HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Vigilante groupies are sued in Italy

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2012/03/19

An anonymous group claiming to be HIV-positive “citizens” have made accusations of misconduct against Professor Marco Ruggiero for his work on HIV. The Nature website has a piece about that by Zoë Corbyn, unfortunately but typically one-sided. However, The Truth Barrier has a full discussion with better facts:
“Ruggiero Files Criminal Suit Against Anonymous Accusers”.
Those of us who have come to know Ruggiero have no doubt that his integrity will win the day.



22 Responses to “Vigilante groupies are sued in Italy”

  1. It is sad that anonymous accusers can be given sufficient credibility that the University will launch an investigation. Of course, it does seem that the standard approach (especially in HIV/AIDS world) is that if you cannot defeat their arguments legitimately, it’s time to attack them in a dark alley with a baseball bat. Let us hope that Ruggiero receives a fair hearing on this and that ultimately those who have made these scurrilous accusations are called to defend themselves.

  2. a non said

    It is good that anonymous complaints can be made because whistleblowers need the option of anonymity. It is good that anonymous complaints are treated to a proper inquiry. It is of course bad if the complaints are untrue or unreasonable. Ultimately it depends on whether the adjudicating authority has the willingness and ability of treating truth as truth and falsehood as falsehood. Which we shall see in due course.

    • Henry Bauer said

      a non:
      You abuse the term “whistle-blower”. Furthermore, anonymous whistle-blowers accomplish nothing. Genuine whistle-blowers don’t behave anonymously. They make themselves known to people who can bring the matter to pubic attention but who will safeguard the whistle-blower’s identity against inappropriate release. Making their identity known to a journalist, an Ombudsman, or the like represents a warrant of honesty and proper motive.
      In this case the groupies of “HIVforum” are keeping their identities secret from everyone (trying to keep them secret).
      The first step in any investigation of charges brought by individuals is to question those individuals to find out exactly where they obtained their claimed knowledge. Anonymity makes that impossible.

      • anon anon said

        “anonymous whistle-blowers accomplish nothing”
        I’d like to see some significant evidence of that notion. Otherwise I suspect you are very wrong.

      • anon anon said

        Anon whistleblowers are fully capable of pointing out that for instance the government’s maths of 2+2=7 is incorrect, or that there IS proof that the thingitis epidemic is being caused by overprescribing of whatsitatives. They don’t need to break anonymity to expose such secrets.

      • Henry Bauer said

        anon anon:
        Maybe. But facts don’t speak for themselves, they have to enlist people willing and able to keep pushing them onto the public arena, which requires enlisting media and others. That’s mnore likely to happen with known individuals who can arouse empathy — think Snowden and Manning just now — than with just anonymous assertions.
        I’m also biased against anonymity because so much of it on the Internet comes from people saying disgusting things that they wouldn’t be willing to say under their own name.

      • anon anon said

        “I’m also biased against anonymity”

        Henry, you should have just typed those words and missed out the rest of the flab fig-leafing them! Consider two anon commenters.
        The first says “I have proof that Heinrich Bore is a serial sado-pedophile. I rest my case.”
        The second says “The government’s claim that
        no mercury vapor is emitted from dental amalgam can be easily disproven by using a mercury vapor meter to measure it in the mouth. There are at least 18 studies of such measurements in the literature.”

        The second comment you can verify as true without needing to know the anon’s name.
        The first comment by contrast has only the drivel status of an unevidenced untestable assertion until such time as that anon puts forward actual evidence in support. It isn’t worth the time of day fussing about even if the name had been spelled “Henry Bauer” instead!

      • Henry Bauer said

        anon anon:
        I take your comments (fairly) seriously because you have allowed me to learn important things about you, whereas I’ve ignored similar diversions from strictly anonymous sources whose anonymity allowed me to suspect ulterior motives, hidden agendas, arguing for the sake of arguing….
        Perhaps you haven’t been involved, as I have over the years, in controversies where proponents find endless ways to evade or deny what might seem to some people to be plain evidence. Groupies of Velikovsky and his ilk, for example, have managed for several decades to raise spurious arguments against plain facts. Creationists manage to convince themselves that there are fatal flaws in dating objects by radioactivity. Debunkers of Tim Dinsdale’s film of a Loch Ness Monster continue to assert that he filmed only a boat, an assertion that is utterly ludicrous to anyone who has seen the actual film — which is now at last available for anyone to watch on the Internet, put up in connection with the publication of the book, “The Man who filmed Nessie”.

      • anon anon said

        And also I feel safe posting here because I can trust you not to betray my “anonymity” beyond yourself!

        “Perhaps you haven’t been involved, as I have….”.

        If only. (Will send details by email so as not to compromise my “anonymity” here.)

        “ulterior motives, hidden agendas, arguing for the sake of arguing….”

        Nah. Just people are much better at learning than at UNlearning (and “educational” systems strongly disfavour the latter against the former), and once they have a notion in their heads they just carry on with infinite confirmation bias, with no motives or agendas or bad faith required.

      • Henry Bauer said

        anon anon:

        “And also I feel safe posting here because I can trust you not to betray my “anonymity” beyond yourself!”

        Naturally. I understand that anonymity is sometimes necessary. I published my Dean’s Memoirs under a pseudonym so that
        the events and people I wrote about would not be associated with my current university. To me, “confidential” means it isn’t shared with anyone.

  3. Guy said

    Checking out a link in the article led me to the following:

    • Henry Bauer said

      Yes, Celia Farber has recently raised the question of the significance of this. But the caveats — for example “casual contacts” — makes this, in my view, not a real chink in the mainstream’s defensive armor.

    • Note that while the United States no longer makes an HIV positive test result grounds for refusal to allow entry and does not require an “HIV antibody test” as a requirement for permanent residency, it does require disclosure of a known positive result and requires that HIV positive individuals demonstrate they have medical insurance that will cover their costs so they will not require public assistance or support.

      “Under this guidance, HIV infection may still be listed as a Class B Other condition on the DS 2053/2054 and/or Form I-693, Report of Medical Examination and Vaccination Record. The applicant, therefore, should answer truthfully the panel physician’s or civil surgeon’s questions about the applicant’s health” ( accessed March 20, 2012)

      In addition, travel bans remain in place for a number of countries (Russia and China, for example) and it is an issue in immigration for many countries (including Canada where I’ve experienced it first hand.) So this issue is alive and well, even with the US decision to remove HIV from the list of communicable diseases of public health significance.

      • Henry Bauer said

        Medically inadmissible:
        Exactly. That 2009 government decision reflects no backing away from HIV/AIDS theory or practice or policy or beliefs.

  4. Celia is correct. The wikileaks revelation could be very damaging to the AIDS colossus. The smokescreen of “casual contact” was meant to distract from close scrutiny—and it appears to have worked to some degree. I explain.

    On April 30, 2000, President Clinton declared AIDS a threat to the national security of the United States. Sandy Thurman, Clinton’s co-chair of the president’s national AIDS policy, justified Clinton’s action saying:

    “AIDS poses the greatest threat to mankind since the Bubonic Plague in the Middle Ages. And with no vaccine and no cure in sight, certainly in the next couple of decades we will have literally hundreds of millions of people dying of AIDS around the world.

    “The National Intelligence Council has clearly indicated to us that while Africa is at the center of the epidemic today, India will be the epicenter of the epidemic in 15 years, and we see a dramatic increase of AIDS in the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union. So we have an epidemic that is sweeping the globe.

    “We have no way to stop it in terms of science. We certainly don’t have vaccines or cures that are available to people in the developing world, or here for that matter. So we have to respond to this because we have never seen a crisis like HIV and AIDS globally.”

    Clinton’s action and Thurman’s justification clearly show that the government held HIV infection to be a “communicable disease of public health significance,” as had been codified in 42 CFR Part 34 since 1990.

    On Jan 4, 2010, the US government made a very significant about face: “HHS/CDC is removing HIV infection from the definition of communicable disease of public health significance contained in 42 CFR 34.2(b) and scope of examination, 42 CFR 34.3 because HIV infection does not represent a communicable disease that is a significant threat to the general U.S. population.” This was quoted from The Federal Register Vol 74, No. 210, Monday, November 2, 2009 of Rules and Regulations.

    To justify this very significant change, the CDC had to say something. The same document above gives the HHS/CDC’s non-sensical explanation for removing HIV infection from the definition of “communicable disease of public health significance”:

    “While HIV infection is a serious health condition, scientific evidence shows that it does not represent a communicable disease that is a significant risk for introduction, transmission, and spread to the United States population through casual contact.” What scientific evidence?

    The CDC is on record since 1987 (MMWR Aug 14, 1987 / 36(31);509-515 and five later MMWRs) that “HIV infection is not spread through casual contact.” Therefore, what new scientific evidence since 1987 tipped the balance toward removing HIV infection in 2010 from the definition of “communicable disease of public health significance”? I have asked the CDC this question and have not received their answer.

    I know the answer. I suppose many could guess it. The real reason for the CDC action was political and not medical or scientific. But no matter how one tries to gloss it over, the US government now officially states in The Federal Register Vol 74, No. 210, Monday, November 2, 2009 of Rules and Regulations, that “HIV infection does not represent a communicable disease that is a significant threat to the general U.S. population.” Does that make it no longer a threat to the national security of the United States? I’ll have to ask the CDC.

    In the “Through the Looking Glass” world of AIDS, HIV infection is a serious communicable health condition, as well as a “communicable disease of public health significance,” and not a “communicable disease of public health significance”.

    • Shades of 1984. “War is Peace” should perhaps be “sickness is health”? There is no doubt that much of HIV/AIDS science is politically motivated. I often have the sense of a religious crusade in which those in the midst of the hordes truly believe with those at the top cynically manipulate their disciples. Just like the crusades, bringing death to many in the name of “truth”.

  5. Patrick Bennett said

    I contacted Prof Ruggerio and asked how I might purchase his probiotic formula in the US. He was very paranoid about providing information, as I suspect it was because he did not know my name. I now understand his paranoia very well. It would not surprise me if the people behind this cowardly “anonymous” letter are none other than these loons “Snout” or “Poodle Stomper”, with Kalichman trailing behind. These people need to be institutionalized.

  6. Francis said


    You are only “paranoid” if they are NOT watching you.

    One doesn’t have to enter in to the realms of a “Conspiracy Theory” to see that in the case of Duesberg, yourself and now Ruggiero there is an “Orchestrated” attempt by the watch dogs of AIDS Inc to silence another dissenting voice, that (borrowing from another famous person) are stating some “Inconvenient Truths”.

    One could think that it is merely coincidence that the very day AIDSTRUTH start trumpeting about Dr. Marco, Seth Kalichman’s blog-atribe runs the same story. The same thing happened with Duesberg quite recently too.

    On Seth’s site you can find a picture of him with his arm around Nicoli Nattrass (AIDSTRUTH board member) while she wears her HIV Positive shirt and by his own admissions he’s visited South Africa some 26 times (Who pays for that?)

    Seth has admitted on his blog that part of his duties at the UConn are to run his particular little quality blog (who pays for that?) but then as he says and probably honestly too he’s not taken a cent from the Pharma industry, he hasn’t had to as a quick look at his funding in the last 10 years shows some 15-odd million in government grants (mainly NIH/NIAID), quite an achievement really. But then good old Mr Fauci presides over the NIAID and is a stalwart of HIV/AIDS and an old friend and colleague of Robert Gallo, so it’s no wonder that sympathetic “researchers” are rewarded quite handsomely. Quite amusingly one of the main lectures Seth actually delivers at UConn is Grant Applications Writing.

    The loons mentioned like Snout and Poodle Stomper are anonymous personas but obviously operating to an agenda and in Snout’s case have at times attempted to start their own blogs (quite unsuccessfully) specifically targeting Prof Bauer on the publishing of his book dismantling AIDS theory. Probably not mad but quite possibly in the employ of a medical marketing department somewhere, strangely they both appear to have an Antipodean connection and both surfaced from obscurity like mushrooms about the same time John Moore, another heavily NIAID funded researcher, came to Australia for a conference/recruiting drive in 2008. Poodle Stomper has been conspicuously quiet of late so perhaps his funding cycle has ended.

    There’s of course always a wildcard in any equation and in this case it’s my old friend J Todd DeShong. A particularly nasty HIV-Positive who apparently has an axe to grind and is obviously angry with his circumstances. He started his own blog which vanished when his employer threatened his dismissal when Johnathon Barnett complained about his use of the Baylor Health System’s computers to run that. Todd is a medical technologist and basically sets up PCR machines and lab tests in Dallas TX, he has previously attempted to palm himself off on the net as a microbiologist and is prone to offering AIDS diagnoses to others in HIV chat rooms. He has risen from the E-dead so to speak to start another blog aiming at Clark Baker because he called Todd a “Fading old drag queen” and a “Meth Tranny” over at OMSJ.

    Todd uses various monikers and aliases such as TruthyMcTruthenstein and Kralc Rekab amongst many others and endlessly trolls the net seeking fresh victims. The interesting thing is that Seth allows Todd to talk to himself at his blog using his various pseudonyms, I wonder what that says about Seth’s own psychology? Todd is probably the only true AIDS Zealot amongst the others, who in reality have prostituted themselves to the cause and are caught up in a professional catch-22 situation whereby they can’t actually tell the truth.

    I could go on……and on…and on, but what’s the point, we all know who they are and what they do, the only real question is who ultimately holds the strings on these sad puppets. Perhaps you could run another series on Kalichman’s Komical Kapers.

    Keep up the good work Henry, the mere fact these duds exist in cyberspace is testament to the truths you and others profess and the threat the various AIDS apparatchiks feel over their funding sources.

  7. exlib said

    OMSJ investigators recently identified “Kralc Rekab”, aka Snout, aka “David Regev”, aka “David Bender” as disgraced Emory medical student Kevin Kuritzky. In 2011, they tracked Snout’s IP address to a Comcast account near Harvard University. A year later, Comcast identified “David Regev’s” address within walking distance from Harvard University, where OMSJ’s server logs show that he spent many hours and months on my website in an apartment with apparently no legitimate means of employment.

    Shortly after he fled (using a new passport, Florida ID and SSN), they tracked him down in Georgia last February, where he was arrested by sheriffs deputies on a fugitive warrant. Three weeks later, Mrs. Tovah Kuritzky filed for divorce.

    Last March, Kuritzky pled guilty to embezzling at least $150,000 from his former employer, a FELONY. During the sentencing hearing, his attorney disclosed Kuritzky’s earlier vandalism conviction and cited his bouts of mental illness (see transcript).

    Why does Kalichman enlist felons like Kuritzky, alcoholics like DeShong and perjurers like Murtagh to defend AIDS Inc? Can’t he find anyone more credible than himself? For more info and links to Kuritzky, visit

    • anon anon said

      Why does Kalichman enlist felons like Kuritzky, alcoholics like DeShong and perjurers like Murtagh to defend AIDS Inc?
      Because honest people can’t be trusted to keep loyal to a conspiracy.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: