Posted by Henry Bauer on 2011/01/30
African Americans are particularly damaged by the misguided belief that “HIV” tests reliably detect an AIDS-causing virus. In reality, these tests react “positive” to a wide variety of physiological conditions, including pregnancy; and people of African ancestry are prone to test “positive” far more than others; in the USA, African American males typically test “positive” between 7 or 8 times more often than white males, and maong females the ratio is typically 20 or so.
Testing “positive” is then likely to lead to “treatment” with toxic drugs that afford no benefit.
I hope these facts will be thoroughly aired at the Second Harlem AIDS Forum. The inclusion of Dr. Nancy Banks and of Celia Farber among the speakers gives me confidence that the truth will indeed be on display.
Here is the notice of the event that I just received:
THE HARLEM AIDS FORUM 2
PRESENTED BY THE SCHOLAR’S COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL ACTION NETWORK
REVEREND AL SHARPTON FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT
On Saturday, February 12, 2011 beginning at 4 p.m, the National Action Network will have a major forum on HIV/AIDS. A panel of experts will bring the community up to date on the latest information on HIV/AIDS and address many of the questions that people have. Each of the speakers have been researching and speaking about this subject for many years. What are the latest statistics on HIV/AIDS, especially in the Black Community and Africa, and what do those numbers mean? Who should get tested and how reliable are the tests? Which treatments are safest and most effective? What is the latest information on sexual transmission? These and many other questions will be addressed. The audience will also be
able to ask questions of the panel. This will be a dynamic event which you don’t want to miss! Tell family members
and friends that they must attend.
Admission is free!
Deborah A. Levine – Vice President for Community Development. -National Black Leadership Commission on AIDS
Attorney Tracie Gardner – Director of New York State Policy for the Legal Action Center
Dr Nancy Turner Banks – MD Harvard, Author, Lecturer
Celia Farber – Journalist, Author
Dr. Ann Brown – PhD Microbiology, Author, Lecturer
Reverend Dr. Michael Ellner – President of HEAL NYC, Author, Lecturer
Tommy Morrison – Former Heavy Weight Boxing Champion and was diagnosed as HIV Positive
Dr. Jack Felder – Bio-Chemist, Author and Lecturer
Tom D. Fernando – Researcher and Lecturer
Dennis Levy – President of the Black and Latino AIDS Coalition
Sister MAAT – Wife of Dr. Sebi, Co-Founder of the Fig Tree, Holistic Practitioner
Princess Little Flower – Holistic Practitioner
Curtis Cost – Author and lecturer
For More Information Contact: Curtis Cost – President of the Scholar’s Committee
(646) 701 – 3230
The National Action Network
106 W. 145th Street (Between Malcolm X Blvd. and Adam Clayton Powell Blvd)
New York, NY 10039
Posted in HIV does not cause AIDS | 5 Comments »
Posted by Henry Bauer on 2011/01/24
A fascinating interview with Professor Marco Ruggiero is very informative about academic freedom in Italy, the very low incidence of HIV or AIDS there, and Ruggiero’s views about the nature of HIV. Highly recommendede reading.
Posted in experts, HIV does not cause AIDS, sexual transmission | Tagged: academic freedom in Italy, Marco Ruggiero | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Henry Bauer on 2011/01/17
When Michael Specter’s book Denialism was launched to a dazzle of ballyhoo, I agreed to review it for the Journal of Scientific Exploration. That turned out to be an onerous task, far from enjoyable because the book is so dreadfully bad: a staggering degree of ignorance about science is everywhere on display, deplorable in the extreme since Specter is an award-winning science journalist.
Not long after Specter’s book appeared, the New Scientist carried a series of essays as a “Special Report: Denial” (15 May 2010). Those essays are on the whole as ignorance-based as is Specter’s book. For a thorough debunking of both book and Special Report, see my essay-review just published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration.
The principal flaw in these writings is the underlying belief that on any given issue the prevailing scientific consensus, the Establishment view, is unquestionably correct. Such a belief illustrates ignorance of the history of science, which is a continuing record of Establishment views proven wrong and being replaced by what then becomes the new Establishment view.
Misplaced faith in science as the source of absolute, permanent truth stems from the ideology of scientism, which holds that science and only science can offer true answers. Few people admit to that unsupportable belief when challenged, but by their actions and unguarded words a great number of people show themselves to hold that belief.
Specter is far from the only science journalist or science writer tainted by scientism; Natalie Angier is another. In her review of Specter’s book in the American Scholar (“Science Doubters”, 79 #1, Winter 2010, pp. 102-5) she perpetrates fallacy upon fallacy and indulges in semantic sleight-of-phrase in the attempt to mask her dogmatism. For example, she mimics Specter to the effect that the “overwhelming weight of evidence” favors vaccination, it’s “remarkably safe”, adverse reactions are “rare” — which attempts rhetorically to lull the reader into rejecting the well-based qualms that critics have expressed about the use in vaccines of organic-mercury-based additives and toxic adjuvants like squalene.
Angier approves Specter’s assertion that denialists “replace the rigorous and open-minded skepticism of science with the inflexible certainty of ideological commitment”. But no science writer should remark “the rigorous and open-minded skepticism of science” without mentioning that this is an unachieved ideal and that scientists frequently display “inflexible certainty” about their own views. Angier’s ignorance goes so far that she actually credits Specter with coining the term “denialism”! She deplores that the Internet favors “popularity over p-value”, when it is actually the use of p-values that is responsible for the misguided acceptance as significant of many apparent correlations that are not significant *. Angier follows Specter in dismissing chiropractic as quackery even as mainstream studies have shown that it has a better record of treating lower-back pain by manipulation than does mainstream medicine with drugs and surgery.
Angier differs from Specter in denying that there’s been a loss of faith in science, citing a Harris poll in which 60% of respondents rate the prestige of doctors and scientists as high or very high. That’s what the problem really is; most people have too much faith in what the public spokespeople for science and medicine assert nowadays.
* Matthews, R. A. J. 1998. “Facts versus Factions: The use and abuse of subjectivity in scientific research”, European Science and Environment Forum Working Paper; reprinted (pp. 247–282) in J. Morris (ed.), Rethinking Risk and the Precautionary Principle, Butterworth, 2000.
Posted in experts, HIV skepticism, prejudice, uncritical media | Tagged: denialism, Michael Specter, Natalie Angier, New Scientist | 7 Comments »