory of Aids to be
immune to questioning, a controversial 15-page critique in the influential
Harper's Magazine has caused culture shock. As well as detailing a cover-up
by government scientists regarding Aids medication trials, the article
approvingly quotes scientists who have argued for years that HIV is not the
cause of Aids.

Meanwhile the Washington Post last month published an investigation
headlined "How Aids in Africa was overstated", arguing that "increasingly
dire" and inaccurate assessments of HIV infection by UNAIDS (the Joint
United Nations Programme on HIV/Aids) had "skewed years of policy judgments
and decisions on where to spend precious healthcare dollars".

In India, a proposed Red Ribbon Campaign through the national rail network
has been abandoned, following a national convention on HIV in Bangalore last
October attended by more than 1,500 HIV-positive people where the
once-fashionable symbol of Aids awareness was ceremoniously rejected. In
front of television cameras, a six-foot red ribbon was cut into pieces as a
protest against the "oppressive and patronising" symbol.

Speakers said there were no similar icons of solidarity for people suffering
from other diseases. The ribbon's connotations that "HIV=Aids=Death" - the
scientific orthodoxy subscribed to by UN agencies, pharmaceutical interests
and thousands of activists around the world - was said to further the
isolation, discrimination and sense of doom suffered as a result of an HIV
diagnosis. Veena Dhari, the first woman in India to declare herself
HIV-positive, said that when HIV-positive people see the ribbon "we feel
like committing suicide". She called on all Aids organisations to stop using
it.

The story appeared on the front pages of newspapers as well as national
television in India, where media have proved more resistant than in most
African countries to huge pressures to conform to international opinion on
HIV/Aids.

Two years ago Richard Holbrooke, former US Ambassador to the United Nations
and now president of the Global Business Coalition on HIV/Aids, an alliance
of 200 international companies promoting Aids testing, treatment and
support, said in Washington that a major impediment in dealing with Aids
globally was that many governments - and people - were still in "a denial
phase - they believe they have no Aids problem."

Citing India as an example, he said that if it did not change its policies,
it would soon have the highest HIV/Aids tally in the world. By last year
that had already happened, according to Richard Feacham, head of the
Geneva-based Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the main
beneficiary of the Product RED initiative.

"The epidemic is growing very rapidly. It is out of control," Feachem said
in Paris. "There is nothing happening in India today that is big or serious
enough to prevent it." India had to wake up, because without action,
"millions and millions and millions are going to die."

That is not the view of Anju Singh, of JACKINDIA, a Delhi-based Aids policy
study group. Singh, chief guest at the Bangalore convention, told The
Business last week that "there are no reports - not even anecdotal ones -
that reflect visible proof of an epidemic in this country." The official
estimate for HIV infections is around 5m; but a dearth of Aids cases -
averaging 10,000 a year over the past 10 years - suggests that is grossly
wrong.

Nor has there been any abnormal increase in death rates, even in suspected
"high risk groups" such as red light areas. The Indian government does not
publish data for Aids deaths; but "questions we got asked in Parliament have
elicited a cumulative figure of 1,100." When UNAIDS published a figure of
310,000 Aids deaths in India in 1999 alone, and a cumulative total of
558,000 Aids orphans, JACKINDIA challenged them publicly. In late 2001 the
figures were withdrawn - but only after being used earlier that year to
project the state of the epidemic in India at the UN General Assembly
Special Session on HIV/Aids in New York.

"For years now, agencies like the CIA, World Bank, UNDP, UNAIDS, a plethora
of NGOs as well as articles published in respected science journals have
been talking of an exploding epidemic in India, and Africa-like conditions,"
Singh said. "We have consistently challenged the agencies that claim India
is underplaying figures and is in denial; none of them has been able to
provide any alternative data or evidence to substantiate their claims."

The iconoclastic Harper's article, entitled "Out of Control: Aids and the
corruption of medical science", has sparked intense debate. Greeted by a
chorus of condemnation and calls for the resignation of Harper's editor, it
has nevertheless found many defenders. It was written by Celia Farber, a
journalist and long-standing critic of the science surrounding the HIV
theory.

In an editorial, the Columbia Journalism Review accused the magazine of
"racing right over a cliff" in publishing Farber. A blog called New Aids
Review responded that the editorial was "a poor specimen of what journalism
students are learning at one of the great universities", adding that the
author would do better to write a thesis on "The Media in Aids: How
Journalists Failed the American Public".

But even some long-standing HIV/Aids activists have admitted themselves
shaken by the facts Farber set out about the lethal potential of some
antiviral drugs; and the controversy has also taken the lid off a claim made
repeatedly in response to attempts to reopen debate on the causes of Aids,
that only a handful of scientists question the orthodox view.

Thanks to the internet, an association started 14 years ago to press for a
scientific reappraisal of the HIV/Aids hypothesis now lists more than 2,300
public dissenters, including Nobel Laureates in chemistry and medicine on
its website (http://rethinkaids.info/quotes/rethinkers.htm). Many have
advanced degrees in the sciences and medicine as well as direct experience
of working in the public health sector in Africa and other supposedly
HIV-ravaged parts of the world.

One of these is Dr Rebecca Culshaw, assistant professor of mathematics at
the University of Texas, a mathematical biologist who for 10 years studied
and published models of HIV disease and treatment. In an internet posting
entitled "Why I Quit HIV", Culshaw calls for a ban on HIV tests. She says
they do "immeasurably more harm than good" because of an "astounding" lack
of specificity and standardisation; she adds that many people are being
treated with drugs on the basis of an insupportable theory. "My work . has
been built in large part on the paradigm that HIV causes Aids and I have
since come to realise that there is good evidence that the entire basis for
this theory is wrong."

In Australia, the idea that anyone can be diagnosed as infected with HIV is
to face a court challenge. In a hearing set down for July, the lawyer for a
man found guilty of endangering the lives of three women through having
unprotected sex (one woman has tested positive, while the other two are
negative) is to call evidence from a Perth-based group of scientists who
during nearly 25 years researching the scientific literature on Aids have
come to an even more radical conclusion than the American dissenters quoted
in Harper's. The group (www.theperthgroup.com) will testify that "HIV" has
never been isolated from the tissues of Aids patients; and that in
consequence the HIV test has never been validated and there is no proof HIV
is transmitted sexually.

Dr Robert Gallo, the American government researcher whose team developed and
marketed the first test kits, says in a letter in this month's Harper's that
"no test in medicine is perfect, but done correctly and with a confirmatory
second test, the HIV blood test developed in our laboratory comes close."
Gallo and others, including activists promoting anti-viral drugs in South
Africa, make similar assertions in their rebuttal of Farber's article
stating that: "HIV tests were highly accurate from the time they were
developed in 1984 and have become much more accurate over time as the
underlying technology has evolved. HIV tests are amongst the most accurate
available in medical science."

In fact, as demonstrated in a two-part investigation published in The
Business in May 2004 (see panel), experts have known since the early years
of Aids that "HIV" test kits could not be used to diagnose Aids. Delegates
at a World Health Organisation meeting in Geneva in 1986 heard that the kits
were licensed to protect blood and plasma donations, not as a screen for
Aids or people at risk of Aids. But, dictated by public health needs, usage
had expanded and "it was simply not practical" to stop this, as Dr Thomas
Zuck, of the US Food and Drug Administration, put it.

The 100 experts from 34 countries heard that, though the tests were useful
in safeguarding blood supplies, something more was needed to distinguish
genuine infection with HIV. Dr James Allen, of the US Centres for Disease
Control Aids programme, said studies suggested some people were reacting to
components of the cell line used to grow HIV for many of the test kits
licensed in America. Other reactions occurred because of antibodies to
normal cell proteins, naturally occurring in the body. Allen warned that the
problems could be magnified in areas of the world that did not have the
sophisticated facilities of America.

The meeting was told that a so-called "confirmatory test", called western
blot, relied on the same principle as the test kits it was supposed to be
checking and so was liable to the same kind of false-positive reactions.
Subsequent research has repeatedly confirmed this problem: more than 60
conditions that cause such false-positives have been documented. One is
tuberculosis, which produces symptoms of Aids as defined in Africa and is
immensely widespread among impoverished people.

As the HIV/Aids paradigm won worldwide acceptance, increasingly complex
procedures for trying to make a reliable diagnosis came into being. But the
basic problem - not being able to validate any of these procedures against
pure virus taken from patients - still remains.

Harper's has published pages of letters in the latest (May) issue in
response to Farber's article, which appeared in March. Roughly half are
supportive, half against. The first letter is from Culshaw, who writes:
"This debate should have happened long ago, before an unproven hypothesis of
an immune-destroying retrovirus was thrust upon a vulnerable public, and
without being thoroughly critiqued in the scientific literature. Despite the
promises made in 1984, there is still no cure and no vaccine. Instead, there
has been a fundamental erosion in scientific and clinical-trial standards,
with implications reaching far beyond HIV.

"To do the best we can for those affected by Aids - including those in
Africa, where Aids presents a clinical picture quite different from that in
the developed world - there urgently needs to be an honest scientific
debate."

There is an association between testing HIV-positive and risk of developing
Aids. This is the main reason why scientists believe HIV is the cause of
Aids. But the link is artificial, a consequence of the way the test kits
were made.

It never proved possible to validate the tests by culturing, purifying and
analysing particles of the purported virus from patients who test positive,
then demonstrating that these are not present in patients who test negative.
This was despite heroic efforts to make the virus reveal itself in patients
with Aids or at risk of Aids, in which their immune cells were stimulated
for weeks in laboratory cultures using a variety of agents.

After the cells had been activated in this way, HIV pioneers found some 30
proteins in filtered material that gathered at a density characteristic of
retroviruses. They attributed some of these to various parts of the virus.
But they never demonstrated that these so-called "HIV antigens" belonged to
a new retrovirus.

So, out of the 30 proteins, how did they select the ones to be defined as
being from HIV? The answer is shocking, and goes to the root of what is
probably the biggest scandal in medical history. They selected those that
were most reactive with antibodies in blood samples from Aids patients and
those at risk of Aids.

This means that "HIV" antigens are defined as such not on the basis of being
shown to belong to HIV, but on the basis that they react with antibodies in
Aids patients. Aids patients are then diagnosed as being infected with HIV
on the basis that they have antibodies which react with those same antigens.
The reasoning is circular.

Gay men leading "fast-track" sex lives, drug addicts, blood product
recipients and others whose immune systems are exposed to multiple
challenges and who are at risk of Aids are much more likely to have raised
levels of the antibodies looked for by the tests than healthy people -
because the antigens in the tests were chosen on the basis that they react
with antibodies in Aids patients. But this association does not prove the
presence of a lethal new virus.

The tests do discriminate between healthy blood and the blood of patients
with Aids or Aids-like conditions, because Aids patients suffer a range of
active infections and other blood abnormalities, some of which are
transmissible. This is why the tests are useful as a screen for the safety
of blood supplies.

But to tell even one person that they are HIV-infected on the grounds that
they have antibodies that react with the proteins in these tests is an
unwarranted assault.



Neville Hodgkinson is a UK-based journalist who has been writing about Aids
for 20 years. He is the author of AIDS: The Failure of Contemporary Science
(Fourth Estate, 1996).

http://www.thebusinessonline.com/col...5-97AC94420FD5

[Media March 2006] Out of Control AIDS and the corruption of medical
scienceBy Celia Farber http://www.harpers.org/OutOfControl.html

"john" wrote in message
...


The group (www.theperthgroup.com) will testify that "HIV" has
never been isolated from the tissues of Aids patients;

Which is flat out contradicted by...
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm

EVIDENCE THAT HIV CAUSES AIDS

HIV fulfills Koch's postulates as the cause of AIDS.

Among many criteria used over the years to prove the link between putative
pathogenic (disease-causing) agents and disease, perhaps the most-cited are
Koch's postulates, developed in the late 19th century. Koch's postulates
have been variously interpreted by many scientists, and modifications have
been suggested to accommodate new technologies, particularly with regard to
viruses (Harden. Pubbl Stn Zool Napoli [II] 1992;14:249; O'Brien, Goedert.
Curr Opin Immunol 1996;8:613). However, the basic tenets remain the same,
and for more than a century Koch's postulates, as listed below, have served
as the litmus test for determining the cause of any epidemic disease:

1)Epidemiological association: the suspected cause must be strongly
associated with the disease.
2)Isolation: the suspected pathogen can be isolated - and propagated -
outside the host.
3)Transmission pathogenesis: transfer of the suspected pathogen to an
uninfected host, man or animal, produces the disease in that host.

With regard to postulate #1, numerous studies from around the world show
that virtually all AIDS patients are HIV-seropositive; that is they carry
antibodies that indicate HIV infection.

With regard to postulate #2, modern culture techniques have allowed the
isolation of HIV in virtually all AIDS patients, as well as in almost all
HIV-seropositive individuals with both early- and late-stage disease. In
addition, the polymerase chain (PCR) and other sophisticated molecular
techniques have enabled researchers to document the presence of HIV genes in
virtually all patients with AIDS, as well as in individuals in earlier
stages of HIV disease.

Postulate #3 has been fulfilled in tragic incidents involving three
laboratory workers with no other risk factors who have developed AIDS or
severe immunosuppression after accidental exposure to concentrated, cloned
HIV in the laboratory. In all three cases, HIV was isolated from the
infected individual, sequenced and shown to be the infecting strain of
virus. In another tragic incident, transmission of HIV from a Florida
dentist to six patients has been documented by genetic analyses of virus
isolated from both the dentist and the patients. The dentist and three of
the patients developed AIDS and died, and at least one of the other patients
has developed AIDS. Five of the patients had no HIV risk factors other than
multiple visits to the dentist for invasive procedures (O'Brien, Goedert.
Curr Opin Immunol 1996;8:613; O'Brien, 1997; Ciesielski et al. Ann Intern
Med 1994;121:886).

"CWatters" wrote in message
...

"john" wrote in message
...


The group (www.theperthgroup.com) will testify that "HIV" has
never been isolated from the tissues of Aids patients;

Which is flat out contradicted by...
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm


HIV=aids is one of the biggest hoaxes for some time

the HIV test by itself is bad enough http://www.whale.to/a/hivfraud.html

and AZT and the rest are just poisons in disguise
http://www.whale.to/y/aids3.html.html

of course the big red flag is the fact you medical boys haven't cured one
single case of AIDS!!

In article , john wrote:
The circular reasoning scandal of HIV testing By Neville Hodgkinson - The
Business Online.com May 21, 2006

It was an icon of compassion, a sign you cared. To wear the red ribbon meant
to express solidarity with HIV/Aids victims everywhere. It signified you
knew the importance of antiviral drugs and HIV testing, Aids awareness and
condoms - and of the urgent need for a vaccine.

In contrast, if you cast doubt on the ever-burgeoning and massaged HIV/Aids
statistics; or suggested the billions raised for HIV research and treatment
might be better spent on established medicines and in fighting poverty; or -
perish the thought - if you questioned the theory that Aids is caused by a
sexually transmitted virus, you lost your right to be considered a sensible
and decent member of the human race. You were a "denialist", a "pariah", a
"flat-earther", a "crackpot". Even if you were a leading scientist, your
funds would disappear and your ability to publish in mainstream journals
reduced to zero.

Today, whether it is frightening the residents of a Cornish town with a
cluster of purported infections, or causing the former head of South Africa's
National Aids Council to apologise for having unprotected sex with an
HIV-positive Aids activist, or enabling U2 front-man Bono to edit an issue
of the Independent newspaper dominated by impassioned accounts of Africa's
HIV/Aids plight, the virus that has held such sway in the popular mind for
more than 20 years is still never long out of the news. It is now very big
business: American Express, Motorola, Gap, Converse and Armani are among the
corporate giants supporting Bono's RED campaign promoting special products
to raise funds for Aids in Africa.

But unreported in Bono's Independent (or in any other edition of the paper,
which for years has followed an unquestioning line on Aids) there are signs
that the power of the red ribbon is in serious decline. In the United
States, where respectable opinion has long held the HIV theory of Aids to be
immune to questioning, a controversial 15-page critique in the influential
Harper's Magazine has caused culture shock. As well as detailing a cover-up
by government scientists regarding Aids medication trials, the article
approvingly quotes scientists who have argued for years that HIV is not the
cause of Aids.

A stupid thing to do, that is. And why is it that Hodgkinson doesn't
even know that it's "AIDS" not "Aids?" For a commentary on Farber's
article, see

http://www.cjrdaily.org/behind_the_n...over_the_e.php

or

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=65330

Meanwhile the Washington Post last month published an investigation
headlined "How Aids in Africa was overstated", arguing that "increasingly
dire" and inaccurate assessments of HIV infection by UNAIDS (the Joint
United Nations Programme on HIV/Aids) had "skewed years of policy judgments
and decisions on where to spend precious healthcare dollars".

Which proves zero about whether or not HIV causes AIDS. The Post
article never disputes that claim. And for the conspiracy-minded
among us (and you know you you are), note that national governments
in Africa are highly motivated to make their AIDS rates look as low
as possible, so as not to scare off foreign investment and tourism.
One woman I know claimed things were actually far worse in Kenya
(she'd spent a lot of time there) than the offical figures showed.

In India, a proposed Red Ribbon Campaign through the national rail
network has been abandoned, following a national convention on HIV in
Bangalore last October attended by more than 1,500 HIV-positive
people where the once-fashionable symbol of Aids awareness was
ceremoniously rejected. In front of television cameras, a six-foot
red ribbon was cut into pieces as a protest against the "oppressive
and patronising" symbol.

That doesn't prove HIV anything about HIV-AIDS either.

Neither does whether or not some organization called JACKINDIA thinks
that AIDS cases in India have been overstated.

snippo

Thanks to the internet, an association started 14 years ago to press for a
scientific reappraisal of the HIV/Aids hypothesis now lists more than 2,300
public dissenters, including Nobel Laureates in chemistry and medicine on
its website (http://rethinkaids.info/quotes/rethinkers.htm). Many have
advanced degrees in the sciences and medicine as well as direct experience
of working in the public health sector in Africa and other supposedly
HIV-ravaged parts of the world.

Many others have reportedly changed their minds, but their names still
appear on the list. And if your Nobel laureate is, for example, a
chemist who discovered PCR (Kary Mullis), well, big deal.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth

"john" wrote:


"CWatters" wrote in message
...

"john" wrote in message
...


The group (www.theperthgroup.com) will testify that "HIV" has
never been isolated from the tissues of Aids patients;

Which is flat out contradicted by...
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm


HIV=aids is one of the biggest hoaxes for some time

the HIV test by itself is bad enough http://www.whale.to/a/hivfraud.html

and AZT and the rest are just poisons in disguise
http://www.whale.to/y/aids3.html.html

of course the big red flag is the fact you medical boys haven't cured one
single case of AIDS!!


As I say to all AIDS deniers - are you willing to be injected with
blood from an HIV+ person, John? If not, why not?
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
...

As I say to all AIDS deniers - are you willing to be injected with
blood from an HIV+ person, John? If not, why not?
--

You mean HIV = AIDS deniers. Dr Willner did that 10 years ago on Spanish
TV. Didn't make any difference to anything, and he was an MD, so what
woyuld be the point of me doing it?

And why don't you take the vax test--inject yourself with the equivalent
dosage of what babies get?
http://www.spontaneouscreation.org/SC/20,000Offer.htm

"john" wrote:


"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
.. .

As I say to all AIDS deniers - are you willing to be injected with
blood from an HIV+ person, John? If not, why not?
--

You mean HIV = AIDS deniers. Dr Willner did that 10 years ago on Spanish
TV. Didn't make any difference to anything, and he was an MD, so what
woyuld be the point of me doing it?

And why don't you take the vax test--inject yourself with the equivalent
dosage of what babies get?
http://www.spontaneouscreation.org/SC/20,000Offer.htm


Any time, any place. I have offered this before. Unlike the AIDS/HIV
deniers I am not a hypocrite.

--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
...
"john" wrote:


"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
. ..

As I say to all AIDS deniers - are you willing to be injected with
blood from an HIV+ person, John? If not, why not?
--

You mean HIV = AIDS deniers. Dr Willner did that 10 years ago on Spanish
TV. Didn't make any difference to anything, and he was an MD, so what
woyuld be the point of me doing it?

And why don't you take the vax test--inject yourself with the equivalent
dosage of what babies get?
http://www.spontaneouscreation.org/SC/20,000Offer.htm


Any time, any place. I have offered this before. Unlike the AIDS/HIV
deniers I am not a hypocrite.

ROTFLOL!

OHHHH what LIES.

You are not a liar...either.

Starting off with this HUGH lie:

WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Protect Their
Monopolies


Peter Bowditch said:

Max has already stated that he is opposed to vaccinations for no
rational reason (there is none, anyway), he thinks Mercola is a good
source for anything, and he says that Jan presents cogent arguments.
Why should his inability to understand this difference be surprising?


Post 168

I see... I've completely discredited you in several other threads so
the best you can do is attack me personally? Please provide the link
where I said that all vaccinations are bad and then gave no good reason
for it.

I have also not used Dr. Mercola's opinion for any reference. If you
knew how to debate, you would have followed the Mercola.com links I've
provided and seen that they were simply referenced studies or press
releases that the site had copies of. They weren't Dr. Mercola's work.

Try sticking to the facts. Your credibility is dwindling fast.

Max.



Peter Bowditch wrote:
Google are always looking for people to help them do a better job of
indexing the 'net. As you are better at spidering a site than the
Google engine, you can probably name your salary.

http://www.google.com/jobs/index.html


Wow. You're really looking for any way to be right. However, this one
won't cut it. It has nothing to do with me being better than Google.
My guess is that you did a Google search for "Warburg" using Google's
advanced search feature to search just that one site, then you just
counted the number of hits you got back. Then you noticed that there
was also an E. Warburg and assumed that I was counting his name too.
Otherwise, why would you ask about him? You know what they say about
assuming.

Make me look bad. List them. Don't forget to tell me who "E. Warburg"
is.


sigh If I must. But for the record, let's just spell it out here
what you and I were both saying. That way we're clear that you were
wrong.

Peter Bowditch wrote:
There is ONE mention of cancer in the Presentation Speech by Professor
E. Hammarsten.


in reply to this:

Jan wrote:
There are however, MANY references to CANCER in the very subject
relating
to the Nobel Prize won by *DR* Warburg.


and Peter said:

Otto Warburg's research had nothing to do
with cancer, despite what alternuts have to say.


Then I proceeded to prove you wrong by saying that the Nobel site
contained MANY referneces to Ottor Warburg with regards to cancer. I
then wrote the following:
_____________________________
Mentions of cancer and Dr. Warburg in the Nobel literatu

1 - in his Nobel biography
"This discovery has opened up new ways in the fields of cellular
metabolism and cellular respiration. He has shown, among other things,
that cancerous cells can live and develop, even in the absence of
oxygen."

2 - again in his Nobel biography
"In the last years he added to the problems of his Institute:
chemotherapeutics of cancer, and the mechanism of X-ray's action."

3 - in the presentation speech (as you said)
"The medical world expects great things from your experiments on cancer
and other tumours, experiments which seem already to be sufficiently
far advanced to be able to furnish an explanation for at least one
cause of the destructive and unlimited growth of these tumours.

4 & 5 - in his two 1927 Nobel nominations
"Work on anaerobic energy production in cancer cells, and the roll of
iron in the oxidation mechanism of cells."

6, 7, 8, 9. 10 and 11 - in his six 1928 Nobel nominations
"Studies of the metabolism of cancer cells and of oxidative processes
in general."
_____________________________

So now, at your request, I'll list out the rest of the times cancer was
mentioned with regards to Dr. OTTO Warburg on the Nobel site:

Nobel nominations:
12 - in 1929 for his "Work on the mechanism of cell respiration,
enzymes involved in respiration and on the metabolism of tumor cells."

13 - in 1929 for his "Studies of the metabolism of cancer cells and of
oxidative processes in general."

14 - in 1929 for his "Studies of the metabolism of cancer cells, and of
enzymes involved in respiration."

15 - in 1929 for his "Studies of respiration in normal vs cancer cells,
and of enzymes involved in respiration."

16 - in 1929 for his "Work on the mechanism of cell respiration,
enzymes involved in respiration and on the metabolism of tumor cells."

17 - in 1929 for his "Work on the etiology of cancer, chemistry of
cancer cells and enzymes involved in respiration."

18 - in 1929 for his "Studies of respiration in normal vs cancer cells,
and of enzymes involved in respiration."

19 - in 1929 for his "Studies of the metabolism of cancer cells and of
oxidative processes in general."

20 - in 1930 for his "Work on the metabolism in tumour cells."

21 - in 1930 for his "Work on oxidation mechanisms (iron catalysis,
respiratory enzyme) and the metabolism in tumors."

22 - in 1931 for his "Work on cancer."

So ,as you can see, when I said around 20 mentions of cancer with
regards to Dr. Otto Warburg, I was actually being a bit conservative.

I dont know who E. Warburg is. Would you care to enlighten us?

Max.

Peter Bowditch wrote: Post #290
I'm sorry I offended you by responding to someone else. But then, why
should I care about the feelings of someone who thinks that a banquet
speech is an acceptance speech?

By the way the "around 20 mentions of cancer on the Nobel web site
with direct regards to Dr. Warburg" seems to be "around 15" according
to Google, and that is before you remove the ones referring to a
different Warburg and the duplicate listing for the history of the
Kaiser Wilhelm Institute. All of which has nothing to do with the
facts that Dr Warburg did not mention cancer in his one-and-only Nobel
lecture, and the single mention in the presentation speech was making
the point the Dr Warburg's prize wasn't for finding a cure for cancer.


Post 295
LOL! Give it up, Peter. It's not like we all can't go back to the
beginning of this thread to see EXACTLY what you said and EXACTLY how I
corrected you. I have already listed the individual mentions of cancer
with relation to Dr. Warburg up through 1929 on the Nobel web site. I
also stated that there were several more for 1930 and 1931. I counted
them myself... I didn't take the lazy man's way and depend on Google.

If you make me list them out here, it's just going to make you look
bad. You're better off dropping it.

Max.

What a tangle web Peter weaves when he tries to DECEIVE.

Under the thread The Cancer Challegene.
Post # 16 Peter posted:
One must ask, then, why the word "cancer" appears ZERO times in Dr
Warburg's 1931 Nobel acceptance speech.

[note the word *acceptance* and the word *cancer*.
NOT lecture and NOT a *CURE* for cancer.
In the above thread he also mentions:
*Presentation Speech*
*Banquet Speech*
Post #48

Max NAILED Peter!
Oh, this is just beautiful. You get backed in to a corner because you
can't provide information to support your position, so you completely
CHANGE your position, ADMIT you changed your position, and then begin
lecturing ME about the very subject I corrected you on. You have
absolutely ZERO credibility. I'm sorry, but I can no longer take you
seriously. I HOPE you're just doing this because you enjoy arguing and
NOT because you have convinced yourself that you're right. If it's the
later, I have a great deal of pity for you.

I actually love the fact that you like to represent the medical
community. I'm sure doctors on this board aren't so fond of it,
though.

Max.

Now Peter being the TOTAL LIAR he is, has to WEASEL...
Comes up with this PATHETIC story on his LYING website....

So where's the promised play? (8/4/2006)


My plans to write a play based on the weirdness of some Usenet participants
were thrown into psychological disarray during the week, when I was
presented with some additional information about the mental states of the
subjects whom I was observing in order to create my piece of htémél vérité.

One of the subjects told me that using Google to find things on the web was
"the lazy man's way", and that he was better at finding things than Google.
To add to this hubris, he then told me that it didn't make any sense for
someone to say that Nobel Laureates presented things called Nobel Lectures
and challenged me to name anybody who had done so.

Show us all here how giving a 15 page lecture to those giving a Nobel Prize
is customary. I'm not just going to take your word for it, especially since
it doesn't even make sense. The web site is right there. Find some other
Nobel Laureates that gave lectures to the audience upon receiving an award.
If it's customary, it should be easy to prove your point.
I responded by giving references to the lectures presented by every
Laureate in 2005, and, as we had been talking about 1931, pointed out that
the only people who didn't give lectures in that year were either unable to
attend the awards ceremony or, the ultimate in "unable to attend", had died
during the time between the announcement of the awards and the presentation.
(Thus exploiting a loophole in the Nobel regulations, as the prizes can only
be awarded to living people. This is why Rosalind Franklin did not share the
1962 Medicine prize with Watson, Crick and Wilkins.) I also offered the
information that the Nobel people had been publishing an annual book
containing the lectures since 1901. Better-than-Google replied that I
obviously didn't know what I was talking about.
He then changed hats and announced that he had a dietary cure for all sorts
of diseases which had been 100% successful both in effectiveness and
compliance by dieters. When pressed for details he said that the diet was
the one "used by native people all over the world for thousands of years". I
asked him the following question, but I have yet to receive an answer.
Sadly, it appears that Max has run away and no longer wants to talk to me.
If someone else hadn't thought of the words first, I should probably say:
"If he come not, then the play is marred: it goes not forward, doth it?".
Which native people exactly, Max? The Inuit natives of the far north west of
the North American continent? Australian Aborigines from Cape York?
Australian Aborigines from around the Sydney basin? Australian Aborigines
from Tasmania? Australian Aborigines from the centre of the continent?
Natives of the area in the US now known as Louisiana? Natives of the Andes
region of South America? Natives from the Cape Town area of South Africa?
Natives of New Guinea? Natives from the area where the Niger River enters
the Atlantic Ocean? Natives of the area now called Israel? Natives of the
Japanese islands? Natives of the islands which make up the eastern half of
Indonesia? Natives of central Asia, north of the Himalayas? Native of the
Maldives? Natives of Tahiti? Did they all eat the same food?
This gives an indication of how difficult it can be to deal with some of
these people. When anyone can spout nonsense which is so obviously nonsense
it can seem that the task of fighting this idiocy is hopeless. Sometimes I
have to take a break just to let my mind adjust to reality again. If I was
being paid to do this I would ask for more money.

==

Do show us where Dr. Haley's fans said he has apologized!

Do prove Mark S Probert disbarred attorney is NOT the Mark S. Probert that
posts here on this newsgroup.

Do show us Where Peter Moran was accused of LYING once for not spelling
"syncrometer" correctly.

Just WHERE was it claimed that you were condoning Dr. Patel's behavior?????

Just WHERE did anyone say you were *protecting* him ot it was some kind of
cover up?????

Just WHERE has anyone one said there was absolute safety in alternative??

Just WHERE has anyone demanded evidence that anyone said or believed that
liver flukes cause cancer?

Just WHERE has anyone one *said* that liver flukers cause cancer on the
newsgroup as of the date you you changed the wording?

Just WHO is a strong supporter of cancer quack Hulda Clark?

MANY OF THESE LIES ARE ON PETER'S WEBSITES!!!!

Dr. Haley wrote:


Ethylmercury is extremely neurotoxic, killing neurons at 10-25 nanomolar
levels. For your information the vaccine is 125,000 nanomolar in thimerosal
and injecting one vaccine (12.5 micrograms) into one 4-6lbs infant would
represent a very toxic exposure. Furhter, unlike many elements (N,O,C, etc.)
Hg has no known usefulness in biological systems, being toxic to them all.
Also, all occurring forms of Hg (methylmercury, ethylmercury, thimerosal
dental amalgams, Hg vapor, Hg2+, etc.) have been reported to be extremely
toxic.

Here is what Peter Said:

A professor of chemistry deliberately talks about two different chemical
compounds (ethylmercury and methylmercury) as if they are interchangeable
and have identical properties.

That is a LIE.

Dr Haley said NO such thing.

He said:

(methylmercury, ethylmercury, thimerosal dental amalgams, Hg vapor, Hg2+,
etc.) have been reported to be extremely toxic.

He is absolutely correct.

Ethylmercury has also been shown, like methylmercury, to accumulate in the
brain and causes tissue damage methylmercury, to accumulate in the brain and
causes tissue damage

Like methylmercury, ethylmercury is toxic to the brain and crosses the
blood-brain barrier. (9) "Higher-dose exposure to ethylmercury from
Thimerosal results in toxicity comparable to that observed after high-dose
exposure to methylmercury."
==

Peter Bowditch" wrote in message

...

"LadyLollipop" wrote:

"cathyb" wrote in message
groups.com...

Vashti wrote:
It wasn't a dark and stormy night when george_of_the_bush wrote:

On 15 Jul 2005 12:55:09 -0700, "PeterB"
wrote:

It wasn't a dark and stormy night when VashTIC used this tired
old phrase for the one billionth time, like a little tic that
never gets tired of sucking your leg. Is it just senescence or a
bored Pharma Blogger waiting for the weekend? Fair and Balanced.
You Decide.

PeterB

That was a sorry excuse of a personal attack. You should
apologize for your behaviour.

He won't and probably won't see the need to: in another MHA thread
he's added a few from ASAD to his list of "Pharma Bloggers" with
similar twists on their names.

From this message of his I gather he's not meaning a tourette tic
but a *tick*, unless he intended it to be a combined slur. Pretty
lame either way.

And I paid him the compliment of assuming he meant 'tic' when he said
it. Bugger.

Lame? My pre-adolescent kids could do better. His evident delight at
having coined Bowdick/Blowdick make me wonder if we are in fact dealing
with an adolescent.

Oh my yes.

Do not let us mention the many lame words of Peter Bowditch, or Mark
Probert
, or the many many times they needed to apologize.

I can't speak for Mark, but I have rarely had a need to apologise.
That doesn't mean that people haven't asked me to apologise, but
someone asking doesn't necessarily create a need. They would have to
provide evidence that there was something to apologise for.


That's been done, over and over.

Subject: A song for Ilena
From: Peter Bowditch
Date: 9/19/2004 11:21 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:
(Jan) wrote:
Subject: A song for Ilena
From: Peter Bowditch
Peter has time to belittle, but likeOrac, he has been silent with
correcting
his mistakes, and giving needed apology.
Jan
I'm sorry you didn't like the song,


snip diverson , using the word apologize and further belittling

Now down to the business.

Hello Peter Bowditch

Peter did NOT reply.

From: Jan )
Subject: Hello Peter Bowditch
View: Complete Thread (3 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Date: 2004-09-10 17:46:47 PST

From: Peter Bowditch )
Subject: Yurko freed from life sentence in son's death
View: Complete Thread (79 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Date: 2004-08-28 19:12:07 PST

(Jan) wrote:
Subject: Yurko freed from life sentence in son's death
From: W_B
Date: 8/28/2004 4:22 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
Sorry Gail, your pet theory is bogus.
Quite wrong.
Your posts and your denial of REAL diseass and the causes are bogus.
You might wake up when amalgams are banned.
Jan


Speaking of amalgam, Gail totally disagrees with you about Crohn's
Disease. Many anti-amalgamists (including ones quoted on that fountain
of "truth", the whale.to site) say that Crohn's Disease is caused by
amalgams. Gail, however, says that all these people are wrong because
it is really caused by some kind of telepathic transfer of the effects
of psychiatric drugs, where the people who take the drugs are not
affected but others who come into contact with the drug takers get
Crohn's Disease. Her hypothesis absolves amalgam as a cause for
Crohn's Disease and therefore implies that amalgam fillings are safer
than some people think.

I replied:

Well, no that is impossible since I have never stated any thing about
Crohns.

Moving on.

From: Peter Bowditch )
Subject: Mark S. Probert from Merrick, NY ... 10th Judicial District
View: Complete Thread (98 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Date: 2004-08-30 20:44:09 PST

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
(Jan) wrote:
Subject: Mark S. Probert from Merrick, NY ... 10th Judicial District
From: Orac
Date: 8/30/2004 4:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
In article ,
(Jan) wrote:
Enuff Orac,
I agree. Enough is enough.
But you have to have the last word???
One does not say something is a fact when one has no idea what the facts
are.
Pot. Kettle. Black. Why do you make assertions about Hulda Clark's
zapper when you yourself have admitted that you haven't studied it?
Say what?????
WOW!!!
I made NO assertions whatsoever about the zappicator, NOT zapper.
UNTIL I studied it.
Your attmept at diversion is noted along with you being totally confused.
Now that you have made that claim, do prove it. Do posts where I made
assertions about Hulda Clark's zappicator, NOT zapper.
One does not say something is a fact when one has no idea what the facts
are.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT MARK DID.
Jan


Could there ever be a better example of fundamentalist, concrete
thinking than this? Someone jokingly uses the word "zappicator" to
refer to Hulda's magic cure-all machine. Because the words "zapper"
and "zappicator" have different spellings, Jan assumes that they must
refer to different objects. This is the same person who keeps telling
us that "quacksalver" and "quicksilver" mean the same thing because
they share some letters.

We need to find out what Jan's brain is made of. The material could be
used to replace depleted uranium in anti-tank shells.

To which I replied:

Subject: Mark S. Probert from Merrick, NY ... 10th Judicial District
From: Peter Bowditch


Ahhhhhhhhh. Along comes Peter to try and cover both Mark and Orac.

snip belittling

Someone jokingly uses the word "zappicator" to
refer to Hulda's magic cure-all machine


Ummm, NOT.

From: Peter Moran )
Subject: What are Skeptics? (1/2)
View: Complete Thread (10 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Date: 2004-08-26 22:12:47 PST

"Jan" wrote in message


...

Subject: What are Skeptics? (1/2)


snip something or other

Jan, at the risk of being "on topic" for this newsgroup, what do you think
of Hulda's "Zappicator"? Are you using one? If not, why not?

Peter Moran

Next?

Because the words "zapper"
and "zappicator" have different spellings, Jan assumes that they must
refer to different objects


Correct, I have never heard of the zappicator, so I looked it up.

Perhaps you should also??

snip insults and belittling

Care to correct your mistake????

Someone jokingly uses the word "zappicator" to
refer to Hulda's magic cure-all machine.


Matter of fact make that TWO mistakes.

Hulda has NEVER claimed the zapper is a magic cure-all machine.

You correction and apology await.

Jan

Fuuny, I have seen no correction or apology.

==


Peter Bowditch.

Dr Death

I was criticised recently for lack of balance in my choices of which
forms and instances of medical fraud to feature here. The specific
complaint was that I didn't have a page on this site about Dr Jayant
Patel, late of Bundaberg Hospital in Queensland, Australia. My first
response was that I don't have a page about every quack or charlatan
in the world, not even all those whose web sites are listed here. My
second response was that Dr Patel does not appear to have a web site
himself, and nobody seems to have one supporting him. My third point
was that Dr Patel was not practising quackery but was just a
dangerously incompetent doctor. That wasn't good enough, and it was
claimed that by not having something to say about him I was condoning
his behaviour and I was exhibiting a double standard by criticising
quacks but not members of something called "evil organised medicine".
In fact, I was protecting him by not calling him a quack and it was
all part of some form of cover-up.

To people outside Australia (and those within who have been in a coma
or otherwise disconnected from the world for the last few weeks) the
name Dr Jayant Patel might mean nothing, but he was a doctor who
managed to get a job at Bundaberg Hospital by lying about his
qualifications and overseas experience. It now seems that he may have
been directly responsible for the deaths of at least 87 patients. He
may not have deliberately killed them, but his negligence and
ignorance did. His hiring has revealed a huge hole in the recruitment
practices of whoever it was that let him have a job, and the extent of
the damage has shown that better methods of whistleblowing are
required. Dr Patel has fled the country and nobody knows where he is.

Quackery supporters are using Dr Patel as an example of the dangers of
real medicine as compared to the absolute safety of alternatives. I
have been challenged to name a single alternative practitioner who has
killed 87 people. The facts are that real medicine has methods to deal
with disasters like this, but alternative medicine hasn't even any
useful system of adverse event reporting. There is a government
enquiry under way, the recruitment and reporting problems are being
identified and corrected, Dr Patel will be charged with criminal
offences (manslaughter at least, possibly even murder), his
extradition to Australia will be sought as soon as he is located, and
he is looking forward to a long time behind bars. This was not a case
of medical fraud, but one of a failure of management. It is a tragedy
and a disgrace, but something is being done to stop it happening
again.

One delightful irony of this whole matter is that Dr Patel apparently
said that it was not necessary to wash hands between patients because
germs mean nothing. It is rather bizarre to see people holding these
comments up as examples of the incorrect thinking of real doctors when
those same people accept chiropractic, naturopathy, energy medicine,
acupuncture, homeopathy and other magical medical paradigms in which
pathogenic organisms play no part. But then, hypocrisy is never short
on the ground when quacks start criticising medicine.

=====

Now Rod, The HONEST Man.

WOW what a difference!!!

Peter,

I would hope that you would point out that it took over two years to finally
get some action. (7 deaths per month) But then this Guy has been in the
system for over 20 years. Not the first time for this it appears.

Now some of the things that really occurred we

1.Early in the piece, Hospital Staff were addressed by the State Medical
Board and told that reporting internal matters to the Union could see them
in Jail.

FEAR
2.When the issue was placed before Hospital Management their response was to
award Dr Patel "Employee of the Month"

JEER
3.Just before the announcement in State Parliament, a new contract was drawn
up by the Hospital Board for 5 years at $8000 per week for Dr Patel.

REWARD
4.It is on the record that the Hospitals Income had soared from the activity
of Dr Patel and as such he was highly regarded by the Medical system.

GREED

5.The State Medical Board paid for Dr Patel's flight out of Australia.

HIDE

6.Dr Patel has a record that goes back to 1994
http://asia.news.yahoo.com/050*520/ap/d8a6pvn83.html

TOTAL INCOMPETENCE

7.Apparently Dr Patel's record has been on Archives since Mid 90's which
just proves that nobody believes what is on the Internet.

IGNORANCE

8. When the matter was bought up in Parliament what exactly did the AMA
request in writing back in March 2005. "A full apology and retraction" !!

THREATS

What really is at stake here is not just a rogue Dr but rather a Rogue
system that has allowed this to occur. The system went much further than
Hospital Administration and its Staff, it went to the State Medical Board,
The AMA.
Finally the people who believed in what is right rather than who won
through. (The Whistleblowers)

WHAT'S RIGHT TRIUMPHS

Gee I am having trouble accepting that this is not "Organised Medicine" at
its worst. A Chain of highly qualified people from Anaesthetists, Doctors,
Nurses, Boards, Government Representatives Morticians, patients past Drs,
family and friends of the patients, family and friends of the hospital
workers and of course the major watch dog of the AMA.
Just how many people do you think was in that "Management" chain. You know
that rotten old management chain that probably held about a couple of
hundred people that actually knew and were not going to do anything.

Your reference to better methods of whistle could perhaps be termed a little
better. Perhaps we could call these people genuinely concerned citizens
(Guardian Angels more appropriately)that have to endure enormous pressure to
do what is right.

Is anyone offering them fame, money and flights ?

No, I thought not. But Organised Medicine did for Dr Patel.

But of course you knew all this.

Rod

--
Peter Bowditch

"Jan Drew" wrote:


"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
.. .
"john" wrote:


"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
...

As I say to all AIDS deniers - are you willing to be injected with
blood from an HIV+ person, John? If not, why not?
--

You mean HIV = AIDS deniers. Dr Willner did that 10 years ago on Spanish
TV. Didn't make any difference to anything, and he was an MD, so what
woyuld be the point of me doing it?

And why don't you take the vax test--inject yourself with the equivalent
dosage of what babies get?
http://www.spontaneouscreation.org/SC/20,000Offer.htm


Any time, any place. I have offered this before. Unlike the AIDS/HIV
deniers I am not a hypocrite.

ROTFLOL!

OHHHH what LIES.

Please explain how offering to be injected with vaccines is a lie.


You are not a liar...either.

You are correct.


Starting off with this HUGH lie:

Hugh Jackman? Hugh Grant?

snip bizarre rant which has nothing to do with vaccines
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com