COMMUNICATING VIA PERSONAL E-MAIL
Posted by Henry Bauer on 2007/12/17
I’m happy to converse via personal e-mail, but please understand that I can only respond if the e-address you give, and that comes up when I use ”Reply”, is a valid one. For example, I had an e-mail from ”email@example.com” and my reply was rejected by the Internet delivery system.
After I had posted this, textgenie wrote:
So Henry, don’t waste it. Put the exchange up here on your blog.
Thanks, textgenie! Should have thought of it myself. “Anonymous” had said:
Hello, Dr. Bauer. I’m a writer and scientist (keeping a low profile) who’s been impressed by your HIV Skeptic blog and am curious about your thoughts on the Parenzee case. I have seen and reviewed HIV dissident arguments in the past and thought this case, as summarized below, was a particularly strong blow to the dissident argument. I’d be interested to know your response — perhaps, if I may be so bold, it could merit discussion in your blog? Thank you.
(There remains at least one other possible avenue for an appeal on Parenzee’s behalf)
My thoughts on the matter are given in some detail in the attached, which I circulated soon after Judge Sulan’s rejection of the first appeal. I haven’t revised it since the later rejection by the full Court.
In substantive terms, I think the case is irrelevant to the scientific arguments, because the criteria for judging are entirely different in science and in the law.
Parenzee’s legal defense team, when he was first on trial, was unaware of the existence of dissident views. Then it became aware of them through the Perth Group. The latter have published some very important material, BUT they insisted on being the only expert witnesses on Parenzee’s behalf AND committed the strategic mistake of trying to prove that HIV doesn’t even exist. Insofar as the scientific arguments could influence the legal considerations, this tack taken in the first appeal may make it impossible to bring in the scientific dissident case “from scratch”, though the defense did try to shift ground in the hearing by the full Appeals Court, from the grounds that HIV doesn’t exist to trying to show errors in Sulan’s decisions.
I don’t understand the legal situation well enough to venture a guess whether another appeal is possible or what grounds would be available and to what extent the scientific case would be relevant.
I’m glad you’ve found my blog worthwhile, and I will certainly keep the Parenzee case in mind for it. Just now I’m preoccupied with the question of antiretroviral treatments; when I read the whole of the official guidelines I was rather horrified; and there are a few other gross deficiencies in the orthodox views “champing at the bit” to be addressed!
If you can take the time, I urge you to go over the data from HIV tests in the US, which I’ve summarized in my book and in several earlier articles that can be downloaded from my website. There are so many aspects and complications–what IS AIDS? what IS HIV? etc etc, but one thing seems simple and clear: what HIV tests have detected in the US over the last quarter century is not an infectious agent, and it is not correlated with the incidence of AIDS. That means HIV was not the cause of AIDS, and all the subsidiary questions need to be re-examined in that light. Several of them cannot be answered without considerable new research; for example, why do gay men apparently test HIV-positive so frequently?
Best regards, anonymous!