It’s “World AIDS Day,” and although I despair of this impossible subject, I submit that with this concession from Montagnier, the war is as good as over. It has reached mass public saturation and we can’t wait around forever for the “orthodoxy” and its obedient “media” to admit complete, shattering defeat. Brent Leung’s multi-award winning documentary House of Numbers has penetrated mass public awareness beyond that all previous reportage combined, mine included, since 1987, ever managed to do.
The AIDS righteous hit-squads have exhausted themselves attacking the film maker, and seeking to intimidate and threaten all film festivals around the world that showed this film. They failed. Only a few backed out. They squealed that the AIDS researchers interviewed for this film were taken “out of context,” but clearly, the only context they would accept in one in which all their para-normal science is accepted as gospel. Leung countered by placing entire, unedited interviews on line, most devastatingly this one with Montagnier. They even resorted to claiming Montagnier’s English is not so good.
Watch it and judge for yourselves.
It’s a great day for America, as Craig Ferguson likes to say. It’s a bad day for disgruntled, conformist, cowardly journalists who failed the public beyond all measure, on this story. Let them go sulk along with the bullies who insisted there was total consensus on Global Warming and that the scientific evidence for man-made warming was “overwhelming.” Read the comments on Health Ranger’s video-blog and start imagining a world where no citizen is abused, accused, fired, harassed, or labeled, as Michael Specter said recently, “homicidal” for saying the same thing the discoverer of what came to be known as “HIV,” says clearly and openly: HIV is not deadly. Oxidative stress, malnutrition, poverty, toxic assaults, and many other things conspire to create illness–not a sexually transmissible retrovirus.
Brent Leung’s film is drawing packed houses across the country, and the guilt trips and intimidations are just not working with the younger generations. Leung will be the first journalist for whom coverage of this beastly story was not career suicide. Quite the contrary–he is riding high on a wave of success, awards, and accolades.
Hearty congratulations to him and his crew, and may this nightmare be over, and may the honest, hard-working, decent scientists who endured the vicious attacks all these years be compensated for the abuse they have taken.
And may the cloying, politically correct “mainstream” media continue apace in its present death plunge.
{ 25 comments }
Oh. My. F’ing. God.
The man who won the nobel prize for discovering HIV says point blank that a health immune system can fight off HIV just fine, and that the most effective way to treat “AIDS” in Africa is with better sanitation and nutrition. And that this flies in the face of what we’ve been told all along.
I don’t even know what to say. It’s clear there will be no “mea culpa” from anyone who insulted and spit on the so-called “denialists,” destroying reputations and careers.
I think it’ll take another 10, 20 years for the full truth on this one to be the accepted wisdom: we iatrogenically killed countless people in hysterical fear of a virus that we were wrongly told was an automatic death sentence. According to the man who discovered the virus, we seem to have, with the best of motives, treated countless people with chemotherapy they didn’t need.
It’s horrible to say it, but we did. And the truth about those who called for a rethinking of the AIDS paradigm will finally be shown for what it is: not a group of crackpots and “denialists” but people with a commitment to the truth and sound scientific practice.
What a surreal week.
I think, I missed it.
Where exactly was the mea culpa ?
And why does this exonerate all the deniers ?
All I could find was that the man said: HEALTHY immune systems can handle HIV.
Far, as I know, healthy immune systems have a long record of success in this area.
If there was something more startling than that, kindly inform.
All I could find was that the man said: HEALTHY immune systems can handle HIV.
Far, as I know, healthy immune systems have a long record of success in this area.
[Guffaw!]
Words fail me.
As far as I could tell, Dr. Luc did not address that UNHEALTHY immune systems are more than VULNERABLE to viral and bacterial attack —not always successfully.
For the present, my bottom line is that this is ALL POSTURING between overtly disgruntled opponents.
So where exactly was the Mea Culpa, Miss Celia ?
In lieu of another mindless repeat of the Padian study,
presente
Everybody knows:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh9AC0jCGjY
What you missed McKiernan is the paradigm itself: HIV was supposed to kill “Clark Kent” (Gallo) and kill “like a truck,” (Gallo) that is to say, HIV when it hopped onto even the healthiest of immune systems was supposed to “decimate” it, slowly, along a pac-man Cd4 erosion model. HIV is not supposed to “cause” AIDS only in those already immune compromised, but in each person alike, even the healthiest. It was supposed to occur in 6 months to a year, according to the original death sentence of the mid 80s. Please bear in mind I have been watching this closely and living in it, and following every thread of development, since 1986. That earns me something, I should think?
I am not disgruntled and I am not “posturing.” I am expressing exactly what I see and feel.
If you want to believe in junk science and enforced by fascist/McCarthyist conformity, you are welcome to.
You want me to re-interpret Padian’s study via YouTube instead of from her own study?
Celia,
I haven’t missed anything except where is this Mea Culpa of which you speak ? Just give us the evidence from Dr. Luc.
That ought to be easy.
YT doesnt load at work, so i have to ask for info the hard way. Who is Montagnier?
frankly even if gallo himself tomorrow came out and said “I was lying and Celia Farber and Hank Barnes are right” I would ignore it because science isnt done by fiat or argument by authority, its done by evidence, theory and experiment. So one scientist, no matter how reknowned in his field, cannot undermine the consensus by his words. Only data can.
Celia, here’s a word to the wise: Do not, ever, attempt to argue with McKiernan. On any subject, at any time. There truly is no point.
Aziz: I’m often amazed by your attitude about science and “consensus.” Apparently, all that needs to be weighed is the number of pages published by those who hold a certain opinion, and that for you shall always be enough. Honestly, and with no offense intended, I’ve never met anyone who more reliably argues from authority than you do.
Anyway, Luc Montagnier is the discoverer of the “HIV” virus, and has worked on the subject ever since his discovery. He won the Nobel prize for his work on the virus last year.
Gallo, predictably, was snubbed, because Gallo’s a fraud and pretty much everyone in the field knows it. You don’t have to take my word for it; when they Nobel committee gave the prize to the discoverer of “HIV,” they gave it to Montagnier and two others, and pointedly did not include Gallo, whose only real contribution was finding that the virus was present in roughly half of all AIDS patients in the ’80s.
That sort of begs the question as to why he is still here, though.
Under editing.
Phelps, you need to UNDERSTAND that Ms Celia is a WRITER, not a scientist. She offers HER opinion, never her OWN scientific expertise. She can’t answer science questions.
Her present post here isn’t a rebuttal of Montagnier nor of his COMMITMENT to the notion that HIV is causative in AIDS.
Her post is defending the possible merits of a film producer’s movie called, “House of Numbers” from the evil bad guys in the orthodox community.
If Ms Celia is offering something other than her OPINION piece, please, let me know.
Listen to Dr. Luc’s lecture at the Nobel Peace Prize Awards for Medicine 2008,
http://nobelprize.org/mediaplayer/index.php?id=1056
and kindly point out where anything he says agrees with Ms. Celia’s grossly erroneous conclusion:
“HIV is not deadly. Oxidative stress, malnutrition, poverty, toxic assaults, and many other things conspire to create illness–not a sexually transmissible retrovirus.” Celia Farber
To quote Dr. Luc from the pdf file of the same Nobel Lecture:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2008/montagnier_lecture.pdf
The isolation of HIV1 (6) and HIV2 (12) viruses from AIDS patients in Africa made us realise that we were dealing with a large epidemic of heterosexually transmitted viruses.
How HIV infection results in the destruction of the immune system:
In summary, the pathophysiology of AIDS is complex. HIV IS THE MAIN CAUSE, but could also be helped by accomplices and also have some indirect effects by wrongly activating the immune system through oxidative stress.
Dr. Luc Montagnier
I believe you are the one who misunderstands; I wasn’t asking what your point was, I was asking Dean why he hasn’t yet banned you.
Because he already DID that before.
I’m not sure if it was once or twice.
He understands, I’m a sweet lovable old man.
So are you of the notion that bogus conclusions posted on the frontpage ought not be challenged ?
McK, well done. The quote from Montaigner is both perfectly supportive of the HIV causes AIDS consensus and also provides context on his “immune system” remark.
If I understand it now, Montaigner is saying that HIV is the cause, but you arent necessarily going to die. And that makes sense, and gives some validity to the claim that the drug cocktails may have been overly zealous too. theres clearly middle ground.
and the fact that they have isolated HIV virus from AIDS patient sin Africa is quite instructive too. great link.
aziz
Oh dear,
There’s a scientist out there that actually reads links.
I’m doomed.
Here’s the transcript of Montagnier’s RECENT comment:
Brent Leung: You talked about oxidative stress earlier. Is treating oxidative stress one of the best ways to deal with the African AIDS epidemic?
Luc Montagnier: I think it is one way to approach. To decrease the rate of transmission because I believe HIV, we can be exposed to HIV many times without being chronically infected. Our immune system will get rid of the virus within a few weeks, if you have a good immune system; and this is the problem also of Africa, of African people. Their nutrition is not very equilibrated, they are in oxidative stress, even if they are not infected with HIV. So their immune system doesn’t work well, already. So it’s prone, you know, it can allow HIV to get in and persist.
So there are many ways which are not the vaccine, – the magic name, the vaccine! – there are many ways to decrease the transmission just by simple measures of nutrition, giving antioxidants, proper antioxidants, hygiene measures, fighting the other infections. So they are not spectacular, but they could, you know, decrease very well the epidemic to the level they are in occidental countries, Western countries.
Brent Leung: So if you have a good immune system, then your body can naturally get rid of HIV?!
Luc Montagnier: Yes.
Brent Leung: Oh, interesting. Do you think we should have more of a push for antioxidants and things of that nature in Africa than antiretrovirals?
Montagnier: We should push for more you know a combination of measures, you know, antioxidants, nutrition advice, nutrition, fighting other infections, malaria, tuberculosis, parasites, worms, education of course, genital hygiene for women and men also, very simple measures, which are not very expensive but which could do a lot.
And this is actually my worry about the many spectacular action for the global funds to buy drugs and so on. and Bill gates and so on, for the vaccine. But you know those kind of measures are not very well funded, they’re not funded at all, or they are, you know, it really depends on the local government to take choice of this. But the local government they take advice of the scientific advisors from the (international?) XXXX institutions and they don’t get this kind of advice very often.
((Any reader who can fathom the incomprehensible word use by Montagnier at 2.48 min please advise – Ed.))
Brent Leung: There’s no money in nutrition, right? There’s no profit.
Luc Montagnier: There’s no profit, yes! Water is important, water is key.
Brent Leung: Now I think you said you were talking about if you have a built immune systemthat it is possible to get rid of HIV naturally. If you take a poor African who has been infected and you build up their immune system is it possible for them to also naturally get rid of it?
Luc Montagnier: I would think so.
Brent Leugn: OK. That’s an important, that’s an important point.
Luc Montagnier: It’s important knowledge which is completely neglected. You know, people always think of drugs and vaccine.
(grinning broadly) So this is a message which may be different from the other what you heard before, no?
Brent Leung: The closing?
Luc Montagnier (smiling): No, no, yes, my message is different from what you heard from Fauci or er..!
Brent Leung: Yes. It’s a little different.
Luc Montagnier (beaming and grinning widely): Little different!
–HB
So, then, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,” yes?
How does quoting something he said a year or two earlier provide context for this, his latest remark, which he admits is radically out of tune with everything that has been the conventional wisdom we have heard before?
Oh never mind. If it brings intelligent people to accept the notion that hey, maybe giving a perfectly healthy person chemotherapy just because they test positive for the virus isn’t a good idea, then fine. Surely it is a middle ground. If it gets people to accept that we really need to be doing something about water and food first and foremost in Africa, so much the better.
And if it gets people to stop saying that perfectly qualified scientists and journalists who called for rethinking the paradigm are not “crackpots” and “flat earthers” and “denialists” (or even “murderers”) then that’s good by me too.
But let us not deny the obvious: the man is saying something radically at odds with practically everything we’ve been told for a quarter century.
One would suppose one could read into it whatever one wishes from their own standpoint but the fact remains that Dr. Montagnier’s lecture on Stockholm in accepting his Nobel Prize clearly outlines his official position at present.
a few quotes from his official NOBEL lecture:
A last variability factor, whose importance has probably been overlooked, is oxidative stress … a cause of RNA and DNA mutations (before integration of the proviral DNA): highly reactive molecules derived from oxygen can oxidise the bases, particularly guanine or deoxyguanine, thus modifying their coding capacity or inducing a wrong replacement in repair.
A combination of these factors could explain both the intrinsic variability of the virus in the host during the long evolution of infection, and also the increasing variability of the circulating strains as the epidemic is spreading in various populations.
We can at least ACT on this variability by decreasing the viral multiplication rate inside the host by antiretroviral treatment and also by neutralising the oxidative stress.
At the biochemical level, we also showed that the lymphocyte population of asymptomatic patients (CD4+, CD8+, NK) displayed the biochemical signs of oxidative stress (excess of free radicals derived from oxygen): namely fast degradation of oxidised proteins, carbonylation of some of their amino acids (20). In the patients’ blood, we could detect a similar hyper-oxidation of
plasma lipids (21) and oxidisation of guanine.
In addition, bacterial and viral co-infectors can also induce oxidative stress. We studied the possibility that a “cold” persisting bacterial infection could coexist in HIV-infected patients.
These studies were initiated because we observed that in vitro co-infection of lymphocytes with some mycoplasma species (M. pirum, M. penetrans, M. fermentans) and HIV could greatly reinforce the cytopathic effect of the latter
Moreover, these small bacteria lack catalase, an enzyme able to convert hydrogen peroxide into water. Therefore they also generate oxidative stress and, furthermore, are activators of lymphocytes (23).
In summary, the pathophysiology of AIDS is complex. HIV is the MAIN cause, but could also be helped by accomplices and also have some indirect effects by wrongly activating the immune system through oxidative stress.
…but the fact remains that Dr. Montagnier’s lecture on Stockholm in accepting his Nobel Prize clearly outlines his official position at present.
[chuckle] OK then.
In any case, certainly this much earlier speech you dug up makes it clear that that Montagnier believes that more than the virus is needed to contract AIDS, and that he further believes that a healthy immune system can survive multiple exposures to HIV and fight it off naturally.
Which would mean, amongst other things, we’ve iatrogenically killed countless people because we told them the virus always leads to AIDS and death, which it doesn’t.
Just by believing cofactors other than HIV are necessary, you’re admitting we killed people with chemotherapy they didn’t need. And just by accepting what Montagnier says, you’re admitting that we’re killing people by the millions in Africa now by giving them drugs instead of clean food and water.
Pyrrhic victory to say the least. I’d think that you’d be angry at this news. I sure am.
Obviously, Dean, some haven’t watched the entire video (or perhaps none of it) but rather are reacting with predigested ideation. It leaves me with the impression that whatever the man writes or says is simply a list of suggestions by which to attack him. Pick your favorites. Certainly you are free to do that. I don’t share that kind of approach. And, I’m willing to consider your short conclusions, if you’re willing to watch the entire video in the same context as he presents it.
Montagnier’s Nobel Lecture of 7 December 2008. It is much more inclusive than the written report of the speech.
It’s here:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2008/montagnier-lecture.html
Obviously you continuously move the goalposts, McKiernan, and I don’t really know why I bother even answering the master of obfuscation.
The only thing that moved was the link in comment 12 to comment 22.
Obviously you have ZERO interest in watching or hearing Dr. Montagnier expressing HIS views in THE context for which THEY were intended.
So, then, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,” yes?
How succinct. Yes basically. He believes HIV causes AIDS but you could severely reduce the number of infected by increasing nutrition, sanitation, and education in the poorer countries. He does not imply we should stop working on a vaccine or a cure for the virus, but that if you want to make the biggest dent in reducing the number of infected you need healthy people, and no one is working on this. That is because it would be humanitarian aid and not a new drug that a person can sell to make money. So we can guess this will probably not happen.
He also has the stance that HIV causes AIDS and that there are people who do not believe that it does and strong education is in order for these people.
Comments on this entry are closed.