HIV/AIDS Skepticism

Pointing to evidence that HIV is not the necessary and sufficient cause of AIDS

Kalichman disclaims and makes AD HOMONYM attacks (Does illiteracy matter? — Kalichman’s Komical Kaper #9)

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/05/14

Among statements in Kalichman’s opus that particularly caused my eyebrows to lift was this one:
“I have also tried to avoid ad homonym attacks by focusing more on what the denialists are saying than who they are” (xv).

What on earth does he mean? Avoiding attacks directed at “homonym”, which means “same name”? Is he trying to say something about guilt by association, like about names that sound German?

But from the context, I fear he meant “ad hominem”, which means “directed at a person”.

Google reveals that there is even a “dictionary” to be found that permits this mis-spelling: the Urban Dictionary — “Urban Dictionary is the dictionary you wrote” — and thereby, of course, aiming for the lowest common denominator, just as insidiously unreliable as Wikipedia, say, or the web sites where students can post their spleen-stimulated “evaluations” of their professors.

Naturally enough, since “you” wrote it, Urban Dictionary provides no etymology to explain how any given word derives from earlier languages. However, a decent high-school education (but that was in another country, and that wench is also dead) left me with a rudimentary awareness of Greek and Latin roots of English words and of commonly used phrases from those dead languages:
“Ad” is Latin, encountered in many commonly used expressions: “ad absurdum”, “ad hoc”, “ad infinitum”, “ad lib”, “ad nauseam” . . . .
“hominem” is also Latin, from the root “homo” (MAN), here in the accusative case following the preposition “ad” (TO as in TOWARD).

By contrast, “homonym” is marked by the “nym” as derived from Greek, as in words with which Kalichman/Newton surely ought to be familiar —  “pseudonym”, “anonymous” — as well as other such common words as “acronym”, “eponymous”, “patronym”.
For “homonym” the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) offers the meanings
“1. a. The same name or word used to denote different things.
b. Philol. Applied to words having the same sound, but differing in meaning: opp. to heteronym and synonym.
c. Taxonomy. A generic name or a binomial that duplicates a name attached to a different plant or animal.
2. A person or thing having the same name as another; a ‘namesake’.
Hence †ho’monymal a., agreeing in name.”

Thus “homo” in “homonym” doesn’t stand for “man”, it stands for “same”, as in “homogeneous”, for example.

The writing of “homonym” instead of “hominem”, as well as the use of a Latin preposition with a Greek noun, displays (1) illiteracy but also (2) carelessness. Nothing like this should appear in a properly edited book from so prominent and well-established a publisher as Springer. There are all too many other places in this book where fact-checking makes itself sadly obvious by its absence, even in such rudimentary matters as checking that material inside quotation marks is actually in the quoted source (Caveat lector! — Kalichman’s less-than-Komical Kaper #7, 3 May 2009).

What’s most substantively wrong here, however, is that the claimed avoidance of “ad homonym” attacks is not at all in evidence in the book’s text, which is actually replete with ad hominem material. Just scanning the text for mentions of my name immediately turns up the following:

“Bauer has never done AIDS research. In fact, he has never done any scientific research. Henry Bauer is a pseudoscientist’s pseudoscientist!” (71)
“Henry Bauer is also one of the world’s leading authorities on the Loch Ness Monster. That is right, the Loch Ness Monster!” (71) [and there again is that Newtonian penchant for exclamation marks]
“it would be hard to believe that he [Bauer] was ever taken seriously by his colleagues given that he had not conducted scientific research and delved deeply into the world of pseudoscience” (72)
“It is not so remarkable that Bauer has contributed to AIDS pseudoscience, given his long and strange career. Bauer had hoped that his book would land him an interview on the Today Show and change the course of AIDS research and treatments. What is most remarkable about Bauer is how rapidly denialism has embraced him and taken up his conclusions. Bauer offers a vivid example of how denialism indiscriminately embraces anything that agrees with it” (74)
“Conservative groups have also embraced AIDS pseudoscientist and Nessie expert Henry Bauer” (141)
“Bauer also has a history of homophobia” (143)

I submit that those statements are about who I am, not about what I’ve said or written about HIV/AIDS. I submit further that they would be judged by most people as derogatory rather than neutral, in other words, ad hominem remarks. Indeed, since several of them are blatantly counterfactual, I think many people might even judge them to be libelous.

********************

Some of my friends claim that I have an unfortunate penchant for attempted humor and flippancy on serious matters, and perhaps I’ve let that carry me away here over what might seem substantively trivial matters like the spellings and meanings of words. I promise to get back to pointing to actual substantive falsehoods in Kalichman’s book, like the characteristics of scientists, my German connection, how to test hypotheses, ignorance about science and pseudo-science, and more. I’ll also have more to say about attributing to me what I’ve never said or written.

But using words incorrectly is not so trivial a matter:

Neither can his mind be thought to be in tune,
whose words do jarre;
nor his reason in frame,
whose sentence is preposterous

(Richard Mitchell [“The Underground Grammarian” ] liked that quote so much that it became the motto of his newsletter. All his writings are now available on-line, and I recommend them in the strongest possible terms for clear thinking by an independent mind as well as uproarious commentary on butcherings of the English language, particularly at the hands of social scientists, bureaucrats, university administrators, and the politically correct.)

About ad hominem attacks there are also two pertinent and substantive points to be made:
1. What’s really wrong with resorting to ad hominem statements — personal attacks on people you disagree with — isn’t that they’re uncivil or that they might offend someone, it’s that they are IRRELEVANT to the subject under discussion. It’s a fact of human life that some people whose behavior might be widely regarded as despicable can nevertheless be correct about matters of fact, or science, or economics, or medicine, or anything else; and people who are universally admired for their integrity and regard for others can nevertheless be entirely wrong about matters of fact, or science, or economics, or medicine, or anything else.
Moreover, people who are right about one thing may be wrong on another. I suspect there are people who are wrong about everything, but no one is right about everything.
Ad hominem statements are merely invalid attempts to invoke guilt by association.
2. Why do people resort to making ad hominem attacks? Because they can’t win an argument on the merits of their case. Frustrated and infuriated, the believers lash out at those who reveal that their Emperor is nude.  AIDStruthers can’t cite a set of specific publications to prove that “HIV” tests detect active infection, and they can’t cite a set of specific publications to prove that “HIV” causes AIDS; so they try to “kill the messengers” who bring these facts to public attention.

About these ads

23 Responses to “Kalichman disclaims and makes AD HOMONYM attacks (Does illiteracy matter? — Kalichman’s Komical Kaper #9)”

  1. Henry, you say “the believers lash out at those who reveal that their Emperor is nude.” But nude is a state people choose and embrace so the connotations collide with the meaning. The word with more relevant connotations is naked.

    Along those lines of argument, let me reveal my favorite repronunciation. The onomatopoetic sound of my’zeld rather than miss-led’ better fits the meaning of misled; “Oh no! I’ve been myzeld again!!” And I claim the right to use all those exclamation points in that context as well.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Richard:

      You are absolutely right, “naked” is the correct word.

      I also like your pronunciation of “misled”.

      Your interest in these matters reminds me of conversations I used to have with Jack Good about “words that should be in the dictionary but aren’t”. An essay by someone called them “sniglets”, which Jack and I both decided just wasn’t appropriate because it gives no clue to its intended meaning. Jack came up with “dictionable”, which I think is good enough to propagate.

  2. MacDonald said

    Since I know Matt cannot get enough of Prof. K, I have made it a habit to copy something pertinent and remarkable from his blog every time Prof. Bauer posts on him, and today is no exception. In the following Prof. K, with the straightest of faces, is expressing his disdain for the quality of denialist fact-checking and the damned-dirty-hippie attitude of their publishers.

    I would like to know how Harpers fact checked [Celia Farber's article]? Gotta wonder.

    I e-mailed the Berkeley New Age publisher of Rebecca Culshaw’s book and asked if it had been peer reviewed. The correspondence gives some sense of how denialists fact check:

    Question: Was the book reviewed for scientific accuracy prior to publication? If so, are the names of the reviewers available?

    Drew at North Atlantic Books answers: “We are not an academic publisher and do not publish in an academic context, so the answer is no. So far as I know, there are no objective parties in this dispute to referee individual books. People believe either one side or the other, and they build their arguments on their belief systems rather than the other way around. Ms. Culshaw has attempted to reason out the logic of both her viewpoint and the opposing one which, of course, at one time was her viewpoint too. I know many scientists have read her material, but I am pretty sure that those who reviewed it for her share her perspective. She can correct me if I am wrong.”

    Prof. K is agasp [aghast? But I like "agasp"!] that “denialist” books (popular books, not strict science books or papers for journals)are not subjected to hostile peer-review before publishing. What to say? The man must be living in a mirror-less house or he would die laughing every morning. I actually wrote a Comment in the thread where this appears and congratulated him on the impeccable fact-checking that has gone into “Denying AIDS”, but the Comment apparently didn’t pass Prof K’s meticulous peer-review process because it was never published.

    I can also inform that, within the generic ad hominem genre, Prof. K is particularly fond of the “No True Scotsman” argument. Take a look at this for instance:

    To have science to debate, you have to first be a scientist. None of the Perthies is a scientist. Not one.

    Are any of the AIDS Denialists scientists?

    David Rasnick has never held an academic appointment. He spends more time in legal depositions against Big Pharma than he has spent in a legitimate lab. Would you call the illegal and immoral ‘clinical trials’ he did for Matthias Rath science?

    Duesberg is not a scientist. He was in the 1960’s, but no scientist would disrespect science the way that Duesberg does.

    Mullis is not a scientist. Winning a Nobel Prize is great, but the man is on LSD and sees glowing raccoons that abduct him to far away planets.

    De Harven? When was his last scientific contribution? Where has he been for the past 30 years?

    Henry Bauer?. No need to say anything about Henry Bauer. He does a good enough job himself.

    David Crowe, BA, BS??

    You have got to give it to Prof. K, the man sure gets through a day fast.

    Even when he issues chest-thumping challenges to come and disprove his points, the Scotsman is ever present:

    Leung used strategies that are unacceptable to legitimate producers of documentary and historical works. Name one example of a legitimate documentary that did what Leung has done?

    Fortunately we don’t need to go for this challenge to imagine Prof. K’s irrefutable answer:

    “No, documentary X is not a legitimate documentary. Perhaps it was legitimate 30 years ago but not anymore. Besides, the producer sees glowing raccoons in his backyard.”

    In other news, Ronald Reagan is now on display at Kalichman’s blog, in the fine company of Prof. Bauer and other distinguished denialists.

  3. MacDonald said

    I think agasp sounds funnier (also, imagine a continuous state of gasping), and although it’s not the most commonly used word, at least I don’t have to go to the Urban Dictionary to find it.

  4. onecleverkid said

    I have a question. Is it truly an “ad hominem” attack if it is a lie? When you write something “toward a person” in order to discredit them by association with something culturally undesirable, does it have to be true to be “ad hominem?”

    Also, why don’t all of you “denialists” who were featured in Kalichman’s “book” get together and write a letter publicly denouncing your inclusion in it? Take a page from the AIDStruther’s playbook, since that is what they have done regarding the film they appear in called House Of Numbers. There is a huge difference though: They are shown on video saying what they said, whereas in Kalichman’s book, everything is made up. Oh, and they all complained about how inaccurate their portrayals were BEFORE any one of them had seen the film. At least you have read “Denying AIDS.”

    Or, take a cue from Celia Farber and sue him for libel, forcing upon him the embarrassing task of trying to prove his claims before a judge. It would make for a great reality show.

    • Henry Bauer said

      onecleverkid:

      “Ad hominem” attacks can be truthful or untruthful. In both cases they are simply irrelevant to the substantive argument. Evidence being presented, an argument being made, can be considered entirely separately from the persons presenting the evidence or making the argument. The assertion that HIV does not cause AIDS is independent of who makes the assertion, it can only be tested by substantive relevant evidence. Ad hominem attacks are resorted to by people who cannot win an argument by presenting conclusive evidence.

      Suing people can sometimes be emotionally satisfying, but it’s a very time-consuming and initially expensive matter. For myself, it would be sheer distraction from spending time trying to understand better and deeper and wider what has gone wrong in medical science that permitted the HIV/AIDS catastrophe to occur.

  5. MacDonald said

    John Moore of AIDSpravda.org has joined the ranks of open Kalichman fans. In a review of Denying AIDS published in Nature, he calls the book “marvellous and “powerful”.

    As opposed to other reviewers, it actually looks like John Moore has read the book. This is perhaps because he assisted the hapless Kalichman in writing it, a fact which is strangely absent in the article.

    As is his wont, Moore also plugs his AIDSpravda.org site, calling it an initiative taken by “a group of concerned scientists and activists”. Moore forgets again to mention that he and Kalichman (the last-mentioned perhaps not intially and/or not directly) are part of that group of concerned scientists and activists, thereby obscuring the incestuous and biased nature of the Review.

    Apart from this, the Review is notable for an uncharacteristically careful wording: None of the book’s targets are mentioned by name, and even the propaganda piece masquerading as a scientific calculation, blaming Mbeki for the unnecessary deaths of 330,000 South Africans, is cited using semantically dubious double qualifiers:

    Inadequate health policies in South Africa have reportedly led to some 330,000 unnecessary AIDS deaths and a spike in infant mortality, according to estimates by South African and US
    researchers.

    However, that doesn’t prevent Moore from treating the estimate as a fact, calling the result a “carnage”. and, in one of his routine attacks on free speech, suggesting that it is an example of how words can kill.

    • LaVaughn said

      MacDonald,

      If what you say is so, you should write a letter to the editor. It is highly unethical for a reviewer to have any vested [interest] in a book and not disclose it. If he really collaborated on the book, he can’t review it. It’s a violation of journalistic ethics. I’d like to think that Nature was unaware of this conflict of interest, but they should be called it. It’s a poor reflection on their editing.

  6. MacDonald said

    La Vaughn,

    I cannot prove to which extent John Moore actually helped writing the book or contributed concepts and talking point, but in the Acknowledgements section we find the following:

    In writing this book, I have also gained enormous support from a group of anti-denialists. I cannot thank them enough for opening their minds and pointing me toward invaluable resources. Nicoli Nattrass at the University of Cape Town wrote the first book on HIV/AIDS denialism that inspired me to write this book and provided critical feedback on an early draft.

    This group of “anti-denialists” is to a significant extent the same group — or people very closely associated with it — behind AIDStruth.org, whose chief founder was John Moore. Nicoli Nattrass, who wrote the foreword to “Denying AIDS”, and whose book, “Mortal Combat” is also plugged by John Moore in his Nature Review, is a current official member of AIDStruth.org.

    Just a couple of lines further down in the Acknowledgments, we read the following:

    Thanks to John Moore of Cornell University for his insights into denialism and to Nathan Geffen of the Treatment Action Campaign for encouraging this project and pointing me toward Michael Shermer and all those weird things that people believe. Other members of aidstruth.org, especially Nick Bennett, Brian Foley, and Bob Funkhouser were very generous in giving me their time and answering my questions. I also appreciate Mike Merson, Mark Wainberg, Jon Cohen and Martin Delaney for the time they took from their busy schedules to correspond with me about their views and experiences

    In short, Kalichman’s Ackowledgements reads as a who’s who of AIDStruth.org, with Moore and Nattras at the top.

    Your excellent suggestion is taken under consideration.

    http://www.aidstruth.org/new/about

  7. Michael said

    Today, Mark Hoofnagle of the “Denialism Blog” has taken on recommending Kalichman’s book.

    http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2009/05/denying_aids_-_a_book_by_seth.php

    I was considering leaving him another post, but reconsidered as his final remark was…

    “Further HIV/AIDS denial on this post will be summarily deleted and commenters banned.”

    The post I would have facetiously loved to post to him is as follows:

    I absolutely agree with Mark. I too see red and think violent and bloody thoughts. All of us who believe that HIV causes AIDS are the vast majority. Majority rules. Consensus wins. Might makes us right! We need to stamp out the impure and the nonbeliever denialists among us. We must censor them and we must burn their books and we must hold the denialists accountable and burn the leaders of the nonbelievers at the stake starting with Farber and Duesberg and Mbeki. Then finish off any denialist homosexuals and hemophiliacs like Michael and Frank up above. We should send them all to AIDS-denialist concentration camps, put them to slave labor manufacturing AIDS tests and medications, and when they are too worn out from that, then either gas or slowly roast and bake them all. It is the Final Solution that would thusly purify and save all of humanity, and it would serve the denialists right!
    Heil Mark Hoofnagle!

    • Henry Bauer said

      Michael:

      Facetiousness is not easy with these people. Remember that Herr Professor Dr. Mark Wainberg wants the US Constitution changed so that people like Duesberg can indeed be imprisoned. I hope we won’t live to regret that you gave them these specific ideas.

    • Sabine Kalitzkus said

      Michael and Henry,

      I don’t think that Michael is joking.

      What really troubles me are the similiarities between now and then.

      Some decades ago, the majority of the Germans claimed they hadn’t known anything. Today we experience the same pretended innocence and ignorance on the part of the majority. As well as we experience the deliberate and conscious refusal to consider the facts and to make them public to a wider audience. They do it intentionally now as they’ve done it intentionally in the last century.

      What troubles me even more is the fact, that some years before the slaughtering of the Jews began, people experienced the total collapse of the wordwide financial system — just what we’re experiencing right now.

    • Michael said

      Sabine,

      While waiting for the Semmelweis awards in Washington DC last year, I had the honor of spending some free time with Celia Farber and Peter Duesberg. I was glad that Peter suggested we first visit the Holocaust Memorial, as it was a top priority on my own list of places that I wanted to see. While there, I was deeply struck by just how much the Jewish Holocaust paralleled the HIV/AIDS issue, particularly as I had witnessed much of the hate toward homosexuals in the years before the words HIV, GRID, and AIDS were coined.

      Compare Nazi propaganda of condemnation against Jews to the Moral Majority’s war on homosexuals.

      Compare the Nazi propaganda in the German media to HIV/AIDS propaganda in the media.

      Compare Nazi slogans that brainwashed the entire country to the slogan “HIV, the virus that causes AIDS”.

      Compare the chemical gassing of Jews to the AZT poisoning of hundreds of thousands of gays.

      Compare the targeting of disparaged minorities: Nazi desire to purify the German race by doing away with Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, to the targeting of gays, blacks, and hemophiliacs.

      Compare the branding of those in Nazi Germany who had to publicly wear stars of David or pink triangles, etc, to the branding of HIV-positives.

      Compare locking Jews up in ghettos prior to their extermination to those who called for quarantining all who tested HIV-positive.

      Compare the medical experimentation by Nazi doctors to the medical experimentation primarily done on gays and blacks in the world-wide AIDS-drug trials.

      Compare the abuse of those who opposed Hitler and the Nazis to the abuse heaped upon those who oppose and expose the HIV fraud.

      Compare that it was well known that the Nazis were murdering Jews, and ignored it, while very few stood up to oppose the Nazis, compared to the fact that the masses have been frequently told of the AZT holocaust and ignore it, while only a few have raised their voices against it.

      Compare that 22 of the 26 brought up on trial at Nuremberg were medical doctors, to the fact that medical doctors have led the AIDS and AZT holocaust as well.

      The comparisons to the Jewish Holocaust and the AIDS and AZT holocaust of hundreds of thousands of mostly gay men in the US and millions of blacks in Africa are rather astounding. As such, it certainly seems that the blatant and conscious public racism and homophobia in the 1930s toward disparaged and marginalized groups simply went subconscious in the HIV/AIDS era and was acted out again, though this time disguised as a supposedly contagious and deadly viral disease that was blamed for the deaths of the targeted groups, while the real killers, those who promote a deadly toxic stress- and death-causing belief and who promote and profit from deadly medications to treat it, are hailed as heroes, just as were the leading Nazis in Germany.

      Today, these modern Nazis and criminals will most likely get away with their crimes, simply because they have steadily lessened the deadly toxicity of the previously killer drugs that they have convinced the terrified disparaged HIV-diagnosed and branded to take.

  8. MacDonald said

    Here’s the take-away passage from Hoofnagel:

    Kalichman’s book is well-written, timely, thoroughly researched, and to his great credit he uses my definition of denialism. Ha! How could I help but love this book?

    Nah, Hoofnagel, like all other mediocre and parasitic figures, can’t help himself. What better measure of a man’s utter insignificance in the field of Human Thought than the pretense that he has read, pondered and found Kalichman’s book well-written and thoroughly researched?

  9. Michael said

    Mark Hoofnagle deleted and censored the following posts from his site:

    I posted to Hoofnagle the list of comparisons of the Nazi and Jewish Holocaust to the AIDS holocaust, Hoofnagle deleted it.

    I posted a response to DeShong, who claimed I had sent a letter to Jewish scientists offering to promote Israeli agendas if they took back the million-dollar Dan David prize that they gave to Bob Gallo last week, when I did not make any such offer. The exact letter I had sent to the Dan David committee and to members of the Jewish media is exactly as follows:

    In the name of all of humanity, I beg of you to please investigate this:

    Judy Siegel-Itzkovich of the Jerusalem Post just reported the 2009 Dan David Prize Winners.

    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1242212380514&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

    Last year, Dr. Isaac Witz, the Scientific Adviser for the Dan David Prize of Tel Aviv University, was given a “2008 Lifetime Achievement Award” by the self proclaimed co-discoverer of HIV, Dr. Robert Gallo from his Institute of Human Virology at the University of Maryland. http://www.ihv.org/news/IHVPublicServiceAwardAnnouncemnt090408.pdf

    This year, Dr. Isaac Witz, the scientific Adviser for the Dan David Prize, gave Robert Gallo the 2009 Million Dollar Dan David Prize.

    What is going on here? Gallo scratches Witz last year, Witz returns the scratches of the Million Dollar Dan David prize to Gallo this year?

    Is this obvious corruption the intent of the Dan David Prize?

    Furthermore, the theory of HIV as the cause of AIDS, while popularly believed to be true, has been refuted for more than 20 years by highly noted scientists, researchers, and doctors, including Nobel Laureates, National Academy of Science members, and many many more.

    Although these individuals refutations have never been answered and are seldom covered by unknowledgeable journalists, for 20 years, many highly integrous scientists and doctors such as those whose only means of informing the public has been through their many books and websites that are listed at the end of this letter.

    A minor example of great error of this theory is obvious, as the American CDC has claimed that One Million Americans are infected by HIV, for EVERY YEAR since 1986. Obviously, whatever is found by HIV tests, it is not sexually transitted and actual illnesses have been observed only in drug abusers, the malnourished, and other highly stressed individuals.

    Another example is that the years of highest deaths in the US that are claimed to be due to HIV are the EXACT YEARS, 1987 to 1995, when those diagnosed were most highly stressed by the diagnosis of death, and were given a highly toxic drug called AZT that had been originally promoted by Dr. Robert Gallo who has just been given the Dan David award. Those taking AZT at this time were likely to live an average of 8 months to 1-1/2 years. Most were homosexuals. The astronomical death rates did not come down to current levels until the HIV dissidents and skeptics screamed holocaust, and AZT was replaced by less toxic drugs or drastically reduced in dosage.

    Furthermore, this was the very reason that South Africa’s Thabo Mbeki did not want his countrymen who were stressed and broken by poverty and malnutrition to be given AZT. He very well knew the health effects of poverty and malnutrition and high stress. He also was well aware that the science behind HIV was flawed, and more likely believed because it fell in line with with humanities deepseated homophobia, racism, and perception that gays and blacks were dying due to sexual transgressions. A belief that was founded on ancient Judeo/Christian beliefs about human sexuality.

    Therefore, I wish to point out to you: Although there is a difference between the Jewish people who were led to showers and chemically gassed to death in Nazi Germany, I wish to point out that this HIV issue was also a medical and chemical holocaust of 1/2 a million gay men in the US, and millions of impoverished blacks and other disparaged groups, and is most assuredly a modern day holocaust, of terrifying disparaged and marginalized groups such as gays and blacks, and is not all that dissimilar to the Jewish holocaust.

    As such, I appeal to all of you to awaken from the HIV propaganda and look at how the science of HIV has been refuted and verified to be at best in error, and at worst, another modern day holocaust.

    Or, is the Tel Aviv University Dan David award to be given to the very man who most contributed to the chemical deaths of hundreds of thousands of American homosexuals, as well as who knows how many blacks and other 3rd world people?

    Please feel free to contact me for more information.
    Yours,
    Michael Geiger

    http://www.rethinkingaids.com is the Scientific Group for the Rethinking of AIDS

    http://www.duesberg.com is the website of world retrovirologist and cancer researcher Dr. Peter Duesberg

    http://www.virusmyth.com is another site by Rethinking Aids

    http://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/ is the blogsite of Dr. Henry Bauer, who recently published “The Origin, Persistence, and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory”.

    http://www.theperthgroup.com is the website of Australian researchers of the issue of HIV/AIDS

  10. Michael said

    I also posted the following to Hoofnagle’s site, and I expect that it too will be deleted and censored in short order:

    And by the way, Mark, regardless of what Peter Duesberg and Celia Farber or anyone else believes about HIV or AIDS, until people such as myself and Frank and Karri Stokely have some simple questions answered, the fact is that we will never shut up about this issue, whether you and those who agree with you like it or not.

    And we will continue to label those such as you who refuse to even address our questions as the real Nazis of AIDS who ignore

    1) that there are many factors that have nothing to do with HIV that cause or contribute to immune suppression, including chronic fight-or-flight stress that is proven to cause the thymus gland to shut down and stops the production and maturing of T-cells. (The very diagnosis of people as HIV or as AIDS causes exactly this kind of intense chronic stress).

    2) why were those so diagnosed given high dosages of known-to-be-deadly toxic chemo drugs that are well proven to also cause immune suppression.

    3) HIV antibody tests were NEVER designed to diagnose anyone as HIV. They were designed to protect the blood supply from antibodies that were never proven to be specific to HIV and we currently know that there are nearly 70 other factors that have nothing to do with HIV that can also cause some or all of the antibodies to be displayed.

    4) The public is told that the antibody tests are 99.9% accurate, but are never told that the statement of accuracy is NOT for the accuracy of finding HIV, but the accuracy for NOT FINDING IT.

    5) There is no animal model for HIV. SIV is not HIV and is much larger than HIV, and even at that, wild chimps do not die from SIV, only those in captivity that are also likely to be highly stressed.

    So you can verbally attack, and ignore, and run away, or censor the dissidents and call us all the names you like, and you can hide all you want to from our questions, Mark, but as long as you do so and promote the unproven HIV theory and promote toxic deadly medications to be given to those who test as positive, and until my questions are answered, I suggest you wake up and deal with this issue more rationally, because an ever-increasing number of people consider you and the other HIV/AIDS promoters to be nothing less than Nazi war criminals who are out to kill my fellow gays and blacks and hemophiliacs, or at least intent on covering up the mis-diagnosis and AZT murders and liver and kidney failures and the disfigurement by other HIV drugs which you yourself, a so-called medical doctor, have been faithfully condoning and promoting.

  11. Michael said

    It took Herr Doktor Hoofnagle only minutes to delete my post.

    http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2009/05/denying_aids_-_a_book_by_seth.php#comment-1660695

    But I just added this one to be sure he got the point….

    And by the way, Herr Doktor Mark Hoofnagle, though you may believe you are erasing from history the very evidence of your own incrimination in all of this, the comments that you delete here are being kept safe for eternity on Henry Bauer’s blog as eternal evidence of your censorship and refusal to acknowledge the issues and realities of the dissidents regarding HIV and AIDS.

    As such, there is now sufficient evidence to show you to be nothing more than a “good German soldier” who is guilty of condoning, promoting, and supporting the Nazi-like cause of extermination of many hundreds of thousands of blacks and gays by terrifying them, mis-diagnosing them, then poisoning them with AZT.

  12. Sabine Kalitzkus said

    Michael,

    Thank you for your detailed comparison of Nazi fascism and AIDS fascism. I’m happy not to be the only one to realize what’s going on — though I keep wondering about my own country.

    (Attention please! Ad homonym attack ahead!)

    KKK (ad hominem attack omitted for strategic reasons) got even that one wrong. Living in a country where the overwhelming majority is fully loaded with Germanic Genes (let’s make it 75%, I’m not sure about the exact figures; the rest stems from all over the world, the majority of the rest being Turkish), I’m wondering how it is possible that 99.99 % of my fellow country-men and -women are firm believers in the “HIV”=AIDS=death creed. What happened to their Germanic Genes?

    Indeed I was wondering about their genes already three years ago, when Germany hosted the soccer championships. Millions of people came here from all over the world — mostly young, mostly happy, mostly interested not in soccer but in just having fun.

    My fellow country-men and -women (the ones with the Germanic Genes) became infected with the fun and happiness our guests were experiencing and — believe it or not — began to display our own national flag on their cars and balconies.

    Immediately the whole country went into a state of shock. There was an ongoing discussion through all the media for weeks, if it was appropriate or even allowed to display our national flag — given our history.

    !!****************!!

    Pls Prof Kalichman esplain what you mean by Germannic Genes ? !!

    Sincerely yours ,
    Annabelle Curie

    !!****************!!

    Given the similarities between Nazi fascism and AIDS fascism, I’d like to suggest that we shouldn’t call ourselves “dissidents” or “rethinkers” but “the resistance movement”.

    And we should reconsider where to write and comment.

    The AIDS fascists decided not to debate with “denialists”. I’m happy to hear that. For I would have never written a letter to the editor of the “Völkischer Beobachter” (that is “Populist Observer”, the daily propaganda paper of Hitler’s party NSDAP). I refuse to debate with fascists, so I don’t comment on their blogs.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Sabine K:

      I also believe there is no point in communicating with the HIV/AIDS groupies and vigilantes. At the same time, I do enjoy the occasional laugh at what MacDonald and others say to them and how they react.

    • Michael said

      Hello Sabine,

      Yes, Sabine, it is all rather interesting to compare, but other than noting it as a frailty inherent in all of mankind, not just Germans or any other people, I don’t get too hung up on the similarities between the promoters and protectors of orthodox HIV/AIDS beliefs and the Nazis. I do sometimes think it can be a tool to perhaps help the die-hard believers understand that they too can just as easily be programmed with a false belief and can also go to extremes to protect and support it, as did the German people. Pointing it out can sometimes help wake them up to their own behavior.

      Obviously, this inability to determine truth from falsehood and inability to determine integrity or non-integrity in those we humans would follow is an innate and historic frailty in all of humanity. Unfortunately, it seems we humans are easily programmed with nearly any belief, and our human minds are simply not capable of distinguishing truth from falsehood.

      The entire history of all of humanity right to the present day indicates this to be true. All through the entire course of recorded human history, we humans have conceived of nearly every possible belief that we thought was true, but as time went on, the beliefs did not hold up, and gradually the false beliefs usually were exposed as such, and let go of, and mankind’s knowledge progressed. All through human history millions upon millions of human beings marched to their deaths following one after another of leaders who lacked integrity or whose beliefs were based on overall untruths.

      But beyond all that, I would say that it is probably a much lesser percentage of humanity who are capable of such internal analysis of their own belief systems, as they likely have not yet been faced with sufficient cause to do so, and as such, are incapable of having acquired the humility sufficient enough to be aware that they themselves could possibly have fallen prey to another false belief-system.

      Take Dr. Peter Duesberg for example. Having been raised as a child in Nazi Germany, this inherently gave him sufficient reason to be more aware that he, as a German living abroad and working in America, needed to be even more careful of reaching mistaken conclusions. It caused him to double- and triple-check his own works and beliefs, as he has repeatedly shown by researching a line of research, then determining it was insufficient cause for further study and turning his research in a new direction. He has done so on several occasions. This situation, of being a German who must be even more careful to be accurate, often caused him to even doubt himself, and therefore gives him, among retrovirologists, and as a cancer researcher, an even greater likelihood of being correct simply because he is skeptical even of his own beliefs and conclusions, and therefore digs deeper to find higher truths and greater accuracy. His fellow American scientists had no such inner sense of introspective purpose and possessed no such humility to easily admit to error. Many of us humans have egos that will not allow us to be wrong, because the ego itself can equate being “wrong” to being dead. And death is undoubtedly the ego’s greatest fear. And it has been strong-headed egos, such as Stalin or Hitler, and untold dozens of others, that have time and again led mankind down false paths, yet every human being, and every generation seems to need to learn this lesson anew.

      I would suggest that most human beings on this planet spend most of their conscious hours of non-stop thoughts dwelling on either their fears or on their desires. Both aspects are very much a part of our human egos. And the two often become closely related.

      To any individual dwelling on their ego’s fears, those imagined fears look very real to them at the time they are thinking about them. With your own next fearful thought, look again immediately at that fearful thought and you too will verify how “real” the perceived threat seems to be while it was held in your mind. For the average person, and particulary to those who are very fear-based in thinking, going through one’s daily life is quite often perceived as walking blindfolded in a mine-field, with explosive land-mines everywhere that could go off with the very next step taken! Fear is a large part of human consciousness, and is a major determinant of our choices. As our human egos are descended from the animal world, where every creature was faced with preys, and rules of survival were usually kill or be killed that was instilled into our ancestors’ daily life, so this comes as no surprise that inborn fear still rules most all human minds. Basic animal survival depends on fight or flight. That basic instinct is undoubtedly still in all of us.

      I would also suggest that most people’s daily desires come about as a result of seeking perceived solutions to their perceived fears, and not nearly as often as a result of their deepest and most sincere preferences. For instance, why get a high-paying job or save money or why go to work tomorrow? Answer: Because I am afraid I will not have enough and will starve and die if I don’t.

      So, most people’s daily choices seem to me to be coming not from our good, happy and loving thoughts, but resulting from our fears, which often determines what our desires will be, as the desire so often is chosen because it is a solution to some inner held fear. This also seemingly includes us more vocal dissidents, who likely also are acting from fearing the results upon ourselves and our loved ones of a world left to those who believe in their fears of HIV/AIDS or any other false belief to the point of pushing their own false fear-based realities onto the rest of us who sincerely believe their fears are false. Even to the point of thinking we are seeing “Nazis” everywhere we look, while they in turn look at us and imagine they see the very same in us!

      I would suggest that this is also why false beliefs of any generation, such as Nazi dogma or HIV/AIDS dogma or any other fear-based beliefs and their mistaken solutions are able to gain any traction at all in our human societies.

      Either way, mankind has had this affliction of misperceiving our fears as reality for a very long time. It certainly is not restricted to Germans, or to HIVers, or to dissidents or Rethinkers, or any other race, or group or culture, but is an innate human flaw that can afflict any of us, as well as most, if not all of us, at some time or another in our lives, on one commonly believed fear-based belief or another.

      And of course, the only remedy is to find the courage to see any belief anew, and as a possibly mistaken imagined fear, and to step out of the fear, and look at it again with a new sense of scepticism of one’s own belief. Very few of us can do this, as our human fears run deep.

      But quite fortunately, I think, as common as scepticism is, it too is also quite likely another inherited and innate part of us humans, or else perhaps our animal ancestors would likely at some early point in our common history all have followed the rest of the herd off a cliff to their doom, and mankind would likely never have evolved to this point of human existence if all of us simply followed everything that most or all others believed was true. And surely sometimes the skeptic was mistaken, and was then perhaps eaten because he did not follow the others, but sometimes he and his co-skeptics were the only ones left to propagate and live to fight another day with a new and expanded awareness that the doomed cliff-jumpers did not possess!

      Either way, I am sure mankind will survive all of this and come out the better for having experienced it, as we have our former episodes of ignorance. And the sooner we get beyond it the better. Because it is all very very scary!

      Or is all that scary fearful thinking just one more self-fulfilling false belief floating about in my head?

      • Henry Bauer said

        Michael:

        A bit too much generalizing for my taste. I think it’s a good one, that humans are trained to be believers because babies and children had better do what they’re told. But what’s individual, in my view, is the prod that causes SOME FEW individuals to start questioning. That’s where our systems of education have not been doing very well.

        As for learning to think more rationally, I’ve found helpful Albert Ellis’s “Rational Emotive Therapy” and Maxie Maultsby’s somewhat modified “Rational Behavior Training”. The simplistic formulaic step-wise approach can be surprisingly effective.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 113 other followers